It may be an age-old saying that makes most people groan whenever a friend or family member feels the need to say it, but there are actual psychological benefits that come from simply putting on a smile. Researchers have been examining this phenomenon for a few decades now and even though it is not a new age, 21st century discovery, it is nonetheless amazing and unexpected. One would intuitively assume that facial expressions are an external representation of what is going on inside the brain. Classically, facial expressions are considered to be influenced by mood and thought. It seems to be a one-way street in which the brain controls the face, but this is not the case.

Charles Darwin hypothesized that emotional facial expressions are an innate and universal human characteristic. A happy face is a happy face no matter where you are in the world. This theory has been thoroughly explored and psychologists have produced evidence that supports this century-old speculation. This is convenient in a way, because if facial expressions were specific to a geographic region, people would have to learn faces as if they were learning a new language. What a challenge that would be! But the more interesting aspect to these universal facial expressions is that the physical expression can directly influence one’s emotions.

Studies on this finding were approached in multiple ways. One study conducted at Clark University in Worcester, MA instructed patients to move certain parts of their face in various ways, such as raising the eyebrows or relaxing the mouth, and then reporting their emotions. (The patients were not told that the study had anything to do with emotion.) In another study performed by a group of German researchers, patients were told to clench a pen in their front teeth, creating a smile, or hold the pen in their protruding lips, creating a pout, and then report their emotional state. In these studies, patient’s emotions were consistent with the resulting facial expression. So, it can be inferred from these findings that making a happy face can help make you happy. It must be noted that changing facial expression is not a means of changing one’s whole state of mind. Certainly someone who is mourning cannot just put on a smile and instantly be cured of all sadness. It is not that simple. It is more realistic to think that facial expression can influence emotion, not directly change it. We would all be in for quite a roller coaster ride of emotion if the opposite were true, and a rapid change of facial expression was able to instantaneously change our moods.

If this finding is valid then there must be some physical explanation or neural substrate to explain it. Even though researchers observed this phenomenon decades ago, a full explanation is yet to be obtained. There are a number of hypotheses, though. Many incorporate the brain’s limbic system, and specifically the hypothalamus – areas of the brain known to control emotional processes. The hypothalamus plays a role in the autonomic nervous system (ANS), which is responsible for many subconscious functions of the peripheral nervous system such as breathing, heart rate, and body temperature. From a physiological standpoint, it is hypothesized that a change in facial expression is able to change patterns of blood flow to limbic structures, therefore influencing one’s emotional state. There are researchers both supporting and refuting this theory, and a more concrete explanation is yet to be found. But the fact remains, put on a smile and your day may get a little brighter.

Sources:

A Feel-Good Theory: A Smile Affects Mood – NY Times

Facial expressions and the regulation of emotions – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Facial Expression and Emotion - American Psychologist

History in the making, for realsies

And yet, there will still be some undecided voters who will make their choice on the way to the voting booth. I’m willing to bet that some of these people, especially those who will cast those critical swing-state votes, will enter their preferred candidate’s name with seemingly no sense of the democratic responsibility and power their vote yields, as evidenced by this political cartoon.

Undecided voters, rejoice! I am here to help you explore the depths of all the questions weighing down your weary mind:

• Were the ancient inventors of democracy wrong?
• Are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney all that different?
• Is my liberal or conservative philosphy determined by genes?
• How does the Electoral College work?
• What is human nature anyway?
• What are the moral and epistemological implications of indecision?
• Does my vote truly matter?

Well maybe not all your questions...

But the most befuddling question in every conversation before, during, and after the Election is this: how and why do people vote?

To answer this question, we might need some ideas from an unexpected source. Let’s investigate some recent research in neuroscience to figure out how people vote.

The act of decision-making is central to the voting process. Whether you make a snap, “gut-reaction” judgment between the Republican and Democratic candidates or take the time to consider their policies rationally, many of the same brain regions are active in decision-making. One of these regions is the amygdala, principal in the functions of memory and emotion. Whether we realize it or not, part of our relation to the candidates in this year’s election is dependent on emotion; while most of us have not met either candidate, we have developed a bias for the political party they represent. According to research published in Political Psychology, we may grow to identify with a certain party based on our parents’ moral leanings, social environment, and socioeconomic class, all the same way we develop our own personal identities. In painful contrast to what we once believed as teenagers, we still inherit much of our parents’ moral and political beliefs.

Moreover, negative emotion seems to play a larger part in our decision-making and motivation than does “positive” emotion. In a 1991 study (Quarterly Journal of Economics), people were more motivated by avoiding pain than by seeking pleasure. Do we unconsciously pretend to like the more popular candidate to avoid potential embarrassment in our social circle?

Thus, are the reasons we vote for one political party versus another based solely on our upbringing and emotional responses?

This view does little to provide optimism for the freethinking, voting populace we believe ourselves to be. Indeed, according to a 2012 Science study, our decisions are quite frequently based on automatic associations instead of the conscious consideration we believe them to be. In a paradigm implicating undecided decision-makers (read: undecided voters), subjects were given photos of two women and asked which they preferred and to state the reasons why. Sounds simple enough, but the twist was that the pictures were sometimes switched, and the subjects were actually given the picture of the woman they did not like initially. Subjects still provided an answer for the photograph, even if it wasn’t the one they chose! Once made to give a choice between the two women (read: candidates), the initially undecided voters found a way to unconsciously derive a reason for their choice.

The typical undecided voter

So, we may have an answer to the almost-Sartrean question poised in the title: how should a person vote? The answer is completely up to you. In a matter of hours, you will (hopefully) cast your vote for the next President of the United States. Maybe you chose your candidate according to what your friends or parents told you about their beliefs. Maybe you made your decision based on fear of losing, even if it is by proxy of your political party.

My advice is this: as we have seen in the studies cited in this article, your unconscious, emotional side plays a large factor in your decision-making ability. If you are still undecided, please sit down and think about what is at stake in this election. Take the time to think for yourself, and you will know how a person should vote.

References:

Automatic Mental Associations Predict Future Choices of Undecided Decision-Makers - Science

Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model – The Quarterly Journal of Economics

Dominance, Politics, and Physiology: Voters’ Testosterone Changes on the Night of the 2008 United States Presidential Election -PLoS ONE

Rational Constraint in Mass Belief Systems: The Role of Developmental Moral Stages in the Structure of Political Beliefs - International Society of Political Psychology

The parting words of Ken Jennings in last year’s Jeopardy match against Watson, a computer seemingly able to decipher and process language, are a milestone for robotic innovations. Advancements in neuroscience and robotics have focused on giving robots human-like intelligence and processing skills. This concept has been depicted numerous times in popular culture, many times in terms of robotic rebellion, for example in movies such as I, Robot or WALL-E.

Recent robotics research leaves us with a couple of questions. Are really focusing on the right aspects of advancing in robotic technologies? Instead of perfecting intelligence and processing, why not instead focus on perfecting human emotion?

Facial cues have proven extremely important for social interaction. In experiments where robots greeted humans and asked them to perform a task, the humans were more receptive when the robot glanced at the task to be performed, rather than robotically (pun intended) looking at the human subject while giving instructions. A similar experiment was set up in which human subjects were to learn about China. A map of China was present in the classroom. Those who had robot teachers who looked at the map while teaching actually learned more about the spatial relationships pertaining to the “lecture material” than those who had robot teachers who never looked at the map.

Another study examined the responsiveness of infants to robot facial cues.

Child following robot gaze

An 18-month old infant was allowed to watch a robot interact with a human (the researcher). He would point tobody parts, and the robot would repeat the action. When the researcher left the room, the infant followed the robot’s gaze. In contrast, those infants who never saw the robot interact with a human were unresponsive to their gazes. Visual communications are key for learning social interactions.

Such robots have also been used in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) therapies. ASD patients have trouble with social interactions, so these social robots have been hypothesized to help in therapy. A bubble test, in which a companion to the patient blows bubbles, is used as it has been shown to provoke social interaction. ASD subjects were either allowed to interact with the robot to receive bubbles (such as by pushing a button) as well as a motor output from the robot (spinning) or could sit and watch while the robot did nothing. Those patients who were allowed to interact with the robot showed a significant increase in social behaviors such as speech and continued robot interaction. Thus, it has been concluded that the robots’ social behaviors are causing a response in ASD patients.

This work shows that robots are gaining prevalence in studying the social aspects of human intelligence. While it is still important to use robotics to study how human processing works, it will be of extreme value to also continue research in the field of emotions and social communication.

Developing Robots That Can Teach Humans – Science Nation

“Social” robots are psychological agents for infants:: A test of gaze following – Neural Networks

Toward Socially Assistive Robotics for Augmenting Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder – Experimental Robotics

“Magic mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all” says the evil Queen of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I don’t deny that growing up on Disney gave me a somewhat skewed sense of reality at times. Wouldn’t it be nice to all have our own magic mirrors, constantly reminding us how wonderful and beautiful we are in the midst of the stress that is life?

A recent study by researchers at Cornell University have shown that we may actually have such a magic mirror – Facebook, as fate would have it. There are varying opinions concerning internet use on our personalities, but this study shows that Facebook can have a short term positive effect on self esteem.

The authors set out to test two models of self perception. The first is Objective Self Awareness (OSA). According to this model, people analyze themselves according to how well they can adhere to social norms. This can not only be carried out through internal self reflection, but also “playbacks” of a self by using devices such as a mirror or audio recording. Facebook can be used as grounds to test the OSA because profiles contain information about the self like pictures. The second model is the Hyperpersonal Model. This is carried out through selective self-presentation. If this model is correct, Facebook is also a good platform to support it, as profiles allow users to selectively share information about themselves. Based on the model, they will share what they like about themselves, and thus would have higher self esteem after looking at only good qualities on their profile.

Participants in the study were in two general groups – the noninternet and internet group. The noninternet subjects sat in a room with computers, and mirrors in front of the computer screens. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire about how they were feeling. In contrast, the internet group participants were told to go on Facebook for three minutes. Afterwards, they filled out a questionnaire including questions such as “Did you only view your profile?” or “Did you edit your profile?”

Out of all the participants, the group with the highest reported self esteem were those participants that edited their profile while on Facebook. The next highest were those that had viewed their own profile, or a mix of their own profile as well as others. Those that were only allowed to look at themselves in a mirror reported having low self esteem. Thus, according to the OSA and Hyperpersonal Model, Facebook enhances the user’s self esteem by playing on attributes that the user finds positive.

While this study showed very short-term self esteem boosts, it does not incorporate many factors that should be necessary on a study of social networking websites. Did the subjects studied have an abnormally high number of friends? This could boost self esteem by making the user feel popular. Long term studies would be necessary to determine if contant profile refreshing would actually make the Facebook user doubt him/herself, or feel worse when self-defined “bad” attributes were expressed in real life? This study is a good start to the exploration of social networking sites on short term self esteem, but much more work needs to be done to determine long term benefits or limits.

Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem – Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Ever been in a situation where you had to deal with someone/something that just really PISSED YOU OFF!?  Of course you have. After all, we’re all human; we’ve all felt that terrible tingle of insatiable rage wash over us from time to time.  It’s a pretty intense emotion, sometimes even frightening in its potential to completely change your whole disposition from that of a mild mannered undergrad to a rampaging Hulk wannabe.  Even more interesting (and a bit more terrifying perhaps) is how such an big emotion like anger can be generated by such a tiny section of your brain!

The amygdala, nexus of RAGE and mystery

Despite the nigh inevitable incorporation of the frontal lobe in interpreting and modulating emotional responses, when it comes to generating many of the basic motivated behaviors to which mammals are bound (anger, fear, attraction, hunger/thirst, etc.) the amygdala is usually the primary suspect (or at least an important accomplice).  The amygdala itself is a tiny, almond shaped bundle of neurons and fiber tracts located deep within the temporal lobes (usually near the end of the hippocampus). Countless studies from emotion-based research have targeted the amygdala as a playing a minor role in memory and, most famously, as a hot spot for emotional response.  Despite all this work, researchers are still relatively hazy as to how the amygdala is able to help us feel such different emotions as fear, anger and so on.  However, recent research from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Caltech may be starting to turn all of our uncertainty about the amygdala around, as well as shedding some light on the specific neuronal origins of our most primal emotions.

Yes, this actually is what activating those cells does to mice (minus the personality disorder)

Current investigations from the labs of Dayu Lin and David Anderson have led to the discovery of what seems to be a subset of neurons in the amygdala that exclusively help generate aggression in mice.  Upon activation, these “rage” neurons (or “fight cells” as Anderson has dubbed them) can turn an otherwise docile male mouse into a hyper-aggressive brawler.  Indeed, the effects are so strong that the mice can be induced to attack females and other males (usually castrated) that would otherwise not be viewed as a threat.  Talk about domestic violence!  To tease apart the action and sensitivity of these cells even more, Anderson and his team genetically modified a strain of these mice to express fight cells that respond to pulses of laser light.  Upon shining this light in the eyes of mutated mice, an aggressive response in the presence of females, castrated males and even a rubber glove was able to be stimulated!

In the midst of all this bio-molecular wizardry, Anderson and his team stumbled across another interesting discovery: a population of “mate” stimulating cells that seems to be closely knit with the fight cells in the amygdala.  As the name may imply, mate cells seem to play a large role in inducing and modulating sexual behavior.  Interestingly though, upon analyzing the brains of modified mice, after having previously been induced to attack a rubber glove (or something similar) and then allowed to mate, Anderson’s team that a healthy amount of fight cells were activated in concert with mate cells as the mice where engaging in sexual activity.

The fight cells' corner of the amygdala

It is this latest discovery that Anderson and his team have expressed the most excitement about, specifically because of its implications for potential remediation of violent sex offenders and predators who may be suffering from a massive “cross-wiring” of the fight cells and mate cells in their amygdalar/temporal regions. If enough homology can be drawn between these cells and their specific pathways in the mouse brain with that of the human brain, perhaps the future work of Hughes center could produce ways to untangle these connections and offer both sex offenders (and the general public) alternative solutions to their deeply ingrained problems.

Small Part of Brain Itching for a Fight – Science News

Lets face it, coaching is just a part of our everyday lives. Whether or not we accept the advice or let our alter-egos consume us with pride remains in question, but ultimately learning is the number one goal. A major topic of research at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management since 1990, coaching has withstood the test of time as research continues to be conducted to prove “effective coaching can lead to smoothly functioning organizations, better productivity and potentially more profit.”

However, there is still  little understanding as to what kind of interactions can contribute to or detract from coaching’s effectiveness. Ways of coaching can and do vary widely, due to a lack of understanding of the psycho-physiological mechanisms which react to positive or negative stimulus. Internal Research done by the university has since compared varying coaching styles, from the kind and compassionate vs. the rugged and raw. The results can then be used to reveal the psychological methods by which learning can be enhanced or reduced, depending on the style of coaching in question. ”We’re trying to activate the parts of the brain that would lead a person to consider possibilities,” said Richard Boyatzis, distinguished university professor, and professor of organizational behavior, cognitive science and psychology. “We believe that would lead to more learning. By considering these possibilities we facilitate learning.”

The Coaching Triangle of "Positivity"

Boyatzi believes that coaches attempt to arouse a Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA), which causes positive emotion and arouses neuroendocrine systems that stimulate better cognitive functioning and increased perceptual accuracy and openness in the person being coached, taught or advised. On the flip side, emphasizing negativity through weaknesses and flaws, yields an opposite result. “You would activate the Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA), which causes people to defend themselves, and as a result they close down,” Boyatzis says. “One of the major reasons people work is for the chance to learn and grow. So at every managerial relationship, and every boss-subordinate relationship, people are more willing to use their talents if they feel they have an opportunity to learn and grow.”

Boyatzi demonstrated his ideas, when two academic coaches with contrasting styles were each assigned to a volunteer undergraduate student. Following a series of questions, Boyatzi found that “people respond much better to a coach they find inspiring and who shows compassion for them, rather than one who they perceive to be judging them. Sure enough, we found a trend in the same direction even for the neutral questions. Students tended to activate the areas associated with visioning more with the compassionate coach, even when the topics they were thinking about weren’t so positive,” Jack said (Boyatzi’s assistant).

All and all,  everyone has a few weaknesses whether the’yre willing to admit it or not, but often the focus is so much on the bottom line that we worry ourselves into the ground. Rather it is more important to focus on what gets you going in the morning and gets you wanting to work hard and stay late that truly embodies ones character.

Sources:

Coaching With Compassion Can ‘Light Up’ Human Thoughts – Science Daily