GROUP 1 :

Suicide rates higher among baby boomer men, study finds Kathleen

O'Brien / The Star-Ledger | August 20, 2014

(RNS) Robin Williams’ suicide may not have been that surprising: Baby boomer men are 60 percent more likely to take their own life than their fathers’ generation, according to a Rutgers University sociologist.

The trend is particularly alarming because middle age is typically a time when suicide rates decline before rising again in old age.

Suicide usually rises drastically during adolescence and young adulthood, then typically levels off in middle age, according to Julie Phillips, a Rutgers sociology professor who researched the effect of unemployment and the Great Recession on suicide rates nationally.

That plateau hasn’t happened with today’s baby boomer men.

“The rise we’ve seen in suicide rates since 1999 among boomers while in their 40s and 50s is unusual,” Phillips said. Boomer men are now 60 percent more likely to take their own lives than men their age who were born in the 1930s — or roughly men of their fathers’ generation.

“We’re in a position now where suicide rates for middle-aged people are higher than those for the elderly,” she said. “That hasn’t happened before, at least not in the last century.”

Phillips offered some reasons as to why baby boomer men remain at risk for suicide even when they hit an age that has often brought more stability:

1

Boomer men lived through the jump in divorce rates, making them more likely to be living alone than previous men their age. All age groups also report being less religious than earlier generations. And studies indicate that baby boomers are not becoming more religious as they age, Phillips said. Their disinclination to go to church appears to be permanent.

The current elevated suicide rate in middle age doesn’t bode well for the future.

“The concern is that as those middle-aged people move into old age, where suicide rates are typically higher for men at least, we may see them get higher still,” Phillips said.

A double-whammy of health problems — chiefly obesity —  combined with the Great Recession may have hit baby boomer men hard, in part because such problems may have been unanticipated, she said.

Also alarming is that the younger generation, in their 20s and 30s, appears to be charting a course of higher suicides as well. “This is a troubling trend that we should continue to monitor,” she said.

(Kathleen O’Brien writes for The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.)

2

GROUP 2 :

Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We Are Good, After All Recent studies find our first impulses are selfless November 20, 2012 |By Adrian F. Ward

When it really comes down to it—when the chips are down and the lights are off—are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

This fundamental question about human nature has long provided fodder for discussion. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin proclaimed that all people were born broken and selfish, saved only through the power of divine intervention. Hobbes, too, argued that humans were savagely self-centered; however, he held that salvation came not through the divine, but through the social contract of civil law. On the other hand, philosophers such as Rousseau argued that people were born good, instinctively concerned with the welfare of others. More recently, these questions about human nature—selfishness and cooperation, defection and collaboration—have been brought to the public eye by game shows such as Survivor and the UK’s Golden Balls, which test the balance between selfishness and cooperation by pitting the strength of interpersonal bonds against the desire for large sums of money.

But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean noting without empirical data.

A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively.

This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can

3

boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?

To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.

The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all.

The researchers followed up these correlational studies with a set of experiments in which they directly manipulated both this apparent influence on the tendency to cooperate—processing speed—and the cognitive mechanism thought to be associated with this influence—intuitive, as opposed to reflective, decision-making. In the first of these studies, researchers gathered 891 participants (211 undergraduates and 680 participants from a nationwide sample) and had them play a public goods game with one key twist: these participants were forced to make their decisions either quickly (within 10 seconds) or slowly (after at least 10 seconds had passed). In the second, researchers had 343 participants from a nationwide sample play a public goods game after they had been primed to use either intuitive or reflective reasoning. Both studies showed the same pattern—whether people were forced to use intuition (by acting under time constraints) or simply encouraged to do so (through priming), they gave significantly more money to the common good than did participants who relied on reflection to make their choices. This again suggests that our intuitive impulse is to cooperate with others.

Taken together, these studies—7 total experiments, using a whopping 2,068 participants—suggest that we are not intuitively selfish creatures. But does this mean that we our naturally cooperative? Or could it be that cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded? After all, we live in a world where it pays to play well with others: cooperating helps us make friends, gain social capital, and find social success in a wide range of domains. As one way of addressing this possibility, the experimenters carried out yet another study. In this study, they asked 341 participants from a nationwide sample about their daily interactions—specifically, whether or not these interactions were mainly cooperative; they found that the relationship between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in

4

interactions where this behavior is rewarded—that human “goodness” may result from the acquisition of a regularly rewarded trait.

Throughout the ages, people have wondered about the basic state of human nature—whether we are good or bad, cooperative or selfish. This question—one that is central to who we are—has been tackled by theologians and philosophers, presented to the public eye by television programs, and dominated the sleepless nights of both guilt-stricken villains and bewildered victims; now, it has also been addressed by scientific research. Although no single set of studies can provide a definitive answer—no matter how many experiments were conducted or participants were involved—this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.

Although this evidence does not definitely solve the puzzle of human nature, it does give us evidence we may use to solve this puzzle for ourselves—and our solutions will likely vary according to how we define “human nature.” If human nature is something we must be born with, then we may be neither good nor bad, cooperative nor selfish. But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.

5

GROUP 3 :

When Flirting Increases Loyalty When consumers “flirt” with another brand, it can strengthen ties to their old favorite February 4, 2014 |By Francesca Gino

Whether you desire to be a good long-term friend, a respected leader, a loving partner, or to have a successful brand, you must inspire loyalty in others. But what type of behavior inspires loyalty? A few answers may come to mind, such as being trustworthy, supporting others’ initiatives, being willing to sacrifice your own self-interest to improve another person’s well-being, or confiding secrets and sharing personal stories. When people are asked what it means to be loyal in a relationship, the words they most commonly mention are trust, respect, intimacy, honesty, help, and support.

Somewhat surprisingly, another behavior that inspires loyalty in others is flirting, at least when it comes to brand loyalty. Rather than leading to trouble, as it does in personal relationships, this type of infidelity is often beneficial in the context of consumer behavior, my research suggests. When consumers who are in committed brand relationships flirt with other brands, they become even more attached to their primary brand. They are then willing to spend more money to purchase that brand’s products, and more frequently.

Loyalty is the hallmark of strong relationships. Knowing that someone will be there for us when the going gets tough provides us with great security. This security, in turns, makes us happy and satisfied. However, building loyalty requires work. Even the most loyal relationships are open and vulnerable to potential betrayal and conflict. When we experience such negative experiences, we may approach new experiences with our guard up. This makes sense from a survival-instinct perspective, but it causes us to miss out on rewarding experiences with others. To avoid such negative outcomes, we generally do not engage in behaviors that could jeopardize loyalty, such as flirting with others. For instance, in romantic relationships, the presence of available and attractive romantic alternatives can decrease one’s romantic commitment to a current partner. That’s in part why people who are committed to their romantic partners often devalue the attractiveness of alternative partners or shield themselves against temptation by ignoring these people.

Similarly, conventional wisdom suggests that having a positive experience with a competing brand, through simple encounter or learning of its positive attributes, can decrease a consumers’ loyalty. Indeed, marketers frequently give consumers free samples of their products, offer promotions and price reductions, and inundate them with advertisements in hopes of luring them away from competitors. Marketers might also draw clear comparisons

6

with the competition to put their products in a better light. Take Apple’s notorious 1984 advertisement. You may remember the clear picture that Apple painted of Windows’ users—they were unhip, corporate drones that loved boring beige-shaded boxes and Excel spreadsheets. Conversely, Apple was the cool, savvy product for young people doing creative work and fighting the system.

Brands often provide the primary points of differentiation between competitive offerings, and as such they can be critical to the success of companies. Thus, organizations regularly make large investments to develop and maintain their brands and to build a network of committed customers. But the strategic choices companies make to achieve these goals may not have the consequences they expect.

Rather than falling back on the strategies typically used to create brand loyalty (such as offering discounts or criticizing potential competitors), it may be more beneficial to let consumers flirt with them. Brand flirting refers to casual interest in or short-term experimentation with a competitor to a brand to which a consumer is loyal. Brand flirting can take a variety of forms, from evaluating some brand characteristics positively (akin to noticing the attractive characteristics of someone other than your current romantic partner) to using a product and having a pleasant short-lived experience with it (akin to having a late-night drink with that new person). Flirting with brands is surprisingly common; consumers in the most committed brand relationships often appreciate other products and brands.

In research that I conducted in collaboration with Mike Norton, Irene Consiglio, and Daniella Kupor, we found that, under the right conditions, flirting with an attractive competing brand can in fact make loyal consumers even more committed to their usual brand.

In one of our studies, participants were presented with four favorable features of a soft drink and asked to evaluate each of them. Participants who were loyal to Coca-Cola, and who were asked to rated favorable features of Pepsi, said they intended to consume more of their favorite soft drink in the upcoming week, as compared to loyal Coca-Cola participants who rated the same favorable features of Coca-Cola. We reached the same findings with Pepsi loyalists relative to Coke. Appreciating a competitive brand’s favorable characteristics induced loyal participants to want to consume greater amounts of their favorite brand in the near future.

In a follow-up study, we found that such brand flirting affects real behavior. Participants in a control condition watched a 30-second advertisement for their non-preferred soft-drink brand. Participants in the experimental condition had a choice: they could watch either a 10-minute advertisement for their favorite brand or a 30-second advertisement for a competing brand in the same product category. As we expected, most participants in the experimental condition chose to watch the much shorter advertisement – that is, they chose to flirt with a brand competing with the brand to which they were loyal.  We used the same 30-second ad in the experimental and control conditions, namely a 30-second advertisement for their non-preferred soft drink (either Coca-Cola or Pepsi). As additional compensation for their participation in the survey, participants were told that they would be entered in a lottery to win a two-liter bottle of a soft drink. Participants indicated whether they would like to receive a bottle of Coca-Cola or Pepsi if they won the lottery. The results? Participants expressed a greater preference for their favorite brand when they chose to watch an ad for a competing product as compared to when they were forced to do so, thus showing the benefits to the favored brand of perceived initiation of flirting.

7

Why does this effect occur? Research on interpersonal relationships reveals that flirting with a person to whom one is uncommitted elicits excitement and other positive feelings, as it is often playful, pleasant, and arousing. In the context of brand relationships, flirting can similarly elicit excitement, as using or admiring a brand other than one’s favorite may be a fresh and arousing experience. This arousal can be transferred to the favored brand, resulting in even greater affiliation with the brand and a greater desire to consume it.

Every year, marketers spend enormous sums of money in their attempts to lure customers away from the competition. For instance, brands often try to win new customers by comparing their product favorably relative to the competition. Our research suggests that successful attempts to gain the attention and interest of consumers may backfire by increasing consumers’ involvement with the brands to which they are committed.

Flirting is a ubiquitous activity people engage in for the very fact they are human. And though experience may have taught us that flirting often leads to trouble in close relationships, when we are loyal to our partners, friends, jobs, or given brands, flirting with the competition may in fact increase our commitment to them.

8

GROUP 4 :

Study Shows That, for Women, Suppressing Emotions Increases Anger January 15, 2002 |By Sarah Graham

Women who hold back feelings of anger may end up more irate in the long run. According to new research, women experience a rebound effect when they suppress angry emotions, which can result in greater feelings of fury.

In the study, Judith Hosie and Alan Milne of the University of Aberdeen compared different methods of regulating anger and sadness in subjects exposed to footage from emotional films. The researchers instructed one group of men and women to express any feelings of anger brought about by the video clips. A second group was told to suppress their anger and a third group was told to substitute a happy memory for any feelings of anger. All three groups then watched a second film and were allowed to respond spontaneously. "The results showed that the women in the study who had suppressed their anger reported feeling more angry, outraged, upset and disgusted than their male counterparts," Hosie reports. Among other things, women who had initially suppressed their anger reported a greater desire to swear than men did.

Other gender differences were highlighted by the study, too. "We predicted that females would benefit more from a strategy such as anger substitution and less from suppressing anger than males," Hosie notes, "and that was reflected in our research." For men, those who had substituted angry feelings with a happy memory reported being more upset, outraged and disgusted than did the anger-suppressing males. The findings, the researchers say, may aid in the development of anger management programs.

9

GROUP 5 :

Keeping Money in Mind Makes People Less Helpful November 16, 2006 |By Ciara Curtin

ROYALTY-FREE CORBIS Money is an incentive to work hard, but it also promotes selfish behavior. Those conclusions may not be surprising, but now researchers find that merely thinking of money makes people less likely to give help to others.

"Self-sufficient people are more diligent in their own goals," says Kathleen D. Vohs, a consumer psychologist at the University of Minnesota. "Money is cognitively and mentally linked to personal goals. It allows people to do things efficiently and not need other people."

Vohs and her colleagues performed a series of experiments to determine how money affects people's behavior. In a lab, they subconsciously reminded volunteers of money in different ways, either by showing them money-related words such as "salary," or by revealing a poster or screensaver with currency on it. The researchers primed other participants with play money or neutral stimuli, such as fish. After priming, the participants performed different tasks that were unrelated to money but that assessed their behavior in social situations.

When money is on the brain, people become disinclined to ask for help when faced with a difficult or even an impossible puzzle, Vohs and her colleagues report in this week's issue of Science. They tried to work on the task by themselves, she explains. Eventually most did ask for help--it just took them longer to come around.

People who think, even subconsciously, about money are also less helpful than others, the researchers say. After witnessing a pre-arranged accident in which someone walking through the testing area dropped a box of pencils, money-primed participants picked up fewer of the fallen pencils than the other subjects did.

Just being reminded of the concept of money "transforms people to capitalist individuals," says Drazen Prelec, a psychologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the study. And, Vohs notes, "their behavior was not something they realized they were doing."

The U.S. and other Western societies value self-reliance, Prelec says. "This is less so in other cultures," he adds. The people in this study were from Asian-Canadian or European-Canadian backgrounds, and Vohs says country of origin had no effect on behavior, adding that many Eastern cultures are becoming more money-focused. So if you want to keep your employees fixed on their goals, keep a stack of money on their desks. Just don't expect them to help each other.

10

HUMAN SCIENCE

Worksheet for Articles on Research/Study Date : _______________

Group members : ___________________________________________________________

Instructions : Read the given article and if necessary, read for extra information on other links. Then fill in the table below.

No. Inquiries about the research/study? Information about the research/study

1 Who conducted it?

2 What is its main area/topic?

3 What is/are its objective(s)?

4 What method(s) is/are used?

5 Who are the subjects?

6 What is/are its conclusion(s)?

7 What other questions do you have about this research/study ? [Please list them down below]

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

11