Psychology

I was inadvertently exposed to the filth and depravity of VH1's "Rock of Love Bus," also known as STDs on Wheels, when I turned on my TV to watch the (relatively) innocent and science-fueled Big Bang Theory.

If you feel like dropping 150 IQ points, here's the clip in all its intellectual and classy glory. If you don't have any neurons to spare, here's a quote that sums up the few minutes' worth of the show I saw (and that's all I ever want to see), as Bret Michaels expresses his heartfelt emotions with lyricism inspired by the deep wells of pure love: "You are this rocking hot centerfold, ok?"

Love and Being in Love: Love is in our mind and is fueled by chemicals and chemistry.
New love produces the chemistry in love we all seek.

Throughout history, mankind has deemed the heart the center of love. But scientists tell us love is all in our mind or brain. And fueled by chemicals and chemistry.

Infatuation

When two people are attracted to each other, a virtual explosion of adrenaline-like nuerochemicals gush forth. Fireworks explode and we see stars. PEA or phenylethylamine is a chemical that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells.

Everybody understands that good parents have to lay down rules for their children as they grow up. However, too many rules can be a bad thing, says a new report in Current Directions in Psychological Science.

According to the authors, numerous studies have found that in Western countries, when parents are too strict with their children, they can impede their psychological development. It has also been suggested that this effect may not be as strong in East Asian countries — researchers have posited that certain aspects of East Asian culture may make children more accepting of their parents' intrusive behavior.

With the publication of a paper in the upcoming issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, science has finally confirmed what most people have long thought. According to the study, physical appearance says a lot when seeing someone for the first time. What most people likely don't know, however, is that first impressions based solely on appearance are actually fairly accurate.

According to a new report published in the November issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, individuals who experience both adversity as children and traumatic events as adults are more
likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than those individuals who experience
only one of these kinds of incidents.

The report also found that the risk was greater for individuals with a particular genetic mutation that may influence the way the brain processes the neurotransmitter serotonin, affecting an individual's anxiety levels and changing the way neurons react to fearful stimuli.

Thanks to the recent outbreak of the H1N1 flu virus, most people now recognize the need to maintain good hygiene as a means to avoid sickness.  And undoubtedly, frequent updates on death tolls, school closures and airport screenings from health officials and media figures also deserve some credit for the public's hyper vigilance in maintaining good hygiene--frequently washing hands, sneezing into shirt sleeves and so on.

While these behaviors can be good ways to prevent the spread of disease, is it possible that the current trend of hygiene awareness is overblown? Even to the point of turning people into germaphobes?

A recent article addressed the issue of children being frightened of costumed characters and some of the other fears they might experience.  In some cases, this fear escalated into a phobia.

However, comments like "fears likely helped our ancestors survive" generate more alarm than comfort to me. Besides being pretty obvious, it raises the question of why fear should be considered such a bad thing, especially for children.

I can certainly understand that an unreasonable fear that has escalated all of out proportion and become debilitating can be problematic. I suspect that the vast majority of fears and phobias don't actually fall into that category.

Are women naturally different from men when it comes to detecting emotions?    Biology may play a role, since there are few opportunities for socialization to shape such gender differences, and some  evolutionary psychologists have suggested that females, because of their role as primary caretakers, are wired to quickly and accurately decode or detect distress in preverbal infants or threatening signals from other adults to enhance their chances at survival. 

But women are better than men at distinguishing between emotions, especially fear and disgust, according to a new study published in Neuropsychologia and have a keener sense for processing auditory, visual and audiovisual emotions. 

In a previous entry, I discussed Sharon Begley’s Newsweek article titled “Ignoring the Evidence; Why do psychologists reject science?”  It nettled a perennial sore spot for me, which is the culture of Psychology and the role Psychology plays in the family of sciences. An issue I often wrestle with is the widely held disbelief in the merit of a psychological science. Some of this animosity is of course well earned.

If you think choosing a candy bar or a granola bar is totally a matter of free will, think again. A new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research argues that the choices we make to indulge ourselves or exercise self-control depend on how the choices are presented.

University of Miami Assistant professor of marketing Juliano Laran tested subjects to determine how certain words and concepts affected their ability to control themselves when confronted with the choice of healthy or unhealthy food. He found that consumer choices were affected by the actions most recently suggested to them by certain key words.