Recent Generations Focus More On Fame, Money Than Giving Back

The times are changing, and not necessarily for the better when it comes to giving back to society, according to 40 years of research on 9 million young adults. Since the baby boomer generation, there has been a significant decline among young Americans in political participation, concern for others and interest in saving the environment, according to a new study published by the American Psychological Association. 

"Popular views of the millennial generation, born in the 1980s and 1990s, as more caring, community-oriented and politically engaged than previous generations are largely incorrect, particularly when compared to baby boomers and Generation X at the same age," said the study's lead author, Jean Twenge, PhD, a psychology professor at San Diego State University and author of the book, "Generation Me." "These data show that recent generations are less likely to embrace community mindedness and are focusing more on money, image and fame." The study was published online this month in APA's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 

The findings did show that millennials were more likely than baby boomers or Generation Xers to volunteer during high school and to say that they intend to participate in community service in college. However, the authors contend that this trend is most likely related to schools' requiring community service for graduation, which has been cited in numerous studies. The desire to save the environment, an area considered to be of particular concern to millennials, showed some of the largest declines, with three times as many millennials as baby boomers at the same age saying they made no personal effort to help the environment. Fifty-one percent of millennials said they made an effort to cut down on electricity use to save energy, compared to 68 percent of boomers in the 1970s. 

Twenge and her colleagues analyzed data from the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future study of high school seniors, conducted continuously since 1975, and the American Freshman survey by UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute of entering college students since 1966. Both surveys included items on life goals, concern for others, and civic and community involvement. 

In the American Freshman survey, the proportion of students who said being wealthy was very important to them increased from 45 percent for baby boomers (surveyed between 1966 and 1978) to 70 percent for Generation Xers (surveyed between 1979 and 1999) and 75 percent for millennials (surveyed between 2000 and 2009). Likewise, the proportion who said it was important to keep up to date with political affairs decreased, from 50 percent for boomers to 39 percent for Generation Xers and 35 percent for millennials. "Becoming involved in programs to clean up the environment" decreased, from 33 percent for boomers to 20 percent for millennials. "Developing a meaningful philosophy of life" decreased the most across generations, from 73 percent for boomers to 45 percent for millennials. 

"These data suggest that the 'Me Generation' label affixed to the baby boomers was unwarranted. In comparison to the proceeding generations, the boomers look significantly more selfless," Twenge said. "The generational trends toward more political disengagement, less environmental concern and more materialistic values could have a meaningful impact on society. It will be interesting to see how millennials are affected by the recent recession and whether future generations will reverse the trends." 

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 154,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare. 

Source: American Psychological Association (APA) [March 15, 2012]

Read more »

How the smell of food affects how much you eat

Bite size depends on the familiarly and texture of food. Smaller bite sizes are taken for foods which need more chewing and smaller bite sizes are often linked to a sensation of feeling fuller sooner. New research published in BioMed Central's open access journal Flavour, launched today, shows that strong aromas lead to smaller bite sizes and suggests that aroma may be used as a means to control portion size. 

The aroma experience of food is linked to its constituents and texture, but also to bite size. Smaller bites sizes are linked towards a lower flavour release which may explain why we take smaller bites of unfamiliar or disliked foods. In order to separate the effect of aroma on bite size from other food-related sensations researchers from the Netherlands developed a system where a custard-like dessert was eaten while different scents were simultaneously presented directly to the participants nose. 

The results showed that the stronger the smell the smaller the bite. Dr Rene A de Wijk, who led the study, explained, "Our human test subjects were able to control how much dessert was fed to them by pushing a button. Bite size was associated with the aroma presented for that bite and also for subsequent bites (especially for the second to last bite). Perhaps, in keeping with the idea that smaller bites are associated with lower flavour sensations from the food and that, there is an unconscious feedback loop using bite size to regulate the amount of flavour experienced." 

This study suggests that manipulating the odour of food could result in a 5-10% decrease in intake per bite. Combining aroma control with portion control could fool the body into thinking it was full with a smaller amount of food and aid weight loss. 

BioMed Central's open access journal Flavour, launched today is a peer-reviewed, open access, online journal that publishes interdisciplinary articles on flavour, its generation, perception, and influence on behaviour and nutrition. Flavour aims to understand the psychophysical, psychological and chemical aspects of flavour, which include not only taste and aroma, but also chemesthesis, texture, and all the senses. 

Source: BioMed Central [March 20, 2012]

Read more »

Low socioeconomic status means worse health -- but not for everyone

Poverty is bad for your health. Poor people are much more likely to have heart disease, stroke, and cancer than wealthy people, and have a lower life expectancy, too. Children who grow up poor are more likely to have health problems as adults. 

But despite these depressing statistics, many children who grow up poor have good health. In a new article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Edith Chen and Gregory E. Miller of the University of British Columbia suggest a possible reason: some children have role models who teach them to cope with stress. 

"Who are these bright spots who, despite a lot of adversity, make it through and do well?" Chen asked. She suspects the answer has to do with stress. Growing up poor can be stressful, and stress increases the risk of developing chronic diseases. Poor children are less likely to have a predictable routine and a stable home; their parents may have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet and may not be able to afford to fix a leaky roof, for example. Poor children are also more likely to experience violence. One study found that nearly 50% of low income youth had witnessed a murder. 

In the face of this stress, Miller and Chen propose a strategy that may work to reduce stress and improve health. They call it "shift-and-persist." The first part, "shift," means reappraising things that are stressful. For example, if you get fired from a job, you can feel miserable and lash out at people around you—or you can reassess the situation to find the bright side. "You think, 'I wouldn't choose this, but maybe it's an opportunity to end up in a better job down the line,'" Chen says. Research on children growing up in adversity has found that children do well if they can self-regulate like this. 

But it's not enough to accept stressful situations. The second part, "persist," has to do with staying positive in the longer term—"holding out hope and finding a broader meaning in your life," Chen says. Shifting perspective on a particular situation helps in the short term, but, she says, "You have to do that with the idea that there's a broader goal in mind." Many studies have found that finding meaning helps people get through difficult situations, like spinal injuries or collective traumatic experiences like the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 

The way most children learn "shift-and-persist" may be through positive role models, Chen says. Parents, teachers, aunts, and other adults can model healthy ways of dealing with stress and also teach children a sense of optimism about the world. 

The goal, of course, is to extend this help to other children. There are some hints that it may be possible to use community leaders to improve health, Chen says. "For example, in kids with asthma, if you get people in the community to serve as lay coaches for the parents, that can be beneficial to the kids," she says. It may also be possible to use role models in the community to teach more children to reappraise their stress and think positively about the future.  

Source: Association for Psychological Science [March 21, 2012]

Read more »

Is modern medicine ill with dehumanization?

"Anyone who has been admitted into a hospital or undergone a procedure, even if cared for in the most appropriate way, can feel as though they were treated like an animal or object," says Harvard University psychologist and physician Omar Sultan Haque. Health care workers enter their professions to help people; research shows that empathic, humane care improves outcomes. Yet dehumanization is endemic. The results can be disastrous: neglect of necessary treatments or prescription of excessive, painful procedures or dangerous drugs. 

What are the causes and effects of dehumanization in medicine? And what can be done about it? In Perspectives in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Haque and co-author Adam Waytz at the Kellogg School of Management of Northwestern University synthesize diverse literatures to distinguish when dehumanization is useful from when it is not. Then they recommend "simple, cheap, and effective" changes to "make medical institutions more humane and ethical, as well as efficacious in the service of improved health," says Haque. 

The structures of institutions and the psychological demands of providing care can cause professionals to treat patients as less than human. "Deindividuation"—doctors as a sea of white coats; patients as half-naked bodies in smocks, identified by their disease or procedure ("the gallbladder in Room 38")—allows staffs to avoid taking responsibility for each patient. "Impaired patient agency" refers to medical staffs' treatment of patients as incapable of planning their own care, which is both infantilizing and demoralizing. "Dissimilarity"—hierarchies of power, differences of race, class, and gender between staff and patients—have roots outside the hospital. Nevertheless, they cause miscommunication and alienation, even maltreatment. None of these practices serves good medical care. 

More complex are dehumanizing practices that may aid care. Diagnosis and treatment might necessitate "mechanization"—breaking the body into organs and systems. Scaling back empathy can diminish staff stress and burnout. Even moral disengagement can be adaptive. From giving a shot to slicing into the flesh to perform surgery, medical care often requires inflicting pain or invading the boundaries of the body in violation of deeply held human taboos. And patients may die after even the best of care. For the professional, guilt could be paralyzing. 

Still, the authors argue, dehumanization is useful only in "specific contexts," such as acute care. Waytz says, "Dehumanization's functionality varies wildly across specialities from pediatrics to orthopedic surgery, so future research is needed to determine when dehumanization is most prevalent and most detrimental." In the meantime, the authors offer numerous humanizing fixes: Call patients by name, not numbers; discourage labeling people as diseases; personalize hospital rounds and pre-surgical preparation; eliminate opaque surgical masks; affix photos to CT scans and biopsies. Include patients in care planning. Let them choose their gowns—and design those gowns so they're no so humiliating. Increase physician diversity and hire people with good social skills. And, for med schools, perhaps most radical: Eliminate the "white-coat ceremony" when graduates don the mufti of the elect. 

Finally, "we should train medical professionals to think of themselves as mortal – sharing a common humanity and vulnerability with their patients," says Haque. Although dehumanization can be useful, "even functional dehumanization should be viewed like a potent, salutary, but dangerous drug that can have disastrous side-effects" when overprescribed. 

Source: Association for Psychological Science [March 19, 2012]

Read more »