2011 marks 10 years since the mixed-race category was added to the U.K.’s annual censes.  To commemorate this event, BBC Two has been running a series of programmes documenting the mixed-race experience both in Britain and around the world.

One of familys profiled in the series are the Kellys.  While the Kellys are mixed race (the father, Errol, is black and the mother, Alyson, is white), what makes them truly extraordinary is that in 1993, Alyson gave birth to twin boys — one black and one white.

How is this possible?  According to population geneticist Dr. Jim Wilson, Errol’s Jamaican heritage holds the answer. In the days of slavery, white men raping black women were common practice and, as a result, most blacks from outside of Africa have a mix of African and European DNA.  In the case of the Kellys, Errol passed his African DNA to his son James (resulting in James’ black skin) but passed his European DNA to his son Daniel (resulting in Daniel’s white skin).

Not surprisingly, being twins with different skin colours was difficult for James and Daniel growing up.  What is surprising, however, is that it was Daniel – the white twin – that endured the bulk of the racist abuse from students at the all-white school the twins attended.  His mum explains that situation like this: “Those kids couldn’t stand the fact that, as they saw it, this white kid was actually black.  It was as though they wanted to punish him for daring to call himself white.”

According to research by Yzerbyt, Leyens, and Bellour (1995), we are quick to reject ingroup members that are not in line with what is required for group membership.  Because the identity of the group is put at stake by misidentifying an ingroup member, we tend to be especially careful when allowing new members in.  If misidentification does occur, there is a “Black Sheep Effect” in which the “bad” ingroup member is chastised more than a similarly “bad’” outgroup member.  In other words, if an ingroup member and an outgroup member both exhibit an undesirable behaviour, we are likely to be much harder on the ingroup member.

Akin to this theory, the white students at the twins’ school punished Daniel because they had identified him as white (and hence an ingroup member) when he was, in actuality, half black.  Such behaviour from these white students illustrates just how important race is in how we identify both others and ourselves.  While the U.K and the rest of the world have come quite far in how we perceive mixed race people, it is clear that we still have a long way to go.

Yzerbyt, V., Leyens, J., Bellour, F. (1995). The ingroup overexclusion effect: Identity concerns in decisions about ingroup membership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25 (1), 1-16.

Black and White Twins: The Guardian, Saturday September 24, 2011

Whenever I mention growing up in Metro Detroit to people in my current city of Fargo, I find myself begrudgingly answering questions about street crime and gang violence — regional attractions and achievements, in contrast, are rarely mentioned. Maybe this shouldn’t be surprising given Detroit’s current label as “America’s most dangerous city” and generally gritty reputation. But I can understand why Mexico’s tourism division speaks of fighting battles against misunderstood risks and geographical imprecision propagated by politicians and the media. Speaking to Newsweek about Mexico’s recent achievements, a Mexican official says “Everything you do is like the fourth paragraph. It should be the headline.”

The generalized American fear of traveling to Mexico is not without reason. The country’s drug war alone has lasted four and a half years and left 35,000 dead. Yet, politicians and the media speak of this violence as if it were the only story to be told about the country. In reality, risks faced by Americans in Mexico are quite low. Newsweek’s Bryan Curtis crunches the numbers: “…if you look at the number of Americans killed in Mexico since the drug war began in 2006, and then isolate the number of innocents “caught in the crossfire,” it amounts to only 10 or 20 killings per year….This is in a country with hundreds of thousands of American expats and more than 17 million American tourists.” David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute, confirms: “It would be naïve to say there is zero risk…But it would be alarmist to say the risk is much higher than ‘very low.’”

So why do so many Americans fear crossing their southern border? It probably has a lot to do with the way in which we process information about unknowns. The availability heuristic, for example, is a rule of thumb we use to predict the likelihood of events based on the ease with which examples can be brought to mind. When we think of Mexico, we may visualize beheadings, kidnappings, and mass graves — images that have been provided for us by politicians and the media in recent years. Just as our attention is drawn toward these acts of violence, our attention is drawn away from Mexico’s natural beauty, delicious food, and friendly people. Another rule of thumb known as the representativeness heuristic contributes to this misperception by leading us to judge the probability of one event by finding a comparable event and assuming the probabilities will be similar. So when we hear about violence in Ciudad Juárez, we wrongly assume that violence is commonplace in places like Acapulco as well. Or more precisely, when we hear about violence in Ciudad Juárez, we wrongly assume that all parts of the city are equally dangerous.

Residents of Detroit understand that their community is more than “America’s most dangerous” and violence in one part of the city says little about violence in another part of the city. Likewise, Americans should realize there is more to Mexico than drug wars and that violence in one region says little about violence in other regions.

Read more:

Bishop, M.A. (2006). Fast and frugal heuristics. Philosophy Compass, 1/2, 201-223.

Come on in, the water’s fine (Newsweek)

America’s most dangerous cities (Forbes)

Netflix witnessed a storm of customer outrage and tumbling stock prices this month as they dramatically increased their price for subscription to the service. Early this morning, CEO Reed Hastings reacted with an email to customers. The email started, “I messed up. I owe you an explanation.” And an explanation did follow – not only about why the price hike would continue, but also about how subscribers would now be paying for two services, Netflix and Qwikster, if they wished to continue with the full set of features previously provided. I predict that this latest move will lead to even more problems for the company.

I am a longtime subscriber to Netflix and enjoy their DVD and streaming services immensely. Sure, I was irritated with the dramatic price increase just like many other customers. But I accepted it and opted to continue receiving their services. The latest change has led me to reconsider my options, however. I enjoy movies and television, but do I really need to subscribe to more than one independent service provider for this? I never saw a reason to subscribe to Hulu plus or Amazon Prime for their video services because Netflix was already meeting my needs. So why should I subscribe to both Netflix and Qwikster? I shouldn’t and I now intend to update my video subscription service accordingly.

What Netflix must realize is that my decision to opt out of one service has little to do with its actual price. Hastings makes clear in his email to customers that “There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!).” Rather, it is my perception that has changed. I do not want to pay for two very similar video services. And I predict that many other customers will think and react similarly. Consider research addressing the effectiveness of partitioned versus bundled pricing. Sheng, Bao, and Pan (2007) state, “It is profitable to partition a total price into two separate parts only when the surcharge is relatively small compared to the base price, or the surcharge has a well-justified purpose. Otherwise, an all-inclusive price might generate higher purchase intentions, thus increasing demand.” Not only did Netflix partition its prices in such a way that has already proved to drive away customers, but they now want us to continue our patronage through two independent service providers. And away go another group of subscribers.

I hope that Netflix has thought about this issue more than I have because it is likely to have long-term consequences for their success as a company. Dramatic price hikes this month drove enough customers away. Making it psychologically easier for us to forgo their services is unlikely to make things better.

Read more:

Netflix renames DVD-by-mail service, adds video games (CNN)

Sheng, S., Bao, Y., & Pan, Y. (2007). Partitioning or bundling? Perceived fairness of the surcharge makes a difference. Psychology and Marketing, 24, 1025-1041.

View more posts by Kevin R. Betts

In the 10 years since the events of September 2001 a vast amount of scholarly research has been written on the impact of 9/11. Wiley-Blackwell is pleased to share with you this collection of free book and journal content, featuring over 20 book chapters and 185 journal articles from over 200 publications, spanning subjects across the social sciences and humanities.

Simply click on your area of interest below to access this reading and learning resource today:

By Erica Zaiser

An article on Science Daily discusses a recent presentation given at the APA annual conference on the good and bad effects of social networking. Now, I wasn’t at the conference so I can’t comment as to the actual presentation or the researchers giving it, but the article lays out a few of the “arguments” for why social networking could be good and bad for young people based on previous research on the topic.

In it’s bullet pointed list of “adverse effects” of social network use, the first effect is in reference to a study on Facebook and narcissistic tendencies. I actually wrote on this research when it first came out in a previous SPE post. This research showed that the more people checked their Facebook, the higher they scored on measures of narcissism and that certain types of content were also associated with this personality trait. However, this was correlational research. In other words, checking Facebook does not necessarily make young people become more narcissistic. In fact it’s most likely that the personality trait precedes behaviour, as narcissism is  a relatively stable personality trait.

There was no citation to the actual research for the second and third “adverse effect” mentioned (that daily use of Facebook increases anxiety and leads to lower grades). But I suspect that again these studies did not experimentally induce use of Facebook among a random sample of teens but simply measured Facebook use and these other negative behaviours and found a positive correlation. In other words, people who are narcissistic, anxious, or depressed, might be more likely to spend their time on social networking sites (for all sorts of reasons). Furthermore, people who spend too much time doing anything outside of studying are likely to have worse grades than people who are spending a quality amount of time studying. Again, I don’t know which research the author was referring to, so if people know of experimental work in this area, please point me in the right direction.

It has been known for ages that internet addiction is related to things like depression. But this doesn’t mean that use of the internet causes depression or anti-social behaviour or narcisism. It may simply be that these types of people are more likely to be drawn to spending vast amounts of time on the internet and that social networking sites in particular might provide a unique outlet for highly narcissistic individuals. To argue that the use of Facebook alone will cause your child to become more narcissistic or depressed seems unfounded and a bit silly.

The article also discusses some positive aspects of social network use, including increased empathy towards friends and as a potential tool for engaging students. Some research has suggested a link between Facebook use and greater personal contentment, greater social trust, and increased social capital among college students.

Clearly there is a need for more research on the topic and in particularly experimental research that can begin to identify if social networking actually causes any of these (positive or negative) behaviours. However, my own suspicion is that different types of people choose to use social networking in different ways. The narcissist will find a use for Facebook that is very different than a young person interested in activism. Both might spend a great deal of time on Facebook but the quality and type of production resulting from that time might be vastly different.

I hope more researchers start looking at social networking sites (and not just Facebook!) in order to see how these are being used by young people and indeed how it shapes or alters behaviour or personality. However, until that research is done we cannot take correlational findings and assume causation.

Read more: Is there social capital in a social network site?  

Patrons exit a crowded soccer stadium

By Kevin R. Betts

I started reading a book this weekend titled, “The Perfect Swarm: The Science of Complexity in Everyday Life.” Author Len Fisher’s central idea is that understanding swarm intelligence can help us make better decisions. Swarm intelligence refers to the collective behavior of decentralized organisms, whether they be locusts, ants, humans or otherwise. The inside cover reads, “…we can use swarm intelligence to start a craze, to work better in committees and get more from our social networks, or even to know when we should change our minds.” Stated simply, it is sometimes in our best interest to just follow the crowd.

As a student of social psychology, one particular question that Fisher asks caught my attention. When in an emergency situation, how can one best navigate a crowd to exit an area where others are also trying to exit? Real life examples of such situations include the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 as well as the nightclub fires in Rhode Island in 2003 and Moscow in 2009. Fisher’s recommendation is that potential victims head straight for the exits and continue onward until they are at a safe distance. He suggests that this ideal strategy is often impeded, however, by individuals who stop to seek out loved ones or secure their belongings and interfere with the flow of exiting traffic. What Fisher is suggesting is that we not try to be heroes. Rather, we should get the heck out while we can and expect that others are doing the same!

Fisher’s solution to this problem caught my attention because it promotes safety by discouraging helping behavior. It is known that in emergency situations where many people are present, people often fail to provide assistance because they either do not notice the incident, fail to interpret it as an emergency, or fail to assume responsibility. In the case of the 2001 terrorist attacks or the nightclub fires, it is probably the failure to assume responsibility which discourages helping the most. Social psychologists refer to this phenomenon as the bystander effect and have focused much effort on techniques to overcome it. This is because in most cases, it is socially advantageous to help. For example, coming to the aid of an individual experiencing a heart attack on a crowded street might save a life. Yet, as Fisher makes apparent, other situations exist where the best way to help others is simply to help ourselves.

Few of us will ever find ourselves in situations like those experienced by victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks or Rhode Island and Moscow nightclub fires. If we are so unfortunate, however, we might wish to take Fisher’s advice by at least considering whether our assistance would be of any value. What would you do in this situation? Do you expect that your loved ones would do the same?

Read more:

5 years after a nightclub fire, survivors struggle to remake their lives (New York Times)

Hoefnagels, C., & Zwikker, M. (2001). The bystander dilemma and child abuse: Extending the Latané and Darley Model to domestic violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1158-1183

View more posts by Kevin R. Betts

I came across this cartoon recently from Funnymos.com:

Obviously it is meant to be humorous but it also made me wonder:  Does having a trait like glasses change people’s initial impressions of you? And has there been any research on this topic? Turns out, there has.

According to research by Hellstrom and Tekle (1994), people infer not only occupations based on physical traits but also personal characteristics like intelligence and trustworthiness. The researchers conducted studies in which participants rated the personality characteristics and speculated about the occupation of several male faces with either glasses, hair, or a beard. The researchers found that the combination of having glasses, a beard, and no hair was associated most highly with intellectual professions. The opposite in each category led to the strongest belief that the face belonged to someone in a trade profession or a factory worker.

Another set of studies by Terry and Krantz (1993)    further suggest that both men and women with glasses are rated as more competent and also have less social forcefulness. However, in their studies they found that beards were related to less competence. A key difference in this study was that the researchers looked at each difference separately whereas the first study looked at the combination of factors together. So perhaps a beard alone can diminish perceptions of competence but  not when paired with glasses or bald hair in which case a beard has a positive effect on competence ratings.

Of course, these studies only varied a few physical traits and didn’t take into account all the other subtle influences that help form first impressions. Nonetheless, it makes me wonder, would people respect my research more if I wore glasses?

Read More: Dimensions of Trait Attributions Associated with Eyeglasses, Men’s Facial Hair, and Women’s Hair Length

Person perception through facial photographs: Effects of glasses, hair, and beard on judgments of occupation and personal qualities

By: Megan Birney

We all want to be happy.  It’s something we’ve learned to strive for and likely the primary motivator for trying to land that perfect job, find your soul mate, start a family, get that promotion or buy that dream home.  The idea of happiness has been embedded in American culture since the Declaration of Independence declared the “pursuit of happiness” as one of the unalienable rights of man.  But what is happiness exactly?  And how do we get it?  And why is it always the pursuit of happiness we focus on instead of the feeling of happiness itself?  Surely, if happiness is always a pursuit then it is something we will never actually attain.

In his article “The Medium Chill,” David Roberts suggests that it is this pursuit of happiness that drives our economy.  In order for the cycle of spending and debt to work, every consumer needs to believe they would be happier with that new Ipad, that designer outfit, and that bigger home.  And, in order to achieve these things, we spend the bulk of our time working long hours and putting up with terrible commutes.  As Roberts points out, these hours spent working are too often at the expense of our relationships with family and friends.

Decades of psychological research suggest that strong interpersonal relationships may be more important than material wealth when it comes to feeling happy.  While some psychologists  debate the exact role that relationships play in predicting happiness, they do agree that feeling socially connected is important. For instance, Diener and Seligman (2002) argue that strong social bonds are as universally necessary for happiness as food is for survival – further illustrating Roberts’ point that it’s counterproductive from a happiness standpoint to sacrifice time with loved ones in order to achieve material success.

So does this mean we should give up our goals of making money and buying nice things in order to spend time with our family?  Not completely.  Having money often leads to nice holidays, better healthcare, and a better education – all things that are also linked to happiness.  The key is to remember that money and material success along with social connectedness are vital for happiness: Money without strong relationships will never make you happy. And strong relationships without enough money to live relatively comfortably will also never make you happy.  It’s about not valuing one over the other and striking the right balance between the two.

So instead of thinking of happiness as a “pursuit” or something to strive for, focus instead on strengthening your current relationships.  Who knows?  You may discover that the goal of happiness is not too far off after all.

“The Medium Chill.”  By David Roberts

  Happiness: unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth.  By Ed   Diener and Robert Biswas-Diener

Associated Press

Making appeals to religion is nothing new for American politics. Nearly every candidate makes statements such as “God bless America” or claims that their candidacy is a calling from God. However, on the other end of the spectrum, claiming atheism, or a lack of belief, appears to be political suicide. This, in fact, speaks to the pervasiveness of appeals to religion in American politics. Michele Bachmann, an always controversial conservative figure, is certainly no exception. In fact, some have claimed her to be supportive of a theocratic political environment. She invokes religion in nearly every context of her political ideology, which is no surprise given her background. Not only does she do this explicitly, but she also appears to be doing it implicitly. As Michelle Goldberg writes, at the debate in which she announced her candidacy for president, Bachmann did not speak as much about her religion. Goldberg attributes this to Bachmann’s attempt at trying to reach a larger swath of constituents (such as individuals who did not want to hear preaching). Even so, she was still able to make implicit references to the bible. One may ask, why so many appeals to religion?

It is effective! According to research by Bethany Albertson (2011), religious appeals influence voters without their awareness. Using implicit attitude measures, Albertson found that religious appeals not only affect implicit attitudes toward politics, but also behaviors. Furthermore, it also works on those who have previously self-identified as Christian. Given the religious history of America, this finding is not surprising. However, it should be alarming given that our country was intended to keep religion distinct from political mechanisms. Blurring this line is a clear tactic being employed by Michele Bachmann and, as we have seen, it may work. The question is, how much religion is too much?

“Bachmann’s Unrivaled Extremism” By, Michelle Goldberg – The Daily Beast

“God Help the Atheist Politician” By, Jon Rice – Watch Blog

“Bachmann, Santorum Pledge Allegiance to Theocracy in America” – By, Kevin Gosztola

“Dominionist Battle Cry ‘We are the Head and Not the Tail’ Used by Bachmann in Debate” By, Rachel Tabachnick

Albertson, B. (2011). Religious appeals and implicit attitudes. Political Psychology, 32, 109-130

Read all of Adam K. Fetterman’s posts here.