-
Seeing is Believing, but Hearing Could Be Misleading
The game “spot-the-difference,” in which a player is presented with two photos and asked to pinpoint the variations, is an excellent example of the human brain’s ability to perceive detailed changes in complex images. Up until now, scientists proposed that our auditory and visual perceptions functioned through similar parts of the brain. But thanks to a study from the Université Bordeaux in France, that notion is about to change. Psychologists Laurent Demany, Wiebke Trost, Maja Serman and Catherine Semal discovered that, despite popular belief, our ability to detect auditory and visual changes appears to be controlled by separate mechanisms.
-
Unanimous Union: The Mind and Body Together Lean Toward ‘Truthiness’
‘Truthiness,’ according to television satirist Stephen Colbert, represents the human preference to follow our intuition despite the presence of facts or evidence. For example, the more ambiguous an answer to a question, the more likely an individual will believe it is truthful. At least that is what psychologists Rick Dale of the University of Memphis, Michael Spivey of Cornell University and the late Chris McKinstry found when they asked college students questions that ranged in levels of vagueness and tracked their corresponding arm movements to clicking ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a computer screen.
-
The Human Brain: Detective of Auditory and Visual Change
The human brain is capable of detecting the slightest visual and auditory changes. Whether it is the flash of a student’s hand into the air or the faintest miscue of a flutist, the brain instantaneously and effortlessly perceives changes in our environment. Several studies have indicated, however, that even a small span of time in between pre- and post-change images can disturb the brain’s ability to detect visual discrepancies. “The pre-change scene must be memorized in some way,” explained psychologists Laurent Demany, Wiebke Trost, Maja Serman and Catherine Semal from the University of Bordeaux and the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS).
-
Nature and Nurture are Both to Blame for Depression, Study Says.
Depression is one of the most common forms of psychopathology. According to diathesis–stress theories of depression, genetic liability interacts with negative life experiences to cause depression. Traditionally, most studies testing these theories have focused on only one component of the diathesis–stress model: either genetics or environment, but not their interaction. However, because of recent advances in genetics and genomics, researchers have begun using a new design that allows them to test the interaction of genetic and environmental liabilities – the G x E design. Studies suggest that the neurotransmitter dopamine may play a role in the risk for depression.
-
A Sense of Scarcity: Why it Seems Like All the Good Ones are Taken
Singles’ bars, classified personals and dating websites are a reflection, not only of the common human desire to find a mate, but of the sense of scarcity that seems to surround the hunt. Many people participate in dating activities in the hopes of finding that special someone, yet feel as though it is an impossible task. However, thanks to an international team of psychologists, the solution may be closer than we think—within ourselves, to be exact.
-
Lasting Impression: Does the Face of a CEO Determine a Successful Company?
It certainly takes more than a pretty face to run a leading national corporation. But according to a recent Tufts University study, the performance levels of America’s top companies could be related to the first impressions made by their chief executive officers (CEOs). Using photographs of the highest and lowest ranked Fortune 1000 companies’ CEOs, psychologists Nicholas Rule and Nalini Ambady quizzed ordinary college students to determine which of the pictured faces were characteristic of a leader.
