Bloggers are happier – feel bloggers

ABCnews is reporting on a study which says that after a couple of months of regular blogging bloggers feel they have a better social life than non-bloggers. Excerpt:

The research, from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, found after two months of regular blogging, people felt they had better social support and friendship networks than those who did not blog.

[…]

Bloggers reported a greater sense of belonging to a group of like-minded people and feeling more confident they could rely on others for help.

All respondents, whether or not they blogged, reported feeling less anxious, depressed and stressed after two months of online social networking.

Blogging is good for your (perceived?) social life. And online social networks are good for your mental health. Cool. (Looks like the bloggers in question hadn’t started receiving comments from users yet!)

See full article (via techcrunch)

The Nocebo Effect: Placebo’s Evil Twin

The Washington Post has an interesting article about the nocebo effect:

Ten years ago, researchers stumbled onto a striking finding: Women who believed that they were prone to heart disease were nearly four times as likely to die as women with similar risk factors who didn’t hold such fatalistic views.

The higher risk of death, in other words, had nothing to with the usual heart disease culprits — age, blood pressure, cholesterol, weight. Instead, it tracked closely with belief. Think sick, be sick.
Free E-mail Newsletters

That study is a classic in the annals of research on the “nocebo” phenomenon, the evil twin of the placebo effect. While the placebo effect refers to health benefits produced by a treatment that should have no effect, patients experiencing the nocebo effect experience the opposite. They presume the worst, health-wise, and that’s just what they get.

Another example:

Fifteen years ago, researchers at three medical centers undertook a study of aspirin and another blood thinner in heart patients and came up with an unexpected result that said little about the heart and much about the brain. At two locations, patients were warned of possible gastrointestinal problems, one of the most common side effects of repeated use of aspirin. At the other location, patients received no such caution.

When researchers reviewed the data, they found a striking result: Those warned about the gastrointestinal problems were almost three times as likely to have the side effect. Though the evidence of actual stomach damage such as ulcers was the same for all three groups, those with the most information about the prospect of minor problems were the most likely to experience the pain.

So why haven’t you heard of this nocebo effect before? Here’s why:

Despite the smattering of doctors’ anecdotal reports and a few modest clinical studies, research on the phenomenon has not been robust, mostly for ethical reasons: Doctors ought not to induce illness in patients who are not sick.

See full article (found via A.Word.A.Day).

Why is beauty?

I know the title does not make grammatical sense. But think about it. Normally we focus a lot on who is beautiful. Not so much on the why. I’ve alluded in the past to the evolutionary reasons behind beauty. This idea is expounded in detail by Nancy Etcoff in her book Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, which makes the case that “looking good has survival value, and that sensitivity to beauty is a biological adaptation governed by brain circuits shaped by natural selection”.

This is what boing-boing has to say about the idea:

Why do we think that certain things are beautiful? Because our ancestors did; it connotes an advantage to survival and reproduction.

When people are asked to describe a beautiful landscape they say the same thing: lake, river, mountain trees. We evolved to think it is beautiful becuase it is safe with escape routes.

When asked to describe beautiful people: clear skin, bright eyes, shiny hair — all of these things connote health fertility, protection.

There is interesting research backing up these claims:

Psychologists find that babies stare significantly longer at the faces adults find appealing, while the mothers of “attractive” babies display more intense bonding behaviors. The symmetrical face of average proportions may have become the optimal design because of evolutionary pressures operating against population extremes. Gentlemen may prefer blondes not so much for their hair color as for the fairness of their skin–which makes it easier to detect the flush of sexual excitement.

(source: Amazon’s review of the book.)

While looking into the background of these claims, I stumbled onto a bunch of fascinating facts about beauty and related aspects (like the handicap principle) that I plan to cover in future posts. Stay tuned.