Zheng Wang, Photo courtesy of Science Daily (taken by Kevin Fitzsimons)

 ScienceDaily reports on another way people avoid information that challenges their beliefs.   The 2008 study found that:

Partisan participants reacted strongly to ads featuring their favored candidate, but barely responded to ads featuring the rival candidate.  In comparison, people who didn’t favor one candidate over the other showed similar physiological response patterns and intensity to ads for both candidates.

“A lot of research has shown that, behaviorally, we tend to selectively expose ourselves to information that reinforces our existing opinions. But this study further suggests that even when exposed to information, our attention to what is presented is highly selective, as well.”  Says Zheng Wang, assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University and co-author of the study.

Participants were hooked up to electrodes that measured four physiological responses: heart rate, skin conductance  and muscle movements around the cheekbone and around the eyebrows.

While hooked up, each participant watched 12 campaign ads while their physiological reactions were recorded.  After watching the ads, they filled out measures of how positively and negatively they regarded the person represented in the campaign ad.

Simply put Wang states, “If people are exposed to information in ads regarding a candidate they oppose, they respond by basically tuning out, “  She goes on to point out, “At any one time, ad viewers’ reactions are affected not just by what they are seeing at that exact moment, but also by what came before in the ad.  The dynamical feedback model puts it all together to see how people react in a real-time, real-world way.”

The feedback model suggests that the positive feelings that viewers have are amplified as they watch an ad for their candidate.  But for opponents, the feedback effects actually seem to decrease their response over time as they watch the ad, that is, they tune out.

Do you tune out the ads for people you don’t support ?  Is this study Interesting or Insulting ?
Share your thoughts with the Humintell Community

The Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP) set out to answer the question, how are emotions generated in the brain?  They are using mice as a model to map the emotional circuitry within the neural network of the brain in an effort to study how activity in these areas elicit emotions.

Science 2.0 reports on this interesting research project.  Surprisingly,  mice have a very similar brain anatomy to humans; therefore, are great candidates for this study.

The scientists set out with the premise that our emotions are based on the activity of nerve cells. Emotions cause activity to happen in several parts of the brain such as the neocortex, the brain stem and an almond-shaped region in the limbic system called the amygdala.

The researchers plan to navigate their hypothesis via virus interactions with the brain; hopefully, helping them to fully understand the origin of emotions.  Why use viruses?  Well, they infect nerve cells and migrate along them to the brain.  They will inject a florescent protein into the virus to track the path it takes through the brain.

This project will also answer the question, ‘how genes and pharmaceutical substances affect the activity of neuronal circuits and influence emotions?’ .

In an interesting and related article by Science Codex, purports that the language we use when describing an event affects our overall mood.

The study focused on what type of verbiage we use when we talk about a past event.  They noted that we can describe events either as already completed (I ran) or as ongoing (I was running).   Why is this Important? 

The researchers suggest that to improve your mood you should talk about a negative past event as something that has already happened opposed to an event that was happening.  How does that Help?

Their findings revealed that people who described a positive event with words that suggested it was ongoing felt more positive. And when they described a negative event in the same way, they felt more negative.

 Let the Humintell community know your thoughts on this research

Below is the continuation of the interview with Dr. Matsumoto  about his current research on Triumph vs. Pride by science reporter, Anna Meldolesi, for her Italian Newspaper, Il Corriere della sera:

Q2:  What about defeat behavior in athletes and primates?

Dr. Matsumoto:  Our papers show the behaviors of the defeated to include head down, arms brought to the side or front, eyes gazing down, face covers. These behaviors are consistent with the emotion of sadness and/or shame.

Q3:  Can you comment on behavior and expressions of elite athletes before competition? Think of Usain Bolt for example. Are they kidding or threatening competitors?

Dr. Matsumoto:  Can’t really comment as we have never studied it formally. Anecdotally I think each athlete is different in their optimal “game face.” While there are the Usain Bolt’s of the world, there are other athletes who do very different things yet perform extremely well. It would be a good study.

 Q4:  Marco Balotelli is a talented and eccentric football player often criticized by the media and targeted by racist remarks in Italy.  After scoring twice in a very important match this year, he  took his t-shirt off and posed like Hulk in the middle of the field.  Can you please comment that expression [Below]?

Dr. Matsumoto:  It’s different than what we study because we examine the initial, automatic, and probably unconscious reaction to the win. The expressions you have here occur seconds later where the person is posing and voluntarily expressing behaviors. All in all they all serve to enhance the dominance and success of the person, but these are all unique because they happen after the initial reactions and are voluntarily driven.

Q5:  What can you say about these two photographs [below]?