The condition seems to affect how our senses work, and researchers may one day use this to make an objective diagnosis of depression.
A sad person who says that the world looks dull and gray and that flowers no longer smell so sweet may not just be speaking figuratively. Two recent studies from Germany provide evidence that sensory perception is diminished in depressed individuals.
To determine if depression has an effect on vision, neuropsychiatrist Ludger Tebartz van Elst of the University of Freiburg hooked up depressed patients and control subjects to a pattern electroretinograph, a device that measures electrical signals in the retina. When viewing black-and-white checkerboard images, people with depression showed markedly reduced electrical responses.
The effect may originate in the retina’s amacrine cells, which feed sensory input to the neurons in the eye. Amacrine cells rely on the neurotransmitter dopamine to function, and mood disorders have been linked to dopamine dysfunctions in the brain. Tebartz van Elst believes the visual response test could serve as an objective measure for establishing a diagnosis of depression: “The patients don’t have to say anything at all—they just keep their eyes open,” he says.
Separately, otorhinolaryngologist Thomas Hummel of the University of Dresden Medical School explored odor perception in depressed patients. Compared with control subjects, he found, people suffering from depression were less able to detect weak smells; MRI scans revealed that they had smaller olfactory bulbs, the brain structures involved in odor perception. Both Hummel and Tebartz van Elst next plan to investigate whether the successful treatment of depression restores the richness of the senses.
Via Discover Magazine article by Eliza Strickland
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Mental illness stigma lingers even though people understand it's a brain disease
By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times
Public perception of mental illness and addiction has changed significantly -- and for the good -- in the last 15 years. That doesn't mean, however, that people feel comfortable working or living near or being friends with someone with mental illness, according to a major new survey.
The study compared people's responses to vignettes involving mental illness and addiction to gauge public understanding of the illness and feelings toward those who are ill or addicted. The surveys took place in 1996 and 2006. The idea, the researchers said, was to assess whether major efforts to improve the treatment of mental conditions and eliminate stigma in the United States is working. Several sweeping efforts have been made in the past two decades to educate Americans on mental illness. A major theme of these campaigns is that mental illnesses and addiction are biological, brain-based, sometimes-genetic illnesses that are each "a disease like any other."
The survey finds the public has embraced that concept, but only to a point. The percentage of people who attributed depression to neurobiological causes increased from 54% of those surveyed in 1996 to 67% in 2006. Those who endorsed psychiatrists to help treat alcoholism increased from 61% to 79% in the 10-year period.
However, the willingness to associate with people with these disorders did not change much. For example, the percentage of people who said they are unwilling to work closely with someone with major depression was 46% in 1996 and 47% in 2006. The percentage of people who considered people with schizophrenia to be a danger to others was 54% in 1996 and 60% in 2006.
Though research and treatment options for people with mental illness or addiction have clearly improved, many could be held back by social stigma, said the authors of the study, led by Indiana University researchers. "Public attitudes matter," they wrote. "Attitudes can translate directly into fear or understanding, rejection or acceptance, delayed service use or early medical attention."
It may take a new approach -- something other than science-based anti-stigma campaigns -- to change public attitudes, the authors said. One such approach is to focus on the "abilities, competencies, and community integration of persons with mental illness and substance use disorders."
(Which brings to mind Los Angeles Laker's star Ron Artest and his efforts to raise money for mental health services by raffling his NBA Championship ring. Artest, who has been treated for depression, has been outspoken about the importance and value of seeking treatment. His "Win My Bling" raffle raised $120,000 in just one day last week.)
In a commentary accompanying the study, Dr. Howard H. Goldman of the University of Maryland points to encouraging signs that people with these diseases can live on equitable terms with those who have not suffered addiction or mental illness.
"We may not have eliminated social stigmatization of symptomatic individuals with mental illness," he wrote. "But improved treatment has helped many of them to make their symptoms and dysfunction less visible and less problematic."
The papers appear in the current issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Public perception of mental illness and addiction has changed significantly -- and for the good -- in the last 15 years. That doesn't mean, however, that people feel comfortable working or living near or being friends with someone with mental illness, according to a major new survey.
The study compared people's responses to vignettes involving mental illness and addiction to gauge public understanding of the illness and feelings toward those who are ill or addicted. The surveys took place in 1996 and 2006. The idea, the researchers said, was to assess whether major efforts to improve the treatment of mental conditions and eliminate stigma in the United States is working. Several sweeping efforts have been made in the past two decades to educate Americans on mental illness. A major theme of these campaigns is that mental illnesses and addiction are biological, brain-based, sometimes-genetic illnesses that are each "a disease like any other."
The survey finds the public has embraced that concept, but only to a point. The percentage of people who attributed depression to neurobiological causes increased from 54% of those surveyed in 1996 to 67% in 2006. Those who endorsed psychiatrists to help treat alcoholism increased from 61% to 79% in the 10-year period.
However, the willingness to associate with people with these disorders did not change much. For example, the percentage of people who said they are unwilling to work closely with someone with major depression was 46% in 1996 and 47% in 2006. The percentage of people who considered people with schizophrenia to be a danger to others was 54% in 1996 and 60% in 2006.
Though research and treatment options for people with mental illness or addiction have clearly improved, many could be held back by social stigma, said the authors of the study, led by Indiana University researchers. "Public attitudes matter," they wrote. "Attitudes can translate directly into fear or understanding, rejection or acceptance, delayed service use or early medical attention."
It may take a new approach -- something other than science-based anti-stigma campaigns -- to change public attitudes, the authors said. One such approach is to focus on the "abilities, competencies, and community integration of persons with mental illness and substance use disorders."
(Which brings to mind Los Angeles Laker's star Ron Artest and his efforts to raise money for mental health services by raffling his NBA Championship ring. Artest, who has been treated for depression, has been outspoken about the importance and value of seeking treatment. His "Win My Bling" raffle raised $120,000 in just one day last week.)
In a commentary accompanying the study, Dr. Howard H. Goldman of the University of Maryland points to encouraging signs that people with these diseases can live on equitable terms with those who have not suffered addiction or mental illness.
"We may not have eliminated social stigmatization of symptomatic individuals with mental illness," he wrote. "But improved treatment has helped many of them to make their symptoms and dysfunction less visible and less problematic."
The papers appear in the current issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Two Hours At TV Or Computer Screen Linked To Psychological Problems In Kids
A child who spends at least two hours a day in front of a TV screen or computer monitor has a significantly higher risk of developing psychological problems, no matter how much physical activity they do, researchers from the University of Bristol's Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, England reported in an article published in the American Journal of Pediatrics. The more physically active children who were in front of a screen for at least two hours a day appeared to do better than their sedentary peers in emotional and peer problems, but fared worse in behavioral areas, including hyperactivity.
This latest study, called The PEACH project, assessed over 1,000 kids aged ten and eleven years. The investigators gathered data on how long they spent in front of a computer monitor and/or TV screen, as well as their mental health. The children's levels of physical activity were measured and recorded using an activity monitor.
The researchers found that those children who spend at least two hours watching TV and/or using their computer for non-homework use (recreational use) had higher psychological difficulty scores compared to their peers who spent less time in front of screens. The investigators add that the difficulty scores persisted, irrespective of how physically active the children were.
In other words, it appears that regular prolonged exposure to monitors/screens increases the risk of psychological problems, and exercise does not seem to get rid of the problem.
The authors believe that limiting a child's exposure to TV/Computer screens could play an important role in protecting their current and future mental health and well-being.
Source: "Children's Screen Viewing is Related to Psychological Difficulties Irrespective of Physical Activity"
This latest study, called The PEACH project, assessed over 1,000 kids aged ten and eleven years. The investigators gathered data on how long they spent in front of a computer monitor and/or TV screen, as well as their mental health. The children's levels of physical activity were measured and recorded using an activity monitor.
The researchers found that those children who spend at least two hours watching TV and/or using their computer for non-homework use (recreational use) had higher psychological difficulty scores compared to their peers who spent less time in front of screens. The investigators add that the difficulty scores persisted, irrespective of how physically active the children were.
In other words, it appears that regular prolonged exposure to monitors/screens increases the risk of psychological problems, and exercise does not seem to get rid of the problem.
The authors believe that limiting a child's exposure to TV/Computer screens could play an important role in protecting their current and future mental health and well-being.
Source: "Children's Screen Viewing is Related to Psychological Difficulties Irrespective of Physical Activity"
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Study links bullying to cognitive deficits, brain changes
By ANNE MCILROY, Toronto Globe and Mail
They lurk in hallways, bathrooms, around the next blind corner. But for the children they have routinely teased or tormented, bullies effectively live in the victims' brains as well -- and not just as a terrifying memory.
Preliminary evidence shows that bullying can produce signs of stress, cognitive deficits and mental-health problems.
Now University of Ottawa psychologist Tracy Vaillancourt and her colleagues at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario plan to scan the brains of teens who have been regularly humiliated and ostracized by their peers to look for structural differences compared with other children.
"We know there is a functional difference. We know their brains are acting differently, but we don't know if it is structural as well," said Vaillancourt, an expert in the biology of bullying.
She says she hopes her work will legitimize the plight of children who are bullied, and encourage parents, teachers and school boards to take the problem more seriously.
Vaillancourt has been following a group of 17-year-olds since they were 12. All 70 of the children were routinely bullied during those years -- teased, harassed, threatened or excluded.
Physical violence is relatively rare, she says, because their tormentors are smart enough to know it will get them into trouble.
"For many of these kids, every day is a nightmare," she said. They go to school and no one will talk to them. Someone deliberately bumps into them in the hallway, and all the other children laugh. They get called horrible names.
The researchers will start with brain scans of 15 of the extreme cases, like the child who stood in her gym uniform while other kids put her school clothes in the toilet and urinated on them.
There are also teenagers in the study who have been bullied for five straight school years.
The scientists have already shown that children who are bullied are more likely than other kids to have cognitive deficits.
They score lower on tests that measure verbal memory and executive function, a set of skills needed to focus on a task and get the job done. Mental-health problems, such as depression, are also more common.
Vaillancourt suspects they will also have a smaller hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in memory. Depression has been shown to be related to a smaller hippocampus. As well, animal studies have shown that chronic high levels of stress can kill brain cells. Vaillancourt says this kind of damage may help explain why children who are bullied often perform poorly academically.
She will also be looking for a smaller prefrontal cortex, which plays a role in being able to pay attention and other executive functions.
These kinds of differences have been documented in functional magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, studies of children who have been neglected or abused. Vaillancourt suspects the chronic stress of being bullied will have a similar impact.
She and her colleagues have already published research showing that boys who are bullied tend to produce more of the stress hormone cortisol. It is as if their system is in permanent overdrive.
It's the opposite for the girls; they tend to produce less cortisol than average, as though their stress response system is overly subdued.
"At some point, their brains stop reacting," said Vaillancourt, who holds a Canada Research Chair in children's mental health and violence prevention.
These changes to the brain's stress response system may be linked to the higher rates of depression among children who are regularly picked on by their peers, especially girls. The adolescent years are when peer relations are most important and when girls, more than anything, want to belong, Vaillancourt says.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
They lurk in hallways, bathrooms, around the next blind corner. But for the children they have routinely teased or tormented, bullies effectively live in the victims' brains as well -- and not just as a terrifying memory.
Preliminary evidence shows that bullying can produce signs of stress, cognitive deficits and mental-health problems.
Now University of Ottawa psychologist Tracy Vaillancourt and her colleagues at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario plan to scan the brains of teens who have been regularly humiliated and ostracized by their peers to look for structural differences compared with other children.
"We know there is a functional difference. We know their brains are acting differently, but we don't know if it is structural as well," said Vaillancourt, an expert in the biology of bullying.
She says she hopes her work will legitimize the plight of children who are bullied, and encourage parents, teachers and school boards to take the problem more seriously.
Vaillancourt has been following a group of 17-year-olds since they were 12. All 70 of the children were routinely bullied during those years -- teased, harassed, threatened or excluded.
Physical violence is relatively rare, she says, because their tormentors are smart enough to know it will get them into trouble.
"For many of these kids, every day is a nightmare," she said. They go to school and no one will talk to them. Someone deliberately bumps into them in the hallway, and all the other children laugh. They get called horrible names.
The researchers will start with brain scans of 15 of the extreme cases, like the child who stood in her gym uniform while other kids put her school clothes in the toilet and urinated on them.
There are also teenagers in the study who have been bullied for five straight school years.
The scientists have already shown that children who are bullied are more likely than other kids to have cognitive deficits.
They score lower on tests that measure verbal memory and executive function, a set of skills needed to focus on a task and get the job done. Mental-health problems, such as depression, are also more common.
Vaillancourt suspects they will also have a smaller hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in memory. Depression has been shown to be related to a smaller hippocampus. As well, animal studies have shown that chronic high levels of stress can kill brain cells. Vaillancourt says this kind of damage may help explain why children who are bullied often perform poorly academically.
She will also be looking for a smaller prefrontal cortex, which plays a role in being able to pay attention and other executive functions.
These kinds of differences have been documented in functional magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, studies of children who have been neglected or abused. Vaillancourt suspects the chronic stress of being bullied will have a similar impact.
She and her colleagues have already published research showing that boys who are bullied tend to produce more of the stress hormone cortisol. It is as if their system is in permanent overdrive.
It's the opposite for the girls; they tend to produce less cortisol than average, as though their stress response system is overly subdued.
"At some point, their brains stop reacting," said Vaillancourt, who holds a Canada Research Chair in children's mental health and violence prevention.
These changes to the brain's stress response system may be linked to the higher rates of depression among children who are regularly picked on by their peers, especially girls. The adolescent years are when peer relations are most important and when girls, more than anything, want to belong, Vaillancourt says.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Have Your Say On New Psychiatric Manual
By Alix Spiegel
Finally, after years of work, the American Psychiatric Association has put out the list of mental illnesses it intends to include in its new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Have your say on a new psychiatric guide.
A new guidebook to the psychiatrist's couch is coming.
The DSM, as it's called for short, is incredibly influential. Doctors use it to diagnose patients, of course, but insurance companies also consult it in their decisions about reimbursements. Courts, schools, governments and researchers also turn to the manual for guidance on behavior that deviates from normal.
The manual and the secretive process for its drafting have attracted their share of controversy over the years. And the APA has been careful to say that this is a "proposed draft" of the new DSM, the fifth edition. For the first time, the group is inviting "public input."
Anyone--including you--can log on and tell the nice people working on DSM their thoughts about, say, the new proposed Temper Dysregulation Disorder. You have 10 weeks to speak up.
The people at the APA say they are doing this because they want to be transparent and take advantage of the Internet, but doing this could create some problems.
There are quite a few hot-button changes like the elimination of Asperger's that are sure to inflame passions. What will the APA do if Asperger's groups rally the troops and organize a write-in campaign? Will Asperger's be put back?
The APA has made a big deal of the DSM being the product of an intense scientific process. So if the group changes the contents based on interest group politics, they open themselves to fresh criticism that the DSM is less scientific than claimed.
Finally, after years of work, the American Psychiatric Association has put out the list of mental illnesses it intends to include in its new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Have your say on a new psychiatric guide.
A new guidebook to the psychiatrist's couch is coming.
The DSM, as it's called for short, is incredibly influential. Doctors use it to diagnose patients, of course, but insurance companies also consult it in their decisions about reimbursements. Courts, schools, governments and researchers also turn to the manual for guidance on behavior that deviates from normal.
The manual and the secretive process for its drafting have attracted their share of controversy over the years. And the APA has been careful to say that this is a "proposed draft" of the new DSM, the fifth edition. For the first time, the group is inviting "public input."
Anyone--including you--can log on and tell the nice people working on DSM their thoughts about, say, the new proposed Temper Dysregulation Disorder. You have 10 weeks to speak up.
The people at the APA say they are doing this because they want to be transparent and take advantage of the Internet, but doing this could create some problems.
There are quite a few hot-button changes like the elimination of Asperger's that are sure to inflame passions. What will the APA do if Asperger's groups rally the troops and organize a write-in campaign? Will Asperger's be put back?
The APA has made a big deal of the DSM being the product of an intense scientific process. So if the group changes the contents based on interest group politics, they open themselves to fresh criticism that the DSM is less scientific than claimed.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Fish oils 'beat mental illness'
Taking a daily fish oil capsule can stave off mental illness in those at highest risk, trial findings suggest.
A three-month course of the supplement appeared to be as effective as drugs, cutting the rate of psychotic illness like schizophrenia by a quarter.
The researchers believe it is the omega-3 in fish oil - already hailed for promoting healthy hearts - that has beneficial effects in the brain.
A "natural" remedy would be welcomed, Archives of General Psychiatry says.
"The finding that treatment with a natural substance may prevent, or at least delay, the onset of psychotic disorder gives hope that there may be alternatives to antipsychotic drugs," the study authors said.
“ If young people can be treated successfully with fish oils, this is hugely preferable to treating them with antipsychotics ”
Alison Cobb Mind
Antipsychotic drugs are potent and can have serious side effects, which puts some people off taking them.
Fish oil supplements, on the other hand, are generally well tolerated and easy to take, say the scientists.
The international team from Austria, Australia and Switzerland tested the treatment in 81 people deemed to be at particularly high risk of developing psychosis.
Natural choice
Their high risk was down to a strong family history of schizophrenia, or similar disorders, or them already showing mild symptoms of these conditions themselves.
For the test, half of the individuals took fish oil supplements (1.2 grams of omega-3 fatty acids) for 12 weeks, while the other half took only a dummy pill. Neither group knew which treatment they were receiving.
Dr Paul Amminger and his team followed the groups for a year to see how many, if any, went on to develop illness.
Two in the fish oil group developed a psychotic disorder compared to 11 in the placebo group.
Based on the results, the investigators estimate that one high-risk adult could be protected from developing psychosis for every four treated over a year.
They believe the omega-3 fatty acids found in the supplements may alter brain signalling in the brain with beneficial effects.
Alison Cobb, of the mental health charity Mind, said: "If young people can be treated successfully with fish oils, this is hugely preferable to treating them with antipsychotics, which come with a range of problems from weight gain to sexual dysfunction, whereas omega-3s are actually beneficial to their general state of health.
"These are promising results and more research is needed to show if omega-3s could be an alternative to antipsychotics in the long term."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8490937.stm
Published: 2010/02/02 00:02:02 GMT
© BBC MMX
A three-month course of the supplement appeared to be as effective as drugs, cutting the rate of psychotic illness like schizophrenia by a quarter.
The researchers believe it is the omega-3 in fish oil - already hailed for promoting healthy hearts - that has beneficial effects in the brain.
A "natural" remedy would be welcomed, Archives of General Psychiatry says.
"The finding that treatment with a natural substance may prevent, or at least delay, the onset of psychotic disorder gives hope that there may be alternatives to antipsychotic drugs," the study authors said.
“ If young people can be treated successfully with fish oils, this is hugely preferable to treating them with antipsychotics ”
Alison Cobb Mind
Antipsychotic drugs are potent and can have serious side effects, which puts some people off taking them.
Fish oil supplements, on the other hand, are generally well tolerated and easy to take, say the scientists.
The international team from Austria, Australia and Switzerland tested the treatment in 81 people deemed to be at particularly high risk of developing psychosis.
Natural choice
Their high risk was down to a strong family history of schizophrenia, or similar disorders, or them already showing mild symptoms of these conditions themselves.
For the test, half of the individuals took fish oil supplements (1.2 grams of omega-3 fatty acids) for 12 weeks, while the other half took only a dummy pill. Neither group knew which treatment they were receiving.
Dr Paul Amminger and his team followed the groups for a year to see how many, if any, went on to develop illness.
Two in the fish oil group developed a psychotic disorder compared to 11 in the placebo group.
Based on the results, the investigators estimate that one high-risk adult could be protected from developing psychosis for every four treated over a year.
They believe the omega-3 fatty acids found in the supplements may alter brain signalling in the brain with beneficial effects.
Alison Cobb, of the mental health charity Mind, said: "If young people can be treated successfully with fish oils, this is hugely preferable to treating them with antipsychotics, which come with a range of problems from weight gain to sexual dysfunction, whereas omega-3s are actually beneficial to their general state of health.
"These are promising results and more research is needed to show if omega-3s could be an alternative to antipsychotics in the long term."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8490937.stm
Published: 2010/02/02 00:02:02 GMT
© BBC MMX
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Self-Control Just Might Be Contagious
MONDAY, Jan. 18 (HealthDay News) -- If you spend time with people who exhibit self-control -- resisting the death-by-chocolate cake after a restaurant meal, for instance -- you can expect your own self-control to be pretty good, too, according to new research.
But the opposite seems true, too: Spending time with people with less-than-ideal self-control will influence you negatively, the researchers found.
"Before, we knew people tended to hang out with other people who were like themselves," said Michelle vanDellen, a visiting assistant professor of psychology at the University of Georgia, who led the research, which was published online in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
"But in these studies, we actually show there is a direct effect of our friends' behavior on our own behavior," vanDellen said. The findings apply, she said, "not only to the people we [choose to] hang out with, but those we are forced to hang out with," such as co-workers on the job.
The conclusions came from five studies conducted by vanDellen and her co-author, Rick Hoyle of Duke University.
The best study, she said, and the most fun, involved 71 participants and two plates of food -- one stacked with carrot sticks, the other with freshly baked chocolate chip cookies. The participants either watched someone exhibit self-control by eating the carrots and leaving the cookies, or vice versa. Later, the participants took self-control tests (not involving cookies and carrots). Those who had watched a person eat cookies did less well than those who had watched someone eat carrots.
In another study, the researchers found that 36 participants randomly assigned to think of a friend with good self-control persisted longer on a handgrip test used to measure self-control than did the participants assigned to think about a friend with bad self-control.
Another study involved assigning 42 people to list the names of friends with good and bad self-control. As the participants took a test designed to measure self-control, a name was flashed very briefly on a computer screen. Those who saw the name of a friend with good self-control did better on the test than those who saw the name of a friend with poor self-control.
The researchers also assigned 112 people to write about a friend with good self-control, a friend with bad self-control or an outgoing friend. Those who wrote about a friend with good self-control did best on a test of self-control, those who wrote about a friend with bad self-control did worst and those who wrote about an outgoing friend scored in between the others.
In the fifth study, 117 people were randomly assigned to write about friends with good or bad self-control. Those who wrote about a friend with good self-control did better on word identification tests related to self-control, the researchers found.
"I think the message is really two-fold," vanDellen said of the research. "The first is, one way you can improve your behavior is by finding social networkers that support you." It makes sense, she said, to seek out people you know have self-control if you want to boost your own.
The other message, she said, is accountability. The research suggests that others aren't just watching your behavior when you show a lack of self-control but might actually be influenced by it. If a woman's husband is trying to lose weight, for instance, the last thing she should do is act like a lazy person who doesn't exercise in front of him, she said.
The research findings make sense, said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis. "Surrounding yourself with motivated, healthy people improves your odds of staying in control," she said.
Diekman said that's certainly the case with healthy eating. "When it comes to making healthy choices, we know that it is easier to skip dessert, limit portions or purchase the right foods if others we are with support these behaviors," she said.
By Kathleen Doheny HealthDay Reporter Copyright © 2010 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
But the opposite seems true, too: Spending time with people with less-than-ideal self-control will influence you negatively, the researchers found.
"Before, we knew people tended to hang out with other people who were like themselves," said Michelle vanDellen, a visiting assistant professor of psychology at the University of Georgia, who led the research, which was published online in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
"But in these studies, we actually show there is a direct effect of our friends' behavior on our own behavior," vanDellen said. The findings apply, she said, "not only to the people we [choose to] hang out with, but those we are forced to hang out with," such as co-workers on the job.
The conclusions came from five studies conducted by vanDellen and her co-author, Rick Hoyle of Duke University.
The best study, she said, and the most fun, involved 71 participants and two plates of food -- one stacked with carrot sticks, the other with freshly baked chocolate chip cookies. The participants either watched someone exhibit self-control by eating the carrots and leaving the cookies, or vice versa. Later, the participants took self-control tests (not involving cookies and carrots). Those who had watched a person eat cookies did less well than those who had watched someone eat carrots.
In another study, the researchers found that 36 participants randomly assigned to think of a friend with good self-control persisted longer on a handgrip test used to measure self-control than did the participants assigned to think about a friend with bad self-control.
Another study involved assigning 42 people to list the names of friends with good and bad self-control. As the participants took a test designed to measure self-control, a name was flashed very briefly on a computer screen. Those who saw the name of a friend with good self-control did better on the test than those who saw the name of a friend with poor self-control.
The researchers also assigned 112 people to write about a friend with good self-control, a friend with bad self-control or an outgoing friend. Those who wrote about a friend with good self-control did best on a test of self-control, those who wrote about a friend with bad self-control did worst and those who wrote about an outgoing friend scored in between the others.
In the fifth study, 117 people were randomly assigned to write about friends with good or bad self-control. Those who wrote about a friend with good self-control did better on word identification tests related to self-control, the researchers found.
"I think the message is really two-fold," vanDellen said of the research. "The first is, one way you can improve your behavior is by finding social networkers that support you." It makes sense, she said, to seek out people you know have self-control if you want to boost your own.
The other message, she said, is accountability. The research suggests that others aren't just watching your behavior when you show a lack of self-control but might actually be influenced by it. If a woman's husband is trying to lose weight, for instance, the last thing she should do is act like a lazy person who doesn't exercise in front of him, she said.
The research findings make sense, said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis. "Surrounding yourself with motivated, healthy people improves your odds of staying in control," she said.
Diekman said that's certainly the case with healthy eating. "When it comes to making healthy choices, we know that it is easier to skip dessert, limit portions or purchase the right foods if others we are with support these behaviors," she said.
By Kathleen Doheny HealthDay Reporter Copyright © 2010 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)