Saturday, March 10, 2007

Sex cues ruin men's decisiveness

Catching sight of a pretty woman really is enough to throw a man's decision-making skills into disarray, a study suggests.
The more testosterone he has, the stronger the effect, according to work by Belgian researchers.
Men about to play a financial game were shown images of sexy women or lingerie.
The Proceedings of the Royal Society B study found they were more likely to accept unfair offers than men not been exposed to the alluring images.
The suggestion is that the sexual cues distract the men's thoughts, preventing them from focusing on their task - particularly among those with high natural testosterone levels.
The University of Leuven researchers gave 176 heterosexual male student volunteers aged 18 to 28 financial games to test their fair play.

But first, half of the men were shown sexual cues of some kind.
One group of 44 men were given pictures to rate; some were shown landscapes while the rest were shown attractive women.
Another group, of 37 men, were either asked to assess the quality, texture and colour of a bra or a t-shirt.
And a third group of 95 were shown either pictures of elderly women or young models.
Each group was then paired up to play a game where the men had $10, a proposer had to suggest a split, and the other man accepted or rejected the offer.
If the second man accepted the offer, the money was distributed in agreement with the offer. If he rejected it, neither partner got anything.
The game is designed as a lab model of hunting or food sharing situations.
'Vulnerable'
The men's performance in the tests showed those who had been exposed to the "sexual cues" were more likely to accept an unfair offer than those who were not.
The men's testosterone levels were also tested - by comparing the length of the men's index finger compared to their ring finger.
If the ring finger is longer, it indicates a high testosterone level.
The researchers found that men in the study who had the highest levels performed worst in the test, and suggest that is because they are particularly sensitive to sexual images.
Dr Siegfried DeWitte, one of the researchers who worked on the study, said: "We like to think we are all rational beings, but our research suggests ... that people with high testosterone levels are very vulnerable to sexual cues.
"If there are no cues around, they behave normally.
"But if they see sexual images they become impulsive."
He added: "It's a tendency, but these people are not powerless to fight it.
"Hormone levels are one thing, but we can learn to deal with it."
The researchers are conducting similar tests with women. But so far, they have failed to find a visual stimulus which will affect their behaviour."
Dr George Fieldman, principal lecturer in psychology at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, told the BBC News website: "The fact men are distracted by sexual cues fits in to evolutionary experience. It's what they are expected to do.
"They are looking for opportunities to pass on their genes."
He said the study confirmed what had been suspected by many.
"If a man is being asked to choose between something being presented by an attractive woman and an ugly man, they might not be as dispassionate as they could be."
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/4921690.stmPublished: 2006/04/19 11:14:22 GMT© BBC MMVII

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Canadians rage, rage against dying of the light

Sleep experts expect U.S.-led time shift to take its toll on the seasonally depressed
HAYLEY MICK
Globe and Mail Update
TORONTO — If rising before the sun leaves you feeling blue after daylight time kicks in on Sunday, blame the Americans.
Daylight time begins three weeks early this year and lasts one week longer. Most of Canada has agreed to adopt the new schedule pushed through by the U.S. Congress two years ago in its bid to save energy costs.
But mental-health experts warn that extension, which begins March 11, could make people feel sad for a longer period of time. People with seasonal affective disorder – or its milder version, the so-called winter blahs – could be thrust back into depression-inducing darkness during a month when they might normally be seeing the light.
"So you've got a double whammy," said Michael Terman, director of Columbia University's Center for Light Treatment and Biological Rhythms in New York. "Not only is the winter forcing the sun to rise later, but we are now pushing it back artificially. It's analogous to shifting our circadian clock back into its February mode."
When most of Canada, except Nunavut and Saskatchewan, the only large jurisdictions not using daylight time moves the clock ahead on Sunday, an hour of daylight will be taken from the morning and tacked onto the evening. In Thunder Bay, the sun rose yesterday at 7:28. On Sunday, the city will be in darkness until past 8 a.m.
While an extra hour of afternoon sun may make gardeners and joggers happy, experts say waking up in darkness is what really messes with the body's natural cycles that regulate appetite, sleep and mood.
"There's a biological clock in the brain . . . and that clock is affected by light," says Raymond Lam, director of the Mood Disorder Clinic at the University of British Columbia. "It looks like the dawn signal is more important than the dusk signal for that synchronization."
Between 1 and 3 per cent of Canadians suffer from seasonal affective disorder, or SAD, a clinical illness with symptoms ranging from extreme lethargy to depression. Another 15 per cent suffer from the milder winter blahs, Dr. Lam said.
"March is that time when they would ordinarily be starting to feel better," he said, adding most patients feel like themselves from May through October. "This will make it tougher for them."
But some sufferers are looking forward to the switch. Heather Stevenson, 45, is a mother of three who has had seasonal affective disorder since moving to Ontario from South Africa six years ago. It forced her to quit her job as a high-school math teacher, and from November to May she's in bed by 8 p.m. Some days she can barely move her limbs.
"I'm very glad to hear that the time's going back because it's lighter at the end of the day," she said from her Barrie home. "The worst time of day for me is in the evening with the sun setting at 5."
Researchers will be keeping a close eye on how this new shift in daylight time affects people with seasonal mood disorders, said Anthony Levitt, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and an expert in seasonal affective disorder. "We've got this huge natural experiment and we'll see what happens. Will it be better for them or will it in fact be more difficult? . . . We're going to inquire with our patients whether there's been any difference."

Insufferable Clinginess, or Healthy Dependence?

By BENEDICT CAREY, New York Times
The domestic scenes that would slowly suffocate the marriage were not scenes at all, in the usual sense, but silences, imagined slights, private fears that went unspoken. She would ask him to do the dishes after dinner and feel a shudder when he put off the chore, as if it were a rejection.
Or she would dress up to go out, and then struggle against a growing dread as the moments passed and he did not comment on how good she looked.
“I never once said anything, but I had this need for approval, this terrible dependence that he had no way to understand,” Ronni Weinstein, 61, a therapist living near Chicago, said about her former husband. Indeed, she added, she has since learned that her dependent urges might have been used to bind the marriage rather than undermine it.
“That’s what healthy couples learn to do,” she said, “to voluntarily depend on one another and decide who is doing what for the relationship.”
Neediness has a familiar face: the close friend who is continually asking for reassurance, for advice, for help with the wireless connection. The accomplished adult who lurches from one relationship to another, playing geisha for each new partner. The abused spouse who is afraid to walk out.
Yet only in recent years have researchers begun to realize that while in some guises dependence can undermine mental health, in others it can provide valuable social support.
At one extreme is an ingrained, helpless need to be cared for — a stubborn problem that psychiatrists diagnose as dependent personality disorder. In milder forms, dependency can come across as an annoying clinginess. But it can also be a protective warmth that cements romantic relationships in times of stress. It is the way people manage dependent urges, researchers are finding, that determines the effect of needy behavior on relationships.
“There are the dependent people who panic easily, who are calling a friend or spouse 15 times a day, undermining the relationship, and then there are those who have learned to modulate their impulses,” said Dr. Robert F. Bornstein, a psychologist at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y., and co-author, with his wife, Mary A. Languirand, of “Healthy Dependency” (Newmarket Press, 2003).“These people may have dependency needs that are very intense,” he continued, “but they have developed social skills, learned to make others feel good about helping them. That makes all the difference.”
A tug-of-war between headstrong independence and needy vulnerability is visible as early as infancy. In so-called attachment studies, young children or primates who are confident in their mother’s affections tend to be confident when exploring an unfamiliar room or meeting a stranger. Those who are less secure often cling to their mothers in new situations, noticeably fearful.
“This is an absolutely fundamental dynamic that underlies all of our interpersonal relations, as well as psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Sydney Blatt, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University.
Researchers measure the strength of dependency traits by having people rate how highly they endorse certain beliefs, like, “After a fight with a friend, I must make amends as soon as possible”; “I am very sensitive to others for signs of rejection”; or “I have a lot of trouble making decisions for myself.”
In studies, people who score highly on these tests also tend to rate their parents as either authoritarian or overly protective (or one of each). “The message growing up is: You’re fragile, you’re weak, you need someone powerful to look after you,” Dr. Bornstein said.
That upbringing primes many people, as they grow, to seek similarly dependent pairings, with friends, colleagues and romantic partners. The pattern persists at least in part because it is frequently rewarded.
In one recent study, psychologists rated 48 men and women attending Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania on measures of dependency, and calculated their grade-point averages. After controlling for the students’ SAT scores and the difficulty of their course schedules, among other factors, the researchers found, to their surprise, that those students who scored highly on measures of dependency were doing significantly better, on average, than those who were more self-sufficient.
One likely reason, the authors found, was that dependent students were much more likely to say they sought help with course work from their professors.
In another experiment, presented in January at the American Psychoanalytic Association’s annual meeting, psychologists at the University of Leuven in Belgium measured dependency traits, relationship satisfaction and levels of conflict in 266 adults in long-term relationships. The researchers found that dependent partners scored significantly higher on satisfaction than more self-sufficient ones — but only when couples were struggling.
At least in the short run, dependent traits seemed to buffer the relationships in times of crisis, the authors suggest. Afraid of losing the relationship, “individuals high on dependency may actually behave in a more positive way to their partner, like being more complying, being more loving,” said Bénédicte Lowyck, the psychologist who led the study.
In the long run, Ms. Lowyck said, it is not at all clear whether such protective instincts nourish a relationship or smother it. The answer will depend on the couple, experts say, and likely on the content of a partner’s dependence: how it is expressed, whether the person is generous as well as needy, flexible as well as anxious.
To distinguish different shades, or varieties, of dependency, two psychologists, Aaron L. Pincus of Pennsylvania State and Michael B. Gurtman of the University of Wisconsin, Parkside, administered an exhaustive battery of dependency-related questionnaires to 654 psychology students. The scales rated everything from social confidence to preference for solitude to urges to please others. The psychologists’ analysis of the answers suggested that there were three distinct varieties of dependent behavior patterns.
One was defined predominantly by submissiveness (“I don’t have what it takes to be a good leader” or “I am easily downed in an argument”). Another was characterized principally by exploitability (“I am afraid of hurting people’s feelings” or “I do things that are not in my best interest in order to please others”). And a third, which the psychologists call love dependency, was based on a longing for social connection (“Being isolated from others is bound to lead to unhappiness” or “After a fight with a friend, I must make amends as soon as possible”).
People who struggle with an exaggerated need for the comfort of others may show flashes of all three types. “But it is this love dependency that is the most adaptive,” Dr. Pincus said. “These are people that form very strong attachments, who are not happy unless surrounded by friends and family” and least likely to stumble over their own anxieties.
Dr. Weinstein, the Chicago-area therapist, said that in more than 30 years of practice she had seen dozens of couples in which submission and exploitation have ended marriages. And studies now suggest that in severely troubled, abusive relationships, the aggressor, as well as the victim, often have a dependent fear of losing the relationship.
“This is the kind of couple where maybe the husband says: ‘You’re going to the store by yourself? You’re going to leave me here alone? You can’t do that — here, I’ll drive you,’ ” Dr. Weinstein said.
“And this kind of trivial-sounding exchange can turn very demanding and even violent, because of this unreasonable fear of abandonment.”
Skilled therapists can help people manage such fears, but there is little research to guide treatment. In one approach, people learn to identify, and alter, some of the conversation habits that make their interactions with others so volatile.
For example, they learn to reduce the number of times they seek reassurance in a conversation — “You’re not just saying that, right?” “Do you really mean that?” — and, eventually, to shift the focus of the conversation to the other person.
The patient can also learn to defuse his or her fears of losing a relationship by taking some of the hard evidence of a partner’s commitment at face value: flowers, romantic dinners, back rubs.
The partner can help, too, at least in cases of garden-variety neediness. Psychiatrists often advise a kind of sympathetic distancing: acknowledge the person’s fears; offer some reassurance; but nudge (or push) the person to at least experiment with interests, hobbies or habits that don’t revolve around the relationship.
And then turn off the cellphone for a few hours.