Wealth & Happiness: A Rocky Relationship

By Dr.Tony Scinta, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology

If we know anything about life, it’s that money can’t buy you love.  Or at least that’s what the Beatles keep telling us.  But what about happiness?  Given that much of our lives are dedicated to the pursuit of money and the fringe benefits that come with it (plasma TVs, nice cars, the occasional yacht), one might assume a positive correlation between wealth and happiness.  That is, as wealth goes up, happiness goes up, too. 

Surprisingly enough, research on the subject suggests a more complicated relationship.  On the one hand, there seems to be a positive correlation between wealth and happiness at very low levels of income – if you’re not making enough money to meet the bare necessities of life (namely food and shelter), your happiness is likely to be affected (Di Tella, MacCulloch, & Oswald, 2001).  On the other hand, once you get beyond basic life needs, the day-to-day happiness experienced by people at even very low levels of income may only be slightly lower than the happiness experienced by people who count themselves among the financially fortunate.

For example, a large-scale 2006 study guided by economist Alan Krueger and psychologist Daniel Kahneman at Princeton University looked at how much of a person’s daily life was spent in a bad mood (Kahneman, Schkade, Schwarz and Stone, 2006).  They found that people who made less than $20,000/year spent only 12% more time in a bad mood than people who exceeded $100,000/year.  A difference, but not much of a difference, and far less than most people suspected.  The majority of respondents incorrectly believed that people who make less than $20k/year would spend far more of their time feeling unhappy.

Some researchers believe the finding can be attributed to the “hedonic treadmill.”  Basically, the more you have, the more you want.  The principle might help explain why some high-profile people who make millions of dollars each year wind up bankrupt, as showcased in a recent article from National Public Radio.  As one’s means increase, so does consumption.  It’s a potential recipe for disaster for someone, like an athlete, whose income may be tied to a relatively small window of superior performance.

Does all of this mean people shouldn’t try to make more money?  Not necessarily – as I mentioned above, this is a complex, multi-faceted issue.  For example, researchers often look at two types of happiness – day-to-day feelings of well-being and overall satisfaction with one’s life, and each one relates differently to personal wealth.  Moreover, relative wealth – how you fare compared to those around you – may be more important than absolute wealth (making $35,000/year seems like a good deal if most of your acquaintances make $20,000/year, or worse).  If there’s a message, it’s that it probably does not hurt to question your assumptions, especially when it comes to major life issues like the pursuit of happiness. 

Multi-taxing: The Pitfalls of Task Overload

By Dr. Tony Scinta, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology


Photo Courtesy of andy_carter via Flickr

Chances are, someone is reading this blog on an exercise bike with a cell phone in one hand, a baby in the other, and a freshly changed diaper clenched in his teeth. A bit of an exaggeration, perhaps, but not by much – swap the baby with an iPad, the diaper with a bottle of vitamin water, and add a pair of headphones, and you have an accurate picture of the modern, middle-class American.

Fact is, we live in a multi-tasking society. If you’re not doing four things at once – I’m composing this as I iron my clothes, and I’m driving – you’re not doing it right. Lately researchers have begun to question this assumption. They wonder if the burden of relentless multi-tasking can make it more difficult for us to exert the will power needed to succeed in other areas of life, from the completion of course assignments to the maintenance of a healthy diet.

A recent series of studies attempted to demonstrate exactly that. The studies – five in all – showed that “frequently switching your mind-set or focus uses a lot of self-control.” In a representative study, participants who were forced to “multi-task” in an initial phase of the experiment performed more poorly on a subsequent task than participants who did not multi-task at all. The researchers behind the studies suggest that multi-tasking “can be taxing on the executive function of your brain and reduce your ability to use self-control in other areas of your life.”

Though the studies are recent, the concept being studied is much older than your Grandma’s flip phone. Related research has long examined the notion of “ego depletion,” which views self-control as a limited resource. Accordingly, if you drain your self-control by juggling a number of tasks at the same time, you’ll have left control “left over” when you need it do other things (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010).

Studies have supported the idea of ego depletion, but, as I always tell my students, it’s important to consider alternative explanations and contrary possibilities. For example, though multi-tasking may lead to a momentary lapse of self-control and an ill-advised bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, might the long-term implications tell a different story? For example, the concept of “self-efficacy” is defined as “the belief in one’s ability to perform a task or to execute a behavior successfully” (Bandura, 1997). High self-efficacy, in turn, has been shown to improve a person’s ability to meet intended objectives (e.g., quit smoking). In that light, the ability to successfully multi-task should improve a person’s sense of self-efficacy and, presumably, his or her ability to manage other tasks.

Is there a clear moral to the story? Not yet. A definitive answer awaits additional research. In the short term, the only advice might be to rein in your multi-tasking tendencies until they reach a manageable level. Life demands multi-tasking, but sometimes it’s important to stop and smell the figurative roses . . . and not update your Facebook status while you do it.

Video Games Improve Motor Functions in Stroke Patients

By Dr. Tony Scinta, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology

Photo Courtesy of RebeccaPollard via Flickr

From the tenacious pink ghost in Pac-man to that last stubborn pig in Angry Birds, video games have always created teeth-gnashing levels of frustration.  However, when they’re not making us curse a blue streak that could peel the paint off of a Nintendo Wii, video games may have something positive to offer.  According to a recent analysis by researchers at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto,  stroke patients who play video games can show up to a five-fold improvement in arm motor function compared to patients who undergo standard physical therapy.

Shockingly, this is not the first time that research has hinted at the potential benefit of playing video games.  To examine this phenomenon, scientists often conduct a “meta-analysis,” which is a super nerdy but incredibly effective technique that combines multiple studies, sometimes conducted over dozens of years, into a single “super analysis.”  One of these meta-analyses, involving seven studies and 384 participants, demonstrated that playing video games is associated with improved visuospatial cognition (Ferguson, 2007), which generally refers to a person’s ability to understand and work within spatial environments.  Parallel parking – or parallel “bumping into fenders,” as some people do it – is an example of a skill that relies on visuospatial abilities.

Game-playing experience also has been tied to other important functions (for example, the ability to attend to a lot of things at once, such as when navigating a busy highway), but those who are rushing to fire up their Xboxes should proceed with a note of caution:  there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Games also have been linked to increased aggression (Anderson et al., 2010), especially in the short term, and few people have ever completed their class assignments with a video game controller in their hands.

The Physical Pain of Heartbreak

By Dr. Tony Scinta, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology

When it comes to breaking bones, “sticks and stones” still have an edge on words, but both may inflict a very similar kind of pain.  At least that’s the conclusion being drawn by social psychologists at the University of Michigan.  They found that social rejection – for example, a nasty break-up – activates the same region of the brain associated with physical pain.

To students who study psychology at NSC, the connection should not come as a surprise.  A host of psychological studies have demonstrated a robust link between physical well-being and social, psychological, and emotional factors.  For example, students in Health Psychology (PSY 470) learn that social support is associated with mortality rates – older individuals who have plenty of available friends and family actually live longer than their less supported peers (e.g., Berkman, 1985). 

Likewise, social psychologists have long known that environmental and psychological factors can exert an influence on physical aspects of a person, but we also know that physical processes can have a meaningful impact on our perceptions and attitudes.  For example, research has shown that being physiologically aroused – sweaty palms, a thumping heart – for any reason, even exercise, can lead a person to be more physically attracted to someone else (Dutton & Aron, 1974). 

The moral of the story, aside from the suggestion to take your next date to a scary movie instead of a romantic one, is that emotional, psychological, and physioloigical factors are intertwined in surprising or important ways.  For experimental psychologists, the fun is in determining how the different pieces of the puzzle fit together.