Every day, scientists are working toward a
better understanding of the human mind.
And during 2016, there were some huge news
stories involving psychology.
In July, for example, Pokemon GO took the
world by storm.
Now you’ve probably heard way too much about
it by now, you’ve probably installed and
uninstalled Pokemon GO on your phone by now,
but just in case you don’t know what this
is:
It is a smartphone game that combines augmented
reality technology with GPS, so you can wander
around your neighborhood and “catch” Pokemon
in the real world.
With more downloads during its first week
than any other iPhone app in history, it’s
clear that something about Pokemon GO really
spoke to us – but what?
The game is too new for psychologists to have
conducted any studies, but we know from past
research that different parts of the game
really appeal to our brains.
For many young adults, this reboot of a classic
game gave them lots of nostalgia, which seems
like a sad emotion, but it’s actually good
for you psychologically.
Nostalgia increases optimism and social connectedness
by reminding you of good times, like trading
Pokemon cards or battling on the playground
with friends.
Not to mention, this game gets you out of
the house.
And exercise is good for mental health, lowering
levels of stress hormones like cortisol and
adrenaline, and releasing endorphins to improve
your mood.
Also, the game is super rewarding.
Catching new Pokemon and leveling up are digital
rewards, but they’re exciting and frequent,
and keep you hooked.
No word yet on why so many of us stopped playing…
maybe it’s because people start leveling
up slower, or finding fewer new Pokemon, so
that sense of achievement started going away.
Or maybe it’s just because our batteries
kept dying and we were like, ‘oh, I actually
need my phone for- for other things… besides
Pokemon’.
In other news, last spring, scientists announced
that some brain research might be seriously
affected by computer problems.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging, or
fMRI, is a technique that uses electromagnets
to measure brain activity safely, without
sticking anything in there.
And it does that by measuring blood flow.
When regions of the brain are active – when
those neurons are firing in response to a
stimulus or task – they need more oxygen,
so more blood flows there.
Researchers depend on computer programs to
analyze fMRI data and figure out if changes
in blood flow are significant or not.
For a couple years, there’s been talk in
scientific communities about possible problems
with these computer programs.
And in May, a study reported that they might
be getting it wrong more often than they should.
Some scientists decided to test popular software
programs for fMRI analysis on some resting-state
fMRI data from almost 500 control subjects.
Normally, they’d expect to see a false positive
rate of about 5%, meaning that 5% of the time,
the software would say that there’s a change
in brain activity when there wasn’t really
a change.
Instead, with some analysis methods, the scientists
found higher false positive rates, sometimes
even up to 70%, meaning that the software
was artificially inflating the significance
of the results.
This has gotten a bit overblown with lots
of headlines saying “15 years of fMRI data
are bunk”.
Not all fMRI research uses the specific kinds
of analysis that seem to have problems.
Some past fMRI studies will need reevaluating,
if they used these specific programs and kinds
of analyses, and especially if their results
weren’t strongly significant in the first
place.
But this is not the end of fMRI.
With this information, programmers can design
better software for the future, and scientists
are encouraged to share more of their data
for easier double-checking with newer analysis
methods.
Lastly, near the end of the year, some scientists
found that men who upheld masculine norms,
especially ones associated with sexism, had
worse mental health than those who didn’t.
The meta-analysis that made these big, controversial
waves was published in November, looking at
78 studies with almost 20,000 male participants.
The researchers focused on behavioral norms
that could be considered traditionally masculine,
like dominance, violence, and the pursuit
of status.
And they asked whether or not strong attachment
to these kinds of norms could predict mental
health conditions, or willingness to seek
psychological counseling.
They found that three things were especially
associated with negative mental health outcomes:
self-reliance, pursuit of sexual promiscuity,
and power over women.
Men who strongly valued those norms, which
are also closely linked to sexist attitudes,
had a little bit more difficulty with social
functioning and more psychological stress
than men who didn’t.
This kind of makes sense for a few reasons.
Placing lots of value on being self-reliant
can be alienating in our social and interconnected
culture, and it can make it harder to ask
for help if you need it.
On the other hand, sexual promiscuity, which
they describe as a “playboy” reputation,
and a desire to have power over women can
have serious impacts on social relationships.
Holding onto these attitudes can be isolating
– and isolation contributes to poor mental
health.
Combined with traditionally masculine norms
like “men don’t show emotion”, men who
stick to these values might be less likely
to seek mental health care.
It’s important to know, of course, that
the study has its limitations, too.
First, it was based on correlations between
these norms and mental health, not experiments
where they changed variables to analyze causes
and effects.
It only focused on participants from English-speaking
countries, and a lot of them were white males
from the U.S.
So they can’t know much about how holding
these values affects other groups – like
women, or individuals in non-English-speaking
countries.
And even though “playboy” behavior and
self-reliance seem to have a negative impact,
other traditionally masculine behaviors – like
putting work first, and taking a lot of risks
– weren’t associated with poor mental
health.
Finally, because the researchers only looked
at one set of masculine norms, this research
doesn’t say anything about the health impacts
of less masculine or more feminine norms.
Even with these weaknesses, this meta-analysis
highlights a need for psychologists to better
understand gendered values and the roles they
play in our lives.
So, 2016 was a pretty wild year for a lot
of reasons, and what we learned about psychology
was no exception.
All of this research sets up a foundation
for psychologists to learn more in the future
- and we look forward to sharing more knowledge
with you on our upcoming psychology channel,
SciShow Psych!
Thanks for watching this special episode of
SciShow News, and thank you especially to
all of our patrons on Patreon who make this
show possible.
If you want to help us keep making videos
like this, just go to patreon.com/scishow­.
And don’t forget to go to youtube.com/scishow
and subscribe!
