Ten Interesting Things About Human Behavior
By Suzanne L. Davis, Ph.D.
Copyright Suzanne L. Davis/Mind Game 2011
Smashwords Edition
Cover Art by Katrina Joyner
Smashwords Edition License Notes
Thank you for downloading this free eBook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.
Also by Suzanne L. Davis published at Smashwords:
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – You can change your attitudes by changing your behavior.
Chapter 2 – Human beings can be inconsistent. And that’s perfectly normal.
Chapter 3 – Most public debates about the causes of behavior get it wrong.
Chapter 4 – Reading the subtleties of body language tells you little, if anything, about a person.
Chapter 5 – Tabloids and reality shows can make us feel better about ourselves.
Chapter 6 – Rewards and punishment work wonders, but you have to work it.
Chapter 7 – Don’t put your average Joe on the spot and expect a good outcome.
Chapter 8 – We use a double-standard when we judge ourselves relative to others.
Chapter 9 – Airline travel brings out weird, and often downright rude, behavior.
Chapter 10 – Our brains “turn off” our behavior when we dream.
Forward
I think most of us are interested in why we do the things we do. Why do we change our minds? Why do violent video games make some children act aggressively but have little effect on others? Why are reality TV shows, some of which portray contestants as pathetic and dysfunctional, so popular?
Psychological science has answered these and many other questions about human behavior. Notice the term psychological science. I use this term because there is so much more to the field than treating mental disorders, which is what typically comes to mind when the topic of psychology comes up. Research psychologists spend their careers developing and testing theories about human (and animal) behavior. It’s not a guessing game, it’s not about opinions, and it’s not about excusing bad behavior. It is about explaining behavior using the methods of science.
What is unfortunate is that the findings from psychological research live in academic journals and college textbooks, and they are rarely seen by the public. I’d like to change that, and this book is a start. What you will find in this book are ten observations about human behavior that are supported by psychological science, and here’s the fun part: I apply the findings to things we experience every day.
I hope you enjoy it!
Chapter 1:
by changing your behavior.
When I was teaching and presented this principle for the first time, I got a lot of blank stares. Then came the questions . . .
“Shouldn’t that be the other way around? Don’t my attitudes influence how I act?”
“That’s ridiculous! I have a strong value system and I always live by it!”
“Are you saying that people are fickle and can’t control their feelings?”
No, it doesn’t mean we are fickle, nor does it mean attitudes never have an effect on behavior. Of course our attitudes affect our behavior. But it is also true that our behavior can have a direct effect on our attitudes under the right circumstances (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
Here’s how it works. I used to live in Chicago, where it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Nobody I knew owned a gun, and most thought that guns equaled crime and the fewer guns in the streets, the better. When I moved to Houston, I learned that most Texans had very different feelings toward guns, associating them with personal safety, defense of the home, and sport (e.g., target practice, hunting). The first time I visited my next-door neighbors, I was introduced to their gun collection, which was displayed in a quite impressive gun cabinet.
I was puzzled. I couldn’t reconcile the fact that my neighbors and many other good upstanding citizens owned and enjoyed guns. I was in conflict over what I came to Houston believing (guns equal crime) and how I was behaving (interacting with nice gun owners). Over time, I became more comfortable with the idea of citizens being able to carry guns. My attitudes about guns changed to be consistent with my behavior.
If you’ve ever been on a diet, you may see yourself in this next example, which I’m borrowing from Baron, Byrne, and Johnson (1998). Suppose you commit to a diet that outlaws desserts. You adopt the belief that sugar is the enemy and should be avoided. After a while, you slip and eat a pint of chocolate-chocolate-chip Haagen Dazs (the best flavor in my opinion). Now you have a problem. You feel guilty. Your behavior (the slip) is at odds with your beliefs (sugar is the enemy).
The psychological discomfort you feel (which is guilt in this example) is known to psychologists as cognitive dissonance, or a state of tension between what you did and what you believe (Aronson, 1969; Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). How do you relieve your guilt? One way is to revise your attitude. “Oh well, I guess it’s ok to have an occasional treat even though I’m on a strict diet.” Your behavior caused a change in your attitude.
What good is knowing this?
Well, now that you know the power of cognitive dissonance, why not capitalize on it? Perhaps you have heard these adages: “Do the right thing and your brain will follow,” or “Act like the person you want to be and you just might become that person.” Both statements refer to the amazing thing our brains do when our behavior and attitudes don’t match. You can learn to like something (or at least become more comfortable with it) by “just doing it” and continuing to do it, even if you initially don’t want to.
If you are a parent, you may be able to change your children’s attitudes for the better. If you gently, um, force them to get into the habit of doing things they initially dislike (like taking out the garbage), there’s a good chance that their feelings about it will become more positive over time. They just might come to believe that garbage duty is “not so bad.”
Chapter 2:
Human beings can be inconsistent.
And that’s perfectly normal.
Scenario: Debate class. Debater 1 is arguing pro-life, and Debater 2 is arguing pro-choice.
Debater 1: Abortion is murder.
Debater 2: No, murder means killing a person. A baby isn’t a person until birth.
Debater 1: No, life begins at conception, so abortion is murder.
Debater 2: Well, then you must be against all abortions.
Debater 1: No, I believe abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, or if the mother’s life is in danger.
Debater 2: But you said life begins at conception, and abortion is murder. That means by your own account that you support murder under certain conditions.
Debater 1: Absolutely not. I would never support murder.
Debater 2: You can’t have it both ways. Your beliefs are inconsistent.
Debater 1: Let’s look at your beliefs, then. Do you support capital punishment?
Debater 2: No. I think that kind of punishment is not for people to decide.
Debater 1: So let me get this straight. You think it is ok to murder a child in the womb, but it’s not ok to kill a serial killer?
Debater 2: That’s not what I said. I denounce murder in any form, but abortion is not murder.
This is a good example of the frustration people feel when they encounter someone with beliefs that appear to be inconsistent. Each person concludes the other is illogical, and neither can understand why their own arguments aren’t persuasive.
The issue of inconsistency frequently comes up in my jury consulting work, which involves assessing mock jurors’ perceptions of case evidence. During one mock trial, most of our mock jurors reported having a great deal of sympathy for a worker who was injured on the job. They also thought he should lose the case and the employer he was suing should win.
Those observing the exercise were a bit puzzled. Did the mock jurors misunderstand the case? Did they take the task seriously? Were they purposely giving inconsistent answers for some reason? Was there something wrong with the way we assessed their attitudes?
Well, I can vouch for the quality of our research methods, including our attitude assessment. And the mock jurors understood the case facts and had been conscientious and honest in their opinions.
So, what happened?
To the extent the mock jurors had truly inconsistent beliefs, it would not be unusual. Inconsistency in attitudes (and between attitudes and behavior) is fairly common (The Blackwell Dictionary of Social Psychology, n.d.). Although we can think logically, it doesn’t mean we always do (Shermer, 1997). Sometimes we’re torn between two feelings or indecisive about what we should do. It doesn’t automatically mean we’re dim, mentally lazy, or bad thinkers. It means we’re human.
Possibility #2 is that those observing the exercise misinterpreted what they saw. As it turned out, the mock jurors felt sympathy for the plaintiff while at the same time believing that his evidence was weak. In their minds, they weren’t being inconsistent at all. Sympathy was simply unrelated to their decision-making process.
What good is knowing this?
Knowing that inconsistency (a) is a normal part of human nature, and (b) can lie in the eye of the beholder could have positive effects on your personal and professional relationships. Have you ever tried to convince someone that his or her beliefs are inconsistent and therefore wrong? It’s not exactly a high-success or relationship-building endeavor. Consider the possibility that your perception is wrong, and put your energy into learning why their beliefs aren’t inconsistent to them.
Oh, and if anyone ever accuses you of being inconsistent, you now have a great comeback: “Human beings can be inconsistent, and anyway what seems inconsistent to one is perfectly consistent to another.”
Most public debates about
the causes of behavior get it wrong.
How many times have you seen the talking heads of cable news arguing about why people do the things they do?
Example: Why did two students at Columbine High School go on a shooting rampage and then turn the guns on themselves? One talking head says it was poor parenting, another says it was the availability of guns, another says it was mental illness, and still another says it was exposure to media violence. Even though there is no way to verify any of their theories, the talking heads keep on keeping on.
Another example: Does watching violence on TV make children act aggressively? One talking head says absolutely and we need to restrict violent programming. Another says no, lots of kids watch violence on TV and they’re not aggressive at all, and it’s all about poor parenting.
Debates like these usually end up with the talking heads arguing loudly, repeating their positions, and resolving nothing. They also fail to take into account one of the most important principles of behavior: Rarely is there one and only one cause of a behavior. Most behavior is caused by several factors interacting together simultaneously. (By the way, this is what makes psychological research so important. It allows us to tease apart the various causes and contributing factors of behavior.)
Back to the aggression example: Psychological research on social learning has addressed the question of whether observing aggression causes children to act aggressively. All other things being equal, a significant number of children imitate aggressive behavior they observe live or in video format. But they are significantly less likely to do so when they expect to be punished for it (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961).
So, when one talking head says children imitate aggression, there’s a kernel of truth there. And when another says there are a lot of children who don’t model aggression, there’s a kernel of truth there, too. But neither kernel by itself tells the whole story, which is that on average, children are at risk of modeling aggression to the extent they witness it. But there’s more than a good chance that they won’t do so if they expect a negative consequence.
What good is knowing this?
Next time you are wondering what caused someone’s actions, try not to get into an either/or trap (i.e., it was either this or that; also known as a false dilemma). If you do, you stand a very good chance of ignoring additional factors contributing to the behavior. And beware the kernel of truth. Consider the possibility that more than one factor interacted to cause the behavior. If you do, consider yourself a psychologist at heart and you’re well on the way to a deeper understanding of human behavior.
Chapter 4:
Reading the subtleties of body language
tells you little, if anything, about a person.
Oh, how people love the idea of being able to read body language. On TV, body language experts wow viewers by “reading” public figures, politicians, and the occasional celebrity on trial. Police dramas depict profilers reading subtle nonverbal cues to determine whether a suspect is lying, where that week’s victim is buried, and so on.
Now, I love cop shows, especially those that feature psychology types. It’s great entertainment. But don’t assume the shows reflect reality. This may come as a surprise, but there are no classes in reading body language in psychology Ph.D. programs. Why? Because there is no empirical support for the idea that anyone, including psychologists, can accurately read unspoken feelings based on subtle body movements.
“But wait,” you say. “I can read my kids perfectly. I can tell just by looking at them what’s on their minds.” Well, of course you can. You know them better than anyone. You aren’t “reading” them; you know them. The true test of whether anyone can read subtle body language with accuracy is whether they can correctly read someone they don’t know – a stranger.
Psychologist Paul Ekman has studied just that. In his ongoing research, he has tested people’s ability to detect deception in strangers (Ekman, 2009; see also Adelson, 2004). He and his colleagues have tested the ability of laypeople, therapists, police officers, nurses, and secret service agents to detect deception in strangers who either lied or told the truth about something. On average, the participants’ accuracy rate was approximately 53%, just slightly higher than chance. They may as well have tossed a coin. (Interesting tidbit: Secret service agents performed significantly better than the other participants but were still not that much better than chance.)
In my jury consulting work, I’m sometimes asked if I can “read” how jurors are reacting to evidence, testimony, and other goings on in the courtroom. My answer is always the same: “No, nobody can do that with any level of accuracy. It would only be a guess.”
Here’s the thing: It is best not to assume that you know what is going on inside someone’s head . . . unless they tell you (and there are even problems with that method, since people can mislead with their words). You don’t have to be a mind reader to figure out what some people are thinking. It’s probably safe to say that someone with his arms folded, red-faced, and glaring at you is upset. Someone who constantly glances at her watch during your conversation is probably ready to bolt. I say probably because even “obvious” nonverbal behavior can be misinterpreted. I’ve seen it happen.
Example: During a mock jury exercise, one of our participants became visibly drowsy, closed his eyes, and slumped sideways in his chair. I asked him several times to wake up and pay attention, but within minutes he was again slumped in his chair, eyes closed. He missed out on most of the case evidence and his body language “clearly” expressed that he was either too exhausted to function, not interested, or both.
But later that day, during mock deliberations, he displayed an impressive command of the case facts, and he was persuasive in his deliberation group. This young man who looked disinterested, and either asleep or well on his way to being asleep had been paying close attention. He defied expectations, demonstrating that even “obvious” body language can be misinterpreted.
And what about more subtle nonverbal behavior? The problem here is that it is simply too easy to read almost anything into it. In fact, multiple observers of the same nonverbal behavior often reach very different conclusions about what it all means. The bottom line? There is no empirical evidence that anyone can tell you how a person will behave based on interpretation of subtle nonverbal behavior (see Davis & Sobus, 1994, for an expanded discussion).
What good is knowing this?
If you want to know what someone thinks, ask. This may seem like an obvious point, but if you do a little self-monitoring, you may find that you make more unverified inferences about people than you thought.
And be wary of anyone who claims to be expert at reading body language. If body language is sending an obvious message, you don’t need an “expert” to read it, and if it so subtle that someone has to claim expertise to read it, you should question whether it is being over-interpreted. Be entertained by the “experts,” but realize that’s all it is - entertainment.
Chapter 5:
Tabloids and reality shows can
make us feel better about ourselves.
A friend and I were talking and somehow the topic of gossip magazines came up. You know, the kind that reports on the latest celebrity hook ups, break ups, arrests, rehab stints, and the various antics happening on the reality shows.
She asked me a great question. “What do people get out of these magazines and reality shows? Why are they so appealing?” She knew of my psychology background and had been following my blog, so she hoped I might shed some light on the matter.
No doubt there are many reasons for the popularity of gossip magazines and reality shows. Viewers may identify with the characters. They may enjoy making fun of the characters. They may enjoy rooting for the underdog. They may watch to keep up with the water cooler conversation. Yet there’s another possibility: Viewers may feel better about themselves knowing there are people in the world who are more messed up than they are.
There’s a name for this phenomenon: downward social comparison (Guimond, 2005). It may sound a bit mean, but it is what it is. You’ve probably done it without realizing it. Ever say or think something like “I have problems, but at least I’m not 16 and pregnant like she is!” or “I may party sometimes, but it’s nothing like what that guy is doing!”
Armed with “it could be worse” feelings, we feel better about our own situations and perhaps more grateful for what we do have.
What good is knowing this?
Academically, it’s just plain fascinating that our brains look for ways to increase our psychological well-being. But I’m not going to suggest that you go on a mission to find those less fortunate than you in order to boost your self-esteem. That wouldn’t be healthy. So just let it happen naturally and do its thing. You might catch yourself doing it, and if so, it’s a great opportunity to reflect on how fortunate you are.
Rewards and punishment work wonders,
but you have to work it.
This is an oldie but goodie. Want to change someone’s behavior? You can accomplish this if you implement one of the most basic psychological techniques for shaping behavior – a reinforcement schedule (Skinner, 1976).
The techniques are simple and you may already know what they are. I’ll use a parenting example: When your child does something you like (e.g., cleans up the dishes after dinner), you reward her (e.g., let her spend extra time on the computer). When your child does something undesirable (e.g., throwing a temper tantrum at the grocery store), you punish him by imposing a negative consequence (e.g., loss of computer access).
I suspect you are having one of several reactions right about now. You may have already tried using rewards and punishments with success, in which case, great! Or you may be thinking “Duh, that’s nothing new. All you’ve done is point out the obvious.” Or “Yeah right, it all sounds good but it doesn’t work on my kids.”
Well, look, if the technique hasn’t worked with your kids in the past, consider trying it again, following the #1 rule of reinforcement: You must react quickly and consistently, meaning you reward or punish every single time you observe the desired or undesired behavior.
You may be wondering how this can possibly work since you can’t be around your children 100% of the time. But consider this: Many teachers use rewards and punishments in the classroom with great success, and they aren’t around your children 100% of the time. As long as you are quickly and consistently reacting when you are with your children, you stand a good chance of annihilating bad behavior and fostering good behavior.
What good is knowing this?
If you work the reinforcement techniques and have a good amount of patience, you can exert a considerable amount of control (in a nice way) over others’ behavior, and much of the time it will not be obvious to the person you are targeting.
(P.S. Reinforcement also works on significant others, parents, siblings, pets, and colleagues.)
Chapter 7:
Don’t put your average Joe on the spot
and expect a good outcome.
Jay Leno, the late-night television host of The Tonight Show, occasionally runs a segment called Jaywalking. The deal is that people are approached on the street by Jay, who asks them to answer some trivia questions. The questions are seemingly simple and are usually about politics, public figures, or history, such as: “What did Russia used to be called?” and “What are the 49th and 50th states?”
What makes Jaywalking “funny” is that many people give incorrect answers, or simply can’t answer the simplest of questions. It’s one of those things that make us wonder what the world is coming to these days, and gee aren’t these people clueless. (I might add that downward social comparison, discussed back at Chapter 5, is likely to occur here as well.)
No doubt many of the Jaywalking people don’t know the answers and wouldn’t be able to come up with the answers even if they had some time to think about it. But psychological research suggests there may be an additional factor at work: The social situation of the interview. The interviewees are put on the spot. They have no time to collect their thoughts, and there’s a microphone and camera in their face. To the extent this situation is anxiety-provoking (which I argue it is, at least for some people), part of their brainpower goes toward managing the anxiety, which interferes with their ability to answer questions that they otherwise might have answered correctly. As a general rule, high levels of anxiety are detrimental to task performance (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908).
But there’s more. The nature of the interviews may also have an effect on viewers’ perceptions of how easy the questions are. Why? Because viewers are given the answers shortly after the interviewees botch the questions. Looking back in hindsight after having been told the answers, viewers may well perceive the questions to be easier than they are.
And then there’s Jay, who is privy to all the answers. In situations like Jaywalking or game shows, the interviewer or host is usually perceived to be smarter than the interviewee, even when it’s clear that the interviewer has been given the answers ahead of time (Ross, Amabile, & Steimetz, 1977). The contrast between a smart-sounding interviewer and interviewees who miss a question or two (or more) may cause viewers to believe the interviewees are less intelligent than they really are.
What good is knowing this?
The next time someone puts you on the spot, consider asking for a little time to collect your thoughts and calm down if you feel stressed. There is one exception, however. If you are expert at the material, stress probably won’t have a major effect on your performance. For example, a history professor who is asked to answer questions about history while under considerable stress would likely perform just as well (or even better) than he or she normally would. For the rest of us “Average Joes,” a high-anxiety situation that puts us on the spot is likely to lead to poor performance. But here’s a little good news: perhaps just knowing that it is normal to feel anxiety in such situations can help you cope with it.
Chapter 8:
we judge ourselves relative to others.
“Know thyself.” That’s easy to say, and it sounds so simple. And while it is true that we make attributions about our own behavior every day, most of the time it happens automatically without us giving it much thought. Example: “I’m making a special breakfast for everyone this morning because I love doing things that make my loved ones happy.” You don’t need to verbalize it or give it any thought, really. It’s a given.
But things get interesting when we try to explain something unusual or negative about our behavior. Under this condition, our default reasoning kicks in, which is to attribute our own behavior to external factors (“I didn’t mail the wedding invitations because my boss made me stay late again.”). Another way to say it is that we make excuses for ourselves. We give ourselves a break.
However, we don’t give others a break. When we judge someone else’s actions, as a general rule we attribute their behavior to internal factors (“But you drive right past the post office on the way home. You didn’t mail the invitations because deep down you’re having second thoughts about the marriage, aren’t you?”). Psychologists call this the actor-observer effect (Asch, 1946; Jones & Nisbett, 1972).
A similar thing happens when we make judgments about our abilities relative to others. All other things being equal, we rate our ability on a given task as above average, but we rate others’ ability at the same task at or below average (Kruganski & Mayselers,1990; Suls, Lemosk, & Stewart, 2002).
Example: Back in my days as a psychology professor, most of my research involved assessing people’s reactions to child witnesses. In many of the studies, I asked the participants (a) how they would describe their own ability to judge the credibility of a child witness, and (b) how they would describe other people’s ability to do the same.
Consistently, the participants rated their own ability to be better than average, but rated other people’s ability at or below average. The funny part is that, statistically speaking, everyone can’t be above average. Once again, our brains are looking out for our psychological well-being, and perceiving ourselves to be “better than average” is a bit of an ego boost, don’t you think?
What good is knowing this?
Knowing that we see ourselves differently than others see us, and that this is normal, may be of comfort to you if you’re someone who feels chronically “misunderstood.”
Why not capitalize on others’ impressions of you? If you are prepared for the truth, consider asking your trusted friends how you come across to others. I’m not suggesting that you automatically adopt their viewpoint, because they have biases, too. But you can still put their feedback to good use. If you are willing to seek feedback and spend some time mulling it over, you may end up understanding yourself a little better.
Chapter 9:
Airline travel brings out weird,
and often downright rude, behavior.
If you’re a frequent flier like me, you’ve probably seen some of the most remarkable human behavior ever – that of passengers on and around a commercial aircraft. It seems that otherwise well-mannered people can at least temporarily turn into complete asses with little or no regard for others. I personally have witnessed countless acts of rudeness, including . . .
Boarding interference: Passengers in the boarding area form themselves into a human shield or “clot” in front of the boarding line. This prevents other non-clot passengers from boarding when their rows are called.
Headrest grasp: Passenger manhandles and/or clings to the headrests while walking down the aisle, including the headrests of occupied seats.
Unwanted touching: While boarding, passenger brushes or touches aisle seat passengers with a carry-on, or worse, a body part.
Spillover: Passenger seated next to you literally “spills over” into your designated area.
Armrest theft: A special case of Spillover. Passenger claims the arm rest and won’t share.
Wild recline: Passenger seated in front of you reclines in one fell swoop, risking the well-being of you and/or your laptop computer. (I’ve heard that countless laptops have been broken in this fashion. Something has got to be done about this, but that discussion goes beyond the scope of this book.)
Amnesia: Passenger suddenly “forgets” that he or she needs to stay seated during taxi, turbulence, or the beverage service.
Grandstanding: Passenger on a business call speaks in the loudest voice possible, in an apparent attempt to sound important. (I suspect that around 85% of the time, the grandstander is not that important.)
Miscellaneous: Passenger belches, sneezes, or coughs/hacks without covering the mouth; takes off shoes during the flight; picks nose; paints fingernails, etc.
Of course, some people are just plain rude wherever they go, and I’m sure this accounts for a lot of the behaviors I’ve described. That said, I suspect that another factor contributes to the problem as well, leading some otherwise nice passengers to do annoying things: the de-individuation that occurs when an individual becomes part of a crowd (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952). As a general rule, we feel less identifiable and less responsible for our individual actions when in the presence of a large number of people. We temporarily lose our sense of individuality and psychologically become “part of the crowd.”
Granted, the boarding area and interior of an aircraft are not the same as being in a crowd of people on the street. But there is one important similarity. In both situations, people, sometimes hundreds, are crammed into a small space – just the type of situation that can foster feelings of anonymity and reduced responsibility for one’s behavior.
What good is knowing this?
There is a strategy for dealing with rude passengers other than ignoring it (always a viable option) or doing the loud sigh + glare (which, in my experience, rarely works). The strategy is to individualize the problem passenger, to snap him or her back to the wonderful world of manners.
One of my colleagues has used this strategy with success. On one occasion, a passenger sitting directly behind him grasped and clung to his headrest (much like a koala clinging to a eucalyptus tree), using it as leverage to stand up and move into the aisle. In doing so, the grasper caught and pulled a bit of my colleague’s hair, which was the last straw. My colleague addressed the grasper firmly and directly, stressing that his actions were unacceptable. The grasper, who turned out to be intoxicated, immediately apologized.
For me, a timid individualizing approach (faked, of course) works well. Perhaps a soft “Excuse me. My name is Suzanne and I don’t want to be a complainer, but I think you might be kicking the back of my seat.”
Important: I’m not suggesting that you confront problem passengers. You never know about people. If you’re comfortable, you might try a soft approach. But for heaven’s sake, ignore it, or leave it to the flight attendants if you have any qualms about addressing someone. (I’d still avoid the sigh + glare technique, though. It won’t get you anywhere.)
Chapter 10:
Our brains “turn off” our behavior
when we dream.
When I first began studying psychology, I was shocked to learn that the reason we need sleep is not well-understood. I also remember trying to explain this to my friends and family. It typically went something like this:
Me: Did you know that researchers still don’t know the reason we need sleep?
Uncle Ned: What the hell are they teaching you up there at that university? They’ve got you believing there’s no reason for sleep?
Me: There are different theories about why we sleep, but the exact cause has never been confirmed.
Uncle Ned: Well, I know why I sleep. I’m tired, I sleep, and then I feel better!
Me: That’s what it seems like, but sleep is more complicated than that.
Uncle Ned: So are you going to start pulling all-nighters now since you don’t need to sleep anymore? Good luck with that.
Here’s the thing about sleep: We need rest, and it’s true that our bodies rest while we’re asleep. But that doesn’t mean we sleep because our bodies require it to rest. Sleep isn’t necessary for rest. We could get all the rest we need without being asleep.
But what about the brain? Doesn’t it require rest? No. The brain never rests. Even while we sleep the brain is extremely active. Just think about the brainpower it must take to produce dreams. During REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, which is the stage of sleep in which we do most of our dreaming, we may look restful on the outside, but what’s going on behind the scenes is far from restful (Aserinsky & Kleitman, 1953). Brain waves during REM sleep resemble those of wakefulness.
Part of the brain’s job in managing our dreams is to keep us safe, so during REM sleep, the brain shuts off neurons in our spinal cord (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, n.d.). This renders us unable to move our muscles, which prevents us from acting out our dreams. In effect, the brain “switches off” our behavior. Some people report experiences of coming out of a dream and for a few seconds feeling “paralyzed.” That’s known as sleep paralysis, and is the brain’s way of protecting us from harming ourselves or others while we dream.
But don’t some people sleepwalk and talk in their sleep? Yes. We do a small percentage of dreaming in other (non REM) stages of sleep – stages that aren’t able to produce sleep paralysis. Those who sleepwalk or talk in their sleep are dreaming outside of REM sleep. Seems like a glitch in the brain’s otherwise brilliant mechanism for keeping us safe during sleep, doesn’t it?
(By the way, all of us dream. Those who claim that they never dream simply do not remember their dreams.)
What good is knowing this?
Well, this one is just plain fascinating. Isn’t that enough? Just kidding. In all seriousness, you can wow your family and friends with your knowledge about sleep and its relation to behavior. Do, however, try to do better than I did with Uncle Ned.
Epilogue
I hope you enjoyed TEN INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR. I’m toying with the idea of writing a sequel, and I would love to hear your questions about human behavior that I might include in a follow-up eBook. Please direct your suggestions to me at hellodrdavis at hotmail dot com.
###
About the Author
Suzanne L. Davis, Ph.D., is a Social Psychologist and the author of FAITH AND TRUST and TEN INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR. She is a former college professor, and when she’s not writing, she consults and teaches online college courses. She publishes under her imprint, Mind Game Books, and produces Stories About Psychology, a blog about all things psychological. She has loved psychology since she was six years old. Other kids put up lemonade stands; she put up a Psychiatric Booth like Lucy's in the Peanuts comic strip. Her goal today is to create original content with psychological edge, experiment with form and style, and inspire us all to think like never before.
Stories About Psychology: http://www.storiesaboutpsychology.com
Mind Game Books: http://www.mindgamebooks.com
Smashwords: https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/hellodrdavis
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/hellodrdavis
Facebook: http://facebook.com/mindgamebooks
Email: hellodrdavis@mindgamebooks.com
Adelson, R. (2004). Detecting deception. Monitor on Psychology, 35(7), 70.
Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1-34. New York: Academic Press.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 1230-1240.
Aserinsky, E., & Kleitman, N. (1953). Regularly occurring periods of eye motility and concomitant phenomena. Science, 188 (3062) 273-274.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
Baron, R.A., Byrne, D., & Johnson, B. T. (1998). Exploring social psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Inconsistency. Retrieved from Blackwell Reference Online: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631202899_chunk_g978063120289911_ss1-7.
Davis, S. L., & Sobus, M. (2004). Strategic jury selection: Limiting mistakes in a difficult process. For the Defense: The Magazine for Defense, Insurance, and Corporate Counsel, 46(6).
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies. W. W. Norton & Company: New York.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
Guimond, S. (2005). Social comparison and social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in Social Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94), Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dreaming and REM sleep. Retrieved from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke website: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/understanding_sleep.htm#dreaming.
Kruganski, A. J. & Mayselers, O. (1990). Classic and current social comparison research: Expanding the perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 208.
Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perceptual processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485-494.
Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.
Suls, J., Lemosk, K., & Stewart, H. L. (2002). Self-esteem, construal, and comparisons with the self, friends, and peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 252-261.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology 18, 459–482.