59 Seconds_ Think A Little, Change A Lot Part 4

In the same way that greenery seems to reduce antisocial behavior, it also seems to make people more creative. In a series of experiments, j.a.panese psychologists Seiji Shibata and Naoto Suzuki asked people to carry out various creativity exercises in carefully controlled office environments. In one study some of the offices contained a potted plant that had been carefully positioned in front of, or to the side of, the partic.i.p.ant, while other offices were devoid of any greenery. In another study the researchers carefully a.n.a.lyzed the effect of replacing the plant with a similar-size magazine rack. Time and again the researchers discovered that the addition of the potted plant enhanced people's creativity. The results from these artificial studies appear to stand up to scrutiny in more realistic settings as well. An eight-month study of creativity in the workplace conducted by Robert Ulrich at Texas A&M University showed that adding flowers and plants to an office resulted in a 15 percent increase in ideas from male employees and more flexible solutions to problems from their female counterparts. In another study, researchers discovered that children engage in significantly more creative play when they are in courtyards containing greenery versus comparatively barren outdoor s.p.a.ces.11 Why should a little nature have these effects? Why should a little nature have these effects?

According to some theorists, the explanation dates back thousands of years. Evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain behavior on the basis of how it might have helped people thrive and survive through generations, and in their opinion, living amid healthy trees and plants might initiate an ancient feeling of calm because it suggests that there will be an abundance of food nearby and eases the worry about where the next meal is coming from. Such pleasant feelings then make people more helpful, happy, and creative.

So is a long country walk or a well-placed potted plant the minimum needed to get your creative juices flowing? Andrew Elliot and his colleagues at the University of Rochester looked at the relationship between creativity and the nearly subliminal presentation of color.12 The researchers thought that since the color red is commonly a.s.sociated with a sense of danger and error (think red traffic lights and teachers' red pens) whereas green is a.s.sociated with positivity and relaxation (think green traffic lights and nature), the merest suggestion of such colors might hinder or help creativity. They presented partic.i.p.ants with a booklet containing some standard anagrams, writing the partic.i.p.ant's code number in the corner of each page of the booklet in either red or green ink. They asked the partic.i.p.ants to check that the number on each page was correct and then told them to work through the booklet. Remarkably, even though everyone saw the code numbers for just a few seconds, those who were exposed to the green ink solved about 30 percent more anagrams than those who saw the red ink. The evidence suggests that for creativity you are better off going green. The researchers thought that since the color red is commonly a.s.sociated with a sense of danger and error (think red traffic lights and teachers' red pens) whereas green is a.s.sociated with positivity and relaxation (think green traffic lights and nature), the merest suggestion of such colors might hinder or help creativity. They presented partic.i.p.ants with a booklet containing some standard anagrams, writing the partic.i.p.ant's code number in the corner of each page of the booklet in either red or green ink. They asked the partic.i.p.ants to check that the number on each page was correct and then told them to work through the booklet. Remarkably, even though everyone saw the code numbers for just a few seconds, those who were exposed to the green ink solved about 30 percent more anagrams than those who saw the red ink. The evidence suggests that for creativity you are better off going green.

IN 59 SECONDS.

To inspire creative thoughts, place plants and flowers in a room and, if possible, ensure that windows look out on trees and gra.s.s, not concrete and steel. Don't try to fake it. Pictures of waterfalls do not aid innovation, and even high-definition screens showing live camera feeds from natural scenes do not make people feel more relaxed.13 So if you really cannot introduce nature into a s.p.a.ce, head for the nearest green spot. Also, when decorating rooms to inspire creative and innovative thinking, avoid red and go for green. The same concept applies if you are trying to get creative juices flowing for others-prime them with the color green (green folders, green chairs, or even your green clothing). So if you really cannot introduce nature into a s.p.a.ce, head for the nearest green spot. Also, when decorating rooms to inspire creative and innovative thinking, avoid red and go for green. The same concept applies if you are trying to get creative juices flowing for others-prime them with the color green (green folders, green chairs, or even your green clothing).

MUSICAL CHAIRSThere are two schools of thought relating to group dynamics and creativity. One believes in not changing team membership, arguing that people then feel more comfortable with one another and so are happier to suggest the kinds of weird and wonderful ideas that are the hallmark of creativity. In contrast, the other point of view holds that it is better to generate new patterns of thinking by constantly mixing up the membership.To find out which position is better, Charlan Nemeth and Margaret Ormiston at the University of California conducted a revealing study.14 In the first part of the experiment, groups of people were asked to think of new ways to solve real problems, such as boosting tourism in the San Francis...o...b..y Area. Next, the membership of half of those groups was kept constant, while the makeup of the other half of the groups was changed in order to create totally new teams. Those who remained together rated their groups as friendlier and more creative than those that had been asked to move around. However, the newly formed groups generated significantly more ideas, which were later judged to be more creative. In the first part of the experiment, groups of people were asked to think of new ways to solve real problems, such as boosting tourism in the San Francis...o...b..y Area. Next, the membership of half of those groups was kept constant, while the makeup of the other half of the groups was changed in order to create totally new teams. Those who remained together rated their groups as friendlier and more creative than those that had been asked to move around. However, the newly formed groups generated significantly more ideas, which were later judged to be more creative.Other work suggests that even one new person can make a difference. In a study conducted by Hoon-Seok Choi and Leigh Thompson, three-person groups were first asked to think of as many uses as possible for a cardboard box.15 Next, the experimenters kept the membership of half of the groups constant and changed just one person in the other half of the groups. When asked to repeat the cardboard-box task, the groups containing one new member devised significantly more creative uses for the box. Further a.n.a.lysis showed that the newcomer had helped increase the creativity of the two original team members. Next, the experimenters kept the membership of half of the groups constant and changed just one person in the other half of the groups. When asked to repeat the cardboard-box task, the groups containing one new member devised significantly more creative uses for the box. Further a.n.a.lysis showed that the newcomer had helped increase the creativity of the two original team members.So, with respect to group creativity, the message is clear: play musical chairs. Even though a team may have worked well together in the past, you can maximize the potential for new and exciting thoughts by changing members as often as possible.

THE POWER OF SMALL.

Can small cues have a surprisingly large impact on the way people think? In studies conducted by Ap Dijksterhuis and Ad van Knippenberg at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, partic.i.p.ants jotted down a few sentences describing either a typical football hooligan or a typical professor.16 When then asked a series of general-knowledge questions, those who had spent time thinking about a typical football hooligan answered 46 percent of the questions correctly, whereas those who had spent a few moments reflecting on a typical professor attained a mark of 60 percent. Other studies have shown that similar types of priming effects occur in many different situations. Put people in front of computer wallpaper showing dollar symbols, and they behave in a more selfish and unfriendly way, giving less money to charity and sitting farther away from others. When then asked a series of general-knowledge questions, those who had spent time thinking about a typical football hooligan answered 46 percent of the questions correctly, whereas those who had spent a few moments reflecting on a typical professor attained a mark of 60 percent. Other studies have shown that similar types of priming effects occur in many different situations. Put people in front of computer wallpaper showing dollar symbols, and they behave in a more selfish and unfriendly way, giving less money to charity and sitting farther away from others.17 Give interviewers a cup of iced coffee, and they unknowingly rate interviewees as colder and less pleasant. Give interviewers a cup of iced coffee, and they unknowingly rate interviewees as colder and less pleasant.18 Add a faint smell of cleaning fluid to the air, and people tidy up more thoroughly. Add a faint smell of cleaning fluid to the air, and people tidy up more thoroughly.19 Put a briefcase on a table during a meeting, and people suddenly become more compet.i.tive. Put a briefcase on a table during a meeting, and people suddenly become more compet.i.tive.20 The evidence points to a little counting for a lot. The evidence points to a little counting for a lot.

Priming can also quickly make people more creative. In a study conducted by psychologist Jens Forster at the International University Bremen in Germany,21 partic.i.p.ants were asked to jot down a few sentences about the behavior, lifestyle, and appearance of a typical punk (chosen because punks were, as the researchers put it, "anarchic and radical"), while others did exactly the same for a typical engineer ("conservative and logical"). Everyone was then given a standard test of creativity. The results revealed that those who had spent just a few seconds thinking about the punk were significantly more creative than those who had put time into thinking about the typical engineer. Without people being aware of it, their ability to be creative was dramatically altered by a few quick and simple thoughts. Interestingly, the effect works only with generic stereotypes, such as punks and engineers. Ask people to spend a few moments thinking about a famous figure, such as Leonardo da Vinci, and more likely than not their creative juices suddenly run dry. partic.i.p.ants were asked to jot down a few sentences about the behavior, lifestyle, and appearance of a typical punk (chosen because punks were, as the researchers put it, "anarchic and radical"), while others did exactly the same for a typical engineer ("conservative and logical"). Everyone was then given a standard test of creativity. The results revealed that those who had spent just a few seconds thinking about the punk were significantly more creative than those who had put time into thinking about the typical engineer. Without people being aware of it, their ability to be creative was dramatically altered by a few quick and simple thoughts. Interestingly, the effect works only with generic stereotypes, such as punks and engineers. Ask people to spend a few moments thinking about a famous figure, such as Leonardo da Vinci, and more likely than not their creative juices suddenly run dry.22 It seems that if the bar is set too high, people unconsciously compare their own meager skills to those of a genius, become disheartened, and stop trying. It seems that if the bar is set too high, people unconsciously compare their own meager skills to those of a genius, become disheartened, and stop trying.

In 2005 Forster conducted a new type of creativity-priming experiment that has real implications for instant change. He speculated that merely glancing at a piece of modern art designed to provoke a sense of unconventionality would unconsciously inspire viewers to become more creative.

To test his idea, Forster asked partic.i.p.ants to take a standard creativity task ("think of as many uses for a brick as possible") while seated in front of one of two specially created art prints. The two prints were each about three feet square, almost identical, and consisted of twelve large crosses against a light green background. In one picture all of the crosses were dark green, while in the other print eleven were dark green and one was yellow. The researchers speculated that the unconscious mind would perceive this single yellow cross as breaking away from its more conservative and conventional green cousins and that this would encourage more radical and creative thinking. The results were astounding. Even though the partic.i.p.ants didn't consciously notice the picture, those seated in front of the "creative" picture produced significantly more uses for the brick. A panel of experts judged their responses as far more creative. The message is clear: if you want to fast-track a group or an individual to think more creatively, use the power of visual priming.

But other work suggests that instant creativity is not just about sitting in front of a modern art print. It is also about how you use your body.

There is a strong link between anxiety and creativity. When people feel worried, they become very focused, concentrate on the task at hand, become risk-averse, rely on well-established habits and routines, and see the world through less-creative eyes. In contrast, when people feel at ease in a situation, they are more likely to explore new and unusual ways of thinking and behaving, see the bigger picture, take risks, and think and act more creatively.

In view of this link, it should theoretically be possible to increase people's creativity by making them feel more at ease. Using willing volunteers, researchers have tested a variety of anxiety-reducing procedures, including lengthy relaxation exercises, funny films, and listening to Vivaldi's Four Seasons Four Seasons. The good news is that the results suggest that people have more creative and interesting ideas when they feel comfortable in their surroundings, although the relaxation procedures have proven somewhat time-consuming. With speed always of the essence, a few years ago psychologists Ronald Friedman and Jens Forster created a quick technique for making people feel relaxed. A rewarding side effect was the discovery that their technique also enhanced creativity.23 When you like an object, you sometimes pull it toward you. Similarly, when you dislike it, you tend to push it away. You have been executing these simple pull-push behaviors from birth, and you probably repeat them on an almost daily basis. As a result, strong a.s.sociations have become ingrained in your brain, with the act of pulling being a.s.sociated with a positive feeling and that of pushing being seen as far more negative. Friedman and Forster wondered whether getting people to perform these actions for just a few moments might be enough to trigger the feelings a.s.sociated with them and therefore affect people's creative thinking.

They asked willing volunteers to sit at a table and complete standard creativity tasks, such as devising as many uses for everyday objects as possible or solving some cla.s.sic lateral-thinking puzzles.

Half of the volunteers were asked to place their right hand under the table and gently pull the table toward them, giving their brains a subtle signal that they liked their surroundings. The other half were asked to place their right hand on top of the table and push down, thus unconsciously giving the impression that they felt under threat. The pushes and pulls were gentle enough not to move the table, and none of the volunteers had any idea that pushing and pulling might affect their creativity. While gently pushing or pulling with one hand, they completed the creativity task with the other. Friedman and Forster found that regardless of whether people were generating alternative uses for everyday objects or trying to bring about those all important "aha" moments, those who were pulling scored significantly higher than those who were pushing.

It is a simple but effective technique. It is also not the only piece of research to reveal the strange effects that your body can have on creativity in the brain. Another experiment, conducted by Ronald Friedman and Andrew Elliot at the University of Rochester, involved asking people to tackle difficult anagrams with their arms either crossed or resting on their thighs.24 In the same way that pushing and pulling is unconsciously a.s.sociated with liking and disliking, so folding the arms is commonly a.s.sociated with stubbornness and perseverance. Would this simple act be enough to persuade the partic.i.p.ants to spend longer trying to solve the anagrams? Yes. The volunteers with their arms folded struggled nearly twice as long as those with their hands on their thighs. Perhaps more important, because of this they ended up solving significantly more anagrams. In the same way that pushing and pulling is unconsciously a.s.sociated with liking and disliking, so folding the arms is commonly a.s.sociated with stubbornness and perseverance. Would this simple act be enough to persuade the partic.i.p.ants to spend longer trying to solve the anagrams? Yes. The volunteers with their arms folded struggled nearly twice as long as those with their hands on their thighs. Perhaps more important, because of this they ended up solving significantly more anagrams.

Other work provides scientific justification for perhaps the most popular act of all-lying down on the job. An experiment conducted by Darren Lipnicki and Don Byrne at Australian National University involved asking partic.i.p.ants to try to solve a series of five-letter anagrams while either standing up or lying on a mattress.25 The anagrams were a mixed bunch-some were relatively simple ("gip" into "pig") while others were tough ("nodru" into "round"). Interestingly, the volunteers solved the puzzles about 10 percent faster when horizontal and thus achieved a higher score in the allotted time. What caused the difference? The anagrams were a mixed bunch-some were relatively simple ("gip" into "pig") while others were tough ("nodru" into "round"). Interestingly, the volunteers solved the puzzles about 10 percent faster when horizontal and thus achieved a higher score in the allotted time. What caused the difference?

The answer, according to Lipnicki and Byrne, might have to do with a small section of your brain referred to as the locus coeruleus (Latin for "the blue spot"). When activated, this region produces a stress hormone called noradrenaline that, in turn, increases heart rate, triggers the release of energy, and raises blood flow around the body. When you stand up, gravity draws blood away from the upper body, which subsequently increases activity in the locus coeruleus, whereas lying down decreases its activity. Some researchers think that noradrenaline may also impair the brain's ability to engage in certain types of thinking, including the creativity and flexibility required to solve anagrams. It seems that the act of adopting an upright or supine (Latin for "can't be bothered") position dramatically affects the chemicals racing through your body and causes your brain to operate in quite different ways.

IN 59 SECONDS.

Priming To prime your mind for thinking creatively, spend a few moments describing a typical musician or artist. List their typical behaviors, lifestyle, and appearance. Or, following on from Forster's work in creativity and patterns, use the following designs to help produce original ideas. They can be turned into examples of modern art and used to adorn the walls of boardrooms and meeting s.p.a.ces. Alternatively, they can be loaded on computers as wallpaper or even used as subtle background designs on the pads that people use to scribble their ideas. Whatever you choose, creating creativity has never been so quick or easy.

[image]

[image]

Bodywork The next time you are trying to be creative in a meeting, gently lean forward and pull against the table. When the going gets tough, cross your arms to help perseverance in the face of failure. If that doesn't work, lie down. If anyone accuses you of being lazy, quietly explain that you are employing your locus coeruleus in the war against rigid thinking.

attraction Why you shouldn't play hard to get hard to get, how the subtle art subtle art of seduction involves of seduction involves the simplest of touches touches, roller-coaster rides, and rides, and avoiding artificial artificial Christmas trees Christmas trees

IMAGINE BEING HANDED a jar containing ten cookies and being asked to remove one, take a nibble, and rate it for quality and taste. Now imagine being asked to perform exactly the same task but this time being handed a jar containing just two cookies. It would seem reasonable to think that the initial number of cookies in each jar wouldn't affect your ratings. Reasonable but wrong. According to work conducted by psychologist Stephen Worchel at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, cookies taken from a jar that is almost empty taste significantly better than identical cookies taken from a full jar. a jar containing ten cookies and being asked to remove one, take a nibble, and rate it for quality and taste. Now imagine being asked to perform exactly the same task but this time being handed a jar containing just two cookies. It would seem reasonable to think that the initial number of cookies in each jar wouldn't affect your ratings. Reasonable but wrong. According to work conducted by psychologist Stephen Worchel at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, cookies taken from a jar that is almost empty taste significantly better than identical cookies taken from a full jar.1 Why should this be the case? How much we desire and treasure an object depends, in part, on how easy it is to obtain. A jar crammed full of cookies suggests that the contents are plentiful. In contrast, a nearly empty jar suggests that the cookies are scarce, and therefore significantly more desirable. In Worchel's experiment, this simple idea unconsciously affected how partic.i.p.ants perceived the availability of the cookies and how good they tasted.

Exactly the same effect explains why collectors spend millions on limited editions, people are attracted to books or films that have been banned, and retailers are quick to point out limited stocks. But does it also apply to dating?

It is a question that has taxed some of the world's greatest minds. The cla.s.sical Greek philosopher Socrates, when advising the prost.i.tute Theodota on the best way to attract men, clearly preferred the "play hard to get" strategy, noting: They will appreciate your favors most highly if you wait till they ask for them. The sweetest meats, you see, if served before they are wanted, seem sour, and to those who had enough they are positively nauseating: but even poor fare is very welcome when offered to a hungry man.2 A few hundred years later the great Roman poet Ovid was moved to agree: Fool. If you feel no need to guard your girl for her own sake, guard her for mine, so I may want her more. Easy things n.o.body wants, but what is forbidden is tempting ... Anyone who can love the wife of an indolent cuckold, I should suppose, would steal buckets of sand from the sh.o.r.e.3 The wise words of Socrates and Ovid are echoed in many modern-day books about dating. Time and again, people are advised to play it cool and make any potential love of their life do the running. But does playing hard to get really work?

To find out, Elaine Hatfield from the University of Hawaii and her colleagues conducted a series of fascinating and, at times, odd studies.4 In the first of these, students were shown photographs and brief biographies of teenage couples and asked to rate how desirable they found each member of the couple. The biographies had been carefully constructed to ensure that some of the teenagers appeared to have fallen for their partner after only a couple of dates (think "easy") while others had taken much longer (think "hard to get"). Contrary to the researchers' expectations, the students gave much higher ratings to those people who had declared their undying love within moments of meeting their partner, leading them to conclude that it appears that "all the world does love a lover." Undaunted, the researchers undertook a second, slightly more realistic study. In the first of these, students were shown photographs and brief biographies of teenage couples and asked to rate how desirable they found each member of the couple. The biographies had been carefully constructed to ensure that some of the teenagers appeared to have fallen for their partner after only a couple of dates (think "easy") while others had taken much longer (think "hard to get"). Contrary to the researchers' expectations, the students gave much higher ratings to those people who had declared their undying love within moments of meeting their partner, leading them to conclude that it appears that "all the world does love a lover." Undaunted, the researchers undertook a second, slightly more realistic study.

This time the research team asked a group of women who had signed up with a dating agency to help out. Whenever a man telephoned them for a date, they were asked to respond in one of two ways. On half of the calls they were to accept immediately ("easy"), while the rest of the time they would pause for precisely three seconds before saying yes ("hard to get"). After the call, all of the guys were told that they had taken part in an experiment ("she was faking it") and asked to rate their dates. Once again, the team discovered that playing hard to get did not affect the ratings. The team then wondered whether the experimental three-second pause had been ambiguous. They decided to make things a little more clear-cut. In yet another study the women with the dating agency either rapidly accepted any offer of a date ("easy") or paused, explained that they had received countless offers and then rather begrudgingly arranged for just a coffee ("hard to get"). This time, the results revealed absolutely no effect.

Desperate, the researchers did what many people do when the going gets tough in the heady world of dating: they turned to prost.i.tution.5 In a bizarre and little-known social psychology experiment, researchers persuaded a group of prost.i.tutes to chat with their clients in one of two ways. While pouring them a drink before getting down to business, they would either say nothing ("easy") or casually explain that they were starting college soon and so would subsequently be seeing only the customers who they liked best ("hard to get"). The research team then monitored how many times each client contacted the prost.i.tute during the following month and, yet again, found no relationship between the prost.i.tute playing hard to get and the return rate.

To discover why playing hard to get should prove to be such a myth, Hatfield and the team asked a group of men whether they would rather date someone who was eager to have a relationship or someone who made others do all of the running. Most said that there were pros and cons for each option. According to the interviewees, "easy" women were relaxing and fun to be with but could be an embarra.s.sment in public. In contrast, hard-to-get women might appear to be a conquest but were often unfriendly, cold, and had a tendency to humiliate you in front of your friends. As a result of the interviews, the researchers speculated that the best strategy would be to give a potential date the impression that in general you were hard to get (and therefore a scarce resource worth having) but really enthusiastic about him or her specifically. They tested this notion by using some of the same techniques (although this time not involving the prost.i.tutes) and found overwhelming evidence to support their hypothesis.

However, being able to attract a mate is not just about conveying the magic "I am choosy, and I have chosen you" impression. Instead, research into the psychology of dating has uncovered a number of equally quick but effective ways of making your attraction to someone a mutual affair. All you need is a simple touch, an afternoon at a theme park, and the confidence to ask people about their favorite pizza topping.

THE POWER OF TOUCH.

French psychologist Nicolas Gueguen has spent his career investigating some of the more unusual aspects of everyday life, and perhaps none is more unusual than his groundbreaking work on b.r.e.a.s.t.s. For years psychologists have been fascinated by the impact of women's chests on male brains, and they have carried out a series of studies that have scientifically proven that men are attracted to women with large b.r.e.a.s.t.s. This work, although not surprising, suffers from one significant drawback. Most of it has been undertaken in the relatively artificial confines of the laboratory and has involved presenting men with photographs of women with b.r.e.a.s.t.s of various sizes and asking them to select the one that they find most attractive. As a result, whenever this work was presented at academic conferences, other scientists would ask the same question time and again: "Yes, that's all very well, but does men's preference for large-breasted women actually exist in real life?"

Enter Nicolas Gueguen.

Gueguen decided to conduct two studies investigating breast size and male behavior in more realistic settings. One of these, subsequently described in his paper "Women's Bust Size and Men's Courtship Solicitation," involved systematically changing the apparent size of a young woman's b.r.e.a.s.t.s and examining the number of times she was approached by men in a nightclub.6 The woman (who, according to the experimental report, was selected because she had an A-cup bust size and had been rated by male students as having average physical attractiveness) was asked to sit in a nightclub for an hour and look longingly at the dance floor. Meanwhile, a hidden researcher carefully counted the number of men who asked her to dance. Over the course of twelve weeks, the experimenters used latex inserts to vary the woman's bust size between a B and a C cup. The effect was as dramatic as it was predictable. Without the help of the latex inserts she was approached by men 13 times over the course of a night. When she moved up to an artificial B cup, this frequency rose to 19 times, while the fake C cup resulted in a staggering 44 approaches. The woman (who, according to the experimental report, was selected because she had an A-cup bust size and had been rated by male students as having average physical attractiveness) was asked to sit in a nightclub for an hour and look longingly at the dance floor. Meanwhile, a hidden researcher carefully counted the number of men who asked her to dance. Over the course of twelve weeks, the experimenters used latex inserts to vary the woman's bust size between a B and a C cup. The effect was as dramatic as it was predictable. Without the help of the latex inserts she was approached by men 13 times over the course of a night. When she moved up to an artificial B cup, this frequency rose to 19 times, while the fake C cup resulted in a staggering 44 approaches.

Of course, it could easily be argued that the researchers stacked the deck in their favor. After all, probably most of the men in the nightclub were there to meet women and would have had the time to look at several people before making an approach. What would happen if these factors were removed? What if the context was far less s.e.xual and men had only a few seconds to make up their minds? To find out, Gueguen conducted another experiment, resulting in his article "Bust Size and Hitchhiking: A Field Study."7 This time the woman with the highly variable b.r.e.a.s.t.s was asked to stand at the side of a busy road and try to thumb a ride. Meanwhile, two researchers sat in a car on the opposite side of the road and secretly counted the number of male and female drivers who drove by and the number who stopped to offer the woman a ride. After a hundred cars had pa.s.sed, the experimental hitchhiker added or removed latex to alter the size of her b.r.e.a.s.t.s. The results from 426 women drivers revealed that bust size had no impact on whether they stopped, with around 9 percent pulling up regardless of whether they had been presented with an A, B, or C cup. In stark contrast, the pattern from 774 male drivers was completely different. Of the men, 15 percent stopped to pick up the women without latex inserts, compared to 18 percent when she transformed into a B cup and 24 percent when confronted with a C cup. The researchers concluded that in the male mind, breast size looms large even when men are not in an overtly s.e.xual setting.

Another aspect of Gueguen's work has examined the power of touch.8 A large number of studies has shown that touching someone on the upper arm for just a second or two can have a surprisingly significant effect on how much help they then provide. In one experiment American researchers approached people in the street and asked them for a dime. A brief touch on the upper arm increased the likelihood of getting the money by 20 percent. Similar work has shown that the same subtle touch also significantly increases the likelihood that people will sign pet.i.tions, leave a tip for waitstaff, partic.i.p.ate in a supermarket taste test (which then, in turn, increases the chances that they will buy the product), drink more in a bar, and become involved in charity work. Could it, however, also dramatically increase the chances of success in courtship? A large number of studies has shown that touching someone on the upper arm for just a second or two can have a surprisingly significant effect on how much help they then provide. In one experiment American researchers approached people in the street and asked them for a dime. A brief touch on the upper arm increased the likelihood of getting the money by 20 percent. Similar work has shown that the same subtle touch also significantly increases the likelihood that people will sign pet.i.tions, leave a tip for waitstaff, partic.i.p.ate in a supermarket taste test (which then, in turn, increases the chances that they will buy the product), drink more in a bar, and become involved in charity work. Could it, however, also dramatically increase the chances of success in courtship?

To find out, Gueguen arranged for a twenty-year-old man to approach 120 women in a nightclub during a three-week period. The approaches were carefully controlled to ensure consistency across all 120 women. Each took place when slow songs were being played and involved the man walking up to a woman and saying, "h.e.l.lo. My name's Antoine. Do you want to dance?" Half of the time the request was accompanied by a light touch on the top of the woman's arm, and the other half of the time the young man kept his hands to himself. If the woman declined, the man said, "Too bad, maybe another time?" and moved nine or ten feet away, then tried his luck with another woman. If the woman accepted, the man explained that she had just taken part in an experiment and handed her a sheet containing additional details about the study. Who says romance is dead?

In a second study by Gueguen, one of three male researchers approached women in the street and attempted to obtain their telephone numbers. Apparently all three of the men had to be good-looking, because according to the report describing the work, "pre-test evaluation showed that it was difficult to obtain the phone number from young women in the street" ("Honestly, it's part of a scientific experiment, officer"). The men approached a total of 240 women, told them that they were really pretty, suggested going for a drink later in the day, and asked for their telephone number. As before, half of the time the men touched the women lightly on the arm as they delivered their chat-up line. The men were then instructed to wait ten seconds, smile, and gaze at the woman. If the woman declined the kind offer, she was allowed to walk away. If she accepted, the researcher quickly explained that the whole thing had been an experiment, handed her an information sheet, and delivered one final scripted line: "Thanks for your partic.i.p.ation, and I'm sorry that I have taken up your time. Perhaps we could meet another time. Bye."

The results from both experiments were impressive. In the nightclub, women accepted the offer of a dance 43 percent of the time when not being touched on the arm and 65 percent after even the briefest of touches. In the street, the research team obtained telephone numbers from 10 percent of women with no physical contact and almost 20 percent when touching. In both cases a brief touch dramatically increased success.

Why is a touch so effective when flirting? Many psychologists believe that the answer has to do with s.e.x and status. A large body of research supports the not especially surprising fact that women find high-status men more attractive than their low-status counterparts. From an evolutionary perspective, those men represent ideal mates because they are able to provide for the couple and any potential offspring in times of need. But how do women decide on the status of a stranger within a few moments of meeting him?

The answer, in part, is touch. There is considerable evidence that a gentle touch is perceived as a sign of high status.9 For example, ask people to look at photographs of one person touching another, and they consistently rate the "toucher" as far more dominant than the "touchee." This is especially true of that all-important male-to-female touch on the upper arm. Most women don't consciously register the touch, but unconsciously it makes them think more highly of their potential beau. For example, ask people to look at photographs of one person touching another, and they consistently rate the "toucher" as far more dominant than the "touchee." This is especially true of that all-important male-to-female touch on the upper arm. Most women don't consciously register the touch, but unconsciously it makes them think more highly of their potential beau.

Women frequently accuse men of being shallow and too easily influenced by a pair of large b.r.e.a.s.t.s. Gueguen's adventures with hitchhiking and latex certainly suggest that this is the case. However, his work in the psychology of female seduction shows that women's romantic decision making can also be swayed by physical factors, providing they signal high status. Perhaps the real message is that deep down we are all a tad more shallow than we might like to admit.

IN 59 SECONDS.

If you want to get someone to help you out, try the briefest of touches on the upper arm. The same behavior also increases the likelihood that one person will find another person attractive, providing that the touch is short, confined to the upper arm, and delivered at the same time as a compliment or request. Do be careful, however, because it is easy to get this terribly wrong. Touching is a strong social signal, and even a few inches can make all the difference between the recipient inviting you in for coffee or calling the police.

IN 59 SECONDS.

More than thirty years of psychological research has revealed that most people adopt one of several very different "loving" styles in their romantic relationships. This style does not tend to change throughout a person's life, and it plays a key role in determining their relationships. Some researchers believe that these styles are determined by people's relationship with their primary caregiver during childhood,10 and others argue that it is all about brain functioning. and others argue that it is all about brain functioning.11 Regardless, the following questionnaire will give you an insight into how you score on the three main loving styles. Regardless, the following questionnaire will give you an insight into how you score on the three main loving styles.12 Take a few moments to read the nine statements that follow, and a.s.sign each of them a rating to indicate the degree to which they describe you. Some of the statements refer to a specific relationship, while others refer to your general beliefs. Whenever possible, answer the questions with your current partner in mind or, if you are not in a relationship, answer with your most recent partner in mind. If you have not been in a relationship, answer in a way that is consistent with how you believe you would think and behave. Don't spend too long thinking about each statement-and answer honestly.

a.s.sign each item a rating between 1 ("strongly disagree") and 5 ("strongly agree").

1.

I was attracted to my partner within moments of meeting him/her.

12345.

2.

When it comes to relationships, I find a certain type of person attractive, and my partner fits that ideal.

12345.

3.

My partner and I simply feel like we were meant for each other.

12345.

4.

I value loving relationships that grow out of strong friendships.

12345.

5.

I cannot say exactly when I fell in love. It seemed to happen over a relatively long period of time.

12345.

6.

Love is not a mysterious sensation but rather an extreme form of caring and friendship.

12345.

7.

My partner would not be happy if he/she knew some of the things that I get up to.

12345.

8.

I like the idea of playing the field with several different partners.