59 Seconds_ Think A Little, Change A Lot Part 6

Try to spot the unhappy face in the diagram below.

[image]

For most people, the task is surprisingly easy, with the unhappy face seeming to jump out from the crowd. Research shows that, conceptually speaking, the same effect influences many aspects of our everyday lives. Negative events and experiences are far more noticeable and have a greater impact on the way we think and behave than their positive counterparts.5 Put people in a bad mood, and they can easily remember negative life events, such as the end of a relationship or being laid off, but cheer them up, and they find it far harder to recall their first kiss or their best vacation. A single act of lying or dishonesty often has a disproportionate effect on a person's reputation and can quickly undo the years of hard work that have gone into building up a positive image. Put people in a bad mood, and they can easily remember negative life events, such as the end of a relationship or being laid off, but cheer them up, and they find it far harder to recall their first kiss or their best vacation. A single act of lying or dishonesty often has a disproportionate effect on a person's reputation and can quickly undo the years of hard work that have gone into building up a positive image.

American humorist Helen Rowland once noted, "A woman's flattery may inflate a man's head a little, but her criticism goes straight to his heart, and contracts it so that it can never again hold quite so much love for her." This seems to make intuitive sense, but are these a.s.sertions supported by findings from modern-day science?

As discussed earlier, psychologist John Gottman has spent more than thirty years exploring the key factors that predict whether a couple will stick together or drift apart.6 Much of his work has involved examining the comments made by couples when they chat with each other about their relationship. Over the years he has become especially interested in the role played by positive comments (reflecting, for example, agreement, understanding, or forgiveness) and negative ones (involving hostility, criticism, or contempt). By carefully recording the frequency of these, and then tracking the success of the relationship, Gottman was able to figure out the ratio of positive to negative comments that predicted the downfall of a partnership. His findings make fascinating reading and firmly endorse the thoughts of Dale Carnegie. For a relationship to succeed, the frequency of positive comments has to outweigh negative remarks by about five to one. In other words, it takes five instances of agreement and support to undo the harm caused by a single criticism. Much of his work has involved examining the comments made by couples when they chat with each other about their relationship. Over the years he has become especially interested in the role played by positive comments (reflecting, for example, agreement, understanding, or forgiveness) and negative ones (involving hostility, criticism, or contempt). By carefully recording the frequency of these, and then tracking the success of the relationship, Gottman was able to figure out the ratio of positive to negative comments that predicted the downfall of a partnership. His findings make fascinating reading and firmly endorse the thoughts of Dale Carnegie. For a relationship to succeed, the frequency of positive comments has to outweigh negative remarks by about five to one. In other words, it takes five instances of agreement and support to undo the harm caused by a single criticism.

Unfortunately, Gottman's work also revealed that the much-needed positive comments are surprisingly thin on the ground. Why should this be the case? Once again, a detailed a.n.a.lysis of couples' conversations revealed the answer. When one person made a supportive remark ("Nice tie"), their partner tended tended to respond with a positive comment of their own ("Thanks. Nice dress"). However, the pattern was far from reliable, and an entire succession of positive remarks ("Nice tie, and really like your shirt, and lovely sweater, too") often failed to produce a single pleasant reply. In contrast, the response to negative comments was far more predictable, with the smallest of criticisms ("Are you sure about that tie?") often provoking a hail of negativity ("Well, I like it even if you don't. And why should I care what you think about my tie? It's not as if you have the best dress sense in the world. I mean, take that dress. You look like a scarecrow that has let itself go. That's it, I am out of here"). to respond with a positive comment of their own ("Thanks. Nice dress"). However, the pattern was far from reliable, and an entire succession of positive remarks ("Nice tie, and really like your shirt, and lovely sweater, too") often failed to produce a single pleasant reply. In contrast, the response to negative comments was far more predictable, with the smallest of criticisms ("Are you sure about that tie?") often provoking a hail of negativity ("Well, I like it even if you don't. And why should I care what you think about my tie? It's not as if you have the best dress sense in the world. I mean, take that dress. You look like a scarecrow that has let itself go. That's it, I am out of here").

Gottman's work shows that relationships thrive and survive on mutual support and agreement, and that even the briefest of bitter asides needs to be sweetened with a great deal of love and attention. Unfortunately, conversational conventions do not encourage these much-needed compliments and supportive comments.

Having partners monitor and modify the language that they use when they speak to each other is difficult and would require a relatively large amount of time and effort. However, the good news is that researchers have discovered quick, but nevertheless effective, ways of using words to improve relationships.

Take, for example, work by psychologists Richard Slatcher and James Pennebaker at the University of Texas at Austin.7 Slatcher and Pennebaker knew that previous research suggested that having people who have experienced a traumatic event write about their thoughts and feelings helped prevent the onset of depression and enhanced their immune system. They wondered if it could also improve the quality of people's relationships. To find out, they recruited more than eighty newly formed couples and randomly a.s.signed one member of each couple to one of two groups. Those in one group were asked to spend twenty minutes a day for three consecutive days writing about their thoughts and feelings concerning their current relationship. In contrast, those in the other group were asked to spend the same amount of time writing about what they had been up to that day. Three months later the researchers contacted all of the partic.i.p.ants and asked them whether their relationship was still ongoing. Remarkably, the simple act of having one member of the relationship write about their feelings for their partner had had a significant effect. Of those who had engaged in such "expressive" writing, 77 percent were still dating their partners, compared to just 52 percent of those who had written about their daily activities. Slatcher and Pennebaker knew that previous research suggested that having people who have experienced a traumatic event write about their thoughts and feelings helped prevent the onset of depression and enhanced their immune system. They wondered if it could also improve the quality of people's relationships. To find out, they recruited more than eighty newly formed couples and randomly a.s.signed one member of each couple to one of two groups. Those in one group were asked to spend twenty minutes a day for three consecutive days writing about their thoughts and feelings concerning their current relationship. In contrast, those in the other group were asked to spend the same amount of time writing about what they had been up to that day. Three months later the researchers contacted all of the partic.i.p.ants and asked them whether their relationship was still ongoing. Remarkably, the simple act of having one member of the relationship write about their feelings for their partner had had a significant effect. Of those who had engaged in such "expressive" writing, 77 percent were still dating their partners, compared to just 52 percent of those who had written about their daily activities.

To explore what lay behind this dramatic difference, the researchers collected and a.n.a.lyzed the text messages that the couples had sent to each other during the three-month a.s.sessment period. By carefully counting all of the positive and negative words in the messages, they discovered that the texts from those who had carried out the expressive writing exercise contained significantly more positive words than the messages from those who had written about their daily lives. In short, the results demonstrated how a seemingly small activity can have a surprisingly large impact. Spending just twenty minutes a day for three days writing about their relationship had a long-term impact, both on the language that they used to communicate with their partner and on the likelihood that they would stick together.

Other research has suggested that it doesn't even take twenty minutes a day for three days to improve the health of your relationship. Take a look at the following ill.u.s.tration.

[image]

The white circle on the left appears to be larger than the white circle on the right. In fact, the two circles are identical, but they appear to be different sizes because our brains automatically compare each of the circles to their surroundings. The left circle is surrounded by small circles and so, in comparison, appears to be relatively large. In contrast, the right circle is surrounded by large circles and therefore appears to be relatively small.

Bram Buunk, at the University of Groningen and his colleagues from other universities, wondered whether the same type of "comparative thinking" could be used to enhance the way people viewed their relationships.8 To find out, Buunk recruited partic.i.p.ants who were in long-term relationships and asked them to think about their partner in one of two ways. One group was simply asked to jot down a few words explaining why they thought their relationship was good. In contrast, a second group was asked to first think about other relationships that they believed were not as good as their own and then write why theirs was better. Conceptually, the second group's task was similar to the situation on the left side of the ill.u.s.tration. As predicted, by mentally surrounding their relationship with smaller circles, partic.i.p.ants felt far more positive about their partner. To find out, Buunk recruited partic.i.p.ants who were in long-term relationships and asked them to think about their partner in one of two ways. One group was simply asked to jot down a few words explaining why they thought their relationship was good. In contrast, a second group was asked to first think about other relationships that they believed were not as good as their own and then write why theirs was better. Conceptually, the second group's task was similar to the situation on the left side of the ill.u.s.tration. As predicted, by mentally surrounding their relationship with smaller circles, partic.i.p.ants felt far more positive about their partner.

Finally, work by psychologists Sandra Murray and John Holmes suggests that even one word can make all the difference.9 In their study, people were interviewed about their partner's most positive and negative qualities. The research team then followed partic.i.p.ants for a year, monitoring which relationships stayed the course and which fell by the wayside. They next examined the different types of language that the people in the successful and unsuccessful relationships had used during the interview. Perhaps the most important difference came down to just one word-"but." When talking about their partner's greatest faults, those in successful relationships tended to qualify any criticism. Her husband was lazy, but that gave the two of them reason to laugh. His wife was a terrible cook, but as a result they ate out a lot. He was introverted, but he expressed his love in other ways. She was sometimes thoughtless, but that was due to a rather difficult childhood. That one simple word was able to help reduce the negative effect of their partner's alleged faults and keep the relationship on an even keel. In their study, people were interviewed about their partner's most positive and negative qualities. The research team then followed partic.i.p.ants for a year, monitoring which relationships stayed the course and which fell by the wayside. They next examined the different types of language that the people in the successful and unsuccessful relationships had used during the interview. Perhaps the most important difference came down to just one word-"but." When talking about their partner's greatest faults, those in successful relationships tended to qualify any criticism. Her husband was lazy, but that gave the two of them reason to laugh. His wife was a terrible cook, but as a result they ate out a lot. He was introverted, but he expressed his love in other ways. She was sometimes thoughtless, but that was due to a rather difficult childhood. That one simple word was able to help reduce the negative effect of their partner's alleged faults and keep the relationship on an even keel.

IN 59 SECONDS.

The following three-day task is similar to those used in experimental studies showing that spending time writing about a relationship has several physical and psychological benefits and can help improve the longevity of the relationship.

DAY 1.

Spend ten minutes writing about your deepest feelings about your current romantic relationship. Feel free to explore your emotions and thoughts.

DAY 2.

Think about someone that you know who is in a relationship that is in some way inferior to your own. Write three important reasons why your relationship is better than theirs.

DAY 3.

Write one important positive quality that your partner has, and explain why this quality means so much to you.

Now write something that you consider to be a fault with your partner (perhaps something about his or her personality, habits, or behavior), and then list one way in which this fault could be considered redeeming or endearing.

A ROOM WITH A CUE.

Imagine that you have just walked into the living room of a complete stranger. You know nothing about the person and have just a few moments to look around and try to understand something about their personality. Take a look at those art prints on the walls and the photographs above the fireplace. Notice how books and CDs are scattered all over the place-what does that tell you? Do you think that the person living here is an extrovert or an introvert? An anxious person or someone who is more relaxed about life? Are they in a relationship and, if so, are they genuinely happy with their partner? Okay, time to leave. The fict.i.tious owner is coming back soon, and if they find you here they will be furious.

Psychologists have recently started to take a serious interest in whether it is possible to tell something about a person's personality and relationships from their homes and offices. For example, a few years ago, Sam Gosling at the University of Texas at Austin arranged for people to complete standard personality questionnaires. Then he sent a team of trained observers to carefully record many aspects of their living and work s.p.a.ces.10 Were the rooms cluttered or well organized? What kinds of posters did they have on the wall? Did they have potted plants and, if so, how many? The research showed that, for example, the bedrooms of creative people did not have any more books and magazines than the bedrooms of others, but their reading matter was drawn from a greater variety of genres. Likewise, when it came to the workplace, extroverts' offices were judged as warmer and more inviting than those of their introverted colleagues. Gosling concluded that many aspects of people's personality were reflected in their surroundings. Were the rooms cluttered or well organized? What kinds of posters did they have on the wall? Did they have potted plants and, if so, how many? The research showed that, for example, the bedrooms of creative people did not have any more books and magazines than the bedrooms of others, but their reading matter was drawn from a greater variety of genres. Likewise, when it came to the workplace, extroverts' offices were judged as warmer and more inviting than those of their introverted colleagues. Gosling concluded that many aspects of people's personality were reflected in their surroundings.

Other work has examined what you can tell about a person's relationship from their surroundings. Time for another exercise. This one really works only if you are currently in a relationship, so you will have to sit it out if you are single. Sorry about that. On the plus side, it is quite quick, so you won't have long to wait.

First, decide which room in your house you tend to use to entertain guests. Okay, now imagine sitting in the middle of that room and looking around (of course, if you happen to be in the room, simply look around). On a piece of paper, make a list of your five favorite objects in the room. This can include posters, art prints, tables, chairs, sculptures, potted plants, toys, gadgets-anything that really appeals to you. Next, think about how you acquired each object on the list. If your partner bought the object, or it was a joint purchase, place a checkmark beside it. You should end up with a list of five objects and between zero and five checkmarks.

What does the number of checkmarks say about your relationship? According to psychologist Andrew Lohmann, at Claremont Graduate University, and his colleagues, a great deal.11 Lohmann recruited more than a hundred couples and asked them to complete the "check the joint objects in the room" task and also to a.s.sess how close they felt to their partner. The results revealed that a large number of checkmarks was a.s.sociated with a closer and healthier relationship, a tendency to view the relationship as a long-term partnership, and a greater willingness to expend time and effort it make it work. So next time you pop over to a friend's house, you might want to ask about how they came to own some of the most prominent objects in the room-it may reveal more about their relationship than they realize. Lohmann recruited more than a hundred couples and asked them to complete the "check the joint objects in the room" task and also to a.s.sess how close they felt to their partner. The results revealed that a large number of checkmarks was a.s.sociated with a closer and healthier relationship, a tendency to view the relationship as a long-term partnership, and a greater willingness to expend time and effort it make it work. So next time you pop over to a friend's house, you might want to ask about how they came to own some of the most prominent objects in the room-it may reveal more about their relationship than they realize.

The presence of objects that remind a person of their relationship may, for example, bring back happy memories, and so make them feel good. Or such objects might remind them of a particularly emotional or amusing episode in their relationship. However, according to some recent research, they might be doing far more.

In an ingenious study exploring the power of love, Jon Maner at Florida State University, and his colleagues from various other universities, recruited more than a hundred students who were in committed relationships and asked them to look at photographs of members of the opposite s.e.x and choose the one who they thought was the most physically attractive.12 One group was then asked to write an essay about a time when they felt a strong sense of love for their partner, while a control group was allowed to write about anything they chose. One group was then asked to write an essay about a time when they felt a strong sense of love for their partner, while a control group was allowed to write about anything they chose.

While producing their essays, all of the students were told to forget about the photograph of the attractive person that they had selected earlier. In addition, they were told that if the image happened to pop into their minds, they were to place a checkmark in the margin of their essay. Asking people not to think about something usually encourages them to dwell on it, and this was certainly the case with the control group, who averaged four checkmarks per page. However, people thinking about being in love found it much easier to push the attractive image out of their mind, resulting in an average of only one tick every two pages.

Later in the experiment, everyone was asked to remember as much as possible about their chosen photograph. Those in the "love" group tended to remember the more general aspects of the image, such as the color of a person's dress or the location of the shot, and tended to forget the features related to physical attractiveness, such as having bedroom eyes or a wonderful smile. In fact, the students in love remembered, on average, only about two-thirds as many attractive features as the control group did.

These findings suggest that spending even a few minutes thinking about the love that you feel for a partner drastically reduces the appeal of attractive members of the opposite s.e.x. According to the research team, this may be a mechanism that has evolved over thousands of years to help keep couples together. On a more practical level, it suggests that any object that reminds you of your partner may be having an important psychological effect. From photos to a wedding ring or a necklace bought on that fun trip abroad, it is all about helping you prefer your partner to the compet.i.tion.

IN 59 SECONDS.

Surrounding yourself with objects that remind you of your partner is good for your relationship. It could be something that you wear, such as a ring, pendant, or necklace. Or perhaps keep a gift from your partner on display in the home or office. Or maybe place a photograph of the two of you in a prominent location, or in a wallet or purse. Either way, remember that these objects are more than mere tokens of love; they also serve an important psychological function. Not only do they usually evoke happy memories and positive thoughts, but they also activate a deep-seated evolutionary mechanism that helps make temptation far less tempting.

stress Why not to kick kick and and scream scream, how to reduce reduce resentment in seconds, resentment in seconds, harness the power power of a four-legged friend, of a four-legged friend, and think think your way to low blood pressure your way to low blood pressure

THE FAMOUS PSYCHOa.n.a.lYST Sigmund Freud believed that the psyche is composed of three main components: id, ego, and superego. The "id" is the animalistic portion of your mind that is impulsive and driven by basic instincts, the "superego" represents the more moral side of things, and the "ego" attempts to arbitrate between these two opposing forces. Most of the time, the three parts agree with one another, and all is fine and dandy. However, once in a while, a major disagreement breaks out, and, as is so often the case in life, it usually comes down to s.e.x and violence. Sigmund Freud believed that the psyche is composed of three main components: id, ego, and superego. The "id" is the animalistic portion of your mind that is impulsive and driven by basic instincts, the "superego" represents the more moral side of things, and the "ego" attempts to arbitrate between these two opposing forces. Most of the time, the three parts agree with one another, and all is fine and dandy. However, once in a while, a major disagreement breaks out, and, as is so often the case in life, it usually comes down to s.e.x and violence.

To fully appreciate Freud's idea, imagine locking a h.o.r.n.y teenage boy (think id), a priest (superego), and an accountant (ego) in a room with a p.o.r.nographic magazine. The teenager, representing the animalistic side, would jump on the magazine, while the priest would attempt to rip it out of his immoral grasp and dispose of it. The accountant would then face an uphill struggle getting them to agree on the best way forward. Eventually, all three would calm down, discuss the issue, and perhaps decide that it would be best to pretend that the magazine didn't exist. That way, the teenager wouldn't be tempted to look at the naughty photographs, and the priest wouldn't have to lecture constantly about the importance of morality. Happy with the clever compromise, the three hide the magazine under the carpet and try to forget about it. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. Day after day the teenager would be tempted to take a peek, but every time he lifted the carpet, the priest would wag his finger. Eventually the tension would build, making everyone feel more and more anxious.

According to Freud, we are frequently caught up in struggles between our inner teenager and priest, with one arguing for what we want to do and the other for what we ought to do. The teenager wants to have an extramarital affair, and the priest points out the importance of marriage vows. The teenager wants to strike out at someone who has upset him, and the priest votes in favor of forgiveness. The teenager wants to go ahead with a shady business deal, and the priest emphasizes the need to be a good law-abiding citizen. Most of the time we end up pretending that these problems don't exist and try to bury them deep within the unconscious. However, the mental stress caused by having to keep our conceptual p.o.r.nographic magazines hidden under the carpet builds and can eventually make us feel frustrated, anxious, and angry.

Many psychologists have argued that the best solution is to release these repressed feelings in a safe and socially acceptable way. Punch a pillow. Shout and scream. Stamp your feet. Anything to calm down your inner teenager before he kicks in the door. This cathartic approach to anger management has gained wide acceptance-but was Freud correct?

For several years, psychologists have examined the effects of putting people under stress and then encouraging them to shout and scream. A few years ago, Brad Bushman at Iowa State University carried out an experiment in which six hundred students were asked to produce an essay describing their views on abortion.1 These essays were then taken away and allegedly given to another student for evaluation. In reality, the experimenters evaluated all of the essays themselves and made sure that the students received bad marks, negative feedback, and a handwritten note saying, "This is one of the worst essays I have read." Perhaps not surprisingly, the students were annoyed with the way their essays had been evaluated and were furious with the fict.i.tious evaluator. These essays were then taken away and allegedly given to another student for evaluation. In reality, the experimenters evaluated all of the essays themselves and made sure that the students received bad marks, negative feedback, and a handwritten note saying, "This is one of the worst essays I have read." Perhaps not surprisingly, the students were annoyed with the way their essays had been evaluated and were furious with the fict.i.tious evaluator.

Some of the students were then given an opportunity to get their aggressive feelings out of their system. They were given a pair of boxing gloves, shown a photograph of the person that had allegedly marked their essay, and told to think about that person while they hit a seventy-pound punching bag. Although the students were left alone with the bag while venting their aggression, an intercom system allowed the experimenters to count secretly the number of times they hit the bag. In contrast, another group of students was not introduced to the boxing gloves and punching bag but was asked instead to sit in a quiet room for two minutes.

Afterward, everyone completed a standard mood questionnaire that measured, among other things, how angry, annoyed, and frustrated they felt. Finally, games were played between pairs, with the victor winning the right to administer a loud blast of noise in the face of the loser. The winner decided how long and how loud each blast would be, and a computer carefully recorded the choices.

Did the people who punched the bag feel less aggressive than those who had sat quietly in the room? Did the "punchers" feel more inclined to generate louder blasts?

Those who had donned the boxing gloves and punched as hard as they could felt far more aggressive afterward and administered longer and louder blasts of noise in the faces of their fellow partic.i.p.ants. The results revealed large differences in the final mood, and blasting behavior, between the two groups, and this pattern has been proven frequently. The venting of anger does not extinguish the flame. In fact, as Brad Bushman remarks in his paper, it is far more likely to pour gasoline onto the fire.

If punching and screaming do not help to quell feelings of stress and frustration, what does? And what can be done to create a more relaxed view of life? Are lengthy anger-management courses or hours of deep meditation the answer? In fact, there are some simple and fast solutions, which include being able to find benefits, doing nothing, and harnessing the positive power of a four-legged friend.

IN SEARCH OF BENEFITS.

Everyone will experience negative events at some point in their lives. Perhaps you will contract an illness, have to face the breakup of a long-term relationship, discover that your partner has had an affair, or endure hurtful gossip spread about you by a close friend. Quite understandably, such events usually cause people to feel anxious, upset, and depressed. People often reflect on the past, wishing that things could be different. If another person is responsible for their suffering, thoughts might turn to revenge and retribution. Oftentimes, such experiences lead to feelings of anger, bitterness, and aggression. Given that putting on boxing gloves and hitting a punching bag is likely to make the situation worse rather than better, what is the best way of dealing with such emotions?

One possibility is simply to behave in a way that is incompatible with being angry. Watch a funny film, go to a party, play with a puppy, or tackle a difficult crossword puzzle. Alternatively, you could distract yourself by exercising, creating an art project, or spending an evening with friends or family. However, although such behavior may help reduce feelings of stress caused by relatively minor ha.s.sles, it is unlikely to provide a lasting solution to more serious sources of long-term frustration. The good news is that a more effective solution does not require lengthy sessions with a therapist or hours talking about the issues with those around you. It actually takes minutes, not months, and has been shown to help people who have lost their possessions in a fire, suffered bereavement, experienced a heart attack, been the victims of disaster, or been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.2 It is called "benefit finding." It is called "benefit finding."

The procedure can be ill.u.s.trated by research conducted by Michael McCullough and his colleagues at the University of Miami.3 More than three hundred undergraduates were asked to choose an incident in their lives in which someone had hurt or offended them. From infidelity to insults, rejection to abandonment, the students all came up with something that had been eating away at them. More than three hundred undergraduates were asked to choose an incident in their lives in which someone had hurt or offended them. From infidelity to insults, rejection to abandonment, the students all came up with something that had been eating away at them.

One-third of the partic.i.p.ants were then asked to spend a few minutes describing the event in detail, focusing on how angry they felt and how the experience had had a negative effect on their lives. A second group was asked to do the same thing, except they were to focus on the benefits that flowed from the experience, including, for example, becoming a stronger or wiser person. The final group was simply asked to describe the plans that they had for the following day.

At the end of the study, everyone was asked to complete a questionnaire that measured their thoughts and feelings toward the person who had upset and hurt them. The results revealed that just a few minutes of focusing on the benefits that were derived from the seemingly hurtful experience helped partic.i.p.ants deal with the anger and upset caused by the situation. They felt significantly more forgiving toward those who had hurt them and were less likely to seek revenge or avoid them.

Finding the benefits that resulted flowed from negative life events may seem like wishful thinking, but there is some evidence that such benefits may be genuine. For example, research shows that certain positive character traits, such as grat.i.tude, hope, kindness, leadership, and teamwork, increased in Americans following the 9 /11 terrorist attacks.4 In addition, other work has shown that having a serious physical illness can result in increased levels of bravery, curiosity, fairness, humor, and appreciation of beauty. In addition, other work has shown that having a serious physical illness can result in increased levels of bravery, curiosity, fairness, humor, and appreciation of beauty.5 When it comes to anger management, putting on the boxing gloves or punching a pillow is far more likely to increase, not decrease, feelings of aggression. Instead, it is possible to significantly reduce such feelings by focusing on the benefits that emerged from the seemingly negative events underlying your anger.

IN 59 SECONDS.

When you experience an event that has the potential to make you feel angry, try the following exercise to ease the pain and help you move on.

Spend a few moments thinking about the positive aspects of the event that you found hurtful. For example, did the event help you ...

grow stronger or become aware of personal strengths that you didn't realize you had?

appreciate certain aspects of your life more than before?

become a wiser person?

enhance important relationships or end bad ones?

become more skilled at communicating your feelings?

bolster your confidence?

develop into a more compa.s.sionate or forgiving person?

repair and strengthen your relationship with a person who hurt you?

identify any of your own shortcomings that may stand in the way of your happiness?

Write down how you have benefited from the experience and how your life is better as a result of what happened. Do not withhold anything and be as honest as possible.

FOUR 15-SECOND TIPS FOR CONQUERING STRESSWhen you sense danger, your body gears up for action as you prepare either to run away or stand your ground. Unfortunately, the stress of modern-day life can result in this system's being triggered constantly. Whether it stems from not being able to find a parking s.p.a.ce or an argument with the kids, most people hit the "fight or flight" b.u.t.ton on an all too regular basis. Although mild amounts of stress may help some people focus on the task at hand, constant problems can take their toll, eventually sending the stress meter rocketing and causing increased blood pressure, concentration difficulties, worry, weight gain, and a weakening of the immune system. However, there are several quick and easy ways of bringing your blood pressure back down to earth.Help Yourself by Praying for Others. Research conducted by Neal Krause at the University of Michigan suggests that praying for others might be good for your health.6 After interviewing more than a thousand people about the nature of their prayers, finances, and health, Krause discovered that praying for others helped reduce the financial stresses and strains of the person doing the praying and improved their own well-being. Interestingly, praying for material things, such as a new car or a better house, offered no such protection. After interviewing more than a thousand people about the nature of their prayers, finances, and health, Krause discovered that praying for others helped reduce the financial stresses and strains of the person doing the praying and improved their own well-being. Interestingly, praying for material things, such as a new car or a better house, offered no such protection.Study the Cla.s.sics. Sky Chafin at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues at other universities examined which music best reduces blood pressure after a stressful event.7 Their work involved making people anxious by having them count down aloud from 2,397 in sets of 13, i.e., 2397, 2384, et cetera. To make matters worse, every thirty seconds the experimenter hara.s.sed the partic.i.p.ants with negative feedback ("Come on, get a move on") and urged them to speed up. Afterward, some of the partic.i.p.ants were left alone to recover in silence, while others were played either cla.s.sical music (Pachelbel's Their work involved making people anxious by having them count down aloud from 2,397 in sets of 13, i.e., 2397, 2384, et cetera. To make matters worse, every thirty seconds the experimenter hara.s.sed the partic.i.p.ants with negative feedback ("Come on, get a move on") and urged them to speed up. Afterward, some of the partic.i.p.ants were left alone to recover in silence, while others were played either cla.s.sical music (Pachelbel's Canon Canon and Vivaldi's and Vivaldi's Four Seasons: Spring Four Seasons: Spring, movement 1), jazz (including "Flamenco Sketches" by Miles Davis), or pop music (Sarah McLachlan's "Angel" and the Dave Matthews Band's "Crash into Me"). Blood pressure readings revealed that listening to pop or jazz music had the same restorative effect as total silence. In contrast, those who listened to Pachelbel and Vivaldi relaxed much more quickly, and so their blood pressure dropped back to the normal level in far less time.Here Comes the Sun. Work conducted by Matthew Keller at the Virginia Inst.i.tute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, and outside colleagues, looked at the relationship between the sun and emotion.8 The team discovered that hot weather, indicated by higher temperatures and barometric pressure, caused people to be in a better mood and improved their memory, but only if they had spent more than thirty minutes outside. People who had spent less than the magic half hour in the sun were actually in a poorer mood than usual. Perhaps, as the authors suggested, people resent being cooped up when the weather is pleasant. The team discovered that hot weather, indicated by higher temperatures and barometric pressure, caused people to be in a better mood and improved their memory, but only if they had spent more than thirty minutes outside. People who had spent less than the magic half hour in the sun were actually in a poorer mood than usual. Perhaps, as the authors suggested, people resent being cooped up when the weather is pleasant.Get in Touch with Your Inner Clown. Laugh and the whole world laughs with you, cry and you increase your chances of a heart attack. Well, at least that is the general conclusion from research examining the psychology of humor and stress. People who spontaneously use humor to cope with stress have especially healthy immune systems, are 40 percent less likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke, experience less pain during dental surgery, and live four and a half years longer than average.9 In 2005 Michael Miller and his colleagues at the University of Maryland showed people scenes from films that were likely to make them feel anxious (such as the opening thirty minutes of In 2005 Michael Miller and his colleagues at the University of Maryland showed people scenes from films that were likely to make them feel anxious (such as the opening thirty minutes of Saving Private Ryan) Saving Private Ryan) or make them laugh (such as the "o.r.g.a.s.m" scene from or make them laugh (such as the "o.r.g.a.s.m" scene from When Harry Met Sally) When Harry Met Sally). Partic.i.p.ants' blood flow dropped by about 35 percent after watching the stress-inducing films, but rose by 22 percent following the more humorous material. On the basis of the results, the researchers recommended that people laugh for at least fifteen minutes each day.

PAWS FOR THOUGHT.

There are many ways in which a dog can make you feel better. Scientists have conducted numerous studies that examine how you might benefit from having a four-legged friend.

Some of the best-known research, run by Erika Friedmann at the University of Maryland, and outside colleagues, investigated the possible relationship between dog ownership and cardiovascular functioning.10 After carefully following the recovery rates of patients who had suffered a heart attack, Friedmann discovered that those who were dog owners, compared to those without a canine pal, were almost nine times more likely to be alive twelve months later. This remarkable result encouraged scientists to explore other possible benefits of canine companionship, resulting in studies showing that dog owners coped well with everyday stress, were relaxed about life, had high self-esteem, and were less likely to be diagnosed with depression. After carefully following the recovery rates of patients who had suffered a heart attack, Friedmann discovered that those who were dog owners, compared to those without a canine pal, were almost nine times more likely to be alive twelve months later. This remarkable result encouraged scientists to explore other possible benefits of canine companionship, resulting in studies showing that dog owners coped well with everyday stress, were relaxed about life, had high self-esteem, and were less likely to be diagnosed with depression.11 The magnitude of these benefits should not be underestimated. One study measured the blood pressure and heart rate of dog owners as they carried out two stressful tasks (counting backward by threes from a four-digit number and holding their hand in a bucket of ice water) while in the presence of their pet or spouse.12 The partic.i.p.ants had lower heart rates and blood pressure and made far fewer errors on the counting task in the presence of their dog than they did if their partner was present-scientific evidence, if any is needed, that your dog is better for your health than your husband or wife is. The partic.i.p.ants had lower heart rates and blood pressure and made far fewer errors on the counting task in the presence of their dog than they did if their partner was present-scientific evidence, if any is needed, that your dog is better for your health than your husband or wife is.

Interestingly, the same cannot be said for cats. Some studies show that living with a cat may help alleviate negative moods but is unlikely to make you feel especially good,13 and others suggest that cat owners may actually be more likely than others to die in the twelve months following a heart attack. and others suggest that cat owners may actually be more likely than others to die in the twelve months following a heart attack.14 Promising as they may seem, such studies do have one huge problem. Although dog ownership is related to a more relaxed att.i.tude toward life and a healthier cardiovascular system, that doesn't necessarily mean that having a dog is the cause of these benefits. People who own a dog may have a certain type of personality, and it could be that which is responsible for their longer and less stressful lives.

To help separate correlation from causation, Karen Allen at the State University of New York at Buffalo conducted a much-needed study.15 She a.s.sembled a group of city stockbrokers who suffered from hypertension, randomly divided them into two groups, and gave each person in one group a dog to look after. Both groups had their blood pressure monitored over a six-month period. The results revealed that the stockbrokers with dogs were significantly more relaxed than those in the control group. In fact, when it came to alleviating the effects of mental stress, the dogs proved more effective than one of the most commonly used drugs to treat hypertension. More important, as the people were randomly a.s.signed to the "dog" and "no dog" condition, there was no difference in personality between the groups, and so that factor could not account for the findings. In addition to feeling less stressed, the hard-nosed city types had become emotionally attached to their animals, and none of them accepted the opportunity of returning their newfound friends at the end of the study. She a.s.sembled a group of city stockbrokers who suffered from hypertension, randomly divided them into two groups, and gave each person in one group a dog to look after. Both groups had their blood pressure monitored over a six-month period. The results revealed that the stockbrokers with dogs were significantly more relaxed than those in the control group. In fact, when it came to alleviating the effects of mental stress, the dogs proved more effective than one of the most commonly used drugs to treat hypertension. More important, as the people were randomly a.s.signed to the "dog" and "no dog" condition, there was no difference in personality between the groups, and so that factor could not account for the findings. In addition to feeling less stressed, the hard-nosed city types had become emotionally attached to their animals, and none of them accepted the opportunity of returning their newfound friends at the end of the study.

Several theories have been proposed to explain why owning a dog should be good for you. It could be that the exercise a.s.sociated with daily walking benefits your physical and psychological health. Others have argued that dogs act as the ultimate "nonjudgmental friend," patiently listening to your innermost thoughts and never pa.s.sing your secrets on to others. Seen in this way, dogs are like a devoted therapist, albeit one with woolly ears, a wet nose, and low fees. An alternative theory is that simply touching or stroking a dog could have a calming and beneficial effect (evidence shows that even a nurse holding a patient's hand significantly lowers the patient's heart rate).16 However, most researchers acknowledge that one of the most important factors centers on the social benefits of owning a dog. Spend time in a park frequented by people out walking their dogs and you will quickly see how man's best friend encourages strangers to talk to one another ("Aw, how cute. ... What breed is he?" "What a lovely dog ... How old is she?" "Look at what I've just stepped in ... Did he do that?"). A large body of research has demonstrated that spending time with other people is a major source of happiness and health, and dogs' inadvertent but effective ability to bring people together is likely to play a major role in promoting the well-being of their owners.

But just how good are dogs at initiating such meetings, and what kind of dog is best for networking? To find out, animal psychologist Deborah Wells from Queen's University Belfast arranged for a researcher to give up several lunch hours in order to walk back and forth along the same stretch of road with a variety of dogs. Each walk continued until the researcher had pa.s.sed three hundred people coming in the opposite direction. Another experimenter, walking a few paces behind, secretly noted whether each pa.s.serby looked at the researcher, smiled at her, or stopped to talk. For three of the trips the researcher was accompanied by a yellow Labrador puppy, an adult Labrador, or an adult Rottweiler. As a control experiment, on three other days she walked alone, carrying a twenty-inch brown teddy bear (chosen to have attention-grabbing big brown eyes, short limbs, and a high forehead) or a yucca plant.

Finally, 1,800 pa.s.sersby and 211 conversations later, the results revealed that the teddy bear and the plant initiated lots of looking but did not result in very much smiling and resulted in almost no chatting. In contrast, the dogs caused people to look, smile, and chat. The Rottweiler produced a very low chat rate, presumably because people a.s.sociated the breed with aggression and liked the idea of keeping their throats intact and fully functional. In contrast, around one in ten people stopped to chat to the researcher when she was with the adult or puppy Labrador.17 This study is not the only one to support the notion that people talk to those with animals. Previous work found that a female experimenter sitting on a park bench received more attention from pa.s.sersby when she had a pet rabbit or turtle at her side than when she sat alone blowing bubbles or next to a working television set.18 IN 59 SECONDS.

There are two key messages from this research. First, owning a dog helps to relieve the stresses and strains of everyday life, in part because it promotes social contact. Second, to maximize the chances of such meetings, choose a Labrador rather than a Rottweiler, teddy bear, yucca plant, television set, or bubble mixture.

However, if your lifestyle is incompatible with owning a dog, there are still two things that you can do to gain the benefits of a four-legged friend.

i-dog You could consider getting a robotic dog, rather than a real one. Recent research by Marian Banks and her colleagues at the Saint Louis University School of Medicine examined the effects of robot dogs and real dogs on patient loneliness in long-term-care facilities.19 The research team took a living dog or a Sony AIBO to each facility on a weekly basis, spending about thirty minutes with patients on each visit. During the course of eight weeks, patients formed the same strength of emotional bond with both types of dog, and both helped to alleviate feelings of loneliness to the same extent. The research team took a living dog or a Sony AIBO to each facility on a weekly basis, spending about thirty minutes with patients on each visit. During the course of eight weeks, patients formed the same strength of emotional bond with both types of dog, and both helped to alleviate feelings of loneliness to the same extent.

Tune in to Animal TV.

In an innovative study, Deborah Wells examined whether merely looking at a video of an animal can have the same type of calming and restorative effects as those created by being in its company.20 She created three short videotapes (ten fish swimming in a plantfilled aquarium, ten parakeets in an aviary, or ten monkeys sitting in trees) and took partic.i.p.ants' blood pressure before and after they watched the videos. In one control condition, Wells organized another group of people to watch a videotape of a well-known soap opera, and still another to watch a blank television screen. Two main findings emerged. First, physiologically speaking, watching the soap opera was almost identical to staring at a blank television screen. Second, compared to the two control conditions, all three animal videos made the partic.i.p.ants feel much more relaxed. To help reduce your heart rate and blood pressure in less than a minute, go online and watch a video of a cute animal. She created three short videotapes (ten fish swimming in a plantfilled aquarium, ten parakeets in an aviary, or ten monkeys sitting in trees) and took partic.i.p.ants' blood pressure before and after they watched the videos. In one control condition, Wells organized another group of people to watch a videotape of a well-known soap opera, and still another to watch a blank television screen. Two main findings emerged. First, physiologically speaking, watching the soap opera was almost identical to staring at a blank television screen. Second, compared to the two control conditions, all three animal videos made the partic.i.p.ants feel much more relaxed. To help reduce your heart rate and blood pressure in less than a minute, go online and watch a video of a cute animal.

LOWER YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE BY DOING NOTHING.

A few years ago I conducted an experiment into the psychology of alcohol consumption as part of a television program. The study involved a group of students spending an evening in a bar with their friends. It was easy to persuade people to partic.i.p.ate because the drinks were on the house. The only downside was that throughout the course of the evening our guinea pigs were asked to take a few short tests. On the night of the experiment, everyone arrived and the first round of testing began. Each student was presented with a list of numbers and asked to remember as many as possible, walk along a line marked on the floor, and undergo a reaction-time test that involved the experimenter's dropping a ruler from between her first finger and thumb and asking the students to catch it the moment they saw it move.

Having completed the initial tests, we quickly moved on to the desirable part of the evening-drinking. Each student was randomly a.s.signed to a blue group or a red group, given an appropriate badge, and told that they were more than welcome to make good use of the free bar. There was, however, just one rule-each person had to go to the bar and order their own drink, and no one was to get any drinks for friends. Throughout the evening, we frequently interrupted the flow of conversation, pulling people away for testing and having them perform the same memory, balance, and reaction tests as before.

As the amount of alcohol flowing through their veins increased, people became much louder, significantly happier, and far more flirtatious. The test results provided an objective measure of change, and by the end of the evening most people had to struggle to recall any list of numbers that contained more than one digit, consistently failed even to find the line marked on the floor, and closed their fingers a good sixty seconds after the ruler had clattered to the ground. Okay, so I am exaggerating for comic effect, but you get the idea. By far the most fascinating result, however, was the similarity in scores between those wearing red badges and those wearing blue, because both groups had been deliberately duped.

Both groups seemed to suffer significant memory impairment, experience increased difficulty balancing on the line, and constantly let the ruler slip through their fingers.

But what the students in the blue group didn't know was that they hadn't touched a drop of alcohol throughout the entire evening. Before the experiment started, we had secretly stocked half of the bar with drinks that contained no alcohol but nevertheless looked, smelled, and tasted like the real thing. The bar staff had been under strict instructions to look at the color of each person's badge and provide those in the red group with genuine alcohol and those in the blue group with the nonalcoholic fakes. Despite the fact that not a single drop of liquor had pa.s.sed their lips, those with blue badges managed to produce all of the symptoms commonly a.s.sociated with having a few too many. Were they faking their reactions? No. Instead, they were convinced that they had been drinking, and that thought was enough to convince their brains and bodies to think and behave in a "drunk" way. At the end of the evening we explained the ruse to the blue group. They laughed, instantly sobered up, and left the bar in an orderly and amused fashion.

This simple experiment demonstrates the power of the placebo. Our partic.i.p.ants believed that they were drunk, and so they thought and acted in a way that was consistent with their beliefs. Exactly the same type of effect has emerged in medical experiments when people exposed to fake poison ivy developed genuine rashes, those given caffeine-free coffee became more alert, and patients who underwent a fake knee operation reported reduced pain from their "healed" tendons. In fact, experiments comparing the effects of genuine drugs as compared to those of sugar pills show that between 60 percent and 90 percent of drugs depend, to some extent, on the placebo effect for their effectiveness.21 Exercise is an effective way to reduce blood pressure, but how much of this relationship is just in the mind? In a groundbreaking and innovative study, Alia Crum and Ellen Langer at Harvard University enlisted the help of more than eighty hotel room attendants selected from seven hotels.22 They knew that the attendants were a physically active lot. They cleaned and serviced an average of fifteen rooms each day, with each room taking about twenty-five minutes, and they were constantly engaging in the type of lifting, carrying, and climbing that would make even the most dedicated gymgoer green with envy. However, Crum and Langer speculated that even though their attendants were leading an active life, they might not realize that this was the case; the researchers wondered what would happen if the attendants were told how physically beneficial their job was for them. Would they come to believe that they were fit people, and could this belief cause significant changes in their weight and blood pressure? They knew that the attendants were a physically active lot. They cleaned and serviced an average of fifteen rooms each day, with each room taking about twenty-five minutes, and they were constantly engaging in the type of lifting, carrying, and climbing that would make even the most dedicated gymgoer green with envy. However, Crum and Langer speculated that even though their attendants were leading an active life, they might not realize that this was the case; the researchers wondered what would happen if the attendants were told how physically beneficial their job was for them. Would they come to believe that they were fit people, and could this belief cause significant changes in their weight and blood pressure?

The research team randomly allocated the attendants in each hotel to one of two groups. Those in one group were informed about the upside of exercise and told the number of calories they burned during a day. The experimenters had done their homework, and so they could tell the attendants that a fifteen-minute sheet-changing session consumed 40 calories, that the same amount of time vacuuming used 50, and that a quarter of an hour scrubbing a bathroom used 60 more calories. So that the information would stick in their minds, everyone in the group was given a handout containing the important facts and figures, and the researchers placed a poster with the same information on a bulletin board in the staff lounge. The control group of attendants was also given the general information about the benefits of exercise, but they were not told about the calories they themselves burned. Everyone then completed a questionnaire about how much they tended to exercise outside of work, their diet, and drinking and smoking habits. They also took a series of health tests.

A month later the researchers returned. The hotel managers confirmed that the workloads of the attendants in the "wow, your job involves lots of exercise" group and the control group had remained constant. The experimenters then asked everyone to complete the same questionnaires and health tests as before, and set about a.n.a.lyzing the data.

The two groups had not taken additional exercise outside of work, and neither had they changed their eating, smoking, or drinking habits. As a result, there were no actual changes in their lifestyle that would suggest that one group should have become fitter than the other.

The researchers turned their attention to the health tests. Remarkably, those who had been told how many calories they burned on a daily basis had lost a significant amount of weight, lowered their body ma.s.s index and waist-to-hip ratio, and experienced a decrease in blood pressure. The control group attendants showed no similar improvements.

So what caused this health boost? Crum and Langer believe that it is all connected to the power of the placebo. By reminding the attendants of the amount of exercise that they were getting on a daily basis, the researchers altered the attendants' beliefs about themselves, and their bodies responded to make these beliefs a reality. It seems that in the same way people slur their words when they think they are drunk, or develop a rash when they think they are ill, so merely thinking about their normal daily exercise can make them healthier.

Whatever the explanation for this mysterious effect, when it comes to improving your health, you may already be putting in the necessary effort. It is just a case of realizing that.

IN 59 SECONDS.

Crum and Langer's research is controversial but, if valid, suggests that being conscious of the fuel-burning activities that you engage in every day is good for you. The following chart gives an approximate number of calories burned by someone of average weight carrying out a range of normal activities (people with higher or lower weight will burn proportionately more or fewer calories). Use the chart to calculate the approximate number of calories you burn each day.