Search

We consider how to optimize remembered aesthetic pleasure resulting from temporal sequences of events such as music and meals. We examine what psychology and music can learn from each other and how this knowledge might be applied to tasting menus and other temporal sequences. Common practices in longer musical works suggest the importance of (a) beginnings and endings, (b) variations in affective intensity over time, (c) repetitions, (d) variations on a theme, and (e) a return to prior material at the end of a piece. Results from psychology suggest that for affective memory, the final and peak experiences are most critical. For example, because a strong positive ending may be important for affective memory, and because return is a major feature of the ending of musical works, it may be an error to end meals with desserts, which are not the favorite courses for most people and typically bear no relation to prior courses (hence no return).

Public opposition to genetic modification (GM) technology in the food domain is widespread (Frewer et al., 2013). In a survey of U.S. residents representative of the population on gender, age, and income, 64% opposed GM, and 71% of GM opponents (45% of the entire sample) were "absolutely" opposed-that is, they agreed that GM should be prohibited no matter the risks and benefits. "Absolutist" opponents were more disgust sensitive in general and more disgusted by the consumption of genetically modified food than were non-absolutist opponents or supporters. Furthermore, disgust predicted support for legal restrictions on genetically modified foods, even after controlling for explicit risk-benefit assessments. This research suggests that many opponents are evidence insensitive and will not be influenced by arguments about risks and benefits., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Perceptual processes generally enhance borders, because of their high information value. Mach bands are an example in vision. In the social world, borders are also of special significance; one side of a border is generally more esteemed or valued than the other. We claim that entities (individuals, groups) that are just over the border on the positive side tend to exaggerate their membership on the positive side (asymmetrical social Mach bands). We demonstrate this by showing that (a) master's-degree universities use the word university to describe themselves more than major graduate universities do, (b) small international airports use the word international to describe themselves more than major airports do, and (c) University of Pennsylvania students, who are affiliated with a "marginal" Ivy League school, use the word Ivy to describe their school more than Harvard students do., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

When evaluating empirical papers for publication, grant proposals, or individual contributions (e.g., awarding tenure), the basic question one should ask is how much the contribution adds to understanding in psychology and not whether the contribution takes a particular form or represents one particular model of how to do empirical studies. Academic psychology has flourished with its mastery of the hypothesis-experiment model of science and its expertise in generating and eliminating alternative hypotheses and isolating causation. These accomplishments are a critical part of psychology, and they are well and appropriately taught by psychologists. However, they are only a part of science and should not comprise the almost exclusive criteria for evaluating research. In particular, discovery of fundamental phenomena, such as functional relations that apply to the real world and have generality, should have a higher priority in psychology. Such findings have been the basis for theoretical advances in other natural sciences., (© 2009 Association for Psychological Science.)

Unlike most other disciplines, psychology parses its field primarily in terms of processes or mental entities (e.g., learning, sensation, perception, memory), rather than domains of life (e.g., eating, work, leisure). Although there are merits in this organization, a perhaps unintended result is that psychology has paid minimal attention to the major domains of life and how people function in them. Examination of contemporary major introductory, social, and developmental psychology textbooks reveals that their indexes include almost no terms representing five critical domains: food, politics, religion, leisure-entertainment, and work. The process division of psychology dates back at least to Wundt and James, and probably derives from psychology's origins and early dedication to discovering general laws of the mind. The avoidance of study of life domains in psychology is related to several forces, including a downgrading of both applied research and descriptive research in favor of theory and laboratory experimentation. Psychology would profit from paying greater attention to describing and explaining what people actually do, an endeavor that would perhaps be facilitated by a focus on the domains of daily life., (© 2006 Association for Psychological Science.)

People seem to think that a unit of some entity (with certain constraints) is the appropriate and optimal amount. We refer to this heuristic as unit bias. We illustrate unit bias by demonstrating large effects of unit segmentation, a form of portion control, on food intake. Thus, people choose, and presumably eat, much greater weights of Tootsie Rolls and pretzels when offered a large as opposed to a small unit size (and given the option of taking as many units as they choose at no monetary cost). Additionally, they consume substantially more M&M's when the candies are offered with a large as opposed to a small spoon (again with no limits as to the number of spoonfuls to be taken). We propose that unit bias explains why small portion sizes are effective in controlling consumption; in some cases, people served small portions would simply eat additional portions if it were not for unit bias. We argue that unit bias is a general feature in human choice and discuss possible origins of this bias, including consumption norms.

The meaning of the desirable attribute "natural" was explored in two samples, American college students and adults in the Philadelphia jury pool. Participants rated the naturalness of a variety of "natural" entities, before and after they were transformed by operations such as freezing, adding or removing components, mixing with other natural or unnatural entities, domestication, and genetic engineering. Results support four hypotheses. First, the principle of contagion accounts for many aspects of the reduction of naturalness by contact with unnatural entities. Second, chemical transformations reduce naturalness much more than physical transformations do. Third, the history of an entity's processing is more important in determining its naturalness than is the nature of the entity's contents. Fourth, mixing like natural entities (e.g., water from different sources) does not markedly reduce naturalness. The insertion of a gene from another species, the process used in producing genetically modified organisms, produces the biggest drop in naturalness; domestication, a human-accomplished activity that changes genotype and phenotype in major ways, is considered much less damaging to naturalness.

Part of the "French paradox" can be explained by the fact that the French eat less than Americans. We document that French portion sizes are smaller in comparable restaurants, in the sizes of individual portions of foods (but not other items) in supermarkets, in portions specified in cookbooks, and in the prominence of "all you can eat" restaurants in dining guides. We also present data, from observations at McDonald's, that the French take longer to eat than Americans. Our results suggest that in the domain of eating, and more generally, more attention should be paid to ecological factors, even though their mechanism of operation is transparent, and hence less revealing of fundamental psychological processes. Ironically, although the French eat less than Americans, they seem to eat for a longer period of time, and hence have more food experience. The French can have their cake and eat it as well.

Subjects were presented with videotaped expressions of 10 classic Hindu emotions. The 10 emotions were (in rough translation from Sanskrit) anger, disgust, fear, heroism, humor-amusement, love, peace, sadness, shame-embarrassment, and wonder. These emotions (except for shame) and their portrayal were described about 2,000 years ago in the Natyasastra, and are enacted in the contemporary Hindu classical dance. The expressions are dynamic and include both the face and the body, especially the hands. Three different expressive versions of each emotion were presented, along with 15 neutral expressions. American and Indian college students responded to each of these 45 expressions using either a fixed-response format (10 emotion names and "neutral/no emotion") or a totally free response format. Participants from both countries were quite accurate in identifying emotions correctly using both fixed-choice (65% correct, expected value of 9%) and free-response (61% correct, expected value close to zero) methods.