Why do Women Live longer Than Men?

One important reason is the big delay — and advantage — women have over men in terms of cardiovascular disease, like heart attack and stroke. Women develop these problems usually in their 70s and 80s, about 10 years later than men, who develop them in their 50s and 60s. For a long time, doctors thought the difference was due to estrogen. But studies have shown that this may not be the case, and now we know that giving estrogen to women post-menopause can actually be bad for them.
One reason for that delay in onset of cardiovascular disease could be that women are relatively iron-deficient compared to men — especially younger women, those in their late teens and early 20s — because of menstruation. Iron plays a very important part in the reactions in our cells that produce damaging free radicals, which glom onto cell membranes and DNA, and may translate into aging the cell. In fact, in our diets, red meat is the main source of iron, and lack of iron is probably one major reason that being vegetarian is healthy for you. There was a very good study looking at the intake of red meat and heart disease in Leiden in the Netherlands: in regions where people didn't eat red meat, those populations had half the rate of heart attack and stroke compared to the populations that did eat red meat.
Another more complicated possibility [for women's longevity] is that women have two X chromosomes, while men have one. (Men have an X and a Y.) When cells go through aging and damage, they have a choice in terms of genes — either on one X chromosome or the other. Consider it this way: you have a population of cells, all aging together. In some cells, the genes on one X chromosome are active; in other cells, by chance, the same set of genes, with different variations, are active on the other X chromosome. Don't forget, we all have the same genes — the reason we differ is because we express different variations of those genes, like different colors of a car. Now, if one set of variations provides a survival advantage for the cells versus another, then the cells with the advantage will persist while the other ones will die off, leaving behind more cells with the genes on the more advantageous X chromosome. So, in women, cells can perhaps be protected by a slightly better variation of a gene on the second X chromosome. Men don't have this luxury and don't get this choice.
It's very unclear [how big an effect that could have]. I've seen men who have done horrendous damage to themselves over time with smoking and drinking and who still get to 100 and older — though that's very, very rare. They might have the right combination of some really special genetic variations that we call "longevity enabling genes" — which we're on the mad hunt for. Meanwhile other individuals may do everything right and only make it into their 80s. That may be because they have what we call "disease genes," some genetic variations that are relatively bad for them. Now some of these [disease genes] may be on the X chromosome, [meaning that women who have the second X chromosome with which to compensate, would have an advantage]. But it's really still a very complicated puzzle to tease out.
[There are a few other reasons that men die earlier in life more often than women.] Men in their late teens and 20s go through something called "testosterone storm." The levels of the hormone can be quite high and changeable, and that can induce some pretty dangerous behavior among young men. They don't wear their seatbelts; they drink too much alcohol; they can be aggressive with weapons and so on and so forth. These behaviors lead to a higher death rate.
Another area where we see higher death rates among men is among the depressed — especially older men. If they attempt suicide, they are more likely to succeed than women.
Overall, about 70% of the variation around average life expectancy — [just over 80 for women and just over 75 for men in the U.S.] — is probably attributable to environmental factors — your behaviors and your exposures. Probably only 30% is due to genetics. And that's very, very good news. There's so much we can do. Most of us should be able to get into our late 80s. What's more, to get to older ages, like the centenarians, you are necessarily compressing the time you're sick to the end of your life. It's not a case where the older you get, the sicker you get. It's very much the case that the older you get, the healthier you've been.
But, in general, there are maybe three things men do worse than women. They smoke a lot more. (That gender gap is fortunately shrinking, since men are smoking less and less.) They eat more food that leads to high cholesterol. And, perhaps related to that, men tend not to deal with their stress as well as women. They may be more prone to internalizing that stress rather than letting go — though that's a fairly controversial point. Nonetheless, stress plays a very important role in cardiovascular disease.

Read more: www.uniquepsych.blogspot.com

6 Ways to Kill Creativity

Want your organisation to perform poorly? Here are six ways to kill creativity in business, or anywhere.

Many organisations claim they want to foster creativity—and so they should—but unintentionally, through their working practices, creativity is killed stone dead.

That's what Teresa Amabile, now Director of the Harvard Business School, found when looking back over decades of her research in organisations (Amabile, 1998). As part of one research program she examined seven companies in three different industries, having team members report back daily on their work.

After two years she found marked differences in how organisations dealt with creativity. Whether or not they intended to, some of the organisations seemed to know the perfect ways to kill creativity, while others set up excellent environments for their employees to be creative.

Since so many organisations seem to be aiming to kill creativity, here are the six main methods:

1. Role mismatch

One of the easiest ways of killing creativity is by giving a job to the wrong person. It could be an assignment or the whole role. Employees need to feel their abilities are stretched, but that the assignment is within their grasp.

Within many organisation the usual system is to give the most urgent work to the person who appears most eligible (i.e. is most senior/most junior/has the least work/is the next cab off the rank etc.). Managers typically fail to really look at the requirements of the job/assignment and then at the skills of the employee. Mismatches are a recipe for an unsatisfactory and creativity-free result.

2. Restrict freedom

Yes, people need specific goals set for them, but they also need freedom in how to achieve these goals. If you want to kill creativity, then simply restrict employee's freedom in how they reach their goals. Two common methods are by changing the goals too frequently or by implicitly communicating to your staff that new methods are not welcome. Employees will soon get the message and stop trying.

3. Ration resources

Creativity requires time and money; to kill it off restrict both. You can do it by setting impossibly short deadlines or by restricting resources to a minimum.

Managers tend to be obsessed with physical spaces, thinking that it's bean bags, fussball tables or funky furniture that engenders creativity. Far more important, though, is mental space. People need enough time and resources to come up with good ideas. Put people under hideous time and resource pressure, though, and you'll soon squeeze out all their creativity.

4. Reduce group diversity

Groups in which people are very similar tend to get along well. They don't disagree, they don't cause any trouble and they are frequently low in creativity. If you want to make sure that creativity is kept to a minimum then reduce the diversity in groups.

In contrast when teams are made up of people with different skills, abilities and viewpoints, their different approaches tend to combine to produce creative solutions. They may take longer and they may argue more but diverse groups breed creativity—so avoid them.

5. No encouragement

It's easier to be critical than it is to be constructive. If you want to stifle creativity then meet new ideas with endless evaluation and criticism. Also, one of the problems with new ideas is that often they don't pan out. So to discourage further creativity, make sure you really punish people whose audacious ideas don't work.

Once people know they're going to be endlessly interrogated about their new ideas—and punished if they don't work out—they'll soon stop producing them.

6. No support

Infighting. Politicking. Gossip. All can easily kill creativity. If the organisation is turned against itself, it's unlikely to produce truly creative work. Try to avoid letting information flow freely and discourage collaboration, because both are likely to boost creativity.

Without support, attempts to be creative will quickly wither and die and employees will become demotivated and cynical.

Keep it subtle

Remember that all these methods for killing creativity are best done with subtlety. You should say you provide support, freedom, resources and so on, but only do it half-heartedly. This will give you the appearance of a creative organisation but you won't produce the truly creative solutions which mark out the best.

Why People Avoid the Truth About Themselves

Knowledge may be power, but when it comes to self-knowledge, ignorance is bliss.

Sitcoms often take advantage of a very simple fact about human psychology to make us laugh. The set-up will go something like this: main character tells their partner: "I would never compromise my ethical principles for money!" Then that very same character is offered an opportunity to compromise their ethical principles for money...and they take it.

The joke is not just about hypocrisy but also about the main character's complete unawareness of his or her hypocrisy.

Watching this we might assume it isn't intended to be diagnostic of human psychology; rather it's just a way of making a joke at the expense of the main character. But really it's a perfectly realistic example of how people avoid the truth about themselves.

In a recent paper in the Review of General Psychology, Sweeny et al. (2010) outline the three main reasons that people avoid information:

1. It may demand a change in beliefs. Loads of evidence suggests people tend to seek information that confirms their beliefs rather than disproves them.
2. It may require us to take undesired actions. Telling the doctor about those weird symptoms means you might have to undergo painful testing. Sometimes it seems like it's better not to know.
3. It may cause unpleasant emotions.

You can see all three of these motivations in play in the sitcom example. Weighed against them—motivating us to find out the truth—are all the reasons you'd expect like curiosity and hope for positive information. Whether we try to find out the truth or avoid the information depends on the following:

1. Expectation. Most obvious and maybe most powerful. The more we expect bad news, the more effort we make to avoid it.
2. Lack of control. Less obvious but it explain a lot. When we feel we have less control over the consequences of information, we are more strongly motivated to avoid it. Like when you could be getting news about a life-threatening disease. Because there may be little you can do about it, it may be better not to know.
3. Lack of coping resources. When people feel they can't handle distressing information at the moment then they're more likely to avoid it.
4. When the information is difficult to understand. The harder it is to interpret information, the less we want to know about it.

So people often do their best to avoid learning about themselves and sometimes this makes perfect sense. For example genetic testing may tell you that you have an increased risk of atrial fibrillation after the age of 70. Is that useful information or just one more thing to worry about? If there's nothing you can do about it then perhaps it's information that only worsens your quality of life.

Other times we hurt ourselves by avoiding information. Like when we refuse to get that strange mole checked out and end up delaying treatment for cancer.

The trick is to know which information to avoid and which to seek out. But we can't know this without knowing what the information is. But once you've learnt the information you can't unlearn it. It's a problem.

I offer no answers, merely to point out that avoiding information is a much more rational strategy for dealing with the complexities of a frightening world than it might at first seem. There's a good reason we value the innocence of youth: when you don't know, you've got less to worry about.

When we laugh at the hypocrisies of a sitcom character, it's also a laugh of uncomfortable recognition. As much as we'd prefer to avoid the information, in our heart of hearts we know we're all hypocrites.

Feeling Anxious? 5 Scientifically Proven Relaxation Techniques

Learn how to achieve a relaxed and focused state.

Everyone gets anxious from time to time: there's public speaking, job interviews, the dentist and all the rest.

For about one in six of us this will cross over into what psychologists term a disorder at some point in our lives. This is when people are almost continuously anxious and find it difficult to concentrate, have trouble sleeping and become irritable and restless. Women are roughly twice as likely as men to suffer from an anxiety disorder.

For the rest of us anxiety will come and go as part of the normal human condition. Whether it's a constant or occasional affliction, dealing with anxiety effectively is important.

People are often prescribed drugs for anxiety but these are less effective in the long-term and have side-effects so relaxation training is often preferred.

Relaxation training comes in a variety of flavours, but the five methods which have much in common and the most evidence to support them are (Manzoni et al., 2005):

1. Progressive relaxation

The most commonly studied type of relaxation therapy may be familiar to you. It involves mentally going around the muscle groups in your body, first tensing then relaxing each one. It's as simple as that. And with practice it becomes easier to spot when you are becoming anxious and muscles are becoming tense as, oddly, people often don't notice the first physical signs of anxiety.

This is based on the idea that the mind follows body. When you relax your body, the mind also clears.

2. Applied relaxation

Applied relaxation builds on progressive relaxation. First you learn to relax you muscle groups one after the other. The next stage is to cut out the tensing phase and move straight to relaxing each muscle. Next you learn to associate a certain cue, say thinking 'serenity now!' (hello Seinfeld fans!) with a relaxed state. You then learn to relax really quickly. Finally you practise your relaxation technique in real-world anxiety-provoking situations.

Once again, mostly this is about mind following the body.

3. Autogenic training

Goes back to the 1930s and is another technique for progressively relaxing the muscles. To help you do this it has a mantra which you repeat to yourself as you go around major muscle groups: "my right arm is very heavy" and so on. A second stage involves inducing a feeling of warmth in the muscles. Once they feel 'heavy' from the first stage, you follow another mantra about warmth: "my right arm is very warm" and so on.

Further stages involve calming the heart and the abdomen and cooling the brow in much the same way.

Once again, you'll notice that this is all about the mind following a calm body. As before practitioners recommend daily practice so that you can relax more and more quickly. With practice the simple intention to start the training will be enough to cause the body to become relaxed and warm.

4. Meditation

Here's our old friend meditation which has so many different benefits. If you've been reading PsyBlog for a while you'll have seen this come up in numerous contexts. There is certainly evidence that it can work for people who experience anxiety as well. I describe the basics of mindfulness meditation in this article aboutattention and meditation.

Be aware that meditation is quite difficult and the drop-out rates are high from studies which investigate it (Krisanaprakornkit et al., 2006). This suggests some people don't find it particularly acceptable. For people who can manage it, though, the results are often better than the other techniques (Manzoni et al., 2005).

Notice that this technique is much more actively related to the mind than the first three methods. It doesn't just target the body and wait for the mind to follow, instead it's about the way attention is focused. This may be partly why people find it harder. Still, it probably won't do any harm to try.

5. Cognitive behaviour therapy

Finally cognitive behaviour therapy, or CBT, targets both mind and body. As it's primarily a talking therapy you normally have to go to a psychologist who will help you target unhelpful thinking patterns. But there are books available that explain how it works (I mention a few here: 6 Self-Help Books for Depression Recommended by Experts). However these don't specifically target anxiety, they're mostly for mild depression.

All together now

And there's no reason why you should stick to only one approach. When Manzoni et al. looked at studies which used multi-modal techniques, they found these were effective as well.

If you need to relax—for whatever reason and at whatever time—then try one or more of these different methods. As you'll have noticed the effective techniques share a lot in common. Regular practice is the key and, if you give it a chance, the mind really will follow the body.

How and Why We Lie to Ourselves: Cognitive Dissonance

A classic 1959 social psychology experiment demonstrates how and why we lie to ourselves. Understanding this experiment sheds a brilliant light on the dark world of our inner motivations.

The ground-breaking social psychological experiment of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) provides a central insight into the stories we tell ourselves about why we think and behave the way we do. The experiment is filled with ingenious deception so the best way to understand it is to imagine you are taking part. So sit back, relax and travel back. The time is 1959 and you are an undergraduate student at Stanford University...

As part of your course you agree to take part in an experiment on 'measures of performance'. You are told the experiment will take two hours. As you are required to act as an experimental subject for a certain number of hours in a year - this will be two more of them out of the way.

Little do you know, the experiment will actually become a classic in social psychology. And what will seem to you like accidents by the experimenters are all part of a carefully controlled deception. For now though, you are innocent.

The set-up

Once in the lab you are told the experiment is about how your expectations affect the actual experience of a task. Apparently there are two groups and in the other group they have been given a particular expectation about the study. To instil the expectation subtly, the participants in the other groups are informally briefed by a student who has apparently just completed the task. In your group, though, you'll do the task with no expectations.

Perhaps you wonder why you're being told all this, but nevertheless it makes it seem a bit more exciting now that you know some of the mechanics behind the experiment.

So you settle down to the first task you are given, and quickly realise it is extremely boring. You are asked to move some spools around in a box for half an hour, then for the next half an hour you move pegs around a board. Frankly, watching paint dry would have been preferable.

At the end of the tasks the experimenter thanks you for taking part, then tells you that many other people find the task pretty interesting. This is a little confusing - the task was very boring. Whatever. You let it pass.

Experimental slip-up

Then the experimenter looks a little embarrassed and starts to explain haltingly that there's been a cock-up. He says they need your help. The participant coming in after you is in the other condition they mentioned before you did the task - the condition in which they have an expectation before carrying out the task. This expectation is that the task is actually really interesting. Unfortunately the person who usually sets up their expectation hasn't turned up.

So, they ask if you wouldn't mind doing it. Not only that but they offer to pay you $1. Because it's 1959 and you're a student this is not completely insignificant for only a few minutes work. And, they tell you that they can use you again in the future. It sounds like easy money so you agree to take part. This is great - what started out as a simple fulfilment of a course component has unearthed a little ready cash for you.

You are quickly introduced to the next participant who is about to do the same task you just completed. As instructed you tell her that the task she's about to do is really interesting. She smiles, thanks you and disappears off into the test room. You feel a pang of regret for getting her hopes up. Then the experimenter returns, thanks you again, and once again tells you that many people enjoy the task and hopes you found it interesting.

Then you are ushered through to another room where you are interviewed about the experiment you've just done. One of the questions asks you about how interesting the task was that you were given to do. This makes you pause for a minute and think.

Now it seems to you that the task wasn't as boring as you first thought. You start to see how even the repetitive movements of the spools and pegs had a certain symmetrical beauty. And it was all in the name of science after all. This was a worthwhile endeavour and you hope the experimenters get some interesting results out of it.

The task still couldn't be classified as great fun, but perhaps it wasn't that bad. You figure that, on reflection, it wasn't as bad as you first thought. You rate it moderately interesting.

After the experiment you go and talk to your friend who was also doing the experiment. Comparing notes you found that your experiences were almost identical except for one vital difference. She was offered way more than you to brief the next student: $20! This is when it first occurs to you that there's been some trickery at work here.

You ask her about the task with the spools and pegs:

"Oh," she replies. "That was sooooo boring, I gave it the lowest rating possible."

"No," you insist. "It wasn't that bad. Actually when you think about it, it was pretty interesting."

She looks at you incredulously.

What the hell is going on?

Cognitive dissonance

What you've just experienced is the power of cognitive dissonance. Social psychologists studying cognitive dissonance are interested in the way we deal with two thoughts that contradict each other - and how we deal with this contradiction.

In this case: you thought the task was boring to start off with then you were paid to tell someone else the task was interesting. But, you're not the kind of person to casually go around lying to people. So how can you resolve your view of yourself as an honest person with lying to the next participant? The amount of money you were paid hardly salves your conscience - it was nice but not that nice.

Your mind resolves this conundrum by deciding that actually the study was pretty interesting after all. You are helped to this conclusion by the experimenter who tells you other people also thought the study was pretty interesting.

Your friend, meanwhile, has no need of these mental machinations. She merely thinks to herself: I've been paid $20 to lie, that's a small fortune for a student like me, and more than justifies my fibbing. The task was boring and still is boring whatever the experimenter tells me.

A beautiful theory

Since this experiment numerous studies of cognitive dissonance have been carried out and the effect is well-established. Its beauty is that it explains so many of our everyday behaviours. Here are some examples provided by Morton Hunt in his classic work 'The Story of Psychology':

• When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic.
• People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.
• People quickly adjust their values to fit their behaviour, even when it is clearly immoral. Those stealing from their employer will claim that "Everyone does it" so they would be losing out if they didn't, or alternatively that "I'm underpaid so I deserve a little extra on the side."

Once you start to think about it, the list of situations in which people resolve cognitive dissonance through rationalisations becomes ever longer and longer. If you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you can think of many times when you've done it yourself. I know I can.

Being aware of this can help us avoid falling foul of the most dangerous consequences of cognitive dissonance: believing our own lies.

» You can read Festinger and Carlsmith's entire report at Classics in the History of Psychology.

Reference

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 58, 203-10.