What is Real Beauty?

A recent advertisement for the Dove brand of personal care products is sending mixed messages. The ad, centering around a three-minute video, documents an FBI-trained sketch artist making portraits of several different women he cannot see. He draws each subject -- none of whom, apparently, are models -- twice. One portrait is based on that woman’s description of herself, and the other is based on another person’s description of that same woman.

The result is striking. Drawings based on each woman’s description of herself always look worse than ones based on another person’s description. The ad highlights the way that women tend to see themselves, and then describe themselves, in terms of their physical flaws and what they don’t like about themselves. In this way, the video offers an empowering message to women, explicitly stated onscreen at the ad’s close: “You are more beautiful than you think.”

Despite this explicit encouragement, the ad has been criticized by some eating disorder professionals and other online commenters. They point out that though the women in the ad -- like other women in Dove’s Real Beauty campaign -- don’t appear to be fashion models, they are, objectively speaking, thin and attractive nonetheless. Absent from the ad are women with a face or body not considered typically attractive; perhaps the relatively unflattering portraits inspired by their self-descriptions would simply be an undistorted reflection of their appearance. What is being communicated to these women? Critics make a strong case that this ad promoting “real beauty” is simply another message that it’s fine to be happy with your body as long as it falls within a particular narrow range of acceptable weight or shape. The ad also accepts as a given that being looked at is intrinsic to a woman’s existence. Of course, though, an ad focused on what women’s bodies can do, rather than how they look, probably wouldn’t sell much soap.

Learning from Mistakes without Driving Yourself Crazy

Trying to learn from past actions is a challenging task for many people. How can you reflect on something you have done and think about how you could do it differently without devolving into destructive self-criticism? In Top Dog, a book about the science of winning and losing, authors Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman address this question. 

It turns out there is a term for these what-if thoughts--counterfactuals, called so because the behavior involves looking at something that did not actually happen. According to research at the University of Illinois, 3% of humans’ thoughts are directed at thinking about things that almost happened or could have happened. Another 6% is spent contrasting the present against the past, or the present against the future. Another 3% is devoted to comparing ourselves to others and to self-evaluation, either negative or positive. 

I’ll take the precision of these numbers with a grain of salt, but they do suggest that a significant portion of some people’s thoughts is spent thinking about “coulda, woulda, shoulda” as well as comparing oneself to others. So the question arises: How can you use these thoughts in a constructive way? If all you do is ruminate about what you should have done, you’ll never get anywhere. At the same time, if you refuse to reflect on your past behavior, you’ll never learn and change. 

The answer is found in researchers’ distinction between additive and subtractive counterfactuals. A subtractive counterfactual is pure regret, while an additive counterfactual involves looking back but at the same time generating some constructive ideas for the future. Researchers who have studied counterfactuals with sales pitches, negotiations and athletic performances have found that those who look back with additive counterfactuals tend to improve with practice, while performance declines for those who look back with subtractive counterfactuals. This makes intuitive sense, as with an additive counterfactual, you are including a thought about something you can do to improve your performance.

What’s the implication of this research for you? When you start thinking about the past, notice how you’re doing it. If it’s all regret without any actionable ideas, you are ruminating and you should try to stop or to redirect your thoughts. If your counterfactuals are additive, keep  up the good work.

Coping with Stress in High-Pressure Situations

Some people thrive under pressure; others buckle. What accounts for the difference? In this week’s New York Times Magazine, Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman write about differences in the ways that kids cope with stress, but the research has something for adults too.

They describe research that identifies variants of a gene known as COMT that distinguishes between “warriors,” who cope well with stress and “worriers,” who don’t. Kids with the “worrier” version of the gene do better with cognitive tasks under low pressure, but in high pressure situations, they don’t do as well. In contrast, kids with the “warrior” version do not perform as well on workaday tasks, but then will rally when the pressure is on.

One way of thinking about these results is to understand that the children are interpreting a particular situation as either a threat or a challenge.  “Worriers” are more likely to interpret the physical symptoms that they feel in a high-stakes situation  to mean that they are in a threatening situation, and that response ends up being detrimental to their performance. A “warrior,” on the other hand, might experience the same symptoms and view the experience as a challenge that he or she can rise to.

All is not lost for the worrier, though. Practice and experience can erase the difference. In a study with Air Force pilots, inexperienced warriors performed better than inexperienced worriers. But among more experienced pilots, the worriers outperformed the warriors. Acclimating to stressful situations through practice, in other words,  can help with performance. This repetition appears to help worriers relabel the scary situation into a challenging one.

Most people who have taken the SAT or a similar standardized test will have an idea of whether they fall on the warrior or worrier end of the spectrum. If you’re a warrior, lucky you. If you’re a worrier, don’t avoid stress; instead, try to experience it in manageable doses. Try to learn ways of reframing anxious situations and reminding yourself that the anxiety you feel may help you be more focused and alert and better able to meet a challenge.

Overcoming Anxiety

What makes a panic attack so scary? Well, first there comes the sudden onset of  debilitating symptoms--racing heartbeat, tightness in the chest, nausea, among others--that can be mistaken for a heart attack. Then, once you realize that you’re not dying comes the fear that this sudden anxiety will strike again.

This makes a recent New York Times article about professional golfer Charlie Beljan all the more remarkable. He had a panic attack (although he didn’t identify it as such while he was experiencing it)  before a practice round for a PGA tournament. He managed to play through his anxiety and complete the round. For some, the initial panic attack can lead to avoidance of similar situations (for example, avoiding driving after having a panic attack while driving). In this case, Beljan returned to the tournament the next day, after spending the night in the hospital getting a medical workup.And despite the residual effects of the previous day’s experience, he won the tournament.

It’s hard to imagine experiencing such anxiety and then performing so well under pressure. Golf has a well-deserved reputation as a nerve-wracking sport--one in which a player’s greatest enemy is the psychological turmoil inside. The history of professional golf is filled with episodes in which a golfer nears the end of a tournament leading by a wide margin, only to buckle under the pressure, start playing badly and lose the top spot. In this case, he attributed the anxiety not to the pressure from the tournament, but recent changes and stressors in his personal life, such as having a new baby. After the tournament, the article notes, he contacted a psychologist for treatment.

Beljan’s story shows how disruptive and frightening anxiety can be, but also shows that it is possible to overcome it. His story is truly impressive and inspirational.

Male Anorexia

“20% of Anorexics are Men” is the to-the-point title of an article in the September issue of GQ, which profiles male anorexics and highlights some of their difficulties. Some takeaways:

• The number of male anorexics is rising quickly. One contribution may be the increased focus on hard-to-attain physical attributes like the six-pack

• Risk factors include being overweight as a youth and getting teased for it; a family history of eating disorders or obesity; being gay; and having participated in a sport that emphasizes speed or weight control (distance running, wrestling, etc.).

• Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness--between 5 and 10 percent--a result of both suicide and health complications. It lasts longer in men (8 years) than women, in part because men are likely to wait longer to get treated.

• Even with recovery, there are likely to be health complications which can affect life expectancy. The prolonged deprivation can weaken the heart muscles, the bones, and cause cognitive damage which may lead to medical issues long after treatment is completed.

The photos that accompany the article are arresting and disturbing, as are the sad stories of the suffering men profiled. Included are one man on the verge of death, so emaciated that the fat from the pads on his ear that seal his Eustachian tube is gone, leading him to hear a constant rushing of air; and a subclinical anorexic, whose weight is low but not dangerously so, but who tightly controls his exercise and food intake so as to maintain it. What is striking in all of these stories is the amount of focus and energy on food and exercise, and the isolation that accompanies it. Either because of the time and energy devoted to losing or maintaining weight or the need to hide the extent of restriction from others, the men profiled appear lonely, virtually friendless and withdrawn from others. It is truly a sad and moving article.

Why a little self-deception is good

How important is it to see yourself clearly, to be able to assess your strengths and weaknesses accurately? Maybe not as important as you might think, some researchers say.

In the July 30 Wall Street Journal, Sue Shellenbarger reports on research that looks at ways people deceive themselves to in order to feel better about themselves. Studies show, for example, that people tend to think that they are smarter, better looking, and easier to get along with than they really are.

The research brings to mind earlier studies of “depressive realism” -- the concept that depressed people are more accurate in assessing some situations, while non-depressed people displayed more “positive illusions.” We all use psychological defenses to avoid facing up to unpleasant things, and perhaps when we’re depressed, those defenses are less sturdy.

People who have studied self-deception say that a little bit of it can be good for you. Overestimating your strengths and downplaying your weaknesses may spur you to take on new challenges. In contrast, ruthlessly assessing your deficits and minimizing your strengths may hold you back.

Too much self-deception, though, can be harmful. Politicians are a good illustration of this. If you run for office, you have to be a little self-deceiving. You have to believe that you are the person most qualified person to solve the problems of thousands or millions of people. You have to shake off a lot of criticism and harsh attacks -- even if it’s all true. Yet history has proven over and over again that politicians’ self-deception can border on delusional -- most colorfully when they commit ethical misdeeds believing they have no risk of being caught. Self-deception, like most other character traits, exists on a continuum. Some is good, but too much can be destructive.

Body Image and Sororities

It was somewhat disturbing to read in the Sunday New York Times about a new kind of service business: sorority coaches. These are women who get paid to help girls at college to pledge sororities. As part of their work, the coaches advise these young women on how to dress, shape their resume, and present themselves in order to maximize their chances of being asked to join a sorority.

As an adult long past this stage of life, I feel sympathy for young women who have to, or feel they have to, put so much effort into packaging themselves in a particular way to find a circle of friends at school. But what I found most disappointing in the article was its offhand discussion about weight and the necessity of losing weight before sorority rush. The author writes, “Many aspiring sisters spend their summer working out and dieting,” and cites a study that among girls in a normal weight range, the thinner ones are more likely to end up in a sorority. “It’s just you are being judged on how you look,” says one college student quoted in the story.

That the author and the participating girls just accept this without question or comment strikes me as sad. It also shows how ingrained in our culture it is that girls should strive to attain the a thin ideal. Given the pressure for conformity in sororities that this article describes (in many areas, not just weight), it is not at all surprising how prevalent body image concerns are among college women.