Generally Thinking

Blog

  • Does marriage make you happy?

    “Loves seems the swiftest, but it is the slowest of all growths. No man or woman really knows what perfect love is until they have been married a quarter of a century.”- Mark Twain

    “A man doesn’t know what happiness is until he’s married. By then it’s too late.”- Frank Sinatra, from ‘The Joker Is Wild’.

    Who are you more inclined to believe on this one, Sinatra or Twain? Two famous names, two opposite opinions. But who’s right?

    As it turns out, ol’ blue eyes was wrong on this one. Some researchers decided to compare marital status with happiness, and found that married people, on average, score significantly higher than people who are single. They also found that cohabiters, on average, are happier than singles. And lower on the happiness scale even than singles, are people who had once been married but no longer are – for whatever reason.

    There’s a lot of debate over why this is. One side of the argument is that marriage causes happiness – you get married, you get happier. This makes sense; marriage is a convenient way to meet many of our needs and wants in one shot: companionship, sex, children, financial stability, and so on. Not to mention love, the reason people are supposed to get married in the first place!

    Then there’s the other side of the argument; happier people are more likely to get and stay married. If you’re temperamentally happy, you’re more likely to attract a partner, less likely to argue, and generally just an easier person to get along with. So maybe marriage doesn’t create happy people, but happy people create marriages? This makes sense too.

    What’s the answer? Well it’s basically a little of both. Not only are happy people more likely to get married, but also married people become happier. In studies where people’s happiness has been tracked over time, there were noticeable increases after the tying of the knot.

    What’s interesting, is that after that initial spike, there’s a gradual decline. Marriage gives a boost in happiness, which slowly starts to fall, reaching its lowest point when the kids reach the teen years. Once the kids have flown the coup, happiness returns to its pre-marriage level.

    Presumably, this period where happiness declines is where the advice about ‘making marriage work’ comes into play. They say, you’re not supposed to take from a marriage, but to put into it. They say it takes work, and compromise, after the honeymoon period has worn off. Apparently people have recently been listening to this advice, at least in the UK, where the divorce rates in 2007 were the lowest for 26 years. However, some analysts suggest the reason for this is not romance, but the higher cost of divorce and settlement, which I suppose is the cynical interpretation. No one knows for sure, so I’ll let you make up your own mind on that one.

    Refs:

    Haring-Hidore, M., Stock, W., Okun, M. A. and Witter, R. A. (1985). Marital status and
    subjective well-being: A research synthesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 947-
    53.
    Lucas, R.E., Clark, A.E., Georgellis, Y, Diener, E. (2003).Reexamining Adaptation and the
    Set Point Model of Happiness: Reactions to Changes in Marital Status. Journal of
    Personality and Social Psychology. 84(3), 527–539

  • Can money buy happiness?

    “Anybody who thinks money can’t buy happiness doesn’t know where to shop”- Unknown

    “Anybody who thinks money will make you happy, hasn’t got money.”  – David Geffen

    We humans are obsessed with money.  To many people, it’s a commodity in and of itself.  And it seems we’re gradually getting more obsessed.  In the 1960s, 80% of US college students said it was essential to develop a meaningful philosophy of life, and 40% said it was essential to be very well off financially.  By the mid-1990s, you could reverse those figures.

    It seems like many people just want money.  They don’t want to have made a product, provided a service or found some other way to offer value, and have their money reflect the value they have given.  They want money as the end goal, not particularly caring how it was obtained.

    Not all people are like that, of course, but a lot are.  And it’s quite natural that they are, given what people think money can do for them.  It’s the Holy Grail, isn’t it?   You get freedom, security, status. But do you get happiness?

    Yes!  And no.  It’s complicated.

    Money can buy happiness if you don’t have it to start with, and it’s subject to the law of diminishing returns.  It also depends how you spend it. I’ll explain in more detail.

    If you live in poverty, it’s likely that many of your basic physical needs aren’t being met.  You might not have an available food or water supply.  You might have inadequate shelter, warmth or safety. In these situations, money absolutely will make you happier.

    However, after a certain point, which is somewhere around $10-15k, money has a diminishing effect on happiness. Essentially, once you’re out of poverty and into the middle-class, extra money doesn’t buy much more happiness.  

    In 1985 the Forbes 100 wealthiest Americans, each with a net worth over $125m, had their happiness measured by psychologists, and their results turned out to be only slightly higher than the average for the country.  Think about that; the top 100 wealthiest people, out of however-many-millions, were only a little happier than average.
    However, when it comes to your bank balance, it’s not the size, but what you do with it that counts. Researchers have found that so-called ‘experiential purchases’, such as a meal out or theatre tickets, resulted in greater happiness than material purchases, like a big screen TV or new shoes. After a while we get used to these material possessions, even bored with them. If you spend £500 on a new TV, you’ll be happy for a while, but then you’ll adapt to it, and it will be the norm for you. When planned obsolescence brings the next technological advancement in television along, suddenly your TV is worse than the norm; it’s not good enough! On the other hand, you don’t adapt to an experience, and the more of them you have, the more ‘memory capital’ you build. Reminiscing on the good times makes people happier, and the more good times you’ve, had the more you have to reminisce on. This is not to mention the social bonds that you can develop through these experiences, which tend to be shared with friends or at least involve other people in some way.

    Furthermore, if you use your money to perform acts of kindness for others, it can increase your own happiness, as well as the receiver of your gift.  A researcher measured the happiness of a group of people, and then gave each of them some money, between $5-$20.  Some were asked to spend it on themselves, while some were told to spend it on others.  Then happiness was measured again, and it was the latter group who showed an increase.  

    So it seems how much money you earn isn’t as important as how you spend it.  Perhaps the famous quote at the start of this article should read: “those who think money can’t buy happiness, don’t know who to shop for”.

    Refs:

    Dey, E. L., Astin, A. W., & Korn, W. S. (1991). The American Freshman: Twenty-five year trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Diener, E., Horwitz, J., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Happiness of the very wealthy. Social Indicators, 16, 263-274.

    Dunn, E.W., Aknin, L., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687-1688

  • Can happiness be measured?

    Can you measure your happiness like your temperature?  Is it possible to accurately say who is happier than who?  When I told people I was writing a chapter on measuring happiness, I got skeptical reactions.  A lot of people don’t see happiness as something that can be measured.  They say it’s too abstract, too subjective, too hard to quantify.  So if you’re skeptical, I don’t blame you, but hopefully I can convince you otherwise.

    Methods of measuring happiness range from deceptively simple to extremely complex.  The more complex the method, the more accurate the results are.  The simplest way is to just ask people how satisfied they are with their life on a scale of one to ten.  More complex ways range from questionnaires that are 20+ items long, to brain imaging scans using state-of-the-art technology.  In the middle-ground are the ‘life-satisfaction’ questionnaires; these measure the specific definition of happiness described in the last section, and that that’s the definition I’ll be using here.

    When we’re in a happy state, it’s something we can feel physically.  Now, we could find a way to measure that physical feeling somehow: maybe with brain scans, heart/pulse rates, or something like that.  We’d then get a nice, objective way of measuring happiness.  But the problem is, there may be a difference between the objective measurement of happiness and your subjective experience of it.

    For example, some people are real adrenaline junkies. They love bungee jumping, performing in front of crowds, and diving out of aeroplanes. Others can really do without that kind of thing.  An objective measurement can tell us the status of our physical body, but not necessarily how happy we are with that status.  Imagine believing you are happy but being assured that you are not, or vice versa; this seems OK for something like temperature, but incorrect for happiness.

    Therefore any measurement of a person’s happiness has to include their evaluation of their own state- we just need a way to quantify these evaluations.  This is why happiness is measured with questionnaires and scales – you’d miss important information if you measured it only as a physical feeling.

    Sources of static when measuring happiness

    The way to measure these evaluations is to use a specially designed questionnaire. Going over the process of how these questionnaires is designed is beyond the scope of this book, but it involves starting with lots of potential questions and finding the best combination through many studies and lots of statistical analysis. But once they are made, the problem of accuracy comes up; are people good judges of their happiness?  The problem is a slippery one, because we’re rejecting a purely objective definition of happiness.  We’re in the realm of subjectivity, where happiness cannot be completely separated from peoples’ own standards.

    Imagine two completely identical people, in two completely identical alternate universes.  They have the exact same lives, experiences and feelings, in every single way, except one; one of them is more pessimistic in his judgement of his life.  Our subjective measurement would show him as being less happy, but is he really less happy than his alternate self?

    In one sense he cannot be- he has the exact same life, experiences the same good emotions, and feels the same amount of pleasure.  On the other hand, if his pessimism means he wants more, shouldn’t that dissatisfaction be included when measuring his happiness?

    In other words, shouldn’t people choose their own criteria of what they’re happy with?  They should, but standards can be fickle.  Today I’m happy with my house, tomorrow I want a bigger one.  Maybe the day after that I don’t want a big house anymore.  Our happiness measurement would detect these fluctuations; like static picked up along with the ‘signal’ of happiness we’re trying to tap into.

    This is not such a bad thing.  The way we consistently judge our lives affects our feelings of happiness.  If you regularly use a higher standard to judge your situation by than what you have achieved, you’ll get less happy.  This is called negative self-talk and it’s what some types of therapy work at fixing.  Likewise, if you lower your standards of judgement, you’ll tend to get happier with what you have; this is generally known as appreciation or gratitude.

    There are other sources of static too, like ‘impression management’.  If someone going on a date asked you for advice, you’d be quite a troublemaker if you suggested they be as unhappy as possible.  Happy, positive people are more attractive, so you might expect people to report a happiness score that they view as being attractive.  This explains why you get higher happiness scores if you do surveys by interview than by post, and even more so if the interviewer is of the opposite sex!

    Mood might also cause some static.  Imagine being asked how satisfied you are with your life when you’ve just had the best day of your life, compared with your worst.  You’d probably be rational to a point, because you’re specifically being asked to look at your life overall, but the way your day went would definitely have an impact.

    These sources of static cast a shadow of doubt of the measurements.  We need some more objective things to compare our scores with, to make sure that the signal coming through the static is strong enough.

    Cleaning up the Signal

    To find out how much signal is getting through the static, the questionnaires of happiness must be compared with objective things that already we know are related to happiness.  Because such a large amount of research has been done in this area, I’ll only give a quick overview of this work.

    First of all, if you give someone a happiness questionnaire twice, one month apart, the results are very similar. This consistency shows that people don’t just respond randomly, and it suggests there is more to the results than people’s mood at the time of answering. Of course we would not expect the results to be identical, because many things can happen in a month, but we would expect a correlation.

    Emotions and feelings are processed in the brain, so that’s another good place to look.  As you probably know, the brain is split up into two hemispheres.  You might not know, that the left hemisphere is associated with positive emotions and feelings, and the right hemisphere with negative ones (to be specific, the left- and right-prefrontal cortices).  If you record brain activity when people watch funny films, the left side lights up; during sad films, the right side activates.  People with injuries to the left side are more likely to become depressed, and people with damage on the right side can actually get an increase in good feelings. So how do happiness questionnaires compare with brain scans?  Well, it turns out that people who score higher on happiness questionnaires actually have more activity in the left hemisphere. (3) So these questionnaires are related in the correct way to brain activation – another sign that they do what they are supposed to.

    As mentioned previously, there’s a chance people might lie when completing these questionnaires, and say they’re happier than they are to give a good impression.  This can be tested for by asking friends, family and independent observers to fill out the questionnaire as if they were the person in question.  My friends and family would know if I’m happy, and random people would have some idea.  They wouldn’t get the same exact score as me of course, because they aren’t me (so few of us are in fact).  But for happiness measurements to be taken seriously, they have to correlate with friend and observer reports – and they do.

    Another objective thing to compare against is the ultimate symbol of happiness – the smile.  Look at the picture below:

    A ‘real’ smile, called a ‘Duchenne’ smile, is where the eyes wrinkle up on the outside along with the smile.  If someone isn’t smiling with the eyes, they’re probably faking it. See the crow’s feet on the guy’s eyes, indicating a real smile. The girl is only smiling with the lips – no crow’s feet = not a real smile.  As you’d expect, people with higher happiness scores tend to give more Duchenne smiles than people with lower scores.

    Hey, it works!

    Even though it might have seemed far fetched to measure an abstract thing like happiness, with a questionnaire, of all things, there really is a signal coming through the static.  All the evidence points to that signal being happiness; or at least, something it’s logical to label ‘happiness’.  It’s not a perfect method, but the signal to noise ratio is good enough that these questionnaires can be useful.

  • What is happiness?

    How would you define happiness? Is it an emotion? A state of mind? A decision? Is it a reaction to things that happen to us, like pain, or is it something we can create ourselves? It’s tough to define happiness, because it’s a very abstract, subjective concept. Whatever it is though, it’s a powerful motivator – almost everything we do is motivated by how much happiness we think we’ll get from it.

    Even though happiness has such a big role in our lives, we don’t seem to spend much time thinking about what it is. Most people just take it for granted, but others haven’t been satisfied with that; philosophers have been pondering on happiness for thousands of years, and in the last couple of decades, scientists have been studying it too. All of this work has given new insight into what happiness is, why it’s there, and most importantly, how to get
    it.

    Everyone intuitively knows what happiness feels like, and people are also quite good at telling you what will make them happy. Try asking them. You’ll probably get responses involving money or the opposite sex, but if you’re lucky you might get a more thoughtful response. If you’re very lucky, you might get some good ideas for future Christmas presents. If you ask what happiness actually is, however, you get less detailed replies and the occasional blank face. People don’t ponder this, because it doesn’t seem like useful information for everyday life.

    So what is it?

    Well for starters, there’s a strong element of subjectivity to happiness. Different things elicit it for different people. Listening to 80s power ballads might make me happy, but not you. OK bad example, everybody loves power ballads. But you get my point. So when trying to form a definition of happiness, it’s best not to focus on the specifics of what causes it in different people – there’d be too much information to make sense of any of it. Instead, we have to look at what all these different things have in common. The most obvious commonality is pleasure. If you find bike rides, massages or films pleasurable, then you’d probably agree that these things make you happy. Also if you think of the last time you were really happy, you’d probably say it was pleasurable. But
    despite what my ex-girlfriend might claim, pleasure isn’t always a short-lived thing. You could distinguish between short-term but intense pleasure, like elation or excitement, and more enduring but less intense feelings, like contentedness, relaxation, or the feeling that you are part of something meaningful, bigger than yourself.

    And what’s the hidden commonality behind short-term and long-term pleasure? It’s that something, or things in general, are going better than might be expected – or better than some alternative. So it seems reasonable to include pleasant feelings somewhere in the definition of happiness. I mean, it’s hard to imagine the opposite, pain, being part of it. Or is it? Can you think of an example of when a person could be in pain but be happy? (That doesn’t involve PVC and whips, thank you very much…). What about if a climber fell off a cliff but survived? He might be in great pain while he recovered in hospital, but at the same time be happy to be alive.

    Happiness is more than just a feeling

    The man who survives falling off a cliff can’t feel happiness at the same time as the agonising pain, but on judgement, comparing his situation to a grim alternative, he might be happy with it. There are many other examples and counter-examples you might think of, but one thing seems clear; it’s possible to be happy without feeling happy. Look at it this way; if I say ‘I am happy to see you!’, I’m talking about a feeling (well, either that or I’m lying). If I say ‘I am happy with my life’, I’m not talking about a feeling, I’m making a judgement.

    Why? Because I can completely experience the event ‘seeing you’, whereas I can’t experience ‘all my life’ at once. All I can do is compare all the positive feelings I tend to have with all the negative feelings I experience. Or maybe I’d compare my current situation with some expectation I hold. Either way, my happiness when seeing you is something, it exists in some physical way. My happiness with my life does not exist as such; it only reflects things that do exist (or did).

    So there’s something else to happiness beyond mere feelings, something cognitive. It’s not really a valid question to say which one of these two things – positive feelings or positive judgements – ‘is’ happiness; they are different levels of the same thing. If you define happiness as a feeling, you would conclude that happiness is erratic; shifting up and down, minute-by-minute, in response to whatever is going on (or not going on). Your conclusion would be correct, but limited, because you would not know whether a person is happy with all the ups and downs.

    For example, one couple in a volatile relationship might like the drama. Another couple might enjoy a relatively boring but stress-free life. But on balance, both couples might be equally happy with their relationship (although each will not understand how the other can be!).

    Because feelings and judgements are two levels of the same thing you would expect there to be some overlap. And there is. This is why you get people saying ‘happiness is a decision’ or a ‘happiness is a state of mind’. By deliberately altering judgements, the part of feelings that overlaps with it will start to change too. You see this in people who take cognitive-behavioural therapy; they learn judge situations in a different way, and it’s about as effective as prozac at making people happier, given enough time. Likewise, it’s natural that if you do a lot of things that result in the feelings of happiness, then over time this will affect your judgements of how happy you are. That’s quite obvious; when you sit and reflect you’ll have more happy memories on which to base your judgement.

    Scientists have focused their work mostly on the judgement definition. They prefer to study things that are stable over time: if feelings were used, the research would be all over the place. Also, judgements are a higher-level definition; judgements can tell you about feelings, but feelings can’t necessarily tell you about judgements.
    Psychologists have termed judgements ‘Subjective Well Being’, or ‘life-satisfaction.’ They’ve also come up with other definitions and explanations for happiness, but this subjective well being is the one with the most research behind it. So I’ll focus on that one in this book, but I’ll continue to just call it happiness for consistency.
    The real advantage defining happiness in this way is that it gets around the subjectivity problem. When you judge your life, you take into account the things that make you happy, and when I judge my life, I take the things that make me happy into account. If we are able to use our own judging criteria, we could compare our happiness, if there was some way to measure it. Well there is, and in the next section we’ll look at how it is been possible to quantify happiness.

  • Degree in forensic psychology

    A degree in forensic psychology covers topics that link the psychological research base with the criminal justice system and other aspects of criminal behaviour.  Degrees in forensic psychology are usually taken at masters level, however they are sometimes available at bachelors level.  Of course, there are significant differences between the two.

    degree in forensic psychology
    Forensic psychologists often work in or with the courts. That’s judicial, not tennis (Photo: srqpix)

    Bachelors degrees in forensic psychology

    A bachelors degree is very similar to an other accredited BSc psychology degree.  You will still cover a lot of ground within the subject, from the biological basis of behaviour, abnormal psychology, cognitive approaches, research methods, to conceptual and historical issues associated with the scientific study of the brain and behaviour.  In a normal psychology degree, you are usually given several optional modules to choose from, particularly in the second and third years, of which forensic psychology might be one possible option.  In a bachelors degree in forensic psychology, several of these optional degrees will cover forensic psychology.  This allows you to get the bird’s eye view of the field that all psychology students get, as well as a more focused look at forensic psychology.  You can then get a better idea of whether forensic psychology is for you, and if you do decide to continue your studies at masters level you’ll have a better chance of getting on the course, all other things being equal.

    Masters degrees in forensic psychology

    To get on a masters degree in forensic psychology, you’ll usually need to have a bachelors in psychology or equivalent. The topics you’ll cover here include the psychology of criminal behaviour, research issues in forensic psychology (recording and defining crime, for example), psychology and the courts (for example, for juries reach decisions, why eye-witness testimony is unreliable), and offender profiling (which isn’t as glamorous as they make it look on TV).

    You’ll learn and be graded in the usual ways – lectures, group work, essays, exams, and so on. You’ll also have a large dissertation project to do related to forensic psychology.

    Forensic psychology degrees online

    If your schedule makes it hard for your to show up for lectures several times a week, see if you can find a forensic psychology degree online. Distance learning would mean you get all your course material via email, and you’d hand in your work the same way. In some cases you might get video conferencing with your tutors. Although you have to motivate yourself more with an online degree than you would with an on-site degree, if you really can’t make it to campus this is an option. Always ensure you’re studying at a reputable college or university offering accredited qualifications.

    Career opportunities with a masters degree in forensic psychology obviously revolve around working with the police, the courts, prisons, probation service, or research in these areas.

    If you’re thinking of taking a forensic psychology degree, subscribe to this blog, and get regular updates that will help you learn psychology and get more out of student life. You might also like my psychology study skills book, which will help you get better grades on your course.

  • Famous people with a psychology degree

    A psychology degree doesn’t have to lead to a career as a psychologist. In fact, it can lead to fame, stardom or infamy. Or at least, it preceded one or more of these things for the following people…

    Hugh Hefner

    The Playboy founder graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a B.A. in psychology. He also studied for qualifications in creative writing and women and gender studies. These seem pretty relevant, I wonder how the psychology came into play?

    Natalie Portman

    natalie_portman_psychology_degree
    Photo: makoto2007

    Natalie Portman enrolled at Harvard to study psychology after her career had taken off. She was involved in the Star Wars prequels at the time (1999), and graduated in 2003. “I don’t care if [college] ruins my career,” she told the New York Times, “I’d rather be smart than a movie star.” Well since a Golden Globe for best supporting actress came the year after that, it looks like she managed to have her cake and eat it too. She’s also credited in a research paper, “Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence: Data from Near-Infrared Spectroscopy,” under Natalie Hershlag (it’s Hebrew).

    Gloria Estafan

    With seven Grammy awards and over 90 million albums sold worldwide, Havana-born Gloria María Milagrosa Fajardo García de Estefan is certainly a talented and popular lady. But she’s also smart, graduating in 1979 with a B.A. in Psychology, with a minor in French, from the University of Miami. So unlike Miss Portman, Mrs Estefan completed her degree before hitting the limelight.

    Jon Stewart

    Best known for The Daily Show, American satirist, author, actor and comedian Jon Stewart majored in psychology at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. You can see a bit of the critical thinker in him in the video above, too.

    Ted Bundy

    When serial killers are shown in film and TV, they are sometimes portrayed as cool, self-aware characters with a hidden secret, maybe a little eccentric but generally fit in OK. In reality, this isn’t always the case, although Ted Bundy comes close to that model, fitting into what the FBI define as an ‘organised’ serial killer. Bundy attended Seattle’s University of Washington. Reportedly well liked by his professors, he graduated with a degree in psychology in 1972.

  • Growth mindset versus fixed mindset

    There’s two types of mindset that are relevant to studying – the fixed mindset, and the growth mindset. People with the growth mindset learn better and get better grades than people with a fixed mindset.

    What are they?

    A fixed mindset is the belief that intelligence (or any ability) is a fixed trait, that you’re born with and can’t do much to change. A growth mindset is the belief that intelligence can be developed. Why is this important? Because if you have a fixed mindset, then the results of an essay or other test are a reflection on your intelligence. People with fixed mindsets don’t want to risk finding out that their intelligence is low, so they give up easier.

    People with growth mindsets care little about the results of test, because they don’t see it as a reflection on themselves. They know they can learn and develop, so they take on more challenges rather than avoid them, and persist more, especially in the face of setbacks.

    What’s your belief about your intelligence? Do you think the grades you get on this course are a reflection of you? If you got a bad grade, would you think “I’ll be bad at this no matter what I do,” or, “If I try harder I’ll do better”? The research suggests that being in the latter group – having a growth mindset – will help you get better grades, and it’s also more rational, because you can develop your skills, especially your study skills.

    Watch this for more:

    And now the big question – how do you change from a fixed to a growth mindset? More on that soon (I’m not building suspense I just didn’t realise how late it was…).

    References:

    Here’s one paper, and here is Carol Dweck’s (the main researcher of mindset) page with lots of stuff.

  • Use your dissertation as a career tool

    use_your_dissertation_as_a_career_tool
    Looking for direction? (Photo: dr_tim_1956

    One of the advantages of psychology is the wide range of topics it covers. It means you can get a wider education than other degrees because you dip your toe into a lot more topic areas, albeit from a psychological perspective. The variety is good for people who like to learn, and it gives good opportunity to draw different lines of work together in assignments (which, depending on the essay, can be a great way to pick up extra marks).

    But studying such a broad subject can also be a disadvantage. Although psychology is a useful degree and teaches important thinking skills, there isn’t a definitive career path open to you when you finish, as there is with something like graphic design. If you want to be a psychologist, no problem, you just get the extra training. But some people don’t want a career in psychology. Maybe they chose it purely for interest, or because they weren’t sure what they wanted to do and psychology seemed like a good idea. For these people, the broadness of the subject can seem like a negative, however, the problem can tempered somewhat by using the dissertation as a career tool.

    Say you decide in year 2 that you want to be a dietician, but you’re going to finish this degree first. You could choose a dissertation topic around diet, which will allow you to learn more about it, become familiar with the research, and have something you can talk about when you get interviewed on future courses. Or, say for some reason you want to go into HR, you’d do a dissertation around selection perhaps.

    It doesn’t work for everything, linking your dissertation into accountancy, or music production might be a challenge, for instance. But even if you can get close to the subject it will help. You could do some research on the employees of the profession you want, and interview them. This might at least get you close to that field — in that environment, talking to people in it, networking. It gives you something to put on your CV and talk about in job interviews, and most of all it hopefully helps you feel like you have some direction.

  • MDMA (Ecstasy) and alcohol: a critical review of research of effects on mood and cognition in recreational users.

    This is a guest article by Kamila Wita, who is soon to become an MSc student in Developmental Psychopathology at Durham University.  This is a very comprehensive, well-written and up to date account of the cognitive influence of alcohol and MDMA.  Note the critical comments throughout; it’s a great example of how to be critical in essays.  This is what you need to do in order to get the big marks – just describing the studies is not enough, you must critique them.   Thanks Kamila!

    Have you ever wondered what effects alcohol and ecstasy have on those people (or perhaps yourself) who do it for fun, treat is as some sort of a sport or perfectly normal part of student life? You know it’s bad for you but just how bad is it? This article is not going to tell you how embarrassing waking up naked next to somebody you don’t remember is, or how confused you can be if you find pictures of yourself wearing a traffic cone. It is serious (I would know, I got a first class mark for this paper) it compares and contrasts the effects of ecstasy and alcohol on mood and cognition in recreational users (note: the below is not exactly what I submitted).

    Recreational use of MDMA and alcohol has become increasingly widespread worldwide (Morgan, 2000). However, until recently, little was known about the psychological effects of these drugs. Recent research shows the possible acute and chronic psychological effects of extensive recreational use of these drugs (Boha et al. 2009; Harrison & Fillmore, 2005; Heffernan et al. 2002; Dauman et al. 2003; Morgan, 2000; Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, 2000; Parrot and Lasky, 1998; Davison and Parrot, 1997).

    For those of you who know drug actions, just skip this section.

    Picture 3
    MDMA

    MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, ”Ecstasy”) an amphetamine derivative, is a popular recreational drug that has been shown to exhibit a psychoactive profile. It has been assigned to the ‘entactogens’ class as its characteristic psychoactive profile distinguishes it from other hallucinogens and stimulants (Liechti et al. 2000; Morgan, 2000). MDMA is a potent monoaminergic agonist producing both carrier-mediated release and reuptake inhibitor 5-HT and to a lesser extent dopamine (Morgan, 2000; Liechti et al. 2000) and other neurotransmitters (McDowell & Kleber, 1994). Most popular alcohol found in alcoholic beverages is ethanol.

    Picture 4
    Ethanol

    Ethanol is also considered a psychoactive drug. Ethanol acts in the central nervous system by binding to the GABAA receptor, increasing the effects of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA. As inhibitory neurotransmitter alcohol reduces signal flow in the brain. This explains how alcohol depresses both a person’s mental and physical activities. Therefore chronic alcohol consumption produces structural and functional alterations of the central nervous system (CNS), which can explain the behavioural impairments associated with chronic alcohol ingestion (Santi et al. 2000).

    Humans synthesize GABA from glutamate using the enzyme L-glutamic acid decarboxylase and pyridoxal phosphate as a cofactor. This process converts glutamate, the principal excitatory neurotransmitter, into the principal inhibitory neurotransmitter (Petroff, 2002). In contrast, serotonin is synthesised from the L-tryptophan, found in most of protein-based foods, i.e. meats, dairy products, nuts etc. (Wurtman et al. 1980).

    Acute and chronic effects of MDMA and alcohol on mood.

    Picture 2
    After hitting the big time, Mr Potato head changed. Sources reveal he is now in drug rehab. (Paparazzi: Kevin Briody)

    Study of university students by Peroutka et al. (1988) revealed subjective effects of MDMA on mood as reported by the users themselves. The reported acute effects of MDMA were pleasant, with strong feelings of closeness, elevation and intimacy toward other people. However, these were accompanied by negative physical effects, including headaches, jaw clenching and twitches. Followed, 24-hours later, by depression, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, worry and irritability (Peroutka, 1988). The study is disadvantaged by using self-report measures and the fact that the purity of the drugs ingested by the participants cannot be known. Additionally the study failed to control for poly-drug use and to investigate chronic effects of MDMA.

    Davison and Parrot (1997) report that MDMA causes feelings of elation, alertness, and happiness. In comparison, acute effects of alcohol also can be pleasant and positive with increased cheerfulness, sociability, and self-confidence. Low doses of alcohol increase total sleep time and reduce awakening during the night. The sleep-promoting benefits of alcohol disappear at moderate and higher doses of alcohol (Stone, 1980). MDMA on the other hand is often ‘accused’ of causing insomnia and sleep distortion.

    Given the putative role of serotonin in sleep, it has been hypothesised that one manifestation of serotonin neurotoxicity in humans might be disturbances of sleep (Allen et al., 1993). To determine whether MDMA use has effects on sleep, all-night polysomnograms of 23 MDMA users were compared to those of 22 age- and sex-matched controls. On average, MDMA users had 19 minutes less total sleep and 23.2 minutes less non-REM (NREM) sleep than controls. These statistically significant differences in NREM sleep were due primarily to an average of 37 minutes less stage 2 sleep, with no significant differences noted in stages 1, 3 or 4. Although it is not known whether the alterations in sleep observed in MDMA users are due to serotonin neurotoxicity (Allen et al., 1993).

    Curran and Travill (1997) compared results from weekend use of ecstasy or alcohol. The study focused on cognitive function and mood, as deficits in serotonin in humans can be associated with both mood disturbance and detriments in cognition. MDMA users rated elevated mood on day 1 but significantly low mood on day 5, at which point some participants scored within the range for mild or moderate clinical depression, on Beck Depression Inventory. In contrast, the alcohol group showed less pronounced changes, which followed a U-shaped curve over days with the lowest point being day 2 (presumed to be related to hangover effects) (Curran and Travill, 1997).

    The researchers linked the low mood of MDMA users with serotonergic depletion which follows the elevation of serotonin levels by MDMA. Curran and Travill (1997) therefore concluded that complete recovery of mood may not occur due to the neurotoxicity of MDMA. The researchers implied that the ‘day after’ effects of both of the drugs are similar in some respects (Curran and Travill, 1997). There is little evidence that light Ecstasy use is associated with long-term depression and lowered mood. However there is some evidence that heavy consumption is associated with persistent depression and psychological disturbances (Morgan 1988). Morgan (2000) reports a plethora of studies in his review that shows that ecstasy use can be associated with depression, dependant on dosage.

    Picture 5
    There’s logic in there somewhere. Credit: antoinedemorris

    In comparison, Ferguson et al. (2009) report that high rates of major depression can occur in heavy drinkers and in those who abuse alcohol. Controversy has previously surrounded whether those who abused alcohol who developed major depressive disorder were self medicating (which may be true in some cases) but recent research has now concluded that chronic excessive alcohol intake itself directly causes the development of major depressive disorder in a number of alcohol abusers (Ferguson et al. 2009). In terms of anxiety, research shows that persistent heavy ecstasy use can cause anxiety elevation, as well as phobic-anxiety, somatisation and obsessionality in MDMA users in comparison to non-drug controls as tested on the Symptom Checklist-90 (SLC-90) (Parrot et al. 2000). However, in this study only heavy users and non-users comparison achieved statistical significance. In comparison, many individuals drink because they are feeling anxious or stressed, and moderate, low-doses help them unwind and relax. Anxiety disorders and alcohol consumption have a complex bi-directional relationship. (Brady et al. 2007; Kushner et al. 2006).

    In terms of impulsiveness, research results are somewhat inconclusive, with Parrot et al. (2000) reporting elevated scores of heavy MDMA users compared to non-drug controls, while others report non significant results (Morgan, 1998). In comparison, studies of alcohol intoxication yield mixed results, with some studies claiming that moderate amounts lower impulsivity and make decision-making more cautious under some circumstances (Ortner et al. 2003), while some finding, however partial, support for their claims of alcohol increasing impulsivity (Dougherty, 2008). Finally, Morgan (1998) reported no differences between MDMA users, non-users, and polydrug users who never used MDMA, in levels of hostility. The participants were tested on State/Trait Anger Expression Inventory.

    Their findings were supported by Parrot et al. (2000) reporting that light MDMA users and non-drug controls showed no significant differences on SCL-90 in terms of hostility. However, Parrot et al. (2000) further reports that heavy Ecstasy users had significantly higher scores on the hostility trait in comparison to non-drug controls. This notion has been supported by study by Gerra et al. (1998) in which heavy, MDMA-exclusive users scored as aggressive, even after 3 weeks of abstinence; follow up study revealed decreased scores after 12 months. In comparison, findings by White et al. (1993) indicate that early aggressive behaviour leads to increases in alcohol use and alcohol-related aggression, but that levels of alcohol use are not significantly related to later aggressive behaviour.

    Therefore they suggest that alcohol-related aggression is engaged in by aggressive people who drink (White et al. 1993). Interestingly, study by Lang et al. (1975) revealed that participants who believed they had consumed an alcoholic beverage were more aggressive than those who actually did but were let to believe they did not. However, the study only assessed males and did not include females at all.

    Acute and chronic effects of MDMA and alcohol on cognition.

    Previously mentioned study by Curran and Travill (1997) reported that the MDMA group showed significant impairments on an attentional/working memory task, compared with alcohol users. The disadvantage of this study is that it only compared MDMA with alcohol users and did not compare those results with drug-free individuals. However, it has been explained that it was simply due to the lack of drug-free individuals at the club where the testing took place (Curran and Travill, 1997).

    A significant flaw of the methodology is the fact that the researchers opted out taking blood samples as they did not want to pose a risk and intimidate potential volunteers. The study only revealed that MDMA users have performed worse than alcohol users. It is of interest to compare drug-users with drugs-free individuals to fully research the observed effects.

    One such study has been conducted by Weissenborn and Duka (2003). The study benefited from employing a placebo condition as well as controlling for alcohol, illicit drug and food intake prior to testing. Research revealed the acute alcohol effects on cognitive function on a range of cognitive deficits, for example, deficits in attention, explicit memory paradigms, and executive-type functions (Weissenborn and Duka, 2003). In the planning task, alcohol decreased the number of solutions with the minimum moves. Alcohol also decreased the thinking time before initiating a response, while it increased the subsequent thinking time in the same task. Under alcohol, participants recognised fewer items in the spatial recognition task; however no effect of alcohol was found in a spatial working memory task and in a pattern recognition task. Among the participants with moderate to heavy use of alcohol, those who were ‘bingers’ performed worse in the spatial working memory and in the pattern recognition task than ‘non-bingers’ (Wiessenborn and Duka, 2003).

    To compare, regular MDMA users also have been shown to have memory deficits, as tested by word recall tasks (Parrot et al. 1998). Interestingly, even ‘novice’ MDMA users, who used ecstasy less than 10 times have preformed better than drug-free control. Again, the weakness of the study is the unknown drug purity and strength.

    Additionally, a study by Heffernan et al. (2002) found that social drinkers who drink over 30 units (on average) a week for minimum of 5 years reported significantly greater number of impairments compared to low-dose/non-user group, in terms of long-term episodic prospective memory impairments. In comparison, ecstasy users, when tested on PMQ showed the same trend for impaired prospective memory (Heffernan et al. 2001).

    These deficits in MDMA users have been attributed to the frontal lobe and hippocampus damage associated to ecstasy toxicity. The study however, does not assign the drug users into conditions, and therefore individuals who had taken the drug twice were assigned in the same group as individuals who had taken it 30 times or over. The researchers mention that the participants have been drug-free for period of 24 hours. When previous research on MDMA is considered 24 hours is not long enough, as the participants still would be experiencing the drug effects (Peroutka et al. 1988).

    In terms of alcohol, dosage is crucial. Previous studies have shown dosage-dependant effects of alcohol on skills impairment and on cognitive processes such as memory and attention (Little 1999; Kerr et al. 2004; Koob and Moal, 2006). Boha et al. (2009) researched the effects of low-dose alcohol, that is below 0.2g/kg, as well as in other conditions: (control, task, placebo-task, low-dose task [0.2 g/kg alcohol], high-dose task [0.4 g/kg alcohol]). The study used mental arithmetic task, which required addition and working memory effort. EEG spectra with an emphasis on the theta band, error rate and reaction time were analysed (Boha et al. 2009). The study results showed no effect of alcohol on behavioural indices of task performance. However, the ethanol-induced moderate reduction of the task-related frontally dominant theta increase, probably corresponding to working memory demand, this has been considered a modest but clear electrophysiological sign of alcohol effect in this low-dose range (Boha et al. 2009).

    The study, however, has only tested male participants and would benefit from testing female data as gender plays a role, and therefore males and females are affected differently by alcoholic beverages. This difference is mainly due to a smaller gastric metabolism in females-because of a significantly lesser activity of glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase (x-ADH) (Baraona et al. 2006).

    Critique and methodological problems.

    The studies of alcohol and ecstasy users are prone to methodological problems which in turn affect and create interpretative difficulties. These include problems with verifying users histories of drug use and lack of baseline data of cognitive functioning, as well as lack of bodily samples, i.e. blood or urine to test concentration of MDMA or alcohol in participants prior and during testing. Problems arise with representativeness of the samples in particular studies, which vary greatly in amounts of drugs ingested and frequency of use.

    A few additional problems arise with the above studies, firstly, the use of self-report measures, especially when testing memory. If it is believed that participants’ memory is impaired it is illogical to ask those participants to self-report their memory function. Therefore validating the data by proxy reports (through significant others and friends) would be beneficial, yet not perfect, due to possible bias (Wagmiller, 2009). Self-reporting amounts of alcohol consumed is also problematic, especially as individuals may simply be ‘giving a wild guess’ rather than actually know how many alcoholic beverages they consumed. This is especially problematic, when no individuals simply had not paid attention to how much they drunk or simply forgot. The issue of defining ‘binge’ also arises. Studies attribute different names to different amounts consumed, i.e. low/high or binge etc. The problem is that there is no clear definition, therefore interpretation poses a difficulty.

    Additionally, the phenomena known as ‘stereotype threat’ should be accounted for in all of the studies. Stereotype threat occurs when individuals, believed to be intellectually inferior, perform badly on cognitive tests they perceive to confirm stereotypes about them (Cole et al. 2006). Study by (Cole et al. 2006) tested ecstasy and non-ecstasy using polysubstance misusers on a variety of cognitive tests after they had been exposed to stereotype threat. The participants were given information about the long-term effects of ecstasy which either stated that ecstasy caused memory loss or that it did not. Ecstasy users that had been primed that ecstasy did not cause cognitive deficits performed better than the other three groups. There were no other statistically significant differences between any of the groups on any of the other cognitive tests used. This suggests that stereotype threat exists in ecstasy users and may be influencing their performance in experiments designed to identify cognitive deficits (Cole et al. 2006). In further support, see previously mentioned study by Lang et al. (1975).

    Furthermore, as alcohol is considered a legal drug studies involving it can control for the amount and volume ingested by the participants, in turn ecstasy studies are prohibited to do so due to the fact that MDMA is considered a class A drug and giving it to participants would be illegal. Therefore ecstasy studies have to rely on participants’ report of amounts taken, and as previously mentioned the purity and strength may be questionable. Therefore the participants may actually have experienced MDMA related compounds: 3,4-methylenedioxyethamphetamine (MDEA) or 3,4 – methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) (Morgan, 2000).

    Therefore the effects described in above studies can only by attributed to tablets that were believed by the user to be MDMA (Parrot et al. 1998), Additionally, as previously mentioned the street-available MDMA may in fact be MDEA or MDA, it can also be contaminated with other drugs such as ketamine, LSD, caffeine, ephedrine, seligiline and cocaine (Morgan, 2000). In fact another problem with drug studies, including the ones discussed above, is that often there is no control over what other drugs had been taken other than the drug of interest. Many MDMA and alcohol users also regularly use other illicit drugs including cannabis, amphetamine, cocaine, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, benzodiazepines, barbiturates and ketamine (Morhan 2000; Morgan, 1999).

    Therefore it is not possible to firmly attribute the self-reported affects to MDMA or alcohol itself (Davison and Parrot, 1997). Some studies focused on one gender only, as previously mentioned, it is crucial to test both genders separately due tot he differences smaller gastric metabolism in females-because of a significantly lesser activity of glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase (x-ADH) (Baraona et al. 2006).
    Summary and conclusions.

    The psychological effects of MDMA and alcohol (in moderate doses) can be seen as similar in that, while on drug both produce positive and relaxing feelings; I.e cheerfulness, increased sociability, and self-confidence. The difference is MDMA users feel elated while alcohol users feel sedated. Both drugs produce negative physiological effects while on drug, i.e. lethargy, respiratory problems, seizures etc. In some cases both drugs can lead to coma and death (Schifano, 2004).

    Both drugs cause damage to the human brain, however the areas affected differ. Ecstasy in believed to damage hippocampus and frontal lobe (Puerta et al. 2001; Heffernan et al. 2001; Morgan, 2000). There is some evidence from neuroimaging studies that shows occipito-parietal region of the cortex may be affected by exposure to ecstasy (Reneman et al. 2000). By comparison persistent misuse of alcohol can result in damage to a range of cortical and sub-cortical structures of the brain, can lead to brain shrinkage, neurotransmitter impairments, inhibition of frontal cortex functioning and reduced hippocampal function (Heffernan, 2008).

    Additionally, chronic high doses of alcohol can cause damage to vital organs, such as liver (cirrhosis, pancreatitis), pancreas (inflamation), heart (irregularities and weakening of the muscle) and stomach (stomach cancer) (Chao et al. 2003). The main difference is that the more alcohol is consumed the worse effect it has. Therefore an individual can start a night with low doses and have a good time and as the amount of drinks increases, end up confused, vomiting and unconscious at the end of the night. While, taking consecutive doses of MDMA does not prelong the ‘high’ (Downing, 1986).

    Alcohol in moderate or low doses is commonly assumed to be beneficial to health. The results of study conducted by Ruitenberg et al. (2002) suggest that light-to-moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a reduced risk of dementia individuals aged 55 years or older. MDMA displays a weak potential for addictiveness and therefore dependence (Davison and Parrot, 1997), while alcohol is highly addictive. Alcohol dependence is a chronic disorder with genetic, psychosocial and environmental factors influencing its development (Parrot et al. 2005).

    To summarise MDMA, evidence shows that acute psychological effects of MDMA include feelings of elevation, euphoria, elevated self-awareness, agreeableness, and confidence. The adverse physiological effects of MDMA intoxication include cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension, lethargy, insomnia, hyperthermia, serotonin (5-HT) syndrome, hyponatremia, liver complications, seizures, coma and, in rare cases, death (Schifano, 2004; Davison and Parrot, 1997). Chronic psychological effects in recreational users include depression, lethargy, moodiness, cognitive impairment (mostly memory), insomnia, paranoia, irritability, and other physical and psychological effects (Parrot et al. 2004; Morgan 1998; Davison and Parrot, 1997).

    There is an increasing body of research evidence for neurotoxic damage, which in regular MDMA users may cause depression, impulsiveness, phobic anxiety, hostility, reduced appetite, sleep disorder, and selective impairment of episodic memory, working memory, prospective memory and attention (Parrot et al. 2004; Hefferenan et al. 2001; Morgan 2000). Experimental data shows that the cognitive deficits persist for at least 6 months after abstinence, whereas anxiety and hostility diminishes after a year of abstinence (Morgan, 2000). Some of these problems may diminish over time of abstinence, however, the residual neurotoxicity and decline of serotonergic function with age may result in recurrent psychopathology and premature cognitive decline due to damage to hippocampus and frontal lobe (Puerta et al. 2001; Heffernan et al. 2001; Morgan, 2000).

    In comparison, evidence shows that acute effects of alcohol depend on the dosage. Low to moderate amounts can, result in pleasant and positive effects with increased cheerfulness, sociability, and self-confidence. As the dosage increases the acute effects worsen and impair (i.e. cause confusion, ataxia etc.). Chronic effects of alcohol involve cognitive deficits and impairments, i.e. in many aspects of memory, judgement, planning, information processing etc. (Boha et al. 2009; Heffernan 2008; Wiessenborn and Duka, 2003; Heffernan et al. 2002; Parrot and Lasky, 1998)

    As discusses above, as drug research increases, the understanding of the effects increases. However, as shown above, such research should not be taken for granted, even though published in peer reviewed scientific journal, as research, even though insightful, still may be flawed.

    Research into nurtigenomics shows how genetic make up (phenotype) can be influenced by nutrition, it is of interest to find out if ingesting drugs such as alcohol, MDMA and others affect it. Certain polymorphisms affect how individuals react to caffeine, perhaps MDMA and alcohol should also be considered (Trujillo et al. 2006).

    References:

    Allen, R. P., Mccann, U. D., and Ricaurte, G. A. (1993). Persistent effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymetamphetamine (MDMA, ‘ecstasy’) on human sleep. Sleep, 16, 560-564.

    Baraona, E., Abittan, C. S., Dohmen, K., Moretti, M., Pozzato, G., Shayes, Z. W., Schaefer, C. and Lieber, C. S. (2006). Gender differences in pharmacokinetics of alcohol. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 502-507.

    Boha, R., Molnar, M., Gaal, Z. A., Czigler, B., Rona, K., Kass, K., and Klausz, G. (2009). The acute effects of low-dose alcohol on working memory during mental arithmetic I. Behavioural measures and EEG theta band spectral characteristics. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 73, 133-137.

    Brady, K. T., Tolliver, B. K., Verduin, M. L. (2007). Alcohol use and anxiety: diagnostic and management issues. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 217-221.

    Chao, Y., young, T., Tang, H., and Hsu, C. (2003). Alcoholism and alcoholic organ damage and genetic polymorphism of alcohol metabolising enzymes in Chinese patients. Hepatology, 25, 112-117.

    Cole, J. C., Michailidou, K., Jerome, L., and Sumnall, H. R. (2006). The effects of stereotype threat on cognitive function in ecstasy users. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 20, 518-525.

    Curran, H. V. and Travill, R. A. (1997). Mood and cognitive effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymetamphetamine (MDMA, ‘Ecstasy’): week-end ‘high’ followed by mid-week low. Addiction, 92, 821-831.

    Davison, D. and Parrot, A. C. (1997). Ecstasy (MDMA) in recreational users: self-reported psychological and physiological effects. Human Psychopharmacology, 12, 221-226.

    Dauman, J., Fimm, B., Willmes, K., Thron, A., Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E. (2003). Cerebral activation in abstinent ecstasy (MDMA) users during a working memory task: a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 479-487.

    Dougherty, D. M., Marsh-Richards, D. M., Hatzis, E.S., Nouvion, S. O., and Mathias, C. W. (2008). A test of alcohol dose effects on multiple behavioural measures of impulsivity. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 96, 111-120.

    Downing, J. ( 1986). The psychological and physiological effects of MDMA on normal volunteers. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 18, 335-340.

    Ferguson, D. M., Boden, J. M., and Horwood, L. J. (2009). Tests of causal links between alcohol abuse or dependence and major depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 260-266.

    Gerra, G., Zaimovic, A., Giucastro, G., Maestri, D., Monica, C. Sartori, R. (1998). Serotonergic function after 3,4-methylenedioxymetamphetamine (‘Ecstasy’) in humans. International Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 13, 1-9.

    Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E., Daumann, J., Tuchtenhagen, F., Pelz, S., Becker, S., Kunert, H. J., Fimm, B., and Sass, H. (2000). Impaired cognitive performance in drug free users of recreational ecstasy (MDMA). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 68, 719-725.

    Heffernan, T. M. (2008). The impact of excessive alcohol use on prospective memory: a brief review. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 1, 36-41.

    Harrison, E. L. R. and Fillmore, M. T. (2005). Social drinkers underestimate the additive impairing effects of alcohol and visual degradation on behavioural functioning. Psychopharmacology, 177, 459-464.

    Heffernan, T. M., Moss, M., and Ling, J. (2002). Subjective ratings of Prospective Memory deficits in chronic heavy alcohol users. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 37, 269-271.

    Kerr, S., Sherwood, N., Hindmarch, I., Bhatti, J.Z., Starmer, G.A., and Mascord, D.J. (2004). The
    effects of alcohol on the cognitive function of males and females and on skills relating
    to car driving. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 7, 105-114.

    Koob, G.F., Moal, M.L., (2006). Neurobiology of Addiction. Elsevier, Amsterdam.9

    Kushner, M. G., Sher, K. J., Wood, M. D., and Wood, P. K. (2006). Anxiety and drinking behaviour: moderating effects of tension-reduction alcohol outcome expectancies. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 18, 852-860.

    Lang, A. R., Goeckner, D. J., Adesso, V. J., and Marlarr, G. A. (1975). Effects of alcohol on aggression in male social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 508-518.

    Liechti, M. E., Baumann, C., Gamma, A., and Vollenweider, F. X. (2000). Acute psychological effects of 3,4-Methylendioxymetampetamine (MDMA, ‘Ecstasy’) are attenuated by the serotonin uptake inhibitor citalopram. Neuropsychopharmacology, 22, 513-521.

    Little, H.J. (1999). The contribution of electrophysiology to knowledge of the acute and
    chronic effects of ethanol. Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 84, 333-353.

    McDowell, D. M. and Kleber, H. D. (1994). MDMA: its history and pharmacology. Psychiatric Annals, 24, 127-130.

    Morgan, M. J. (2000). Ecstasy (MDMA): a review of its possible persistent psychological effects. Psychopharmacology, 152, 230-248.

    Morgan, M. J. (1999). Memory deficits associated with recreational use of ‘Ecstasy’ (MDMA). Psychopharmacology, 141, 30-36.

    Morgan, M. J. (1988). Recreational use of Ecstasy (MDMA) is associated with elevated impulsivity. Neuropsychopharmacology, 19, 252-264.

    Ortner, C. M. M., MacDonald, T. K., and Olmstead, M. C. (2003). Alcohol intoxication reduces impulsivity in the delay-discounting paradigm. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 39, 151-156.

    Parrot, A. C., Morinan, A., Moss, M., and Scholey, A. (2004). Understanding drugs and behaviour. Chichester: Wiley.

    Parrot, A. C., Sisk, E., and Turner, J. J. D. (2000). Psychobiological problems in heavy ‘Ecstasy’ (MDMA) polydrug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 60, 105-110

    Parrot, A. C., Lees, A., Garnham, N. J., Jones, M., and Wesnes, K. (1998). Cognitive performance in recreational users of MDMA or ‘Ecstasy’: evidence for memory deficits. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 12, 79-83.

    Parrot, A. C., and Lasky, J. (1998). Ecstast (MDMA) effects upon mood and cognition: before, during and after a Saturday night dance. Psychopharmacology, 139, 261-268.

    Peroutka, S. J., Newman, H., and Harris, H. (1988). Subjective effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymetamphetamine in recreational users. Neuropsychopharmacology, 1, 273-277.

    Petroff, O. A. (2002). GABA and glutamate in the human brain. Neuroscientist, 8, 562-573.

    Puerta, E., Hervias, I., and Aguirre, N. (2009). On the mechanisms underlying 3,4-Methylenedioxymetahphetamine toxicity: The dilemma of the chicken and the egg. Neuropsychobiology, 60, 119-129.

    Reneman, L. Booij, J. Schmand, B. Brink, W., and Gunning, B. (2000). Memory disturbances in ‘Ecstasy’ users are correlated with an altered serotonin neurotransmission. Psychopharmacology, 148, 322-324.

    Ruitenberg, A., van Swieten, J. C., Witteman, J. C. M., Mehta, K. M., van Duijn, C. M., Hofman, A., and Breteler, M. M. B. (2002). The Lancet, 359, 281-286.

    Santin, L. J., Rubio, S., Begega, A. and Arias, J. L. (2000). Chronic alcohol consumption on spatial reference and working memory tasks. Alcohol, 20, 149-159.

    Schifano, F. (2004). A bitter pill: overview of ecstasy (MDMA, MDA)-related fatalities. Psychopharmacology, 173, 242–248.

    Stone, B. (1980). Sleep and low doses of alcohol. Elecroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 48, 706-709.

    Trujillo, E., Davis, C., and Milner, J. (2006). Nutrigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and the practice of dietetics. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106, 403-413.

    Wagmiller, R. L. (2009). A fixed effect approach to assessing bias in proxy reports. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21, 477-505.

    Weissenborn, R., and Duka, T. (2003). Acute alcohol effects on cognitive function
    in social drinkers: their relationship to drinking habits. Psychopharmacology, 165, 306-12.

    White, H. R., Brick, J., and Hansell, S. (1993). A longitudinal investigation of alcohol use and aggression in adolescence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, 11, 62-77.

    Wurtman, R. J., Hefti, F., and Melamed, E. (1980). Precursor control of neurotransmitter synthesis. Pharmacology, 32, 315-335.

  • Three quick but effective note taking tips

    Whether you write your notes in full paragraphs, i.e., blocks of writing, on each page, or you’re a bit more sophisticated and use bullet points, there’s probably something you can do to save time and prevent yourself from simply ‘scribing’ what the lecturer is saying (generally a bad idea). Here are a few quick ideas:

    1) I use Tim Ferris’s method of using a notebook, and writing an index in the front page. This is so much easier than using A4 sheets and punching them into folders afterwards, you never lose notes, and it’s massively easier to find the notes you need. Wish I’d heard of this years ago.

    2) I have used Cal Newport’s recommendation for subjects like psychology. He says to write the broad question that the lecturer is driving at on one side or in the margin, then the answer and evidence below it. This is really useful in some cases, but cumbersome in others. Sometimes the speaker jumps between ‘questions’, and it’s too slow to write out a question for each one. Although some lectures are practically designed for this method. This method makes notes infinitely more useful both afterwards and during lectures; you never think “Why the hell did I write that down?”, and by working out and writing down the underlying question behind what the lecturer is saying, it forces you to engage your brain right there. Which is something you should do anyway; if you just passively listen to the lecture and wait to leave, you’re simply burdening yourself further down the line with things you could have already done. Save time and do it in the lecture.

    3) Use keywords, not full sentences. When taking notes in the standard, linear way, don’t write out full sentences. It will only slow you down and make your notes less appealing to read later. Use bullet point lists wherever possible, and indent and space them nicely.

    Some people use a laptop too, which might also be useful; I can type much faster than I can write. But I’m also a big believer in not carrying things whenever I can help it, and notebooks weigh less than laptops (for now…).