The Power of Negative Thinking

In my field of Social Psychology one of the most central principles is that people’s beliefs about themselves and others often have strong impacts on behavior. This can be a straight forward relationship, as when a person modifies their interaction with someone based on beliefs about the other’s characteristics – for instance, being guarded and reserved with someone we believe is untrustworthy.

More interesting, however, are instances where our beliefs have influences that are more subtle and indirect yet the outcome has significant consequences for our well-being. An example of this kind of phenomenon was reported in a recent article by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health and the National Institute on Aging. It caught my attention because... well, “aging” is getting to be a very personal thing.

The Yale group looked at the stereotypes people have about getting older – beliefs such as “old people are helpless” or “old people can’t learn new things.” Stereotypic beliefs are conveyed in a variety of ways in any given culture, most often through depictions in films, books, news stories, and broadcast media. Different cultures have different views of aging, of course – in some societies the aged are revered as sources of cultural heritage and wisdom while in others (our own, certainly) the aged are seen in primarily negative terms that center on losing physical and mental abilities. It is important to remember that stereotypes are not accurate representations of a group of people, but rather are exaggerations of qualities or outright fabrications of qualities.

The researchers examined an interesting and important question: “Does a younger person’s belief in negative aging stereotypes influence that person’s health as they themselves get older?” It is easy to imagine at least two possibilities here. First, if somebody believes in a negative notion of what it means to get older, they might develop health habits (high fat diet and lack of exercise, for example) that in fact lead to poorer health. On the other hand, having a negative view of aging might motivate a person to adopt habits that are widely held to prolong youth – strenuous exercise, diet supplements, plastic surgery — at least some of which may actually contribute to a healthier life as the person ages.

To answer their question the researchers turned to a large data base that has been accumulating for many years, the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging that was begun over forty years ago. In the 1960's a large group of young volunteers were given a battery of mental and physical tests, and these have been repeated at regular intervals as the individuals have gotten older. Included in the psychological measures was an assessment of the strength of each person’s belief in negative aging stereotypes. The physical measures of health included cardiovascular events such as angina attacks, congestive heart failures, myocardial infarctions, strokes, etc.

The results were clear and rather sobering. Younger individuals who held more negative age stereotypes were twice as likely (25%) to have a cardiovascular event over the next 30 years of their lives than those with more positive beliefs (13%). This relationship held even when the researchers controlled for other possible differences between the two groups when they were young. These included many things that are known risk factors for cardiovascular events: elevated blood pressure, family history of cardiovascular death, body mass index, depression, education, gender, marital status, number of chronic conditions, race, self-rated health, serum total cholesterol (milligrams per deciliter), and smoking history. These factors were not as good at predicting cardiovascular problems as the negative stereotypes people held.

The study raises a number of interesting questions that I’m sure the researchers are now trying to answer. For example, how do these individual differences in negative views of aging arise? Can the they be changed and if so, how? What behaviors did the negative beliefs engender that made the cardiovascular problems more likely? Can they be changed?

As we wait for the answers there is one thing that is a clear lesson from this study. Beware the power of negative thinking.


Reference: Age Stereotypes Held Earlier in Life Predict Cardiovascular Events in Later Life.
Becca R. Levy, Alan B. Zonderman, Martin D. Slade, and Luigi Ferrucci. Psychological Science, Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 296-298.

Why I Need a New GPS

We all know the old adage about how men never ask for directions. It has something to do with the fragile male ego and being macho, and is probably rooted in some evolutionary trait left over from hunting mastedons. I recently experienced the modern version of this when my wife and I went hiking on some new trails near where we live.

I took along my trusty Garmin Etrax Topo GPS unit. GPS devices are part of the personal technology revolution, right in there with IPODs, cell phones, digital cameras, dvrs, and humongous flat screen tvs. In short, part of the golden age of guy toys. There are GPS devices for cars which make it possible for men not only to avoid asking for directions, but also to actually avoid getting lost. There are also the kind I took on my hike – small, hand-held units that show you the terrain, let you track your path, record your distance traveled, and find your way back to the starting point.

The trail we were following had been described to us but we had no map. We had to rely on rather vague explanations when we came to choice points because there were no signs indicating which way to go. And of course I had my trusty GPS. The route we were trying to follow was a loop that – theoretically – returned us to our car, which we had parked on a road at the trail head.

Things went smoothly for several miles, and my GPS indicated that we were indeed circling back toward the starting point. As we got closer and closer (and more and more tired), I was absolutely sure we were nearer and nearer our car and I knew exactly how to get there, based on the readings from the GPS. But then we came to a choice point where logic and common sense confronted male ego and male techno-worship. By this time we were on a road that was supposed to intersect the road on which we had parked the car. Going one way would take us to the car, according the GPS. However, going in the opposite direction seemed like the logical choice. I insisted on following the GPS. My wife opted for logic. After some increasingly heated exchanges I offered to let her stay while I walked to the car (my way) and then drove back to pick her up.

After I walked alone for another 1/4 mile it became clear from the GPS that the car was located in the middle of a large tree, making it somewhat difficult to drive. I backtracked and together my wife and I walked in the opposite direction, arriving in short order at the car, precisely where we had left it. The GPS was WRONG (the words stick in my throat).

There are probably good reasons why the unit was inaccurate in this situation. But the lesson isn’t simply that you should always trust your senses (common and otherwise) rather that technology – there are too many cases where people have been fooled by faulty perceptions and sensations, sometimes with disastrous results. But trusting technology too much can be problematic too, as my story illustrates. We need to temper our reliance on technology with careful, prudent analysis.

But most important, I need to buy a new GPS.

Banker's Math: Part Trois

I’ve written about this twice before in blogs about refinancing our mortgage and about bank charges for free services. A recent incident with my credit card (none other than Citibank) prompts yet another rant now.

My wife and I recently traveled to Australia. Some of the hotel arrangements were prepaid through Travelocity (prepaying is often cheaper, so it can be a good deal if you’re sure your plans won’t change). In going over my credit card statement after we returned, however, I noticed that one of the hotels charged us for the room even though it was prepaid. They must have caught their error, however, because a couple of weeks later the charge was reversed. No problem, right?

Wrong.

The erroneous charge was made in Australian dollars. Citibank graciously converted this to U.S. dollars — for a 3% “foreign transaction fee.” The 3% was calculated on the U.S. dollar amount. This is irritating enough, but it gets much worse. During the several weeks after the erroneous charge the Australian dollar became stronger against the U.S. dollar so that when the hotel reversed the charge for the same # of Australian dollars, the refund in U.S. currency was less than the original amount. Let me emphasize this – the reversed charge after conversion was less than the original charge, and we are out the difference. In other words, WE paid for the HOTEL’S mistake. Now for the kicker – Citibank refunded the foreign transaction fee, but recalculated it on the new U.S. dollar amount. Got it? Citibank PROFITED from the hotel’s mistake and we got screwed twice!

To be fair, I guess this whole thing might have worked to our advantage if the U.S. dollar had gotten stronger during the interim between the erroneous charge and the refund. But I just bet that buried somewhere in the fine print of the 30+ page contract with Citibank there is a clause that says if the exchange goes in the client’s favor then the excess will be nullified. The real point, though, is that the refunds for both the hotel’s error and Citibank’s conversion fee should be the same in U.S. dollars as the amount initially charged, regardless of whether the exchange rate goes up or down.

Anything else is Banker’s Math.

Banker's Math: Part Deux

In an earlier blog I described the delightful process of refinancing our mortgage. A few days ago we received an offer from our bank that prompts me to offer a follow up.

The offer was for us to pay the mortgage every two weeks instead of the usual once per month, with each payment being ½ the usual monthly amount. Why, you ask would this be to our benefit? The enticement was that over the course of a year this would amount to 26 payments, the equivalent of 13 monthly payments. That extra payment over the course of the loan would save a considerable amount in interest and result in paying off the loan more quickly.

Now for the fine print. For helping us save all this money, the bank would assess a service charge for each payment, and a one-time start up fee of $299. Cha-ching! Plus, of course, the bank receives more money sooner, which allows it to invest, loan out, pay executive bonuses, etc., etc. Keep in mind, the terms of our mortgage allow additional principal payments at any time for free – if you pay them an additional amount each month it will accomplish the same thing without incurring any charges at all.

The bank’s offer is now confetti at the bottom of my shredder.

New Meaning to “The Economy is in the Dumper”

I’ve written in a couple of previous blogs that one of the revelations of the current economic meltdown is that we have created an economy that depends on ever greater spending and borrowing by consumers. Specifically, if we don’t buy more and more goods – and borrow the money to do so – the system collapses. A recent Associated Press report by James Hannah shows that we must also throw away the stuff we buy.

It seems that an unexpected negative (yes, negative) consequence of the downturn is that people are throwing away less trash, with dire economic consequences: “With consumers cutting back on new purchases, there is less packaging to throw away. The downturn in new housing means less waste from construction materials such as insulation and from discarded drywall and lumber. Restaurant waste is down because people are eating out less...Landfills in Ohio received 15 percent less waste from August to January than they did for the same period a year earlier. The waste stream at Miramar Landfill near San Diego has dropped 35 percent over the past year. Waste at Puente Hills Landfill near Los Angeles is down from 12,500 tons of trash a day to about 8,500.”

Although this might be a good thing for the environment it turns out that in our waste-based economy it’s downright tragic: “To deal with the drop-off in dropoffs, landfills are laying off workers, reducing hours of operation and hiking disposal fees, with the increases passed along to cities, businesses and consumers...About 82 temporary workers have been laid off at Puente Hills and its two sister landfills, shrinking the work force to about 280 and forcing permanent employees to take over traffic control, windy-day litter pickup and landscaping. Several landfills operated by Waste Management Inc. - which runs about 270 active landfills in 47 states - have gone from operating six days a week to five or have reduced hours of operation, said spokeswoman Lisa Kardell.”

Clearly, this may mean we will need a government bailout of the trash industry. “Waste Management's fourth-quarter profit slid 29 percent on declines in its recycling business and one-time charges. But in its earnings report, the Houston-based company also mentioned declines in the collection of industrial waste.” Companies such as Waste Management are bravely coping with this problem in a good old capitalistic way – raise prices. As Hannah explains, “Landfill operators rely on disposal fees to fund operations. If the amount of waste decreases, operators have to cut costs, dip into reserve funds or increase the fees, which are passed along to consumers. In the Columbus suburb of Grove City, the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio landfill- with 10 percent less waste - has raised disposal fees by $2 a ton to $35.50 and dipped into its reserve fund. The landfill also is considering accepting trash from out of the district.”

There you have it. We have economy based on consuming, borrowing, and disposing. Can this really be sustainable?

Domains of Pirates: High Seas, Cyberspace, and Boardrooms

I think there is a connection between three recent world developments – the activities of Somali Pirates (particularly the hijacking of the American freighter Maersk Alabama and the rescue of its Captain by the U.S. Navy), the spread of the sophisticated Internet Worm Conficker, and the subprime lending practices of financial institutions that led to economic chaos (and to the invention of the catchy term, “toxic asset”).

These developments aren’t directly related, of course. To my knowledge the Somali Pirates aren’t hackers, and although bank executives may have boats, they’re more likely to be found sailing near cushy resorts than on the high seas. Still, all three share some common qualities that are fun to ponder.

First, all three are motivated by greed. The Somali Pirates are collecting millions of dollars by holding ships and crews for ransom. The authors of Conficker seem to be positioning themselves to sell certain services, like computer system sabotage and spamming, to the highest bidder. Financiers at companies like AIG, Citicorp and Goldman-Sachs collect huge salaries and bonuses for enticing people with questionable creditworthiness to take out loans.

Second, all three have arisen from environments that lack normal restraints against unethical behavior. Somalia is essentially a country without a government, where the rule of law is in the hands of local warlords. The internet by design lacks centralized control and makes detection and enforcement very difficult. The de-regulation of financial markets is blamed by many analysts to be a major cause of today’s economic melt-down by allowing questionable activities to go unchecked.

Third, all three require victims that are vulnerable because of ignorance, impotence, self-interest, or some combination of these. Somali Pirates have been successful because the ships they have preyed upon are undefended and therefore impotent to withstand even a small force of attackers. The spread of the Conficker worm was possible only because computer users lack the knowledge and motivation to update their computer systems, and infected machines at first show no visible signs of being host to the Conficker program. Homebuyers with less than adequate means were ignorant of the long-term consequences of over-extending themselves, and were eager to take advantage of high-risk loans promoted by lenders.

Finally, all three of these developments contribute to the general feeling that things are out of control and that our old beliefs just don’t seem to apply any more. It is very uncomfortable to face the possibility that an economy based on “the American Dream” may not be sustainable, or that unethical behavior can’t be punished without hurting even further the victims of that behavior, or that lawlessness can’t be stopped. This is a feeling that makes people very vulnerable to political and religious leaders who offer simple fixes. Simple fixes can’t really work in this complicated environment, but believing that they will solve our problems will certainly make us feel better. On the other hand, if the current crises can somehow lead to a more realistic assessment of the true nature of our economy and its impact on society as whole, then perhaps all this will have been worth it.

Banker’s Math: 29=31=$

My wife and I refinanced our mortgage a few weeks ago. We were fortunate to be among the few who qualify these days, given that the banks have now decided to be more responsible in their lending practices. To their credit, they scrutinized us oh-so-carefully, despite the fact that our loan to value ratio was less than 50%, we have no other debts, we have credit scores over 800, and we have a record of over 35 years of never missing or being late with a payment on anything, including mortgages.

For those of you who haven’t been through this process, be prepared to see just how it is that banks and others involved in the loan business make money for doing essentially nothing, and how everything is set up to favor the lender, not the borrower. For example, even though the new loan is with the same bank as the original loan we took out five years ago, we had to pay for them to do another title search and issue a new title insurance policy (note, there had been no change of ownership to the house and they knew it). Then we have all the fees – a fee to close the old loan, a fee to prepare the documents, a fee to record the documents, a fee to check our credit scores, a fee to calculate the fees, etc., etc.

The coupe de grace came when we received the figure needed to pay off the old loan. The day of reckoning, when the old loan was paid and the new one began, was March 2nd. Our last payment on the old loan had been for interest to February 1st. Since 29 days had gone by (28 in February, plus 1 in March) I expected to pay 29 days’ worth of interest. Wrong. According to bankers’ math, a standard month (30 days) had gone by, plus one more day for a total of 31 Bankers’ days of interest required for the payoff. Seriously – to our bank, February has 30 days, not 28, and we had to pay for those 2 extra days as well as the 29 that had actually gone by. I called the bank about this and of course got nowhere. Banker’s math trumps the borrower’s math every time. Cha ching!