This is a question that has long interested psychologists and philosophers, and a recent study published by Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick at Ohio State University may have an answer. Her research is one of the first attempts to take a scientific approach to explaining why people enjoy fictional tragedies.

For the study, researchers recruited 361 college students who viewed a shortened version of the 2007 movie “Atonement,” a story about two loves who are separated and die during wartime. Participants were asked before and after the film how happy they were with their life. They were also asked several times during the film how much they were feeling various emotions. Once the movie ended, participants were asked to write about how the movie led them to reflect on themselves, their goals, their relationships, and life in general.

The first finding was that individuals who reported greater increases in sadness while watching the film were more likely to reflect on their close relationships after the film was over. Another finding was that these participants who reflected on their relationships after viewing the film also showed greater increases in happiness and life satisfaction. This is because tragic stories led these individuals to count their blessings when it comes to their real-world relationships.

This research is consistent with other studies on sadness and depression, which often make people more thoughtful and reflective. According to Knoblock-Westerwick:

“Positive emotions are generally a signal that everything is fine, you don’t have to worry, you don’t have to think about issues in your life.

But negative emotions, like sadness, make you think more critically about your situation. So seeing a tragic movie about star-crossed lovers may make you sad, but that will cause you to think about your own close relationships and appreciate them more.”

In this particular study, they also tested the hypothesis that some individuals would experience greater happiness because they would compare themselves with the characters in the film and realize their own lives aren’t as bad. However, researchers found that individuals who reflected on themselves after the film did not report the same increases in happiness as those who reflected on their relationships.

This could be because the movie (“Atonement”) is mostly focused on lovers and relationships. And it’s likely that different tragedy movies are going to get people thinking in different ways.

I’ve written before how a “things could be worse” perspective can sometimes be a valuable way to increase gratitude and appreciation toward our life (especially aspects of our life that are outside of our control). So it’s possible that other tragic movies, like “Requiem for a Dream” which depicts individuals helplessly addicted to hard drugs to the point of ruining their lives, could cause us to be grateful for other aspects of our lives – like health or personal well-being. More research needs to be done on how different types of tragic movies may affect us in different ways.

As a whole, it’s very interesting to me how art, entertainment, and culture can influence our happiness and well-being. Movies are one common example, but another popular one is how we use music to change our emotions as well – such as listening to some relaxing tunes after a hard day at work, or listening to an upbeat song to get us pumped at the gym.

Hopefully in the future psychologists will conduct more research on how movies, music, and art affect our psychology.

In today’s “information age,” we are constantly being bombarded with facts and opinions from television, radio, cellphones, and computers. In fact, according to Eric Schmidt, a software engineer and executive chairman at Google, every 48 hours there is more content being created on the internet than all the content that was created from the beginning of time to 2003.

That’s a lot of new information being created everyday! And this unprecedented growth of information has both its upsides and downsides.

The positive is that normal people have more access to more information than ever before. When we have a question about something, most of us can do a quick Google search and find a fairly reliable source in a short amount of time. This is an obvious luxury of new information technology.

The negative is that a lot of the information we process on a daily basis goes unfiltered. Anyone can publish almost anything they want on a blog, or message board, or YouTube, or Facebook, or even Wikipedia. There’s an abundance of information out there, but unfortunately a lot of consumers of this information don’t question how good their sources are or whether or not the information is really helping them.

The Information Diet tells us that we should be a more conscious consumer of the information that we take in on a daily basis. Throughout the book, Johnson discusses many different ways our “information age” can become unhealthy. He also provides different tips and strategies we can use to improve our information diet, such as:

Respect the facts.

Johnson recommends we stick to information that provides source material. If an article doesn’t provide evidence, statistics, or citations, then you should be skeptical if what you’re consuming is true. For example, Wikipedia is usually good with providing citations, but you’ll find many sites don’t mention where their claims come from. By avoiding sources that don’t cite their claims, we can avoid misinformation and keep our information diet safe and healthy.

If we do happen to watch or read something that doesn’t cite where its information comes from, then it’s a good idea to at least do more research before considering the information true. This means occasionally fact-checking what you hear on TV, or on the radio, or even from a friend. In general, we shouldn’t take anything at face value, and we should try to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism before accepting anything as true. Blindly following any information can be disastrous, but unfortunately it happens a lot in today’s world of information abundance.

Balance different sources.

Just like a healthy diet requires a balance of different food groups, so does a healthy information diet depend on multiple sources. If you get all your information from one source, then it’s possible that you are only getting a limited perspective. Instead, it is better that you diversify where you get your information from. This will help you understanding opposing points-of-view better, and it will also help you corroborate evidence from different sources.

In The Information Diet, Johnson says many people aren’t searching for information, but “affirmation.” We search for facts and opinions that confirm our existing beliefs, but we avoid facts and opinions that put our beliefs into question. In psychology this is referred to as a “confirmation bias.” This is why some people only watch one news station or visit one blog that shares their views. We like information that adheres to what we believe, but this tendency can lead us to ignore other information that is just as important.

Schedule time spent with media.

Twenty years ago people had to make an appointment with their TV to watch a show. However today we can just DVR our media or stream it off the internet – and thus we have access to it whenever we want. This is one big reason Johnson believes many of us are suffering from “information obesity” we’ve become constant consumers of information and media, because we have endless access to it.

One thing Johnson recommends is that we make an appointment with our media – block out some time throughout the day exclusively for TV or internet, so that we can spend the rest of our day doing other things.

This helps us avoid the trap of getting lost in a maze of Google searches, Facebook refreshes, and YouTube marathons, when we could be doing something more productive with our time. When you make your TV or internet time into a limited resource, you tend to spend it more wisely.

Get in the mindset of a producer.

One of the biggest tips mentioned in The Information Diet is to start every morning writing 500 words. According to Johnson, this puts us into the mindset of a “producer” rather than just a “consumer” of information.

It’s important that we don’t just consume information throughout our day but that we also do something with it. Writing has shown to have many mental benefits, including improved learning, as well as better cognitive and emotional processing of information.

In many ways, writing functions as a kind of reflection, which gives us extra time to digest any information that we may have absorbed throughout the day. It also gives us a chance to be pro-active and creative with the information we are taking in, rather than just a passive consumer.

Writing a little every morning or night can be a great way to become a smarter consumer of information, because it allows us to reevaluate what we have learned and channel that information in our own way. By adopting a “producer mindset” we learn not to just consume for the sake of consuming, but to consume for the sake of producing.

Keep information practical and relevant.

According to Johnson, another symptom of “information obesity” is feeling anxious about information that isn’t actionable or relevant to our lives. If our seeking of information only leads us to worrying about things we can’t control, we may want to start re-directing our attention toward other, more relevant things in our life.

Another outcome of seeking impractical and irrelevant information is “analysis paralysis.” This refers to our tendency to over-analyze or over-think a situation so that we never take action.

Sometimes our endless seeking of information can lead us to be “perfectionists” when it comes to making a decision. We feel we need to know everything there is to know before we can choose a course of action. Unfortunately, it’s often impractical – if not impossible – to try to know everything before taking action. Instead, we have to accept that we will often make decisions with limited knowledge and a degree of uncertainty.

So even though we have access to so much information, we have to be careful not to go overboard on researching everything.

Summary.

The information diet comes down to personal responsibility. We know from many studies in applied psychology and neuroscience that information affects us in ways we don’t have complete control over. So it’s important that we at least regulate the sources we get our information from.

In addition, The Information Diet claims there is a new kind of “digital literacy” emerging. 5,000 years ago literacy was a trade secret only known by scribes, 300 years ago literacy was the ability to write your name, and today literacy means being able to read a newspaper. However, Johnson suspects 30 years from now saying, “I’m not a computer person.” will be the equivalent of someone saying, “I don’t know how to read.”

This only reinforces the importance of knowing how to be a smart consumer of information in the 21st century. As communication technologies continue to improve, the amount of information we are exposed to will continue to increase. It’s important that we learn how to be masters of this information rather than become victims to it.

Sure – it may not be “friendship” love or “family” love or “romantic” love. However, we can have “compassionate” love for anyone, despite any differences or shortcomings that person may have.

Compassion is our ability to understand and sympathize with the suffering of others.

We all suffer in different ways, and we all just want to find happiness. Compassion is the acknowledgement that all humans, at a fundamental level, want the same thing.

You may not get along with someone. You may not want to associate with them. You may not want to be their friend. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have good intentions or wish them the best. While you may not interact with the person or directly help them in any way, you can still hope that they find their way and eventually achieve happiness.

This may sound inconsequential, but the implications are tremendous. Cultivating compassion toward others (even people we will never meet) is closely linked to mental health and well-being. It makes us feel more socially connected to everyone and it allows us to maintain a positive outlook on life as a whole.

Loving-kindness meditation.

Loving-kindness meditation is a popular tradition in many schools of Buddhism. The aim of the meditation is to cultivate kindness and good intentions toward oneself and all others (even “enemies”). It is a wish that all conscious beings overcome suffering and achieve happiness.

The first step is to cultivate good intentions toward yourself. As Buddha said, “It is impossible to travel the whole world in search of one who is more worthy of compassion than oneself. No such person can be found.” Once we achieve self-love and self-compassion, then we can extend our love to others.

During a loving-kindness meditation, there are different types of people that a practitioner may focus on. These include:

• Self
• Family
• Friends
• Loved Ones
• Pets
• Teachers
• Coworkers
• Acquaintances
• Strangers
• Enemies
• People we’ve never met (other countries, etc.)
• Future people
• Animals
• All known and unknown conscious beings.

How you structure your own loving-kindness meditation is up to you. Sometimes you may go into a loving-kindness meditation with specific people in mind, but other times you may just want to create good will toward everyone. When I have the time, I try to cultivate love toward as many specific people as I can.

For each individual (or group) that you focus on, try picturing them in your imagination during the meditation. Then recite powerful mantras or affirmations that cultivate warm, positive feelings.

Useful mantras you can use during your loving-kindness meditation:

• “I love _____.”
• “May _____ be free from suffering.”
• “May _____ find happiness.”

Mantras used in Buddhist literature:

• “May all beings be free from enmity, affliction and anxiety, and live happily.”
  - Patisambhidamagga Mettakatha
• “In gladness and in safety, may all beings be at ease.”
  - Karaniya Metta Sutta

These mantras can help create what some Buddhists describe as a “blissful and boundless warm-hearted feeling” toward all conscious being.

However, one thing about mantras or affirmations: it’s important that we mean what we say, and we aren’t just reciting words. If a mantra or affirmation doesn’t stir up feelings, then try writing a mantra or affirmation of your own that resonates with you more.

Empathy can also play an important role in your loving-kindness meditation. Empathy is one’s ability to understand and experience the world from another person’s point of view. To develop empathy it’s important that we can imagine ourselves experiencing the world through another person’s perspective – including experiencing one’s suffering as if it was happening to ourselves. When we see the world through another person’s eyes, it can often become much easier to sympathize with their struggles and show compassion toward them. See perspective-taking for more.

Neuroscience on loving-kindness.

Research in neuroscience suggests that loving-kindness meditation can activate parts of the brain that are involved in how our body responds to emotions (insula), as well as a part of our brain that scientist believe is responsible for empathy (temporal parietal juncture). This effect was particularly strong in experts at meditation vs. novices.

Neuroscientists Richard Davidson and Antoine Lutz say that through practice we can train our brains to be more compassionate and kind: “People are not just stuck at their respective set points. We can take advantage of our brain’s plasticity and train it to enhance these qualities.”

Lutz believes that loving-kindness meditation may also help curtail some forms of depression. And further research by positive psychologists Barbara Fredrickson found that loving-kindness meditation can increase our daily experiences of positive emotions like amusement, awe, contentment, gratitude, hope, joy, interest, love and pride.

If you are interested in learning more about how we can change the way our brains processes emotions, check out a recent article I wrote about some more of Richard Davidson’s research.

The brain regions involved in producing the neurochemical experience of love were measured, and the contestant who generated the greatest level of activity in those areas would be the winner.

Here is an excellent short film on the competition along with a background story behind each contestant (and what object of “love” they chose to focus on for the 5 minutes).

The contest is definitely not a true scientific study. As you can tell from the interviews, each individual focused on a different kind of love. The older man who came in first place reflected on his 50 year healthy and intimate relationship with his wife. The 10 year old who came in second reminisced on the fun moments he’s had with his baby cousin.

Another young man focused on an ex-girlfriend he used to love but, as it turned out, his feelings weren’t as strong as they used to be. And one participant didn’t even focus on a particular person, but instead did a kind of loving-kindness meditation where she focused on producing “warm feelings” in her chest and head (she described it as a shortened “chakra meditation”). Unfortunately the video doesn’t tell us how well she did.

As you can see, everyone has different interpretations of love, which can make it hard to accurately measure. Neuroscientists believe that increases in certain hormones like oxytocin are related to trust, social recognition, intimacy, empathy, pair-bonding and other behaviors we often associate with love. Oxytocin is even sometimes referred to as “the love hormone.”

However, in “The Love Competition,” researchers determined the winner by who had the strongest signal in a part of the brain called the nuclues accumbens. This region of the brain is often associated with reward and pleasure, and studies show that the nuclues accumbens often becomes very activated when long-married couples stare at a picture of a loved one.

Mind Hacks contacted Melina Uncapher, one of the Stanford researchers behind the contest, who said this:

“I should say at the outset that it was not intended to be a study, nor was it intended to discover anything new about the brain. It was intended to be a public outreach piece, to help raise awareness that science can be beautiful (in the hopes of advancing interest in science). The finding was simply this: when a group of participants were instructed to ruminate on the person or concept they associate with love, BOLD signal in the nucleus accumbens showed individual differences.

Here, the person with the highest signal in nucleus accumbens was considered the winner. Contestants were instructed to this prior to entering in the scanner. They all met each other during the interviewing stage, so there was a bit of competitiveness in the air, but it was tempered by the fact that they were considering those they love.”

So while this contest is really interesting, it’s definitely not science. In the future, I hope to see much more legitimate research on the neuroscience behind love, especially the different types of love we tend to act out throughout our daily lives (friendship, romantic, compassion, etc.) – and hopefully we can learn more about their similarities and differences.

In a recent study, psychologists showed participants faces in the form of photographs and videos. They then had participants rate how attractive each face was. What they found was that we are more likely to judge a face as more attractive when it is moving in a 2 second video instead of when our face is still in a photograph – even when it’s the exact same face. Leading researcher Robert Post calls this “the frozen face effect.”

There are two possible reasons for this effect. First, when we perceive a moving face we calculate an average of the various positions and profiles of that face. This fits with previous research that shows we tend to perceive “average” faces as more attractive.

Another possible reason is that our brains are hard-wired to perceive moving faces. The camera is a recent invention, but throughout our evolution the mechanisms in our brain for face recognition are designed to perceive faces in real-time. This could be why we show a bias toward faces in motion vs. faces that are still.

These findings may illustrate why it can be so difficult to take pictures of faces and also why people often claim they look worse in photographs. So the next time you find yourself not looking so photogenic, remember that you probably look more attractive in person.