Are women more likely to remember their first pair of shoes than their first kiss?

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

Via telegraph.co.uk

…more than 92 per cent of women could remember the first shoes they bought with their own money.

Less than two, however, in three recalled the name of the person they first kissed, the survey found.

Also interesting:

An overwhelming 96 per cent of women said they regretted having thrown away a pair of shoes, while only 15 per cent felt sorry at dumping a boyfriend.

More than 1,000 women were questioned about their feelings towards their footwear and what they could remember about their shoes compared to their relationship memories.

Previous research has shown that the average woman has 19 pairs of shoes.

But she only wears four pairs regularly and one quarter of the average woman’s shoes have only been worn once.

One in six women has more than 30 pairs of shoes in their closets, while a third have trouble finding the room to store then all.

On average, women purchase four pairs of shoes per year.

While the majority of women say their shoe buying habits have not created money problems, one in seven have hidden a new pair of shoes from their partner.

Six in ten women have regretted at least one shoe purchase.

Join over 151,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

10 things science can teach us about being sexy as hell

10 ways science explains why James Bond is so irresistible to women

How To Flirt — Backed By Scientific Research


Is it good for toddlers to feel a little fear?

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

Via newscientist.com

Even at the tender age of 3, children who will go on to be convicted of a crime are less likely to learn to link fear with a certain noise than those who don’t. This may mean that an insensitivity to fear could be a driving force behind criminal behaviour.

Adult criminals tend to be fearless, but whether this characteristic emerges before or after they commit a crime wasn’t clear, says Adrian Raine, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

To find out, Raine and colleague Yu Gao turned to data from a 1970s study, collected as part of a decades-long project to understand the biological and environmental factors underlying mental illness.

Back then, researchers led by Raine’s former research supervisor had measured the sweat response of about 1800 3-year-olds in Mauritius when they were exposed to two different sounds. One sound was always followed by a noisy blare, the other by nothing. The children learned to anticipate which sound preceded the blare, and sweated in response to it – an indicator of fear.

Decades later, Raine’s own team looked to see if any of the subjects had criminal records and found 137 that did. The team discovered that, as toddlers, these people had sweated significantly less in anticipation of the blare compared with subjects of similar race, gender and background for whom no criminal record was found.


No, mommy does not love you all the same:

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

via nytimes.com

Parents would certainly deny it, but Canadian researchers have made a startling assertion: parents take better care of pretty children than they do ugly ones.

Researchers at the University of Alberta carefully observed how parents treated their children during trips to the supermarket. They found that physical attractiveness made a big difference.

The researchers noted if the parents belted their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, how often the parents’ attention lapsed and the number of times the children were allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities like standing up in the shopping cart. They also rated each child’s physical attractiveness on a 10-point scale.

The findings, not yet published, were presented at the Warren E. Kalbach Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta.

When it came to buckling up, pretty and ugly children were treated in starkly different ways, with seat belt use increasing in direct proportion to attractiveness. When a woman was in charge, 4 percent of the homeliest children were strapped in compared with 13.3 percent of the most attractive children. The difference was even more acute when fathers led the shopping expedition – in those cases, none of the least attractive children were secured with seat belts, while 12.5 percent of the prettiest children were.

Homely children were also more often out of sight of their parents, and they were more often allowed to wander more than 10 feet away.

Age – of parent and child – also played a role. Younger adults were more likely to buckle their children into the seat, and younger children were more often buckled in. Older adults, in contrast, were inclined to let children wander out of sight and more likely to allow them to engage in physically dangerous activities.

Although the researchers were unsure why, good-looking boys were usually kept in closer proximity to the adults taking care of them than were pretty girls. The researchers speculated that girls might be considered more competent and better able to act independently than boys of the same age. The researchers made more than 400 observations of child-parent interactions in 14 supermarkets.

Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the Population Research Laboratory at the University of Alberta and the leader of the research team, sees an evolutionary reason for the findings: pretty children, he says, represent the best genetic legacy, and therefore they get more care.


Is it really “the booze talking”?

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

Via nytimes.com

In a series of studies in the 1970s and ’80s, psychologists at the University of Washington put more than 300 students into a study room outfitted like a bar with mirrors, music and a stretch of polished pine. The researchers served alcoholic drinks, most often icy vodka tonics, to some of the students and nonalcoholic ones, usually icy tonic water, to others. The drinks looked and tasted the same, and the students typically drank five in an hour or two.

The studies found that people who thought they were drinking alcohol behaved exactly as aggressively, or as affectionately, or as merrily as they expected to when drunk. “No significant difference between those who got alcohol and those who didn’t,” Alan Marlatt, the senior author, said. “Their behavior was totally determined by their expectations of how they would behave.”


Can talking back lead to smarter kids?

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

Via blog.newsweek.com

Moms, dads, or caregivers who mainly talk to their offspring using commands, like Xenia, who was cited in the study, rather than reasoning may get their kids to do what they want, but they also fail to develop their children’s minds, the research out of the University of California, Berkeley, and UCLA suggests.

The findings have particular significance for minority communities where do-as-I-say exchanges have long predominated over more nuanced argument. But they may also resonant with policy wonks, as Washington debates whether to expand publicly funded preschool programs. Reading, singing, dancing and other activities at the heart of the government’s multi-billion-dollar Head Start program may help low-income kids aged zero to 5. But a crucial link, these studies suggest, is coaching parents to explain decisions with their children─and letting them talk back, at least just a little bit.

Join over 151,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

How To Have A Happy Family – 7 Tips Backed By Research

How To Raise Happy Kids – 10 Steps Backed By Science

How To Make Your Kids Smarter: 10 Steps Backed By Science