19. October 2009 by John Schinnerer.

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Guide To Self, Inc.

Positive emotions, such as awe, curiosity, love, contentment and pride, act as a hidden reset button for the physiological effects of destructive emotions (e.g., chronic stress, long-term anger, or enduring sadness). Positive emotion undoes the harmful physical effects of negative emotions.

Positive emotions…

·         lower blood pressure

·         increase immune system functioning

·         improve clarity of thought and creativity and

·         decrease cortisol levels (i.e., the stress hormone).

Research has recently uncovered the four best predictors of future positive emotions. They are…

• The feeling that you can count on others
• The perception that you have autonomy and are in control of your own life
• Whether you learned something new yesterday
• Whether you did what you do best yesterday

(E. Diener, University of Illinois, author of Happiness)

If you have loved ones and friends you can count on, if you feel autonomous, if you learn something new daily, and if you use your strengths on a daily basis, you will create more moments of happiness in your life. As you learn to string together fleeting moments of happiness, you will create a contented mood.

According to Barbara Fredrickson (UNC Chapel Hill), author of Positivity, as we learn to unpack happiness, we discover that it is positive emotions that lay at the heart of a number of things such as resiliency, happiness, life satisfaction and subjective well-being.

In other words, when you increase the frequency with which you experience positive emotions, you improve your psychological resources (e.g., resiliency) and subsequently, you become more satisfied with life and physically healthier.

About the Author

Dr. John Schinnerer is in private practice helping individuals learn happiness by mitigating destructive emotions and fostering constructive emotions. His practice is located in the Danville San Ramon Medical Center at 913 San Ramon Valley Blvd., #280, Danville, California 94526. He graduated summa cum laude from U.C. Berkeley with a Ph.D. in psychology. Dr. Schinnerer has been an executive and psychologist for over 10 years. Dr. John Schinnerer is President and Founder of Guide To Self, a company that coaches clients to their potential using the latest in positive psychology, mindfulness and attentional control. Dr. John Schinnerer hosted over 200 episodes of Guide To Self Radio, a prime time radio show, in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Dr. Schinnerer is President of Infinet Assessment, a psychological testing company to help firms select the best applicants. Dr. Schinnerer’s areas of expertise range from positive psychology, to emotional awareness, to moral development, to sports psychology. Dr. Schinnerer wrote the award-winning, “Guide To Self: The Beginner’s Guide To Managing Emotion and Thought,” which is available at Amazon.com, BarnesAndNoble.com and AuthorHouse.com.  

Posted in Hope, Gratitude, Curiosity, Assertiveness, Mindfulness, Negotiation and emotion, Altruism, Science of love, National speakers, Employee engagement, Positive emotions and job search, Executive coach, Corporate Culture, Positive expectations, Emotion & learning, Danville CA, Resiliency, Organizational psychology, Guide to Self, Emotional IQ, Anxiety, Life coach, Creativity, Managing stress, Dr. John Schinnerer, Nervousness, Tips to help anxiety, Anger Management, Managing Sadness, Men's emotions, Managing Anxiety, Emotional mind, Customer Engagement, Happiness, Positive Psychology | Print | No Comments »

6. August 2009 by John Schinnerer.

What if ‘cognitive dissonance’ is actually related to subconscious emotional processes? Emotions may be behind the wishful thinking that the researchers relate to cognitive dissonance. Are we getting closer to a quantum theory of consciousness (emotion & cognition)?

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

April 14th, 2009 By Lisa Zyga

‘ (PhysOrg.com) — Humans don’t always make the most rational decisions. As studies have shown, even when logic and reasoning point in one direction, sometimes we chose the opposite route, motivated by personal bias or simply “wishful thinking.” This paradoxical human behavior has resisted explanation by classical decision theory for over a decade. But now, scientists have shown that a quantum probability model can provide a simple explanation for human decision-making - and may eventually help explain the success of human cognition overall.

If you were asked to gamble in a game in which you had a 50/50 chance to win $200 or lose $100, would you play? In one study, participants were told that they had just played this game, and then were asked to choose whether to try the same gamble again. One-third of the participants were told that they had won the first game, one-third were told they had lost the first game, and the remaining one-third did not know the outcome of their first game. Most of the participants in the first two scenarios chose to play again (69% and 59%, respectively), while most of the participants in the third scenario chose not to (only 36% played again). These results violate the “sure thing principle,” which says that if you prefer choice A in two complementary known states (e.g., known winning and known losing), then you should also prefer choice A when the state is unknown. So why do people choose differently when confronted with an unknown state?

In a recent study, psychologists Emmanuel M. Pothos of Swansea University in the UK and Jerome R. Busemeyer of Indiana University in the US have presented an alternative framework for modeling decision-making of this kind, based on quantum probability. As they note, the original motivation for developing quantum mechanics in physics was to explain findings that seemed paradoxical from a classical point of view. Possibly, quantum theory can better explain paradoxical findings in psychology, as well. In recent years, a growing number of researchers have investigated using quantum formalism in cognitive situations, such as in modeling human judgment and perception. Pothos and Busemeyer’s results are published in a recent issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“A few decades ago, Tversky and Kahneman (1974) challenged ubiquitous assumptions regarding what is the most suitable framework for modeling human cognition,” Busemeyer told PhysOrg.com. “Until then, most psychologists sought to understand cognition using classic probability theory. In our paper we raise the question, which mathematical framework is most appropriate for cognitive modeling? In this article, for the first time, we present a fundamentally different, and more powerful, approach to probabilistic models of cognition, based on quantum principles. Employing minimal assumptions, we derive a Hamiltonian directly from the parameters of the problem (e.g., the payoffs associated with different actions) and known general principles of cognition (e.g., a well known phenomenon of cognitive dissonance); every step in our model is psychologically interpreted and rigorously justified.”

Defecting Dilemma

In their study, the scientists compared two models, one based on Markovian classical probability theory and the other based on quantum probability theory. They modeled a game based on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which is similar to the gambling game. Here, participants were asked if they wanted to cooperate with or defect from an imaginary partner. Overall, each partner would receive larger pay-outs if they defected, making defecting the rational choice. However, if both partners cooperated, they would each receive a higher pay-out than if both defected. Similar to the results from the gambling games, studies have shown that participants who were told that their partner had defected or cooperated on the first round usually chose to defect on the second round (84% and 66%, respectively). But participants who did not know their partner’s previous decision were more likely to cooperate than the others (only 55% defected). It seems as if these individuals were trying to give their partners the benefit of the doubt, at the expense of making the rational choice.

As the scientists showed, both classical and quantum probability models accurately predict an individual’s decisions when the opponent’s choice is known. However, when the opponent’s action is unknown, both models predict that the probability of defection is the average of the two known cases, which fails to explain empirical human behavior. The problem is that the models are purely rational, meaning they try to maximize utility.

To address this problem, the scientists added another component to both models, which they call cognitive dissonance, and can also be thought of as wishful thinking. The idea is that people tend to believe that their opponent will make the same choice that they do; if an individual chooses to cooperate, they tend to think that their opponent will cooperate, as well. If both partners cooperate, both will receive a higher pay-out than if both defected. (And if an individual thought that his opponent would cooperate and so decided to defect to maximize his own pay-out, he would then be compelled to assume that the opponent would also defect, according to cognitive dissonance.) In other words, an individual views his opponent as a mirror of himself.

The difference between the classical and quantum models lies in how the rational component and the cognitive dissonance component are combined. Even after adding the second component, the classical model predicts that the probability in the unknown scenario must equal the average of the probability for the two known cases. As such, the classical model continues to obey the law of total probability, and fails to explain the violations of the sure thing principle.

In the quantum model, on the other hand, the addition of the cognitive dissonance component produces interference effects that cause the unknown probability to deviate from the average of the known probabilities. While in the classical model an individual is committed to exactly one preference at any given time, in the quantum model an individual experiences a superposition of these preferences. Mathematically, the probability (or amplitude) of defecting in the unknown scenario is obtained from the superposition of probabilities (amplitudes) for the two known cases. These interference effects enable the probability of unknown events to be lower than the probability of either event individually, which is observed in the empirical studies.

“Cognitive dissonance can arise in other decision making situations and is not limited to games with an intelligent opponent,” Busemeyer said. “In the gambling game, you play against nature. In this case, however, your belief that you will win the game becomes coordinated with your intentions to play the game. Cognitive dissonance effects are not even limited to adult humans but have also been found with young children and even with nonhuman primates.” (See Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R. & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 978- 983.)’

Full article here

http://www.physorg.com/news158928941.html

All the best,

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Guide To Self, Inc.

Posted in Altruism, Awareness, Emotion & learning, Negotiation and emotion, Consciousness, Guide to Self, Rational mind, Emotional mind, Dr. John Schinnerer | Print | No Comments »

12. March 2009 by John Schinnerer.

http://westallen.typepad.com/brains_on_purpose/2007/06/the_much_malign.html

Stephanie has done some excellent writing on the brain with an emphasis on conflict resolution.

Posted in Negotiation and emotion, Men's emotions, Anger Management, Business & psych | Print | No Comments »

16. October 2008 by John Schinnerer.

Here is a recent study (as reported by Science Daily) on the positive effect that emotion can have on negotiating …

Deal Or No Deal? The Role Of Emotions In Negotiating Offers

ScienceDaily (Oct. 16, 2008)

We all negotiate compromises every day, but it often seems that certain people always get their way. Do these skilled negotiators simply go with their gut instinct every time or are they just extremely calculating, figuring out all possible outcomes before settling on the best option?  

Behavioral studies have shown that emotions play an important role in decision making. However, it was not known to what extent our negotiating skills depend on our emotions.  Columbia University scientists Andrew Stephen and Michel Tuan Pham decided to explore the interplay of emotion and reason in everyday deal-making. They designed a series of laboratory experiments to see if people who trust their feelings (and those who do not) handle themselves differently in the art of negotiation.  In this study, they used a classic negotiation game called the “ultimatum game.”

In the ultimatum game, one person (the “proposer”) has a given amount of cash, which he is told to divide with a second person any way he likes. The catch is that the second person must either accept the offer or reject it entirely, no negotiation allowed. If he rejects it, both players walk away with nothing. To test how emotions influence deal-making (or in some cases, deal-breaking!), the researchers manipulated how much participants trusted their feelings before they played a series of ultimatum games for real money. They asked some of the participants to think of two occasions in their past when trusting their feelings to make decisions resulted in good outcomes.

People generally find it easy to think of two such occasions, giving participants greater confidence in trusting their own emotions while making decisions. Other participants were told to think of 10 occasions when trusting their feelings to make decisions resulted in poor outcomes—this made participants wary of trusting their feelings. Then all the participants played a computerized version of the ultimatum game, in the role of “proposer.” The results, as reported in the October issue of the journal Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, were intriguing. The participants who were more confident in following their emotions offered somewhat less money than the others. This is because they were more focused on the “gist” of the offer itself (and what felt good), rather than on estimating the other player’s possible reaction and calculating the probabilities of payoff. In short, the immediacy of the offer trumped the more complicated calculation.  When the researchers tried two other variations of the ultimatum game (one with more room for negotiation and one with less), they found similar results. When the participants were primed to trust their emotions, they saw the transaction as simpler and cleaner — rather than complex, abstract and cognitively demanding. The researchers believe that emotional negotiators actually have an easier time visualizing the offer itself: They picture themselves offering someone $20 from their $50 pot and it feels “okay.”  “We believe that when proposers rely on their feelings, the relative power implied by the rules of the game is central to their gist representation of the negotiation, and this representation shapes whether offers ‘feel right’ to them,” the authors stated. Interestingly, the negotiators who were guided by their emotions did not fare worse than the others financially. Indeed, they ended up with at least as much, and often more, than their more calculating counterparts, suggesting that emotional decision making may not only be simpler, but may also be more lucrative.

Association for Psychological Science (2008, October 16). Deal Or No Deal? The Role Of Emotions In Negotiating Offers. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/10/081015100049.htm

I hope you are thriving today!

All the best,

Posted in Emotional management, Subconscious mind, Men's emotions, Negotiation and emotion, Emotional mind, Rational mind, Guide to Self, Emotional IQ, Guide To Self Beginners Guide To Managing Emotion, Dr. John Schinnerer | Print | No Comments »