Group summary of 2002 exploratory papers (Psychology 471)

Peak experiences

There were a wide range of peak experiences cited. Some class members found interesting and informative the differences in how other people, who were shown a description of their peak experiences, responded. Class members generally found it easy to reconcile the peak experiences they thought of with the "flow" theory of Csikszentmihalyi. A common report was that, as in the flow theory, peak experiences were rarely associated directly with money.

Earliest memories

This group of papers was very diverse, as were the childhood experiences of the people who wrote them,and so they are hard to summarize. Some people noted that particular relationships were emphasized in early memories, and that talking with a parent (or other person who was there in the past) helps to fill out early memories.

Cultural differences in personals ads

A common theme was that persons from some societies show a distinct emphasis on education and professional field (especially for men; may be related to "signs of your social status") that appear to be related to gender roles, or an emphasis on creating a family, whereas other societies (USA more in this category) had more persons who seemed to be interested in a 'fun' relationship not necessarily related to marriage. Some cultures seemed to emphasize looks more than others in the descriptions. Some cultures tended to have more modest self-descriptions. In addition, some differences between cultures in norms of emotional expressiveness seemed to be evident -- ads from some countries were more vivacious where those from other countries were more sedate in tone, perhaps implying something about the person and his/her culture. Traits like sincerity, honesty, kindness, intelligence, and sense of humor seemed to be valued no matter the culture.

What makes a person attractive?

Kindness/caringness, not being selfish, having a sense of humor, and intelligence were commonly mentioned characteristics; for some people being outgoing or self-confident was important. An attractive face and body (descriptions varied, but being in good shape physically was often mentioned) was referred to a lot. There were frequent mentions of nice eyes and smile (and not smelling bad). But individuals seem to have a certain (even if small) degree of uniqueness in what they find physically attractive. It was generally noted that men were somewhat more likely to stress physical characteristics when describing what they thought was attractive, although there was still substantial emphasis on physical characteristics, on average, when women were consulted. Some noticed that this differential stress on physical characteristics seemed especially pronounced in younger men. Many people tended to stress stylishness and being well-groomed, but there were some people who seemed more indifferent to this criterion. Overall, attractiveness seemed to imply some kind of mixture of personality and physical appearance.

Defining a 'good' person

A common theme was that the good person is someone who is kind and compassionate, refrains from mean behavior, and cares about someone other than him/herself, and also someone who is trustworthy and truthful, and who strives to make the world a better place. Some of the most interestingly insightful responses gathered stressed that being a good person meant either that one has strong intentions to be/do good (especially if free of mere obligation or desire to enhance one's reputation) or actually enjoys doing things that are good. Although many respondents thought that how one was raised was the strongest influence on how good a person became, there was considerable variation beyond this, for instance on the issue of whether some people are "born" predisposed to be more good than others, or whether one had to be religious to be good. Another interesting issue was whether good people have some (a few) bad traits.

Defining an 'evil' person

The strongest consensus was the evil people cause harm to others and do so knowingly (esp., go out of their way to do it). They tend to act in hate, do mean things, to be heartless, rude, disrespectful to others, uncompassionate, untrustworthy. People that were considered evil tended to be heterogeneous group (ranging from drunk drivers to serial killers to terrorists). There was variation on several points: whether power (and money) contribute to evil, whether being obsessed with evil things is a criterion for evil, and how important are some distinctly religious conceptions and distinct politically informed conceptions of what evil is. An interesting comparison with the "good person" topic above: One might argue that evil is not the lack of good, but rather intending or enjoying being harmful, whereas goodness is intending or enjoying being beneficial. So perhaps the lack of goodness would not be evil (or the lack of evil not goodness) but rather just something in between?

Do astrological sun-signs correlate with self-views of personality?

Class members interviewed 58 individuals. Of these, 18 chose the characteristics that were supposed to be of their own sign as a good fit, 13 chose the characteristics of their sign as a bad fit to themselves, and 29 did not choose them as either a good or a bad fit. The expected values, by chances, would be 14.5, 29, and 14.5. The counts for those who knew more about astrology were 11, 17, and 8 (good - neither-bad), and for those who did not know much about astrology 7, 10, and 5. These two together add up to the 18, 29, and 13 described earlier. Follow-up for those interested: Students who wish to run a "chi-square goodness of fit test" on these results should report results of it to instructor.... Results here seem to be in line with what we usually get from these papers -- the frequencies are better than chance, but not by a large degree, and it is not clear to what degree knowing about astrology affects results (Eysenck long ago proposed this is the source of any apparent effects).