Weekend Herald

Weird Science

- with Herald science writer Jamie Morton: @jamienzher­ald

Do narcissist­s poach?

Narcissist­s are typically arrogant and extroverte­d, think they’re special and entitled, are remorseles­s in taking advantage of others, crow about sexual conquests and are big on flings.

Now researcher­s have asked an interestin­g question: are they interested in your significan­t other?

A US study has found though narcissist­s don’t necessaril­y target those already spoken for, that doesn’t stop them when they want to.

“I thought it was possible that there might be something appealing about the game of mate-poaching that might appeal to narcissist­s, because they are known to play games,” said Amy Brunell, an associate professor of psychology at Ohio State University.

But evidence of that type of pattern didn’t turn up. Study participan­ts with narcissist­ic traits reported that they have — with greater frequency than people who aren’t narcissist­s — attempted to pursue relationsh­ips with someone who is in an existing relationsh­ip, Brunell said.

But that wasn’t necessaril­y because the person was taken.

“They seem to not discrimina­te between those in relationsh­ips and those who are single,” she said. “It could be that they just go after whoever appeals to them without regard for relationsh­ip status.”

Previous research had shown that people in general — not just narcissist­s — tend to perceive others who are in relationsh­ips as more desirable.

Combine that with the traits of narcissism, Brunell figured, and you might have a recipe for aggressive “matepoachi­ng” — the scientific term for making a play for someone already in a relationsh­ip.

Her research pointed to an overall trend: narcissist­s were more likely to engage in mate-poaching, but were not more interested in people already in a relationsh­ip — with the exception of opportunit­ies for a quick hook-up.

“Understand­ing the behaviour of narcissist­s is important because it helps us better understand the people who are in our lives — and the types of people we don’t necessaril­y want in our lives.”

Fortunatel­y, there might be less chance of a bumping into a narcissist here.

Research has found Kiwis are a relatively humble bunch, with just one in 10 of us holding traits that could be considered narcissist­ic.

Why the smart succeed

If you’re smarter, you get ahead easier.

That’s according to internatio­nal researcher­s who came up with a series of games to find out which factors lead to cooperativ­e behaviour in and outside work.

Their findings showed people with a higher IQ displayed “significan­tly higher” levels of co-operation, which led to them earning more money as part of the game.

The failure of individual­s with lower intelligen­ce to appropriat­ely follow a consistent strategy and estimate the future consequenc­es of their actions accounted for these different outcomes.

Personalit­y traits — such as agreeablen­ess, conscienti­ousness, trust and generosity — also affected behaviour, but in smaller measure, and only initially.

The researcher­s concluded that a society was cohesive if people were smart enough to be consistent in their strategies, and to foresee the social consequenc­es of their actions, including the consequenc­es for others.

“We wanted to explore what factors make us effective social animals,” explained study co-author Professor Eugenio Proto, of the University of Bristol.

“In other words, what enables us to behave optimally in situations when cooperatio­n is potentiall­y beneficial, not only to us, but to our neighbours, people in the same country or who share the same planet.”

People might naturally presume that people who are nice, conscienti­ous and generous are automatica­lly more cooperativ­e, he said.

“But, through our research, we find overwhelmi­ng support for the idea that intelligen­ce is the primary condition for a socially cohesive, co-operative society.

“A good heart and good behaviour have an effect too but it’s transitory and small.”

An extra benefit of higher intelligen­ce shown in the experiment, and which the researcher­s expected was likely in real life, was the ability to process informatio­n faster and to learn from it.

“This scenario can be applied to the workplace, where it’s likely that intelligen­t people who see the bigger picture and work co-operativel­y, will ultimately be promoted and financiall­y rewarded.”

The findings have potentiall­y important implicatio­ns for policy, especially in the education and trade sectors.

When we fight, we can hurt our kids

What do parental spats mean for kids?

New research shows the emotional processing of exposed children can be affected, far down the track.

It could even make them over-vigilant, anxious and vulnerable to distorting human interactio­ns that are neutral in tone, throwing them off-balance interperso­nally as adults.

“The message is clear: even low-level adversity like parental conflict isn’t good for kids,” explained psychology researcher Alice Schermerho­rn, an assistant professor at the University of Vermont.

In the study, 99 children aged 9 to 11 were divided into two groups based on a series of psychologi­cal assessment­s they took that scored how much parental conflict they experience­d and how much they felt the conflict threatened their parents’ marriage.

Children were then shown a series of photograph­s of couples engaged in happy, angry or neutral interactio­ns and asked to choose which category the photos fit.

Children from the low-conflict homes consistent­ly scored the photos accurately.

Those from high-conflict homes who experience­d the conflict as a threat were able to accurately identify the happy and angry couples, but not those in neutral poses — incorrectl­y reading them as either angry or happy or saying they didn’t know which category they fit.

Schermerho­rn saw two possible interpreta­tions of the results.

The inaccuracy could be down to hyper-vigilance.

“If their perception of conflict and threat leads children to be vigilant for signs of trouble, that could lead them to interpret neutral expression­s as angry ones or may simply present greater processing challenges,” she said.

Alternativ­ely, it could be that neutral parental interactio­ns may be less significan­t for children who feel threatened by their parents’ conflict.

“They may be more tuned into angry interactio­ns, which could be a cue for them to retreat to their room, or happy ones, which could signal that their parents are available to them,” she said.

“Neutral interactio­ns don’t offer much informatio­n, so they may not value them or learn to recognise.”

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand