Not always the best medicine: Why frequent smiling can reduce wellbeing

Balancing Prediction and Surprise: A Role for Active Sleep at the Dawn of Consciousness?

The brain is a prediction machine. Yet the world is never entirely predictable, for any animal. Unexpected events are surprising, and this typically evokes prediction error signatures in mammalian brains. In humans such mismatched expectations are often associated with an emotional response as well, and emotional dysregulation can lead to cognitive disorders such as depression or schizophrenia. Emotional responses are understood to be important for memory consolidation, suggesting that positive or negative 'valence' cues more generally constitute an ancient mechanism designed to potently refine and generalize internal models of the world and thereby minimize prediction errors. On the other hand, abolishing error detection and surprise entirely (as could happen by generalization or habituation) is probably maladaptive, as this might undermine the very mechanism that brains use to become better prediction machines. This paradoxical view of brain function as an ongoing balance between prediction and surprise suggests a compelling approach to study and understand the evolution of consciousness in animals. In particular, this view may provide insight into the function and evolution of 'active' sleep. Here, we propose that active sleep - when animals are behaviorally asleep but their brain seems awake - is widespread beyond mammals and birds, and may have evolved as a mechanism for optimizing predictive processing in motile creatures confronted with constantly changing environments. To explore our hypothesis, we progress from humans to invertebrates, investigating how a potential role for rapid eye movement (REM) sleep in emotional regulation in humans could be re-examined as a conserved sleep function that co-evolved alongside selective attention to maintain an adaptive balance between prediction and surprise. This view of active sleep has some interesting implications for the evolution of subjective awareness and consciousness in animals.

Smiling faces on food packages can increase adults' purchase likelihood for children

Manufacturers often include smiling faces on food packages, especially those targeted towards children. Prior research suggests that anthropomorphized images in general, and smiling faces in particular, are an effective marketing tool that encourage food choice and consumption among children. However, it is not clear how adult consumers, who often make food purchases for children, respond to smiling faces on packaging when making decisions for a child recipient. The results of four experiments show that food packages with (vs. without) smiling faces activate child-related thoughts which leads to expectations of making a child happy with the food and ultimately greater purchase likelihood for the child recipient. The serial effects of smiling faces on purchase likelihood through child-related thoughts and the expectations of a child's emotional reaction are robust to an array of products with more and less appealing flavors. Further, a smile line in the absence of eyes does not catalyze the same serial mechanism. Overall, our findings suggest that marketers should exercise caution when utilizing smiling faces on food packages, especially when packages contain unhealthy foods; and, consumers should be aware of the effects that this seemingly innocent packaging feature can have on their product responses.

Are Positive Interventions Always Beneficial?

Can people improve their lives by smiling more, trying to have a better posture, and by thinking about good memories? Can individuals become more successful by deliberatively engaging in positive actions and thoughts? Do people feel better by following recommendations from naïve psychology? In the present article we discuss these questions, noting that although some popular interventions thought to be universally beneficial (e.g., inductions of happiness, self-affirmation, empowerment, self-distancing) can sometimes yield positive outcomes, at other times the outcomes can also be negative. Taking an empirical approach based on experimental evidence, we postulate that understanding the underlying processes discovered in the science of persuasion is the key for specifying why, when, and for whom these practical initiatives are more likely to work or to backfire.