We all like to think we’re good people at heart. We like to think that when others are in times of trouble or need that we’d be empathic and step up to assist them. Everyone seems to have “good intentions”, but what happens when we’re placed in an extreme situation? Are these morals still important to us?

            The labels we are given in society may play a bigger role in our behavior than we think. I have recently become fascinated with the Stanford prison experiment, which put this theory to the test. In 1971, a study was conducted by Philip Zimbardo in which a “mock prison” was created with the help of college student volunteers. After various psychological tests, Philip selected 24 college students (all men) to participate in the experiment; they would be paid $15 a day for 1-2 weeks as a payment for their help. With the flip of a coin, half of these men were assigned the role of a prison guard while the other half was assigned the role of prisoner.

            Initially, I thought this would make for an interesting experiment. The guards were encouraged to “create an atmosphere in which the prisoners [feel] powerless,” but this quickly took a turn for the worse. “For six days, half the study’s participants [the prisoners] endured cruel and dehumanizing abuse at the hands of their peers. At various times, they were taunted, stripped naked, deprived of sleep and forced to use plastic buckets as toilets. Some of them rebelled violently; others became hysterical or withdrew into despair.” But how could this happen? It wasn’t a real prison… everyone was “acting” in a sense, right?

            Wrong. The college students became so caught up in the experiment that they began to undergo psychological changes, causing them to act out on their assigned roles as if they were real. The experiment was stopped after only 6 days due to the horrors that were occurring. While this whole situation seems inhumane, the researchers seemed proud of what they discovered – that “anyone placed into a position of authority over another and assured that their actions will be tolerated so long as they please those in authority above them, will act in ways they never would in other circumstances.” To put it simply, our behavior is influenced by the social forces and environment we are surrounded by, whether we realize it or not.

            It’s hard for me to analyze the experiment because it’s so controversial; I think we can all agree that it is inhumane, but overall, it was conducted fairly well. The flip of the coin to assign the students their roles made it completely random, ensuring that no one got to choose their role in the experiment. The men chosen for the experiment also had to undergo psychological tests and interviews to ensure that they were mentally stable before being selected. This was done so that researchers could rule out these potential mental issues while analyzing the men’s behavior changes throughout the experiment. The mock prison itself was very similar to an actual prison, making the entire feeling of being in it more “real.” No one forced the guards to be exceptionally cruel to the prisoners, and no one forced the prisoners to obey them; it all just kind of happened. The biggest question I still have is whether or not this experiment impacted the students who participated in the study long-term; what are they like today?

All in all, the Stanford prison experiment proved:

1. It’s difficult for people to be a part of society outside of their “person” or label

2. It’s difficult to be a part of society outside of their “person” or label

3. Labels and environments can elicit psychological behavior

Despite the experiment’s brutal conditions, it provided us with some interesting insight… How do you think you would have acted in such a situation?

            We all know Oreo is “milk’s favorite cookie”, but is it your favorite cookie? Personally, I try to avoid eating Oreos just because once I start I have a hard time stopping. I always find myself joking that they must contain nicotine or something, but we all know that isn’t true. However, according to a recent study, scientists are claiming “Oreos may be as addicting as cocaine”… 

            Connecticut College conducted a study with lab rats in a maze with rice cakes (control group) on one end, and Oreos (experimental group) on the other. The rats were given the option of being on either side of the maze, and the students and professor would monitor the amount of time spent there. They then repeated this experiment with an injection of saline (control group) on the one end, and an injection of cocaine or morphine (experimental group) on the other. The results were shocking; the rats spent just as much time on the Oreo side of the maze as they did on the “drug” side! Additionally, “Oreos activated significantly more neurons than cocaine or morphine” in the brains of the rats, furthermore supporting their hypothesis that high fat and high sugar foods are indeed addictive. 

            All in all, I think this experimental study was conducted successfully. The controls were consistent and complemented the experimental groups well. The rats were simply placed in the maze and given the option of moving wherever they wanted, so it’s clear that the way they were acting was not due to human manipulation. Also, the rats were allowed to eat the Oreos however they wanted, and surprisingly “would break it open and eat the middle first,” much like humans. My only criticism is that when given the choice of eating a rice cake or an Oreo, wouldn’t most of us choose the Oreo? Maybe they should have used something that is more closely related to an Oreo…

            While I think it’s quite a stretch to say that Oreos are “as addicting as cocaine,” the results of this experiment do prove the addictiveness of the snack. The behavior in the rats “could explain why people have a hard time turning junk food down,” simply because they can’t. As a society, we tend to “associate significant health hazards in taking drugs like cocaine and morphine”; however, it is clear that addictiveness is not only prevalent in drugs – it’s in sugary foods as well! Oreos are easily accessible and produce a similar “high” when eaten, so naturally people can become addicted easily and in some cases, unwillingly. So next time you tell yourself you’re going to only have one Oreo, see if you actually end up eating just one.

            It’s that time of the year again: it’s under 70 degrees outside so of course the heat is on again in the every single building on campus. Unless you dress in layers, you’re bound to get a bit sweaty sitting in a warm building with 200 other students. I’ve always been curious about why we sweat and what causes it, so I decided to learn more about the topic of sweat as a whole.  

            First of all, there’s the obvious: sweating cools the body down. The sweat on our skin evaporates, which ultimately cools the body down. When the body is overheated, its initial reaction is to sweat. Sweating can occur while working out, being in a hot environment, and even during fight-and-flight situations (when you’re under stress). Your body has different sweat glands for the different kinds of sweat it produces under different circumstances.

            While researching sweat, I came across a generalization that “men sweat more than women” so naturally I decided to find a study to back this up. I found a study that took place at Osaka International and Kobe Universities in Japan, which claimed, “men do have a greater tendency to turn on and effectively use their body’s natural cooling system.” In their study, they had four groups of people: trained men who were used to regularly exercising, untrained men who were not regular exercisers, trained women who were used to regularly exercising, and untrained women who were not regular exercisers. For the experiment, “all of the study participants were set up in a climate controlled environment and were asked to cycle continuously for an hour while performing increasing intensity intervals.” The study found that the trained women and men were “better at utilizing their body’s sweating mechanisms than their untrained peers,” and the men were more successful overall. 

            While this specific experiment supported the generalization that men sweat more than women, I don’t necessarily think that this experiment is completely 100% accurate. First of all, the experiment never explained how the men were better at utilizing their body’s sweating mechanisms; what did they do differently than the women? Secondly, the experiment only measured sweat “mechanisms” while working out. According to a study mentioned on ABC News, “men sweat more than women because their glands have greater capacity,” but is this capacity the same for all different kinds of sweat? This specific experiment does not address the other factors that can cause perspiration other than physical activity. I’m not sure if these factors would influence the outcome of the study, but I would be curious to find out.

            So what do you think: do men sweat more than women? 

            It isn’t until after you go away to college that you really can appreciate a home-cooked meal. This past weekend, I couldn’t wait to head back to my hometown to can for THON, and I certainly couldn’t have been more excited for my mom’s cooking. Despite the lack of sleep over the past two days, I found myself in an overall excellent mood. Interestingly enough, science claims that my consistent happiness could have been due to the delicious food I was eating non-stop all weekend.

Thanks to the work of neurobiologist Norman Salem, Jr., Ph.D., we know today that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a particular type of omega-3 fat, is prevalent in the brain. Miraculously, our brains do not produce DHA – we get it entirely from the foods we eat. Joe Hibbeln was shocked by this discovery and suggested that too much or too little intake of these fats can affect the way our brain operates – and he was right.

Low omega-3 levels can lead to a reduced amount of dopamine, therefore making it impossible for dopamine to fulfill the “”reward” chemical that the brain releases in response to pleasurable experiences.” Basically, straying away from foods that make us happy can lead to negative emotions, such as depression. Scientifically speaking, “serotonin is the neurotransmitter most linked to happiness, since you need it to regulate sleep and pain. It’s also a powerhouse at counteracting excitatory neurotransmitters.” These excitatory neurotransmitters stimulate our body and mind; the more neurotransmitters a food’s compounds can produce, the “happier” it makes us.

It seems too good to be true that a gourmet meal or dessert can turn a bad day around, and to be honest, it is. Food does make us happy, and a lot of the reasoning is behind comfort eating, which “work[s] at a molecular level to lift our mood” when we are feeling down. Comfort eating can also lead to serious problems like obesity; people become addicted the “high” feeling food gives them the same way that drug addicts are addicted to the “high” due to drug abuse.

I don’t think I’m addicted to food, but I do love to eat. I’ll admit it; being at home this past weekend may have lead to me comfort eat a little bit too much… However, I’ve never felt like I was eating in a way that was out of my control. To avoid the dangers of excessive comfort eating, everyone must understand the basic fact that food can be addictive. All in all, a good meal never fails to put me in a good mood, and I’m just glad to know that I’m not the only one – it’s scientifically proven! 

            I’m sure I’m not the only person who got a bunch of Dunkin Donuts coupons in their mailbox this month. Not going to lie, I was really excited about it… until I saw the money in my bank account going down. Initially I was confused; I thought these coupons were supposed to be saving me money? Could coupons really be making me spend more money?

            After doing some research, I came to the conclusion that coupons may just be the smartest form of advertisement out there. Most of the time, even just seeing coupons “can get you thinking about buying things you might not have otherwise.” Advertisements are good exposure for a company, but when coupons are involved, people are more likely to go out and actually spend their money. Coupons can also entice a new customer by offering discounts for “first time visitors” with the intention that these customers will continue to return. 

Additionally, most of the time coupons “offer enticing promotions with a minimum spending requirement.” Coupons are usually only valid for a short amount of time, making us feel like a sense of urgency to use them and ultimately leading to more spending.  We find ourselves willing to spend a lot more money in a short amount of time just to save a small amount in the long run – but why? Spending and saving money is all psychological. According to MediaPost, “…coupons play on short-term gratification, introducing the promise of reward, compounded by the dopamine rush that comes from snagging a great deal.” Coupons literally give us a “rush” – they make us feel good.

Lastly, consumers who get coupons are more likely to use them within a week of getting them due to the “excitement” and “urgency” caused by them. According to Investopedia, “…three to four weeks later, there might be a sale where the item is 50% off or buy one, get one free. If consumers hold on to their coupons and wait for a sale, they can maximize their savings.” Manufacturers know how consumers work and when they are more likely to use their money; however, most consumers do not understand the logic behind manufacturers. Instead of using coupons immediately for a small discount on expensive items, consumers need to learn to just wait for the items to go on sale.

In my case, the Dunkin Donuts coupons I received were only available to be used in September, so I found myself going more often since it is almost the end of the month. Don’t get me wrong: I love Dunkin Donuts, but I don’t think I would have gone nearly as much as I have recently if I wouldn’t have had those coupons. I also started buying items that I had coupons for just so I could get another item discounted. Did I need a breakfast sandwich with my coffee? No, but buying a breakfast sandwich made my coffee cheaper. Was it a lot cheaper? No, but at the time it seemed like a great deal. Then the realization hit me: the more coupons I had, the more often I found myself going to Dunkin, even if it was out of the way.

While I don’t agree with the hidden motives behind coupons, I can’t blame companies for their “discrete advertising.” As college students, any opportunity to save money is appealing; however, we need to understand the hidden dangers behind coupons to avoid being fooled by manufacturers.

            We’ve all seen the movie, and if you haven’t, I highly recommend it. However, I think sometimes we all forget that the Titanic was more than just a movie; it was an actual event in American history. The Titanic (which ironically was created to be “unsinkable”) sank on April 14, 1912 and killed 1,517 people in the process. But how did something meant to stay afloat sink completely within 3 hours? There had to be some science behind it.

            Scientists have been examining the reasoning behind the ship’s doom for years and have come to the conclusion that it was not due to one specific event. The sinking was a result of “a perfect storm of circumstances” also known as an “event cascade.”

The first problem was regarding the construction of the ship; in what appears to have been an effort to save money, “the rivets that held the ship’s hull together were not uniform in composition or quality and not been inserted in a uniform fashion.” Because of this, the hull part of the ship that hit the iceberg was much weaker than the rest of the Titanic’s body, which resulted in serious damage upon impact. Science writer Richard Corefield noted, “…six compartments flooded when, if it had only been four, the ship would not have sunk.” If these particular rivets had not been used, the stress that in this case severely damaged the hull of the boat could have been avoided.

Secondly, it is speculated that tides “dislodged icebergs that were stuck in the Labrador Sea, sending more of them toward the waters traversed by the Titanic a couple of months later.” In addition, according to historian Tim Maltin, “the air column [from the Labrador Current] was cooling from the bottom up, creating layers of cold air below layers of warmer air,” which is known as thermal inversion. This phenomenon causes light to refract in abnormal ways, which can cause a mirage known as a false horizon. Science Illustrated noted, “the mirage between the false horizon and the real one prevented the lookout from seeing the iceberg until it was only a mile away.” The “distorted air” also led to communication problems between the Titanic and the Californian (a nearby ship), making it nearly impossible for either ship to see the other’s lamp signals.

There are many other reasons why the Titanic sank: the ship was moving too fast, the iceberg warnings were not sent as urgent, the binoculars were locked up, etc. Whatever the case, it’s still horrifying to me that thousands of Americans set fourth on a luxurious cruise vacation that took such a horrible turn for the worst. Unfortunately, during the times of the Titanic, nothing could have been done to stop the combination of multiple unfortunate events that lead to this catastrophe. 

How can we prevent tragedies like this from happening? Well, there’s no way to guarantee safety at all times, but thankfully our world today is a lot more technologically advanced now than it was back in the days of the Titanic. There were too many small mistakes that were overlooked before sending the Titanic out to sea. It’s important that we are prepared for the worst at all times, and the Titanic was definitely not prepared. Everything comes back to science, and many aspects of this tragedy could have been different if things were looked at a bit more in depth. 

            I think we can all agree that Saturday afternoon wasn’t ideal weather for the Penn State vs. Kent State football game, but that didn’t stop thousands of fans from supporting the Nittany Lions out in the pouring rain. I left the game early and on my way home I heard countless people saying how they were definitely going to get sick from being outside in the cold rain. Immediately that got me worried… But then I stopped and thought about it. My mom always warned me, but is it actually possible to get sick from cold weather?

            A study in the New England Journal of Medicine was one of the first to put this question to the test in 1968. In the experiment, “Subjects were exposed to germs of the common cold under various conditions. Those who were exposed to cold water or chilly air were not more likely to get sick than those who were kept in room temperature conditions.” Simply put, the cold weather itself does not make you sick: only viruses can cause the flu and other common colds. So then why is it typically during the winter (when it’s coldest) that “flu season” strikes?

            When it is cold, people tend to spend more time indoors where they are in closer contact with each other, making it easier for germs to spread. Additionally, scientists have found that when it is cold outside, the air is drier, which allows viruses to spread more easily. Many people turn on their heaters during the cold winter months, making the air in their homes drier as well. These conditions are the reason that “flu season” takes place when it gets cold, which in our case is during the winter.

            I’m shocked every single time I learn the truth behind something I’ve been told my entire life, and this is no exception. Lesson learned: just because your mom tells you that you can get sick from being in the cold doesn’t mean it’s actually true (even if half of the Penn State football spectators think so too).

The bottom line: if you’re one of the many people decided to leave the game early and have everybody over at your place to watch the game on your flat screen, you might be more likely to get a cold than you would’ve been had you stayed outside at the game. Oh and contrary to popular belief, there’s no cure for the common cold, so if you did get sick from this weekend you’ll just have to suck it up like the rest of us.

This actually happened, by the way:

            When I first started drinking coffee during my junior year of high school, I didn’t enjoy it. I only drank it when I needed an extra energy boost, and it seemed to really help despite the awful taste. However, it didn’t take long for me to acquire the taste of coffee, and soon enough I was drinking it because I actually liked it. Today, if you’re ever looking for me, there’s a strong possibility I’m at Dunkin Donuts. The strange part is that I’ve been noticing coffee doesn’t seem to “help” me anymore; it’s almost like I’m immune to the side effects of the caffeine. Could this be true?

            Yes. Researches believe that drinking coffee all the time can actually cause you to build up a tolerance to it, making it less effective the more often you drink it. A study was conducted on 379 volunteers, half who were heavy coffee drinkers (1-6 cups a day) and half were low coffee drinkers, or didn’t drink coffee at all. The subjects were asked to go without drinking coffee for 16 hours. Then, half of the people were given “a 100mg espresso-sized dose of caffeine” while the other half of the people were given a placebo dose. According to the study, “the medium/high caffeine consumers who received placebo reported a decrease in alertness and an increase in headache, neither of which were reported by those who received caffeine.” This lead the investigators to believe that regular coffee drinkers “need” coffee to make them feel “normal”; if they drink a lot of coffee regularly and then stop, they will feel more tired.

            100 million Americans drink coffee daily and it is estimated that as a nation, we spend $18 billion a year on “specialty coffee drinks” alone. Despite the fact that there’s clear evidence that drinking coffee from time to time increases alertness, Americans are incorporating it into their daily routine. While drinking it daily does not have the same impacts on each individual, the less you drink it, the better; you will be less likely to become “addicted” and you will continue to feel the side effects of caffeine. So where do we draw the line? Have I reached the point where I “need” coffee just to get by? Withdrawal from coffee addiction can cause bad headaches, but if I want to “feel the effects of coffee again,” I might have to do just that. Coffee can only help so much, and if we’re all “immune” to the side effects, we may seek more dangerous caffeine alternatives (such as energy drinks). So next time you’re going for your second cup of coffee to keep you awake for that all-nighter, think again – the more you coffee drink, the less it actually helps!

            Considering the fact that I have three exams this upcoming week, my entire Sunday was spent studying. I usually start by finding a quiet place, but recently I haven’t been studying in complete silence – I’ve been listening to classical music while I study. Why? I don’t know… I guess I heard somewhere that it helps you stay focused. But is this true?

            According to the University of Phoenix, “music stimulates different parts of the brain.” So, how effective is this stimulation while studying? Elizabeth Axford, a professor at the University, concluded that there is no direct link – it depends entirely on the individual. Some people are able to study with music on in the background, while others are distracted by it. Surprisingly, “according to the New Jersey Institute of Technology, students who studied with music playing had lower average tests scores than those who didn’t.” However, this study did not take into account how often the students listened to music or what kind of music they listened to.

            Okay, I’ll admit it: I’m not a “fan” of classical music; I’ve just been listening to it while I study because I read somewhere once that it would help me. But according to the evidence I’ve found so far, it isn’t necessarily helping me… So now what?

            Well actually, the music could be beneficial to me – but not because of the “classical genre” itself. Axford points out that many of her students have listened to classical music while studying because of what they call the “so-called Mozart Effect, a set of research results that asserts listening to classical music provides short-term enhancement of mental tasks — including memorization — known as spatial-temporal reasoning.” Unfortunately, according to multiple studies, this “Mozart-Effect” can be demonstrated when listening to multiple genres of music as long as the songs do not have lyrics.

            The bottom line: it depends on the person, but you can’t go wrong with studying in silence. It’s easy to get caught up in a song, especially if it’s upbeat or contains lyrics that you find yourself singing along to. But I still find myself wondering if all of this is due to the music itself, or if it’s all in our heads? Do we “study” better with music because we read somewhere that we should, or is it actually helping us? After these discoveries, I’ve decided that I’m going to look into additional genres of music to play in the background while I study and see how they influence my performance. However, I am curious about my classmates- do you study with music? If so, what kind? Do you feel like it helps you?

            I’m hungry all the time… Literally. Even after I’ve just eaten, I’m never “full” or “bloated.” But why? I’m eating, so shouldn’t I fill up? Is it the foods I’m eating? Is it the fact that I workout? Is there something wrong with me?! There has to be some science behind this one…

            The first problem: I’m a sucker for sweets. No, I don’t only eat cookies and candy, but I do find myself munching on something sugary a few times a day. While I usually only have a small sweet at the end of a meal, this can still influence my body. According to care2.com, anything with high fructose corn syrup can actually make you hungrier if it isn’t eaten in moderation. My initial reaction: “But I eat it in moderation!” Well, kind of… The key to eating anything with high fructose corn syrup is to eat small amounts of it rarely; however, I find myself eating “a little something sweet” several times throughout the day. This obviously is not considered “moderation” and could be contributing to the fact that I’m always hungry (and always craving chocolate).

            The second problem: I’m Italian. Okay, so being Italian isn’t the actual problem, but I do LOVE pasta. All this time I thought pasta kept you full, but clearly I was mistaken. According to Dr. Louis J. Aronne, pasta (and even dinner rolls) cause “‘fullness resistance’ by raising blood-sugar levels and setting up an insulin spike that will rebound, driving blood sugar down again and causing more hunger.” These “refined carbs” can be avoided by choosing whole grain pasta and breads.

            The third problem: Penn State students love food. Everywhere you go, whether it’s around on campus, at a football game, or even in class – EVERYONE IS EATING. According to Time Magazine, an MRI study proved that even just looking at food that you enjoy causes your body to “anticipate when food is about to enter the system.” Your body thinks that because you’re in the presence of a food you enjoy, you’re about to consume it. I’m not a picky eater, so maybe all of the delicious foods surrounding me throughout the day are making me hungrier.

            I don’t think it’s possible for me to pinpoint the exact cause of my relentless hunger, but I do think these reasons are a good start. It’s amazing to me that there’s so much science behind the food we eat, and most of the time, we aren’t even aware of it. I hope that with some additional research, I can choose to eat more foods that will fill me up… And keep me away from sweets!