Driving is one of the, if not the most, dangerous activities that the vast majority of society engages in on a daily bases. In this day in age there are many different methods in which entities try and protect society to the best of there abilities in order to make driving as safe as possible. With this in mind, I was compelled to conduct research on a way that was rumored to improve you driving skills. I have heard that certain types of video games, particularly ones involving driving, improve you ability to drive.

Shortly into my research I found an article titled, “Do video games really make you a better driver?” that discusses the reasoning behind why video games make you a better driver. The article starts off by saying that video games are in fact good for your brain, and then goes on to say that they improve your ability to make the right decision faster. The article then goes on to explain a study conducted on two groups 18-25 years old, the one group played fast paced action video games while the other group played slow paced video games. The study examined individuals from both groups ability to make quick decisions and answer questions. The researchers found that the group that played fast pace video games was able to make decisions and answer questions at a 25 percent faster rate. Not only were they able to make these decisions at a faster rate, but also these decisions were accurate, which is the crucial factor as to why video games benefits driving. My only criticism on the study is that the connection to driving is present, logical, and easy to follow; however, the study would be more meaningful if they did a test involving driving. They could do some type of simulation where each individual experienced the same potentially dangerous situations while driving and examined how they the two groups reacted differently.

In order to ensure that this study was not an outlier I conducted further research to see if similar studies drew similar conclusions. The next study I found was explained in an article titled, “Increasing Speed of Processing With Action Video Games”. This study simply reviewed evidence that found that individuals playing action video games significantly reduced their reaction time without loosing accuracy. Unfortunately, this study did not test the individual’s improvement driving capabilities; therefore, I continued to look for ones that did.

Eventually I was able to find a study that actually conduced an experiment that tested driving through a simulator. The study was discussed in the article, “Excellent gamer, excellent driver? The impact of adolescents’ video game playing on driving behavior: A two-wave panel study”. The study included 354 adolescents that played video games took a driving stimulator. The researchers found that they did have improved reaction time, which benefited driving; however, they exhibited risky behavior while driving, which in fact made them worse drivers. The conclusion of this study was unique in that it said that video games made them worse drivers; however, I wonder if they took greater risks because they knew they actually were not in danger since it was a simulation.

Take home message: Action and high paced video games improve reaction time in individuals, thus, giving them the an asset to become a better drivers. It is important to realize that video games only give the individuals an asset to become better drivers, but does not mean that they will be better drivers.

A few weeks a go a friend of mine was talking about two different types of praise that she learned in her education class. The two types of praise were called process praise and person praise. If you take phycology you may be familiar with these terms and what makes them different. For those of us who are not comfortable with distinguishing the two types of praise, Romeo Vitelli Phd article in phycology today goes into great detail in underscoring the fundamental difference between the two. In order to recognize the difference between the two you simply need to understand is the following, person praise is praise directed at a child’s personal qualities whereas process praise is praise directed at how the child behaves. So, my question is which method of praise is more beneficial to children?

From the beginning of my research all arrows pointed towards process praise as the better of the two forms of praise; however it was unclear as to why exactly this was. Let us take a look at some of the studies conducted throughout the years proving this claim.

An article written by William Harms titled, “Parents who praise effort can bolster children’s persistence, self-belief” examines a study where 53 children and their parents were each filmed three times during everyday interactions, when the children were between one and three years old. Researches analyzed the tapes and found occurrences where the parents either used process, person praise, or other praise. Researchers followed up on the children when they were 7 to 8 years old and gauged whether they preferred challenging versus easy tasks. Additionally, the researchers analyzed whether the children were capable of coming up with strategies for dealing with setbacks. The conclusion of the study yielded three interesting outcomes: parents of boys used a larger percentage of process praise than those of girls, children who received a larger percentage of process praise used more positive techniques while encountering a challenge and they believed that intelligence and personality traits are traits that can be changed (Harms). In order to insure that this study was not an outlier I researched the matter further.

The article, “Person versus process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and coping” explains a study conducted on 67 children, ages 5 to 6 years, in which the children received either process praise or personal praise following the completions of activities that resulted in setbacks. So, the x-independent variable would be the praise, while the y-dependent variable would be the level of helplessness of the children when faced with setbacks. The findings of the study indicated that those children who received personal praise were described as more helpless while performing tasks that yielded setbacks.

This experiment was set up in a similar manor as the previous study discussed, with the exception that in this study the children were given controlled tasks; whereas, the previous study is a compilation of interactions. Nevertheless, this experiment generated the same conclusion as the previous experiment discussed, thus, building on the validity of the first experiment discussed. It was becoming clearer that process praise is more beneficial to children in comparison to personal praise; however, I wanted to ensure this claim to a further extent, but maybe with a slightly altered perspective.

An article titled, “In Praise of Children” in Psychology Today lead me to a series of two studies, which drew similar conclusions to the last study I discussed. The studies discussed in the article can be found in more detail here. Although the studies conveyed a similar outcome as the previous studies discussed, it analyzed praise through a slightly different lens, looking into how it affected the children coupled with their self-esteem.

In the first of the two studies, 357 Dutch parents were placed into potential situations where they were dealing with either a child with high self-esteem or low self-esteem, and they were described a child’s performance. The parents where then required to give praise depending on the description of the child’s performance. The researchers then analyzed the praise and divided it into two categories: process praise and personal praise. The outcome of the study displayed an alluring result. They found that parents were twice as likely to give process praise to children with low self-esteem than those with high-self esteem; thus, children with high self-esteem were more likely to receive process praise.

The second of the two studies, had 313 children between the ages of eight and thirteen play two rounds of an online reaction game known as “Go!”. The first round of the game was a practice round where at the conclusion the Webmaster gave either a person praise or process praise to the child. Additionally, there was a no-praise case outcome in order to serve as a control. The following round of the game held pretests and posttest that measured how the children felt emotionally; however this rounds outcomes were situations in which the students either won or lost. At the conclusion of the game, once they found out if they won or lost, the children received process praise or personal praise. The researchers concluded that students who received personal praise were more likely to feel shame after losing. Similar to the first study, students who had low self-esteem were affected more heavily than those who did not have low self-esteem.

These two studies underscored the fact that personal praise not only is more beneficial to children when compared to personal praise; but, that the negative impacts of personal praise affect those with a low self-esteem more heavily than those children with high self-esteem. My only question of the study was how they evaluated the children’s self esteem. I was curious on this matter because I see much difficulty in determining a child’s self-esteem in a universal manor that was accurate. Aside from my question, I see little room for error.

Take home message: Process praise is far more beneficial to children in comparison to personal praise. So, if you are trying to motivate and positively influence a little sibling or any other child stick with process praise.

Most people have heard of the term IQ and are familiar with its meaning, but like myself have not really cared enough to give it much thought. Well, IQ formally known as, intelligence quotient is a score received on a test measuring an individuals intelligence. If you have questions about how the tests are conducted or how the score is calculated click on the link “intelligence quotient”. Anyway, people find themselves less familiar with a newer, yet interesting form of intelligence known as emotional intelligence. I first heard about emotional intelligence a few years back when my dad showed me the book his company had required their employees to read: Emotional Intelligence 2.0. I confess I only read a few pages of the book, but it was still interesting. Emotional Intelligence then resurfaced in phycology class I took in high school where we took an online test that supposedly tested our emotional intelligence; unfortunately, we did not do much with this knowledge or really learn much about it. The term recently came up again in a conversation and I had a few questions about it, so decided to do some research.

The first thing I need to address is what exactly is emotional intelligence. In the article, “Why You Need Emotional Intelligence to Succeed” author Travis Bradberry provides an in depth explanation of what exactly emotional intelligence is. He describes it as an intangible “something” that, “affects how we manage behavior, navigate social complexities, and makes personal decisions that achieve positive results” (Bradberry). He later describes the two major components that go in to emotional intelligence, which are: personal competence and social competence. Additionally, it is important to note that there is no known correlation between IQ and emotional intelligence. With this knowledge on what exactly emotional intelligence is we can now look deeper into the subject.

In recent years there have been a multitude of interesting findings in regard to emotional intelligence. Among the findings was a fascination correlation between emotional intelligence and success in the real world. Now, I realize different individuals have varying definitions of what success is for them; however, in order for us to stay on the same page let us look at success as an individuals outperformance relative to others in the workplace and financially.

Once again I found informative information in Bradberry’s article, which I value greatly due to the fact that he was the author of Emotional Intelligence 2.0. At the beginning of the article he hints that emotional intelligence is the reason as to why individuals with average IQs outperform those with higher IQs seventy percent of the time. Throughout the article he sites a number of facts gathered from tests conducted by TalentSmart providing evidence to his case that emotional intelligence is a epochal component to success. He discusses a test conducted by TalentSmart where they tested thirty-three other relevant workplace skills and found that emotional intelligence is the strongest indicator of performance. Additionally, in one of there studies they found ninety percent of the top performers are high in emotional intelligence. Finally, he addresses the fact that people with high emotional intelligence earn a larger salary of about $29,000 more than those with a lower emotional intelligence. I found all these facts very interesting and informative; however, I was not satisfied with the statistics without seeing the method in which the studies were actually conducted, thus, I clicked the link to TalentSmart provided.

Originally, I though all the studies Bradberry reverenced would be discussed on TalentSmart’s website; unfortunately, this was not the case. The link simply had another copy of the article along with many other articles written by Bradberry with the facts simply listed off on the home page. Displeased, I decided to conduct some research of my own in hopes of finding experiments conducted on the roll emotional intelligence played in success.

After struggling to find articles which actually discussed the methods in which the experiments where conducted I found a paper titled, “Evaluated the Claims: Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace”. This paper addresses all the claims that are made by Bradberry; however, focus on the claims that emotional intelligence contributes to workplace performances, career success and leadership. Additionally, giving me a reason as to why I had difficulties finding scientific articles discussing not only the results of the studies, but also the methods in which they were carried out. The paper critiques the way in which people in support of emotional intelligence tend to broaden the spectrum of what exactly emotional intelligence is, thus, resulting in a loss of the validity of a large portion of the studies conducted on emotional intelligence. The reasoning for why it was so difficult to find studies where the author actually discussed the how the study was conducted can be attributed to the fact that many of the claims of emotional intelligence have not been empirically tested (Jordan, James, Ashkanasy).

Take home message: Emotional intelligence is still a relatively new concept, which may prove to be one of the most important indicators of an individual success; however, it is still in need of more concise empirical studies that prove factors that pertain to its definition.

As a college student I have witnessed first hand the usage of study drugs as they run ramped at universities and even high schools across the country. The University of Austin Texas provides an in depth explanations of what study drugs are in an article on their website titled, “Study Drugs”. The pertinent point of the article is this: study drugs are prescription medication used to ease the difficulties stemming from being diagnosed with disorders such as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). Unfortunately, drugs, prescription or not, tend to be abused by people. Study drugs are abused in an unusual manor, unlike most drugs they are used for academic purposes not for fun or social purposes. So, a drug for academic purposes? I have always found this curious due to its unusual function, and have had many questions about it. For the purpose of narrowing the focus of this blog let us look into the following question: Do study drugs improve academic performance?

First things first, there are people who, like with other prescription medications, describe symptoms they do not have to doctors in order to obtain a prescription from the doctor. That is not to say that certain people do in fact experience various learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders. I want to make it clear I am not questioning whether the fact that these people do need some sort of assistance to allow them to function in a way that permits them to perform adequately in school or in there everyday lives. Rather, I am questioning the fact that if study drugs are the solution for these people and if they genuinely benefit those who abuse it. With that being said, let us move on to the original question at hand.

So, do study drugs boost academic performance? Well, I am going to separate the discussion into two areas dependent upon whether the different individuals actually have attention deficit disorders or are just people trying to get a leg up on others.

It turns out that different medications that are used for treating attention deficit disorders are primarily used on adolescents and children. As of recently, scientists are beginning to conduct research to see if this type of medication can be used by adults to treat attention deficit disorders. Unfortunately, after vast research all over the web I was unable to find any empirical or actual studies conducted on children and how Adderall, Ritalin or how other study drugs affects them. Then after a while it dawned on me, it may be viewed and considered unethical for these types of studies to be conducted on children. Again and again in class we have discussed the ethics on a considerable amount of studies, and why in some situations, particularly when it comes to manipulating different variables in children. That being said, I was able to find a considerable amount of research conducted on the matter.

The conclusions of the majority of the research I found are unsatisfying, likely due to the lack of experiments done on the matter. For example, research conducted by Kenneth D. Gadow PhD discussed in the article, “Effects of Stimulant Drugs on Academic Performance in Hyperactive and Learning Disabled Children”, found that: performance on standardized tests did not necessarily improved, though some of the children’s temperament benefited; however, the findings found the reaction to vary drastically amongst patients. Another article, “Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An Overview of Empirically Based Treatments”, draws a similar vague conclusion discussing the benefits or ineffectiveness although they have not been entirely proven. Consequently, it would be interesting to see if they found an ethical experiment that could be conducted in order to draw more sound and consistent conclusions. It is clear that there are many more studies needed to be done for these conclusions to have any substance to them, so, let us look into the usage of study drugs amongst adults who do not actually require them.

Because I thought that the issues with not finding many studies was due to the ethical questions in regard to experiments done on children I thought it was going to be easy to find studies done on adults; unfortunately, this was not the case. It turns out there is a lack of experimentation and consistent evidence. An article titled, “The Myth of Cognitive Enhancement Drugs” does an exceptional job of explaining the issue with the research done on study drugs, underscoring the inconsistent results. The inconsistent results may be due to a variety of studies experiencing the file drawer problem among other things.

Luckily, I stumbled upon a Time Magazine article by Meredith Melnick that discussed a few well-conducted studies on the matter. The first of studies took 47 adults not diagnosed with ADHD and tested them on both on Adderall and on a placebo. The researchers found that while on the Adderall pill the subjects reported performing better on the tests even though their performance had not improved. The second study done on 36 women and men, again people without ADHD, displayed another interesting element of study drugs, “they were more likely to choose to delay gratification and receive a larger monetary reward when given amphetamines than settle for a smaller amount of money immediately” (Szalavitz). The last study, disappointingly did not discuss how the study was conducted; therefore, I am unsure of its relevance. Anyway, the conclusion of the study was that study drugs such as Adderall may not benefit extremely intelligent people, but actually result in worsened performances on the tests, while their less intelligent counterparts were able to “catch up with them” improving there cognitive performances.

In conclusion, more research and experimenting is still necessary for there to be any single answer to my question; however, it is undeniable that some of studies found study drugs, such as Adderall, did in fact improve cognitive performances in certain individuals. Thus, my take home point is this: study drugs can help some people out, but they do not benefit everyone. So, if you are relying on study drugs to get you through that difficult exam it may or may not help you out.

Honestly, I have never been an individual who prioritized sleep, but I was never quite one of those kids who would go to bed at three in the morning every day in high school. However, as my first semester in college has gone by I have found myself turn into one of those people who goes to bed at two or three in the morning far too regularly. Now, this could be due to a number of things: later class times, procrastination, going out more frequently, or even just for no reason at all. Out of these different reasons, I was curious as to how being out late drinking affected sleep.

In order to really begin the research on how alcohol affects sleep I needed to understand the basics behind sleep. The article, “How Much Sleep Do You Need?” the author goes into the importance of sleep and then explains the different sleep cycles. Essentially, there are two major categories of sleep: REM sleep and non-rapid eye movement sleep (NREM). Throughout the night humans undergo several cycles of REM and NREM sleep. So, now that we have a basic knowledge that goes into sleep cycles lets take a look at alcohols affect on sleep.

In Timothy Roehrs, PHD and Thomas Roth, PHD article, “Sleep, Sleepiness, and Alcohol Use” they discuss a multitude of studies on alcohol use and sleep. The first of the studies administered between one and six standard drinks to subjects between thirty and sixty minutes before sleep. The first thing the subjects reported was that they were able to fall asleep more quickly than without alcohol consumption. Ok, so people fall asleep faster. But my next question is: does this sleep have any quality to it?

The simple answer to this question is no. Alcohol consumption has a multitude of negative effects on sleep. A study conducted by Roehers in 1991analyzed subjects sleep after alcohol consumption. He found that alcohol consumption results in frequent sleep disturbances or wake periods during the second half of sleep. Roehers attributed the more frequent wake periods to the rebound effect. This paper in Science Direct does an in depth job of explaining the rebound effect. The take away is that the rebound effect can be attributed by the bodies attempt to keep sleep normal during the first half of sleep, while alcohol is present, but once the alcohol is metabolized the body is still attempting to normalize sleep as though the alcohol is still present, thus, creating a disruption during sleep. The disruption during sleep not only causes more frequent wake periods, but also affects the quantity and quality of REM sleep the subjects underwent.

In order to insure that the results from these studies were universal I explored some other studies done on the topic. One study I came across discussed in the article, “Effect of Alcohol on Sleep and Nighttime Plasma Growth Hormone and Cortisol Concentrations” monitored sleep in different subjects on different nights after the consumption of alcohol and the consumption of placebo drinks. The subjects were closely monitored for three nights, the final night being the night the placebo drinks were administered, having all night sleep recordings and blood samples taken every twenty minutes. The conclusion of the study was equivocal to the analyses conducted by Roehers. Additionally, sleep during the withdraw night did not have any negative impacts on sleep.

Take home message: The consumption of alcohol before sleep has negative impacts on an individual’s quality of sleep. So, maybe it is not a bad idea to lay off the booze before bed if you are looking for some quality rest.

Alcohol is a drug that has been a cornerstone in human society from the beginning of time and has been thought to serve many functions for humanity throughout the years. Countless Greek poets regularly referred to the benefits of alcohol in their works; even Shakespeare referred to alcohols many advantages again and again throughout his work. One of the common beliefs of alcohol is that it helps ease one of people’s biggest enemies: stress. People of all ages and from all eras have experienced the unpleasantness that go along with undergoing stress. So now, let us explore the truth to this long-held belief.

First, we need to take a closer look at what stress is exactly. It is undeniable that everyone feels stressed and experiences it at varying degrees and with differing frequencies at one point or anther. Stress can be defined as it was by Lazaros and Folkman as, “the appraisal or interpretation of an event as signaling harm, loss, or threat”; however, the difficult thing to keep in mind is that the events that people find threating are unique from individual to individual. This factor is the most quintessential third confounding variable involved with the studies done on this topic, and what makes the exploration of this belief so challenging. The second epochal third confounding variable to take into account is situational factors. With these two in factors in mind we can take a look at the studies done over the years that analyze alcohols stress reduction properties.

Masserman and Yum conducted the first recorded studies scrutinizing the possibility of alcohol consumption resulting in stress response damping, or SRD, in the 1940s. Their experiments were conducted on cats and concluded that alcohol consumption resulted in stress response dampening. Due to the fact that this study was correlational reverse causation and third variables can be ruled out; however, this is not entirely helpful when applied to humans since all of the studies done thus far are observational. About a decade later a man by the name of Conger developed a theory regarding alcohol, which lead to the advancement in the tension reduction hypothesis. The tension reduction hypothesis contains two different parts: first, under the majority of circumstances alcohol consumption will reduce stress; two, during times of stress animals and people will be particularly motivated to consume alcohol (Sayette). For the purposes of our discussion we will only look into the first portion of theory.

Now, let us look into the studies that have been done on humans attempting to prove the stress response damping properties of alcohol. The vast multitude of studies done on this measure stress in several different ways: respondents may be asked questions in regard to emotional status, in addition to having their physiological responses, particularly heart rate and behavioral measures, evaluated (Sayette). The issue with the majority of the tests done in the 1980s is that they are observational, thus, proving to be largely ineffective because of the eclectic third variables at play. Due to this, all of the studies conducted in the 1980s were largely inconsistent and inconclusive.

Although, the bulk of the studies were observational there are a handful of experimental studies done on the study. A study conducted and published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology in the 1980s manipulated alcohol consumption and stresses individually on 96 men. The outcome of the experiment found the cognitive effects of alcohol consumption to be in accordance to the studies previously conducted.

In my research I found that studies done in reverence to alcohol and its effects on stress were almost all done in the 1980s and early 1990s and the issue has not been as heavily researched since then. Because of the still somewhat inconclusive results, there should be more experimental studies done on the issue in order to rule out the third confounding variables.

Take home message: drinking alcohol can reduce stress for certain people in particular circumstances.

People, especially parents and our elders, always talk about how teenagers make to put it simply, dumb decisions. This idea has always been seemingly unorthodox and maybe even hypocritical too me, due to the fact that I have seen young kids and parents do remarkable dumb things as well. Nonetheless, we are going to explore this stereotype and see if there is any scientific evidence supporting this widely accepted idea. The majority of the evidence behind this claim are linked with status in life and the development of the brain.

First, lets look at general reasons as to why teenagers make bad decisions in turn resulting in them having a larger risk propensity. Risk propensity is the extent to which someone is willing to take a chance considering the risk of loss. Risk propensity is linked with sex and age; therefore, young people have a much greater risk propensity than older populations. This can be attributed for a number of reasons. For one, the longer people live the more experience they gain, and experience plays a large part in decision-making (Sercombe). Generally, younger populations have less possessions and positions of power to concern them with; consequently, they are more prone to have a larger risk propensity (Sercombe). Additionally, young people ordinarily do not have a position of responsibility in a family household and are not culpable for taking care of children. Teenagers, have fewer responsibilities due to the fact that they are usually responsible for themselves alone. Due to this, teenagers make riskier and more selfish decisions.

In addition to teenagers lack of life experience and fewer responsibilities their brains are still in development, which greatly impacts decision-making. During the teenage years the part of the brain, the pre-frontal cortex, responsible for, “executive function, including rational consideration and judgment” (Sercombe), and the part of the brain responsible of the reward centers experience a temporary disconnect (Sercombe). It was from this disconnect that the phrase, “all gas and no breaks”, came from (Sercombe). Let’s look deeper into why brain disconnects results in bad decision-making. The way the brain works while making a decision is associated with the reward systems, which are negatively affected by the underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex; consequently, affecting the way teenagers make decisions. Additionally, “risk-taking involves more than the anticipation of a reward: serious decisions about risk will involve some anxiety and are likely to involve at least avoidance systems” (Sercombe). These avoidance systems fully develop as time goes on and assist mankind in decision-making. The fact that teenagers do not have a fully developed brain hinders their decision making abilities, and results in them being higher risk takers.

In conclusion, teenagers are higher risk takers due to their underdeveloped brain, which greatly inhibits decision-making. Despite their poor decision-making and high-risk propensity, there is new evidence emerging that this is for a reason, and that homo sapiens would not have survived without this more reckless time in life.

Happiness is such an unorthodox topic due to the difficulties in accurately measuring an individual’s happiness. Regardless of the inability to quantitatively measure happiness, I have always found this topic deeply enthralling because it’s so relatable. I consider myself to be a fairly happy individual and someone who has always appreciated and loved life; however, there have obviously been times where I have found myself sullen and dejected. There are so many different aspects of happiness to analyze; but for the purpose of keeping this more specific I am going to narrow down the topic to: Do relationships make people happy?

First off, it is difficult to find a way to define happiness in a way that truly encapsulates all of its pivotal components. So, lets look at it from a psychological standpoint. In physiology happiness is referred to as subjective well-being or SWB, and there are many of different components contributing to an individuals happiness; however, one reoccurring cause for people’s happiness are relationships. Humans are social creatures who greatly depend on their interactions with others. Let’s take a look at the two polar opposite effects relationships can have on subjective well-being.

On the one side are all of the possible negative effects that can emerge from negative relationships. Although there are so many amazing things that can come from a mutually beneficial and healthy relationship, there are also negatives that can arise in relationships. For example, one of the most important relationships humans can have is the one they share with their family members, thus, if this relationship is not healthy it can have many negative effect on the individuals SWB (Diener). Unhealthy relationships can be characterized by, “negative moods, stress, and depression”, and can result in a lowered SWB (Diener). Additionally, the end of relationships can have a similar effect on SWB, for instance: divorce and death of a family member or friend (Diener). On the other hand, there are all of the positives and boosts in SWB that are a result of relationships.

Despite the fact that negative relationships can have a negative impact on SWB, relationships are highly associated with an individual’s happiness. Social relationships are quintessential in: the development of humans, psychological well-being, and human flourishing (Diener). Going back to what I was saying early, humans are extremely social creatures and the “need to belong” is fundamental in individuals SWB (Diener). This can be seen even at a very simple level with the fact that in general humans are happier when they are with others and very happy individuals spend little time alone (Diener). Researchers followed two different groups of homeless people, one in Calcutta and one in the United States, the group from Calcutta was much happier than the homeless in the United States. They were happier because the group from Calcutta had much better social relationships; whereas, the group from the United States felt isolated and alone (Diener). Clearly relationships are incredibly important in life and allow individuals to achieve happiness.

In conclusion, relationships do make people happier and have an overall positive impact on subjective well-being. Although there are a multitude of components contributing into individual’s happiness I have found that good relationships attribute to individuals happiness over and over. Due to the fact that humans are such social creatures the majority of humans have at least a few good relationships, and because of this most people consider themselves to be happy.

I have always wondered what it is that makes some of us athletically gifted while the others are left struggling to run in a straight line. This concept fascinates me because it goes beyond the obvious reasons and can be explored from varying viewpoints. The more obvious, yet still complex, reason is simply to do with individuals genetic make up: however, we will explore the impact of genes on athletics in greater depth later on. The second contributing factor to athletic giftedess can be found in, as evident as this sounds, attitude. The last major factor, which is the environment, explains why even children from the same gene pool can have differing levels of athleticism. Let’s look at each of these reasons a little more closely.

Genes are just one of those things we can’t do anything about; we can’t control what genes are given to us and there is nothing we can do to alter them, but they make up almost every aspect of who we are. The sports medicine expert Elizabeth Quinn explains genetics as something that, “Shape us in many ways including our potential to excel in sports.” The keyword here is potential since genetics really only give you a place to start and the rest is up to the individual. For instance, someone with great athletic potential may never reach that potential if they live an unhealthy life and never workout. Consequently, if an individual with limited athletic abilities trains hard, eats well, and lives a balanced life they too can become a solid athlete (Quinn). This concept can be encapsulated by what we discussed in class regarding correlation and causation. Although, there is a correlation between good athletic genes and great athletes, an individual with athletic genes does not automatically cause them to be a great athlete. The individual is only given the potential to be great; they still need to work hard in order to achieve their potential.

Lets take a look at the impact of attitude when it comes to athletics. Attitude is something I value above all else because its impact on life is monumental. We have been told our whole lives again and again how important attitude is; now we can take a look at the impact it has on athletics. A study explained by Psychological Science took two university varsity swim teams and tested their attitudes by giving them falsely negative times. Pessimistic swimmers after receiving the falsely negative times continued to deteriorate for their next swim; however, the optimistic swimmers continued to improve on their next swim. The optimistic swimmers were motivated to do better after their falsely negative times, thus, improving after “failure” (Thornton). The test yet again proved the significance of attitude; the optimistic swimmers improved their times due to their positive attitude.

Lastly, lets find out the relevance of environment on athletics. Honestly, this was the concept that I was most curious about because I have always been curious what makes certain athletic; however, I have always been especially curious to find out why some kids from a family are athletic while others are not. Environment explains this because environment affects the make up of a child even more than their genetics. In a study explained by Behavioral and Brain Sciences examines how, “environmental influences make two children in the same family as different from one another as are pairs of children selected randomly from the population” (Plomin). The children’s environments affect every aspect of who they are, thus, influencing their athletic ability. Environments differ amongst children in the same family and are know as “nonshared environments” and accounts for the differences between biological siblings (Plomin). The “nonshared environments” might result in a child with an optimistic attitude and one with a pessimistic attitude for instance; as we saw early attitude plays an important role in athletics. Despite this, the European PubMed Central did find that siblings of athletes are more likely to become athletes if they train before puberty. Although the siblings are more likely to become athletes there are still a lot of factors going into the make up of an athlete that go beyond similar genetic potential.

My final take away is this: there are a lot more factors going into being athletic than I would have thought. It is a combination between becoming and athlete and being born one. You can be born with good athletic potential, but you still need the necessary psychological traits in order to become a great athlete.

Hello everyone, my name is Adrian Moscol and I am from a popular suburb known as “outside of Phili”, and more specifically from a town called Bryn Mawr. I am a freshman in the Division of Undergraduate Studies here at Penn State. In high school there was never really any class that I found particularly interesting, which made my decision for going into DUS pretty easy.

I am taking this course for a two reasons: First of all, I have already taken Biology, Chemistry, and Physics in high school and once in more than enough. Secondly, my advisor pitched this class to me very well by opening up by saying, “It’s a class that fulfills one of your gen eds and it’s for people who traditionally don’t like science.”

I am not planning on becoming a science major because I am not good at science and I do not find it interesting.