U of M News Wire
January 31, 2008
Destined to lie, cheat or steal? New research from the University of Minnesota finds that believing in free will can keep us honest
By Rebecca Monro
U of M News Wire
In an age where cheating scandals plague all levels of governments and major corporations are brought down by unethical actions, the debate about the origins and nature of how and why decisions are made play into a larger debate about genetic determinism and free will.
It is well established that changing people’s sense of responsibility can change their behavior. But what would happen if people came to believe that their behavior was the inevitable product of a causal chain beyond their control -- a predetermined fate beyond the reach of free will?
In two recent experiments, psychologists Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of British Columbia explored the link between fatalistic beliefs and unethical behavior. The results of these experiments are reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
Vohs and Schooler set out to see if otherwise honest people would cheat and lie if their beliefs in free will were manipulated.
The psychologists gave college students a mathematics exam. The math problems appeared on a computer screen, and the subjects were told that a computer glitch would cause the answers to appear on the screen as well. To prevent the answers from showing up, the students had to hit the space bar as soon as the problems appeared.
In fact, the scientists were observing to see if the participants surreptitiously used the answers instead of solving the problems honestly on their own. Prior to the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established method to prime the subjects’ beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.
The results were clear: those who were induced to have weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.
Vohs and Schooler then went a step further to see if they could get people to cheat with unmistakable intention and effort. In a second study, the experimenters set up a different deception: they had the subjects take a very difficult cognitive test. Then, the subjects solved a series of problems without supervision and scored themselves. They also “rewarded” themselves $1 for each correct answer; in order to collect, they had to walk across the room and help themselves to money in a manila envelope.
The psychologists had previously primed the participants to have their beliefs in free will bolstered or reduced by having them read statements supporting a deterministic stance of human behavior. And the results were just as robust. This study shows that those with a stronger belief in their own free will were less apt to steal money than were those with a weakened belief.
Although the results of this study point to a significant value in believing that free will exists, it clearly raises some significant societal questions about personal beliefs and personal behavior.
For a copy of the article "The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating" please contact Rebecca Monro at (612) 626-7940 or rmonro@umn.edu.
----------
U of M physicists discover powerful radio waves that may lead to spacecraft damage
By Deane Morrison
U of M News Wire
Fifty years ago, the United States entered the Space Age with the launch of its first satellite, Explorer I. The spacecraft made history by finding the first of two Earth-girdling radiation belts that threaten satellite electronics -- and astronauts.
To mark the anniversary, a University of Minnesota-led team used university-designed instruments to unlock one of the biggest mysteries of the Belts, which are named for their discoverer, James Van Allen. The researchers pinpointed the likely physical process that creates some of most destructive radiation in the Van Allen Belts, a necessary step toward NASA’s goal of predicting and circumventing damage to spacecraft and space travelers.
The culprit? The most powerful radio waves of their kind ever detected in the Belts. The researchers not only discovered the waves but showed that they are capable of accelerating electrons to near the speed of light -- which gives the electrons enough energy to knock out computers, pierce spacesuits, and damage the body tissues of astronauts -- and that they can do it astonishingly fast. Their discovery of these “celestial tsunamis” appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
“No one has ever seen waves this big,” says University of Minnesota physics professor Cynthia Cattell, who led the team. “They’re more than 10 times bigger than what we knew about.”
Subatomic surfers, sky-high waves
Shaped like two concentric pumpkin shells around the Earth, the Van Allen Belts are areas where electrons and other charged particles get trapped by Earth's magnetic field. The belts constantly shift and pulsate, but in general they are thickest above Earth's midsection. There, the center of the Inner Belt is about 6,000 miles up and the more active Outer Belt--where the high-powered radio waves were detected--is at about 16,000 miles.
The waves studied by Cattell and her colleagues are known as whistlers, a special type of radio-frequency wave that has been known since World War I.
“When first discovered, they were being generated by lightning,” says Cattell. “They could be heard through radio receivers as high pitches falling to lower.”
The newly found whistlers have a lot in common with the ocean waves off Waikiki Beach. Both pick up surfers--whether people or electrons--and transfer energy to them. Electrons that absorb enough energy from whistlers can hurtle along at up to 99 percent the speed of light, which translates to 184,000 miles per second.
The most startling revelation was how fast it happens. It had been thought that multiple interactions between whistlers and electrons, taking place over a span of minutes or even tens of hours, were necessary.
“But we saw that electrons can be energized in a tenth of a second,” says Cattell.
Stalking the mother of all whistlers
The key to the discovery lay in a couple of identical instruments designed by university physicist Keith Goetz. They are aboard the twin spacecraft of NASA’s STEREO mission, one orbiting ahead of Earth and the other orbiting behind. The idea is to use the widely separated spacecraft to study the sun in 3-D. STEREO was launched in October 2006.
The focus of Goetz’s instrument--called TDS, for time-domain sampler--is waves in the solar wind, a stream of charged particles flowing from the sun. The TDS’s were intended to collect data after the two STEREO spacecraft had settled into their respective orbits. But that didn't stop Goetz from insisting that they be turned on early, when the two orbiters were still near Earth.
And so they were. And thus the antennas of the TDS were ready on Dec. 12, 2006, when the big break came.
On that day the two spacecraft sailed through the Outer Van Allen Belt in tandem, one about 84 minutes behind the other. During that short interval, the Outer Belt was hit by a “magnetospheric substorm,” an explosive release of energy from the Earth's magnetic field. The substorm stirred up the massive whistlers, which were detected by the second STEREO spacecraft.
The TDS was the first instrument ever to detect such large waves, and it was no accident. It was programmed to measure much more powerful radio waves over much shorter time intervals than instruments on previous missions and to regularly discard data on all but the biggest whistlers it detected.
“It’s a very smart instrument,” Cattell observes.
Using the University of Minnesota’s Supercomputing Institute, Cattell and undergraduate Kris Kersten simulated interactions between whistlers and electrons and found that the whistlers they had detected in the Outer Belt were more than strong enough to accelerate electrons to near light-speed in a tiny fraction of a second. So those whistlers emerged as the prime suspect behind that kind of radiation.
The finding was especially gratifying because it came as a bonus.
“It’s icing on the cake to get this discovery in the radiation belts when at the beginning, our prime mission was to study the sun,” says Goetz.
Into the heart of the storms
The university will continue to play a major role in studying the radiation belts. Physics professor John Wygant will lead one of four teams designing the Van Allen Radiation Belt Storm Probes, a two-spacecraft NASA mission scheduled for launch in 2012.
“The processes that form radiation belts are mysterious,” he says. “We want to understand all the mechanisms that energize particles in them.”
----------
Growing Concerns
A parenting question-and-answer column with Dr. Martha Erickson of the University of Minnesota
Question: We might move in with my in-laws for about a year to save some money. They have a three-bedroom house which means that my kids (a 2-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl) would have to share a room -- and possibly a bed. Is there any reason why either sharing a room or sharing a bed would be detrimental to the kids?
Answer: At that young age there is nothing inherently wrong with a brother and sister sharing a room, or even a bed. In fact, it’s a luxury that we even can ask the question; the idea of a separate room or bed for each child in the family is unheard of in many parts of the world – and among many families in this country.
Although there will not necessarily be any harm in having the children share a room, it makes sense to think about how you can make this new, temporary living arrangement go smoothly for you and your children. I’d suggest you start by asking yourself some questions.
First, how do the two children currently get along? Is their relationship relatively harmonious, or do they get into frequent conflicts? Since they apparently are used to having their own space in your current home, are they likely to squabble over sharing a room and a bed?
You also might want to think about their sleeping patterns. Will the movement of a lively 2-year-old disrupt the sleep of the 4-year-old? Or will the children’s different bedtimes and morning schedules interfere with each other?
If the answers to those questions lead you to anticipate problems, you might take some precautionary steps. For example, if you think sharing a bed will be difficult, consider purchasing an inexpensive inflatable bed or roll-away for one of the children. And if you envision hassles over space and objects in the shared room, arrange the room so each child has his or her own space, maybe with a small throw rug marking each child’s special play space. You might use sturdy laundry baskets for storing each child’s toys and clothes, allowing each child to choose baskets in a favorite color. These make it easy for kids to find their own things in the morning and to help put toys away at the end of the day.
Who knows…after a year of living with your in-laws, your children may become so accustomed to sharing a room that they have trouble sleeping alone when you move into a place of your own.
Dr. Erickson is a senior fellow and director of the Harris Programs in the Center for Early Childhood Education at the University of Minnesota.
Want to hear more parenting advice?
Dr. Erickson and her daughter can be heard every Sunday, from 2 - 4 pm, on “Good Enough Moms,” on FM107.1 radio in the Twin Cities or via Webcast at www.FM1071.com
