According to research published in Science (Vol 314, p435), women led to believe that genetic factors cause female under-achievement subsequently perform much worse in maths tests than those told that social factors (such as teacher attention being given to boys) are responsible.

The two studies, undertaken by Steven Heine and Ilan Dar-Nimrod at the University of British Columbia, Canada, found that reminding a person that they belong to a stereotype causes them to behave accordingly - a process known as 'Stereotype Threat'. "As our research demonstrates, just hearing about that sort of idea is enough to negatively affect women's performance, and reproduce the stereotype that is out there," says Heine.

In the studies, women were given a maths test, then asked to read an article, and finally given a second maths test. There were four articles in total, making the following claims:

• No Gender Difference - an extensive meta-analysis across multiple countries revealed that males and females performed equally well on math tests.
  
• Standard Stereotype - the role of the female body in the arts was discussed with relation to women?s identity.
  
• Genetic Sterotype - males perform 5 percentile points better on math tests than women because of some genes that are found on the Y chromosome.
  
• Experiential Sterotype - males perform 5 percentile points better on math tests than women because teachers biased their expectations during early school formative years.

The impact on subsequent mathematics tests was pronounced, with those reading the Genetic Stereotype getting about half as many correct answers as those who read the Experiential Stereotype.

"Experiential accounts make people think they can overcome those experiences," says Heine. "Whereas the 'genes' group think of genes as the core of themselves, so ask: how can I overcome this, when this is part of who I am?"

Both Genetic and Standard Stereotype performed worse than those told there were no gender differences, highlighting the self-fulfilling nature of such negative stereotypical beliefs.

As we highlighted in a previous article, it pays to be an optimist. Take a look at the following letters:

HAPPINESSISNOWHERE

What did you read? Was it "Happiness is nowhere" or "Happiness is now here"?

Scientists from Seattle Pacific University, and the University of Washington have disproved the old adage that the lower your expectations, the happier you should be following success and the less disappointed you should be following failure.

In fact, the opposite turned out to be true. Students were asked how well they expected to do in word association tests, and then questioned again afterwards. Of those who did poorly in the tests, those who expected to do well, but in fact performed poorly, felt better about themselves than those who expected to do poorly and were proved right...

The two tests performed in the study concluded that there was little evidence to support the old adage, and found that those people who thought they would do well tended to be more positive thinking in general.

(Cognition & Emotion, Volume 20, Number 1/January 2006)

New research from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine suggests that omega-3s can have a significant impact on mental health.

They found that people with low blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids were more likely to report mild to moderate symptoms of depression, more moodiness, and more impulsivity, which in extreme forms manifests as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Conversely, people with higher blood levels of omega-3s were found to be more agreeable, based on the results of standardized tests.

"Clearly, larger studies are needed to understand the relationship between behavior and these fats, but by following the American Health Association recommendations to eat two fish meals a week people may be protecting both their hearts and their mental health", says researcher Sarah Conkin, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

(Web MD - 3rd March 2006)

According to an article published in the New Scientist, complex decisions are best left to your unconscious mind to work out, and over-thinking a problem could lead to expensive mistakes.

The research suggests the conscious mind should be trusted only with simple decisions, such as selecting a brand of oven glove. Sleeping on a big decision, such as buying a car or house, is more likely to produce a result people remain happy with than consciously weighing up the pros and cons of the problem, the researchers say.

Thinking hard about a complex decision that rests on multiple factors appears to bamboozle the conscious mind so that people only consider a subset of information, which they weight inappropriately, resulting in an unsatisfactory choice. In contrast, the unconscious mind appears able to ponder over all the information and produce a decision that most people remain satisfied with.

(New Scientist - 16th February 2006)

An article in the New York Times highlights recent brain studies which indicate that when people are acting under hypnotic suggestions, their brains show profound changes in how they process information. The suggestions, researchers report, literally change what people see, hear, feel and believe to be true.

(New York Times - 22nd November 2005)

The title for this article comes from the film, What The Bleep Do We Know!?, which we saw the other night. It is a strange mix of serious documentary on the science of Quantum Theory, woven around an entertaining story about a photographer who starts to see the world in a new way.

The film succeeds in bringing the mysteries of Quantum Physics to the general public, whilst offering an interesting metaphor about life. For years, scientists believed that they had physics sewn up - Newton's Laws seemed to cover all eventualities and everything seemed fine. And then Quantum Physics came along and messed everything up. Newton's Laws turned out to be a very small part of the physics of the world - only correct because they are approximations within a very limited scope of a much larger model of the world. And so scientists started to look at the world in a different way.