I have a guest post over at the BPS Research Digest, covering research on the psychological effects of pictures of ultra-thin fashion models.
A crucial question is whether the effect of these thin-ideal images is automatic. Does the comparison to the models, which is thought to be the key driver in their negative effects, happen without our intention, attention or both? Knowing the answer will tell us just how much power these images have, and also how best we might protect ourselves from them.
It’s a great study from the lab of Stephen Want (Ryerson University). For the full details of the research, head over: Images of ultra-thin models need your attention to make you feel bad
Update: Download the preprint of the paper, and the original data here
Quick links from the past week in mind and brain news:
Go get your gramophonic digital podcast player and listen to this amazing BBC Radio 4 programme on how the social discussion of dreams has changed through history.
The Atlantic on what Google’s trippy neural network-generated images tell us about the human mind.
Ignore the fact that this is yet another article on mental health that says this particular condition is much more common than you think, and you’ll find an interesting piece on depersonalisation in The Guardian.
Nature has a tribute and article collection in memory of Oliver Sacks.
Architecture’s brief love affair with psychology is overdue a revival. Good piece in The Conversation.
The New York Review of Books has Oliver Sacks’s last piece on Klüver-Bucy syndrome, the temporal lobes and unruly urges.
One of the great debates in neuroscience: are all neurodegenerative diseases caused by prions? Interesting post from Brainblogger.