Parents who use humor have better relationships with their children, study finds

They say that laughter is the best medicine, but it could be a good parenting tool too, according to a new study led by researchers from Penn State.

In a pilot study, the research team found that most people viewed humor as an effective parenting tool and that a parent or caregiver's use of humor affected the quality of their relationship with their children. Among those whose parents used humor, the majority viewed their relationship with their parents and the way they were parented in a positive light. The researchers published their findings in the journal PLOS One.

"Humor can teach people cognitive flexibility, relieve stress, and promote creative problem solving and resilience," said Benjamin Levi, professor of pediatrics and humanities at Penn State College of Medicine and senior author of the study. "My father used humor and it was very effective. I use humor in my clinical practice and with my own children. The question became, how does one constructively use humor?"

While aspects of humor and play have been studied across various settings and in child development, the use of humor in parenting hasn't been formally studied, the researchers said.

"There's an interesting parallel between business and parenting, which are both hierarchical. In business, humor has been shown to help reduce hierarchies, create better environments for collaboration and creativity and diffuse tension," said first author Lucy Emery, who was a medical student at Penn State College of Medicine at the time of the research and currently a pediatrics resident at Boston Children's Hospital. "While parent-child relationships are more loving than business relationships, stressful situations happen a lot when parenting. Humor can help diffuse that tension and hierarchy and help both parties feel better about a stressful situation."

This preliminary research was a first step to examine how people view the relationship between humor, their experience being parented and their experience of parenting. The study will help lay the groundwork for understanding how to use humor constructively and the kinds of situations that are riskier for using humor.

They surveyed 312 people between the ages of 18 and 45. More than half said they were raised by people who used humor and 71.8% agreed that humor can be an effective parenting tool. The majority said they do or plan to use humor with their children and believe that it has more potential benefit than harm.

The team also found a correlation between a parent's use of humor and the way their children, who are now adults, viewed the way they were parented and their relationship with their parents. Of those who reported that their parents used humor, 50.5% said they had a good relationship with their parents and 44.2% reported they felt their parents did a good job parenting them. On the other hand, of those who said their parents didn't use humor, only 2.9% reported a good relationship with their parents and 3.6% reported that they thought their parents did a good job parenting them.

While it's not surprising that parents would use humor with their children if they were raised by caregivers who did the same, Levi said the stark differences between the two groups was unexpected.

The research team is expanding on this preliminary study and are surveying a larger and more diverse cohort of parents as well as collecting qualitative research based on parents' experience using humor.

"My hope is that people can learn to use humor as an effective parenting tool, not only to diffuse tension but develop resilience and cognitive and emotional flexibility in themselves and model it for their children," Levi said.

Erik Lehman, biostatistician at Penn State, and Anne Libera, director of comedy studies at Chicago's The Second City, also contributed to the paper.

Read more at Science Daily

The relationship between ghosting and closure

Odds are, you know someone who has been ghosted. And according to a new study from the University of Georgia, it can be a haunting experience.

A recent study conducted by researcher and corresponding author Christina Leckfor and University of Mississippi researcher Natasha Wood found nearly two-thirds of participants have ghosted -- ended a relationship by ignoring the other person, without offering a clear explanation -- and have been ghosted.

And as online dating, dating apps and other social technologies grow in popularity, so does the likelihood that someone is left on read after a few dates. Yet despite its frequent occurrence, little is known about why people ghost or the psychological effects of this social phenomenon.

"Ghosting is becoming a common strategy, and it creates an ambiguous situation where one party doesn't really know what's going on," said Leckfor, a doctoral student in the UGA Department of Psychology. "We were interested in what individual differences or personal characteristics might influence a person's intentions to use ghosting. We also wanted to know if people with a high need for closure were less likely to use ghosting, or if they would hurt more after being ghosted."

On the receiving end of a breakup, ghosting was a negative experience for almost all participants. But for individuals who yearn for closure, the negative effects of ghosting are even more profound.

To gauge the effect of a breakup, study participants reflected on a past relationship, either a time they were ghosted or directly rejected, and then answered questions about their psychological needs satisfaction -- feelings of belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence. Ghosted participants had some of the lowest needs satisfaction, meaning they were hit hardest by the rejection, and those who wanted closure reported even lower needs satisfaction.

"For recipients, desire for closure has this magnifying effect. When someone with a high need for closure recalled a time where they were ghosted or directly rejected, it hurt more than if they had a low need for closure," Leckfor said. "But they also felt more positive after recalling times when they were acknowledged by their partner."

In contrast, when someone considered initiating a breakup, the connection between closure and ghosting varied.

"We actually found that people who had a higher need for closure were slightly more likely to intend to use ghosting to end a relationship," Leckfor said. "Even though things may be ambiguous on the recipient side, the person who is ghosting sees it as a distinct end to the relationship. Those results weren't definitive in our study, but they pose an interesting avenue for future research."

And ghosting's not just for dating apps anymore. More than half of the study participants wrote about a time when they were ghosted by a friend, rather than a romantic partner.

"The individuals who were ghosted by a friend reported feeling just as bad about the relationship as those who wrote about a time when they were ghosted by a romantic partner," Leckfor said. "In psychology in general, a lot of literature regarding adult relationships focuses on romantic relationships. This [research] shows that friendships are really important to study as well."

It also relates back to the role of technology in our relationships. There have been several studies on how people initiate, maintain and end relationships without technology, but as more human connectivity moves to social media, dating apps, texting or Zoom, those relationships can change. And individual traits, such as a need for closure, will factor into how we use those technologies.

Read more at Science Daily

Dolphins form largest alliance network outside humans, study finds

Male bottlenose dolphins form the largest known multi-level alliance network outside humans, an international team led by researchers at the University of Bristol have shown. These cooperative relationships between groups increase male access to a contested resource.

The scientists, with colleagues from the University of Zurich and University of Massachusetts, analysed association and consortship data to model the structure of alliances between 121 adult male Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins at Shark Bay in Western Australia. Their findings have been published today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Male dolphins in Shark Bay form first-order alliances of two-three males to cooperatively pursue consortships with individual females. Second-order alliances of four-14 unrelated males compete with other alliances over access to female dolphins and third-order alliances occur between cooperating second-order alliances.

Co-lead author Dr Stephanie King, Associate Professor from Bristol's School of BiologicalSciences explained: "Cooperation between allies is widespread in human societies and one of the hallmarks of our success. Our capacity to build strategic, cooperative relationships at multiple social levels, such as trade or military alliances both nationally and internationally, was once thought unique to our species.

"Not only have we shown that male bottlenose dolphins form the largest known multilevel alliance network outside humans, but that cooperative relationships between groups, rather than simply alliance size, allows males to spend more time with females, thereby increasing their reproductive success."

Dr Simon Allen, Senior Lecturer at Bristol's School of Biological Sciences, who contributed to the study, said "We show that the duration over which these teams of male dolphins consort females is dependent upon being well-connected with third-order allies, that is, social ties between alliances leads to long-term benefits for these males."

Intergroup cooperation in humans was thought to be unique and dependent upon two other features that distinguish humans from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, the evolution of pair bonds and parental care by males. "However, our results show that intergroup alliances can emerge without these features, from a social and mating system that is more chimpanzee like" noted Richard Connor, Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and now affiliated with Florida International University, who co-led the study with Dr King.

The publication of the importance of third level or intergroup alliances in dolphins in 2022 holds special significance as the team celebrate the 40th anniversary of the start of Shark Bay dolphin research in 1982 and the 30th anniversary of the publication in 1992 of their discovery of two levels of male alliance formation, also published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor Dr. Michael Krützen, an author on the study and Head of the Anthropology Institute at the University of Zurich, added; "It is rare for non-primate research to be conducted from an anthropology department, but our study shows that important insights about the evolution of characteristics previously thought to be uniquely human can be gained by examining other highly social, large-brained taxa."

Read more at Science Daily

Babies can tell who has close relationships based on one clue: Saliva

Learning to navigate social relationships is a skill that is critical for surviving in human societies. For babies and young children, that means learning who they can count on to take care of them.

MIT neuroscientists have now identified a specific signal that young children and even babies use to determine whether two people have a strong relationship and a mutual obligation to help each other: whether those two people kiss, share food, or have other interactions that involve sharing saliva.

In a new study, the researchers showed that babies expect people who share saliva to come to one another's aid when one person is in distress, much more so than when people share toys or interact in other ways that do not involve saliva exchange. The findings suggest that babies can use these cues to try to figure out who around them is most likely to offer help, the researchers say.

"Babies don't know in advance which relationships are the close and morally obligating ones, so they have to have some way of learning this by looking at what happens around them," says Rebecca Saxe, the John W. Jarve Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, a member of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the new study.

MIT postdoc Ashley Thomas is the lead author of the study, which appears today in Science. Brandon Woo, a Harvard University graduate student; Daniel Nettle, a professor of behavioral science at Newcastle University; and Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard, are also authors of the paper.

Sharing saliva

In human societies, people typically distinguish between "thick" and "thin" relationships. Thick relationships, usually found between family members, feature strong levels of attachment, obligation, and mutual responsiveness. Anthropologists have also observed that people in thick relationships are more willing to share bodily fluids such as saliva.

"That inspired both the question of whether infants distinguish between those types of relationships, and whether saliva sharing might be a really good cue they could use to recognize them," Thomas says.

To study those questions, the researchers observed toddlers (16.5 to 18.5 months) and babies (8.5 to 10 months) as they watched interactions between human actors and puppets. In the first set of experiments, a puppet shared an orange with one actor, then tossed a ball back and forth with a different actor.

After the children watched these initial interactions, the researchers observed the children's reactions when the puppet showed distress while sitting between the two actors. Based on an earlier study of nonhuman primates, the researchers hypothesized that babies would look first at the person whom they expected to help. That study showed that when baby monkeys cry, other members of the troop look to the baby's parents, as if expecting them to step in.

The MIT team found that the children were more likely to look toward the actor who had shared food with the puppet, not the one who had shared a toy, when the puppet was in distress.

In a second set of experiments, designed to focus more specifically on saliva, the actor either placed her finger in her mouth and then into the mouth of the puppet, or placed her finger on her forehead and then onto the forehead of the puppet. Later, when the actor expressed distress while standing between the two puppets, children watching the video were more likely to look toward the puppet with whom she had shared saliva.

Social cues

The findings suggest that saliva sharing is likely an important cue that helps infants to learn about their own social relationships and those of people around them, the researchers say.

"The general skill of learning about social relationships is very useful," Thomas says. "One reason why this distinction between thick and thin might be important for infants in particular, especially human infants, who depend on adults for longer than many other species, is that it might be a good way to figure out who else can provide the support that they depend on to survive."

The researchers did their first set of studies shortly before Covid-19 lockdowns began, with babies who came to the lab with their families. Later experiments were done over Zoom. The results that the researchers saw were similar before and after the pandemic, confirming that pandemic-related hygiene concerns did not affect the outcome.

"We actually know the results would have been similar if it hadn't been for the pandemic," Saxe says. "You might wonder, did kids start to think very differently about sharing saliva when suddenly everybody was talking about hygiene all the time? So, for that question, it's very useful that we had an initial data set collected before the pandemic."

Doing the second set of studies on Zoom also allowed the researchers to recruit a much more diverse group of children because the subjects were not limited to families who could come to the lab in Cambridge during normal working hours.

In future work, the researchers hope to perform similar studies with infants in cultures that have different types of family structures. In adult subjects, they plan to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study what parts of the brain are involved in making saliva-based assessments about social relationships.

Read more at Science Daily