Accessibility Page Navigation
Style sheets must be enabled to view this page as it was intended.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists Improving the lives of people with mental illness

Kaleidoscope Summer 2017

Win a College mug in our Summer Kaleidoscope’s Quiz – Take the Quiz!

BJPsych August 2017August’s Kaleidoscope column in the BJPsych remembers the London Olympics with fondness. One of the arguments always trotted out in favour of hosting the Olympics is the ‘legacy’ aspect: “three weeks of incredible celebrations and afterwards we’ll also turn [insert name of local dive here] into the envy of the world!” Besides the unique pleasure that is Stratford’s Westfield shopping centre on a Saturday morning during half-term, is this legacy aspect true, and in particular, might all the investment help the well-being of local youngsters? A team from East London surveyed two thousand 11 and 12 years olds in host-borough Newham before, and on a couple of occasions after, the games, and compared them to children in neighbouring boroughs. Local kids showed no benefit in wellbeing, and, perhaps counter-intuitively, showed deterioration in their mental health. How do we reconcile this? It’s hard to be certain, but the study authors put forward a few interesting points: firstly, Olympic bidders put what they think is important into glossy brochures, and don’t necessarily ask locals about what might matter to them in a regeneration programme; secondly, maybe seeing lots of shiny new expensive apartment blocks and rich people move into your area doesn’t actually really help individuals feel much better about themselves. The authors are silent on any effects of the new mega-mall on mental distress.

IAPTs was much lauded, but as it settles into a more matured phase of continuation, data from the national service are emerging for scrutiny. All it’s cracked up to be? A new study, that’s bound to kick off some robust debate, undertook secondary analysis of outcomes from about 33,000 patients (almost half the national total) and found that counselling was as effective as CBT for depression. Moreover, the effectiveness of both of them is challenged by the finding that about half of all patients show no sustained recovery. None of this should undermine IAPTs as a needed and welcomed national programme, but it might cool down “if only we had more…” debates. Methodologically, a good paper for trainees’ and medical students’ journal clubs to get their teeth into, we would suggest.

Finally, hot or not? Always seeking the best and most expert advice for you, we turn to Scarlett Johannson for guidance on relationships. As well as being a wonderful actor – we’re sure Westfield would love to have her open their new Crocs shop – she also issues sage counsel; in this instance recently stating that monogamy is unnatural for humans. Kaleidoscope reviews a neuroimaging study on our old friends the prairie voles that challenges this, and may have found where love is encoded in the brain. On that theme, another study explored ‘mate copying’: people are typically rated as better looking if others think they’re in a relationship, and even hotter still if people think their partner is good looking. Lots of experiments have shown this: show a random photo and ask participants to rate that person out of ten; show the same photo and tell new participants they’re married; show the same photo and tell even newer participants they’re married to that hottie and one’s scores keeping totting up. We’re not recommending this as a dating strategy you understand – our job is simply to pass on the science, it’s up to you what you do with it.

Anyway, evolutionary scientists think this has a sensible underpinning: it’s a quick way to add to an appraisal of a potential mate, in this case by considering that someone else (“and he/she is so hot and could have anyone!”) obviously found them worth a go. What was especially interesting about the new paper we found was that the researchers also neuroimaged participants’ brains while they went through the decision making scenario above. Fascinatingly, the results showed that when making such judgements, parts of the brain involved in social behaviour such as empathy increased in activity, while activity in brain regions involved in cognition (thinking) decreased: we follow our hearts, and ignore our heads, when we make some decisions in life.

Win a College mug in our Summer Kaleidoscope’s Quiz – Take the Quiz!

Back to eNewsletter >>

Login - Members Area

If you don't have an account please Click here to Register

Make a Donation