Tobacco already kills 5.4 million people a year, and the number of smokers is likely to skyrocket as the vice catches on in developing countries. So how to prevent a plague of cancer deaths? You could spend $500 million on an antismoking campaign, as Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg propose, or you could sign up everyone for cell-phone service. Two World Bank economists studied 2,400 households in the Philippines between 2003 and 2006, just as cell phones caught on (the percentage of households owning a mobile more than quadrupled). They found that in houses with at least one smoker, a mobile-phone purchase led to a 32.6 percent drop in tobacco consumption for each adult—the equivalent of an entire pack each month. They conclude that tobacco and mobile phones have a special relationship: cash-constrained households have to make a trade-off between the two luxuries, and the social status once signaled by burning up your money on smokes can now be conferred by yapping away on a flashy new phone.
When Michael Jackson was cleared of child-molestation charges in 2005, hundreds of loyal fans cheered him on outside the courthouse, confetti littered the pavement, and one woman even released doves to celebrate. Such behavior might seem strange, but a study by three psychologists finds that celebrity devotion could be an ego boost—for celebrity and fan alike. Previous studies have shown that personal relationships with others can reinforce one’s well-being and self-image. The authors investigated whether the same could be said of “parasocial” relationships—the one-sided bonds fans establish with celebrities in glossy magazines or on TV. They were especially interested in the effect on people with low self-esteem, who tend to be less comfortable in real relationships. The authors asked participants to write an essay about their favorite celebrity, and to fill out a questionnaire about how they perceived their “actual self” and “ideal self.” They found that subjects with low self-esteem felt more like their ideal selves after writing about their favorite stars, and that they felt closest to celebrities who resembled their idealized self-image. The authors conclude that for people with poor self-esteem, quasi-relationships with celebrities can provide benefits similar to those of real relationships. But before you cancel your Match.com subscription in favor of Us Weekly, the authors warn that while parasocial relationships are better than no relationships at all, they’re “best considered as complementary” to the real thing.
—“Parasocial Relationships and Self-Discrepancies: Faux Relationships Have Benefits for Low-Self-Esteem Individuals,” Jaye L. Derrick, Shira Gabriel, and Brooke Tippin, Personal Relationships
When Barack Obama admitted that he had tried liquor, pot, and “a little blow” in his younger days, he was describing the experience of many mixed-race youths: a new study finds that children of black-white interracial unions are far more likely to engage in risky behavior than their peers of a single race. The authors analyzed a national survey that gathered data on children in grades 7–12 and asked them about risky behavior like drinking, fighting, stealing, and doing drugs. While mixed-race children scored between whites and blacks on levels of school achievement, the authors say they found “high rates of risky/anti-social behavior on the part of mixed race adolescents on virtually every dimension we are able to measure.” Mixed-race kids scored worse than both blacks and whites in more than 70 percent of the measured behaviors, and they showed worse results whether the bad behavior was more common among whites (like drinking and smoking) or among blacks (like violence and riskier sexual practices). The authors suspect that such kids, burdened by dual loyalties to often-conflicting groups, go to extremes to demonstrate solidarity with their peers through “group-sanctioned misbehavior.”
Phil Jackson, coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, has the highest winning percentage in NBA history. Jackson’s players credit his success to a Zen-like calm under pressure, but a new study on leadership abilities suggests another factor: his years as an NBA player, even though much of his career was spent bench-warming. The authors calculated NBA coaches’ winning percentages between 1996 and 2004 over 15,000 regular-season games. They found that coaches who had spent some time as a player got far better results out of their teams than those who hadn’t. And, Jackson aside, the authors found that former all-stars tended to be better coaches than non-all-stars. On average, teams with former all-stars as coaches placed six spots higher in league rankings than teams with coaches who had never played in the NBA, a huge bump-up in a league with only 29 total teams during the years studied. The authors say these findings apply more broadly: leadership skills tend to derive from expert knowledge of a given trade, not from some mysterious alchemy of natural intelligence and interpersonal skills. They suspect that their findings will apply to other “high-performance workplaces where the employees are experts”—even if the “experts” aren’t averaging $5 million a year.
Suppose you have crushing credit-card debt, a demanding tyrant for a boss, and disobedient children. According to a new study, you’re probably also a sucker who’d be willing to pay more for luxury goods than someone who’s on top of the world. The authors asked a group of college students to dwell on a situation in which someone had power over them. They found that this group was willing to pay much more for high-status items like a briefcase and a silk tie than another group that had just gleefully meditated on a situation in which they were in control. Both groups, however, were equally willing to pay for low-status items like a ballpoint pen, a clothes dryer, and a minivan. The researchers say that people who lack power tend to compensate by improving their status, and because one way to do so is by flaunting expensive goods, they suggest the powerless will shell out more cash than the empowered for the same gaudy products.
How do you like your booze: to stay or to go? Whether residents of a given neighborhood prefer patronizing bars or liquor stores to get smashed has a significant impact on patterns of violent crime and disorderly conduct, a study by the Urban Institute finds. The researchers mapped 1,473 alcohol-selling establishments in the District of Columbia, and then tracked the relationship between the type of outlet and “violence and disorder,” using measures like arrests and 911 calls. Not surprisingly, the more establishments selling spirits in a neighborhood, the more general mayhem occurs. But neighborhoods with a lot of outlets offering liquor to go (like corner stores) tend to experience more domestic violence, while neighborhoods with a high number of sites that let customers drink on the premises (like bars and restaurants) tend to have many more reports of aggravated assault. Although pubs are “attractors of violence” generally, the study shows that bar districts see considerably fewer reports of domestic violence, suggesting that drinkers may be taking their anger out on the loudmouth on the next bar stool—rather than in the home.