New Year's Resolutions: Who Makes Them? Do They Succeed?

How many people make New Year’s resolutions? How many resolvers follow through on their intentions? Do any characteristics of the resolvers or their situations predict “success”?

Surveys from the concluding two decades of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first suggest that 40 to 50 percent of adults in the United States make New Year’s resolutions. A Marist poll of more than 1,000 adults throughout the United States, this past November, revealed that about 38% thought they would make a resolution for 2012. No differences appeared between men and women in expectations to make a resolution. However, a large age gap did appear: almost 60% of Americans younger than 45 thought they would make a resolution, compared with only 28% of those 45 and older.

Survey data, along with anecdotal evidence, suggest that common resolutions tend to fall in the category of health improvement. They involve losing weight, exercising, eating a better diet, reducing consumption of alcohol or caffeine, and related behaviors. Saving money, getting more education, and “being a better person” also received mention in the recent Marist study.

Norcross and colleagues authored an often-quoted study in 2002 in the Journal of Clinical Psychology regarding the factors which lead to success in carrying out New Year’s resolutions, appearing. They based their findings on data obtained in the mid-1990s, by following people who made resolutions and a comparison group of people who did not make a New Year’s resolution but did set a personal improvement goal. First of all, they discovered that making a resolution does seem to help a person to make a behavior change. The resolvers more often persisted with their intended behavior change than did the nonresolvers. In fact, the percentages of resolvers who continued to implement their behavior change over time were: 71% for a least 1-2 weeks, 64% for at least a month, and 46% for at least 6 months (compared to only 4% of the nonresolvers who continued their behavior change for more than 6 months).

For those in the study who made a resolution and succeeded, what seemed to influence their success?  Psychologists tend to look at this question within the context of self-efficacy (the ability to produce results and influence events that affect one’s life), self control, and self regulation. The Norcross study, and similar studies, confirm what you might expect: New Year’s resolvers who strongly believe that they have the power to control their behavior and who believe that they can succeed in accomplishing their behavior change actually end up succeeding more often than those who without such beliefs about themselves.

So, if you have made a resolution, I hope that you believe strongly that you can accomplish it, that you practice positive thinking (with no self-blame), and that you are ready to change. If so, research suggests that you will succeed!

Happy New Year!

Christmas and Research

Searching the web for “Christmas” and “research” (Why would I do that?), as I drink some Christmas tea and munch on Christmas cookies. The search evinces some very disparate types of connections between the two terms. So, I bring you these tidings*:

Tim Kasser and Kennon Sheldon, in their 2002 article “What Makes for Merry Christmas?”, in the Journal of Happiness Studies (yes, that’s a, peer-reviewed social science journal) wrote: “Despite the prominent and recurring place that Christmas holds in many people’s lives, there is surprisingly little empirical research about the season. Consumer research has provided interesting analyses of its myths, movies, and media messages…, sociology has examined gift-giving rituals…, and anthropology has investigated meanings of the holiday in various cultures. Within the field of psychology, what literature exists on Christmas mostly concerns whether psychiatric admissions… and suicide rates… increase during the season. Surprisingly, we were unable to find any quantitative empirical studies that have endeavored to understand the experiences and qualities which are associated with happiness during Christmas.”

One of their conclusions, based on a review of the studies they could find: “the materialistic aspects of modern Christmas celebrations may undermine well-being, while family and spiritual activities may help people to feel more satisfied.” Good news, I suppose for those who celebrate Christmas.

They also stated something else about the history of Christmas in America, which, if true, surprised me (and doesn’t it have to be true if it appears in a scientific journal?): “The Christmas holiday has evolved from an event banned in some American colonies to one that dominates the month of December.” (I hadn’t realized that some early colonists banned Christmas.)

The search brought up Penn State University as the third item – fortunately, for something other than the sex abuse scandal there: “The Schatz Center has a large Christmas tree tissue culture research program that benefits from access to walk in environmental growth rooms designed specifically for plant tissue culture in the Biotechnology Institute.” Seriously, the preeminence of football can sometimes cause us to forget that, as the NCAA reminds us in their advertising, “most college atheletes enter careers other than sports.”

Actually, Christmas tree research is a much bigger deal than I ever knew.  At New Mexico State University, "The Christmas Tree Research Program is the longest running program at the (Mora Research) Center. In addition to screening provenances of many native and non-native commercial Christmas tree species, this program played an instrumental role in introducing eldarica pine (Pinus brutia var. eldarica)to New Mexico. Work on both genetics and plantation management has resulted in the shortening of rotation ages of many Christmas tree species in some cases by more than 50%.” Good news for the Christmas tree industry, I suppose.

Abramitzky and colleagues, in The Economic Journal (2010), assessed: “Is Hanukkah Responsive to Christmas?” They state: “We use individual-level survey and county-level expenditure data to examine the extent to which Hanukkah celebrations among US Jews are driven by the presence of Christmas. We document that Jews with young children are more likely to celebrate Hanukkah, that this effect is greater for reform Jews and for strongly-identified Jews, and that Jewish-related expenditure on Hanukkah is higher in counties with lower shares of Jews. All these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that celebration of religious holidays is designed not only for worship and enjoyment but also to provide a counterbalance for children against competing cultural influences.”

Unfortunately, researchers at New York University (my alma mater) reported problems with an evaluation study of something called the “Christmas Gifts Aid Program”, such as: “Lack of Rigorous Methodology: Regrettably, this evaluation had to proceed without the required Randomized Controlled Trial on Christmas Gifts, which failed to be completed as planned. Project managers did a poor job explaining the advantages of RCT participation to the Control Group. Lack of Targeting: The Christmas Gifts aid program was not sufficiently well-targeted to the poor.  Recipients of Christmas Gifts indiscriminately included well-off regions, groups, genders, and individuals. Lack of Net Flows: Evaluators found Christmas Gift recipients engaged in behavior that frustrated the aid program, with Recipients acting as Donors to their own Donors, reducing their own net aid intake. They explained their counterproductive behavior with non-standard concepts such as “Tis more bless’d to give than to receive.”" I’m not sure I fully understand what that means, but it is sad, isn’t it?

Emory University’s Theology Library has a resource page: “In response to annual requests for information about the origin and celebration of Christmas, we've compiled this resource page. The works cited range from scholarly folklore studies to popular commentaries on modern observances.” A worthwhile reference, if you seek that information. Similarly, the Baylor University library web site “Provides some links to traditions, food, and crafts; international in focus.”

Sam Houston University is planning new research efforts in the Christmas Mountains. No relation to the holiday, of course, but if their research on climate change pays off, it might be a present for all of us.

In any case, I’ll continue to eat my cookies, drink tea, wear my Charlie Brown Santa Claus tie, and enjoy the season. Merry Christmas to you; enjoy the holidays!

*The Merriam-Webster Dictionary “word of the day” for December 25, 2011, meaning “news”.

Crowd Science, for Improving Our Communities

“Crowd science” has entered the realms of physics, biology, classical studies, and the applied social research we do here in Saint Paul.

Crowd science? The term refers to the increasingly common practice in which people pool information which they have gathered independently, and then have access to all of the information which they and others have supplied. As a group, they can develop new understanding and produce products that they never could have produced by working in isolation. In astronomy, for example, far too many galaxies and stars exist for any one individual to observe and analyze. So, the field has shifted dramatically from individual astronomers sitting at their telescopes writing up their discoveries, to networks of astronomers who share their information in a common database which all can use.

Crowd science can involve networks comprised solely of professional scientists. It can also involve mixtures of scientists and the general public, or even just the public alone. A November 20 article in the Pioneer Press described how papyrologists (a new word for me), who had struggled for years to unlock the secrets contained in ancient papyrus documents, moved rapidly forward after devising a clever and innovative way to obtain the assistance of the public – who did not need to know classical languages – in the identification of images on the ancient texts.

Minnesota Compass illustrates these principles. No single entity can possibly gather all the data necessary for understanding communities’ quality of life with respect to health, housing, education, workforce, and other critical dimensions. However, after organizations specializing in these topics have independently gathered information, Compass can compile it and make it accessible in one common location. Moreover, Compass can and does not only summarize trends and report them in summary graphs; it also enables access to raw data, so that everyone from an academic researcher to an amateur neighborhood social scientist can play with those data from all angles and make their own discoveries.

The Minnesota Department of Health, with its Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) initiative, created a version of crowd science, in which Wilder Research energetically participated. SHIP involved the funding and development of programs throughout the state, intended to help Minnesotans live longer, healthier lives by reducing the burden of chronic disease. The effort included creation of a system for evaluation of those programs. Information on results from each site can therefore accrete in a common data base, so that we can learn more from collaborative data sharing than we could learn from solely independent review of each site’s results. Wilder Research staff worked with a variety of sites in the metro area and in greater Minnesota, and we look forward to seeing how this crowd science endeavor can produce tangible outcomes in improving everyone’s health!

A good example of moving crowd science from information-gathering to action occurred in our recently completed planning year for the Saint Paul Promise Neighborhood. In that effort, we had six “solution action groups” who worked in parallel over a period of six months. Each group focused on the developmental needs of young people, in a different segment of life from birth to post secondary education. They requested and reviewed information; they brought into discussion their observations and insights based on their experience and the events in their own segments of the community. At the end of the process, we blended the independent work of the six task forces to create a cohesive whole, a community-based plan that addresses the life span of the neighborhood’s residents, from prenatal to young adulthood.

In this Information Age, knowledge constitutes power. Harnessing information to create knowledge requires bold, innovative, cost-effective approaches (just like harnessing the power of the sun to create solar power). Crowd science offers one new tool for harnessing information – enabling humans, individually and collectively, to do their part, supported by modern information technology.

In addition, crowd science offers the opportunity to reduce one type of disparity that has existed throughout history. As the Pioneer Press commentator noted, crowd science “may accomplish something else: breaking down some of the old divisions between the highly educated mandarins of the academy and the curious amateurs out in the world.” (Will the committed staff of Wilder Research – inhabitants of the arcane world of social science – lose our jobs if anyone can now draw “scientific” conclusions? Not at all. Our roles will evolve in an exhilarating way. More than ever, people who want to use information will require reliable sources of trustable information; they will need a system that makes that information easily and cheaply available (so that equal access exists and multiple perspectives can figure into interpretation of information); they will need coaching and advice on how to interpret that information; and to obtain responses to certain types of questions, they will always require help from experienced professionals.)

Crowd science: It’s modern, democratic, practical, and effective. We’re excited to play our part in many such efforts, present and future, because crowd science, coupled with collaborative action, will enable us to move our communities forward.

Thankfulness in an Adverse World

Should we give thanks this Thanksgiving? Unfortunately, my job often confronts me with reasons to despair, including some of the economic trends in our communities and the seeming inability of our political leaders to work cooperatively. On this uniquely American holiday, can we summon up any hope and express our thanks unconditionally for anything?

I become disenchanted – perhaps the word, disgusted, serves better – with those politicians who refuse to compromise and reach agreements that will benefit all of us, in tough times when we all need to sacrifice our pet projects and issues. Of course, each side can document, probably back to the time of George Washington, how the other side did something that caused today’s problems and which can’t be undone. That attitude of blame, rather than a “can do” attitude, demoralizes.

But then I’m thankful for living in a democracy.  I’ve spent time living in a society where people could not vote for their legislators; “political decisions” too often emerged from violence or threats of violence.  I’ve watched on TV the turmoil in the Middle East, where people put their lives on the line to achieve rights that we take for granted in the United States.  This makes me thankful to live where I do.

I worry about several trends that threaten the long-term wellbeing of our communities and the standing of our nation as a whole:

• The increasing disparities nationally and worldwide between different social classes, people of different races, and other groups
• The fastest growing segment of our population in this country seeming to fall farther behind in readiness for school at age 5 and competence for college or career at age 18
• The effects of the recession on all of us, except perhaps the billionaires, who find ourselves in a struggling situation

But then I’m thankful for the growing network of people in this country – some of whom I have the privilege to work with – who recognize that the achievement gap, health disparities, and other emerging issues pose a threat to the greatness and vitality of our nation and who want to move forward with zeal and a common vision.

I guess I’m a deep-seated optimist; adversity won’t deter me. I hope that you are too. I hope you can give thanks, whether to your God, to Mother Earth, to Humanity, or whatever, because despite the trends, we have a lot to build on if we act with good intention and respect for all.

Happy Thanksgiving!

What is the "real" poverty rate?

A single person, living alone, with earnings from employment totaling $10,000 falls below the United States poverty threshold ($10,890 for a one person household in 2011). The Census Bureau classifies that person as “in poverty.”  But what if he or she receives government benefits, such as health care, with a value of $5,000 or more per year?  Should he or she still fall into the “poverty” category?

And what about those families just above the poverty line who, because of out-of-pocket health care costs or child care spending, actually have fewer resources left than those formally classified as “in poverty”?

These are more than just academic questions. Calculating poverty in an accurate, and meaningful, way enables us, first of all, to accurately describe the well-being of our communities. It enables us to understand levels of need and to identify groups with higher than average risks of poor health, poor nutrition, poor academic achievement, and lower life expectancy. Beyond that, however, an accurate calculation of poverty enables us to analyze the effectiveness of programs we have put into place to promote economic development and to protect the vulnerable.

The poverty rate has served, since 1965, as the official yardstick for measuring how many people live in the worst economic straits in the United States. No major changes have occurred in its formula, despite some issues regarding its validity, such as:

·         The original formula does not include non-monetary resources in calculating whether a household falls below the poverty line (the example above). This occurred, in part, because many of the benefits programs we now have in this country had not evolved to their current level in the 1960s.

·         The original formula made reasonable assumptions for the 1960s regarding the proportions of a “minimum needs” household budget required for food, housing and other expenses. (The amount of income necessary to be “above poverty” was calculated by taking the average cost for a minimum diet and multiplying that number by 3.)  However, with changes over five decades in the relative costs of food, housing, health care, transportation, etc., should the Census Bureau revise those proportions?

·         What about taxes?  If a household has a gross income above the poverty threshold, but after taxes, it slips below the federal poverty threshold, should the people in that household fall into the “in poverty” category?

To address the poverty measure issues, Congress appropriated money, in the 1990s, to study the accuracy of the poverty measure, and the National Academy of Sciences formed a task force for that purpose.  The task force confirmed the alleged weaknesses of the measure, and it proposed a new, supplemental measure based on a formula which, among other things:

•  Improved the definition of who is included and excluded in a household when determining whether or not that household is “in poverty.”
• Added the value of government-provided benefits to a household’s income (including in the calculation of total household resources both monetary income and also the value of “near-money benefits” such as nutritional assistance, subsidized housing, and home energy assistance).
• Subtracted from a household’s total resources the taxes (income, Social Security, etc.) which it pays.
• Uses numbers and ratios that better reflect contemporary costs, to calculate poverty thresholds for households of different types and sizes.

So, what does this all mean? How does it change anything? Why is this formula just supplemental to and not replacing the original formula? 

Compared to the current official measure, the new measure reduces the number of children in poverty; but increases the number of elderly in poverty.  It shows fewer blacks, but more Asians, in poverty.  The new measure puts more city dwellers and suburbanites, but fewer rural residents, into poverty.  It shows less poverty in the Midwest and the South, but more in the West and the Northeast.  (About half a million fewer people in the Midwest region of the United States fall below the poverty line, according to the new measure.)

With respect to the national total, The New York Times reported that an “alternate census data set quietly published last week said the number of poor people has grown by 4.6 million since 2006, not by 9.7 million as the bureau reported in September.”  The Times also offered the example of the State of North Carolina, in which poverty grew by 250,000+ by the official measure, but stayed flat with the new measure.

Whether, and if so when, the new measure should replace the current official measure is a question with many facets. Changing the measure is not solely an enterprise for economists and statisticians. The official measure has connections to many policies and programs. That means money – the amounts that communities might receive, the amounts that individuals receive through benefits-eligibility. When financial implications enter the picture, nothing ever remains simple! In addition, the implementation of a new measure would require some “education” among all potential users of information who want to track trends: Agreement would have to be reached about how to describe changes from the past to the present and the future, when the rules for measurement have changed.

At Minnesota Compass, we will continue, for the foreseeable future, to report trends based on the current official measure, but when feasible (if Minnesota numbers are available), we will provide some data from the supplemental measure, to round out everyone’s understanding of the true nature of economic conditions within our population.

If interested, take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau report, and/or take a look at what the Minnesota Legislative Commission to End Poverty by 2020 had to say about some of these issues in their report.

Questions or thoughts? Feel free to call!

What do you think – Should the new formula replace the old? What’s best for our communities as we move forward?