Anatomy of a telephone game applied to a neuroscience study

I am going to tell you a story because it is a good example of how easy it is to interpret, or extrapolate from, research in a direction a study does not support. Let's trace the steps of what happened in this case.

Research was conducted this year looking at the neuroscience of the repeated-name penalty. That's when one's reading speed slows down when reading a repeated name instead of a pronoun. For example, the second of the two following paragraphs (using pronouns instead of names) will be read more quickly.

Susan is really into animals. The other day Susan gave Betsey a pet hamster. Susan reminded Betsey that such hamsters are quite shy and need gentle handling.

Susan is really into animals. The other day she gave Betsey a pet hamster. She reminded Betsey that such hamsters are quite shy and need gentle handling.

Using functional MRI (fMRI), researchers looked at what the brain did when reading the repeated name versus a pronoun. The researchers saw a difference in how the brain processes the reading of each and wrote that the findings suggest that pronouns reduce interference and lessen needed brain processing.

Next chapter in this story: An article about the research entitled "Pronouns Aid Brain Function" appeared in both ScienceDaily and newswise.

Enter the blogosphere.

Roger Dooley blogged about the article and the study in Names Disrupt The Brain. He writes . . .

A new study by Dr. Amit Almor of the University of South Carolina used fMRI brain scans to show the different responses when a subject hears [emphasis added] a proper name or a pronoun referring to a previously named person.

Gerry Riskin then blogged about Dooley's post in Want competitive advantage? Use proper names! saying . . .

PROOF:  A new study by Dr. Amit Almor of the University of South Carolina used MRI brain scans to show the different responses when a subject hears [emphasis added] a proper name or a pronoun referring to a previously named person.

“The brain lit up with activity when proper names were used, including areas that are not associated with language,” Almor said. “We saw considerable activity in areas of the parietal lobe that involve spatial processing that was absent when pronouns were used.”

That lighting up of the brain when a name is used (read not heard) that Riskin cites was described in the article as not an enhancement but a disruption!

Pronouns, while faulty for their potential ambiguity, don’t cause the same disruptions in the brain that proper names do when used in the right context. In fact, they allow the brain to move easily from one thought or sentence to another. This seamless transition allows a person to digest more fully the meaning or intent of the thought being conveyed without the neural circuitry interference that proper names cause, said Almor.

So we went from reading the name to hearing it and from the name being a disruption to a benefit.

Using a person's name when speaking to them likely has great value and Riskin posts some excellent reasons why people avoid using names and ways to make using names easier. That value is just not supported by this study.

This is a good cautionary tale for all of us. I hold both Dooley and Riskin in very high esteem. I read their blogs loyally. This telephone-game effect can happen to the best of us.

Remember the telephone game we played as children? Because of what it demonstrates about communication, I often use that game in seminars. A short and simple story is read to one participant who then tells it to another participant who has not heard the original story. That person then tells it to another person who is hearing it for the first time. After a few rounds, the story is unrecognizable.

What lessons can we learn from this recent sequence of events? First, be careful about the conclusions we draw from studies. Second, related to the process of conflict resolution, remember the tricky telephone-game effect. In both our personal and professional lives, I am sure many of us have been both a witness and a party to telephone-game connections showing us communication can be very slippery.

We will be talking about the neuroscience of the telephone game in an upcoming post. Jeff and I are creating a list (rather long already) of topics for future BonP blogging. Is there anything you would like us to add? If so, please let us know in the comments or by e-mail.

Read the study: What is in a name? Spatial brain circuits are used to track discourse references (PDF)

Web site of Dr. Amit Almor at University of South Carolina

Comments

[Priscilla Palmer]

You have been tagged for The Personal Development List. (See my site for details), I would love it if you would participate.

[Eric]

I'm always amazed at the number of people who read/hear what they want to hear...or expect to hear.

The follow up to this research would be to actually test the impact of the spoken/written word (Proper Name vs pronoun) on interpersonal dynamics or team functionality or some such.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the proper name had a much greater impact upon a relationship, certainly in the beginning of one. Because there is a decrease in optimal performance of the brain relative to itself does not mean there shouldn't be one. The brain is our tool, the ultimate tool, for us to use to interface with the world. That flare up could indicate a recognized opportunity...who knows.

We don't know what we don't know.

I guess I'm just annoyed at applying the positive or negative spin on the flare up at all. It is just what it is. An increase in neural activity to achieve something specific. It is NOT positive or negative at least given the limited context I've seen here.

Thanks though...this shows more about the subconscious bias in reporting than anything.

[Blake Stacey]

You might like to compare this "telephone game" to the study of error propagation made at Language Log, concerning the publicity over Louann Brizendine and her book The Female Brain.

[StephanieWestAllen]

Thanks very much for your comments. I appreciate them a lot. This post had a different focus from the majority of our posts and this blog — it was not about the research in any way but what was done with it. I thought this example was a good reminder to be careful — most especially for me. Extrapolating (just a wee bit) is so enticing. Cordelia Fine's book listed in our recommended books (_A Mind of Its Own_) is a nice look at some of the tricks our minds play on us. Also _Mistakes Were Made_ described here:
http://westallen.typepad.com/idealawg/2007/07/i-made-a-mistak.html
I hope you visit again.