the evolving mind

A very intriguing finding out of the University of Michigan caught my eye yesterday. Take a look at the title and you’ll understand why:

U-M research shows chronically ill may be happier if they give up hope

What? Wow! Really?

I found the idea interesting. First, our culture seems to preach a “never give up” mentality. Could giving up be a better alternative in some situations? Second, I could immediately imagine the relief that acceptance/surrender might bring. One of the authors of the study put it this way:

Sometimes, if hope makes people put off getting on with their life, it can get in the way of happiness.

But what was the actual science behind the conclusion? It seems it consisted of tracking two groups of subjects, with both groups sharing this experience: a colostomy (removal of the colon) and being fitted with an external pouch for their excrement to collect in.

At the time of the surgery, one group was told that the procedure was reversible and that they might later undergo another surgery to reconnect their bowels. The second group was informed the procedure was permanent. They would be living with the bag for the rest of their lives.

The finding:

The second group – the one without hope — reported being happier over the next six months than those with reversible colostomies.

This is indeed a very interesting and important piece of research. But I wonder about the whole “giving up hope” element in both the title and the words of the researchers (so we can’t blame the writer of the press release alone). Here’s why:

1) Hope was not one of the variables. The independent variable was being told whether or not a serious medical condition/procedure was reversible or permanent. The dependent variable was happiness. Hope was not measured. Instead, it was inferred to operate between the two variables.

2) I’m not sure hope is the best word to describe what influenced the difference in happiness outcomes. It might be. But I’m not sure. Perhaps levels of uncertainty might be a crucial factor. Were those unsure of their future less happy (would the procedure be reversed, would they be able to return to normal?), while those who better knew what their future was (escaping, in a sense, having to live with an unsettled issue) more happy?

And here I go; I can’t help it. I’ll beat my “semantics” drum one more time: when talking science, when communicating scientifically, we should choose our words wisely. And when we are unsure as to the “fit” of a word for the phenomenon in question, we should admit and disclose it.

Can “giving up hope” be a good thing? This probably depends on two essential factors: the particular situation involved and what we more precisely mean by “giving up hope.”

Technorati Links: language, psychology, science

Trackback URI | Comments RSS