E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn addition to making you walk funny and drop your keys five or six times while trying to get inside your house, a full bladder may actually do something useful: help you make better decisions.
According to an upcoming study in Psychological Science, researchers at the University of Twente in the Netherlands performed experiments on more than 500 college students to determine if the inhibitory signals sent to a full bladder would “spill over” into other inhibitory responses, such as holding out for a larger monetary reward rather than going with a smaller immediate one.
According to lead author Mirjam Tuk, researchers had test subjects drink either five cups of water or sip a bit from each cup. After about 40 minutes -- the amount of time it takes for the water to reach the bladder -- the subjects were asked to participate in a choice test.
“We asked them to choose between a small, but soon-to-be-received reward or a large but later-to-be-received award, e.g., $18 tomorrow or $30 in 25 days,” says Tuk in an e-mail interview. “The number of times respondents opted for a later but larger reward was higher for people who experienced high bladder pressure.”
TODAY video: Kathie Lee and Hoda know when to go
Subjects also participated in other tests that seemed to indicate a full bladder helped with impulse control.
“These findings seem to suggest that people possess a general inhibition system,” Tuk writes in her paper. “The inhibition of various behaviors (motor and cognitive) seems to have its origin in the same neural area. Once inhibitory signals are sent, they are not completely bound to the focal task requiring inhibition, but spill over to other domains.”
What does this mean for those of us in the real world, especially that part of the world where there are no public restrooms?
Tuk says since people make better decisions when they have a full bladder, they may want to drink a bottle of water before making a decision about their stock portfolio (or that big-screen TV).
“This is of course a generalization of experimental evidence, but any type of financial decision-making might benefit from increased bladder control,” she says. “People might be more likely to invest money in retirement funds instead of spending it on more short-term benefits, for example.”
Interestingly, Tuk says that if the inhibitory signal is less present -- i.e., if you don’t have to go potty -- then there will be less inhibitory spillover. In other words, if you’ve already gone to see that man about a horse, you may have a tendency to make more impulsive and unwise decisions.
We’re betting extra bathrooms may become a number one priority in retail outlets soon. What do you think?
Find The Body Odd on Twitter (@bodyodd) and Facebook (facebook.com/bodyodd).
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
Maybe the lines for women's bathrooms in movie theaters will finally shorten as they add more space in the female bathrooms to equal the spots in the male bathrooms. I have always wondered why they gave the men more units then the women. Space is not an excuse.
Space is an excuse. Male and female bathrooms are allotted equal square footage in a building, but the fact that men can use a urinal (in the majority of situations) rather than a toilet allows for more stations and consequently higher throughput in the men's room. To achieve the the same efficiency in the women's room someone would need to devise an equally space-saving device for the female anatomy... or there's always the sink.
the other important thing you forget is that men can start and finish in about 30 seconds to 2 minutes max. for a woman, she has to remove a bunch of clothing, then put toilet paper on the seats, then go and then clean herself and then put those clothes back on. it ain't happening in 30 seconds or 2 minutes. i will tell you that much for sure. and many times, she will want to look at herself and fix her makeup or something else. this takes up time. AND SPACE. also, a good percentage of the time, a woman may change her tampon or pad for a period in the bathroom. this is time consuming. HENCE THE LONG LINES FOR WOMEN vs. MEN bathrooms. it is a technical reason. women and men are not made equally so stop expecting equal treatment. also, real estate space in major cities is very $$. you cannot build a store that uses more bathroom space than retail space.
In men's room the aim is horrible, so useage of mens restrooms for number two drops by quite a bit. As number two is more time consuming than number one, and men are faster with number one, the time spent in mens room is quite a bit lower.
Regarding women's rooms, I probably wouldn't mind adjusting the bathroom stall counts to give women more stalls. However, in exchange they need to clean the men's room more often....
I always thought it was the alcohol that made me wiser, not the side effect of a few beverages. Guess we'll have to experiment with that at happy hour! OKAY, IT'S YOUR TURN TO DRINK WATER! :(
Cheryl, you said "units"... hehe (Beevis laugh)
I've just completed a study that shows constipated people grimmace more on the toilet than regular people. Just another "GREAT STRIDE" for science.
This is the stupidest study I have ever seen. Don't you think people go for the long term payout because they want you to go away so they can use the bathroom! Of course you would cut down on impulse buying because you don't want to waste time when you need to get to a bathroom. Not because you are smarter. This is by far the most flawed study I have seen. If the journal (Psychological Science,) publishes it they just destroyed all of their credibility. And The university should make the scientists pay back their salaries.
True True
If they really had to go, then the act of choosing ended the experiment and they could use the restroom. They could make either choice and be done with the experiment. The type of choice doesn't affect how quickly they will be allowed to go and use the restroom.
You measure the ratio of choices before giving them the water (establish a baseline...even better, establish baseline per individual); then give them the water and evaluate choices after they use the restroom.
How many times does this phrase run through a person's mind? "It can wait, right now I gotta go."
How ridiculous - of course this happens! When people need to pee, they put off making ANY decision until they have relieved themselves of the pressure in their bladder! Another waste of research/grant money on what those of us who possess some common sense already knew!
It seems that you just lost the value of the study. The study suggest that we make better decisions while holding back the need to go to the bathroom, not after, genius!!!
Um who thinks of these studies?
Let me guess, ummm, by process of elimination, if I want to syudy human behavior an astronomer would no fit it; oh I got it, probably, a psychologist interested in the factors that affect the human decision making process!!!
I understand humor and sarcasm don't come across in the written word that well, but that was my goal. Thanks for trying to make me look foolish though. You'll have to try harder next time.
Hmmm? Let me see, how can I incorporate this into my life to achieve the maximum benefit? Do they study anything worth a s$%* in college? Not even when money is tight...
hmmm.....So...make sure your girlfriend goes to the bathroom before you ask her to marry you?
Ok, this is really silly on a number of levels.
#1 what sort of scientific study uses "better" as a term to analyse the results? "Better" is a subjective term which is a little hard to quantify in a scientific study. What may be better for me might not be better for you given the circumstances. $18 tomorrow might be a MUCH better decision than $30 in 25 days if the loan shark wants $18 tomorrow or he breaks your legs. $18 tomorrow may be a much better decision if you can buy in to an IPO being offered tomorrow that will triple in value in 25 days. In the situations mentioned in the article the timing of the money might be even more important than the amount of money offered.
#2 who came up with the idea of a scientific study of how people make decisions when they have to pee? (and even more important, can we get the name of the folks that funded it as I have some ideas for several studies which are right in line with this one and I'd be happy to take their money to conduct them.)
I was thinking more along the lines of return on investment. I'd probably take the $18 while I was there, and not have to come back, then wait for the $30 later. That is to say, if I'd have to come back for the money, as opposed to them mailing it to me. Hell, it'd probably cost me $12 just to drive to the research facility and back, twice.
Gee - Is it just me or do you wonder if our tax dollars paid for this study?
Well since the study was conducted in the Netherlands, as stated in the article, I would guess no U.S. tax dollars paid for it. Just a guess.
You probably would have noticed it when you read the beginning of the second paragraph- "the University of Twente in the Netherlands."
So the two of you believe that no US tax dollars have ever been used for studies overseas?
Here is the logic to the study. If you have to pee really bad your brain is telling you to put off anything and I mean anything until you drain the main vein. Therefore 25 days sounds a lot better than tomorrow even though you are going to be done in less than five minutes.
Did this study separate the people who pee standing up or sitting down? Would that make a difference? How about if they make the decision while they are peeing? I think we need more data.
Should you take your finals when you have to pee?
It all "Depends". Although not a lot of college students wear them.
Have a great weekend everybody.
Did they seperate the people who have a burning sensation while they pee?
great study - author tried to make it understandable for the masses, and look how the masses comment on something they still don't comprehend (based on review of posts thus far). just because you're bitter about your job and cannot recognize application does not mean the study is wasteful. good thing scientific merit is evaluated by other scientists.
What is achieved from this study that will change the course of mankind? These comments aren't made out of bitterness they are made because the common person can't find the rational in doing this.
The fact of the matter is, the article admits it is a generalization and the last sentence also turned the entire story into a joke.
Lighten up Einstein. The rest of us didn't find this educational, it was more of a side note. Any headline that has peeing in it will get a click through by just about anyone.
I'll bet I could have been more eloquent if I had to pee right now.
The idea is interesting, and even funny, but I wouldn't start running around with a full bladder because of it, or give it more merit than it is due.
This is after all a study in psychology, a field notoriously known for the lack of proper application of the scientific method, few good case controls, overblown claims from statistically insignificant sample sizes, and even a low threshold for peer review. Most scientists considered it to be more of a pseudoscience.
But I do laugh at the idea of boardrooms full of squirming executives holding it in.
You know Browns... the common person couldn't find a use for that fancy strange radiation thingy that went through paper but not metal. The common person couldn't find an application for that strange number system with 1s and 0s. The common person couldn't find an application for that strange guy flying a kite around in thunderstorms. You see... the common person is often incapable of finding an application for things in science.... Fortunately, this is why scientists and researchers do these studies instead of the common person. Otherwise... we'd still be debating about which type of rock was best used to kill that giant predator or wondering how many of our tribe would freeze to death when the snow hits.
The proper point of this article that most people miss isn't that holding your pee is useful to your everyday activity, but rather that the inhibitory system that turns on when you have to pee has a spill over effect to other systems. This indicates that the inhibitory system is more generic for everything rather then specific for one system such as bladder, impulse control, or addiction. The reason they chose to experiment with bladder is because it's a very easy method to create the inhibitory signal and study its effect on other systems. Here's an application for you. Understanding the inhibitory system better will assist those suffering from addiction by allowing them to have better impulse control.
Touche', doggysaywhat! Very nicely put.
Iaintnofool has an appropriate moniker - you tell them!
I suspect what they've figured out here is that having a full bladder makes a person more decisive. The quality of the decision made is rather subjective and debatable, but having a bit of 'internal pressure' certainly expedites the process!
Truthfully, any kind of pressure will facilitate decision making. If you have no real urgency, and are facing a decision that just isn't very interesting or doesn't seem to have all that much bearing on you at the time, odds are you're going to procrastinate in the best way that works. Sometimes a great way to procrastinate is to want to hold off on the decision until you have a better feel for the situation, more information, or whatever, when it's really not necessary given what the decision actually is.
If you've got some kind of a time constraint - you need to decide NOW and move on - it suddenly becomes very easy to make up your mind and go with it. Sometimes that time constraint is little more than a spouse, family, or friends with you urging, "C'mon, already! Make up your mind and let's go!". Sometimes it's also the store your in announcing they'll be closing in ten minutes. Make up your mind and get going!
Does this mean executives should "hold it" before they attend any meetings?
That would probably help speed the meetings up! Although, I'll admit, if you're the only one who desperately needs to be somewhere else to attend to 'other personal business', meetings tend to drag on, and on, and on, and on....
Was there a control group and if so what were the results? i.e. Was there a group that didn't drink anything and then had to chose between $18 and $30? Also maybe the results offered meant that the people who opted for waiting thought "don't bother me now about a decision about $18 or $30 because I have to urinate!"? By the way, which way to the bathroom?......
Good points. Pure Socratic Scientific Method is gone.
I say MICTURATE all over this research.
I suspect this is a spurious correlation. My guess is that we make "better" decisions and experience greater mental clarity when we're well hydrated. Most people don't drink enough water in general.
In order to convince me that any results were directly related to bladder pressure, they'd have to run the experiment with a variety of liquids that make one feel the need to urinate (including some diuretics and alcohol) and demonstrate consistent results.
I also agree with JC that "better" is hardly a convincing metric.
People actually got paid for thinking up such nonsense?????? I need to go pee.
The reporter might lead you to think the study is silly, but there is an important discussion in psychology and psychiatry as to whether we have a general inhibition system (one system affecting all sorts of decisions) or many specific inhibition systems (for different types of decisions). Treatments for different mental disorders are likely to be affected by the ultimate answer to this question. So it ain't a silly study if you know the background!
Agreed Judy. The problem is the common person has no background at all in this field. But, the common person thinks that being able to post on a forum magically makes you an expert about the quality of research.
Seems to conflict with the Disraeli theory of effective negotiation. "Never pass a bathroom."
Now, an even better study-do the same study when the participants have to go #2!!
Interesting, but I do think the psychological mechanism in play is a sense of immediate personal concerns resulting in a tendancy to defer future concerns as much as possible.
is this study part of obama's stimulus scheme? i don't want taxpayers' money go that way.
For one, you havent seen the study. You have seen an article about the study. So you have no idea if it is flawed or not. I am betting that the money now option was either immediate, meaning that they had the money in hand or they would be written a check before they left, allowing them time to use the restroom.
Second, they never said anything about it making someone smarter. The author said better decisions, and the researchers said more inhibition.
Learn to read and interpret. Stop trolling.