everyday psychology

3/16/2009

Telling them off (or not) on your way out the door: the departure email

As millions are losing their jobs, there is no end of discussion about how to leave and how to survive.

At Slate.com, author Megan Hustad commented on "the strange psychology of the workplace departure e-mail," questioning the implications of the conventional advice: "just be positive."

I tend to think that it is not such "strange psychology" and that there is more than just a pearl of wisdom in the conventional advice.

In the words of author Hustad, "the parting note that offers nothing but affirmation to (now-former) employer and employees seems ill suited to 2009—and more bloodless than it needs to be. Have we collectively grown so skittish that even those with legitimate grievances won't give voice to their dissatisfaction?"

Her point was that perhaps we have gone too far in maintaining workplace pleasantry and propriety. Perhaps the forced smile and the artificial sweetness is not a good substitute for genuine human emotion. That is what she meant by the "strange psychology," the idea that we always have to be polite, even when departing.

In fact there is research indicating that with respect to employee stress and customer satisfaction, there is a downside to employers' demands that staff keep remain friendly and cheerful, even when they are not feeling it. It takes a toll on workers, and customers know when the emotion is not genuine. Not everyone who walks into a store, office or a restaurant wants to be greeted like a long lost friend. Among co-workers, the person who is always having a great day can be a bit scary - you never know what they are really thinking.

But if you are the person who's on the way out the door with pink slip in hand, you really should think twice about telling everybody what you really think, especially in writing. Perhaps you're angry, or hurt or resentful. Or maybe you're ready to laugh it off or maybe you want to wax philosophical about your fate. Maybe you want to do it like an Oscar award speech, thanking everybody and their dog. If that's the case, don't hit the send button.

Consider this simply as a practical matter. The people who remain behind could be the ones who help you find your next job. They may hear of a new job, or they may come across information that helps you in your job search. You do indeed want them to know how to contact you, but you don't want to leave any impressions that might cause them to hesitate before contacting you.

You also want to make certain that you don't do anything that might cause anyone to question your judgment. Some of those you work with now might soon be in new jobs themselves. They might be starting their own business and looking to hire, or they might be end up in a position where they can recruit or hire others in your field. The way you leave this job may be instrumental in whether you land the next one.

Here are some things to consider:

If you leave angry, you could be the one who reminds them that they hate their job just as much as you did. That increases the burden they carry as they continue. No reason you should remind them. And if they like their job, they're going to think there was something wrong with you.

If you leave sad and dejected, you could be contributing to the common sense of "survivor guilt" that is often felt by those who are spared the knife. If you leave on any type of sour note, some of those who might have felt guilty are going to think to themselves, "yeah, that's a guy who really did deserve to go."

If you leave completely upbeat and positive, thanking everyone you can think of, some of them are bound to think about how you treated them while you were there. Maybe you weren't always so nice. And some will know that you are in a time of hardship and that your expressions of gratitude are not genuine and truly heartfelt. They know you are disappointed and that you didn't just win an Oscar.

You could be philosophical, penning a note of the type that author Hustad described as suitable, a note expressing "existential resignation." The problem is that you don't know how people will react. When you say goodbye, you are speaking to an audience that is scared, scared that they might be next. You don't want to suggest to them that they should be resigned to their fate, or that they shouldn't feel hurt and sad if it happens to them. From you, they don't want to hear that there is nothing to fear.

You also don't want to say this is all just part of the journey of life and that you are looking forward to what ever happens next. That suggests that you aren't planning and seriously focused on finding a new opportunity and your next job. It suggests that maybe you might end up on a beach in the tropics, or wherever else the winds might blow you.

Don't try to be funny or humorous. There is nothing funny about being laid off.

So how should you leave?

My advice is that you leave graciously and effectively, with a seriousness of purpose. Positive is good, but it involves more than "just be positive."

As to how you should do it, I consulted a career adviser, Cici Mattiuzzi, who is now in the process of publishing (on the web) her second text book: The Serious Job Seeker. This is her advice:

Don't wait until the termination notice arrives to start planning your goodbye. Do it now! When you get the notice, it may be too late. Your email account and your contact list may be terminated immediately. So, make sure you have all your contacts and that you have an email address that you will be using for professional purposes (like at gmail).
Don't send anyone any notes until you've taken some time to get some exercise and fresh air and think about what you are going to say. Next week is soon enough.
Let people know that you view this as an opportunity to explore your options, consider new directions or to gain some education, training or experience that you have long considered.
If you have some enterprise or activity already lined up, let them know how you will be actively engaged and involved. Let them know if you have a side business or project that you will be focusing on (this is also an advertising opportunity).
If you know what your next career objective is, tell them. Let them know what you are looking for.
Let them know that you would appreciate hearing from them, especially if they have any ideas or suggestions, or if they hear of any opportunities. Ask them to keep you informed if their contact information should change.
Above all else, make certain that they know how to contact you by email, and through LinkedIn or some other location on the web where they can easily access your resume.

The departure email is not where you want to share your feelings or look back on the past. It's OK to say that it was a pleasure working with them, that you appreciate their support and/or friendship, and to express "best wishes." But it is not a time to be maudlin or sentimental. By way of your attitude, you want to let them know that you are not depressed and that you have passed The Serious Job Seeker IQ Test.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

3/11/2009

Zero Tolerance Policies: no substitute for good judgment

The term "zero tolerance" suggests that it is a consistent, no-nonsense approach, and that such policies must therefore obviously be an effective and beneficial disciplinary strategy. These policies are prominent in the educational system, and so in the interest of school accountability, it is relevant to ask: does it really work?

The American Psychological Association considered that question and created a task force to look at the data and the research. Recently published in the American Psychologist, the Task Force report suggests that when put to the test, the policy flunks.

The analysis focused on five key assumptions underlying the use of zero tolerance policies in the schools:

1. It is assumed that zero tolerance policies are necessary because school violence is increasing and increasingly out of control. The reality is that the rates of violence and disruption in schools have remained steady or have actually declined over the past twenty years or so. Obviously, violence prevention efforts are absolutely necessary to protect against both common place incidents and critical acts of aggression. However, disciplinary policies should be formulated in response to the actual threat, and not in response to the "feeling" that the problem is out of control.

2. It is also assumed that mandatory and inflexible punishments serve to create consistent discipline and clarity in the disciplinary message. In fact, they do not. Within school districts that have adopted such policies, there remains a great deal of variation across schools with respect to how many kids are actually disciplined (or need to be disciplined), and there is just as much variation across school districts with similar policies. Whether or not a school is orderly has much less to do with the disciplinary guidelines than with the quality of teachers and the quality of school governance. Indeed, the quality of the school may be more important that the attitudes and behavior of the students.

3. It is assumed that the removal of disruptive students provides for a school climate more conducive to learning. In fact, the opposite is true. Schools in which expulsions and suspensions are common tend to have less satisfactory school climate ratings and are found to spend a disproportionate amount of time on disciplinary issues. And after taking into account the socioeconomic status of students, they tend to have lower academic achievement rates.

4. It is assumed that zero tolerance punishments will deter those expelled or suspended from misbehaving in the future. Instead, what is found is that those who are disciplined in this fashion will in the future be more likely to continue misbehaving, more likely to drop-out and less likely to graduate. Perhaps it would be justified if some benefit accrued to the school and the student body, but it is not justified if it simply involves making it a problem to be dealt with by someone else.

5. The final assumption considered is the idea that parents and students overwhelmingly support zero-tolerance policies. Here, the data are mixed. Some parents applaud such efforts, especially when the punishment is applied in specific cases that have caused public alarm. On the other hand, there are just as many cases in which parents and other students are left feeling that the punishment was unfair and that some measure of forbearance should have been granted. The concept of "a second chance" is deeply rooted in our consciousness, as is the idea that "the punishment should fit the crime."

School discipline is important. Punishments are often necessary. If it could be shown that arbitrary rules made schools safer or that they eased the administrative burdens associated with exercising discipline, then of course a zero tolerance approach would be recommended. But what seems to make sense does not always in fact meet the test of common sense.

After considering whether or not zero tolerance policies have any unique benefit, the APA Task Force also looked at whether there is a downside or dark side to such policies.

On the dark side, there are important implications. First, it appears quite certain that rather than being "color blind," arbitrary punishment strategies tend to disproportionately effect students of color and students who suffer from various forms of psychological disturbance. Second, there is clear evidence that zero tolerance policies tend to increase the likelihood that those disciplined will end up as clients of either the juvenile justice or criminal justice system. In general, these policies violate the old adage: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

The APA Task Force did not in any way seek to suggest that disciplinary actions are unimportant, or to argue for excuse and tolerance. Instead, they outlined a set of recommendations focused on the benefits of flexibility. In any situation where a disciplinary response is required, there are indeed different and "alternative strategies" to be considered.

With respect to making schools safe, the weight of the evidence shows that there is little benefit to be obtained from abandoning individual case analysis and judgment. There is no apparent benefit to be obtained from arbitrary rules. There are in fact a number of disciplinary alternatives available in any situation. The task is to evaluate every situation on its own merits.

Further comment: As a long-time observer of the criminal justice system, I am particularly aware of the fact that arbitrary rules are counter-productive. Set rules do not provide respect for authority. Justice demands that every crime and every offender should be judged individually. That is what Judges should do.

Arbitrary rules serve to diminish the role of Judges. In the school setting, arbitrary rules serve to diminish the role of the School Principal.

From my perspective, the danger presented by zero tolerance policies (and mandatory sentencing guidelines) is that they provide the offender with an excuse and a justification. Rather than taking responsibility for their behavior, they blame the system for its rigidity. There is hardly anything more dangerous than an offender who believes the system did not afford them justice. Rather than having the punishment serve to correct their behavior, the belief that they were treated unfairly is used as a justification for future misbehavior.

And in the school, I believe that a zero-tolerance policy sends exactly the wrong message. It is often the case that when someone is expelled simply as a matter of course and in a reflexive way, other students will rally to their cause, rather than condemning their behavior.

Authority figures have a responsibility to exercise judgment and discretion. When they wash their hands and abandon that responsibility, they lose respect and credibility in the eyes of those they are meant to guide.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

1/06/2009

Recession, Depression and Depression

When the report came, showing that the economy had shed more than half a million jobs in November, the stock market staged a brief rally. The thinking was that with news this bad, surely the government would step in to help. It's like the story of the child who wakes up on Christmas to find a pile of manure: excited, the child begins digging, assuming their must be a pony in there somewhere.

It is not at all likely, however, that those who have been thrown out of work in recent months will be looking to find a silver lining.

There is an extensive literature on the connection between unemployment and psychological well-being, and the news is not good. In a recent report on work and health from the American Psychological Association, it was noted that: "the loss of work has been consistently linked to problems with self-esteem, relational conflicts, substance abuse, alcoholism and other more serious mental health concerns." In every respect, and not just financial, one's quality of life is at risk when unemployed.

The fact is that work is often essential for psychological health. It is the "playing field" for our dreams and aspirations, and an important source of pride and satisfaction. Work is where we find challenges and a sense of meaning, and the chance for self-determination and personal empowerment. It is not just a matter of survival and security. Work plays a complex role in our social lives. It is a link to the broader cultural fabric of life and a regular source of social support.

Clinical depression is a common and expected result of the experience of loss. Beyond the sense of loss, those who have been displaced from the economy can expect to experience shame, fear and uncertainty, and a whole series of stress factors related to survival and adaptation. Imagine what happens to your identity when you are no longer a breadwinner or when you suddenly become dependent on an unemployment check. Imagine the adjustments you might have to make in your lifestyle or your role in the family or your daily routine.

The effects will also be felt by those who remain on the job. Their future is no longer certain, and it is often observed that they can suffer "survivor's guilt." It is a whole new stress at work: "Am I next?" Time that was previously devoted to productivity and engagement will be spent worrying, wondering and watching.

Depression is a genuine and significant health concern. The current unemployment numbers are pointing towards a potential public health crisis.

So how should you respond if you have become one of the "walking wounded?"

First, if you are feeling depressed, don't worry about it. It is normal and expected. There is no reason to worry more about the fact that you are worried. You don't want to be depressed about the fact that you are depressed.

Watch for the signs. What you may notice is: you are feeling sad or empty most days; life no longer feels interesting or satisfying; you can't sleep or you can't eat, or you are eating too much; you are unusually restless or fatigued; you are feeling worthless or guilty; it is harder to think or to concentrate; or you seem to have unusual pain or physical discomfort. These are the symptoms of clinical depression.

If you are depressed, you might also notice that you are drinking more, fighting more often with your spouse, and more likely to be irritable and impatient with your kids.

If you have thoughts of death or suicide, that is the only sign necessary to know that you are depressed.

If you are depressed, don't hide from it. Don't pretend it's not happening to you. Talk to your friends, your family and the people you love. If you are a person of faith, talk to your faith leader.

You also want to stay active. Stick to a routine, exercise regularly and think about working as a volunteer. When you are out of work, a real good use of your time is to go back to school. Classes will keep you occupied, interested and motivated. Education is a good way to fill that hole that is starting to grow in the middle of your work history and to prepare yourself what comes next in your career.

Unemployment cannot readily be cured. Depression, however, can be cured. If it is becoming too much to handle, speak to your Doctor or find a therapist. Get help. Don't be ashamed. (Take the Psyris Depression Screening.)

This recession is going to be deep. The rates of depression are going to rise. The research shows quite clearly that many who suffer emotionally will not fully recover, even when they return to work. We all need to understand that we are facing a pile of manure and that there is no pony to be found.

The task now is to survive, to hold on, and to reach for the future. The best way to do that is to take care of yourself, and to remain optimistic, confident, and filled with a sense of meaning and purpose, despite all indications that this is an uphill battle.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

12/05/2008

Emotional Intelligence? I'm not feeling it.

Emotional Intelligence is a confused and confusing concept.

Indeed, a key group of proponents of the Emotional Intelligence (EI) construct recently published a defense of their work in the American Psychologist (September 2008), essentially arguing that the meaning of the term has been subverted. Professors John Mayer, Peter Salovey and David Caruso acknowledged that there is a "schism in the field" and that the term is now being used "in too many different ways" and to "cover too many things."

Writing in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Professor Edwin Locke worded his criticism more bluntly by asking rhetorically: "What does EI not include?"

It was in 1990 that Mayer and Salovey first outlined their views on EI, suggesting that it represented a distinct set of abilities. The idea that the human skill set involves something more than just IQ was not new at the time, nor was the term "emotional intelligence." What Mayer and Salovey provided was a model that could serve as the foundation for research and a "test" that purported to measure EI. Their focus was on the ability to perceive and understand emotions and to use them to facillitate thinking.

In 1995, Daniel Goleman published his hugely successful book, "Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ," and with it's release, the term found a permanent place in the popular imagination and in the annals of pop psychology. What Goleman and others added to the model was the idea that EI can refer to any number of positive personality traits, such as self-esteem, optimism and need for achievement, and any number of social skills, habits and behavioral preferences.

When I was in school, there was no literature on "emotional intelligence," and the term had not yet first been coined. I became aware of the topic by reading Time magazine's cover story on Goleman's work and was skeptical from the start. Everything I read about EI seemed to suggest that it was just a re-packaging of standard and well-established ideas from the psychological literature. And the package wasn't pretty.

Before the advent of EI, we already knew that performance and achievement is responsive to motivation. There was never any question about the fact that there are a variety of different ego-strengths that serve to complement intellectual abilities and to enhance performance. Our ability to describe individuals as having different levels of social and interpersonal skills was never in question. Our understanding of personality traits was already intensely developed. We knew all along that the ability to use insight, introspection and personal reflection to understand our feelings and those of others was useful. A term that was used to describe those who tended to think about their thoughts and their feelings was "psychological mindedness."

What the EI theorists introduced was the idea that there is a specific set of personality traits and/or a specific set of skills relating to the understanding or use of emotions that can be interpreted as "an intelligence." What they violated was the idea that constructs have meaning. In other words, there is a distinction between an ability and an achievement, a skill and a habit, an attitude and a value, a personality trait and an emotional state, and so on. Those distinctions are central to science and theory construction.

In arguing that EI is not a valid concept, Professor Locke put it like this:

"The fundamental problem here is that one cannot 'reason with emotion.' This is a contradiction in terms. Reason and emotion are two very different cognitive processes, and they perform very different psychological functions ... One cannot 'reason with emotion;' one can only reason about it ... what they (EI advocates) are actually referring to is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence applied to a particular life domain: emotions."

In their recent American Psychologist article, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso were attempting to defend the idea that one can "reason with emotion," and at the same time, to fend off the pop psychology advocates of EI who have hijacked the term and essentially defined it as including anything at all psychological. An author and hiring consultant says that the "ability to learn from mistakes" is a form of EI. Another says that if a manager has a "democratic" leadership style, that is an example of EI. The ability to make friends and to control impulses have also been added to the definition of EI.

While there are certainly many recognizable competencies that help us navigate life, it makes no sense to say that everything that is not a function of IQ is a function of EI. "Emotional intelligence" has come to bear little resemblance to what we would ordinarily refer to as either an emotional function or an intellectual one. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso say that "managing emotions" is part of the EI equation. Conceptually, it makes no sense to say that emotional control is any type of "intellectual task."

So what sustains the use of the term EI?

As researchers, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso are professionally invested in their model and wish to reclaim it for a scientific purpose (by the way, they believe that EI is best measured by their commercially available test instrument).

In the pop psychology field, EI serves an industry of authors and consultants, ready to sell their insights.

And in the popular imagination, EI is the concept that levels the playing field. In the words of Professor Locke, EI is about "egalitarianism: redefining what it means to be intelligent so that everyone will, in some form, be equal in intelligence to everyone else." EI consultants have floated the notion that success and performance in life requires everything but actual intelligence: you don't have to be smart and you don't have to be a rocket scientist. "Joe the Plumber's" common sense is just as good as a Harvard Law degree. Intelligence and scholarship are simply the values of the elite.

In the end, it remains quite obvious that raw intellect is not necessarily worth as much as some give it credit for. Intelligence is not a substitute for good judgment. Practical wisdom does not follow from the conferring of a degree. My gardener tells me things that make sense that I would never have figured out on my own. The guys who were described as "the smartest guys in the room" are the same ones who brought down the Enron Corporation. Great political failures have been perpetrated by those who were chosen because they were the "best and the brightest." The "absent minded professor" is a well-known stereotype.

For many of life's endeavors, intellect may be necessary, but not sufficient. Does the concept of "emotional intelligence" provide a satisfactory explanation for whatever else is necessary? I'm not feeling it.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

8/20/2008

Is your boss paying attention to you?

Probably not, he doesn't need to.

Above, the choice of the pronoun "he" was intentional. The article I reviewed for this post appeared in the American Psychologist and was focused primarily on the tendency of people in power to view their subordinates through stereotypes, rather than bothering to understand them as individuals. The assumption that the boss is a man is a stereotype.

When Princeton University Professor Susan Fiske wrote the article, her emphasis was on the fact that stereotypes function as a powerful tool for controlling people. To illustrate her research on the control function of stereotypes, she used work place examples of gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

What I want to focus on here is what Dr. Fiske had to say about why those in power are not likely to pay attention and to get to know their subordinates as individuals, why they tend to lump them into categories.

The simple fact is that people pay attention to those who have power and control, those who can have an impact on their lives and effect their fate and their future. "Attention follows power" is how Professor Fiske described it.

In any organization, it is easy to observe that those at the bottom will spend a lot of time watching and thinking and talking about those at the top. The employee is motivated to construct a unique and detailed portrait of the manager because the employee wants to be able to predict what the leader might do in any situation. What the employee "knows" about the supervisor may or may not be accurate, but it is simply natural for a subordinate to have a clear picture in mind for the sake of survival.

On the other hand, because the leader does not necessarily depend on the subordinate for approval, success or promotion, "he" has a lot less riding on his ability to understand or appreciate what's going on with the followers. The "clueless" boss is a stereotype that appears to be grounded in reality.

There are two other reasons why those in power may not bother to form accurate and detailed impressions of those who are below them on the organizational hierarchy.

First, those in power simply have more people competing for their attention. At some point, the situation involves information overload (or TMI, "too much information"). The strain on their capacity to pay attention to everyone is also amplified by the fact that those in power are busy focusing their attention on those with even more power.

The other reason has to do with motivation. Those in power are typically motivated (if not expected) to control and dominate others. As noted, stereotyping can serve as a form of control. Those without power have even less power when they are perceived as relatively nameless and faceless. The research also indicates that leaders may be motivated to ignore others either because they are "power hungry" or because they have a precarious sense of their grip on power. When groups of employees are in revolt against leadership, those in power can be even more likely to tune out the noise.

The tendency of those in leadership positions to compress their perceptions of subordinates is not just "a guy thing." It is the result of powerful social structures, fundamental cognitive processes, and individual personality dynamics.

For the organization, the downside risk of oblivious or "clueless" leaders is that leaders do in fact depend on their employees in a variety of ways. The fate of the organization can be tied to the actions of individuals at the very bottom of the power structure. That is obviously the case when those on the bottom rungs have to interact with the public. Less obvious are the situations in which leadership fails to pay attention to how employees experience the work environment.

Every organization is concerned about work place stress, but too often, complaints are dismissed with convenient generalizations (e.g., "he's a whiner" or "it's just a personality conflict" or "she's just too sensitive"). Professor Fiske provided examples of companies losing major sexual harassment suits because they weren't paying attention. Perhaps more common are situations in which companies lose their investment in valuable employees because they either quit or suffer stress related disabilities. Employees who are unhappy and misunderstood are probably going to say bad things about the company before they leave, and even worse things afterwards. That's not a good thing from a PR standpoint.

What can an organization do? From my reading of the literature, it appears that the most useful way to motivate leaders to pay attention to the powerless is to highlight and amplify the sense of interdependence. When the employees are stake holders in the company or when the leader's success is dependent on the judgment of subordinates, those in power are more likely to invest energy in employee appreciation. When leaders are held to account for maintaining commitment and satisfaction among subordinates, they will suddenly have a reason to pay attention to those at the bottom.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

8/15/2008

Helicopter Parents: disturbing trend or urban myth?

This is a shorter version of an article I posted in the Spring, updated for back-to-school and off-to-college time. The original article (more discussion of the research and references to the "empty nest") can be found here.

Permission is granted to re-print this article if the credit line at the bottom is included.

It's back-to-school and off-to-college time. Soon, we will be hearing stories about college freshmen and their "helicopter parents." These are the parents who hover and can't let go, the ones who are overly involved, overprotective and excessively supportive.

This story has been written many times. In a November 2006 MSNBC online article, a college counselor was quoted as saying that the "problem" of hovering parents "has now reached epidemic proportions." In a March 2008 Sacramento Bee article, a college counselor estimated that the rate of parental hovering stands at 30 percent and is increasing 2 to 3 percent a year. An online guide to college life offers a list of "signs and symptoms" so you can check to see if you suffer from this disorder. If you help your kid write a paper, or provide extra money, you may be afflicted. On the Today Show in October 2007, "national mom expert" Stacy DeBroff said that this problem afflicts 60 to 70 percent of "all" college parents and advised that some may need to "get help."

There are actually three reliable sources of data on this topic, each based on large scale studies.

Surveying SAT applicants, the College Board found that there is "little evidence of extreme or intrusive parental involvement" and that "much of the reported parental involvement is actually very positive and supportive."

The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) has reported that on measures of parental involvement, more college students said that they received "too little" help from parents, rather than "too much." A sizable majority said that they received the "right amount" of help.

Finally, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) showed that when parents maintained frequent contact with their children and helped them deal with problems on campus, the students were more engaged in the academic process, maintained better study habits, were more satisfied with their college experience and reported having gained more from college.

A USA Today story from Februray 2007 touted "what's believed to be the first scholarly research on parents who hover too closely over offspring." This "scholarly research" was based entirely on interviews with 50 "college officials." In other words, it was nothing more than a collection of anecdotes. College advisers and administrators obviously have stories to tell. They have seen the extreme examples.

The reality is that there is no disturbing trend or epidemic to be observed. Obviously, there will be cases in which parents go overboard. But the hovering actually seems to be more of a problem for educators than for students. Administrators have to deal with the parents who complain.

In fact, parental involvement is a good thing, as common sense would tell us. Yes, kids need to grow up and become independent. But that is not something that can be accomplished just by moving into a dorm. College involves many challenges, and it makes no sense to insist that young adults do this on their own, without help, and by trial and error. Freshmen enter college with different skill sets, different coping abilities and different levels of maturity. For some, the transition from home is a smooth ride with no bumps. Others encounter nightmare scenarios and need help.

What colleges and universities should be concerned about are all of the students who enter and then fail. The average retention rate for entering freshmen is less than 75 percent.

Here is the correct response a college adviser should give when asked to comment on this urban myth: "We sometimes encounter what you might call a helicopter parent, but we are actually more concerned about getting parents involved. That's what most students want and what they actually need. We're less concerned about the helicopters and more concerned about students who come to us without a parachute."

Paul G. Mattiuzzi is a psychologist and developer of the psychology resource information system: psyris.com. An extended version of this article appears at his blog: everydaypsychology.com.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

7/30/2008

Why do people kill?
A Typology of Violent Offenders

At various times, I have been asked to lecture on the topic: why do people kill? Why do they commit murder? How do we explain acts of violence. The following is not an exhaustive explanation. It's a handout I use when I speak about different types of killers and the motivations for different crimes. But it describes many, if not most types of homicide and most acts of violence. It describes most of the killers and most of the violent individuals I have interviewed.

Chronically Aggressive Individuals

Easily frustrated, limited or poor impulse control
Frequently express anger or hostility
Resents authority, defiant with supervisors.
May express hostility through “passive-aggressive” behavior
Believes violence and/or aggression are legitimate responses to various interpersonal problems in life (i.e., if someone provokes you, you fight back)
Although they might never admit it, pleasure or reinforcement is derived from the expression of anger (i.e., it feels good to blow someone off; it makes you feel alive; it gives you a sense of power)
Often display the characteristics of a “stimulus seeker” - they engage in bold, fearless, or reckless behavior and are prone towards substance abuse
Most typically, violence occurs in a situational context: an offense, fight, or disagreement
Sometimes just get carried away in a particular situation (domestic violence, child battering)
Less likely to engage in acts of unexpected “explosive” violence

The Over-Controlled Hostility Type

Rarely display or express anger - they don’t cuss or yell, and may be offended by such
Emotionally rigid and inflexible: appear to be polite, serious, and sober, rarely “loose” or jocular
Cognitively rigid and inflexible: very strict about interpreting rules; usually go for the letter, rather than the spirit of the law
Morally righteous and upstanding: see themselves as “good people”
Often judgmental: see others as “not such good people”
Non-assertive or passive; their passivity causes others to take advantage of them
Anger builds up like in a pressure cooker, before they explode
After the violence, people say that they never expected it, “he always seemed like such a nice guy; he was always so quiet”

The Hurt and Resentful

Feel that people walk on them and that they are never treated fairly
When they are passed over, there is always someone else to blame
Things are easier for everyone else: other people get more and have more advantages.
They do not accept criticism well
In response to reprimands, they develop grudges, which are sometimes deeply held
They are often whiners and complainers, as a matter of attitude
They wallow in their victimization and are psychologically impotent
Violence occurs because they hold grudges and are “impotent” to deal with their anger in other ways

The Traumatized

Aggression occurs in response to a single, massive assault on their identity
Something happens that is potently offensive, absolutely intolerable, and which strips them of all sense of personal power
The essence of their existence (or their manhood) will be destroyed if they do not respond
Violence is predictable & preventable

The Obsessive

Immature and narcissistic individuals who demand or crave attention and affection
Absolutely cannot stand to be deprived of desired gratifications, like a baby who cries because mother removes the breast
When deprived of love, they continue crying: repeated phone calls, following the object of their obsession, etc.
As frustration continues, they escalate: “dead flowers”, punctured tires, suicide gestures
Violence because: “if I can’t have her, nobody can.” ... or: “if she won’t have me, she won’t have anything.”

The Paranoid

Jealous Type: Delusionally believes their lover is unfaithful
Persecuted Type: Delusionally believes that people are out to get him
Typically engage in behaviors which make their paranoid beliefs come true
Delusions may reach the point at which the person is grossly out of contact with reality (may be insane).

The Insane

Rare: does not understand the nature and quality of their actions.
More typical: fundamental misperceptions of reality, incapable of rational behavior, delusional beliefs deprive them of the ability to know that their behavior is wrong, beliefs and perceptions are incongruent with reality.
Twisted, psychotic beliefs about what is right, what is wrong, and what is necessary.

The Just Plain Bad & Angry

A combination of most of the above (except for insane): angry, hostile, jealous, resentful, impotent, and disturbed individuals, who are socially isolated, socially inadequate, and who feel worthless
May be seeking attention
May be seeking revenge

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

What is psychological health?

Psychological health is important with respect to how we function and adapt, and with respect to whether our lives are satisfying and productive. In the end, psychological health and well-being basically has to do with the question: "how are you doing?"

While questions like "how are you doing?" or "how is your mood?" capture the essence of psychological health, psychologists have found that it actually involves two separate issues. There is an upside and a downside, both of which need to be considered.

The upside involves two factors: is your mood generally positive, and do you enjoy a number of "positive emotional ties." In other words, are you happy and do you have friends? In addition to feelings of emotional satisfaction, a positive mood also depends on whether or not you generally feel calm and peaceful.

On the downside, emotional well-being involves three factors: do you suffer anxiety, are you depressed, and do you feel like like you have lost control and can't do anything about your feelings. This is the experience of psychological distress.

Although there are two parts of the equation, for general purposes it can usually be said that distress and happiness are two sides of the same coin. Usually, people are either happy or they're not, and if their mood isn't good, they are often distressed to some extent.

It is also important to know that psychological health is an issue quite different from mental or emotional disorder. The research on well-being concerns itself with the feelings of normal individuals and subjects from the general population. When we talk about psychological health, we are referring to how ordinary people are doing in life. In other words, if you are feeling distressed, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are mentally ill.

Ordinary life often presents the individual with extraordinary challenges, complexities, setbacks and hardships. Psychological health concerns itself with how you cope, how you are doing in response, and whether you find life to be interesting and enjoyable. Although life is better when we are feeling good, there is no avoiding the fact that there will be ups and downs.

What is the best way to assess your state of well-being? Take a few minutes to fill out the brief Psychological Health Index at psyris.com.

This questionnaire is a modified version of an instrument developed by the Rand Corporation for use in a variety of health and medical outcome studies. It is a short version of a longer "test," and even though it is just a few items long, it has proven to be a remarkably useful way to ask people: "how are you doing?" ... "how is your mood today?"

My own research has demonstrated that how you respond to the brief Psychological Health Index is significantly correlated with your perceived personal health status. If your score on this instrument is negative, you are more likely to have more physical health complaints.

I ususally advise people to take this test every now and then, and not just once. Things change and feelings change. In the same way that it is a good idea for healthy individuals to monitor their blood pressure on at least an occasional basis, it's a good idea to keep an eye on your mood. Mood is a vital sign.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

7/18/2008

Leadership Research: are we asking the right questions?

The research literature examining, defining, analyzing and exploring "leadership" is vast. But does it focus on the most important question? A recent study published in the American Psychologist suggests that while we have learned a lot about how someone comes to be perceived as a leader and to have a successful career, we have not paid similar attention to whether or not "successful leaders" actually serve to create effective organizations.

There is no question at all about the fact that leaders can have a huge and significant impact on organizational dynamics. We recognize certain individuals as natural born leaders because they stand out as individuals who can create organizational culture, generate commitment, motivate workers, enhance cooperation, effect employee satisfaction and make sure that everyone is on the same page. We know a lot about why some leaders have consistently positive approval ratings. Endless studies have examined why some leaders are widely admired and how their leadership abilities have positively influenced their career trajectories.

But there is another question that is more typically left unanswered. In their article, "Leadership and the Fate of Organizations," Robert B. Kaiser, Rober Hogan and S. Bartholomew Craig looked at what has been studied and what has been left unexamined. What they found is that the leadership research has "overwhelmingly focused on how leaders influence individual followers" and groups of followers.

What Kaiser and his colleagues noted is that while we know an awful lot about the role of leadership in "how the team played," we actually know little about the role of leadership with respect to the big question: "did the team win?"

When studies of leadership focus on outcome events, they typically focus on the effectiveness of the group. The problem is that it really doesn't matter how effective or successful the group is, unless they beat the other guys.

For the most part, leadership studies have not focused on objective outcome measures. Instead, they tend to focus on how the leader is perceived. A dull and boring manager producing consistent returns on investment would not be considered a leader. A dynamic and inspiring figure who rises through the ranks will be highly rated for leadership abilities. Most often, leaders gain approval because of how others "feel" about them and how they make others feel about themselves and their groups. We identify individuals as leaders for emotional reasons, and not necessarily on the basis of rational and objective measures.

In what is described as the "derailment literature," it has been found that many bright and capable individuals fail to advance, while others succeed because of their ability to "manage impressions." Those who advance are perceived as being leaders. Those who simply perform quietly, constantly, routinely and as expected are often overlooked. While it may be that "leadership" is the holy grail relative to advancement, it remains the case that as many as half of all executives fail to deliver as expected. This failure rate results from the fact that they are chosen because of their approval ratings, rather than actual leadership abilities. Managers are often chose because of impression, rather than substance.

The "take home message" from this study is that charisma and career success are not good measures of leadership ability. Approval ratings are subjective, and they are no substitute for measures of actual performance. Those who succeed in being perceived as leaders are consistently found to enjoy great career success. And they are well liked and appreciated by those who are called to follow. But at the end of the day, no matter how well the team plays, you still have to ask: did the team win?

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

3/12/2008

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Of all the reasons that a couple might give to explain how or why their relationship is troubled, the one that is probably offered most frequently is "communication problems." Could it be that marriage or involvement somehow renders people incapable of expressing themselves and understanding others? Not likely. In reality, the problem is usually not that people cannot communicate. Instead, the problem is that they are in conflict.

A wife complains that her husband spends too much time in front of the television, that he doesn't help with the housework, doesn't compliment her or pay attention to her, and doesn't appreciate the work she does. He says that she doesn't respect him or understand him, that she spends too much time with friends, and that she demands too much of his time. They both complain about the spending habits of the other and about the frequency of their love-making. They say they have a communication problem.

Communication problem? Is it possible that they can't figure out what the other is complaining about? It is clear that their needs, priorities and expectations are different. It is a conflict, not a misunderstanding. The problem is that they disagree and cannot resolve their disagreements. They both want something from the other and can't seem to get it.

I tend to believe that the focus on communication problems is a direct result of the 1968 film, Cool Hand Luke. In the role of a chain-gang prison camp warden, actor Strother Martin uttered what would become a famous movie line: "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Years later, he would repeat the line on Saturday Night Live, that being how famous the phrase had become. Perhaps the line resonated because it seemed such a simple or obvious explanation for almost any complexity. Or perhaps it was because it was absurdly ironic.

In the movie, Martin was speaking to Paul Newman, who in the role of Cool Hand Luke was a rebellious, recalcitrant and non-conforming inmate. Their characters were locked in an irresolvable struggle for control and domination. The line came after Newman made a disrespectful remark and Martin had beaten him to his knees. What Strother Martin was actually saying was that he would always win and that he was in charge. The twinkle in Paul Newman's eye said that their battle was far from over.

In relationships, communications are in fact frequently muddled, and for good reason. The wife does not express herself clearly because she does not wish to anger her husband. She does not want to seem unreasonable or appear to be nagging. The husband does not understand her because he is too busy offering excuses or denying that her complaints are valid. Their communications are muddled because neither wishes to appear to be at fault or to blame. They are not actually attempting to communicate. Instead, they are both struggling for control, while trying to appear righteous and innocent.

Ultimately, every argument they have is about the same thing: who is right and who is wrong. Rather than discussing the specifics of what they actually want, the argument comes to be framed in abstract terms such as appreciation, understanding, respect, cooperation and commitment. They might both try to appear accommodating, while giving not an inch of ground. Rather than working towards resolution, they are both attempting to defend their positions. Often times, couples will continue to struggle over who was right and who is to blame, even when they are basically in agreement.

And to explain this complex struggle and conflict, there is always the easy explanation: it's a communication problem.

It is, however, a tragic explanation. It is tragic because when the pointless and irrelevant discussion about who is right and who is at fault is set aside, and when their needs, desires and goals are communicated in simple, concrete terms, couples often find that compromise and accommodation would have been a simple matter. When guilt and blame are set aside, untenable demands become reasonable requests. Sorrow and forgiveness can emerge. Conflicting interests can yield to an awareness of common purpose.

When the focus turns from "a failure to communicate" and is directed towards the actual conflict, then a couple has something to work on: a problem that can actually be solved.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

3/11/2008

Helicopter Parents: disturbing trend or urban myth?

As children head towards college, should we worry about parents being overly involved, overprotective and excessively supportive? Or should we instead be concerned about kids who are on their own without a parachute?

(A shorter version of this article can be read here)

It's Spring, so the college application, admission and selection process is coming to an end. Parents of high school seniors are both exhilarated and fatigued from that long, last sprint to the finish. The enormous hurdles presented by parenting a child and then parenting a teenager have been cleared. It's time to celebrate graduation. Soon, the kid will be off to college, and finally, there will be some peace and quiet in the empty nest. But then you realize, it's still a marathon, and you are not done. And then, someone tells you that rather than being a help, you are actually a hindrance. After years of functioning as a member of your child's support staff, now they are telling you that you are actually just a "helicopter parent," preventing your child from flying on their own.

This story has been written many times. The evidence is always anecdotal. College advisers and administrators obviously have stories to tell. They have seen the extreme examples of parental over-involvement. Their time with parents is often spent with the parents who have complaints. Many have been to workshops teaching them how to "manage" today's parents.

In a November 2006 MSNBC article, a college counselor was willing to be quoted as saying that the "problem" of hovering parents "has now reached epidemic proportions." In a March 2008 Sacramento Bee article, a college counselor estimated that the rate of parental hovering stands at 30 percent and is increasing 2 to 3 percent a year. In the online magazine Key, a guide to college life, we are offered a list of "signs and symptoms," as if you should check to see if you suffer from this disorder. If you help your kid write a paper, or provide extra money, you may be afflicted. On the Today Show in October 2007, "national mom expert" StacyDeBroff pegged the rate for this problem at 60 to 70 percent of "all" college parents. She provided a sort of diagnostic system to describe the different types of hovering parents, and she advised that some may need to "get help."

A USA Today story from Februray 2007 described "what's believed to be the first scholarly research on parents who hover too closely over offspring." This "scholarly research" appears to have been published only in USA Today, and it is likely the original source for the 60 to 70 percent epidemic figure cited by the "mom expert." But this study is based entirely on interviews with 50 "college officials." In other words, it is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes.

On this topic, I was able to find three sources of reliable data. I searched both the web and the professional literature.

In March 2007, the College Board reported on a survey of some 1700 students randomly drawn from the pool of SAT applicants. The College Board was looking at "hovering" occurring during the application process. What they found is that there is "little evidence of extreme or intrusive parental involvement." From a list of tasks on which parents could either help or take control, "only a small number of students reported what could be considered extreme behavior on the part of their parents." The behavior in which parents were most likely to be "very involved" (32%) was "encouraging" students to apply to certain schools. The two tasks on which the parents were most likely to take control were filling out financial aid forms (12%) and "deciding what colleges the students could afford" (16%). The latter finding begs the question: whose money is it?

The number of students reporting that their parents actually took control and did things for them (like writing essays, filling out applications or meeting with college counselors) was on the order of only one to three percent.

Based on their judgment about tasks that parents really should help with, the College Board concluded that "much of the reported parental involvement is actually very positive and supportive."

In January 2008, the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) released a note on this topic based on their long-running "CIRP Freshman Survey." With 700 participating schools, they gather data from some 400,000 students each year. In contrast to the College Board, HERI looked at the perceptions of students, rather than actual behaviors. On five out of six measures of parental involvement, more students said that they received "too little" help from parents, rather than "too much. " On all of the measures, sizable majorities said that they received the "right amount" of help. The only item for which the number of students complaining about too much help exceeded the number receiving too little was the actual decision to go to college ("get up off that couch").

The three questions most relevant to the so-called "hovering" phenomenon had to do with whether parents were involved in choosing college activities, choosing courses, and dealing with college officials. Less than 4% said that their parents were over-involved in choosing their activities and courses. Less than 6% said that their parents were too involved in dealing with campus officials. In contrast, 24% said they wanted more help with choosing courses. 22% wanted more help with choosing activities. And 17% wanted more help dealing with problems on campus.

From the students' point of view, there is not that much hovering going on (at most, only 6% say their parents are too involved), and there are a lot of students wishing that their parents would hover more.

Finally, there are the findings in the 2007 Annual Report from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). This ongoing project focuses on the development of strategies to enhance educational programs, the learning process and overall student success. As part of a much larger yearly survey, 4500 freshmen from 24 institutions were asked about family support: how often their parents had intervened on their behalf to help them solve problems at school and how often they were in contact with their parents.

The NSSE found that 13 percent of first year students reported that their parents frequently intervened on campus. That 13 percent figure does not actually define the scope of the "hovering problem." As we saw above, more often than not (like 94% of the time), the students want their parents to be involved.

More importantly, this report goes on to note that the "students who have the most frequent contact with their parents are at least as engaged and often more engaged" in the academic process and in learning activities that lead to success. Those with parents who stay in contact and help them deal with problems on campus are also more satisfied with their college experience and report having gained more from college.

So what do we learn?

First, there is no disturbing trend or epidemic to be observed. "Helicopter parenting" is simply a pejorative term, and the frequency is not 60 percent or 30 percent or even 13 percent. The figure might be 6 percent, the number of students who say that their parents are overly involved. Or it might just be the one to three percent number reported by the College Board.

Obviously, there will be cases in which parents go overboard and in which they are overly-assertive and over-involved. But from what you can read on this topic, it seems to be more of a problem for educators than for students.

The available data suggest that parental involvement is a good thing, just as common sense would tell us. Yes, kids need to grow up, separate from their parents, become independent and, as psychologists say, "individuate." But that is not something that can be accomplished just by moving into a dorm. College involves many challenges, and it makes no sense to insist that young adults do this on their own, without help, and by trial and error. Freshmen enter college with different skill sets, different adaptive abilities and different levels of maturity. For some, the transition from home is a smooth ride with no bumps. Others encounter nightmare scenarios and need help.

What colleges and universities should be concerned about are all of those students who enter and then fail. The average retention rate for entering freshmen is less than 75 percent. That's just in the first year. Rather than spreading stories about parents-from-hell, what colleges should be doing is focusing on their students' need for support of all different types. Indeed, it should raise a red flag in a parent's mind when they hear a college official saying that helicopter parents are a problem. It actually says more about the administrator's attitudes than it does about parental behaviors, and it calls their judgment into question.

Here's the correct response a college adviser should give when asked to comment on this urban myth: "We sometimes encounter what you might call a helicopter parent, but we are actually more concerned about getting parents involved. That's what most students want and what they actually need. We're less concerned about the helicopters and more concerned about students who come to us without a parachute."

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

2/08/2008

The psychology in art. What can we learn?

Art is frequently used as a tool by psychologists. The psychology of art is actually a field of study in itself. I want to focus here on just one particular function of art: it's ability to illustrate themes and to serve as a metaphor for complex ideas. Sometimes in therapy, a clinician might refer to a work of art in order to express or capture an idea, and along with it a mood and a set of feelings. A painting, for example, can be used to exemplify, summarize and dramatize a theme, and to impress it on the mind of an individual in a way that cannot be done with words alone. The same principal applies with movies and songs, and with stories and myths. What brought this issue to mind is an old postcard that fell out of a book I pulled from the shelf the other day. The card shows painter Winslow Homer's work The Gulf Stream.

Winslow Homer is one of my favorite artists. I have a framed copy of Fog Warning in my office, and during the years I saw patients in therapy, I would often refer to it and discuss it with my clients. Before I talk about Fog Warning, I want to discuss two other works by Homer.

The Gulf Stream

The Gulf Stream is a troubling work of art. A man is on a sailboat, adrift in a turbulent sea. Far off in the distance, a schooner has passed him by and a tornado menaces. His mast has been sheered off and his tiller is gone. There is blood in the water and sharks surround him. The ropes on his deck are a symbol of his having somehow been freed (the man is Black and the era is post Civil War), but whether he was on a journey to freedom or not, he is shown in absolutely dire straits, with no chance for survival.

What is remarkable in this work is that the man seems peculiarly unconcerned. He is not shown in despair or distress, or in panic or fear. He looks back towards where he has been, and not towards the ship that could have rescued him or towards the sharks or the storm that threatens. He is not resigned to his fate, but instead, he appears to accept it. In a sense, this painting is a metaphor for the human condition. The man's attitude might be said to represent a strength of faith or simply a strength of character. Emotionally, he is not overwhelmed by his circumstance. In real life, with similar challenges, few people can ever achieve such peace.

Breezing Up

Breezing Up is probably Winslow Homer's best known work. What we seem to see in this painting are four young men enjoying the vitality of life on a pleasant afternoon. Their youth and their carefree manner speaks to the fact that all of the options and possibilities of life are before them. They lounge on the boat in a relaxed and comfortable manner. That is what we seem to see in this work, and even the title suggests optimism and good fortune.

A closer look, however, shows that they are in deep trouble and that they don't really know what they're doing. Perhaps to see that you need to have been in a small sailboat, far from shore on a windy day. With an experienced eye, what you see is that their boat is "heeled far to port with the gunwales in the water," and that the sea below them is churning. The ship in the background illustrates the strength of the wind and highlights the peril and the vulnerability of these youth. The sky is darkening, and they do not seem to appreciate the risks ahead. The available metaphor in this work involves the themes of maturity, judgment and experience, and the lack thereof among these youth.

Fog Warning

Fog Warning is a different metaphor. Again, we see a man alone in troubled waters. Here is how this painting was described by William Howe Downes in American Paintings in the Boston Art Museum: "Men who are accustomed to danger occupy a mental attitude towards it that has no room for melodramatic pose. Simple and sober, the unconscious hero of the picture turns to get the bearings of his schooner as he bends to his oars with all the steadiness of a man who has a long way to row and who must neither waste his strength in spurts nor lose his head. Small amidst the waves of the Atlantic looks his dory, far away seems the vessel, hard and cruel is the complexion of the sea."

It is a metaphor for a particularly complex form of human strength and character. For an individual whose life is troubled and who sees no hope, this work is an inspiration. He is referred to as an "unconscious hero" because emotionally, he is immune to the enormity of his struggle. Instead, he is confident and determined.

ooo0ooo

Art is a topic of study in psychology because it can speak to our deepest thoughts and most complex emotions. Enduring truths and essential wisdom can often be gleaned from our reaction to and involvement with art. It can educate and it can inspire. And sometimes, it can help us heal.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

2/06/2008

Is clinical psychology an overrated career?

That's what you can read in US News and World Report (February 2008). The writer who expressed that opinion is Marty Nemko, a self-described career coach. He says that a career as a "personal coach" is a more rewarding alternative. Is his analysis of any import? No. Quite frankly his opinion is misinformed, uninformed and nonsense. Clinical psychology may be overrated if one assumes that it provides a hassle-free path to easy money and immediate gratification. Otherwise, career seekers will recognize that psychology is about challenge and satisfaction.

Nemko says that the appeal of clinical psychology is that "you'll work one-on-one with clients in a private, peaceful setting, helping them conquer their inner demons." That statement is not even remotely adequate to describe the range of career activities and options within the field. Some people enter this profession because they think we are about "helping people." Most enter because they are deeply fascinated by the roots and dynamics of the human condition.

Psychologists set forth on the career path only after completing college studies. By this point, they have been exposed to mentors and educators, as well as professionals, who have inspired them to be curious about how people think, feel and behave. At no point in the education of a psychologist will any senior member of the profession suggest that we are simply about "helping" people.

We have a rich intellectual history, and no career candidate can escape immersing themselves in our scientific methods and traditions. We are a doctoral level profession. Most of us hold the Doctor of Philosophy degree, indicating that even if we are in professional practice, we are trained first as scholars. Only those who are intensely fascinated by our subject matter and our body of knowledge will endure the rigorous training and the years of effort.

For those who are motivated to "work one-on-one with clients in a private, peaceful setting," there are many career paths. One can become a "counselor" or therapist with much less effort. And with no effort or knowledge at all, one can hang out a shingle as a "personal coach." If clinical psychology was simply about sitting in an office with patients, it is hard to imagine that it would appeal to anyone.

Nemko says that the profession of clinical psychology is being overshadowed or diminished because "research is revealing that many psychological problems have physiological roots, taking some of the luster off traditional psychotherapy." This is like saying that auto mechanics are in danger because the airline industry has an increasing number of passengers.

The fact is that the U.S. Department of Labor describes the expected growth in clinical psychology jobs as "faster than average." 24,000 positions will be added in the next ten years, a 16% increase. Right now in Great Britain, there is a major government funded initiative underway to increase the number of psychology-trained clinicians. The British government recognizes that more psychologists are needed if their system is going to provide comprehensive and effective health care.

Nemko also says that people are rejecting psychologists in favor of therapists and coaches who can provide practical solutions to the problems of living. He would like you to believe that those who are trained to understand the complexities of those problems are incapable of helping you to solve them. It's like saying that if your gardener understands how and why the grass grows, she won't know how to cut the lawn.

Is psychology an overrated career? If you think that it's an easy path to easy money, then it is overrated. Psychologists pursue this field of work because they are deeply fascinated with our profession's rich knowledge base. Psychologists are motivated by scholarly inquiry. If you pursue this career because you think it is glamorous or will provide prestige, you are bound to be disappointed. It is a difficult path from college graduation through graduate study and training. And when you arrive in the profession, you are left with nothing more than a challenging, satisfying and rewarding career.

Was the analysis and ranking from the US News and World report really worth anything at all? One only has to look at the online video that accompanied their list of overrated careers. In the videos, an architect describes the hassles and frustrations of his business. He also comments on what is "wonderful" about his career and "where the joy comes from." He ends by saying, "if you don't have the passion I have, forget it."

In the end, that is not the definition of an overrated career. A career that can be described as wonderful, and as a joy, and as a source of passion is not something that should ever be described as overrated. It is not true about the architect who was featured, and it is not true about clinical psychologists.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

1/29/2008

Is Dr. Phil actually a psychologist?

No, actually he is not. But he does play one on TV. Had he not recently "stepped in it," most professionals would probably just think of him as an entertainer who happens to have a professional degree. Despite the uproar, he probably didn't cause himself any legal problems by visiting that hospital or by making a public statement. But he may have crossed over a line when he went on the air and explained himself.

Dr. Phil never refers to himself as a psychologist. He certainly knows that to do so would bring him into conflict with California law. Unless you are working for the government or working in academia, you can't represent yourself as being a psychologist unless you hold a valid license. It's the same as with an attorney or a physician. You can't act like you are a physician unless you have a medical license. If you didn't pass the bar or you lost your license, you can't say that you are an attorney.

It's not just that you can't practice as a physician or as a lawyer, or that you are not supposed to use those titles. The law says that you are not supposed to tell people that you are trained or experienced in those fields, or that you are an expert. The same rule applies for professional psychologists.

Before he went on air and apologized (or didn't) for his involvement with Britney Spears, members of the professional community accepted Dr. Phil as an entertainer who toils in the field of pop-psychology. Indeed, the American Psychological Association invited him to speak at one of its annual conventions. No one minded what he does. Some admire his success. Some envy it.

But in the statement that he made explaining himself, Dr. Phil made some errors in judgment. After being criticized for his involvement with Britney and for publicizing his involvement, the spotlight was turned on Dr. Phil, and he didn't handle it well.

Dr. Phil's statement implied that he was actually qualified to provide Britney with treatment. In his words, "I made it clear that I, of course, would not be directly involved in any treatment should that come to pass, because it’s well known that I don’t practice psychology privately anymore ..." Before saying this, and referring to his work, he said "this is serious business." He basically said that the only reason he would not provide treatment is because he only practices on TV.

Dr. Phil followed this by saying, "I listen and then suggest or refer them to the right professionals in whom I have confidence — the people who have the time and the focus to really get involved across time and work with them." In other words, he said that he does in fact practice by evaluating people and making referrals, indicating that he doesn't provide treatment himself only because he doesn't have the time. He was suggesting that he is trained and experienced to provide treatment, if he wanted to.

Following from the above comments, Dr. Phil went on to "explain" why he didn't need a license. He said that he didn't need a license because the only reason you need one is to "hang out a shingle" for private practice and to accept fees from the public. That's just not correct, and it's also misleading. The licensing law also says that you you can't act like you're a psychologist.

And then, in a comment that stunned me, Dr. Phil said: "I do, however, still have 30 years of experience, (and) a hard-earned Ph.D in clinical psychology ... I am certainly eligible to be licensed in California so far as education, training and experience." Emphasizing his point, he included the imperative: "So you still have to call me Dr. Phil."

This statement is the very essence of what California law says that someone is not supposed to do unless they are actually a psychologist. It doesn't matter in the least bit if you don't take any fees and if you aren't in "private practice." You still can't go around acting like you have the credential. His statement about the law was entirely inaccurate. The fact that he does not accept any fees for his services gets him out from underneath any complaint that he practices psychology (on TV), but it does not absolve him for misrepresenting his professional status, or lack thereof.

So what's the big deal about whether he's licensed or not?

Two things.

First, getting a license is a way of proving that you know the laws and the regulations relating to the profession. It's like getting a driver's license. You have to prove that you know the rules of the road. Dr. Phil was real careful not to say that he actually was a psychologist, but if he knew the laws, he would have been a whole lot more careful. He would have been more careful about giving people the impression that he is a psychologist, saying that he has the training, experience and expertise.

Second, when you get a license, you are binding yourself to a specific set of ethical guidelines and standards of behavior. If you are not actually a member of the profession, you don't have to answer to anyone other than yourself. You don't have to consider anyone else's judgment. Had Dr. Phil been more cognizant of professional standards, he probably wouldn't have gotten himself into that mess down in Los Angeles in the first place. And I wouldn't have had to read that Oprah is angry with Phil while I stood in line at the grocery store.

So is Dr. Phil going to be disciplined?

You probably heard that someone filed a complaint with the California Board of Psychology (the BOP). We don't actually know that. What we know is that someone filled out a complaint form and leaked it to the media. The BOP would never actually release any information about whether or not they received a complaint, or were investigating one, before taking formal action. If someone actually did file a complaint, and if the investigation of the complaint warranted action, the Board could refer it to the Attorney General, or it could simply issue a warning letter. If the AG were to get the complaint, there could be a citation, and possibly a fine.

What's probably going to happen?

Here's my guess, and it's only a guess.

I don't think anything is going to come of his having visited Britney. There is too much confusion and ambiguity about the relationships that existed, and about the role that he played. I think it ends with his having said that if he had it to do over, he wouldn't do it again.

About his apparent violation of California's psychology licensing law - the fact that he represented himself as being trained, educated and qualified as a psychologist? My guess is that at most, the BOP might issue a warning letter and probably won't even do that. Psychologists and the BOP are in fact concerned on a daily basis with serious business. Dr. Phil is in the entertainment business and the field of pop-psychology.

The BOP's job is to protect the public and to protect consumers. If Dr. Phil gets out of line, the media and the market will take care of him. If need be, Oprah will slap him down. In misleading the public, Dr. Phil offended the profession. But the BOP protects consumers, not the profession.

Did Dr. Phil really and intentionally mislead the public?

He did mislead the public by suggesting that he is a psychologist.

He also misled the public about why he doesn't have a license. His statement was: "I retired my license ... I don't need a license ... I’ve chosen instead to pursue another course and use of my education." It's true that for what he does on TV, he doesn't need to actually be a psychologist. But there is more to the story about his having "retired" his license. He was in fact disciplined by the Texas Board of Psychology in 1989, and it appears that he may have "retired" his license, rather than responding to their disciplinary requirements. We don't know for sure, but it may have been a little bit different than an ordinary retirement.

But still, I don't think he was being dishonest. I think it is more accurate to suggest that he was trying to cleverly walk a fine line. If he were adequately familiar with the law, I think he would have done a better job of walking that line.

Shouldn't he just do the right thing and get a license?

That's hard to say. We don't really know why he decided to leave the profession, and we don't know what hurdles he would face if he were to try to return. He has been in the public eye, and so there are controversies that surround him. To practice psychology on TV as he does, he doesn't actually need to be a psychologist, and as I said, the media and the public are available to hold him accountable. His style and his methods are a bit out of the mainstream, but I have never heard it said that he has done anyone harm (and we would quite certainly hear about that). He practices pop-psychology and entertainment, and people get to choose whether or not to watch.

Dr. Phil is not actually a psychologist, but he does play one on TV. That was never a problem. But then one day, he decided to walk off the stage and into someone's very real life. And that was a mistake.

As to how he should conduct himself, he summed it up by saying: "I have to own my own choices."

Update: Dr. Phil has gone on the Today show to explain again. Matt Laurer referred to him a number of times as a "psychologist." Dr. Phil didn't correct him.

My guess is that if I started a broadcast on the internet, and I called it "The Today Show," I would hear from some attorneys real quick.

California's own Dr. Marty Greenberg, former President of the BOP also appeared. His opinion: the hospital visit and the public statement about it isn't a matter that the law covers or will be concerned about.

As I suggested, nothing will come of any complaint.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

1/28/2008

Stressed out on campus?

In 2007, a young man at Virginia Tech killed a number of his fellow students. Many were quick to suggest that he was "stressed out," upset or having a bad day. But as details emerged, we learned that this was not a case of someone who was "pushed" over the edge and "couldn't take it" anymore. Instead, what we learned is that the killer was a deeply disturbed and chronically troubled individual whose emotional life was punctuated by morbid rage and twisted anger.

A disturbance of this intensity is absolutely not something that could just happen to any of us. But it reminds us that we should all pause and think about the stress factors we face in our own lives. Even as memories of this event fade, we should all reflect on the pressures we face and how well we are doing in maintaining a sense of well-being. It is always a good time to ask: "what is stress?"

Psychological stress is not one thing. It involves four factors.

First, it involves the way our bodies react to events and prepare to respond or take action. When your body is in a constant state of activation, without adequate time for rest and recovery, physical and psychological harm can result.

Stress is also defined in terms of the events we are reacting to. Sometimes it is a big life change event (like losing a job or failing a class). Stress can also develop from life's "daily hassles" - like finding a parking space or dropping your cell phone and finding it broken.

Although events matter, our perception of events is also critical. Maybe it was a good thing you lost that job you actually hated. Rather than a setback, it might be an opportunity. The failed class? Perhaps the failure taught you something you might never have otherwise realized. Stuck in the grocery line? A great chance to relax and read the tabloids. Can't find parking? Maybe that spared you from the first ten minutes of a dreadful lecture. What you view as a hardship might be perceived by another as a challenge to be faced. We thrive on challenges and we find events to be stressful depending on how we interpret them.

Finally, stress is mediated by the adaptive skills and the coping resources we bring to bear in any situation. One such skill is the ability to recognize when we need the help of others.

Given this formulation, there are four things you can do to combat stress:

1. Change the way your body is reacting. Get some exercise, eat right, get more sleep, and learn some relaxation techniques.

2. Change the events in your life. Do that assignment early, rather than at the last minute. Quit the job that is killing you. Take the parking space at the edge of campus, and then enjoy the walk.

3. Change your perceptions. Think about it again: was it a setback or an opportunity, a burden or a challenge, a loss or a relief? The bad thing is that your computer died. The good part is that you can now justify getting that new one.

4. Enhance your coping skills. In essence, that is what you are doing in school, learning how to perform new tasks and expanding your skill and knowledge base. You might also need to improve your social skills or your time management abilities, or perhaps your language or your writing skills. And you may need to learn when to ask for help. Talk to the professor if you are failing a class. If your work life is miserable, talk to the campus career counselor. And if you are feeling stressed or depressed or upset, go to the Campus Health Center and speak to a counselor. Therapy is a relief. You don't need to be ill or disturbed. Most therapy is short-term and for help with the ordinary problems of life and the ordinary difficulties of adjustment. Talking helps.

Is stress about to do you in? The answer to that question depends on your Sense of Coherence.

(This article was written for an electronic newsletter at Sacramento State University, at the request of the editor.)

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

1/23/2008

My other online project

For the past year, I have been spending my time developing psyris.com, the Psychology Resource Information System. It's now online, and definitely worth a visit, especially if you are trying to find a therapist or you are a professional in the mental health community.

On the public side, psyris provides links to relevant information, and a custom search engine where you can find a therapist.

On the professional side, there are two primary services available, free.

Professionals can create their own personalized webpage at psyris ... it's as simple as filling out a form online. Your profile becomes part of the the psyris referral directory and is searchable on the web. You can change your profile at any time, and you can include your picture or logo.

The system also provides a free classified ad system. Posting an ad is as easy as sending an email:

psyris-jobs ... position openings

psyris-ce ... continuing education

psyris-ads ... books, groups, services, offices and everything else.

So visit today. And if you are a licensed professional, create your psyris page now.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

4/18/2007

Is existence too painful to endure?

The common understanding is that individuals who perpetrate explosive acts of violence are possessed by "over controlled hostility." It is in fact a useful and relevant explanation for many cases of unpredictable violence. But it is not a paradigm that is in any way adequate to understand the carnage at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007.

In a classic study of incarcerated murderers, psychologist Edwin Megargee showed that those who had killed multiple victims were more likely to have been less violent and aggressive in the past, when compared to murderers who had killed only once. The reasoning was simple: chronically aggressive individuals were in the habit of expressing their feelings and "letting off steam." Those who "bottled up" their feelings of anger and resentment were more likely to "explode."

It is not the characteristically aggressive individual who is most likely to commit catastrophic acts of rage. Instead, it is those who are emotionally rigid and inflexible, self-righteous and judgmental, and passive in a way that causes others to ignore or take advantage of them. Characteristically non-assertive, the over controlled hostility types often develop deep seated grudges and overwhelming resentments.

But is our knowledge of the over controlled hostility personality style of any use in understanding the traumatic events at Virginia Tech? Having interviewed hundreds of killers of all stripes, I would suggest that there is another, more primary dynamic underlying dramatic acts of violence.

For everyone, there are times when life is difficult or painful. For some, it can become unbearable. It is not uncommon for people to fantasize about changing everything and making everything in life different.

For some, this fantasy emerges in the form of an impulse to put a stop to everything that his happening in their life. The impulse is to destroy reality or to tear reality apart.

For someone who is sad and suffering, the impulse might simply involve a self-destructive act, like a suicide attempt or a suicide gesture. Another frequent method is to set one's house on fire. Even if the fire is quickly extinguished, the underlying motivation will have been satisfied. You are no longer in the house, you're now in jail.

There are others, however, who are not just depressed or distressed. They are deeply disturbed, and tormented by anger, hostility, rage and resentment. For these individuals, it is not enough to bring an end to their existence or the reality they face. Instead, they seek satisfaction by lashing out, destroying others, wreaking havoc and fulfilling their desire for revenge.

At times, most of us have thought something like "I wish I had told him off" or "I wish I could punch that guy." The thought is motivated by a desire to relieve frustration or achieve satisfaction. An explosive act of violence is, in a similar sense, a desire for fulfillment and satisfaction. But it is also an act that is hateful and selfish, and the ultimate expression of narcissistic self-indulgence. It is the ultimate act of significance in an otherwise insignificant life. In a sick and a perverse way, the unbearable pain of existence is relieved.

There are some who are troubled and in pain for whom we have sympathy. There are others for whom no sympathy is due and no empathy is available. Anger is an emotion that can relieve frustration. We understand anger when provocation is involved. A momentary lapse is typically excused.

At other times, we see that an individual has harbored their anger and nurtured their rage, using it as an excuse to offend and frighten others and to satisfy themselves through repeated acts of aggression. Rather than being troubled by violent fantasies, they indulge themselves with such reverie. In the end, we wonder if perhaps they have also nurtured their emotional pain, using it as something that will make them feel alive. Sometimes, this is why people cut themselves: to experience the rush of intense feelings.

Putting an end to the torment of a troubled and disturbed existence was quite probably a factor in the killer's motivation. But it was not likely the only motivation.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

The Sense of Coherence

Optimal human performance - at home, in school, in the community or at work - requires that a person experience themselves as having a sense of coherence. This experience also determines how you will respond and whether you can cope with stress.

Beyond the specific stress factors that one might encounter in life, and beyond your perception and response to those events, what determines whether stress will cause you harm is whether or not the stress violates your sense of coherence.

The sense of coherence is comprised of three factors:

• a sense of comprehensibility:

Do you feel that you can understand things, that things make sense and are not confusing?

Do you feel that things are predictable or can be expected? In other words, do you feel like you know what’s going to happen next, or that you know what’s coming?

• a sense of manageability:

Do you feel that things are manageable or within your control, that things can be handled or taken care of?

Do you feel you have the skills or ability, the support, the help, or the resources necessary to take care of things?

• a sense of meaningfulness:

Do you feel that things are interesting or fascinating, a source of pleasure or satisfaction?

Do you feel that things are really worth it, that there is good reason or purpose to care about what happens?

The third factor is the most important. If you don’t understand what’s going on, but you know you can handle it, that’s not such a problem. If you understand things but can’t deal with them, at least you know where you stand and you’ll probably be able to get through it. If you don’t understand stuff and you don’t know what to do, you can still hold out hope that things will get better, as long as it is really worth it to hold on.

But when there is no pleasure or satisfaction to be found, when it doesn’t really seem worth it, and there is no good reason to care about what happens, that is when people are genuinely in trouble. That is when stress will do you in or do you harm.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

2/07/2007

Why did the astronaut crash to earth?

It is truly an astounding story. Astronaut Lisa Nowak stands accused of having traveled from Houston to Orlando to confront her rival, or perhaps to do more serious harm. Selected for having The Right Stuff, how could someone who had flown so high fall so far?

It is well known that astronauts are a select few. They are screened, evaluated and tested in every way, before they even begin to be trained and tested again. I happen to be connected to this process by less than six degrees. My clinical mentor was mentored by a UC Berkeley psychologist who was involved in selecting the original Mercury Seven.

Whether those screening processes are of value or not, it still seems inconceivable that someone with a record of such accomplishment could betray such human fallibility. It is of course made worse by the fact that the fall seems to have involved so much thought, planning and determination. This was no accident.

It will take time before we know the whole story. But this much is certain already: there will be no end to the speculation about how this could have happened. On one news show, an expert commentator said that perhaps it was the result of a "core psychosis" or an emergent "bipolar" disorder. Another commentator offered the opinion that she must have had a massive, underlying sense of insecurity. I also read that this behavior might have been the result of a "narcissistic" personality disorder, a condition that includes a heightened sensitivity to rejection or abandonment. Without specifically seeking to explain Ms. Nowak's behavior, a well-known psychiatrist from Los Angeles said that similar behavior is often the result of a delusional disorder (a form of psychosis) or the result of schizophrenia.

As a clinician, I find most of this speculation to be silly. Each explanation requires us to believe that despite her history of performance and achievement, there must have been something fundamentally wrong with her. The assumption is that her adaptive strengths and capabilities were more apparent than real, or that they were just an illusion. They assume that she was disturbed in some way that no one ever noticed.

What I would suggest instead is that the words of famed psychoanalyst Harry Stack Sullivan apply: in the end, she was "more uniquely human than otherwise." My guess is that in the end, we will learn that she was an ordinary and healthy individual.

However naturally skilled or talented one might be (and no matter how well-adjusted), to face the type of challenges necessary to be chosen for a mission as demanding as space flight, one would have to have a finely tuned sense of self-esteem. In a 2004 Psychological Bulletin article titled "The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem," University of Michigan professors Jennifer Crocker and Lora E. Park wrote:

"Success at this pursuit leads to positive emotions, reduced anxiety, and a sense of safety and control over events and can be highly motivating. On the other hand, failure at the pursuit of self-esteem can lead to feelings of worthlessness, shame, sadness, and anger, leaving people feeling vulnerable to mortality or social rejection or feeling unable to cope with life events."

But how could this lead to such seemingly irrational behavior? In October 2006, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published an article by Northeastern University professors David DeSteno et al: "Jealousy and the Threatened Self: Getting to the Heart of the Green-Eyed Monster." In a series of actual experiments, they:

" demonstrated that threatened self-esteem functions as the principal mediator of jealousy ... and provided direct evidence for jealousy as a cause of aggression."

This recent work fits well with established theory and common observation. Unique about their work is that they actually created a situation involving rivalry and threatened self-esteem, and they provided an opportunity for aggression to be displayed. Their finding was that

"jealousy represents a specific emotional response to a specific form of social rejection: the actual or looming rejection by a partner in favor of a rival ... (and it) mediates actual aggression aimed at partners and rivals."

In the end, I expect that rather than learning that she was disturbed or disordered, we will learn that she was quite simply human, and that the loss of love - or the failure at love - was a blow to her self-esteem that left her vulnerable and unable to cope with life events.

I expect that we will also be hearing more about stressful events in Ms. Nowak's life. Buzz Aldrin is known to have had difficulties adjusting to ordinary living after having walked on the moon. Ms. Nowak trained with those who died in the 2003 space shuttle Columbia explosion. There will be discussion about the time she had to spend isolated from her family and about how one adjusts after returning from a pinnacle.

It could very well be the case that NASA did not miss anything at all in its decision to send Ms. Nowak into space. Although generally not newsworthy, incidents involving similar dynamics happen all the time, and are in fact an everyday occurrence. Until we hear otherwise, there is no need to search the diagnostic manuals to find an explanation.

In my view, what this incident shows is that no one is immune to either the foibles or failings of human nature. What it shows is the power of human emotion and the capacity for passion to overwhelm reason.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

1/18/2007

Why do kidnap victims sometimes fail to escape, even when they have the chance to run?

With the news from Missouri about the rescue of kidnap victim Shawn Hornbeck, the Steven Staynor, Patty Hearst, and Elizabeth Smart cases immediately come to mind. Why didn’t they run or cry out for help? It seems beyond reason. They all had ample opportunity.

A former FBI profiler appearing on the Today show said that Hornbeck was probably threatened and that he was afraid for both himself and his family. Could it possibly be that simple?

In 1973, a Swedish gunman held four bank employees hostage for almost six days. When released, the hostages expressed sympathy for their captor and defended his actions. It was certainly not the first time that this strange phenomenon was observed, but it did give rise to the term “Stockholm Syndrome,” an adaptive response that has been described in FBI bulletins and in the psychological literature. The victims bonded with their captor, identifying with him and attaching themselves emotionally.

The process involves a psychological defense mechanism that was first identified by Anna Freud, Sigmund’s daughter and a scholar in her own right. In a 1936 publication, Freud coined the term “identification with the aggressor.” Ordinarily, it is a normal and healthy process for people to identify with others, such as parents, and to establish loyalty and to take on their traits and their values. But at times, it becomes a perverted form of learning that is necessary for self protection. The need to defend oneself can involve a response to both psychic and physical threats.

This psychological response has been described in various ways, but it is perhaps easiest to understand in terms of our need for cognitive consistency and our drive to avoid anxiety and distress. A kidnap victim will obviously be terrified. But their life depends on the good will of their captor and their ability meet that person’s demands. A conflict will exist between the need to please and the loathing that is experienced. Psychologically, it is enormously difficult to entertain both thoughts or both motivations.

In the same way that a river will naturally change course when there is a break in a levee, the mind will resolve the conflict in the only way possible: changing one’s feelings about the aggressor. Adopting a positive attitude towards the one on whom your life now depends will serve to relieve the fear and distress, as well as insuring survival. The perpetrator becomes an ally, rather than an enemy. The relief from fear serves as a powerful reinforcement for the change in attitude, making that cognitive adjustment a real personal transformation, rather than just a contrived presentation.

This basic mechanism serves partly as an explanation for the fact that abused children often identify with their tormentors and grow up to be violent spouses and parents. It is also a component in the tendency of battered spouses to remain in abusive relationships, sometimes even defending the “partner” who tortures them.

After Patty Hearst was rescued, some commentators dismissed the possibility that she had been “brainwashed,” arguing that the clumsy band of criminals who seized her could not have possessed any of the sophistication necessary to accomplish such a feat. Correctly understood, the process requires no talent, training or intellect at all. All that is really required is a twisted mind, violent behavior and a threatening disposition, and the ability to isolate the victim from reality.

In these cases, the destruction of the victim’s will is facilitated by the nature of the threats. In addition to being told that they or their families will be killed, what they hear is that the authorities seeking their release are a threat because a rescue will involve violence. They also hear that they have been abandoned by those they love. Both threats become plausible to the victim. The victim will notice that in fact they have not been rescued by their loved ones, and they know that if the police come, they will come with guns drawn.

Over time, when the initial fears have subsided, the surreal essence of their captivity will come to seem normal. The cage will become familiar. It will feel safe and even ordinary, a space that needs to be protected. The point is that over time, one cannot survive emotionally without adjusting and adapting to the reality of captivity, or without accepting the reality imposed by the psychopath in control.

Is this a conscious process of accommodation? Quite certainly not. Could you or any other ordinary person fall victim in the same way? That is hard to know. It would depend on the circumstances, but the answer is most probably yes. What is certain is that it is hard to for us to comprehend how this can happen, because we all believe it could not happen to us, that we would not react in a similar manner.

The latter issue - our difficulty in understanding or accepting how this might happen - is a topic that is itself of psychological interest. It is related to the frequent observation that in the face of tragedy or disaster, observers often tend to “blame the victim” or to focus on how the victim might have contributed to their own suffering. Again, the motivation involves the drive for cognitive consistency. Albert Camus made this point in his novel The Plague. What his characters reveal is that people have a hard time accepting the fact that bad things can happen to good people, and therefore, people will often alter their perceptions of a victim, assuming that they must somehow be at fault. This cognitive distortion provides a sense of relief or relief from fear: “I’m a good person, so it couldn’t happen to me ... I am safe from such harm because I would never have put myself in that position ... if faced with similar circumstances, I would have acted differently.”

In fact, we don’t really know if we might have behaved differently, but we find relief in the belief. That is what makes it so difficult to understand why Patty Hearst, Steven Staynor, Elizabeth Smart and now Shawn Hornbeck didn’t run. It is similarly difficult to understand why some people remain in abusive relationships. From a psychological perspective, it is actually quite easy to understand how they were controlled, even when they were not under direct control. They were each in a cage with bars that were stronger than steel.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

11/30/2006

Does Therapy Work?

Yes. Countless studies have shown that psychotherapeutic treatment works. The effects have been measured in terms of improved social functioning, relief from anxiety, reductions in depression, and in just about every other way that improvement and effectiveness can be defined.

According to the U.S. Surgeon General: "Mental disorders are treatable ... the evidence for treatment being effective is overwhelming ... the inescapable point is that studies demonstrate conclusively that treatment is effective."

Consumer Reports magazine concluded similarly. In their extensive study, which relied largely on self-reports from patients, 9 out of 10 Americans reported positive benefits. Consumer Reports gave psychological health care a solid endorsement, and noted that treatment by more highly qualified therapists - such as psychologists - was more likely to produce benefits.

But perhaps the best way to measure the outcome is to look at the cost. Dating back some thirty years to a study of 10,000 Kaiser patients, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that psychotherapy is cost effective. Patients who receive treatment reduce their health care utilization to a degree sufficient to entirely "offset" the cost of therapy. Treated patients tend to be healthier and they use less medical care of all types. They spend less days in the hospital when they need care and they visit their physicians less frequently. The reason is that a substantial number of physician visits are essentially motivated by emotional or stress-related problems.

In a series of studies on health insurance, the Rand Corporation found that in any given year, about 10% of the population will suffer from a diagnosable psychological difficulty. One fifth of those people will seek psychotherapeutic care. One fifth will not receive any treatment. And the remaining 60% will visit a physician. But rather than complaining about stress, anxiety or depression, they will complain about pain, sleep problems, stomach distress, problems eating, fatigue, headaches, and so on. They will complain about problems that are known to be directly related to stress.

Business and industry is well-aware of this phenomenon, and that is why Employee Assistance Plans have become standard features in employee benefit packages. Employers know that stress contributes significantly to accidents at work, reduced productivity, over-use of sick time, absenteeism, and increased medical costs. Employers know that therapeutic services are good for the bottom line. OSHA - the occupational safety and health care administration - has identified stress as one of the top ten workplace safety threats, and one of the most costly if left untreated.

Psychologists have demonstrated that providing access to mental health treatment is one of the very best ways that America can reduce health care costs. This has been known for thirty years in the research literature. Unfortunately, it too often remains unknown to the managed care industry.

Yes. Therapy works.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

11/26/2006

Why do kids commit murder?

This article appeared in the print edition of the Sacramento Bee on 11-26-2006 as part of a series of articles on this topic.

For all of the theory and speculation about why kids commit murder, the answers do not differ greatly from what we have learned about adults who kill. With few exceptions, adolescents are just as capable of knowing that what they did was wrong.

As with adults, some adolescents kill because they are chronically aggressive, cold and unfeeling. Some will kill because they "explode" in response to a history of "over-controlled hostility." Some will lash out after wallowing in feelings of victimization and after nurturing longstanding resentments. Others kill because they have been traumatized and are unable to tolerate their existence. Some who are immature and narcissistic become “obsessed.” Deprived of love or gratification, they feel justified while escalating to violence. Less common, but often more dramatic are the killings committed by the psychotic, those with disturbed and disordered thoughts and only a tenuous grasp on reality.

During the course of my career as a forensic psychologist, including the time that I worked at the California Youth Authority, I have conducted several hundred evaluations of adolescents who have committed homicide or attempted homicide. Today, the district attorney can take most juveniles charged with homicide directly to adult court. Before the law changed about five years ago, adolescents routinely underwent extensive psychological examination before a judge would decide whether to try them as an adult or as a juvenile. An additional evaluation was required before an adolescent convicted as an adult could be sentenced to an adult prison.

A psychological interview provides unique insights into the mental, emotional and motivational dynamics of the offender. Typically, it is the only time that the full story is told in rich detail, from the offender’s perspective, and with their feelings, beliefs and perceptions exposed. At no other point in the criminal justice system will the offender ever describe what they were thinking and how they viewed reality when they pulled the trigger or struck the fatal blow. Their story is rarely shared with the prosecution or the court, and may not be revealed to their own attorney. Often times, in a psychological interview, what the offender says is not sufficient to explain the motivation for their actions. In other cases, offenders will say enough for us to know whether the case should be described as an example of tragedy or an example of evil.

Although similar in these ways to adult offenders, there remain unique features of adolescent violence.

We know that the young tend to engage in more high-risk behaviors of all types. The research suggests that a familiar stereotype about kids is probably not true. Studies show that teenagers do not actually tend to view themselves as invulnerable or invincible, any more so than adults. Instead, kids are more likely to behave as if they are invincible because of immaturity, impulsivity and bad judgment. Lacking experience and being less mindful of obligations, responsibilities and consequences, they can display an indifference to risk and a sense of fearlessness that facilitates dangerous behavior.

Values, attitudes and beliefs also contribute to violence. Many juveniles have learned or come to believe that aggression is a legitimate method for resolving various interpersonal problems and conflicts encountered in life. When provoked, they fight back or attack, never thinking that a simple act of battery might have a deadly outcome.

Over the years, I have watched as the concept of “respect” has evolved in the youth culture. It is heard in the words of kids who say, “I respect them if they respect me” and those who explain their outbursts by saying, “He didn’t give me my respect.” I have come to view this as a particularly virulent and dangerous attitude, the idea that “respect” is a possession, an entitlement or a conditional offering. Sometimes teenagers kill while defending a sense of honor that they never earned or deserved.

The defense of honor frequently interacts with group dynamics. For a variety of reasons, adolescents tend to roam in groups, often displaying the attitudes and trappings of gang culture, even if they are not actually organized, sophisticated and with criminal purpose. In a group, even loosely formed, individuals may engage in extreme behaviors that they might never have undertaken on their own. The phenomenon results from a “diffusion of responsibility.” In a crowd, individuals often abandon restraint and give vent to impulses because no one feels individually responsible. Violence in defense of the honor of the group is a common theme.

There is a final element that can turn a simple confrontation into a deadly encounter. That is the possession of a weapon. I have heard it said time and again: The knife or gun was just for protection. It is rare that I have heard a juvenile admit that the gun made them feel powerful, but it is often clear that the weapon was carried for its emotional value, rather than for its use as a tool. And then, in response to some situation, the impulse and bad judgment come into play and the weapon is used.

Patterns notwithstanding, what I have found is that every case is different. A psychologist’s purpose is to explain, not to judge. In responding to the threat of violence, the worst thing that we can do as a society is to fail to understand exactly what happened in any particular case. Sometimes we ignore facts out of fear that an explanation will be offered as an excuse. If we rely upon our preconceived notions about the causes of violence, rather than listening to what a particular individual was thinking and feeling at that particular moment, we will fail to learn what is most important: How do we as a society protect ourselves from violence?

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

11/16/2006

Can loneliness affect your health?

The answer is quite certainly yes. And the research causes us think about what it really means to be lonely.

In a 2005 article in the journal Health Psychology (Vol. 24, No.3), Carnegie Mellon Univserity professor Sarah D. Pressman (and colleagues) described the effects of both "loneliness" and "social network size" on immune responses to influenza vaccinations, focusing on the reactions of a group of college freshmen. The "competence" of your body's immune system can be measured in terms of how well it reacts to a vaccination. The quality of that reaction can then be compared to other social and psychological factors.

What Pressman et al found is that social, emotional and psychological factors do in fact make a difference in how well an individual's body reacts to viral threats. While that is of interest by itself, it is not an entirely new finding. What is more generally of interest in this article is the general discussion of loneliness, social isolation and health.

Reviewing the literature, Pressman's research team noted that loneliness and social isolation have both been found to be associated with a variety of negative health effects. They went on to note that loneliness and social isolation are not at all the same thing. Loneliness is a feeling or a perception. Sometimes, people will "feel" lonely, even though they have a lot of friends and enjoy a lot of social interaction. Sometimes people who tend to isolate themselves will not feel lonely at all.

In this type of research, the real question is "how does this happen?" How could feeling lonely or being isolated actually affect your body's immune response or other health related measures?

What Pressman's team found is that feeling lonely is more significant than actually being isolated. The feeling of loneliness is a more consistent predictor of disturbed sleep, depression and psychological distress. The general measure of psychological "stress" or distress was the factor most highly related to compromised immune function. Loneliness and isolation were both related to negative health effects, but it seems that feeling lonely is worse than being isolated. For those who felt lonely, it could be seen that stress factors affected their health and that the effects were more serious. The negative health effects associated with actually being alone were not as significant, but it was not actually clear as to why isolation makes a difference. It wasn't because those who were alone were distressed or upset.

In other words, those who felt lonely were more distressed, and their stress or distress could be linked to the negative health effects. That's how it happens. The negative health effects of being alone were not caused by or related to stress. Maybe those in isolation don't take care of themselves as well, or maybe they have more bad health habits. That is not clear from this study.

What we learn from this study is that emotional, psychological and social factors can indeed affect one's health. This is well known. We also learn that how this happens is not a simple equation. The study confirms that "stress," generally defined, is an important factor in wellness and well-being. The study also supports the idea that how you feel about things, and how you perceive and interpret events is probably more important than the events and experiences themselves.

You don't have any friends? Well, that's not good, but it's not as bad as feeling like you don't have any friends, and it's not as bad a being upset because you feel like you have no friends.

The underlying message here is that emotional and psychological well-being are critical and essential health factors. Everyday, you need to make certain that you get enough fiber in your diet. In the same way, it is critically important that you obtain enough joy and that you derive enough pleasure, meaning and satisfaction from life.

Loneliness causes stress. Stress will kill you. Social isolation is not good. Isolation is not as harmful as feeling lonely, but it is still not a place you want to go.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

11/09/2006

Does the handshake matter?

It's not just just common sense. The research shows that the handshake matters. It does in fact contribute to "first impressions." It is not an entirely bogus way for people to judge you: your handshake actually reflects certain personality characteristics. And the research shows that when it comes to self-promotion, handshake etiquette may be more important for women than for men.

Everyone knows, from personal experience, that we make judgments about people based on how they shake hands. It's one thing to say "Hi" or "good morning" to someone you pass on the street. It is something entirely different to engage someone at the level of touching hands and making physical contact. Sometimes it might mean nothing at all, like at a gathering where you are introduced to one person after the next. If you are a politician, you might shake hundreds of hands in the course of just a few minutes, simply because people want to connect to you. But there are other times when this ritual of personal engagement is a prelude to more important business that will follow. It could be at the start of a contest or negotiation, or in advance of an important interview, or upon meeting the parents or the family. Handshakes are an important introductory ritual in all manner of social contacts, and the research shows that the quality of the handshake makes a real difference.

There have been a number of studies that explore the dynamics of handshaking, but the one that stands out is an article by University of Alabama psychologists William F. Chaplin et al published in 2000 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. What is unique about their study is that rather than gathering subjective data, they made an effort to provide objective measurements of the variables of interest. Their method itself is of interest.

The subjects in the study were introduced to four different "handshake judges" in a way that made it seem natural that they would be greeted with a handshake. Following the introduction, the subjects completed a set of personality tests, providing an independent measure of whether or not their handshakes reflected any actual personality differences.

Before being sent out to evaluate handshakes, the judges trained and practiced for a month, until they could reliably distinguish eight different handshake characteristics: completeness of grip, temperature, dryness, strength, duration, vigor, texture, and eye contact. In normal situations, it may not be the case that anyone actually judges you on all of these factors, but it is worth noting that these variables might all be in play when you do shake someone's hand. In addition to evaluating the characteristics of each handshake, the judges were asked their impressions about the personality characteristics dispslayed by each participant.

Although the judges rated the subjects on a full set of personality traits, it turned out that the handshake did not actually allow them to draw clear distinctions on particular traits. The judges did form consistent opinions of those whose hands they shook, but the judgments were global, rather than specific. They could reliably agree only on whether the handshake conveyed a "good impression" or a "poor impression."

It also turned out that the individual handshake characterstics (i.e., vigor, duration, eye-contact, etc.) were all highly correlated. In other words, people are not usually judged on these factors individually, and instead, the differences tend to collapse into one global factor which is best described as a "firm handshake."

After a month of training in how to judge a handshake, the judges were able to reliably identify those who had a firm handshake and to reliably distinguish those whose handshake provided for either a "good" or a "poor" impression.

As to how "firm handshake" corresponded to the measured personality factors, what they found is that it does correlate with factors such as "openness to new experience" and extraversion. Those who did not have a "firm handshake" were found to score higher on measures of "neuroticism" (which means that they tend to be more prone to anxiety) and to display more "shyness." In other words, from your handshake, people can learn whether or not you are shy and anxious, and whether you are "open" and outgoing.

The key points here may seem obvious, but it is worth repeating: people do in fact form impressions based on the quality of your handshake, and those impressions do reflect certain elements of your personality.

As to how this relates to "first impressions," the authors' next finding is particularly interesting. Women with a firm handshake were viewed as more "open," and made a more favorable impression. It is sometimes thought that when women present themselves as outgoing and confident, others will judge them negatively, believing that they are "pushy" or aggressive. What this research shows is that at least when it comes to the handshake, women benefit from appearing strong and are not penalized for appearing confident. For men, the effect was not as strong. In other words, a woman benefits more from having a firm handshake than does a man. For both genders, a weak handshake tends to generate less favorable impressions.

What this means is that everyone, both men and women, should pay attention to how they go about shaking hands. People are judging you and assessing your personality and character based on this moment of touch. For women, having a firm handshake is probably more important than for men.

The other point to be drawn from this study is that while your handshake is to some extent a genuine reflection of your actual personality, it can still be a practiced and developed skill. Think of the judges who spent a month learning how to receive a handshake and then realize that you can perfect and improve your own method before that important meeting.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

11/03/2006

Compulsive shopping: If the psychiatrists put it in the diagnostic manual, does that make it an illness?

A recent article in the American Journal of Psychiatry (October 2006) describes "compulsive buying" as a relatively common affliction. An editorial in the same journal argues that the condition should be recognized as a "mental disorder" and included in the next edition of the official diagnostic manual. Is this another example of psychiatry's quest to describe every human failing and foible as an illness?

The study, conducted by Stanford University medical professor Lorrin M. Koran (et al), was an effort to estimate the prevalence of this problem. They conducted a telephone survey, asking people about a series of behaviors that are associated with compulsive buying.

What they found is interesting: 5 or 6 percent of the people in the population fit the profile of compulsive buyers. They spend beyond their means for things they don't need, can't afford or really won't use, and they abuse credit and create financial difficulties for themselves. And it is a behavior these people find to be troubling. The prevalence is 1 out of 20 people, and that can be considered a very large number.

The other important thing they found is that it is not just women. Previous estimates have focused on the fact that women are more likely to admit that shopping is a problem. In other words, women are more likely to seek help. The previous estimate was that 80 or 90 percent of compulsive shoppers were women, and that estimate turned out to be completely wrong. What Dr. Koran and his colleagues found is that the numbers are equal. Whether or not the stereotype is true, it can be said that in the electronics department or at the hardware store, men are behaving exactly the same way as women in the shoe department or at the department store. (And there we have another stereotype.)

So is it an illness just because it has a high prevalence and is equally distributed, irrespective of gender?

Actually, there is another factor involved. It is a behavior that causes distress and is associated with both anxiety and depression. It can either result from or result in emotional disturbance.

But still, does that make it an illness or a "diagnosable mental disorder?"

For now, I am not going to try to explain the dynamics of compulsions or the complex nature of addictions. What I want to focus on is what it means when a condition is described as a disorder in psychiatry's official diagnostic manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: the "DSM" or "bible" of disorders.

To be included in the DSM, a pattern or a syndrome, a condition or an ailment, a disorder or a disease does not have to actually be something that we would all generally recognize as a "mental illness."

To be included in the DSM, what is required is that a typical pattern of feeling, thinking and behaving is common enough for us to recognize it when we see it. Conditions can be recognized as something to which attention should be paid or towards which treatment should be directed. Conditions are listed in the DSM so that clinicians can say: "this is what I saw, what I saw is an example of ..." What the DSM provides is a systematic way for clinicians to describe their observations.

In my yard, there are trees that look like bushes and bushes that look like trees. For individuals who are suffering, the DSM tells us how to distinguish between the two.

If "compulsive buying" should in fact become a formal diagnostic label, it doesn't mean that anyone has concluded that it is the result of an illness or a disease process. It doesn't mean that anyone will be less responsible before the law. It does not mean that this is an excuse, even though it might perhaps help to provide an explanation.

The fact that psychiatrists have said that this is a pattern of behavior that we should pay attention to does not mean anything more than that this is a pattern of behavior towards which we should direct attention.

If the pattern proves to be stable and consistent enough to make it into the diagnostic manual, it doesn't mean it's an "illness."

All it means is that it is common, that it's a problem, that we can recognize it, that there are typical features, that we should study it, that it disrupts people's lives, that we should help them, and that there is common agreement about what we are looking at.

With that having been said, I'm off to the mall to buy that 42 inch HDTV monitor I've had my eye on ... I know I can't afford it, but I can put it on my visa card.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

10/31/2006

Who's that elephant in the mirror?

It's all over the news: an elephant at the Bronx Zoo looked in a mirror and recognized herself. I think everyone would agree that this was quite a feat. Think how many times you've gotten up in the morning and seen a stranger in the mirror. It's news because it's an important demonstration of animal intelligence.

Read any of the news stories and what you will learn is that this is an evolved and advanced intellectual capacity. Humans can do it, and so can dolphins and the great apes, but most other animals (including monkeys) cannot, or at least no one has been able to demonstrate that they can. Some animals will recognize an image in the mirror as being similar to them, and some will react as they might in a social situation. But it is rare to find an animal that can relate to the mirror image as a representation of themselves.

Obviously, the scientists from Emory University, the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, and the Wildlife Conservation Society did not simply ask the elephant: so how do you think you look today? Instead, they put a mark on the elephant's face that could be seen by the elephant only in the mirror. They knew that the elephant recognized it as her own image when she repeatedly touched the mark on her own face. This has been tried with elephants before, but never before with a huge, almost lifesize mirror.

There is much that can be said about this capacity: it is a cognitive prerequisite for some types of empathy and altruistic behavior. And it contributes to some types of complex social interactions that have been observed before in elephants.

What it brings to mind for me, however, are a series of cognitive abilities that distinguish us as humans and that we often take for granted.

For example: we have the ability to recall the past and to bring it back to mind. There are some ways in which animals can demonstrate a sense of loss, but there are none that grieve over death in the way that humans do.

We can think about the future: establishing goals, anticipating rewards and maintaining a sense of hope. We can also experience disappointment when our hopes and our dreams do not become reality.

We can develop a sense of purpose or a sense of meaning, the belief that things really matter or that there is some reason for our existence. We have a sense of history and we are able to reflect upon the fact that we exist.

We can also entertain in our minds the choices that are available to us, the options, possibilities and opportunities that make up daily life.

There are some who say that animal behavior is not that much different from the human experience, that animals display emotions and that they have feelings. The excitement surrounding the elephant in the mirror should remind us of how truly remarkable it is that we have such advanced intellectual abilities. We are the only animal that can worry about the past and take joy in our hopes for the future. That is what makes us human.

Perhaps, rather than being amazed that an elephant saw herself in the mirror, what we should be amazed about is the fact that a group of scientists were able to devise a method for determining that an elephant could recognize herself in a mirror. What is amazing is that humans recognize how amazing this is.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

10/30/2006

Internet safety: do kids really know what's going on?

You would think that the current generation of young kids would have a fairly good understanding of how the internet works and how it functions as a social environment. After all, kids today have been logged-on for most of their lives, and it seems that they are on the web almost all the time. It turns out, however, that their understanding is not what we would expect and that their experience alone is not sufficient to insure that they will be able to remain safe on the web.

Writing in the journal Developmental Psychology (September 2006), Professor Zheng Yan of the State University of New York described a series of studies concerned not so much with how much children understand, but with how they come to learn about the the complexities of the internet. Dr. Yan focused on factors that influence children's learning about the internet.

An important distinction highlighted in the article is the difference between understanding the technical complexities of the internet and understanding the social complexities. To be safe on the net, kids probably need to understand both perspectives.

On the technical side, there are questions about whether kids know that their home computer could be hooked up to computers anywhere in the world, or that the identities of those who communicate with them might be disguised. Do they know how much information they send out everytime a web page is delivered to their screen? Do they know that hackers might be able to track their activities or that "cookies" are not just something you eat with milk?

On the social side, there are questions about whether kids know that they might not be communicating with the type of people with whom they would ordinarily feel safe, or that there are people out there who might be trying to take advantage of them. Do they know that the email that seems to come from the maker of their favorite breakfast cereal might actually have come from a predator or a thief from far away? Do they know that when they answer a survey, they might be giving up information about themselves that can later be used to target them? Do kids really understand the implications of the fact that "on the internet, no one really knows that you're a dog?"

What Dr. Yan found is that the length of time a child has been using the internet does not really serve to increase their knowledge about either the technical or the social aspects of the web. The frequency of internet use does not provide for much improvement in their technical understanding, but it does help some with respect to their understanding of the social threats and complexities. Instruction about the web, even if provided informally, also helps children understand the social dynamics of internet use. With younger children, however, instruction does not help as much as we might expect.

By and large, the most important factor in how well kids understand the complexities and dangers of the internet is simply their age. In other words, as children mature, they become more aware, just as in every other aspect of their lives. By the time they reach early adolescence (7th or 8th grade), they should generally be capable of understanding internet dangers as well as a typical adult might, which is not to say that they actually do understand. The prevalence of internet scams is ample proof that many adults remain just as vulnerable as many teenagers.

Dr. Yan did not intend his work to provide a prescription, but instead, to provide a way of looking at the factors involved. What can be suggested from his work is that telling younger kids to be careful is probably not going to provide the measure of safety that parents would like to see. Before adolescence, kids should be monitored and observed, and parents should be involved. In the teenage years, it should not be expected that children will be safe, just because they have been at it for a long time.

And at any age, the findings suggest that the more kids know about how the internet works at a technical level, the more capable they will be at recognizing the social threats - the ways in which they might be used or manipulated. Social maturity proves to be the most important factor in keeping kids safe on the net. And as we all know, during the teenage years, kids do not really have the social sophistication and social maturity to fend for themselves in the absence of parental judgment and involvement.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

10/24/2006

Red State, Blue State: is it a state of mind or just the colors on a map?

Looking out on today's political landscape (i.e., in 2006), it's hard to imagine a time when social scientists would have said that "ideology" had nothing to do with personality styles, or that the differences between the left and the right are not that great. There was such a time, however, at the end of World War II, when the study of political and ideological differences was said to have become irrelevant for psychologists. Today, we are well past the point of being able to say that left or right, blue or red, everyone is really just the same.

This topic is the subject of a recent article by Professor John T. Jost of New York University, published in the American Psychologist (October 2006) under the title: The End of "the End of Ideology." His argument is that shared attitudes really do matter, that shared beliefs are not just situational or issue-specific, that beliefs form enduring patterns, and that beliefs do in fact motivate people to act. Liberals and conservatives are in fact different, not just in terms of their opinions. To some extent, they are also different at the level of personality style.

Professor Jost looked at four issues that relate to whether or not political ideology is in fact an important focus of psychological study: (1) do people maintain a set of core beliefs? (2) are people motivated to act in response to their core beliefs? (3) are liberals and conservatives really different? and (4), is there any psychological underpinning to the differences in belief systems that are shared by liberals and conservatives?

It turns out that when asked, most individuals will identify themselves as having a core ideological orientation, generally either liberal or conservative. These orientations appear to be generally stable over time and to be reflected in a variety of opinions about specific issues.

As to whether or not these attitudes have an influence on behavior, it has been found that whether someone says they are liberal or conservative is one of the very best predictors of how someone is going to vote.

As to whether or not there really is any difference in the values of the left and the right, the most stable indication has to do with attitudes toward equality and tradition. Conservatives are more tolerant of inequality, viewing it as the result of hard work or character. Liberals are less beholden to authority and tradition, and are more willing to challenge the status quo and to demand change. Conservatives are more receptive to social control. Liberals are more likely to endorse policies that provide for social and economic equality.

At the level of personality, one of the more persistent observations in psychological research has been that conservatives tend to be more dogmatic and authoritarian, and rigid in their attitudes. This observation has been rejected by some who argue that in the end, liberals are equally up-tight and fixed in their ways. A more current and useful distinction (advanced by UC Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff) is that the two sides are distinguished by whether or not they adopt either a "strict father" or "nurturing parent" view of moral discipline. Other findings suggest that liberals will score higher on scales measuring openness to new experience and the tolerance of ambiguity, and that conservatives are more likely to be conscientious and orderly. One interesting finding, developed through systematic observations, is that "the bedrooms of conservatives were more likely to contain organizational supplies such as calendars, postage stamps, and laundry baskets, whereas the bedrooms of liberals were more likely to contain art supplies, books, CDs and travel documents." Observations show that on average, the work spaces occupied by conservatives tend to be better organized and tidier!

One of the more intriguing findings regarding liberal-vs-conservative personality styles is that conservatives display a greater fear of death and other threats to personal safety and social stability. This finding correlates with the fact that conservative politicians have been able to benefit by raising fears about terrorism. It also explains the well-documented fact that following 9/11, there was indeed a shift in the population towards conservatism. The downside to this is that those who identified or shifted towards conservatism, also tended to suffer depression and post-traumatic stress at levels significantly greater than those who identify as liberals. In times of threat, the fear of threat is a vulnerability.

Is there any harm in people adopting an ideological perspective from which to view events and issues? The research suggests that it is probably a very natural human tendency. What is of concern is that it can leave us divided, rather than united, and that rather than contributing to political and social sophistication, ideological adherence tends to breed distortion, oversimplification and selective processing of information. Be that as it may, it is certainly not the case that ideology is dead, or that as Ralph Nader famously claimed in 2000, there is no difference between the right and the left.

Read More ... in this window ... or in a new window

everyday psychology

Subscribe To

3/16/2009

3/11/2009

1/06/2009

12/05/2008

8/20/2008

8/15/2008

7/30/2008

7/18/2008

3/12/2008

3/11/2008

2/08/2008

2/06/2008

1/29/2008

1/28/2008

1/23/2008

4/18/2007

2/07/2007

1/18/2007

11/30/2006

11/26/2006

11/16/2006

11/09/2006

11/03/2006

10/31/2006

10/30/2006

10/24/2006

Paul G. Mattiuzzi, Ph.D. Psy8693

Articles by label

Links