AU Blogspot

               Thanks to Angel Schatz for permission to use this Photo.

Answer the following questions, and don’t look at the next until you answer the previous: 

Does depression in kids raise their risk of violence? 

If a kid is violent, is it more or less likely they are depressed? 

If someone is depressed and violent, is it likely they are a kid? 

Can you define any of the nouns in the preceding questions? 

In a study called Perceived Dangerousness of Children With Mental Health Problems and Support for Coerced Treatment the perceptions of 1100 members of the public were evaluated, finding: 

“Children… with major depression were perceived (by 81% of the sample) as somewhat likely or very likely to be dangerous to themselves or others, compared with children with asthma (15%) or those with “daily troubles” (13%).”
and, later: 

“…compared with the child with “daily troubles,” the vignette child with depression was more than twice as likely to be assessed as dangerous toward others and ten times as likely to be assessed as dangerous toward himself or herself.”

Now, you lose no money assuming the public at large merely guess at probabilities.  So what they think may be right, wrong, both– who knows.  But whatever they think, it’s probably important to quote them correctly:

“The issue that was highlighted by this study that was really concerning to us was that Americans have linked depression in youth and violence, particularly violence towards others,” said Dr. Pescosolido [”distinguished professor of sociology, Indiana University.”] [emphasis mine, but, face it, really theirs.]

Well, no, that’s not what the public thinks, at least according to your study.  They think that depression leads to violence against themselves, and maybe towards others.  Only 9% thought violence towards others was very likely.  The majority thought violence towards others was not likely.  Right? (more…)

 
               Thanks to Chris Gladis for permission to use this Photo.

Psychology studies that rely on deceiving participants have shown we often have little clue what’s going on in our own minds. But what about in everyday situations where trickery isn’t involved?

Here are four everyday situations - shopping, reading, watching TV and judging other people - and four experiments that show how little we know in each situation about what’s really going on in our minds (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).

Shopping

For this study researchers set themselves up in a mall pretending to carry out a consumer survey on nightgowns and nylon stockings. Passersby were asked to evaluate what they were told were four different nightgowns and four different pairs of stockings. In fact, all four items were identical.

Quite by accident they discovered a positional effect for the identical goods: people seemed to prefer the item that was on the far right. In fact this effect was really obvious for the stockings. The right-most pair, although identical to the left-most was preferred by a factor of four to one.

When asked why they had chosen a particular item, no one mentioned its position. Even when experimenters suggested to people that the position might have an effect, most participants looked at best very confused and at worst utterly dismissive.

Result: these people didn’t have a clue why they preferred one identical pair of stockings over another.

Reading

In this study participants read a passage from the novel ‘Rabbit, Run’ by John Updike. The extract from the book involves an emotionally charged scene in which an alcoholic mother, while washing her baby in the bath, accidentally drowns and kills her.

Click here to read the rest of this entry… 

           Thanks to James Tworow for permission to use this Photo.

When you change your attitude about something, do you know why? Psychologists have argued that the inner workings of our minds are largely hidden away from us. One aspect of this is the surprising finding that people are often unaware when they have changed their attitudes.

We may well, for example, be able to identify our current opinions on global warming. We might find it easy to say, “Yes, I think global warming is occurring and humans are to blame,” or, “No, it’s just a long-term trend that has nothing to do with humans”. But when our opinions change, by say watching Al Gore’s documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, psychologists have found we are unlikely to be aware what changed our minds.

It gets weirder. In certain circumstances we may even be convinced that our attitude has never changed. So that we are convinced our ‘new’ attitude is the one we always had.

Whether or not this sounds far-fetched to you, the effect is dramatically demonstrated in an experiment carried out by Goethals and Reckman (1973).

Attitude change

High school students were asked their opinions on a variety of social issues, including on how children should be bussed to school and whether it would help with racial integration. The actual topic itself doesn’t matter for our purposes, what the experimenters were doing here is getting a measures of participants’ attitudes to a specific issue before the experimental manipulation.

A couple of weeks later the students were invited back for a further discussion on the bussing issue. This time, though, they were split into two groups, one that was pro- and one anti- the bussing issue. These, then, are our two experimental groups, along with a third control group, more of which, later.

Click here to read the rest of this entry… 

           Thanks to Stephan Gellert for permission to use this Photo.

A recent and already infamous episode of Dr. Phil showed that, even with the ongoing writers’ strike, fiction and humor are far from extinct on the airwaves. This episode focused on Wade, who was brought to the Phil by Michelle, his wife. She had recently started to suspect that her husband was a compulsive liar and, as per usual, cheating on her. The standard schema of accusations, phil plashbacks, yelling, lie detector results, crying, and excuses resulted. No big surprises, until the last 5 minutes or so, where we learned that the next episode (today’s) would reveal how Wade admits not only to a long list of affairs and marital transgressions, but also multiple rapes and murders.

Apparently, after the show, when heading back to Iowa (to get their divorce) Wade told Michelle that he had vague memories of raping his ex-wife and a co-worker, as well as a time where he picked up a hitchhiker who refused to have sexual intercourse, leading him to a violent outrage, murdering and dumping the woman’s body on the side of the road. Adding to the intrigue, the audience learns of restraining orders, fruitless FBI investigations, death threats, stalkings, and suicide attempts from basically all the parties involved except Phil. While adding a certain dimension of excitement, and, perhaps most importantly, providing reason to extend the show for 2 more days, it’s also extremely unbelievable. After all, as Dr. Phil actually made clear on the first show, Wade is a compulsive liar, fibbing about little inconsequential things and distorting big, important matters. (more…)

             Thanks to global green for permission to use this Photo.

The ‘How to Be Happy’ article has become a staple of newspapers, magazines, books and, increasingly, of websites. We should ‘accept reality’, or ‘take a break’, or ‘be honest with ourselves’, or ’surround ourselves with happy people’.

These things are unlikely to do us any harm but that doesn’t stop them reading like a list of platitudes - the kind that people are always doling out but never follow themselves.

We can all create our own lists of happiness enhancing activities and argue endlessly about which is better and for whom. While that’s fun for a bit, I always want to ask: which activities have evidence to back up their claims for increasing happiness?

Psychologists have only started investigating this question relatively recently, so there’s not a very long list and it is obviously far from exhaustive, but at least there’s some research to back them up. The activities psychologists have investigated are gratitude, helping others, and firstly, visualizing your best possible self.

1. Visualizing your best possible self

Visualizing your best possible self may sound like an exercise in fantasy but, crucially, it does have to be realistic. Carrying out this exercise typically involves imagining your life in the future, but a future where everything that could go well, has gone well. You have reached those realistic goals that you have set for yourself.

Then, to help cement your visualization, you commit your best possible self to paper. This exercise helps draw on the proven benefits of expressive writing.

Click here to read the rest of this entry… 

               Thanks to Breidholt for permission to use this Photo.

In yesterday’s session of Behavior Disorders in Childhood, we were discussing Simon Baron-Cohen (not to be mistaken for his cousin Sasha) and his theory of Assortive Mating . Briefly, what Baron-Cohen is suggesting is that two systemizers who marry are more likely to produce a child with autism. Given the entrance of women to the workforce, the theory suggests that it is now easier for systemizers to find one another, particularly in tech fields, leading to an increase in children with autism.

Baron-Cohen is British, and his theories do not seem to trod on British sensibilities of gender differences as much as they cross American sensitivities. Baron-Cohen’s contention that women are “hard-wired” to be empathic and men to be systematic makes Harvard’s Larry Summers seem quite tame. Whether you buy into his theory or not, it is an interesting concept to explore. (more…)

 
          Thanks to Herman Snerd for permission to use this Photo.

We all know that humans are natural born conformers - we copy each other’s dress sense, ways of talking and attitudes, often without a second thought. But exactly how far does this conformity go? Do you think it is possible you would deny unambiguous information from your own senses just to conform with other people? (more…)

                 Thanks to litmuse for permission to use this Photo. 

In 1994, there were 20,000 visits for pediatric (under age 19) bipolar disorder. In 2003, the number was… 800,000. The diagnosis, therefore, was 25/100,000 in 1994, and now it’s 1000/100,000. In other words, 1% of the population.

To compare: for adults the rates were 905/100,000 in 1994, to 1679/100,000 in 2003. In other words, 0.9% up to 1.7%. (more…)

                    Thanks to radioboy for permission to use this Photo. 

Last Friday, Dr. Phil appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman, right after “stupid pet tricks.” Dr. Phil is actually a fairly frequent guest on the Late Show, which is particularly surprising since, especially in the past, he has been the subject of considerable ridicule. Recently, when it comes to McGraw, Dave seems to have shifted his comedic technique from open mockery to Socratic irony. Practitioners of Socratic irony take on a faux naïveté to reveal the foolishness and ignorance of the person they question. (more…)

When it comes to procrastination, social disapproval looms large as a cause. Not always but in many instances, fear of disapproval is a reason for not doing something. This might apply to not going for a higher degree in a family in which education has never been valued; or not confronting someone who holds opinions with which you disagree for fear of losing the relationship; or hiding out and writing in a diary instead of publishing your views to a wider audience because of fears of negative evaluation, etc.

Forestalling possible criticism by laying low or hiding out has its appeal: it resolves anxieties and keeps you out of trouble. But it doesn’t get you ahead, it doesn’t’ serve your more adult interests, and it makes for a rather boring life.

A vicious cycle gets set up: to protect themselves from confirmation of self doubts, shy persons avoid social evaluation; this contributes to the uncertainty that fed their doubts about self worth to begin with.  Self doubt prevents initiative taking which in turn prevents corrective feedback, hence more uncertainty is created.

A catalyst is needed to break out of this cycle. A catalyst could be a new understanding, a justification or a strong feeling, like anger.

        Thanks to vieilles_annonces for permission to use this Photo.

One perspective that could act as a catalyst is the notion of being duped by your emotional child. The term ‘dupe’ means to deceive, trick or mislead. I suppose it strains credulity to think that a part of one’s own self seeks to resort to such measures to protect the personality. But unconscious protective measures do operate and of course we are thankful when they work  to protect against real threats.

But I have found it useful to consider this possibility when dialoguing with oneself: should I or shouldn’t I? If a threat is imaginary then you have been duped into believing otherwise. Usually, of course, this isn’t discovered…because you have not taken the trouble to test the waters.

I have found that often I have been duped by that part of myself that worries about the social dangers of embarrassment, humiliation or failure. And now I tend to discount that inner voice that councels caution. It has taken a life time of trial and error, but hindsight now tells me: courageous steps would have been the better course of action. 

Dr. Mark Sanford
Creator of Reluctance.org
AU Contributing Blogger

*Dr. Mark Sanford is a well respected sociologist and certified business coach residing in the California Bay Area.  Through his acclaimed blog, Reluctance.org, Dr. Sanford communicates effective strategies for overcoming problems related to self defeating inhibitions.  We’d like to thank Dr. Sanford for the opportunity to share his inspiring perspectives with the AU student community and are excited to welcome him to our contributing bloggers’ network.  Visit Reluctance.org to learn more about the life and work of Dr. Mark Sanford.  Thanks Mark!