It is incredibly difficult for most people to grasp the concept of unconditional positive regard. Even on paper, it seems that Carl Rogers eludes understanding. And yet, once someone not only understands it, but practices it with full faith and confidence, it completely changes your world view and the way you interact with others. This, in turn, generates more positive feelings for those who receive the unconditional positive regard. So, let us begin with some basic clarifications, definitions if you will, to help reach an understanding.
Self-Actualization: according to humanistic psychologists, Rogers included, the driving force behind human behavior and mental processes. The motivation is to become the best "you" that you can be. This is defined by each individual through choices fueled by free will. Those choices can be influenced by interactions with others, but it is ultimately up to YOU to decide which choice to make and how you define your ideal self. It is also up to you to determine whether or not you reach your full potential, at what rate, and for what amount of time you will stay there.
Free Will: ability to make choices and the responsibility to accept the consequences of those choices. Humanism states that each human being experiences the world in a unique and conscious way. We interpret what we experience in ways that we choose, and each interpretation is just as valid as someone else's because it works for us as theirs works for them. However, we are also fully responsible for our choices and interpretations. No one can "make" you feel or do anything. You choose to respond with certain emotions or behaviors and you can just as easily choose a different response if you are not satisfied with a particular outcome. You are also free to reinterpret your experiences and reevaluate your definition of your self-actualized persona if you don't like the direction you are taking at any given moment. The choice is all yours, as is the responsibility (or "blame" if you prefer a more pessimistic term).
Positive Regard: positive affect (liking, love, respect, some combination thereof) and individual receives from others and gives to others. When we experience positive regard we know that others care for us and our self-esteem tends to rise. The type of positive regard, however, greatly affects the potency of the experience.
Conditional Positive Regard: positive affect that comes with a price. All too often do we sense that our worth in the eyes of others is dependent upon some measure of merit that they place upon us. We are also not always fully aware of what that condition is, just that it exists. For example, small children often change their labeling of other children as "friends" based on the actions of those "friends" at that moment. Sally may see Amy as her best friend today because Amy gave her the juice box from her lunch. But the next day, Amy is playing house with Joe and didn't ask Sally to play with them, so Sally doesn't like Amy that day. Children often feel as if the love of their parents is highly conditional--Mom & Dad won't love them fully unless they get perfect grades, are accepted into the "right" school, choose the "right" career, or make it onto the team or in the honor society. Many children grow up believing that they have to perform the right actions in order to receive acceptance from their parents and, sadly, some children feel that they never quite measure up to the expectations of their parents. If you have ever worried about disappointing your parents, then chances are good that you experienced (or even just interpreted it as) conditional positive regard. This is a heavy burden to bear, especially if the individual is very important to you. By trying to live up to someone else's expectations, we prevent ourselves from setting our own standards and defining our own goals for self-actualization. This makes is all the more difficult to achieve that high level of existence because you feel you are not free to set the bar yourself.
Unconditional Positive Regard: positive affect with no strings attached. As hard as it is to live with conditional positive regard, we are so used to experiencing it that we find it too difficult to grasp, let alone believe in, the idea of unconditional positive regard. The first step in giving unconditional positive regard is to separate behavior from the person. Of course, this is in direct opposition to behaviorism, which states that human beings are simply the sum total of their actions (behaviors). Humanism makes this distinction, though. Yes, you have free will. Yes, your choices are your responsibility. However, your choices, your behaviors, even your feelings, are not YOU. What defines your personality, your person, is something above and beyond just the conglomeration of the bits and pieces that people witness and judge on a regular basis. A human is something above and beyond their experiences. According to humanism, deep in the heart of every human being is a core of goodness worthy of love and respect simply because they exist. There are no "bad" people. There may be "bad" thoughts or "bad" behaviors or "bad" choices, but that does not mean that the person who engaged in them is "bad" in any sense of the word.
Rogers believed that receiving unconditional positive regard allows an individual to correct inappropriate behaviors without having to give up their core essence because that core was, by its very human nature, worthy of positive regard in its own right. Again, it is not easy to grasp as we are so used to conditions being placed upon us. For many children, if their parents were to say "I love YOU. I'm disappointed in your choices and I don't approve of your behavior, but nothing will change how much I love YOU as a person," this would be too difficult to understand. How can you possibly love someone so much that you can look past their flaws? In truth, you don't have to look past someone's flaws, you don't have to ignore what you consider to be improper behavior or wrong choices, to provide unconditional positive regard. Correcting behavior and steering someone toward more healthy decisions is actually a form of love, so long as your intent is not overpowering malicious control so that your life is more enjoyable, but rather to improve the experiences of the person whose behaviors you are correcting. Parents who show unconditional positive regard love their children because the children are who they are, and they help their children make better choices that will in turn lead to more positive interactions with the rest of the world and help their children on their journey toward self-actualization. Parents correct AND forgive behavior that they feel is maladaptive or inappropriate. They don't dwell on it, per se, but they don't ignore it either.
To forgive behaviors that may have hurt you because you have unconditional positive regard for someone else does not mean that you have to be their doormat or their punching bag. You can still have unconditional positive regard for someone who mistreated you without having to put up with the maltreatment. You can "love" them from afar and patiently wait for them to change their behaviors. You can accept them for who they are without having to put up with their behaviors. But, you have to be able to separate a person from what they do. Again, it's not easy. It's also not easy to convince someone who is not used to receiving unconditional positive regard that you can feel that way toward them.
You can also choose to not let someone else's behaviors hurt you. The amount of anger or sadness you feel, according to humanism at least, is completely up to you. While it is understandable to feel hurt when others behave selfishly in regard to you, you don't have to feel that way. You can decide how much you want it to affect you. You can decide if you want to give the person time to correct their behaviors. You can decide if you want to help them correct their actions. You can decide if you want to move away from them. You can decide if you want to give them another chance.
It is easy to like people who treat us the way we want to be treated. It is easy to dislike people who don't. It is a true challenge to decide to have unconditional positive regard for yourself and others, separating the behaviors from the person. If I have confused you, if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to comment on this post or contact me via Twitter (eowyn35) or Google+ or Facebook. I'm not hard to find and I welcome all thoughts and viewpoints. They help me make different choices and life is that much richer for the experiences.
And yes, I do personally believe that there are no bad people in this world. There are many bad decisions and many selfish acts perpetuated, but I believe that all people have a core of goodness within them. Some may need a little more help and positive regard to find it than others. And it did take me a while to figure out all of this and decide to believe it for myself.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
You Have an Attitude!
How many times have you heard someone say that you have "an attitude" as if that's a bad thing? Or perhaps you've heard someone ask "Why are you giving me attitude?" I often wonder if people truly understand that these statements are mostly meaningless and completely without context. For one thing, everyone has at least one attitude about one thing. Attitudes are not really something to give, either, but rather, they are something to have. Let me try to explain.
Attitude: a learned tendency to respond (often positively or negatively) to a stimulus--person, place, thing, idea, etc. No one is born with an attitude of any kind. An infant makes no judgments about anything until they have some kind of experience with stimuli. On top of this, there are actually three components that make up an attitude, which is one of the main reasons why attitudes are not very good predictors of behavior. That, and an attitude can also have varying strengths. Each individual has some variation of strong to mild attitudes. Even highly opinionated people will have some things that they do not care about as passionately as everything else. Let's take a look at the individual components, the ABC (affect, behavior, cognition), of an attitude so that we can build a clearer picture.
Affect. This is the emotion you feel toward the stimulus. Do you feel positively or negatively (or neutrally) about it? Do happy, sad, angry, annoyed sensations come to mind when thinking about or interacting with the stimulus? Also, affect comes in many degrees from very strong (e.g. when someone says "I LOVE ..." or "I HATE ...") to very mild ("I'm not a fan" or "It's all right"). Affect can also be more or less neutral ("I can take it or leave it" or "I really don't care one way or the other"). Much of the affect component of an attitude comes from initial exposure to the stimulus. Continued exposure can either enhance the initial emotional response or dull it over time, again, depending upon one's subsequent experiences.
Cognition. This is what you think and believe about the stimulus. Do you think it is a good thing or worthy of your investment? Do you believe it represents some sort of value, gain, or loss for you? Do you see it as something you can learn from or as a waste of time and effort? For example, you may feel positively about buying new clothes in general, but if you think that the particular outfit is overpriced or not right for you, then your attitude toward the purchase may be milder than either your thoughts or your feelings in isolation. Sometimes this happens when someone is in a less-than-ideal relationship. Logically, they know/think/believe that they are being mistreated by the other party, but they still have positive emotions (usually love) for the person, which generate hope that things will change.
Behavior. This is the action you take regarding the stimulus. Do you actively seek it out or go out of your way to avoid it? Do you speak ill or well of the subject? Sometimes the behavior does not match the emotion or the thought. For example, maybe someone feels thoroughly bored with a class but insists on attending because they are more afraid of the consequences of ditching than they are attracted to the joy of doing something else. Because stimuli often present many cross-overs in our lives, it is not easy to separate an attitude about one without affecting the attitude of something else. We have a tendency to make many complex, interrelated associations in our mind that are not easy to unravel or keep isolated from one another. As a result, you may find yourself not really caring about something itself, but behaving positively toward it because of your thoughts and feelings toward something else that is connected to it. For example, think of a husband who really doesn't like opera because he thinks it is boring and finds himself dreading the act of dressing up. Yet, he may attend the opera because he loves his wife more than he dislikes the performance, so he is willing to let his feelings for his wife drive his behaviors toward the opera.
When we find ourselves facing a serious disconnect between our affect, behavior, and cognition concerning a certain stimulus, we may experience cognitive dissonance. Politics is a good illustration. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Ronda is a die-hard Republican. She usually listens to everything the Republican candidates have to say and usually whole-heartedly agrees with everything they appear to stand for when they campaign. As a result, she has always voted for the Republican candidate in every election, sometimes not even bothering to look too in-depth into the candidates' stances on the issues. Ronda is also a strong advocate for environmental conservation. This year's Republican candidate seems to believe everything that Ronda does, except he is pushing for a bill that will reduce protected land for a vulnerable (not yet endangered) species so that affordable housing can be built to reduce the amount of people living on the street. Now Ronda is torn. If she votes for the Republican, then he will endanger the animals. Yet, if she votes for the Democrat, then she will be endorsing a lot of things that don't align with her usual philosophy on the other issues. So, how do we usually resolve cognitive dissonance? Well, since attitudes have three components, we have a number of options. 1) Ronda can change her conflicting attitudes. She can reevaluate her thoughts and feelings about her desire for the Republican label, or her thoughts and feelings about environmental conservation. 2) Ronda can change her behavior. She can vote for the Democratic (or a third-party) candidate to prevent the development of the protected land. She can also choose not to vote at all, taking herself out of the debate. 3) She can develop a new attitude. Ronda can reduce the strength of her convictions--see the Republican label as less important as before, see conservation as less important than before, see a Democrat label as not so demonic. She can also start to investigate and weigh more options from both sides of the arguments to find a new position that will help her feel less conflicted.
Because of the overlap in our experiences with so many different stimuli and the complexity of decision making in general, it is not easy to predict what a person will do based solely on how they feel or what they think. In addition, as an attitude is learned, the importance we place on our learning experience will modify the strength of each of the components differently.
We form attitudes from direct experience with the stimulus. If someone is kind or rude to you the first time you meet them, then you may feel either positively or negatively, respectively, about them. We generally don't like to contradict our first impressions, so direct experience can sometimes be a very powerful creator of an attitude.
We also form attitudes from secondary exposure. Bob had a horrible experience at a local repair shop and tells Amy all about it. Even though Amy has never been there, she might now think twice about going there because of Bob's experience. If Amy values Bob's opinions very much because of her strong positive attitude toward him, then she is more likely to avoid the place than if she has a milder attitude toward Bob.
Attitudes can be learned from direct instruction, usually from parents. If a parent has ever told a child that they should be friends with someone or that they should avoid certain things, then it is likely that the child will then start to think about those things in the same light it was presented. This is one of the many reasons why prejudices (good and bad) can sometimes pass down from one generation to the next. [Yes, I will do a future post on prejudice versus discrimination.] Again, the strength of one's attitude toward the source will be a significant moderator for the resulting attitude for the stimulus. When a child tends to dismiss their parent's opinions or doesn't like them, that child may insist on forming the opposite attitude from the parent, sometimes just to spite the parent.
In addition, a person may form an attitude through observation. Many people, for example, talk about how wonderful cast members at Walt Disney World are. When you ask them why they believe this, you may find that they never personally experienced an abundance of out-of-the-way kindness or "Disney Magic" themselves, but they may have witnessed a cast member go out of their way for another guest. Mood is a strong moderator in this case. When you are in a good mood to begin with and you see someone else being helped, you have a tendency to form a more positive affect and belief toward the situation. However, if you were having a bad day and you see someone else being treated well, you may form a negative attitude out of jealousy and a wish for special treatment to yourself.
As you can see, attitudes are very complex. To tell someone that they need to change their attitude is not only unjust, it's also a very tall order, depending upon the strength of the attitude. No one "gives" an attitude, either. They simply have one composed from their thoughts, feelings, and actions regarding certain stimuli. If someone has a negative attitude toward you personally, you might want to ask what brought about the opinion before you judge them, showing your own attitude toward them.
Attitude: a learned tendency to respond (often positively or negatively) to a stimulus--person, place, thing, idea, etc. No one is born with an attitude of any kind. An infant makes no judgments about anything until they have some kind of experience with stimuli. On top of this, there are actually three components that make up an attitude, which is one of the main reasons why attitudes are not very good predictors of behavior. That, and an attitude can also have varying strengths. Each individual has some variation of strong to mild attitudes. Even highly opinionated people will have some things that they do not care about as passionately as everything else. Let's take a look at the individual components, the ABC (affect, behavior, cognition), of an attitude so that we can build a clearer picture.
Affect. This is the emotion you feel toward the stimulus. Do you feel positively or negatively (or neutrally) about it? Do happy, sad, angry, annoyed sensations come to mind when thinking about or interacting with the stimulus? Also, affect comes in many degrees from very strong (e.g. when someone says "I LOVE ..." or "I HATE ...") to very mild ("I'm not a fan" or "It's all right"). Affect can also be more or less neutral ("I can take it or leave it" or "I really don't care one way or the other"). Much of the affect component of an attitude comes from initial exposure to the stimulus. Continued exposure can either enhance the initial emotional response or dull it over time, again, depending upon one's subsequent experiences.
Cognition. This is what you think and believe about the stimulus. Do you think it is a good thing or worthy of your investment? Do you believe it represents some sort of value, gain, or loss for you? Do you see it as something you can learn from or as a waste of time and effort? For example, you may feel positively about buying new clothes in general, but if you think that the particular outfit is overpriced or not right for you, then your attitude toward the purchase may be milder than either your thoughts or your feelings in isolation. Sometimes this happens when someone is in a less-than-ideal relationship. Logically, they know/think/believe that they are being mistreated by the other party, but they still have positive emotions (usually love) for the person, which generate hope that things will change.
Behavior. This is the action you take regarding the stimulus. Do you actively seek it out or go out of your way to avoid it? Do you speak ill or well of the subject? Sometimes the behavior does not match the emotion or the thought. For example, maybe someone feels thoroughly bored with a class but insists on attending because they are more afraid of the consequences of ditching than they are attracted to the joy of doing something else. Because stimuli often present many cross-overs in our lives, it is not easy to separate an attitude about one without affecting the attitude of something else. We have a tendency to make many complex, interrelated associations in our mind that are not easy to unravel or keep isolated from one another. As a result, you may find yourself not really caring about something itself, but behaving positively toward it because of your thoughts and feelings toward something else that is connected to it. For example, think of a husband who really doesn't like opera because he thinks it is boring and finds himself dreading the act of dressing up. Yet, he may attend the opera because he loves his wife more than he dislikes the performance, so he is willing to let his feelings for his wife drive his behaviors toward the opera.
When we find ourselves facing a serious disconnect between our affect, behavior, and cognition concerning a certain stimulus, we may experience cognitive dissonance. Politics is a good illustration. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Ronda is a die-hard Republican. She usually listens to everything the Republican candidates have to say and usually whole-heartedly agrees with everything they appear to stand for when they campaign. As a result, she has always voted for the Republican candidate in every election, sometimes not even bothering to look too in-depth into the candidates' stances on the issues. Ronda is also a strong advocate for environmental conservation. This year's Republican candidate seems to believe everything that Ronda does, except he is pushing for a bill that will reduce protected land for a vulnerable (not yet endangered) species so that affordable housing can be built to reduce the amount of people living on the street. Now Ronda is torn. If she votes for the Republican, then he will endanger the animals. Yet, if she votes for the Democrat, then she will be endorsing a lot of things that don't align with her usual philosophy on the other issues. So, how do we usually resolve cognitive dissonance? Well, since attitudes have three components, we have a number of options. 1) Ronda can change her conflicting attitudes. She can reevaluate her thoughts and feelings about her desire for the Republican label, or her thoughts and feelings about environmental conservation. 2) Ronda can change her behavior. She can vote for the Democratic (or a third-party) candidate to prevent the development of the protected land. She can also choose not to vote at all, taking herself out of the debate. 3) She can develop a new attitude. Ronda can reduce the strength of her convictions--see the Republican label as less important as before, see conservation as less important than before, see a Democrat label as not so demonic. She can also start to investigate and weigh more options from both sides of the arguments to find a new position that will help her feel less conflicted.
Because of the overlap in our experiences with so many different stimuli and the complexity of decision making in general, it is not easy to predict what a person will do based solely on how they feel or what they think. In addition, as an attitude is learned, the importance we place on our learning experience will modify the strength of each of the components differently.
We form attitudes from direct experience with the stimulus. If someone is kind or rude to you the first time you meet them, then you may feel either positively or negatively, respectively, about them. We generally don't like to contradict our first impressions, so direct experience can sometimes be a very powerful creator of an attitude.
We also form attitudes from secondary exposure. Bob had a horrible experience at a local repair shop and tells Amy all about it. Even though Amy has never been there, she might now think twice about going there because of Bob's experience. If Amy values Bob's opinions very much because of her strong positive attitude toward him, then she is more likely to avoid the place than if she has a milder attitude toward Bob.
Attitudes can be learned from direct instruction, usually from parents. If a parent has ever told a child that they should be friends with someone or that they should avoid certain things, then it is likely that the child will then start to think about those things in the same light it was presented. This is one of the many reasons why prejudices (good and bad) can sometimes pass down from one generation to the next. [Yes, I will do a future post on prejudice versus discrimination.] Again, the strength of one's attitude toward the source will be a significant moderator for the resulting attitude for the stimulus. When a child tends to dismiss their parent's opinions or doesn't like them, that child may insist on forming the opposite attitude from the parent, sometimes just to spite the parent.
In addition, a person may form an attitude through observation. Many people, for example, talk about how wonderful cast members at Walt Disney World are. When you ask them why they believe this, you may find that they never personally experienced an abundance of out-of-the-way kindness or "Disney Magic" themselves, but they may have witnessed a cast member go out of their way for another guest. Mood is a strong moderator in this case. When you are in a good mood to begin with and you see someone else being helped, you have a tendency to form a more positive affect and belief toward the situation. However, if you were having a bad day and you see someone else being treated well, you may form a negative attitude out of jealousy and a wish for special treatment to yourself.
As you can see, attitudes are very complex. To tell someone that they need to change their attitude is not only unjust, it's also a very tall order, depending upon the strength of the attitude. No one "gives" an attitude, either. They simply have one composed from their thoughts, feelings, and actions regarding certain stimuli. If someone has a negative attitude toward you personally, you might want to ask what brought about the opinion before you judge them, showing your own attitude toward them.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Trying to Make Sense of Events
Human beings have a natural desire to make sense out of their otherwise chaotic world. One of the tools we use is attribution. Attribution is a mental process we use to assign causation factors to events and/or behaviors that we witness. We want to know why something happens and if we don't get a direct answer, then we come up with one.
Internal attribution: otherwise known as a dispositional attribution; purports that the cause behind a behavior or event is due to some personal qualification of the individual involved. For example, "Carl got a promotion because he is a dedicated hard worker who deserved the recognition." Or, "Pete got into a car wreck because he's a horrible driver and didn't pay attention to the road." In both instances, we are assuming that the individual is to "blame" for the resulting events.
External attribution: otherwise known as a situational attribution; proposes that the cause behind a behavior or event is due to some factor (usually environmental) outside of the direct control of the individual involved. For example: "Mrs. Petrov got lucky when her lottery numbers came up. She didn't really deserve the money." Or, "Amanda got into a car accident because her brakes failed (or the road was slippery)." In these instances, we assume that the individual had very little control over the results and should not be blamed or praised for their turn of fortune, as they had nothing to do with it.
Fundamental Attribution Error: making attributions that help us maintain the idea that "good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people" so that we can keep our ego integrity intact. Unfortunately, most general psychology textbooks only include half of the full fundamental attribution error. Even educational videos on the subject are missing part of the story. Here is the way the error works in whole.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating this fundamental attribution error, nor am I trying to insinuate that people use it all the time. It is called "fundamental" because it is almost instinctive in nature and almost every person who has ever witnessed a crying child, yelling parent, slow or fast driver, annoying customer or cashier, has at one point in time applied it. We know we are unique and special as individuals and the best way to keep that in our minds is to recognize others as being similar to the average crowd member. Research over the years has shown that some people are more inclined to make the fundamental attribution error more often (individualistic cultures, older individuals, for example) and some people are less inclined to use it because they have a tendency to think differently (collectivist cultures, individuals who tend to take extra time before making judgments or who have experienced the same events themselves, for example).
The best way to break out of the fundamental attribution error is to take the time to hypothesis the possible explanations for events. For example, the next time you see a kid crying in a store, instead of jumping to the conclusion that they are a spoiled brat or the parents are awful people, try to think about why the kid might be crying. Maybe it's been a really long day and they need a nap. Maybe mom or dad is stressed and tired and zoned out, so after trying to get their attention for the past 10 minutes the kid finally started crying because they didn't know what else to do. Maybe the kid was hurt in some way that you couldn't see. When you take time to try to understand other people and make environmental observations, you are less likely to make the fundamental attribution error for either the positive or negative events. But that's the key there: it takes effort to break out of those patterns.
Internal attribution: otherwise known as a dispositional attribution; purports that the cause behind a behavior or event is due to some personal qualification of the individual involved. For example, "Carl got a promotion because he is a dedicated hard worker who deserved the recognition." Or, "Pete got into a car wreck because he's a horrible driver and didn't pay attention to the road." In both instances, we are assuming that the individual is to "blame" for the resulting events.
External attribution: otherwise known as a situational attribution; proposes that the cause behind a behavior or event is due to some factor (usually environmental) outside of the direct control of the individual involved. For example: "Mrs. Petrov got lucky when her lottery numbers came up. She didn't really deserve the money." Or, "Amanda got into a car accident because her brakes failed (or the road was slippery)." In these instances, we assume that the individual had very little control over the results and should not be blamed or praised for their turn of fortune, as they had nothing to do with it.
Fundamental Attribution Error: making attributions that help us maintain the idea that "good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people" so that we can keep our ego integrity intact. Unfortunately, most general psychology textbooks only include half of the full fundamental attribution error. Even educational videos on the subject are missing part of the story. Here is the way the error works in whole.
- For positive events (promotions, winnings, etc.), we tend to make an internal attribution for ourselves (sometimes for close personal relations that we like, such as family and friends) and external attributions for others. For example: if you and a coworker both received a raise, you might--using the fundamental attribution error--assume that you got the promotion because you deserved it for all your hard work, but your coworker (especially if you don't like them) was in the right place at the right time (slept their way to the top, was just lucky, etc.), and didn't really get it for their merit because you don't think they really had any. Your straight As came from you studying your days and nights away instead of having fun. That other kid's As came because the teacher is friends with his parents.
- For negative events (disasters, loss, accidents, etc.), we tend to make an external attribution for ourselves and the people we like and internal attributions for others. For example: if a hurricane knocked out your house, it was a freak accident of nature, an act of God that had nothing to do with you. However, if your annoying neighbor's house was hit by the hurricane, you may infer that he/she was a wicked person being punished for their wrongful ways of life. Your car accident was caused by an obstruction in the road--you didn't see the stop sign because a tree branch was in the way. That other guy's accident was due to him being a drunk who was too stupid to pay attention to what he was doing.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating this fundamental attribution error, nor am I trying to insinuate that people use it all the time. It is called "fundamental" because it is almost instinctive in nature and almost every person who has ever witnessed a crying child, yelling parent, slow or fast driver, annoying customer or cashier, has at one point in time applied it. We know we are unique and special as individuals and the best way to keep that in our minds is to recognize others as being similar to the average crowd member. Research over the years has shown that some people are more inclined to make the fundamental attribution error more often (individualistic cultures, older individuals, for example) and some people are less inclined to use it because they have a tendency to think differently (collectivist cultures, individuals who tend to take extra time before making judgments or who have experienced the same events themselves, for example).
The best way to break out of the fundamental attribution error is to take the time to hypothesis the possible explanations for events. For example, the next time you see a kid crying in a store, instead of jumping to the conclusion that they are a spoiled brat or the parents are awful people, try to think about why the kid might be crying. Maybe it's been a really long day and they need a nap. Maybe mom or dad is stressed and tired and zoned out, so after trying to get their attention for the past 10 minutes the kid finally started crying because they didn't know what else to do. Maybe the kid was hurt in some way that you couldn't see. When you take time to try to understand other people and make environmental observations, you are less likely to make the fundamental attribution error for either the positive or negative events. But that's the key there: it takes effort to break out of those patterns.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
What Defines an Obsession?
It never ceases to amaze, amuse, frustrate, and sadden me when someone seems to want to have obsessive-compulsive disorder. Why is it so popular? What is it about the psychological disorder that seems so "cool" that everyone wants to claim a piece of it? Perhaps the media attention makes it not only more acceptable for those individuals who actually suffer from this anxiety disorder, but also makes it attractive to everyone else.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a very real anxiety disorder that can be diagnosed by a trained psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. It has two major components, obsessions and compulsions (thus its nomenclature).
Obsession: recurring thought (or thoughts) that a person cannot seem to rid themselves of, despite their best efforts and desires to do so. This word gets thrown around a lot, especially by people who are fans of things or celebrities or people accusing others of spending too much time thinking about a particular subject (or person). A true obsession, in the clinical sense, is an intruding thought that a person does not will into existence. This thought usually revolves around some form of anxiety--worry, fear, concern, etc.--that underlies a person's life. The obsession invades their thoughts until it becomes difficult to deal with anything else in life. Enter the compulsion.
Compulsion: irrational, ritualistic behavior (or behaviors) in which a person engages in order to eliminate or keep at bay the obsessive thoughts. The key here is irrational. People can be organized and ritualistic in a logical sense. It becomes a compulsion if they feel they cannot help themselves, if avoiding the behavior seems to lead to an increase in anxiety levels. It is also clinically maladaptive if the compulsive behavior hampers a person's ability to eat, sleep, work, play, or interact socially with others. Compulsive behavior is NOT merely being overly conscientious.
Conscientiousness: the care a person gives to organization and thoughtfulness of others. Individuals who rate high on this personality trait tend to be organized, reliable, neat, ambitious, and dependable. High conscientiousness is not necessarily a sign of a clinical obsessive compulsive disorder. Nor does it make a person more susceptible to develop such a disorder. Neuroticism is the personality trait more likely to be a potential predictor of such a phenomenon, though any research that might have been conducted in this area has not been conclusive.
For those individuals who do suffer from a legitimate obsessive-compulsive disorder, they typically fall into one (or sometimes more) of the following 4 categories:
Obsessions and checking. This classification of OCD involves obsessive thoughts primarily focused on lack of self-confidence in one's memory and their concern for safety. As a result, the disordered compulsive behavior tries to alleviate these thoughts. For example, you may have a person who gets up several times during the night to make sure they locked their doors or turned off their stove.
Symmetry and order. The obsessive thoughts of this classification typically, though not always, revolve around a person's desire/need/conditioning to create strict order because chaos is too much for them to handle. These individuals tend to be extremely strict in their personal routines, sometimes (but not always) expecting others to adhere to the same strictures. They also make extreme efforts to organize their personal possessions in a way that makes sense to themselves, though it may seem illogical to others. The symmetry is so important to them that any deviation creates extreme anxiety and fear of invading chaos. Yes, it may sound like they are "fun to mess with," but that is a very inhumane way to treat these individuals.
Cleaning and washing. This is quite possibly the most commonly illustrated or known form of OCD, thanks in part to cases such as Howard Hughes. For these individuals, the obsessive thoughts usually involve the fear of invading germs and the concern that they will be seen as unclean. It can have religious or cultural roots, as well as parental influences. It can also be an extreme reaction to an adverse experience at some point in a person's earlier life. Regardless, this category of OCD usually finds the individual spending an excessive amount of their time cleaning themselves and their environment. Things do not necessarily have to be organized as long as they are sanitary. There have been extreme cases in which individuals have been hospitalized because they washed their hands and arms so much they scrubbed off almost all the layers of skin. Other extreme cases have been reported of an individual suffering adverse side effects from overuse of cleaning chemicals.
Hoarding. Perhaps the form of OCD that has gotten the most attention in recent years, thanks to so many "reality" shows, is hoarding. The obsessive thoughts of this category typically come from a concern that a person will not have what they need when they need it. The obsession may also be a desire to "fill a hole" somewhere with particular possessions instead of social interaction. With these thoughts invading a person's mind, the compulsive acts tend to be collecting, purchasing, and refusing to get rid of items. Do not confuse hoarding with collecting. There can be a healthy amount of obtaining certain items and displaying them without going overboard. Hoarding oftentimes starts off innocently enough, as well. For example, perhaps a person goes on vacation and forgets their sunglasses, so they buy a new pair. They then leave that pair in their luggage and find they need a pair in their car for driving, so they purchase another pair. With enough forgetting and purchasing, it could become a conditioned response in which the person buys a pair of sunglasses almost every time they enter a store because they are afraid that they will not have them when they are needed.
It is possible for an individual to suffer from multiple forms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Perhaps a person has obsessions about chaos and germs, as well as a fear of not having the supplies on hand to combat these. In this case, you have a hoarding symmetrical washer who collects, and organizes, cleaning supplies and spends the rest of their time cleaning their environment, with little time left for the regular functions of a psychologically healthy lifestyle.
OCD is not a "fad", nor is it a cool badge to wear to make you special. It is a true anxiety disorder that hampers an individual's ability to live a healthy, happy, productive life. It can be treated with various methods, depending upon the roots of the disorder and the category from which a person suffers.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a very real anxiety disorder that can be diagnosed by a trained psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. It has two major components, obsessions and compulsions (thus its nomenclature).
Obsession: recurring thought (or thoughts) that a person cannot seem to rid themselves of, despite their best efforts and desires to do so. This word gets thrown around a lot, especially by people who are fans of things or celebrities or people accusing others of spending too much time thinking about a particular subject (or person). A true obsession, in the clinical sense, is an intruding thought that a person does not will into existence. This thought usually revolves around some form of anxiety--worry, fear, concern, etc.--that underlies a person's life. The obsession invades their thoughts until it becomes difficult to deal with anything else in life. Enter the compulsion.
Compulsion: irrational, ritualistic behavior (or behaviors) in which a person engages in order to eliminate or keep at bay the obsessive thoughts. The key here is irrational. People can be organized and ritualistic in a logical sense. It becomes a compulsion if they feel they cannot help themselves, if avoiding the behavior seems to lead to an increase in anxiety levels. It is also clinically maladaptive if the compulsive behavior hampers a person's ability to eat, sleep, work, play, or interact socially with others. Compulsive behavior is NOT merely being overly conscientious.
Conscientiousness: the care a person gives to organization and thoughtfulness of others. Individuals who rate high on this personality trait tend to be organized, reliable, neat, ambitious, and dependable. High conscientiousness is not necessarily a sign of a clinical obsessive compulsive disorder. Nor does it make a person more susceptible to develop such a disorder. Neuroticism is the personality trait more likely to be a potential predictor of such a phenomenon, though any research that might have been conducted in this area has not been conclusive.
For those individuals who do suffer from a legitimate obsessive-compulsive disorder, they typically fall into one (or sometimes more) of the following 4 categories:
Obsessions and checking. This classification of OCD involves obsessive thoughts primarily focused on lack of self-confidence in one's memory and their concern for safety. As a result, the disordered compulsive behavior tries to alleviate these thoughts. For example, you may have a person who gets up several times during the night to make sure they locked their doors or turned off their stove.
Symmetry and order. The obsessive thoughts of this classification typically, though not always, revolve around a person's desire/need/conditioning to create strict order because chaos is too much for them to handle. These individuals tend to be extremely strict in their personal routines, sometimes (but not always) expecting others to adhere to the same strictures. They also make extreme efforts to organize their personal possessions in a way that makes sense to themselves, though it may seem illogical to others. The symmetry is so important to them that any deviation creates extreme anxiety and fear of invading chaos. Yes, it may sound like they are "fun to mess with," but that is a very inhumane way to treat these individuals.
Cleaning and washing. This is quite possibly the most commonly illustrated or known form of OCD, thanks in part to cases such as Howard Hughes. For these individuals, the obsessive thoughts usually involve the fear of invading germs and the concern that they will be seen as unclean. It can have religious or cultural roots, as well as parental influences. It can also be an extreme reaction to an adverse experience at some point in a person's earlier life. Regardless, this category of OCD usually finds the individual spending an excessive amount of their time cleaning themselves and their environment. Things do not necessarily have to be organized as long as they are sanitary. There have been extreme cases in which individuals have been hospitalized because they washed their hands and arms so much they scrubbed off almost all the layers of skin. Other extreme cases have been reported of an individual suffering adverse side effects from overuse of cleaning chemicals.
Hoarding. Perhaps the form of OCD that has gotten the most attention in recent years, thanks to so many "reality" shows, is hoarding. The obsessive thoughts of this category typically come from a concern that a person will not have what they need when they need it. The obsession may also be a desire to "fill a hole" somewhere with particular possessions instead of social interaction. With these thoughts invading a person's mind, the compulsive acts tend to be collecting, purchasing, and refusing to get rid of items. Do not confuse hoarding with collecting. There can be a healthy amount of obtaining certain items and displaying them without going overboard. Hoarding oftentimes starts off innocently enough, as well. For example, perhaps a person goes on vacation and forgets their sunglasses, so they buy a new pair. They then leave that pair in their luggage and find they need a pair in their car for driving, so they purchase another pair. With enough forgetting and purchasing, it could become a conditioned response in which the person buys a pair of sunglasses almost every time they enter a store because they are afraid that they will not have them when they are needed.
It is possible for an individual to suffer from multiple forms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Perhaps a person has obsessions about chaos and germs, as well as a fear of not having the supplies on hand to combat these. In this case, you have a hoarding symmetrical washer who collects, and organizes, cleaning supplies and spends the rest of their time cleaning their environment, with little time left for the regular functions of a psychologically healthy lifestyle.
OCD is not a "fad", nor is it a cool badge to wear to make you special. It is a true anxiety disorder that hampers an individual's ability to live a healthy, happy, productive life. It can be treated with various methods, depending upon the roots of the disorder and the category from which a person suffers.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Remember when your parents would tell you that some kid was acting up just because they wanted attention? Well, it is possible that they could have been right. There is a relatively rare personality disorder in which the primary motivation for all behaviors, positive and negative, is to gain the attention of others.
Personality disorder: disorder in which a person adopts a persistent, rigid, and maladaptive pattern of behavior that interferes with normal social interactions. There are 10 listed personality disorders in the DSM-IV-TR, 7 of which made the list in the DSM-V. In the DSM-IV-TR, the personality disorders are broken down into three basic categories, or clusters. Cluster A is the odd or eccentric types, usually seen as "weird" by others. This includes the paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders. Cluster B includes the dramatic or erratic types, typically individuals who tend to over (or under) react to things. Within this category are the antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders. Cluster C is known as the anxious or fearful category. Individuals fall into this grouping when their main emotional response seems to be an over abundance of caution, fear, and/or anxiety. Found in this group are the avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive (not to be confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder, an anxiety disorder) personality disorders.
Histrionic Personality Disorder: characterized by a tendency to overreact and use excessive emotions to draw attention from and manipulate others. This individual thoroughly enjoys being the center of attention. However, unlike the narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic individuals do not care if the attention is positive or negative, so long as they are in the midst of it. Individuals with this type of personality disorder have a tendency to "make a mountain out of a mole-hill" and are sometimes referred to by others as "drama queens/kings." Attitudes may change rapidly, along with moods, and great pleasure is derived from shocking others with their behaviors, appearances, and/or opinions. It is not uncommon for someone with a histrionic personality disorder to dress completely inappropriately for the social situation (e.g. a young woman wearing a low-cut, provocative dress that shows off as much as legally possible to a funeral) or to attempt to pick a fight (verbal or physical) with someone if they are not already the center of attention. When one situation is "milked" for all it can be--friends get tired of praising them for their promotion or congratulating them on their new boyfriend/girlfriend--these individuals may manufacture another situation in order to regain the center of attention. They might quit their job, complain about some real or imagined hardship, use another person's dilemma to their own advantage (e.g. "feel sorry for me because my cousin's dog was run over"), force a break-up with their significant other in order to generate sympathy, get a piercing or tattoo in order to elicit comments from others, or make shocking statements to see how others respond. Fishing for compliments is also a common behavior for these individuals.
The root cause of histrionic personality disorder is not fully understood. Some theorists suggest that a mismatch between the child's character and the parenting style with which they were raised could be the culprit. Some suggest that there is a genetic link, as this type of maladaptive behavior sometimes runs in families. Others theorize that the children picked up the behaviors from their parents or others who may have had the same disorder. Still others suggest that the children did not receive the right amount of attention that they needed, and thus lash out for any kind they can get as adults.
As with other personality disorders, it is not always easy to identify behaviors as disordered, unless you have more exposure to the individual and detect significant patterns. It is also highly unlikely that the individual will see anything wrong or maladaptive with their behavior, assuming the rest of the world needs to change, not themselves. This is what makes treating personality disorders so difficult. A key component to the success of all psychotherapy is the desire on the part of the client/patient to want to change.
Personality disorder: disorder in which a person adopts a persistent, rigid, and maladaptive pattern of behavior that interferes with normal social interactions. There are 10 listed personality disorders in the DSM-IV-TR, 7 of which made the list in the DSM-V. In the DSM-IV-TR, the personality disorders are broken down into three basic categories, or clusters. Cluster A is the odd or eccentric types, usually seen as "weird" by others. This includes the paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders. Cluster B includes the dramatic or erratic types, typically individuals who tend to over (or under) react to things. Within this category are the antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders. Cluster C is known as the anxious or fearful category. Individuals fall into this grouping when their main emotional response seems to be an over abundance of caution, fear, and/or anxiety. Found in this group are the avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive (not to be confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder, an anxiety disorder) personality disorders.
Histrionic Personality Disorder: characterized by a tendency to overreact and use excessive emotions to draw attention from and manipulate others. This individual thoroughly enjoys being the center of attention. However, unlike the narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic individuals do not care if the attention is positive or negative, so long as they are in the midst of it. Individuals with this type of personality disorder have a tendency to "make a mountain out of a mole-hill" and are sometimes referred to by others as "drama queens/kings." Attitudes may change rapidly, along with moods, and great pleasure is derived from shocking others with their behaviors, appearances, and/or opinions. It is not uncommon for someone with a histrionic personality disorder to dress completely inappropriately for the social situation (e.g. a young woman wearing a low-cut, provocative dress that shows off as much as legally possible to a funeral) or to attempt to pick a fight (verbal or physical) with someone if they are not already the center of attention. When one situation is "milked" for all it can be--friends get tired of praising them for their promotion or congratulating them on their new boyfriend/girlfriend--these individuals may manufacture another situation in order to regain the center of attention. They might quit their job, complain about some real or imagined hardship, use another person's dilemma to their own advantage (e.g. "feel sorry for me because my cousin's dog was run over"), force a break-up with their significant other in order to generate sympathy, get a piercing or tattoo in order to elicit comments from others, or make shocking statements to see how others respond. Fishing for compliments is also a common behavior for these individuals.
The root cause of histrionic personality disorder is not fully understood. Some theorists suggest that a mismatch between the child's character and the parenting style with which they were raised could be the culprit. Some suggest that there is a genetic link, as this type of maladaptive behavior sometimes runs in families. Others theorize that the children picked up the behaviors from their parents or others who may have had the same disorder. Still others suggest that the children did not receive the right amount of attention that they needed, and thus lash out for any kind they can get as adults.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Psychology IS a Science
My daughter is working on a science fair experiment that happens to coincide with some psychological principles. She is studying the effects of video game play on memory. It is an elementary experiment that was intended to teach the kids the fundamentals of scientific research. Unfortunately, it appears that they have not been given the truth about the basics of the scientific method.
Before you turn your "ears" off because "psychology is not a science" or some other related prejudicial thought enters your mind, hear me out first. Psychology is, indeed, a science built upon empiricist ideals. We use the full scientific method to gather the data we collect and analyze to better our understanding of the world. Yes, early psychological "facts" did arise from somewhat questionable techniques--insight, introspection, philosophical debate. However, today's psychologist is trained in the full scientific method and no psychological research paper, journal article, book is professionally published without a peer review to ensure that the science is sound. I will acknowledge that there are a lot of "pop psychology" books filled with nonsense (too many self-help books fall into this category) and advice, none of them based on solid scientific research. This is why it is so difficult for professionals to educate the public. It is an uphill battle because we use data to back up our writing, not empty platitudes that do not stand up to logical analysis.
Butt getting back to my point, the scientific method involves 5 basic steps. 1) Ask a question. 2) Propose a hypothesis that provides an answer to that question. 3) Test your hypothesis with a valid research method. 4) Analyze your results. 5) Report your results (and your methods) so that others may be able to corroborate your findings and grow the body of knowledge in this area.
1) Asking the question is easy. We have all asked these questions before. Why are girls more sociable than boys? When do babies recognize their names? At what age is a child more influenced by what they see on television? How can I improve my memory for names and faces? I'm sure the average person wonders about something in the realm of human behavior at least once a week.
2) Hypothesis: an "educated guess" that is a) directional, b) testable, and c) measurable. A good hypothesis will identify the independent and dependent variables, as well as the different groups being studied. For example: Children between the ages of 2 years old and 4 years old are more likely to imitate the actions of similar-aged characters they see on television than children older than 5 years of age. Let me define some more terms before I explain.
Variable: anything that can change and/or has different levels or conditions under the same categorical label. Gender, for example, has two different conditions--male and female. While you cannot directly manipulate a person's gender--you cannot expect a subject to simply switch their gender instantaneously--it is sometimes considered an independent variable if no other manipulations are made. Gender, age, ethnicity, and other demographic variables are subject variables, sometimes called quasi-variables, because they cannot be manipulated, though they may be used to separate subjects and categorize data.
Independent variable: the condition (variable) that is manipulated or changed at the beginning of a study. Usually in an experiment there are at least 2 different levels of an independent variable, it is there or it is absent, such as in the case of a placebo/medication experiment. The independent variable would be the pill the subjects receive. Some receive the placebo, some receive the medication. In other experiments, the independent variable can have several levels. If you were studying the effects of sleep deprivation, you might have several experimental groups, each with different amounts of deprivation assigned to them, and the control group that receives no deprivation.
Dependent variable: the condition (variable) that is measured after the manipulations have occurred. The dependent variable is what you really care about in a scientific study. With a standard hypothesis you hope to find some kind of difference in this variable between the groups.
Experimental group: This is the group of subjects who are treated to some form of manipulation in regards to the independent variable. If your independent variable has multiple levels, then you will have multiple experimental groups.
Control group: this is the baseline group of subjects. Aside from participating in a research study, no changes are made to this group of subjects so that any differences in the dependent variable found between the experimental and control groups can be attributed with greater certainty to the manipulation made for the experimental group. You will always have only one control group.
Let's get back to my hypothesis example. Children between the ages of 2 years old and 4 years old are more likely to imitate the actions of similar-aged characters they see on television than children older than 5 years of age. This is directional because it includes the phrase "more likely than." Comparison phrases identify the expected differences you hope to find. It is testable. We can show several children of various age groups television shows that include characters of their age own age groups. We can even complicate our experiment by showing children characters of varying age groups, since we did mention "similar-aged characters" in the hypothesis. We could then allow the children to play for a specified amount of time and record the number of behaviors that were similar to the ones seen in the shows. This indicates the measurable nature of the statement, as well.
3) Test your hypothesis with a valid research method. Many scientists, psychologists included, strive for experimental research designs. The controlled experiment is really the best way we have to identify causation, the holy grail of research. Sometimes an experimental manipulation is not practical or ethical, however. Surveys, naturalistic observation, laboratory observation, and case studies all offer valuable information, but it is primarily correlational in nature. This post is getting lengthy even by my standards, so I will have to address the idea of correlation in another entry.
4) Analyze your results. Most psychologists plug their data into statistical software packages to run the numbers for them, allowing them to quantify behaviors in a way that is presentable. In some cases, such as with non-quantifiable information, a "trend analysis" may be used to summarize the general impressions discovered during the research project.
5) Report your results. For the academic and research professional this is accomplished through publishing in various journals or, in the case of a large body of work collected over a career, in books. For others, especially students, smaller papers or articles, or even presentations are the means through which your work is shared with others.
Some words of advice: Keep your individual studies simple! The more independent, dependent, and subject variables you try to measure and manipulate in a single study, the more complicated your statistics are going to have to be. It will also make it more difficult to sift through the meaning of your data. Manipulating only one variable at a time will help you better control for possible confounds (external factors or unaccounted variables that may have an impact on your dependent variables, even though you may not have controlled for it). If you feel that other factors may affect your dependent variable, then you run additional studies with these factors as the new independent variables. This is how the science is grown without muddying up the waters. This is also how others can study the same topics but still provide valuable information that allows us to paint a much more complete picture.
Before you turn your "ears" off because "psychology is not a science" or some other related prejudicial thought enters your mind, hear me out first. Psychology is, indeed, a science built upon empiricist ideals. We use the full scientific method to gather the data we collect and analyze to better our understanding of the world. Yes, early psychological "facts" did arise from somewhat questionable techniques--insight, introspection, philosophical debate. However, today's psychologist is trained in the full scientific method and no psychological research paper, journal article, book is professionally published without a peer review to ensure that the science is sound. I will acknowledge that there are a lot of "pop psychology" books filled with nonsense (too many self-help books fall into this category) and advice, none of them based on solid scientific research. This is why it is so difficult for professionals to educate the public. It is an uphill battle because we use data to back up our writing, not empty platitudes that do not stand up to logical analysis.
Butt getting back to my point, the scientific method involves 5 basic steps. 1) Ask a question. 2) Propose a hypothesis that provides an answer to that question. 3) Test your hypothesis with a valid research method. 4) Analyze your results. 5) Report your results (and your methods) so that others may be able to corroborate your findings and grow the body of knowledge in this area.
1) Asking the question is easy. We have all asked these questions before. Why are girls more sociable than boys? When do babies recognize their names? At what age is a child more influenced by what they see on television? How can I improve my memory for names and faces? I'm sure the average person wonders about something in the realm of human behavior at least once a week.
2) Hypothesis: an "educated guess" that is a) directional, b) testable, and c) measurable. A good hypothesis will identify the independent and dependent variables, as well as the different groups being studied. For example: Children between the ages of 2 years old and 4 years old are more likely to imitate the actions of similar-aged characters they see on television than children older than 5 years of age. Let me define some more terms before I explain.
Variable: anything that can change and/or has different levels or conditions under the same categorical label. Gender, for example, has two different conditions--male and female. While you cannot directly manipulate a person's gender--you cannot expect a subject to simply switch their gender instantaneously--it is sometimes considered an independent variable if no other manipulations are made. Gender, age, ethnicity, and other demographic variables are subject variables, sometimes called quasi-variables, because they cannot be manipulated, though they may be used to separate subjects and categorize data.
Independent variable: the condition (variable) that is manipulated or changed at the beginning of a study. Usually in an experiment there are at least 2 different levels of an independent variable, it is there or it is absent, such as in the case of a placebo/medication experiment. The independent variable would be the pill the subjects receive. Some receive the placebo, some receive the medication. In other experiments, the independent variable can have several levels. If you were studying the effects of sleep deprivation, you might have several experimental groups, each with different amounts of deprivation assigned to them, and the control group that receives no deprivation.
Dependent variable: the condition (variable) that is measured after the manipulations have occurred. The dependent variable is what you really care about in a scientific study. With a standard hypothesis you hope to find some kind of difference in this variable between the groups.
Experimental group: This is the group of subjects who are treated to some form of manipulation in regards to the independent variable. If your independent variable has multiple levels, then you will have multiple experimental groups.
Control group: this is the baseline group of subjects. Aside from participating in a research study, no changes are made to this group of subjects so that any differences in the dependent variable found between the experimental and control groups can be attributed with greater certainty to the manipulation made for the experimental group. You will always have only one control group.
Let's get back to my hypothesis example. Children between the ages of 2 years old and 4 years old are more likely to imitate the actions of similar-aged characters they see on television than children older than 5 years of age. This is directional because it includes the phrase "more likely than." Comparison phrases identify the expected differences you hope to find. It is testable. We can show several children of various age groups television shows that include characters of their age own age groups. We can even complicate our experiment by showing children characters of varying age groups, since we did mention "similar-aged characters" in the hypothesis. We could then allow the children to play for a specified amount of time and record the number of behaviors that were similar to the ones seen in the shows. This indicates the measurable nature of the statement, as well.
3) Test your hypothesis with a valid research method. Many scientists, psychologists included, strive for experimental research designs. The controlled experiment is really the best way we have to identify causation, the holy grail of research. Sometimes an experimental manipulation is not practical or ethical, however. Surveys, naturalistic observation, laboratory observation, and case studies all offer valuable information, but it is primarily correlational in nature. This post is getting lengthy even by my standards, so I will have to address the idea of correlation in another entry.
4) Analyze your results. Most psychologists plug their data into statistical software packages to run the numbers for them, allowing them to quantify behaviors in a way that is presentable. In some cases, such as with non-quantifiable information, a "trend analysis" may be used to summarize the general impressions discovered during the research project.
5) Report your results. For the academic and research professional this is accomplished through publishing in various journals or, in the case of a large body of work collected over a career, in books. For others, especially students, smaller papers or articles, or even presentations are the means through which your work is shared with others.
Some words of advice: Keep your individual studies simple! The more independent, dependent, and subject variables you try to measure and manipulate in a single study, the more complicated your statistics are going to have to be. It will also make it more difficult to sift through the meaning of your data. Manipulating only one variable at a time will help you better control for possible confounds (external factors or unaccounted variables that may have an impact on your dependent variables, even though you may not have controlled for it). If you feel that other factors may affect your dependent variable, then you run additional studies with these factors as the new independent variables. This is how the science is grown without muddying up the waters. This is also how others can study the same topics but still provide valuable information that allows us to paint a much more complete picture.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Confusion about Developmental Age Groups
I will admit that a lot of the confusion alluded to in the title of this post is most likely on my part due to the fact that I look at developmental "age" groups from a psychological standpoint. One of the first classes I taught was a human development class, so any time someone uses the term "young adult," I automatically begin to think in terms of the delineations agreed upon by most developmental psychologists. Unfortunately, these distinctions are apparently not universally recognized by every industry that uses these labels, especially publishing, thus my frustration and confusion. Below are the defined and designated development age groups, as used by developmental psychologists. I am referring to the chronological age only. Each age group is differentiated from the others not arbitrarily, but as a result of years of research indicating a significant difference in the quality (and sometimes quantity) of advancement in each of 4 areas: physical, cognitive, personality, and social development.
Prenatal period: conception (when the ovum and sperm united and the cell begins to grow and divide) to birth (the end of the gestation period, typically 38-40 weeks from conception, when the child leaves the womb). Although the majority of development that has been studied is in the realm of physical development, psychologists are discovering that some rudimentary social and cognitive, perhaps even personality, development also occurs in the womb.
Infancy: birth (day 1, year 0) to 18 to 24 months (usually around the time the child is completely mobile or walking on their own and begins to acknowledge a world larger than themselves). Again, most of the development known is physical development, primarily because it is the most notable. However, many researchers (including Freud, Piaget, and Erikson) have noted other developmental milestones in this age range in social, cognitive, and personality realms.
Toddlerhood: 18-24 months to 4 years (about the time the child enters a pre-k program in most states in the US). This time period represents additional physical development, especially increased coordination and mastery over the major muscle groups. Cognitively, children begin to expand their understanding and curiosity about the world. They are also evolving socially, recognizing that they might not actually be the center of the universe, as they previously believed. Personality is shaped through social interaction and experimentation with the natural and imaginary worlds.
Middle childhood: ages 5 years to 11 years, or the "elementary school" years. I believe some authors and publishing houses are starting to call this age "mid-grade," but as I am not in publishing, I am uncertain. From a developmental standpoint, children continue to grow physically, though not as much as in the next phase. Also, as their cognitive development progresses, they not only learn new facts, but also begin to understand different viewpoints, which aids in their social and personality development.
Adolescence: Ages 12 years to 19 years, also know as the teen years, or the middle-school/high school years. My limited understanding of the publishing industry has led me to believe that this is the age group tentatively designated as "young adult." If this is correct, then I am completely confused about this misnomer, as Young Adult in developmental psychology is a completely different age group. Developmentally speaking, adolescence represents that last great period of physical growth, culminating in the growth spurt(s) associated with puberty. Cognitive development sees an introduction of the ability to see the world abstractly and hypothetically. Social and personality development are the greatest focus of research for this age group, as these seem to be the areas in which an individual will experience the most significant differences from start to finish.
Young Adulthood: Ages 20 years to (roughly) 39 years, also known as Early Adulthood to some developmentalists. In publishing, it seems as if this is a newer subdivision, known as "New Adult." Again, I'm a psychologist, not an author or publisher, so I am not fully versed in this area. What I do know, from a developmental psychology perspective, is that young adult means the 20s and 30s in life. Individuals reach their peak physical abilities during this time and their cognitive abilities continue to expand and specialize. Not too much research (compared to previous age groups) has been conducted on the social and personality develop during this age, though developmental psychologists are recognizing that this time in one's life does represent certain challenges and expectations that are not seen in previous or subsequent years. However, we see societal influences grow in greater importance during all of the adult years, as variations between individual behaviors and expectations tend to increase between cultures with adult subjects. I think that part of the reason research is more scant from a developmental view is that we take for granted that all "adults" are alike--i.e. have the same expectations placed upon them--once they reach the "magic" stage of adulthood.
Middle Adulthood: Ages 40 years to 60-65 years. I have noticed that publishing seems to treat the rest of adults the same way in that they no longer make any distinctions about age of characters or life situations once the adult threshold has been passed. Developmentally, we see a gradual decline in physical abilities, though cognitive abilities may continue to increase or at least stay static. Social development takes on new meaning as different expectations and roles are faced in this life stage. Personality development is believed to also stay mostly static, yet some minor tweaks may occur if the right experiences come along.
Late Adulthood: Ages 65 years and older. Again, there seems to be no distinction here in the publishing industry. Developmental psychologists study life from the womb to the tomb, however, so they do have an interest in changes that occur as we continue to age further. Despite stereotypes, cognitive abilities reach a plateau (at least fluid intelligence does; crystallized intelligence continues to increase), they do not decline in late adulthood. Physical development continues its decline. This may be more rapid for some and slow for others, depending upon their general health throughout their lifespan. Social development revolves mostly around cultural expectations for individuals at this stage. Some cultures value the wisdom and experience of age, some feel older individuals should be neglected because they have moved beyond their usefulness. Personality development will be greatly influenced by this social development.
My Confusion with Publishing Labels
The beginning of my confusion when it comes to authors and/or publishers trying to label their stories comes from the qualifications necessary to place a story in a particular reading age group. Perhaps someone can answer this for me. What makes the book "mid-grade" or "young adult" or any other age-related designation? Is it that the characters fall within this age group, or that the language is at this cognitive developmental level, or that the subject matter is at this social development level expected in that particular age range? Have publishing houses actually looked at the research to determine that the book is written in the language level appropriate for the cognitive development for the stage, if it is based on comprehension level? If it is based on just the age level of the main characters (or simply the majority of the characters), then there might be quite a few books that may need reconsideration in their age designation. And what happens if the characters progress from one age level to the next? Does some of the series then fall into the next category? I'm sure that would cause some confusion for book stores and libraries, as they have also separated their juvenile (or children's) sections into varying age groups, specifically distinguishing between young adult, juvenile, easy reader, and (sometimes) teen. If the books are placed in a particular designation because of the social developmental level, I wonder if publishing houses have done their homework to determine that the characters are facing appropriate age-related social challenges to garner the distinction given.
I am not trying to reformat the publishing industry. I am pretty sure that if anyone actually reads this post they might take offense at my questions, misinterpreting my purpose. I am truly confused and curious as to how these (to me) sometimes arbitrary age-related labels get slapped onto a book or series. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't always guarantee more or fewer readers. Many full-grown adults will read "children's books" if the story is well-written and the characters are personable. I think it is misleading to label something in the hopes of getting a larger audience--much like movie studios do when they vie for a particular rating in order to encourage or discourage a certain population from seeing it. Believe it or not, the public (possibly in error) trusts industries to be honest with them when categorizing their offerings. Placing a book--or a movie, television show, video game--in the wrong category can create unnecessary anxiety, especially for parents who want to make sure that their children are exposed to age-appropriate content. That anxiety can also be felt by others who fear ridicule and harsh judgment from their peers for reading (or watching or playing) content that is supposedly developmentally below their current stage.
Hopefully, I have enlightened a few people about the current age-related distinctions that those who research developmental stages use to determine when an individual has transitioned from one age group to the next. Perhaps I have even started some person on the road to understand why one child may be considered developmentally delayed in one of the four categories. I, myself, am also looking for enlightenment in those areas with which I am not fully inducted so that I can continue to grow and learn on my life journey.
Prenatal period: conception (when the ovum and sperm united and the cell begins to grow and divide) to birth (the end of the gestation period, typically 38-40 weeks from conception, when the child leaves the womb). Although the majority of development that has been studied is in the realm of physical development, psychologists are discovering that some rudimentary social and cognitive, perhaps even personality, development also occurs in the womb.
Infancy: birth (day 1, year 0) to 18 to 24 months (usually around the time the child is completely mobile or walking on their own and begins to acknowledge a world larger than themselves). Again, most of the development known is physical development, primarily because it is the most notable. However, many researchers (including Freud, Piaget, and Erikson) have noted other developmental milestones in this age range in social, cognitive, and personality realms.
Toddlerhood: 18-24 months to 4 years (about the time the child enters a pre-k program in most states in the US). This time period represents additional physical development, especially increased coordination and mastery over the major muscle groups. Cognitively, children begin to expand their understanding and curiosity about the world. They are also evolving socially, recognizing that they might not actually be the center of the universe, as they previously believed. Personality is shaped through social interaction and experimentation with the natural and imaginary worlds.
Middle childhood: ages 5 years to 11 years, or the "elementary school" years. I believe some authors and publishing houses are starting to call this age "mid-grade," but as I am not in publishing, I am uncertain. From a developmental standpoint, children continue to grow physically, though not as much as in the next phase. Also, as their cognitive development progresses, they not only learn new facts, but also begin to understand different viewpoints, which aids in their social and personality development.
Adolescence: Ages 12 years to 19 years, also know as the teen years, or the middle-school/high school years. My limited understanding of the publishing industry has led me to believe that this is the age group tentatively designated as "young adult." If this is correct, then I am completely confused about this misnomer, as Young Adult in developmental psychology is a completely different age group. Developmentally speaking, adolescence represents that last great period of physical growth, culminating in the growth spurt(s) associated with puberty. Cognitive development sees an introduction of the ability to see the world abstractly and hypothetically. Social and personality development are the greatest focus of research for this age group, as these seem to be the areas in which an individual will experience the most significant differences from start to finish.
Young Adulthood: Ages 20 years to (roughly) 39 years, also known as Early Adulthood to some developmentalists. In publishing, it seems as if this is a newer subdivision, known as "New Adult." Again, I'm a psychologist, not an author or publisher, so I am not fully versed in this area. What I do know, from a developmental psychology perspective, is that young adult means the 20s and 30s in life. Individuals reach their peak physical abilities during this time and their cognitive abilities continue to expand and specialize. Not too much research (compared to previous age groups) has been conducted on the social and personality develop during this age, though developmental psychologists are recognizing that this time in one's life does represent certain challenges and expectations that are not seen in previous or subsequent years. However, we see societal influences grow in greater importance during all of the adult years, as variations between individual behaviors and expectations tend to increase between cultures with adult subjects. I think that part of the reason research is more scant from a developmental view is that we take for granted that all "adults" are alike--i.e. have the same expectations placed upon them--once they reach the "magic" stage of adulthood.
Middle Adulthood: Ages 40 years to 60-65 years. I have noticed that publishing seems to treat the rest of adults the same way in that they no longer make any distinctions about age of characters or life situations once the adult threshold has been passed. Developmentally, we see a gradual decline in physical abilities, though cognitive abilities may continue to increase or at least stay static. Social development takes on new meaning as different expectations and roles are faced in this life stage. Personality development is believed to also stay mostly static, yet some minor tweaks may occur if the right experiences come along.
Late Adulthood: Ages 65 years and older. Again, there seems to be no distinction here in the publishing industry. Developmental psychologists study life from the womb to the tomb, however, so they do have an interest in changes that occur as we continue to age further. Despite stereotypes, cognitive abilities reach a plateau (at least fluid intelligence does; crystallized intelligence continues to increase), they do not decline in late adulthood. Physical development continues its decline. This may be more rapid for some and slow for others, depending upon their general health throughout their lifespan. Social development revolves mostly around cultural expectations for individuals at this stage. Some cultures value the wisdom and experience of age, some feel older individuals should be neglected because they have moved beyond their usefulness. Personality development will be greatly influenced by this social development.
My Confusion with Publishing Labels
The beginning of my confusion when it comes to authors and/or publishers trying to label their stories comes from the qualifications necessary to place a story in a particular reading age group. Perhaps someone can answer this for me. What makes the book "mid-grade" or "young adult" or any other age-related designation? Is it that the characters fall within this age group, or that the language is at this cognitive developmental level, or that the subject matter is at this social development level expected in that particular age range? Have publishing houses actually looked at the research to determine that the book is written in the language level appropriate for the cognitive development for the stage, if it is based on comprehension level? If it is based on just the age level of the main characters (or simply the majority of the characters), then there might be quite a few books that may need reconsideration in their age designation. And what happens if the characters progress from one age level to the next? Does some of the series then fall into the next category? I'm sure that would cause some confusion for book stores and libraries, as they have also separated their juvenile (or children's) sections into varying age groups, specifically distinguishing between young adult, juvenile, easy reader, and (sometimes) teen. If the books are placed in a particular designation because of the social developmental level, I wonder if publishing houses have done their homework to determine that the characters are facing appropriate age-related social challenges to garner the distinction given.
I am not trying to reformat the publishing industry. I am pretty sure that if anyone actually reads this post they might take offense at my questions, misinterpreting my purpose. I am truly confused and curious as to how these (to me) sometimes arbitrary age-related labels get slapped onto a book or series. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't always guarantee more or fewer readers. Many full-grown adults will read "children's books" if the story is well-written and the characters are personable. I think it is misleading to label something in the hopes of getting a larger audience--much like movie studios do when they vie for a particular rating in order to encourage or discourage a certain population from seeing it. Believe it or not, the public (possibly in error) trusts industries to be honest with them when categorizing their offerings. Placing a book--or a movie, television show, video game--in the wrong category can create unnecessary anxiety, especially for parents who want to make sure that their children are exposed to age-appropriate content. That anxiety can also be felt by others who fear ridicule and harsh judgment from their peers for reading (or watching or playing) content that is supposedly developmentally below their current stage.
Hopefully, I have enlightened a few people about the current age-related distinctions that those who research developmental stages use to determine when an individual has transitioned from one age group to the next. Perhaps I have even started some person on the road to understand why one child may be considered developmentally delayed in one of the four categories. I, myself, am also looking for enlightenment in those areas with which I am not fully inducted so that I can continue to grow and learn on my life journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)