Morality Is All about Perspective

Looking up morality in an English language dictionary, one is faced with a couple of options.

Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct; moral quality or character; a doctrine or system of morals.

There are a couple more definitions, but I think you begin to see that this is not a clear-cut topic. From an empirical viewpoint, each of the theories I will discuss--Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan--suffer from shortcomings of data collection. Piaget's work is based on observation, both naturalistic and laboratory. Both Kohlberg and Gilligan based their work on interviews; Kohlberg interviewed only males and Gilligan interviewed only females. Other researchers attempting to reconcile these shortcomings have found that there is very little statistical difference between morality of males and females. In other words, I am going to take the viewpoint that the moral reasoning of both males and females is a developmental process that occurs over time. As such, I will present the theories without gender-specific leanings. It is possible that either gender, with no gender identity issues involved, may follow the pattern set forth by either one of these theorists. With all of this disclaiming out of the way, let us first take a look at Piaget's proposed development of moral reasoning. But first, here is one more definition to clear the way.

Moral development: changes in a sense of justice and of right and wrong; changes in behavior related to moral issues; changes in reasoning behind judgment of one's own and others' behaviors

Piaget: Jean Piaget is the foremost pioneer in researching cognitive development of children. As this was his primary focus, he saw moral behavior as a reasoning or cognitive process that also developed as the child's mental abilities increased. I will note that one of the main criticisms, possibly limitations, of Piaget's theory is that he seemed to stop with early adolescence--roughly age 11-13--so it appears as if he believed that all cognitive development and moral reasoning was determined by the onset of puberty. I will not be using age ranges here, except in the most broad sense.

Stage 1: Heteronomous Morality--children seem overly concerned with rules. These rules are unchangeable, having been generated by "someone higher" than the child. Breaking a rule is expected to be followed by immediate punishment, with no exceptions. Even if the child unintentionally breaks a rule, it is expected that they will receive the same punishment as someone who willingly attempts to circumvent them. Ignorance or meaning well is no excuse. Children in this stage become irate not only when a rule is violated but also when that violation goes unpunished.

Stage 2: Incipient Cooperation--children are more social and take the time to learn the rules before starting an activity. If there is a question about an unclear rule or if a situation arises that is not covered by preexisting rules, then the children will work together to generate the needed rule. Everyone will then be expected to follow the new rule, as well as all other established rules, and punishment for rule-breaking is expected to be handed out to all in an equal manner. In other words, your reason for breaking a rule is still not important, only whether or not you follow the rules.

Stage 3: Autonomous Cooperation--older children are fully aware that rules are created by people and, as people themselves, they can change the rules as long as everyone involved agree to them. At this stage, Piaget noted that motives become more important in determining punishment. If a child breaks a rule because it is unfair, then the rule may be rewritten. However, if a child breaks a rule to gain an unfair advantage--to cheat--then that child should be punished.

Piaget reasoned that a child's view of the rules evolved as their cognitive abilities increased. In the earlier stages of childhood, he reasoned, children have to see things in an absolutist sense because they are not yet capable of seeing the world from different perspectives. They can barely grasp two concepts--before and after, then and now, etc.--at the same time, so they can only understand the black-and-white perspective of following the rules versus not following them. As a child grows in their ability to see more possibilities and to see the world through the eyes of others, they come to see rules as more malleable because they may not have been created to cover every possible contingency. They understand that the world is more complex and that they need to be more flexible to fit in with this complexity.

Kohlberg: Lawrence Kohlberg studied under Piaget. As a result, you might be able to see the influence of Piaget's cognitive development theory on Kohlberg's expansion. Again, Kohlberg's initial research was limited by the fact that he interviewed only male subjects. He presented each person (ages ranging from under 5 to adulthood) with somewhat ambiguous moral scenarios and then asked them a series of questions to determine their reasoning behind their answers. Kohlberg was not concerned about what each subject saw as morally right or wrong behavior, but rather, the reasoning behind their judgements. Incidentally, subsequent researchers who included both males and females found that there was statistically no significant difference between the genders in each of the levels I will describe in a moment. In other words, the reasoning remained similar, regardless of one's gender. The end result is one of the most commonly-taught stage theories about moral development. Kohlberg proposed 3 levels, each with 2 stages or "orientations" (some may even see them as sub-levels), of development for moral reasoning. He did speculate that less than 10% of the adult population would be found in the highest level/orientation, though.

Level 1: Pre-conventional morality--behavior is judged based on the consequences, i.e. whether you are punished or rewarded.
Orientation/sub-level 1-1: Punishment-Obedience. As long as you don't get caught, you are doing nothing wrong. If you are rewarded, then you must have done something right.
Orientation/sub-level 1-2: Instrumental Exchange. Behavior is not "bad" if you gain some sort of benefit from it (the "What's in it for me?" mentality). If the benefit is worth any potential risk of punishment, then the behavior is considered acceptable. If, however, the payout does not compensate for negative consequences, then the behavior is wrong.

Level 2: Conventional morality--behavior is judged based on its fit with society's norms and expectations.
Orientation/sub-level 2-1: Good Child. Motivation behind one's behavior is the primary factor that is judged when determining whether you did wrong or right. If you meant well, then any negative results (e.g. broken items or hurt feelings) are mitigated by your intent and you weren't being bad so much as making a mistake. This is much more forgivable at this stage. If, on the other hand, you had malicious intent, then it is expected that you will receive the full extent of the punishment warranted by the behavior and its outcome. Children in this orientation also start to think ahead toward establishing a particular reputation among their peers and authority figures. If they wish to be seen as a "good child," then they will attempt to follow rules and engage in more pro-social behaviors. If, on the other hand, they feel that they will gain more respect, more benefits, from being a "troublemaker" or "bad child," then they will act out and break rules to gain this peer approval.
Orientation/sub-level 2-2: Law and Order. Children (and most adults, according to Kohlberg) begin to advocate following society's rules in order to maintain the general good. An understanding develops for the child of this abstract concept of fairness. The idea of what is fair moves from what is most beneficial or convenient to the individual to what is more equitable to the majority. Fairness occurs when all individuals receive the same or similar results for the same or similar behaviors. As such, individuals in this orientation partially internalize local laws. The idea of "it's the law, so I must obey it" begins to take root. Individuals who break the law are seen as "bad" people and are expected by people in this orientation to receive the "just" punishment for their crime. Yes, motivation is still a factor. This is why a decree of manslaughter has a lesser sentence than premeditated murder. Yet, in both cases a life was taken, so in both cases punishment is expected by people in the Law and Order orientation.

Level 3: Post-conventional morality--behavior and judgment of the morality of behavior is based on an internalized moral code. This moral code is influenced by one's earlier development, by the society in which they were raised, by their parents and other family members, by peers and authority figures, by media influences, and by any other experiences to which they were exposed throughout one's life. Ultimately, all of these factors come together to form a uniquely personal internalized moral code. As individuals understand even more abstract reasoning and see that the world is much more complex than black-and-white, or even the basic primary colors of the rainbow, they see that there are many factors that make each behavior, each situation unique and subject to its own "rules" for judgement at that moment.
Orientation/sub-level 3-1: Social Contract. An individual in this orientation sees society as a mutually agreed-upon contract between each of its members. If the majority of the society believes a rule has a purpose and they agree to its value, then violators of said rule will be punished with the agreed-upon consequences of breaking it. If enough people question the rule, if one does not understand why the rule is in place, then the society needs to come together to explain itself or to rewrite the rule with a more rational explanation. This is also true if the punishment does not fit the crime. When a law is completely unjust, especially to a large portion of that particular society, then individuals in this orientation feel it is not only right, but also their moral duty, to protest or violate that particular law until it is eradicated or rewritten so that all individuals are subject to it in the same way.
Orientation 3-2: Universal Ethics. This is quite possibly the most difficult to identify without careful analysis of the reasoning presented, and even then it can only be determined after eliminating the possibility that the individual is operating at a previous level or orientation. This could be why Kohlberg believed that very few individuals would reach this level of moral reasoning. In this orientation, the guiding force for one's moral behavior and reasoning is an internal code that the individual developed over time through their various experiences. This code may be influenced by the logic of society or by a religious ethical code. However, it is considered uniquely personal to the individual and it is much more adaptable, while at the same time paradoxically less malleable in some circumstances, than the "codes" found in previous orientations. Any time society's rules come in conflict with this internal moral code, the individual's code will trump the rules. This will occur for people in this orientation even if following their internal ethics will result in punishment for doing so. The thing about this orientation is that you can find people on both sides of the controversial topics who are using the same kind of reasoning. Each side as determined that they are right because of their personal perspectives. This is what makes many topics controversial. This is also why it is considered the highest form of moral reasoning--it is both adaptable (based on individual circumstances) and absolutist (what is right is right) at the same time.

The confusion about the final sub-level--its malleability and rigidity--adds to the difficulty in placing an individual at this highest level of reasoning. In all other levels and orientation, it becomes clear to see who is "right" and who is "wrong" and to determine the consequences of the behavior. Aside from the gender issue, which I stated was proven to be mostly smoke and mirrors, the other main criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes western ideals of justice and fairness. Collectivist ideals, the argument goes, would place more emphasis on what is right for the greater good of the whole unit or society. This would place collectivist reasoning in the Law and Order or the Social Contract orientation, however, so I don't see it as being completely dismissed. One could also argue that the idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few" is also a universal ethics concept if presented with the right reasoning. This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why we continue to teach Kohlberg's theory when discussing the development of moral reasoning. Note that he doesn't talk about the development of moral behavior, but about the thought processes behind taking action and judging the actions of others. This is a very important distinction. One can understand what is morally right and still behave immorally.

By the way, here are a couple more definitions to help before I discuss the last of the main moral development theories.
Amoral: to have no morals, neither moral nor immoral. To have no concept of right or wrong or to not care whether one's behaviors are right or wrong.
Immoral: to be the opposite of moral. To choose to behave in a way that is contrary to a set moral code.


Gilligan: Carol Gilligan's biggest criticism of both Piaget's and Kohlberg's theories is also her criticism of all psychological theory, especially the psychoanalysts such as Freud and Eriksson. That is to say she believed that psychology treated women as aberrant second-class citizens because most of the work was done by men studying men. Yes, she was one of the pioneers of feminism in psychology. I want to note, however, that Freud's work was based on almost all women patients. Just some food for thought; I know the Freud debate is a colossal can of worms. Regardless, Gilligan proposed that females developed their moral reasoning along a different path from those proposed by Piaget or Kohlberg. She, too, has three stages, but she also proposed transitional states between them. Once again, I am only using the most general terms concerning age and once again I am not using gender-related terms.

Stage 1: Orientation toward individual survival. The individual thinks about what is best for their self. Almost all behavior is seen by others as being selfish. To the individual, if they get what they want, then they are right.

Transition 1-2: Individual begins to move from completed selfishness to understanding responsibility to others. Behaviors begin to be shaped by a consideration of the consequences one's behavior has for others and may be modified in order to reduce the impact of a purely selfish act.

Stage 2: Goodness as self-sacrifice. The individual sees that one must sacrifice one's own wishes for the needs and wants of others. This is a complete reversal of the first stage, almost as if the person is compensating for their earlier selfishness.

Transition 2-3: Individual begins to move from an absolute view of goodness to a modified view of truth. The needs of both the individual and others are taken into consideration when determining a course of action.

Stage 3: Morality of nonviolence. Any behavior that could harm anyone, either one's self or others, is seen as wrong. This, according to Gilligan, is a more sophisticated form of reasoning that places all humans on the same level. Compromise and mutual agreement seem to be the goals of this stage. It is considered moral behavior if everyone is satisfied and no one is harmed in the process.

While Gilligan did open our eyes to the possibility that women are socialized differently compared to men, subsequent research shows that there really is very little difference between the genders in terms of the moral developmental process. Both men and women seem to progress through
their moral development in similar ways. Research has even shown that there is very little difference between cultures when you break down the reasoning behind what is determined to be wrong or right behaviors. That is the essence of these theories: the development of the reasoning process, not the development of particular behaviors.

[Side note: at the time that Gilligan made her claims, there was a significant difference in the way children were socialized based on their genders. However, as time moved forward, society began to treat the genders more equally. As a result, any gender differences that may have existed were slowly being eradicated through equal treatment. Similar patterns can be noted when comparing cultures. Earlier research claiming differences in development based on culture were conducted when cultures were very distinct and has little contact with one another. As globalization and exposure to more cultures increased, these differences began to disappear.]

A critical thinker would be able to see the similarities between each of these three theories and conclude that what they all have in common is that the idea of morality evolves as an individual's ability to grasp new concepts changes and as that individual is exposed to more of the world, including different perspectives and new ideas. What a person determines to be morally right or wrong, to be punishable or excusable, is influenced by the level of reasoning at which that person can be found. Before you judge whether or not someone is moral, amoral, or immoral, perhaps you might consider the reasoning the person gives for their behavior, as well as your reasoning in judging them.

Once Bitten, (Maybe) Twice Shy

How many times have you heard someone described as being shy? Have you ever thought about why someone was reluctant to approach another person and begin, or join, a conversation? One of the many misconceptions about shyness is that it is inherent to certain people and not others. However, shyness is not a personality factor, it is highly situational.

Let's clarify the difference between a personality factor and a situational factor. I know, I'm sure that most people could probably figure this out on their own. Yet, I want to be thorough with my post, so I will go ahead and lay this foundation. A personality factor indicates that this characteristic/trait/behavior is a relative constant for an individual in almost all circumstances. A situational factor indicates that these characteristics/traits/behaviors will appear in almost all environments or situations that are similar, but not necessarily in others. Wait. What's with all the qualifiers? Well, one of the components of Cattell's personality theory was the idea of surface traits and source traits.

A surface trait is a characteristic or behavior that shows up in certain situations and not others. It is believed to consistently appear in these types of situations any time this particular individual finds themselves in one. On the other hand, a source trait is part of the core essence of an individual, so it will show itself, or be very difficult to mask, in nearly every situation. The only problem with Cattell's theory is that neither he nor other researchers was ever able to identify which traits are surface and which are source. This idea seems to be as much an individual feature as one's actual personality. That is to say, one person's source trait may be seen as another person's surface trait. Regardless of the inability to identify which personality features are more malleable than others, personality researchers began to see that people's behaviors are influenced by their environment as well as their inherent personality.

The next leap was to try to find behaviors that were almost always situation-specific, more-or-less the opposite of a personality characteristic. Not surprisingly, there weren't too many behaviors that could be attributed solely to the environment. However, some behaviors, after years of careful scrutiny, did appear to be almost entirely situational by nature. Shyness turned out to be one of them.

Researchers found that a "shy" person--someone who seems to keep to themselves and who is reluctant to engage in activities or conversation with others--will actually open up to certain people in select situations. Yes, there are some people who appear to be shy almost all the time to almost everyone who meets them. There are better explanations beyond a throw-away assessment of "shyness" smacked upon them. Perhaps this is an individual who is cautious by nature. Maybe they want to observe their environment before they determine the expected behaviors or they were hurt in the past and are reluctant to share too much of themselves for fear of being hurt once more. It is possible that the "shy" person is an introvert who is preserving their energy for the right socialization moment. You could also have a case in which the individual has determined that this is a threatening situation and they do not want to make any false moves, so they shrink back from any possible confrontation.

Some people appear shy when meeting someone of the opposite sex. Others are shy around perceived authority figures (for example, my daughter shrinks back and is reluctant to speak any time she has to meet a new adult, but meeting new children her age or younger poses very little problems for her). Sometimes individuals are reluctant to speak up in a crowd, such as a classroom or meeting, but when they are surrounded by their friends or only a couple other people they seamlessly participate in the conversation and activities. If you were to observe these shy individuals in other contexts, then you may find that they have no problem opening up to other individuals in other circumstances.

So, before you dismiss someone as simply shy, try to think about the situational factors that may lead to them being reluctant to communicating. Could they be an observant or cautious individual? Could the situation be overwhelming? Could you, yourself, be perceived as an overly dominant force? It also helps to think about the moments when you may have been shy or more cautious to join in the conversation with others. Put yourself in their shoes before you start judging them. Then you might be able to help relieve their anxieties and get them to open up to you more easily.

Unconditional Positive Regard: De-Mystifying Carl Rogers' Concept

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.

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.

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.

• 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.

Defensive Attribution: blaming the victim. This is actually another illustration of the fundamental attribution error--the negative events half. We have a great tendency to blame a victim for the crimes committed against him/her. The majority of the time, when a person is raped (and yes, men can be rape victims and women can be rapists) we like to ask if they might not have done something to provoke it. Maybe she was wearing provocative clothing. Maybe he was "asking for it" by leading the other person to believe that he really "wanted" it. Why do we do this? Again, we have a basic need to keep our ideas of the universe intact, even if they border on the delusional. We want to believe that bad things happen to bad people. We want to believe that we are good people. Therefore, we could not possibly be a victim because that would mean we are bad people and we know that's not the case. As a result, we want to believe that the victim must have done something bad to bring about their circumstances. Otherwise, our simplistic causal view of the universe makes no sense and we have to think too hard about real causes of behaviors and events.

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.

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.

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.