Posted on Sun, Jan 22, 2012 @ 01:00 PM
In the last post we saw that the ability to think critically requires that we have enough self-control to resist our initial gut reactions. This allows us time to root out any biases or distortions that may be obstructing our thinking. Unfortunately, sometimes we simply fail to entertain the notion that we may have biases, especially if we are not used to thinking about how we are thinking—a skill referred to as metacognition.
In other cases, we may know biases are possible but (of course) we don't have any. And we know this because we are convinced we would be capable of recognizing our biases even though our personal history may be replete with proof that we are not. For instance, let's say "Jane" has a bias toward expecting the worst of others. In nine encounters out of ten, the worst doesn't actually happen, but Jane is unable to apply that experience to changing her view of the people in her life. She misses the clues in her own daily experience that should help her see that her thinking processes are skewed: that she has a deep-seated bias operating. This bias is probably hurting many of her relationships. And even though she may be aware that biases in her thinking are possible, this one completely eludes her—a state of affairs which has been called metacognitive dissonance.
This failure of metacognition, operating together with an array of potential thinking distortions, is believed to be at the heart of many mental health issues, including a state researchers are beginning to call pathological altruism. A pathological altruist has been defined by researcher Barbara Oakley (along with other experts who are pioneering this new area of study) as, "a person who sincerely engages in what he or she intends to be altruistic acts, but who harms the very person or group he or she is trying to help, often in unanticipated fashion; or harms others; or irrationally becomes a victim of his or her own altruistic actions" (Oakley et al., 2012, p. 4).
Our example, Jane, may fall prey to pathological altruism in feeling as though she needs to step in and "help" everyone around her since no one is capable of performing up to her standards. As a result, her children may never learn to clean their own rooms, her husband may lose the motivation to participate in family planning and decision making, and her friends may stop offering to help in the kitchen after her dinner parties. To all appearances, Jane is a paragon of self-sacrifice, but there's a dark side to her helpfulness: she has created a situation that is potentially harmful to herself as well as to her family.
Of course, Jane's situation is relatively mild in comparison to that of some other pathological altruists one might meet. According to researchers, the potential results of pathological altruism might include animal hoarding, eating disorders, suicide bombings, dictatorships or genocide.
Can the human brain really be so susceptible to self-delusion that some of the world's worst problems can be traced to a mistaken belief in motivations of altruism? Do we know any pathological altruists personally? Ourselves, perhaps? (And before any of us instinctively answers "no" to that last question, we may want to resist that initial impulse long enough to reconsider the concept of metacognitive dissonance.)
Reference:
Oakley, B., Knafo, A. and McGrath, M. (2012). Pathological Altruism—An Introduction. In B. Oakley, A. Knafo, G. Madhaven, & D. S. Wilson (Eds.), Pathological Altruism (pp. 77-93). New York: Oxford University Press.
Posted on Wed, Jan 18, 2012 @ 01:33 PM
Economists, educators and policy makers like to ask a basic question that parents should also be concerned about in terms of their children: What makes some people more susceptible than others to biases of judgment?
Perhaps you've heard of a famous experiment in which four-year-olds were given a choice between a small reward "now" or a larger reward "later," intended to test their self-control? If so, you also know that the researchers kept tabs on the children. Ten or fifteen years later, those who had resisted temptation were not only less likely to take drugs, but they also had better executive control in cognitive tasks and attention, and they scored higher on intelligence tests. In other words, they had a higher capacity for critical thinking.
Why is self-control so closely connected to the ability to think critically? According to Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his research in decision making, one of the reasons is that critical thinking requires the ability to resist the "easy" or "intuitive" answer. Like the children who resisted the "easy" reward, people with good critical thinking skills are deliberate and thoughtful in their approach. They are willing to invest the effort to check their first instincts. Kahneman refers to them as more "engaged," and explains that "they are more alert, more intellectually active, less willing to be satisfied with superficially attractive answers, more skeptical about their intuitions."
In other words, they have the self-control to stop and think about how they think. Where did they get this self-control? Research suggests there are some genetic influences, but the same body of research also points to the importance of parenting techniques.
Of course, even though we, as parents, may want to pass down strengths like self-control, critical thinking, and good decision making, the task will be nearly impossible if we don't possess these skills ourselves.
Just for fun, you may want to try the simple puzzle Kahneman includes in his 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. "Do not try to solve it, " he instructs, "but listen to your intuition":
A bat and ball cost $1.10.
The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?
A number came to your mind. The number, of course, is 10: 10₵. The distinctive mark of this easy puzzle is that it evokes an answer that is intuitive, appealing, and wrong. Do the math, and you will see. If the ball costs 10₵, then the total cost will be $1.20 (10₵ for the ball and $1.10 for the bat), not $1.10. The correct answer is 5₵. It is safe to assume that the intuitive answer also came to the mind of those who ended up with the correct number—they somehow managed to resist the intuition (Kahneman, 2011, p. 44).
Interestingly, many thousands of university students have answered the bat-and-ball puzzle in research experiments and the majority give the intuitive, though incorrect, answer. Depending on the selectivity of the university, the rate of failure to check intuition was between 50% and 80%.
"Many people," Kahneman concludes, "are overconfident, prone to place too much faith in their intuitions. They apparently find cognitive effort at least mildly unpleasant and avoid it as much as possible."
As tempting as it is to believe he's overstating the case, perhaps this is a good time to test your ability to resist temptation. The truth of the matter is that, even as we hope to teach our children the self-control required to resist thier intuition and become good decision makers, it's highly likely we have room for improvement in these areas ourselves.
Self Regulation: Teaching Children the Art of Self-Control
Posted on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 @ 05:42 PM
Most of us, at one time or another, have been guilty of using the withdrawal of our love, affection, or attention as a tool to coerce others into doing what we want them to do. Couples may give each other the silent treatment when they are displeased, parents may pointedly ignore their children in an attempt to express disapproval of their behavior. Friends may cut one another out of their circle over real or imagined slights, gossip, or failure to conform to the group's social norms. But does our cold shoulder really get us what we want?
Clearly, that depends on what it is that we want. Do we want revenge? Do we want to "win" at all costs—establish our superiority in the social food chain? Do we want one more fix of that very seductive self-righteous chemical brain rush we get when we are sure we're right and the other person is wrong, and we get to be the one who puts them in their place before trumpeting our victory to our cronies? (This description isn't just a literary device. Research suggests that the chemical released in the brain during a self-righteous episode can literally be addictive.)
If what we want is repair, connection, and good physical and mental health outcomes for all concerned—including ourselves—then the answer is no. Turning a cold shoulder won't get us what we want. Lest you doubt (and don't we all love a little doubt when our favored behaviors are being questioned?) there is a vast bibliography of research to convince us. I will include some specific studies at the end of this post, but in short, social exclusion numbs our victims. It makes them less able to think coherently, limits their self-control, even cuts their empathy for others off at the knees.
Those being excluded DO crave connection, but rather than risk rejection by returning to former loved ones they will look for acceptance in less intimidating quarters. And considering their equally less discriminating state of mind, these new connections may not be the most conducive for good life outcomes.
"The need to belong," write researchers Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary, "is a powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive motivation."
It would be prudent to give careful thought to any actions that might underestimate this need. When used as a tool for coercion it can have unanticipated consequences.
Further Reading:
Social Exclusion Impairs Self-Regulation, Baumeister et al. (2010), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 88(4), Apr 2005, 589-604.
Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. DeWall and Baumeister (2006), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 91(1), Jul 2006, 1-15.
Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior, Twenge et al, (2007). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 92(1), Jan 2007, 56-66.
Social Exclusion and the Deconstructed State: Time Perception, Meaninglessness, Lethargy, Lack of Emotion, and Self-Awareness, Twenge et al. (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 85(3), Sep 2003, 409-423.
Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought, Baumeister et al. (2002). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 83(4), Oct 2002, 817-827.
Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the "porcupine problem." Maner, et al. (2007). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 92(1), Jan 2007, 42-55.
Silence Is Not Golden, Stepp (2007).
People: Who Needs Them?, Stepp (2011)
Posted on Mon, Nov 28, 2011 @ 08:58 AM
Thanksgiving week brought my adult daughter home for her first visit since last August when she took a job nearly 3,000 miles away. While this circumstance alone would have been enough to make this Thanksgiving Day a joyful occasion, we also had the pleasure of being with "chosen family," those special relationships we develop that blur the lines between blood relatives and close friends.
Unfortunately it's impossible to have every treasured family member with us on every holiday, but in these cases it makes sense to treasure those family and friends that we can have with us, while also being grateful for all of our loved ones however scattered they may be.
Research continues to underscore the multiple benefits we reap from every one of these varied relationships. Whether or not we have spouse, children, mother, father, siblings or cousins, aunts and uncles or grandparents—we can nevertheless fill our lives with close friends and other social relationships that contribute just as much to our health and happiness.
However, doing so requires conscious effort on our part. Relationships can't be maintained, or even formed in the first place, if we are uninterested in actively reaching out to others. Thankfully, especially considering how common it is for family to be widely scattered in our mobile society, technology has provided us with tools that can help make this task just a little easier. And while there may certainly be some few who allow these technologies to crowd out their real-life relationships, an increasing body of research into the social impact of sites such as Facebook finds that most people use technology to strengthen and maintain relationships that are already important in their lives.
Researchers have long realized that silence, at least in the quest for healthy relationships is not golden—rather, relationships thrive when frequent communication is set against a healthy backdrop of gratitude for the ability to connect. It may be worth asking ourselves the question: Is my family among those who use social technology as a tool for increasing and maintaining communication?
Posted on Thu, Sep 08, 2011 @ 12:10 PM
The image of the nuclear family is ubiquitous in modern Western culture: it has been captured in countless photographs, immortalized in books and electronic media, and hailed as the foundation of an ideal society. And while on one level we may recognize that not every family is neatly organized with parents, children, and perhaps a dog or cat thrown in for good measure, it is nevertheless common for us to think of "a family" as a closed unit composed of those specific kinds of relationships.
Clearly, when one adult asks another, "Do you have a family?" they usually mean "Are you married? Do you have children?" However, as social psychologist Bella DePaulo points out in her 2006 book, Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After, “there are, of course, other meanings of family.” This leads her to question why most of us seem to expect single adults to reply: "No, I don't," rather than “Oh, yes, I have a family. . . . I have a brother, a sister, three cousins, a grandmother, an uncle and two aunts.”
Increasing evidence confirms the importance of these family members. In fact, says Robert Milardo, researcher and author of The Forgotten Kin: Aunts and Uncles, "relationships among siblings are among the more resilient, long lasting, and intimate of family ties, and with the introduction of children, the roles of aunt and uncle are added to the mix of bonds linking siblings and their partners or spouses."
In a recent three-way interview, I had the privilege of speaking with both DePaulo and Milardo about many of the reasons why "collateral kin," such as aunts and uncles, warrant inclusion in our paradigms of family.
"The idea of a nuclear family doesn’t seem to represent how families really live," Milardo remarked. "Many do, but many do not. I think public rhetoric says families are organized that way. We often talk about them as unique households, but we really often live across households."
DePaulo agreed, adding that stereotypes of the nuclear family may be played out more in the official display of family, such as in photographs or at public events, rather than in a family's actual practice at home. "You and your 'significant other' may be invited to brunch, or whatever the occasion might be," she offered by way of an example, "but 'significant other' is understood to mean a romantic relationship partner. Well, if I live near, or even with, a sibling or a grown niece or nephew and they are very close to me, why should that person not have the same standing as a boyfriend I may have been involved with for one month?”
Indeed, DePaulo and Milardo each note that the remarkable invisibility of aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and adult siblings in public life is inconsistent with their equally remarkable importance in the private lives of many families.
"To be sure," acknowledges Milardo, "not all families are in frequent communication, but then not all exist as isolated households. One need only recall travel patterns on major North American holidays to confirm this."
Those who are not fortunate enough to live near blood relatives may also burst the somewhat artificial boundaries of the nuclear family by cultivating relationships with "chosen" kin: close friends who for all practical purposes fulfill the roles of sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles or grandparents. Moreover, physically far-flung relatives may not actually be all that "distant" anymore, thanks to the advent of social networking sites like Facebook. Whatever the drawbacks may be of such technologies, they have nevertheless been found to foster those exchanges of the small details of daily life that help family members to feel connected to one another.
Research into the importance of collateral relatives (including chosen kin) still has a long way to go, but it is encouraging to see that DePaulo, Milardo, and others are well on the way to opening at least a small window into these too-often neglected family resources.
Posted on Fri, Jul 01, 2011 @ 03:40 PM
Parents of multiple children may feel they spend far too much of their time heading off seemingly constant bickering, bullying and fighting between their progeny. If this describes you, perhaps you have wondered whether to shrug it off as normal sibling rivalry—something that must simply be waited out. On the other hand, perhaps you've worried about whether your kids exhibit the same kind of behavior toward other children at school or elsewhere? (See "Dating Violence Overlaps with Peer and Sibling Violence.")
While it's true that sibling relationships do change and grow across the lifespan, current research underscores that it is perfectly appropriate for parents to be concerned when they see a pattern of negative interactions between their children. Interestingly, both the bullied as well as the bullying siblings may potentially act out among their peers. The good news, according to sibling researchers such as Dr. Laurie Kramer, is that parents can have an important influence on whether and how well their children get along with one another.
One way parents can influence their children's relationships is by guarding against preferential treatment, or favoritism. While it may be very difficult for parents to recognize that some of their well-meaning actions reflect bias, self-honesty about this destructive influence could mean the difference between a lifetime of camaraderie between their children and a lifetime of suspicion and resentment.
Even beyond simple day-to-day actions that could be construed as favoritism, the fundamental quality of each parent-child bond is also an important factor. When two siblings each have secure attachment to their caregivers, they are also more likely to have secure, positive relationships with one another (Whiteman, McHale, and Soli, 2011).
This kind of relationship is one of the best gifts parents can offer their children: one that will outlast a parents' own lifetime, and will certainly persist long after the siblings leave home. While some assume that sibling relationships change permanently when children marry and establish their own families, studies find that these life changes present only temporary distancing as siblings focus on new life stages. According to Shawn Whiteman of Purdue University and his colleagues Susan McHale and Anna Soli of Pennsylvania State University, "In middle and later adulthood, contact between siblings stabiizes and most siblings maintain contact with one another throughout the life course." More than half of siblings studied in a U.S. sample of more than 7,700 adult siblings in 1992 remained close, contacting one another at least once a month. "Moreover," adds Whiteman and his colleagues, "because computer-mediated communications such as e-mail, blogs, and Facebook have made it easier for individuals and family members to stay connected and because older adults are using these technologies at greater rates than in the past, it is likely that adult siblings are more involved and informed than in recent memory." (See Social Networking Sites and Our Lives, Pew Research Center, June 2011.)
Considering the importance of these relationships throughout the lifespan, sibling bullying, bickering, and fighting should not be taken lightly. Fortunately, researchers are now focusing on this research area, catching up wtih parents, who have always had a stake in working at building healthy sibling relationships.
Posted on Thu, Jun 16, 2011 @ 11:08 AM
As Father's Day approaches it seems the perfect time for mothers and children to remind dads that they aren't just a "third wheel" in our lives. Well, sure, I know families who get along just fine without dads, just as I know others who get along just fine without moms. Given balanced social networks, we can all richly bolster our children's development and well-being when we need to.
Nevertheless, those fathers who have the opportunity to be part of their children's lives need to know that the benefits fathers offer children are just as important as those mothers offer, even though mothers have long been assumed to be the only really necessary caretaker in the lives of children.
Further, contrary to other common assumptions, those benefits that fathers offer are not only for sons. The relationship between fathers and daughters is just as important as the more easily esteemed bond between fathers and sons. In addition, these benefits do not only relate to those traits in fathers commonly considered "masculine," such as rough-and-tumble play. Rather, children need nurturance and caregiving from fathers as well as from mothers.
Unfortunately, misconceptions that men are not naturally "nurturing" have handicapped fathers in performing this important function. Just ask Scott Lancaster, Stefan Korn, and Eric Mooij, founders of DIY Father, a fast-growing site dedicated to providing dads with useful parenting information and helping them become "the best fathers they can be." In their own families, these dads (and others like them) are living testimony to the fact that nurturance and caregiving are not the sole province of moms, and that dads are vital developmental resources for children, even from the early weeks of pregnancy.
Of course, as the following two articles demonstrate, policy-makers and employers may be far behind fathers themselves in recognizing this important family resource.
BOSTON, June 15 (Reuters Life!) - Many fathers these days want it all -- time with kids, promotions at work and a spouse who shares the parenting duties.
NEW YORK, June 15 (Reuters Life!) - Many U.S. mothers feel like single parents, whether they are married or not, and two out of three resent handling all the household chores even when they prefer their partners to stand aside, a new survey shows.
Posted on Mon, May 09, 2011 @ 11:07 AM
The black, sparkly nail polish I'm wearing today is just far enough out of character that it prompted one of my friends to ask, "Are you going Goth on us?" Considering that for some weeks now I have been able to feel the breath of my 50th birthday blasting its warmth upon my neck (assuming it isn't actually a hot flash), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if my finger fashion screams "midlife crisis" to everyone I meet. But no, it's just that my almost-8-year-old daughter lovingly painted my nails for Mother's Day: one of many memorable gifts showered on me by my family. I am honor-bound to proudly wear it until there are enough chips to justify its official removal. From an 8-year-old's perspective, that requires a lot of chips, but I really don't mind. It's almost rejuvenating to glance down and see the manicure of a teenage girl tapping away at the keys as I type.
Perhaps what my friends tell me is true: this child who was born just as I turned 42 is destined to keep me young. But that familiar cliche is only partly right. According to neuroscience research, my other two daughters—the now college graduate and the soon-to-be high-school freshman—have made similar contributions to my youth and vitality.
In fact, mothers everywhere (as well as fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and anyone else who shares in the challenging pleasure of nurturing children) receive tremendous, if not always obvious, gifts all year long as a result of the interactions they have with their young charges.
While mothers may have an advantage through the additional contributions of pregnancy hormones (see The Mother Load: The Neuroscience of Motherhood), they are by no means the only ones reaping rewards.
Neuroscience tells us that human minds are interdependent; that interpersonal relationships literally affect the shape of the brain. In his 2010 book The Forgotten Kin: Aunts and Uncles, Robert M. Milardo, a professor of Family Relations at the University of Maine, focuses in particular on the positive effects children and their parents' siblings have on one another, and the vital role each can play in the other's life.
Milardo's book is just as important for parents to read as it is for aunts and uncles: especially those who have drifted apart from brothers and sisters in adulthood. Of course, The Forgotten Kin may motivate parents to revisit and restore positive sibling relationships for the benefit of their children, but if they succeed, their children will not be the only ones who benefit.
Posted on Tue, Apr 26, 2011 @ 01:17 PM
This summer marks the 100th anniversary of the American Psychoanalytic Association, founded in 1911 on Sigmund Freud's approach to psychotherapy. Perhaps this is as good a time as any to untangle some of the misconceptions we may hold about our options for addressing mental health issues, now that a century has passed since his theories began to be disseminated.
For many people, the word "psychotherapy" is synonymous with Freud, bringing to mind terms such as sexual repression, oedipus complex, transference, anal retention, and the unconscious. These concepts may invoke the ubiquitous image of a patient reclining on a couch while a psychiatrist with a goatee taps a pencil on his knee and frowns up at the ceiling. No doubt we owe the persistence of this stereotype to media representations, but many people fail to realize that Freud's specific approach to therapy, known as psychoanalysis, has steadily lost popularity since its heyday in the 1960s. Today, only a small percentage of psychotherapists use psychoanalysis in mental health treatment. Extremely time-consuming in many cases and expensive to complete in comparison to modern therapies, psychoanalysis has been forced to change significantly as modern research has failed to uphold many of Freud's original assumptions. One thing that hasn't changed however, is the fact that now, just as in the past, its admittedly few but faithful practitioners are most likely to be psychiatrists (who hold medical degrees) rather than psychologists or other mental health clinicians.
The thought of psychoanalysis certainly does not appeal to everyone, but it doesn't need to. There have always been alternative therapeutic approaches, such as those founded by Freud's contemporaries, Alfred Adler and Carl Jung, and new treatments have continuously evolved as advances in the field of neuroscience have reinforced certain aspects of therapeutic practice and weeded out others.
Considering that there are many different approaches to psychotherapy and that some therapists use combinations of them, choosing a therapist ls a very personal process and should not be taken lightly. Ideally, it would begin with recommendations from trusted family, friends, clergy, or health professionals. Whether to choose a therapist who works with individuals or one who works with couples, families, or issue-focused groups will naturally depend on the specific needs of the client or clients, but in any case it is important to be confident that the therapist will respect and be sensitive to the client's cultural identity, which includes areas such as ethnicity, gender, social class, and religion.
Modern approaches to psychotherapy, such as the cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) developed by UCLA's Jeffrey Schwartz, generally focus on changing the thoughts, emotions or behaviors that contribute to mental distress or dysfunction. Because of their focus on personal change, psychotherapies can be extremely useful, not only for helping people who suffer from mental disorders like OCD, but also for helping to resolve those relatively minor but maddeningly persistent and disruptive interpersonal issues that arise in family relationships. There is no doubt that learned behaviors and styles of relating to one another can be very difficult to change, even when we understand that change is necessary and are strongly motivated to achieve it. Psychotherapy is only one of many tools—albeit a very useful one—that can help us as we work to replace habitual unwanted thoughts and behaviors with those that are more constructive.
Three Guys From Vienna
Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, and Carl Jung were associates for a period of time in Vienna as each developed his own approach to psychotherapy. In this collection of articles, Vision examines how well these three approaches have withstood the test of time.
Posted on Tue, Jan 25, 2011 @ 05:51 PM
Is intelligence the key to health, wealth and happiness for children? Or perhaps, as many believe, social class is the determining factor in potential success? According to new research published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, parents who stress over these variables are focusing on the wrong criteria. It appears instead that a concrete skill—one that can be taught—is actually much more influential than either intelligence or social status in securing positive outcomes. That skill is self-control.
In an international effort, a team that included researchers from Duke University followed 1,000 children in Dunedin, New Zealand from birth until they reached the age of 32, periodically measuring a variety of characteristics and looking for correlations to outcomes in such areas as health, wealth and criminal status. The connection between success and self-control was unequivocal.
Children who showed low levels of self-control in early childhood were more likely in their teen years to make mistakes with long-term consequences that trapped them into limiting or high-risk lifestyles. Such mistakes included becoming pregnant or dropping out of high school, which the researchers interpreted as a limiting factor for the next generation as well. However, even when children with low self-control avoided these crippling mistakes in adolescence, they still showed reduced outcomes in adulthood compared to children with higher levels of self-control.
While the strength of the new finding may come as a surprise to some, it does not come entirely from left field. For decades researchers have observed that nearly everything people do or become requires some form of self-control, or self-regulation. But if self-control is so important, how can parents help their children develop it, and when should they begin?
The seeds of this skill are planted during infancy when a child is utterly dependent on attachment figures. The attention of caregivers as they respond with empathy to an infant’s needs and emotions forms a resonant relationship that is the precursor of a child’s future ability to regulate his own thoughts, emotions and behaviors.
But the need for attunement between parents and children is not limited to infancy. Across the lifespan, the development of self-control is bolstered by attuned social connections. Likewise, the success of our social connections depends to a great degree on our ability to self-regulate. Clearly then, the task of connecting appropriately with our children is one of the greatest responsibilities of parenthood. Whatever other advantages we may or may not be able to provide for them, our hopes and dreams for their success are unlikely to be realized if we have not worked with them to develop a relationship conducive to the development of self-control.
For more on helping children develop self-regulation skills, see Teaching Children the Art of Self-Control.