Postcards from the Id

Interesting Article on Information and Choices

This article at Science Daily reviews research into how people make decisions, even fully informed decisions, based on short-term or long-term gain.  Seems that, even when fully informed about how the long-term decision pays off way more (in the long-term), people will more often choose the route with the short-term pay-off.  From the article:

As part of the study, 78 subjects were repeatedly given two options through a computer program that allowed them to accumulate points. For each choice, one option offered the subject more points. But choosing the other option could lead to more points further along in the experiment.

A small cash bonus was tied to the subjects' performance, providing an incentive to rack up more points during the 250 trial questions.

However, subjects who were given full and accurate information about what they would have to give up in the short term to rack up points in the long term, chose the quick payoff more than twice as often as those who were given false information or no information about the rewards they would be giving up.

In a real-life scenario, a student who stayed home to study and then learned he had missed a fun party would be less likely to study next time in a similar situation -- even if that option provides more long-term benefits.

I think this gets to the essence of many issues involved in the process of therapy, at least from my perspective.  I've never been the biggest fan of "insight" as a catalyst for change.  The idea that someone gains new information, or is able to see something from a new pespective, can have value.  However, I haven't seen much evidence that such insight leads to a permanent shift towards healthier behavior.  I mean, really, who requires "insight" to learn that that Big Mac you want to eat may be quick, cheap, and easy (and satisfies a craving), but isn't as good for your long-term health compared to that salad you could make.  Everyone knows this; often, people even understand their own eating issues.  But that doesn't stop millions of people from ordering Big macs on a regular basis.  This point is touched on in the article:

"You'd think that with more information about your options, a person would make a better decision. Our study suggests the opposite," says Associate Professor Bradley Love, who conducted the research with graduate student Ross Otto. "To fully appreciate a long-term option, you have to choose it repeatedly and begin to feel the benefits."

What I point out to people who are attempting to change behavior is that information is necessary, but not suffiecient, for behavior change.  Yes, you need to know what the better alternatives are.  But how to make those alternative behaviors your new habits requires far more than simply a cognitive understanding of them.

This certainly applies in the case of addictive behavior.  On a certain intellectual level, most people with, say, an alcohol problem will have at least moments of clarity, where they gain insight into the impact their drinking is having on them.  However, this alone is rarely enough to reduce alcohol consumption.  Why?  In part (as related to the findings of the article), sobriety really sucks - from the perspective of the alcoholic.

Let me elaborate.  I think oftentimes people with good intentions will attempt to motivate a loved one or friend to address their alcohol problem with promises of what sobriety will do for them.  This, however, is not a great way to proceed.  Simply put, sobriety does nothing for alcoholic - short-term.  In fact, it tends to suck way more than alcoholism.  If it were so great, no one would need treatment.  The problem is that sobriety is a much better long-term life decision, but in the short-term, it is very uncomfortable.  This is one of the reasons AA and others will state that most people need to hit rock bottom before they get serious about recovery - becasue that's the only vantage point from which the sober lifestyle looks appealing.

I've warned clients who are attempting to quit alcohol and drug use - the next month is going to really, really suck.  You'll feel miserable, irritable, short-fused, poor sleep, etc.  However, if you can get through that month, you will then start to also experience some of the benefits of this alternative lifestyle.  Soberiety may never be easy, but it will get easier, as the advantages catch up, and then pass, the diaadvantages.  But short-term, forget it.

Another little tidbit that's important:

"Basically, people have to stay away from thinking about the short-term pains and gains or they are sunk and, objectively, will end up worse off," says Love.

This is extremely important in facilitating behavior change - filling in the empty spaces.  If you are helping someone try to quit using alcohol, to stay with the example, you can't simply focus on the "don'ts," as in: "Don't do this, don't do that, don't go here," etc.   This is a person who has spent a lot of their day thinking about drinking, thinking about where to get their drinks, actually drinking, recovering from drinking, etc.  There will be a lot of spaces in the day, both mentally and behaviorally.  What should fill in those gaps?:  Something...and that is a post for another time.  But in general, you need "Do's" too - like 90 meetings in 90 days - something to distract from the short-term pain, and to help fill in those gaps.  Otherwise, the old habits will come back, further reinforcing the undesired behavior. 

 

 

Psychology Word of the Day: Thought Latency

Acording to Kaplan and Saddock, "thought latency" is "the period of time between a thought and its verbal expression."  It is increased in schizophrenia (often referred to as blocking), while increased during manic episodes (referred to as pressured speech).

In schizophrenia and other formal thought disorders, one may see significant delays in the ability of the individual to respond to a question.  Internally, they may have a thought to express; however, it is difficult for them to transition from a thought into the initiation of speech.  Other times, they may initiate a statement, only to stop prior to completion.  While this happens to all of us at some point or another (when you lose your train of thought, and discontinue your sentence), it is significantly more pronounced during episodes of disorganized thinking.  The interruption may be permanent, to the point the individual even forgets the original topic they were speaking about.

In manic episodes and other situations where speech is rapid (for example, someone under the influence of meth or cocaine), the latency period is impaired in the other direction.  The speech may be so fast it is difficult to understand, and in signifiant cases, the individual is unable to slow themselves down.  It is almost like hitting a fast-forward button on someone.  Again, someone may exhibit this under less significant circumstances (i.e. excited about something, anxious, etc.), but usually people in those situations can respond to requests by others to slow down their pace.  In full manic episodes, the individual is less likely to be able to control their rate of speech.

  

Successful Dieting Depends On Cognitive Simplicity

According to this article, it is not just managing your physical environment (such as putting snacks out of sight, making healthy foods easily accessible, etc.) that impacts the success of one's dieting endeavors.  What also matters is the cognitive environment - how accessible the rules of the diet are when confronted with eating choices.  Too many rules and variations are likely to catch up with a person who is being confronted with choices, making it easier to give up.  From the article:

Dieting is not all in one's head -- environment matters, too, the professors say. The physical environment has to be set up properly, such as putting snack foods out of sight to avoid mindless eating. But the cognitive environment, they say, must also be appropriately constructed, by choosing diet rules that that one finds easy to remember and follow.

For people interested in following a diet plan, Mata suggests they take a look at several diet plans with an eye toward how many rules the plans have and how many things need to be how many things need to be kept in mind.

"If they decide to go with a more complex diet, which could be more attractive for instance if it allows more flexibility, they should evaluate how difficult they find doing the calculations and monitoring their consumption," she said. "If they find it very difficult, the likelihood that they will prematurely give up the diet is higher and they should try to find a different plan."

One thing I think is making it easier to comply with otherwise more complicated diet plans is the ever-increasing availability of technology.  Tracking calories, rules, etc. is much easier when one has various electronic gadgets that can provide nutritional info, track data (such as what you ate, caloric amounts, etc.), as well as the very rules one is trying to comply with.  The recent improvements in this area have also been seen in tracking exercise data, as GPS technology can easily record pace, distance, and other data.  This used to be far more difficult - I remember driving around in my car, measuring out various running routes with the odometer, and being frustrated that one couldn't measure off-road distances, or take improvised routes without sacrificing your knowledge of distance.  Still, keeping things simple, especially for people without a lot of previous expereince or success, makes sense in both dieting and exercise, as it increases the prospects of compliance over a longer period of time, and would seem far more likely to increase (rather than decrease) one's sense of efficiacy in their fitness efforts.

TGIF Statistically Confirmed

According to this article, people tend to report better moods, greater vitality, and less pain/complaints on the weekends.  This improvement in functioning results from increased choice in the activities one engages in, as well as the ability to spend more time with family and friends.  From the article:

"Workers, even those with interesting, high status jobs, really are happier on the weekend," says author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester. "Our findings highlight just how important free time is to an individual's well-being," Ryan adds. "Far from frivolous, the relatively unfettered time on weekends provides critical opportunities for bonding with others, exploring interests and relaxing -- basic psychological needs that people should be careful not to crowd out with overwork," Ryan cautions.

Of course, I have been running a long-term single-case experimental design that is consistent with these findings.  I also believe a certain restaurant chain has marketed itself to these week-end benefits to great financial success.

In all seriousness, the preference for self-determination is an important consideration when it comes to a person's sense of well-being, and the article notes that workplaces should continue to explore ways of increasing the sense of autonomy and choice in their employess.  From the article:

The results support self-determination theory, which holds that well-being depends in large part on meeting one's basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This study, conclude the authors, "offers one of the first substantive and theory-based explanations for why wellbeing tends to be more favorable on the weekends: People experience greater autonomy and relatedness, which are, in turn, related to higher wellness." By contrast, write the authors, the work week "is replete with activities involving external controls, time pressures, and demands on behavior related to work, child care and other constraints." Workers also may spend time among colleagues with whom they share limited emotional connections.

Then again, hasn't this already been covered in various media?  For example:

  

Article Suggests Debriefing In Schools Not Supported

According to this article, commentary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal has indicated that "debriefing" in response to crisis incidents is not suppoted as an intervention.  The commentary specifically notes that there has been no research to document that debriefing prevents the development of PTSD or any other disorders following a crisis in schools.  from the article:

Recent systematic reviews indicate that psychological debriefing of adults does not prevent post-traumatic stress disorder and it may even increase the risk of this disorder. While there is little research on the effectiveness and safety of these interventions in schools, "the evidence clearly points to the ineffectiveness of these interventions in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder or any other psychiatric disorder in adults," write Magdalena Szumilas of the Sun Life Financial Chair in Adolescent Mental Health Team, Dalhousie University and coauthors.

The article goes on to suggest that providing "psychological first aid," which is defined as creating an environment od safety, calmness, and both self- and community-efficacy, shows more promise as an effective intervention technique.  In addition, providing cognitive-behavioral support for students who continue to exhibit symptoms of distress in the weeks following a critical incident is also considered (due to empirical findings) to be the more effective procedure.

This is certainly consistent with other data I've seen, which basically holds that while debriefing may be beneficial for some, it may actually exacerbate the traumatic impact in others - and there is no way to predict who is who.  More generally, the recommendations regarding psychological first aid and cognitive-behavioral therapy appear consistent with the general process of therapy for an individual with trauma-based symptoms.  You simply don't begin therapy with a traumatized client by discussing the traumatic event.  A sense of saftey and security must first be established, where the client can feel as if the therapeutic environment will protect the person, and not further traumatize them, is of paramount important in many cases.  In addition, before discussing the traumatic event with a client in any manner that might lead to an increase in anxious symptomatology, I frequently work with a client on developing skills and techniques necessary for self-soothing, in order to develop a client's sense of efficacy.  In fact, that is one of the primary goals of therapy related to trauma: re-establishing a sense of control over one's symptoms, both physically and mentally.  Jump into discussing the actual event too quickly, and you risk exacerbating a client's sense of helplessness.  People need to be educated on this, of course, so that they understand the reasoning behind any delay in "getting to the issue, but once this is explained, most people understand.   

Experimental "Error" May Not Be An Error At All

There is a fantastic article in the latest issue of Wired entitled, "Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up."  The article discusses, in a very readable way, the real-world problems of scientific research, and provides a neurological explanation for why researchers often make very-human mistakes when considering data and results that do not conform to their pre-existing expectations.  Several historical examples are offered, ans research by psychologist Kevin Dunbar into the process of research illuminates how preconceived notions about what "should" happen often negatively impact the interpretation of unexpected results - often leading to a conclusion that there must have been a mistake, rather than considering alternatives.  From the article:

Dunbar came away from his in vivo studies with an unsettling insight: Science is a deeply frustrating pursuit. Although the researchers were mostly using established techniques, more than 50 percent of their data was unexpected. (In some labs, the figure exceeded 75 percent.) “The scientists had these elaborate theories about what was supposed to happen,” Dunbar says. “But the results kept contradicting their theories. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to spend a month on a project and then just discard all their data because the data didn’t make sense.” Perhaps they hoped to see a specific protein but it wasn’t there. Or maybe their DNA sample showed the presence of an aberrant gene. The details always changed, but the story remained the same: The scientists were looking for X, but they found Y.

One suggestion for avoiding non-inquisitive thinking: diversity, primarily of attitude and scientific background.  That is, individuals who don't already "know" the material at hand may well bring a fresh perspective.  In addition, outsiders are often less constrained by what is "settled" in the field in question, and might be more willing to challenge orthodoxy.  I recall in When Life Nearly Died, it took several non-paleontologists (I believe their background was physics, though I can't recall for sure) to break down the century-old taboo against suggesting a meteor might have caused a mass extinction of the dinosaurs. 

I highly recommend you read the whole thing, both for the discussion of the research into the scientific processes of research, as well as the neurological discussion into how the brain handles disparate data.  Great stuff, and one of the best articles I've read in Wired in some time.

The Relationship Between Age and Innovation in Science

An interesting post over at Marginal Revolution discusses, in part, whether younger scientists tend to be more innovative than older scientists, and if so, should this issue be considered in terms of implementing policy.  I have found this issue fascinating ever since I read Greatness: Who Makes History and Why by Dean Simonton (a fantastic book, by the way).   I recommend going over to the post and reading both the main article, as well as the comments (several of which are excellent).  In particular, I agree with a comment by "Agnostic," who also cites Simonton: 

The go-to source is Dean Simonton. See his *Creativity in Science* (lots of data). In sum, the more fluid intelligence is required to excel -- physics or math -- the younger the scientist tends to produce their greatest work. Where success is more based on crystallized intelligence (having a large store of facts to examine) -- medicine or history -- they flourish later.

And of course that'll vary within a field. More naturalist types of biologists like E.O. Wilson do their best work later in life. Physicist imperialists like Francis Crick will do their best stuff very early on.

Really, just look up your heroes and see when they did their best work -- if they were fluid intelligence types, you'll get pretty depressed. Einstein's "miracle year" of groundbreaking work was 1905 -- when he was 26 years old.

Intelligence research shows that fluid IQ starts to decline after 30, and really plummets in middle age. No time for dilly-dallying!

If I recall correctly, this breakdown tends to hold in other areas of achievement as well, when all else is equal.  For example, in terms of literary achievement, poets tend to produce their most innovative, ground-breaking work at the youngest average age of any writers, while literary criticism is often writen at its best by older writers.  Poetry is a visceral, instinctive form that is often at its best when it is deeply personal, and defies "accepted standards."  Non-fiction, criticism, etc., on the other hand, generally depends on a well-developed knowledge of the field in question.  Poetry is much more of a fuild intelligence endeavor, while theory and criticism is much more of a crystallized intelligence activity.  You can probably make the same argument for songwriters as well; in most cases, the most innovative stuff comes early, the more polished (but conforming) stuff comes later.

The "Get Ready" Mindset

This article reviews research that suggests people, when faced with a difficult future task, actually work harder on current tasks.  The researchers labelled this tendency as the "Get Ready" mindset, believing that the the brain is preparing for the challenge of the future task by gearing itself up via increased effort on current tasks.  From the article:

In a series of five studies, the authors observed that the more difficult a future task was expected to be, the harder consumers worked on a current task. "For example, consumers consulted more information on a web page when they were asked to evaluate a new soft drink when they expected that they would later on have to work on a difficult and demanding task," write the authors. Other participants were better able to come up with weight loss ideas when they believed they would have to work hard on a future job.

The authors titled the phenomenon the "get ready mindset." "People seem to prepare themselves mentally for upcoming tasks, but in doing so, the resources that are freed up for the future task carry over to current tasks," the authors explain. "We found consistent evidence that if the mind gets ready to perform later, it is set to go now."

Basically, people will, in general, work harder overall when a difficult task lies ahead.  I found this to be an interesting observation on motivation and effort, and I recommend the whole article.

Argentina - Psychoanalyst Capital of the World

Via Marginal Revolution, here is an interesting article about the major role psychologists, and psychoanalysts in particular, play in Argentina.  Most interesting part:

Mr. Rolón's rock-star status reflects Argentina's fascination with psychoanalysis. Argentina had 145 psychologists per 100,000 residents in a 2008 study by researchers Modesto Alonso and Paula Gago. That's far more than second-place Denmark, with 85, or ninth-place U.S. with 31, in a 2005 study by the World Health Organization.

There is some discussion of how psychology has grown to be so prevalent in Argnetina, both individually and collectively.  In addition, there is a brief profile of a celebrity psychologist in Argentina, who does not appear to be respected by at least some of his peers.  Read the whole thing!

Impact of Domestic Abuse on Women's Health

Here is an article discussing new research into the impact of domestic abuse on the health of women.  The study examined the responses and medical records of over 3,000 women.  From the article:

Many of these health problems are not commonly understood as being associated with violence, such as abdominal pain, chest pain, headaches, acid reflux, urinary tract infections, and menstrual disorders.

"Roughly half of the diagnoses we examined were more common in abused women than in other women," said Amy Bonomi, lead author of the study and associate professor of human development and family science at Ohio State University.

There was also this:

Compared with never-abused women, victims had an almost six-fold increase in clinically identified substance abuse, a more than three-fold increase in receiving a depression diagnosis, a three-fold increase in sexually transmitted diseases and a two-fold increase in lacerations.

The article also notes this is the first time the data were gathered from medical records, rather than relying on subjects' self-report.  This gives the diagnostic information more credibility.  The authors pointed out that as these diagnoses become more present in a patient, they should serve as a cue to formally screen for abuse, as many women will not spontaneously volunteer this information.