28
Sep 17

To Kneel or Not to Kneel? That Is the Question.

In recent news, a massive wave of controversy has centered around the decision by National Football League (NFL) players and owners to take a knee while the National Anthem is played and American Flag are presented at the start of a football game. Originally, in August 2016, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began to ignite the controversy by refusing to stand for the National Anthem (Wyche, 2016). Moreover, Kaepernick explained how he felt he could not stand up for a country who continually “oppresses black people and people of color” (Wyche, 2016). Kaepernick would later opt out of his contract with the 49ers and currently remains a free agent (Daniels, 2017). While other players followed suit, it was not until President Donald Trump injected himself into the heart of the matter. President Trump was at a campaign rally in Alabama to provide support for Roy Moore who was running as the Republican candidate against Luther Strange. This election was to determine the Republican candidate who would face a Democratic challenger for the vacant seat left by previous Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions who went on to become the United States Attorney General shortly after President Trump took office. During the rally, the President stated any “son of a bitch” who took at knee should be fired for showing a lack of respect to the flag (Diaz, 2017). However, the President’s comments channeled a wave of NFL protests in the days following the Alabama campaign rally. Numerous teams took a knee during the days that followed with the Pittsburgh Steeler remaining in their locker room until the entire National Anthem had played (McLaughlin, 2017). These events have given rise to a divide that exists within our society, which could be explained through applied social psychology.

(Rogers, 2016)

The United States is a country made up of wide diverse groups of people from all over the world.  In psychology, diversity is not only representative of the difference between people but is also representative of how diversity can originate from a variety of other sources such as ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, physical ability, and social class (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). While diversity allows for the intermingling of diverse cultures together it can have unintended side effects. For example, Schneider et al. (2005) suggested cultural diversity could lead to increased levels of xenophobia and misunderstanding (p. 335). Another potential side effect is demographic diversity, which can result in sexism, racism, and classism (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 335). In this particular case, conflict exists due to the perceived existence of racial disparity between whites, blacks, and racial minorities. For instance, Colin Kaepernick suggested the death of black men by police officers were another reason for his protests (McLaughlin, 2017). Racism as defined by Schneider et al. (2005) is the bias toward a group or individual on the basis of their race or ethnicity (p. 332). Similarly, discrimination is the “actual behaviors” towards a group or individual on the basis of their group affiliation (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 337). Using the framework suggested by Colin Kaepernick and his peers, minorities are subjected to different behavioral responses by others than nonminority populations. These differences in perception provide a source of conflict, which will lead to moments of tension due to incompatible goals between competing views (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 339).

(McLaughlin, 2017)

Opposed to the view of the NFL football players are those that view his (and his fellow players’) actions as unpatriotic and are demeaning what the American Flag stands for. This would be representative of the adopted position of President Trump, who would later tweet, “When it comes to the respect of our nation, when it comes to the respect of our anthem and our flag, we have no choice. We have to have people stand with respect” (Diaz, 2017).  As a result, there are two sizes who vehemently view their position as the right one. Why does this conflict exist?

(Press, 2017)

According to Social Identity Theory, a person is both aware of the personal identity and social identity (group based identity) when performing critical evaluations against other groups (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341). In situations where there is negative social identity a conflict can develop due to the perceived difference of status between the individual’s group and the group being used for the comparison (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341). The authors argue how this can create an us versus them scenario, which pits members of each group on either side of the issue (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341). Using the Social Identity Framework, we can look at Colin Kaepernick’s original statement to understand the crux of the conflict. Initially, Kaepernick stated he would not stand up for a country who continually “oppresses black people and people of color” (Wyche, 2016). To Kaepernick and his fellow players, there is a disparity between his individual and social group and that of other groups who are not minorities in the United States. This comparison led to a negative social identity comparison where the football players feel there needs to be a change to restore the balance between the groups.

In contrast, the Theory of Relative Deprivation would assert conflict arises in situations where one is deprived of a social category encountered in the past, from another group, a learned idea, or from another person (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341). Thus, this deprivation could lead to the need for an evaluation towards a certain social category, which if deprived, could lead to conflict. If we utilize the Theory of Relative Deprivation towards this situation, it is clear Kaepernick and his peers are striving for equality between minority populations to nonminority populations. Therefore, Kaepernick and his peers perceive their equality (standard) has been deprived from them and only through their actions can the disparity be resolved and the deprivation removed.

Finally, the Realistic Group Conflict Theory suggests conflict arises from existence of conflicting goals between groups (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341). Moreover, conflict occurs when precipitating elements such as discrepancy between both groups’ interests and reduced cooperation pit groups against one another (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341). If we apply the Realistic Group Conflict Theory to the current situation, the football players have a desire to increase the level of equality for minorities, which is at odds with those that feel kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful or unpatriotic. Additionally, opponents would argue this would not be the correct forum to draw attention to their cause. Therefore, it is those competing interests between the two groups that keeps both sides in conflict with one another (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341).

Applied social psychology can help to facilitate the reduction of these tensions through coalition building through high acquaintance potential (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 343-344). Using this method would allow groups to come together and extend a dialog to one another to better understand and reconcile their differences rather than polarize to their respective sides without any dialog between the groups. Moreover, the method would help facilitate the contact hypothesis, which would allow for a fostering of better relationships through increased positive contact as long as both groups shared equal status, worked towards a common goal, and had environmental support (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 343). Finally, applying Interpersonal Conflict Management strategies to both groups might help to increase the way in which groups integrate information to better balance a high concern for one’s own needs with the needs of others (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 343).

In conclusion, the NFL controversy is one of the largest social issues currently causing a divide within America in a highly polarizing way. As a result, there is a feeling this situation is leading to an “us versus them” situation as outlined by the Social Identity Theory (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 341). However, it is not too late to begin to reach out, not with the intent to defend our positions, but rather with the intent to understand one another. This would be a perfect opportunity for a person from one side to reach out to the other with the goal of having a dialog. It is only through the understanding of each other’s position can we truly grow as a society. It will not be easy and it will require America to look back and see troubling points within its own history, which will undoubtedly be uncomfortable. However, if we work together, it is my belief we can achieve great things as one group rather than being divided as a nation.

References

Daniels, T. (2017, April 12). Colin Kaepernick Officially Opts out of 49ers Contract. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2695566-colin-kaepernicks-agents-inform-nfl-teams-qb-will-opt-out-of-49ers-contract

Diaz, D. (2017, September 28). Trump on NFL owners: ‘I think they’re afraid of their players’. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/donald-trump-nfl-owners-afraid-of-their-players-health-care/index.html

McLaughlin, E. C. (2017, September 25). These are the NFL players protesting today amid Trump criticism. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/24/us/nfl-trump-take-knee-protests/index.html

Press, A. (2017, September 23). NFL Anthem Dispute: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Fires Back at Trump. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/nfl-anthem-dispute-trump-says-protesting-players-should-be-fired-n804086

Rogers, M. (2016, September 13). Colin Kaepernick heightens social conversation while dropping to knee. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/martin-rogers/2016/09/12/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-kneel-protest-san-francisco-49ers-st-louis-rams/90290074/

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.

Wyche, S. (2016, August 27). Colin Kaepernick explains why he sat during national anthem. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem

 


28
Sep 17

The Role of Religion in Prejudice Enablement and Reduction

Prejudice and discrimination have a long-storied history throughout the world. It is these two psycho-sociological concepts that influence the presence of in and out groups throughout our society. Prejudice, as defined as a series of attitudes directed at a specific group or the individuals that make up a group, still remains a significant problem in both established and emerging societies (PSU, 2017). Pennsylvania State University (2017) notes that prejudice often highlights negative stereotypes of a group or individuals. Historically, examples of prejudice have been noted throughout a series of societal changes such as immigration and the civil rights campaign. We are often made aware of the common sources of prejudice; however, Joanna Burch-Brown and William Baker recently uncovered a community that often escapes the blame as a source of prejudiced behavior.

Burch-Brown and Baker recently explored the connection between religion and prejudiced behavior. Prior to performing their research, Burch-Brown and Baker (2016, p. 784) hypothesized that religion has the ability to promote and or reduce prejudicial behavior among followers. Their work introduces social identity theory as the two explore how religion is capable of enabling prejudice. As Burch-Brown and Baker (2016, p. 786) introduce the historical relationship between religion and prejudice, they cite several meta-analyses highlighting a strong correlation between religious affiliation and prejudiced attitudes. Groups such as gays, the nonreligious or members of other religious groups are labeled (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2016, p. 786).

As the conversation shifts to causation of prejudice, the researchers (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2016, p. 788) note the rise of intolerance as it relates to prejudice and discrimination; however, they also reinforce the idea that religions have become a source of social acceptance for individuals. The end result of this phenomenon is an increase in racial and religious intolerance (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2016, p. 788). While religious groups may present a social outlet for individuals to engage in prejudiced behavior, Burch-Brown and Baker alert readers to other critical psychological frameworks uncovered throughout their study. Interestingly, the concept of priming is well documented throughout the Burch-Brown and Baker research. Priming, which relates to the response of a familiar stimuli, has a distinct relationship with religion (APA, 2014). Burch-Brown and Baker (2016, p. 788) state that, “Words like ‘Bible,’ ‘Jesus, ‘and prayer’ are conceptually associated with conservative social values for many people in the US.” Through priming, individuals may be exposed to prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes.

However, one of the most fascinating aspects of the research relates to the concept of social identity theory. Social identity theory indicates that individuals can be influenced by either their personal or social identity (PSU, 2017). Burch-Brown and Baker argue that social identity theory has the capability of either reinforcing or removing prejudicial behavior and attitudes. Regarding the reduction of prejudice, the research points to specific examples such as the civil rights movement, in which religion played a pivotal role in supporting the cause of civil rights activists (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2011, p. 790). These experiences were commonly associated with positive social aspects of religious groups. Alternatively, religious groups and members may fall victim to religious identity threat, which is Burch-Brown & Baker (2011, p. 790) label as a threat to an entire religion or religious community. Religious threat has the capability to dramatically impact the social identity of faithful religious individuals thus creating negative or prejudiced attitudes towards outgroup members.

Unfortunately, the concept of social identity theory indicates that religious groups can both positively and negatively impact the attitudes of their followers. When groups represent progress and pride, the social identity of individuals may match that of the overall group. However, when challenged, religious groups have provided unfortunate examples of hatred, bigotry and prejudice. The personal and social identity of individuals is an extremely important concept as it relates to prejudice enablement and or reduction. Lastly, the outcome of social identity theory and religion reminds us that we must always be cautious of how we label religious groups. Negative social influences within religion are not a new phenomenon in modern society; while these forces are projected to continue well into the future, they should not take away from the positive social progress that many groups have made.

References

American Psychological Association. (2014). Lexical Decision Tasks, Semantic Priming, and Reading. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/peeps/issue-33.aspx

Burch-Brown, J. & Baker, W. (2016). Religion and Reducing Prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Vol 19, Issue 6, pp. 784-807

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2017). Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. PSYCH 424. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915547


27
Sep 17

Acrophobia Be Damned!

Over the past several years I have had the unpleasant experience of acrophobia (fear of heights). My first experience occurred during a much-anticipated trip to Italy. I was walking up the circular steps of the Duomo Climb to the Top of Florence’s Duomo to the cupola when all the sudden an intense fear overcame me. My excitement in viewing the frescoes and Florence were overcome with a sense of doom and panic. This intense fear filled me with angst, as the only way to exit was to walk around the entire circular cupola to reach the exit on the other side. The large crowds propelled me forward as I held onto the wall for support. Eventually, I did make it to the other side and began the quick descent down the stairs. It has been two years since this episode and I have experienced quite a few similar incidents that has altered my lifestyle. However, recently I learned of a possible cure for my acrophobia through a technique called observational learning.

Observational learning is a concept Bandura (1986) observed from his Social Cognitive Theory of learning. This theory believes learning is achieved through observations and processes to stimuli and responses (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). More specifically, Bandura’s (1986) observational technique focusses on four processes that coincide with learning: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. Attention is the ability to learn the observed behavior as its occurring. Retention is the ability to remember the learned behavior that you witnessed. Problems with attention and retention have been demonstrated to take a longer time to cure phobias (Yarwood, 2017). Reproduction is being able to perform the learned behavior. However, one must have the motivation required to engage in the learned behavior. To be cured of this phobia, I will have to focus on all four of these processes and perform the same behaviors exhibited by someone modeling the desired behaviors. However, before I can perform these behaviors I need to have self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy is the belief that one has the confidence to exhibit control over a desired behavior (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Obviously, I lack self-efficacy because I am extremely fearful of heights and do not have to skill set to overcome this phobia. My hope is that with the observational technique, I will overcome this fear and once again be able to explore all the wonderful landscapes of my environment.

Unbeknownst to my family members, I tried to incorporate this technique while on a hike near an overlook. I watched as my family members climbed rocks on an overlook and it proved to be a challenging task. My children and husband have no fears of heights and I tried to just watch as they sat on the rocks of the overlook and marveled at the canyon down below. This proved ineffective because my attention was not focusing on their behaviors. I would close or cover my eyes as I watched them get closer and closer to the edge of the canyon. Obviously, this exercise proved to be a challenging task and I will be seeking professional help in the hopes of curing my acrophobia.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., and Coutts, L. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. (2ed). Washington D.C., Sage Publications.

Yarwood, M. (n.d.). Psych 424 Module Lesson 5: Health and Clinical/Counseling – Part 2. PSU World Campus. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915541.

 


27
Sep 17

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Interracial Interaction

Most of us are well aware of the explicit prejudice that exists in the world and of the discrimination that can occur as the result of such prejudice. We see these prejudices in the tribalism that is so pervasive throughout our society, and in the beliefs, one group of people will hold about another group of people. Our text makes the important point that Prejudice is, “an attitude towards others based solely on group membership”, and that “When prejudiced attitudes get translated into behavior, discrimination results.” This is an important distinction because we are often unaware of many of our prejudices until they make themselves glaringly obvious during some kind of discriminatory behavior. Much work has been done to illuminate the more wide-spread prejudices in our society, and an equally large effort has been made to explain how these prejudices manifest into discriminatory behaviors. While we are all aware of the overtly discriminatory history of our country, we might not be as cognizant of the many covertly discriminatory behaviors that still exist. In an experiment carried out by researchers at Princeton University, these covert prejudices and discriminatory behaviors were tested, and the results have profound implications.
Job interviews are stressful enough as it is, but imagine walking into your interview thinking that your race was going to influence the interviewer’s opinion of you. Furthermore, imagine that your interviewer (different race) was displaying subtle non-verbal behaviors that indicated they were less interested in you from the start. How might you respond? Would you become tense and rigid? Would you have more speaking errors? Most importantly, would your concern for potential discrimination cause you to perform less optimally during your interview, therefore, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? These are some of the questions the researchers at Princeton sought to answer.
In their study, the Princeton group ran two separate trials. In the first trial, 15 white subjects were told they had to interview a number of candidates and that their goal was to hire the most qualified individuals. The interviewees in this first trial were 2 black and 3 white high school students who were trained to respond to the interviewer’s questions similarly. The goal of this first experiment was to observe how the behavior of the interviewer changed in response to the race of the applicant. So, what were the results? Black applicants were shown less immediacy, had 25% shorter interviews, and the speech fluency of the interviewers was significantly affected. These results indicated that this randomly selected group of white interviewers acted significantly different while interviewing white vs. black candidates who acted in almost identical manors. While this finding is interesting, it only really confirms what prior research has shown, mainly that asymmetrical groups hold prejudices about each other and that these prejudices can elicit prejudiced behavior.
The second experiment is where things got really interesting. In this experiment, the original roles were reversed with interviewers as confederates and interviewees as the subjects. The goal was to see how a change in interviewer behavior would affect the performance of the interviewee. Because of the results obtained in experiment one, the researchers believed that the less immediate behaviors, poorer communications, and farther proximity of interviewers would negatively affect the interviewer’s performance, which in turn would make them appear as less qualified for the job. Indeed, these were the findings. Interviewees responded negatively to the poor non-verbal communication and were rated as less deserving of the job by independent judges who were tasked with watching tapes of the interviews. So, perfectly qualified individuals were primed by the nonverbal behavior of the interviewer to perform normally or sub-optimally during their job interview.
These findings are significant because they illuminate the ways implicit biases and prejudices can affect real-life inter-group interactions. While overt discrimination has certainly diminished, some of the more covert and nonverbal forms of discrimination carry on and have the potential to advantage some groups over others. This is important to keep in mind, especially when considering how lower-status groups of individuals may be implicitly disadvantaged in settings like the one examined in the Princeton study.

Schneider, Frank W. Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles, SAGE pub., 2012.

Word, Carl O, et al. “The nonverbal mediation of self-Fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10, no. 2, 1974, pp. 109–120., doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90059-6.


25
Sep 17

Social Phobia

Part of an applied social psychologists job is to find the roots of issues in society and find a solution. We learned about intervention and evaluation in the earlier lessons. This is done through research and real-life experiences. In clinical and counseling psychologists encounter many issues. Clients come in with issues seeking for a solution or a “cure”.  The issue that caught my attention that people face every day is social anxiety also known as social phobia. “As such, social anxiety is a type of emotional distress that can vary in intensity” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012). In order to find the best way help people overcome this issue psychologists must understand why and how it occurs. “Identifying specific cognitive-social culprits involved in the onset and perpetuation of symptoms of social anxiety is important because their identification improve our theoretical understanding of how symptoms develop” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012). Finally, after understanding the person’s social phobia psychologists must find the best approach to overcome the disorder.

“Social Phobia is defined as a marked and persistent fear of one or more social or performance situations in which the person is exposed to unfamiliar people or possible scrutiny by others” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012). Understanding how people develop this is key to finding the treatment. As mentioned earlier identifying these cognitive symptoms from the person is vital in understanding their situation. This also works for the prevention of these disorders. It is very important for these practitioners to understand the general symptoms of social phobia. This way they are able to put in place an intervention to prevent this from happening. Leary and Kowalski action developed a theory called self-presentation theory. It uses the same cognitive-social culprits to create a blueprint of the origin of this disorder. It also lays out how maintain living with the disorder and finally the treatment (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012).

According to self-presentation theory, “a person experiences social anxiety only if two cognitive-social conditions are present simultaneously; the person must really want to make a particular impression, and doubt his or her ability to succeed” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012). My cousin has social phobia and after reading about this in class it helps me better understand his situation. As humans in social settings we are always looking to make an impression on someone. Essentially, we are looking to have someone perceive us the way we would like. Most of us do not want to be put in embarrassing situations. We look to stay away from feeling of embarrassment. My cousin fails to stay out of embarrassing or awkward situations because both of these cognitive-social symptom are present. He lacks confidence in social situations. He has doubt in his personal ability. With the use of SPT, I can see that realize many of my cousin’s experiences have been negative ones mixed with both those cognitive-social factors present this results in social anxiety.

Treatment to social anxiety is reviewed in the book. I do not know what type of treatment my cousin undergoes as we do not speak as frequently as we use to. SPT is used to understand if the social-cognitive factors are present. If present, an approach to treating social anxiety is treating the two factors. “Interventions should seek to modify social self-efficacy, and self-presentational motivation” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012). In essence, practitioners must look to find ways to boost the self-confidence of the individual. By boosting self-confidence this will improve the way the individual feels. Confidence is also the ability to not care what others think of you. Practitioners focus on building confidence and helping the individual understand it is not important what others think. Practitioners may go through social skill therapies to develop the client’s sense of self-efficacy.

Social phobia is a disorder that affects many. It debilitates an individual from living every day and performing in social settings. It can be a crushing feeling as it can completely destroy self-confidence and create an anxiety during social activities. This can even cause the individual to seclude himself from social environments in severe cases.

 

References:

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012) Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


24
Sep 17

Why Health Counseling Should be a Part of Everyone’s Life

Humans are complicated.  Our body and minds are intertwined and it is important that both receive the attention necessary to keep us healthy. “Whatever happens in the brain (or mind) can affect physiological processes elsewhere in the body, and what happens in the environment is mediated by the brain (mind) can also influence physiological processes” (PSU WC, PSYCH 424, L. 5, p.2). With that understanding, it is time that health care becomes all-inclusive in its treatment plans. Plans that treat the body should also treat the mind and clinical health psychology can show us the way.

 

The purpose of clinical health psychology is to promote the maintenance of health by being attentive to the relationships of social, emotional, cognitive and the biological components of health.  It includes treatment and prevention of the individual and the improved health care in general (“Clinical Health”, n.d.). This comprehensive approach could address problems that have been ignored because they have shown no physical symptoms.

 

In a country that is impacted, on a daily basis, by the results of behavior that is associated with mental illness, it seems that it is time to include health counseling as a normal part of maintaining good health.  If health insurance can allow for an annual physical check-up why not an annual check up on our emotional health? Integrated care could provide a means to address issues before there are problems, provide skills to manage stress, address phobias, manage pain, help relationships, work with learning issues, and support self-esteem. Of particular importance is that the variability of an individuals psyche affects how the body responds to treatment for physical ailments. Health psychologists in conjunction medical practitioners should be the first line of assessment for health care.

 

The first hurdle may be the stigma of counseling in any format. A1986 study by Sibicky and Dovidio reported that there are stereotypes against those who participate in psychological counseling (Sibicky and Dovidio, 1986). How can we change this attitude? Like physical and mental health, attitude and behavior are also inseparable. To change attitudes we have to go back to the beginning.

 

Psychologists can apply their “knowledge of persuasion to improve the ways in which health promotion efforts can influence their target audiences” (Schneider et al., p. 189). To promote the idea of a holistic approach to and individuals’ health clarifies that the marriage of these components impacts everything. Parents and schools can also influence health choices and emphasize the importance and relatedness of physical and mental health. Health psychology is an area that reaches into all aspects of individuals’ lives and it is important that it be recognized for the contributions it makes.

 

 

References:

 

Clinical health psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved from American Psychological Association website: http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/health.aspx

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

 

Sibicky, M., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). Stigma of psychological therapy: Stereotypes, interpersonal reactions, and the self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(2), 148-154.

 


24
Sep 17

Counseling Services at Penn State

    College can be tough for young adults living without their parents for the first time in their lives. There is a lot of self discovery that goes along with becoming independent. Some of these self discoveries can lead to fears and phobias young adults were not even aware of until they began living on their own. These fears may include psychological disorders such as, anxiety and depression. The American Psychological Association defines anxiety as worried thoughts and tension that result in physiological changes such as high blood pressure (Anxiety, n.d.). Depression is categorized as a mood disorder that may cause a variety of symptoms such as weight fluctuations, lack of interests in normally enjoyable activities, abnormal sleeping habits, feelings of worthlessness, and more (Depression, n.d.). Fortunately, both anxiety and depression are treatable with either counseling interventions, medication, or both. Specifically on college campuses, such as Penn State University Park, there are counseling services available to students in need. These counseling services are known as CAPS, which stands for Counseling and Psychological Services. CAPS at Penn State provides many helpful opportunities to students suffering from various anxiety and depressive symptoms to help them manage and mollify their psychological disorders.

The Counseling and Psychological Services department at Penn State provides a variety of programs such as both individual and group counseling, couples counseling, psychiatric consultations (for medications), mental health workshops such as stress management and bystander interventions, and drop in consultations also known as CAPS chat. CAP’s website also includes resources such as mindfulness techniques, self help videos, wellness trackers, and various coping mechanisms that have been proven to alleviate some common symptoms of anxiety and depression (Services, n.d.).

Concluding my senior year of high school, I was diagnosed with panic disorder. Panic disorder is a type of anxiety disorder where one repeatedly has episodes of fear and worry that seem to come out of nowhere. My personal struggles with anxiety led me to reach out to CAP’s during my whole first semester at Penn State. My anxiety and my erroneous beliefs of feeling trapped in an environment I did not feel comfortable in (Penn State) also lead to feelings of hopelessness and low self efficacy. Hopelessness can be defined as the lack of power perceived to change an undesirable situation (Needles & Abrahamson, 1990, p. 156). In my case, I did not believe I had the power to change my negative views of living at Penn State. Self efficacy can be defined as one’s level of confidence of success in a particular situation (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2005).

Counselors at Penn State’s CAPS helped me alleviate some symptoms of my psychological disorder by introducing me to positive stable and global attributions to combat my negative attributions. Stable attributions are thoughts and beliefs that a person thinks will be present forever. Global attributions are thoughts and beliefs a person thinks that will affect many or all aspects of their lives (Schneider et, al, 2005). In my situation, some positive attributions I thought up with a counselor were that school is a safe environment for me and I am I will not be feeling this uneasy about school forever. In the end, replacing my negative attributions for positive ones helped me enjoy not only my time at school but my life in general too. Form personal experience, I can say counseling is beneficial for people who struggle with psychological disorders that interfere with daily living. After my counseling sessions, I can confidently say I am still a Penn State student currently living in State College keeping up with my school work and maintaining plenty of friendships and even entertaining a boyfriend. Penn State students are lucky enough to have this service at school because this is a critical time in our lives and it could easily become very overwhelming. That is why counselors are around to help people with psychological disorders cope.

References

Anxiety. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2017, from http://www.apa.org/topics/anxiety/

Depression. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2017, from http://www.apa.org/topics/depression/

Needles, D.J., & Abrahamson, L.Y. (1990). Positive life events, attributional style, and hopefullness: testing a model of recovery from depression.

Services. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2017, from http://studentaffairs.psu.edu/counseling/services

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications


22
Sep 17

Why I Only Engage in Some Health-Protective Behaviors: The Health Belief Model

For as long as I can remember, I have hated going to the doctor.  Sitting in the waiting room, the smell of the antiseptic in the office, feeling the alcohol swab on my arm right before a vaccine…it’s all terrible and it does not help that I am pretty phobic of shots.  Due to this, I tend to attempt to avoid many things that have to do with doctors’ offices and health, like getting yearly flu vaccines and going for yearly physicals, but I do go to the doctor with more serious concerns, such as major dental issues or more severe illness prevention.  After understanding how psychology concepts are applicable the adoption of health behaviors, I think I can explain my actions through the health belief model.  As presented in Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012), the health belief model says that the health-protective behaviors in which people will engage will be influenced by cognitive factors, including general health values, perceived susceptibility to illness, perceived severity of illness, expectation of treatment success, perceived barriers and benefits, and cues to action.

As I said above, one of the health-protective behaviors that I tend to avoid is getting yearly flu vaccines.  While I am invested in maintaining good health, know I am susceptible to the flu, know I could actually get a vaccine if I wanted to, know a flu shot would likely work in preventing the flu, and see many cues to action regarding getting flu vaccines, my perceived severity of the illness and perceived barriers versus benefits stop me from actually getting a flu vaccine.  Generally, I do not consider getting the flu to be a super serious risk to my health.  I know that it can be serious, but as a young and generally healthy person, I tend to believe the flu will be, essentially, a mild inconvenience.  Also, in terms of perceived benefits versus barriers, I see the barriers outweighing the benefits.  I absolutely hate shots and tend to pass out when I get them and the only benefit would be potentially avoiding something I view as a minor inconvenience.  Based on this, getting a yearly flu vaccine just is not worth it to me, leading me to not partake in this health-protective behavior.

On the other hand, there are certain health-protective behaviors in which I do participate.  One situation occurred when I was planning to go on a medical mission trip to Nicaragua.  The CDC recommended two different vaccines for travel to Nicaragua (Hepatitis A, Typhoid), both of which I got.  In this case, my concern about maintaining good health (general health values), perceived susceptibility to illness (working in areas with many mosquitos and potentially contaminated water), perceived severity of illness (both hepatitis A and typhoid can both be serious and even deadly), expectation of treatment success (vaccines tend to be successful in preventing these diseases), self-efficacy (I knew I had the ability to get these vaccines), perceived barriers and benefits (benefits of not contracting a serious illness in a foreign country outweighed the barriers of cost and fear), and cues to action (going on the trip and being notified of recommended vaccines) all led me to go to the doctor and get these vaccines.  Essentially, my cognitions led me to participate in health-protective behaviors.

Based on the health belief model, it seems that the way to get me to change the types of health-protective behaviors in which I engage is to change the way I perceive certain aspects of them.  For example, if I perceived the flu as more severe, I would be more likely to get a yearly flu vaccine.  Also, if the barriers to getting the flu shot were diminished or the benefits were increased, I, again, would be more likely to get one.  If my job offered them for free or provided an incentive for getting a flu vaccine, that increased benefit would increase my desire to get one.  Additionally, if they made the nose spray flu vaccines more available, that would decrease a barrier to getting the vaccination and would likely increase the chances that I would get vaccinated.  Looking at how changing different factors of the situation could change my behaviors is fascinating.  It is really interesting to dissect the way cognitions can affect health behaviors in such extreme ways.

 

References

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

 

 


22
Sep 17

Overpopulation

Overpopulation; when the human population exceeds the maximum capacity. Claustrophobic much? Overpopulation is a huge issue happening in our world today. There are a few causes of overpopulation. These causes include; decreased death rate, better medical facilities used to decrease death rate, advanced fertility treatments, and unplanned pregnancies. You might be thinking, “Wow! A longer life and more cute babies?! What’s wrong with that?” In fact, there are many consequences to having too many people on our planet. Some important consequences of overpopulation we should be aware of include but are not limited to the following; depletion of natural resources, violence and conflict, a surfeit of unemployed peoples and ridiculously high costs of living (Rinkesh, n.d.). Overpopulation is known is applied social psychological terms as a social dilemma. A social dilemma can be defined as a decision one must make, benefiting society or benefiting themselves. People who decide to have more than the average amount of children in their family without considering the many consequences mentioned above can be noted as individuals who are fulfilling their individual needs over the needs of the population. The behavior of multiple individuals satisfying their individual desires over considering the limitations of the environment is known as the tragedy of the commons (Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. 2012).

Let us hone in on a few specific consequences of overpopulation, the depletion of natural resources. As we all know, the Earth has a limited amount of food and water to support all living things on Earth. If Earth is overpopulated, there will eventually not be enough food and water to support everybody on Earth. People on Earth have been going to great lengths to try and receive as many natural resources as we possibly can. Although, these practices are not always environmentally safe as well. For example, farmers genetically modify their crops so they can produce more product in a short amount of time. This is not always the safest route for human consumption because some of these genetic modifications include chemicals that can be harmful (Rinkesh, n.d.). In any case, the depletion of natural resources could lead to another consequences mentioned, high costs of living. If resources are numbered, that means there is not enough food and water for everybody. The economy will try to preserve natural resources by raising the prices of certain products. Therefore, only some people will be able to afford the resource and the others will have to substitute this resource for another (Rinkesh, n.d.).

How do we solve this social dilemma? Intervention strategies such as educating people about sex and the consequences of overpopulation could open individual’s eyes as to why overpopulation is such a big problem. Educating people on statistical evidence and data trends of the extremely large increase of the population in the next 50 years compared to the statistical trends of the large decrease in natural resources may influence people to limit the amount of children they are planning on having. Creating cognitive dissonance by conducting a survey asking people in their 20’s how many children they are planning on having after being educated on the dangers of overpopulation may help mitigate the social dilemma. Social dilemmas like overpopulation, recycling, pollution, etc can not be solved unless the population is aware that there is a problem. Therefore, it is important to educate the population before asking them to change their behaviors. The tragedy of the commons is only a tragedy if people focus solely on themselves. If everybody works together as a community to solve a problem, we will surely come to a solution. If we fall for the common fallacy, that our personal impacts will not make a difference then we will all be doomed. It is important to remember that every little bit counts, and our society depend on it.

References:

 

Rinkesh. (n.d.). What is overpopulation? Retrieved September 22, 2017, from

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-overpopulation.php

 

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


21
Sep 17

The Growing Need for Behavioral Intervention within the Healthcare Industry

As the United States advances well into the 21st century, American citizens have been the recipient of significant developments in domains related to science, technology, engineering, among others. However, despite these advances, The United States still faces a growing health crisis. Dave Chokshi (2014, p. 1243) states that noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic pulmonary disease, and diabetes pose a significant threat to all individuals throughout the world. According to the World Health Organization (2017), noncommunicable diseases are responsible for 70 percent of all deaths globally. Annually, the world experiences 40 million deaths as a result of NCDs (WHO, 2017). Perhaps most devastating of all, remains the fact that many of these diseases are preventable through proper education, healthy behavioral habits and adequate healthcare.

In assessing this growing epidemic, it is important to first understand why Americans are experiencing such poor health. However, simultaneously, researchers, healthcare professionals and policy makers need to begin crafting a plan to better guide citizens through important health decisions and behaviors. According to Schneider et al. (2012, p. 176), the health belief model indicates that our behavioral actions are a result of situational factors such as health values, susceptibility to illness, misunderstanding of illness severity and treatment success, self-efficacy, perceived barriers and signals to act. In the case of many American citizens, these variables act as an influence on some of the most critical health decisions an individual can make. Information regarding the danger of living an unhealthy life are plentiful. It is now commonly understood that tobacco use, physical inactivity, alcohol abuse and unhealthy diets increase the risk of NCDs (WHO, 2017). Individuals are also aware of the importance of early detection, screening and treatment (WHO, 2017). So why are individuals still making poor choices regarding their health? The answer appears to lie within the situational variables laid out by the health belief model.

Health professionals operate on the notion that individuals who make poor health decisions remain extremely naïve, believing that their actions have few consequences. Attempts to intervene in this behavior have been well documented throughout history. Frequently, social marketing has been the choice of public health officials to help endorse healthy behaviors and decision making (Suarez-almazor, 2011, p. 461). Results of modern health campaigns remain mixed among citizens; however, research has indicated that some interventions have yielded positive results (Suarez-almazor, 2011, p. 462). It is important to note that not all interventions have produced desirable results. While campaigns regarding smoking and road safety have produced an impact, other variables such as alcohol use, skin cancer prevention and violence have shown little evidence of success (Suarez-almazor, 2011, p. 462).

It is imperative that public health researchers continue to study why variables such as alcohol use and improper diets show such a dramatic resistance to intervention. Intervention techniques must first address the importance of valuing one’s personal health. However, to address health values, individuals need to recognize their susceptibility to illness as well as the severity of an illness (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 176). These two variables are critical in their effort to address unsuitable health behavior. Unfortunately, as individuals begin to decline in health, they rely on the assumption that treatment is their only option. Far too many individuals have an unrealistic expectation of medical treatment, which can influence their decision making (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 176). Additionally, at this stage in one’s life, self-efficacy becomes quite noticeable as individuals believe they are too far gone for help (Schneider, et al., 2012, p. 176). This variable coincides with a toxic thought process in which individuals believe that their actions cannot change their underlying condition (Schneider et al., 2017).

Together, these individual concepts related to the health belief model offer insight into the progressive downfall of an individual’s health. The valuation of health is central to this model, however, to achieve this goal, individuals must first relinquish their naivety and realize the potential of serious health ailments. By realizing the risk of illness as well as the severity of an illness, individuals adopt a preventative mindset. It is critical that individuals begin to adopt preventive measures rather than relying on treatment as a cure. As soon as a treatment-only mindset has been adopted, self-efficacy plays a powerful role in the outlook of an individual. Unfortunately, far too many American citizens have decided that their efforts are useless and slowly begin to accept the poor fate of their health.

 

 

 

References

Chokshi, D. A. (2014-09-12). Health. Changing behaviors to prevent noncommunicable diseases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 345(6202), 1243-1244.doi:10.1126/science.1259809

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Suarez-almazor, M. (2011). Changing health behaviors with social marketing. Osteoporosis International, 22, 461-3. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1007/s00198-011-1699-6

The World Health Organization. (2017). Noncommunicable diseases. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/


20
Sep 17

“Natural” Disasters

This past week, as my boyfriend and I huddled together in our walk-in closet while hurricane Irma raged around our one-level duplex in the West coast of Florida, I was forced to confront firsthand what many believe are the devastating effects of climate change. With minimal damage and a weeklong power outage, we got through the unusually large storm safely, but many others were not nearly so lucky. Irma, as well as Harvey, and now hurricane Maria, has caused untold damage to the individuals and communities touched by the worst of the storms. While it cannot be said for sure that the relatively high severity and frequency of recent natural disasters is directly caused by humans affecting the environment, we know that average rises in temperatures caused by human activity (global warming) and more extreme temperatures (another effect of climate change) can cause more severe hurricanes as well as other natural disasters such as floods or droughts (“Rising”, n.d.). Right before the storm, as everyone in my state either bought supplies in bulk and boarded their windows or simply evacuated in preparation, my friend made a comment about “Mother Nature” ruining his plans. My boyfriend, an environmental science major, somewhat jokingly said, “Don’t blame Mother Nature, blame human nature.” He was referring to the speculation that the severe weather was a result of climate change, which is a result of human activity. I think this is an incredibly important, overlooked point. I had recently been criticizing media coverage of the impending storm, which portrayed a narrative of “humans vs nature”, for feeding into what is fundamentally a false dichotomy between the two that exists in our national consciousness. It is necessary to distinguish humans from the environment in order to talk about the complex relationship we have with it, but in reality humans rely on and interact with the environment to such a high degree that I think any border drawn between the two is entirely conceptual. Unnaturally severe “natural” disasters (as well as a plethora of other issues such as bad air quality or the disappearance of the polar ice caps) are a direct physical manifestation of human behavior. Thus, these disasters are a form of macro, societal self-harm, as opposed to the popular belief that they are metaphorical attacks in a battle between people and the environment. In order to stop harming and start helping our environment, there has to be a paradigm shift in the way people think about the environment and their own relationship with it.

Bandura’s theory of triadic reciprocal determinism, discussed in Lesson 4 commentary, provides a useful framework for understanding the relationship humans have with the environment in terms of climate change.There is both a “negative” and “positive” way one can look at climate change in terms of reciprocal determinism. For instance, personal factors like greed can lead to behaviors like over-exploiting coal (which is profitable) as opposed to instituting new, environmentally friendly technologies (which is expensive), which in turn affects the environment by causing things like extreme natural disasters. On the other hand, the extreme effects of natural disasters can lead to personal factors like concern or fear for human safety, which can be motivations for people to engage in more environmentally friendly behaviors like using clean energy, which in turn helps the environment. So how do we encourage the latter, and discourage harmful personal factors and behaviors? Antecedent strategies, which focus on issues that precede a given behavior (i.e, harming the environment) (Schneider, et al. 2005), are, I think, more important in encouraging the latter scenario long-term than consequence (or after the fact) strategies, which are the equivalent of putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. Attempting to educate people about what behaviors hurt the environment is an important part of this strategy, but it is also wrong to assume that more information always correlates to better behaviors, as posited by the information-defecit model described in the text (Schneider, et al. 2005). If a personal factor is strong enough, it will likely outweigh information as a main motivating factor even if the information conflicts with the personal factor. For example, corporations will generally prioritize profit over mitigating environmental harm, as evidenced by the continued use of coal to power our society despite the existence of a growing number of viable alternative energy options. If we consider this using the four steps to promote environmentally friendly behaviors (Schneider, et al. 2005), we can hypothesize solutions to this problem.

I consider corporate greed and obsession with profitability to be a major cause in climate change. While trying to reduce your personal environmental footprint and education about how to do so are important and worthwhile, it is huge corporations and monopolies that cause the worst damage, because, well, they have the ability to do so. Massive scale use and distribution of environmentally harmful products/practices is the responsibility of corporations, which is why I argue that the strategy has to shift from emphasizing what the “average person” can do to mitigate environmental damage (which was the focus of environmental education when I was growing up and still seems to be) to finding out how to actually change the consumerist, profit-obsessed nature of society. While I am not examining a very specific behavior, I am examining specific personal factors that lead to a variety of harmful behaviors, which covers the first two steps of encouraging better environmental behavior outlined in the text (Schneider, et al. 2005) The next, most important (at least as far as applied social psychology is concerned) step is implementing an intervention. Undoubtedly, this is no small task when taking on such a deeply ingrained and widespread problem. How can the longstanding behavior of powerful, rich corporations, reinforced by profit, be changed? The government has some amount of regulatory power, and in theory, the government represents the public. Citizens also affect the success of large businesses more directly, by consuming whatever they may be producing. Both of these things mean that the power is truly in the hands of the people–it’s just a matter of realizing that and uniting to utilize it. Easier said than done, yes, but that is why an intervention implementation would consist of informing people of their power through education and various forms of media, and, to motivate them to utilize it, changing the “human vs nature” narrative. Instead of “What will happen to the Earth [if we don’t pressure corporations to act better]?” emphasize “What will happen to us?” Normally inducing fear is not a good way to enact change, but in this case a sense of urgency needs to be conveyed, and fear is a strong motivator–maybe the strongest. The Earth will be fine in the long run; it is humans that are in danger of no longer being able to live here. My intervention hypothesis could be summed up as: If people are encouraged to think about behaviors that are harmful to the environment as behaviors that are harmful to themselves, they will act with more urgency to eliminate such behaviors through pressuring politicians and corporations to change harmful environmental practices.

References

“The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards.” NASA.gov, NASA, n.d.      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php.

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications


20
Sep 17

Stress and health

Stress is a fundamental part of life. Not only is stress usually part of what drives an organism to act, but it will often initiate a change in immediate behavior and possibly an ensuing cascade of behaviors. We often overlook the critical role stress plays in motivating our seemingly automatic and at times trivial behaviors and instead only recognize the power of stress when we become overwhelmed by it. Evolutionary psychologists stress the fact, pun intended, that stress is an acquired trait shaped by natural selection to aid the organism in navigating its environment so that it may have a better chance at propagating its genes. But, as the quote at the outset of this post explains, much of the stress we experience today is the result of a system developed in and for one environment, operating in a completely different environment. That is, we have a stress system that evolved relatively slow to aid our survival in our ancestral environments, not necessarily the environments we live in today. Many psychologists including one of the leading stress researchers, Robert Sapolsky, believe that this disconnect between the world our stress response evolved to handle and the world we live in today is in large part responsible for our struggle to manage stress, anxiety, and even depression.
The human stress response is an intricate set of chain reactions that act in concert to prepare the individual to confront a threat or stressor. The stress response starts in the brain, and in the amygdala specifically. The amygdala has been found to play a fundamental role in the stress response, as it is responsible for interpreting incoming information from different modalities. If a threat or stressor is detected during that information processing, the amygdala immediately alerts the hypothalamus which is a major signal processing hub. The hypothalamus is responsible for communicating with the rest of the body through the autonomic nervous system which in turn is responsible for controlling involuntary bodily functions. After the stress signal has been sent from the amygdala to the hypothalamus, it is then sent to the adrenal glands which begin to produce epinephrine. Epinephrine is a hormone that plays a critical role in engendering a number of physiological reactions. Heart rate increases, breathing rate increases, blood is drawn to muscles and senses are heightened. The individual is now prepared to respond to an immediate threat in the environment. In most cases, the parasympathetic nervous system would kick in after the threat had ended, but sometimes the stress response is continued and can even become chronic.
The chronic stress response is thought to be the portion of our stress response that has gone awry as a result of the differences between our past and current environments. In our ancestral environment, humans were probably confronted primarily with immediate threats, lions tigers, and bears etc. but in our current environment, we are often exposed to recurring stressors and even fall victim to thoughts about potential threats that have the ability to cause the same physiological stress response. This is where things get nasty because a system that was designed to mobilize us to deal with an immediate threat is being called on constantly. Because the stress response was designed to draw all the bodies resources to dealing with an immediate threat, many vital bodily functions are temporarily halted. And since we perceive that the threat has ended, the body will normally return to performing these vital functions. Unfortunately, when we are experiencing chronic stress, pour bodies vital processes are often suspended far longer than they should be and this is the crux of the problem. When the stress response becomes chronic, we become ill.
Psychologists have developed a number of techniques to help people combat their chronic stress. There are CBT’s that have been designed to help people acknowledge and relabel stressors in their lives in the hope that they might be able to better control their response to stress. Psychologists also focus on the person’s social environment and encourage people to rely on their social support networks to help them during periods of their lives that are particularly stressful. It has also been shown that lifestyle can have wide-ranging effects, both good and bad, on stress levels. For example, people who get some form of regular physical activity have been shown to be more resilient to stress and that their bodies are better able to regulate the physiological stress response. Mind-body techniques like mindful meditation have also been shown to be successful in reducing stress and anxiety. In short, research done over the last 20 years has made clear the detrimental effects of chronic stress and has spurred the creation of many different treatment programs.
Stress is natural, but chronic stress is anything but. As our understanding of stress has evolved, it has become increasingly clear that stress plays a critical role in all of our lives, but it has also become clear that a large proportion of us struggle with a form of stress that is relatively new and especially harmful. Chronic stress has been shown to harm both our immediate and long-term health in myriad ways. Because such a large proportion of the population struggles with chronic or prolonged stress at some point during their lives, and because the effects of chronic stress are so pronounced, it is crucial for psychologists, neurologists, and psychoneuroimmunologist to continue developing effective treatment programs.

References

Mcewen, Bruce S. “The Brain on Stress.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 8, no. 6, 2013, pp. 673–675., doi:10.1177/1745691613506907.

Rodrigues, Sarina M., et al. “The Influence of Stress Hormones on Fear Circuitry.” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 32, no. 1, 2009, pp. 289–313., doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135620.

Sapolsky, Robert. “Taming Stress.” Scientific American, vol. 289, no. 3, 2003, pp. 86–95., doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0903-86.

Sapolsky, Robert M. Why zebras dont get ulcers: an updated guide to stress, stress-Related diseases, and coping. New York, W.H. Freeman, 2001.


19
Sep 17

Using Social Influence to Create Health People 2020

Healthcare in the United States is a highly polarizing topic in American politics. Currently, the United States can be characterized as having a pluralistic healthcare system (Shi & Singh, 2010). According to Shi and Singh (2010), the healthcare system in the United States has no central government agency to administer any type of coordinated effort, contains an imperfect delivery system due to imperfect market conditions, government acts as a subsidiary to the private businesses sector, and focused on technology and innovation to provide treatment and care. Finally, according to the authors, unequal access and high costs assists with providing average health outcomes in treatment situation, while failing to focus on the prevention of disease through correct lifestyle behaviors (Shi & Singh, 2010).

Currently, the 115th United States Congress is now attempting to salvage its previous two attempts to overhaul the healthcare system by attempting to replace the Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or ObamaCare). One of the key provisions in the new Graham-Cassidy bill would eliminate the federal funding for Medicaid expansion and ACA subsidies (Fox & Mattingly, 2017). Moreover, federal money would be given to the states to determine the best means for distribution to help people pay for their healthcare premiums, while managing high risk insurance pools (Fox & Mattingly, 2017). While the healthcare debate and the future direction will undoubtedly affect everyone, the legislation fails to move away from the contemporary Biomedical Model of Health (Schneider, Fruman, & Coutts, 2005). Currently, the United States if healthcare system focuses on the treatment of illness rather than prevention (Shi & Singh, 2010). As a result, fiscal efforts are driven through treatment and innovative processes to help increase recovery from chronic illnesses but fails to address the wide range of possible causes from a prevention standpoint (Shi & Singh, 2010). For example, if a patient were to be diagnosed with high blood pressure, they would most likely be provided with medication to help reduce blood clotting, which results in the thinning of the blood. However, the patient’s treatment most likely would not center on resolving the behaviors and external variables (determinants) contributing to my high blood pressure. The treatment plan fails to address the patient’s poor dietary habits such as eating high volumes of red meat and fatty laden foods, while excluding consumption of fruits and vegetables. Moreover, it ignores the patient’s lack of regular exercise. How can applied social psychology help intervene and correct my behavior?

Image 1: Healthy People 2020 Initiative (United States Department of Health, n.d.)

One way applied social psychology can help is through the creation of interventions aimed at correcting the behaviors that are not conducive to a positive health outcome. Additionally, understanding the correct methods of persuasion and social influence can assist with the development of an intervention strategy. One popular alternative to the Biomedical Model of Health is the Healthy People 2020 initiative. The Healthy People 2020 initiative looks at and focuses on the “determinants” of health (Anglin & Blakley, n.d.). Therefore, it focuses on a person’s physical environment, social environment, individual behavior, biology/genetics, and health services, which have a determinate role in a person’s health outcome (Anglin & Blakley, n.d.). Going back to the example, the first step in the intervention would be to determine and identify the problem. In this case, the problem centers on patient’s high blood pressure, which is the result of poor eating and exercise habits. Secondly, a solution will need to be developed. In this case, the solution will be to modify the patient’s eating behaviors and transition to healthy eating and exercise behaviors. Our goal will be to reduce blood pressure levels to prehypertension levels and reduce body mass index (BMI) to correct levels. This will be done through educational information about proper nutrition, assistance with correct meal preparation, and portion control. Education information on proper exercise methods, routines, exercise scheduling, and training will be provided to help assist with meeting exercise goals. The educational information can be presented in a way to attempt to exert social influence over the patient through informational appeals. Using informational appeals allows for social influence through the presentation of the facts or reasons why a health behavioral changes is needed (Schneider et al., 2005). Another method for social influence would be to create a fear appeal, which uses fear arousal as a means to get another person to listen to a message with the goal of creating a behavioral change (Schneider et al., 2005). However, using the fear arousal method should be used at moderate levels in order to prevent the person from ignoring the message (Schneider et al., 2005). All of the suggested activities are designed to improve the patient’s eating and exercise habits in order to achieve the goal. After the goal setting and design phase, the next step will be to implement the intervention, which should happen at a point when activities and target goals have been mapped out chronologically with various time expectations. Finally, the intervention will need to be evaluated for its success and should the intervention not show the desired results, the intervention will need to be adjusted and reevaluated.

In conclusion, while the future of healthcare continues to be debated and remains as one of the most challenge endeavors for policy makers, it is possible to redirect efforts towards focusing on the determinants of healthcare as outlined in the Health People 2020 initiative (Anglin & Blakley, n.d.). Applied social psychology could be a partner of the Health People 2020 initiative by developing interventions designed to address the challenges behind the determinants of health, which could allow for an increase in the amount of positive healthcare outcomes through a prevention centric model rather than a reactionary model of healthcare.

References

Anglin, T., & Blakley, C. (n.d.). Healthy People 2020 and Adolescent Health. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/sites/default/files/ash/oah/oah-initiatives/ta/experience_expertise_anglin_blakey.pdf

Fox, L., & Mattingly, P. (2017, September 19). How Obamacare repeal came back with a fury. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/obamacare-repeal-is-back/index.html

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.

Shi, L., & Singh, D. A. (2010). Essentials of the U.S. health care system (2nd ed.). Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

United States Department of Health. (n.d.). [Illustration of Healthy People 2020 Initiative]. Healthy People 2020 Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/chac/improvement/hp2020_action_model.htm


18
Sep 17

Recycling Dilemma

As a member of society who regularly recycles, I was dumbfounded when I noticed that three of the four members of my household had not recycled their Styrofoam dinner containers.  As I was retrieving the recyclables from the trashcan it made me wonder, why do some people recycle and others not?  Furthermore, if this is going on in my household, how many other households are ignoring the global recycling efforts and what can I do to encourage my family members to participate in these efforts?

To tackle these questions, I decided to get statistics on recycling.  Of course, I was amazed to learn that one person creates 4 pounds of trash per day, which is equivalent to 1.5 tons per year (#1 Recycling Fact, 2017). This certainly is problematic when one considers the world’s population.  As I write this blog the world’s population is just above 7.5 billion (Current World Population, 2017). Estimates suggest that American’s currently recycle about 34.6% of their waste (EPA, 2016).  This lackluster number encouraged me to motivate my family members to become part of the recycling community. 

Recycling is considered both a social and resource dilemma.  Recycling benefits society because it reduces solid waste, pollution, and contamination, preserves our natural resources, creates jobs, and saves money. However, with only 34% of the American population contributed to these causes there seems to be a public goods problem.  Public goods problems are created when an individual must decide to contribute to a project benefiting everyone and is voluntary (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Recycling does help everyone in the environment, takes an effort, and is voluntary.  This could be the rationale why some take the time to recycle and other’s do not.  However, when enough members of society contribute to the public good of recycling, both the environment and society benefit.  The EPA began a campaign, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, in part due to the limited number of resources that are being depleted (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, 2017).  Many people in our society seem to believe the earth has an unlimited supply of resources and they continue to exploit these resources which may lead to “tragedy of the commons” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Willian Lloyd termed this phrase to describe individual compulsion to increase resource use in a limited resource world (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Psychologists have been employed to study this and other types of attitudes and behaviors to encourage recycling efforts.

Researchers determined that “recycling behaviors are affected by people’s attitudes toward recycling, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and personal norms” (Onel & Mukherjee, 2017).  Furthermore, household recycling efforts should be made convenient to increase participation (Onel & Mukherjee, 2017).  Armed with this data, my hope was to alter my family’s behaviors and attitudes towards recycling. I started by moving the recycling bin in closer proximity to the trashcan.  Now that the recycling bin is conveniently located near the trashcan it will be an obvious choice.  Furthermore, my family enjoys wildlife.  Local visits to the zoo, aquarium, and even the backyard reveal all the wondrous animals for us to enjoy.  Unfortunately, waste products such as plastics are harming our environment and wildlife.  So, when I informed my family of the harmful pollution effecting wildlife they are admit about Reducing, Reusing, and Recycling as an effort to protect the environment and wildlife (ESI Field Report, n.d).  In just one week they are notably more consciousness of disposing of their plastics and other waste materials in the proper recycling bins.

Our planet has limited resources and by altering perceptions, behaviors, and attitudes psychologists are enabling people to become consciousness and accountable for their recycling efforts.  Conveniently changing the location of the recycle bin near the trashcan has enabled my family members to recycle more frequently.  Also, showing the children informational appeals from various wildlife advocacy groups about the harmful effect plastics has on wildlife renewed their recycling efforts.  Both social and resource dilemmas are barriers to recycling.  Hopefully with positive changes in social norms, government interventions, and personal attitudes these factors will alleviate these barriers.  I know my recycling efforts are paramount for future generations to enjoy this beautiful landscape and I hope you will all join and increase the recycling efforts.

 

Endangered Species International, Inc. (n.d.) ESI Field Report – Important Call: Plastics kill! Retrieved from http://endangeredspeciesinternational.org/plastickills.html

Onel, N., and Mukherjee, A. (2017). Why do consumers recycle? A holistic perspective encompassing moral considerations, affective responses, and interest motives. Psychology & Marketing. 34(10). 956-971. DOI 10.1002/mar.21035

Recycling Facts. (2017). #1 Recycling Fact: You can make a difference. Retrieved from https://recyclingfacts.org/

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Los Angeles. Sage.

Worldometers. (2017). Current World Population.  Retrieved from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016). Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/2014_smmfactsheet_508.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/recycle

 


18
Sep 17

Carbon Footprint

Carbon Footprint is defined as the total amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted by an individual. You create your carbon footprint by the actions you take. Some examples include the amount of time you drive or how much trash you throw into the landfills. Even electricity creates carbon dioxide which increases your carbon footprint.

Applied Social Psychologists will look at data to see what is using the most emissions and alternative methods to decrease everyone’s carbon footprint. This would also include major organizations and companies carbon footprint as well although this post is more about the footprint created by individuals. Over the last couple years our carbon footprint has tremendously increased due to the advancement of technology and access to various sources. Although technology has become more efficient we have also become more reliant on it which results in a higher volume use.

There are ways that we can track our carbon footprint. Companies with the help of applied social psychologist have developed carbon footprint calculators where you can actually calculate your carbon footprint and how it measures up to people in your country. Below is a link to a carbon footprint calculator and you can see how you measure up!

http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm

 

We can all see how we impact our environment by taking one simple survey and look at how we can reduce our impact on the climate directly. We can take our own data and become psychologists in the field to come up with a method or idea to improve our planet.

 

References:

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


17
Sep 17

Zero Waste Life

As individuals we exploit our resources, I can say myself its hard to envision the big picture when it comes to taking a shower, running the water, driving our cars etc. Moving through the day is second nature, we don’t truly understand the number of resources we are using and the impact this has on the environment. There is a lack of understanding when it comes to our carbon footprint and a lack of encouragement daily on any platform to get people to recycle, drive less, reduce household energy use, and live as waste-free as possible. This has left us in a resource dilemma, this dilemma occurs each time we want to do something that uses a limited natural resource at a rate quicker than it can regenerate (Schneider et al., 2012). This leaves the users of these resources to face a choice: preserve or continue to contribute to this dilemma. I began looking into the ways to preserve our resources.

When I think of preserving resources and living less wastefully I think turning the water off when I brush my teeth, recycling, unplugging plugs when they are not being used etc. I’m still on the fence about the tap water, however, I am encouraged to look deeper into that. It was amazing to see that my efforts were just barely scratching the surface when it came to living waste free. There is a lifestyle called the zero waste life. These individuals live a life with ZERO waste. It’s important to note this is extreme when it comes to preserving our resources and even small steps help.  After researching the zero waste life I was given several ideas of how I can be less wasteful. Zero waste means there is NO garbage produced, nothing is thrown into the trash and nothing is sent to a landfill (Trash is for Tossers, 2017).  Although preserving resources involves more than just producing zero waste, helping reduce the size of landfills will reduce energy in regards to the efforts it takes to transport and dispose of the waste, which in turn will have a positive impact on the environment and our resources.

The Trash is for Tossers Blog showcases several ways to go waste-free some examples that are easy to transition to consisting of

  • Replacing all plastic with glass, using mason jars to store food opposed to plastic Tupper wear
  • Investing in laser hair removal to avoid using disposable razors ever again (costly but may be worth it in the long run).
  • Purchase Bamboo toothbrushes opposed to plastic as they are compostable
  • Coconut oil as a substitute for many plastics packaged makeup products
  • Using recycled natural toilet paper
  • Reusable bags and water bottles for everything – NO PLASTIC!
  • Stainless steel utensils and straws
  • Cloth towels opposed to paper
  • Cast iron opposed to nonstick
  • Natural cleaning solutions opposed to harsh chemicals

These alternatives are simple and easy lifestyle changes that will significantly improve your carbon footprint if they are followed over a length of time.  As the environmental concerns start to grow we must be more conscious of our individual contribution.  Below is a video of Bea Johnsons Zero waste lifestyle as features on CCTV America. Bea Johnson has a zero waste life book and blog and has inspired thousands of people to begin a zero waste journey.

 

 

 

References:

Penn State World Campus (2017) Psych 424: Lesson 4: The environment. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915533

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Trash if for Tossers: 2017: Zero Waste alternatives. Retrieved from http://www.trashisfortossers.com/2013/08/zero-waste-alternatives-ultimate-list.html

 


16
Sep 17

Using Cognitive Dissonance Without Knowing It: How Pictures of Animals Increased Recycling

My family has always believed in the importance of recycling in order to reduce waste and conserve our natural resources.  Growing up, both my sister and I assumed that most people shared these beliefs.  However, when she moved in with her fiancé (now husband), she learned that he, generally, did not recycle.  Incensed by this, my sister devised a plan to encourage him to participate in this environmentally friendly behavior.  Knowing that he has a soft spot for animals, my sister began to look up pictures of animals swimming through trash-filled water or harmed by coming into contact with garbage (i.e. heads or fins stuck through plastic soda holders).  She then told him how much of the trash causing the problems in these photos was recyclable and that many of these problems could be prevented.  Appalled by this new knowledge, my brother-in-law began recycling and now recycles regularly.  As my sister explained this method, I realized that, without even knowing it, she was using a form of cognitive dissonance to get him to change his behaviors.

Cognitive dissonance theory, as proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, centers on the idea that people strive to maintain consistency across their opinions, attitudes, values, and knowledge, also known as their cognitions.  When this consistency is not maintained and two cognitions are in conflict with one another, it is unpleasant.  People attempt to reduce this unpleasantness by changing or devaluing one of the cognitions or adding a new cognition (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  This theory has been shown to be remarkably effective in getting people to adopt more environmentally sound practices.  In one notable study, Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and Miller (1992) were able to encourage people to take significantly shorter showers, and thereby conserve water, by reminding them of past wasteful behavior and pairing this with a public commitment that implored others to take shorter showers.  The pairing of the negative past behaviors with the public commitment aroused dissonance in the subjects of this study which, in turn, motivated them to use less water, themselves.  In the case of my brother-in-law and his recycling behavior, my sister was utilizing a similar technique, though not exactly on purpose.

Without even realizing it, my sister was inducing dissonance in her husband.  He views himself as an animal lover and cares greatly about all different types of creatures.  By showing him pictures of animals harmed by a behavior in which he participates, my sister was creating conflicting cognitions within her husband.  He cares about animals, but is participating in behaviors that harm them.  In order to reduce this dissonance, my brother-in-law had to change one of his cognitions, in this case, his recycling behavior.  By now recycling, his cognitions have regained consistency and the unpleasantness of the dissonance was reduced.

Seeing how effective cognitive dissonance can be in inducing desired behaviors, on both large and small scales, is fascinating.  Dickerson et al.’s (1992) study is a great example of how inducing hypocrisy through cognitive dissonance in many people can be an effective mechanism in getting them to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors, while my sister’s use of animal pictures with her husband illustrates a simple cognitive dissonance technique that was similarly effective.  Overall, it seems that exploiting this principle is an ideal method for changing behaviors and should continue to be explored as the adoption of eco-friendly behaviors takes on increasingly great importance.

 

References

Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22. 841-854.

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


16
Sep 17

Climate Change


Climate Change-the facts and what we need to do!

September 2017 has proven to be incredibly devastating around the world with hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, flooding, and wildfires. We listen to our parents and grandparents talk about these events causing more damage now than ever before, and we wonder why. For years scientists have studied and reported on the impact that man has had on the environment and have been very clear that human behavior can and does influence the weather. According to NASA “the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20

According to NASA “the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia” (NASA, 2017). But for those living in Houston, the Florida Keys, the islands of the Caribbean, Mexico, and the western United States, who are the victims of these disasters, they are acutely aware of the power of Mother Nature and understand that we must work to rebuild and fight back. It is time for us to concentrate on changing the human behaviors that have contributed to disrupting the environment and the resultant disasters.

Turning back the clock is obviously not the answer. But recognizing that the seas are warming, polar ice is melting, and the oceans are becoming more acidic is the beginning of asking the question – “What can be done?” Environmental psychologists and social psychologists have provided research and guidance on how to approach these problems.

 

First, we must recognize the problem and have an understanding of how the climate has changed. The Nature Conservancy has provided the following facts:

  • 8 inches: Rise in global sea levels over the last century. The rate of rising has nearly doubled in the last two decades.
  • 16: Number of record-breaking hottest years since 2000. 2016 was the hottest year yet.
  • 5 degrees: The average worldwide temperature increase in Fahrenheit compared to a century ago.
  • 9: The 9 most explosive fires in America’s history have all occurred since 2000, with 2015 having the biggest fire (10.1 million acres burned) in American history.
  • 30 percent: The increase in acidity of the world’s oceans.
  • $180 billion: Estimated economic losses to the United States by end of the century if no action is taken on climate change (Climate Change, 2017)

Second, an intervention plan must be developed and countries around the world have stepped up to address the problem. The response on an international level was announced at the Paris Climate Accord of 2015. This was an agreement made by 196 countries to “adopt green energy sources, cut down on climate change emissions and limit the rise in global temperatures — while also cooperating to cope with the impact of unavoidable climate change” (Domonoske, 2017). Within the United States, the U.S. Climate Alliance has established that their goal “is to bring states together to reduce emissions 26%-28% from 2005 levels, in order to meet or exceed the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan” which was instituted by President Obama in 2015. Fourteen states have banded together in a bipartisan coalition to maintain their support of and work towards the goals of the Paris Climate Accord. In the American spirit of competition will ensue as a result of the comparative feedback provided from each entity. As used by Siero in his 1996 study (Siero, et al., 1996) by sharing information the challenge will be enhanced and work to achieving an important goal, by any one group will encourage others and that when any success, everyone wins.

Third, on a personal level what intervention can we do? These environmental problems can overshadow our personal feelings of power based on the enormity of their impact.  But as individuals, as families, and as a community, there are ways we can we can choose to address the problems.  We are faced with a resource dilemma. A resource dilemma is when you have the opportunity to make choices – of self-interest or the interest of the larger community. Every day, in very small ways, one individual can help. Decisions and choices made as part of our daily routine have an impact when billions of individuals choose to make a commitment to not damage the environment.  Things like water usage – shorter showers, doing full loads of dishes and clothing, watering the lawn are individual decisions that add to a greater impact. Everyday decisions about transportation, heating, and air conditioning, and recycling all add up. Taking into consideration the environment when purchasing things: green energy, electric cars, solar panels are other options to be considered, and they can help (Steg et al., 2008).

Social change is never immediate, but as a generation, we have the power to choose how we want to impact the environment. By nature we are social beings, by using the theory of social design we will find ourselves “working with people in the planning and management of spaces around them, educating them to use the environment wisely and creatively to achieve a harmonious balance…”  (Steg et al., 2008).

The power to influence is also ours. You can let your local government know that it is important that they also address these same resource dilemmas as they build new structures and provide services in the community. Encouraging school boards to address the issues, impact, and personal responsibility of fighting climate change by including it in the curriculum would help prepare the next generation to value and preserve the environment.

The integration of theories, with knowledge and action, will assist us in creating necessary change. Working with the guidance of environmental and applied social psychologists can empower individuals, families, communities, businesses, government, and education to develop grass root programs and policy initiatives that can address the effects of climate change.

References

Climate change: 10 facts about climate change and global warming. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/help/10-climate-change-facts.xml

Domonoske, C. (Writer). (2017, June 1). So what exactly is the Paris climate accord? [Radio episode transcript]. In National Public Radio. Retrieved from NPR database.

Global climate change. (n.d.). Retrieved from NASA website: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Siro, Frans W. et al., Changing organizational energy consumption behavior through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 16(3). Sept. 1966. pp 235-246.

Steg, L., & Rothengatter, T. (2008). Introduction to applied social psychology. In Cambridge university press (pp. 1-10). Retrieved from http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/69799/excerpt/9780521869799_excerpt.pdf

U.S. climate alliance. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.usclimatealliance.org/

 

Images acquired from Free Google Images


14
Sep 17

Addiction

Have you ever had that feeling of wanting more? That singular ice cream scoop did not hit the spot, that boy you like gave you a hug, but no goodbye kiss. What about that one fuzzy blanket just isn’t keeping you warm tonight? It is in human nature to always want more. For example, Abraham Maslow created a psychological theory called a Needs Hierarchy. In this hierarchy, Maslow created 5 levels of needs that people must receive in order to achieve self actualization. Self actualization is the tip of the pyramid and the highest point you can reach in the needs hierarchy. Abraham Maslow refers to self actualization as, “the desire to become everything that one is capable of becoming.” Yet we never succeed at satisfying these needs. Why? In life and in self actualization, there are always going to be aspects of our lives that need self improvement, self fulfillment and personal growth (Selvi, 2009, p. 51). With that being said, personal needs are important but the will never be fulfilled by focusing solely on ourselves.

Sometimes, we need to make tough decisions in life. We may need to sacrifice our personal needs for the needs of the whole community or group. If we focus on the needs of the whole community, everyone can benefit rather than a few people or no one benefitting at all. This concept is known as the social dilemma. A specific aspect of this dilemma is called a social trap. A social trap happens when a task, object, or behavior seems like an attractive option in the moment, but ends up being harmful in the long run  (Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. 2012). Whenever I go out to the movie theater with my boyfriend, I always end up overindulging in popcorn. Why? The popcorn seems appetizing in the moment. The buttery smell and the salty taste entice me to keep eating. Do I regret eating all of that popcorn an hour later? Absolutely. In the moment, I usually say something like, “One splurge won’t make me gain a ton of weight.” A long term uncertain like that example is a common cause of a social trap.

Many people in America suffer from this common social trap, but not only at the movies. They suffer from over indulgence every day. This causality is known as binge eating disorder. The results of overeating are drastic and shocking. Long term results of over indulging often include but are not limited to; type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease (“Binge Eating,” n.d.). I believe the solution to this problem begins with a simple question. Do people have the right to eat what/the amount they enjoy or should there be restrictions? Should we as the American people allow fellow citizens to cause harm unto themselves because they are not knowledgeable about a healthy diet? Should we allow people to eat what they want because they have individual rights to eat what they like? Pondering individual freedoms and restrictions for a possible solution to an epidemic is known as the freedom in the commons (Schneider et. al,. 2012).

To solve this problem, I believe the serving sizes on packages should be altered to a more realistic number. For example, a serving size of Santitas tortilla chips is a mere 9 chips. When I eat tortilla chips, I know for a fact I am not only picking 9 chips out of the bag. The nutrition label of these chips are posted below (Santitas Yellow, n.d.). The solution to solving any problem in this world is to stop focusing on our selfish wants and needs. We need to work as a community to save the human race. If we as a country portray accurate serving sizes and calories for these serving sizes, it may persuade people to make healthier food choices. Helping others who suffer from binge eating disorder make healthier food choices may end up saving their lives. The only way we are really going to satisfy our own needs are if we satisfy the needs of others as well. Maslow proved to us that we are unable to satisfy all of our needs on our own. We must work together to solve social dilemmas and social traps. It’s not only about us personally wanting more for ourselves, it is about wanting more as a society. If we as a united group of people can work together, we can conquer any social problem life can throw at us.

 

References

Binge eating disorder. (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2017, from https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/binge-eating-disorder

Santitas yellow corn [Photograph]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fritolay.com/images/default-source/masstransit-nutrition-panel/santitas-yellow-corn.jpg?sfvrsn=a0f6573a_2

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding     and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Selvi, K. (2009). Lifelong learning and self-actualization [Abstract]. Memory in the Ontopoesis of Life, 102, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2319-3_4


14
Sep 17

How many strikes do you get before you can classify yourself as “Green or Pro Environment”?

Today, I woke and decided to challenge my-self over the course of three days with the challenge of being as close to “green” as possible. Normally, the days starts off with me dragging myself out of bed, brushing my teeth, showering and driving the kids to school. I did manage to put on clothes somewhere in there and log on to work. Guess I failed my first challenge by driving my truck to drop the kids off. Trucks require more gas consumption than the average size car, strike one. My boys could have walked to school but their lazy. Then, I jump start my day with a quick workout then shower. Did I mention I drove to go jog at a track instead of jogging around the neighborhood, followed by returning home to take another shower, strike two. It wasn’t even 9:00am and I took two showers, okay, but in my defense they were quick showers. As the day progressed, I drank six glasses of water, washed six loads of clothes, boiled and prepared dinner and of course took a shower before bed, strike three. I probably stroke out many swings ago but didn’t realize it. I over indulged in just about every possible resource.

Sadly, most people don’t realize the amount of energy used in a day. Take the laundry as an example, six loads of clothes is a lot in one day. Keep in mind, I work from home so electricity is being heavily used throughout the day and even more so once the kids come home. Not to mention the amount of water used to wash all of the clothes, prepared dinner and showers. Then, there is recycling which is none existent in my home and we have a pretty trash can outside specially set aside for recycling, yet, it’s hardly ever used. I guess I am the individual constantly taking from the earth but contributing nothing in return with my resource dilemma. ( Schneuder, Gruman, Coutts, 2012)The earth has become heavily populated over the years resulting in limited amounts of available resources. If the population continues to expand there will be less food, water and natural resources which in turn will eventually lead to starvation, war, and diseases. ( Schneuder, Gruman, Coutts, 2012)

Then, there is a possibility of learned behavior. Take my family as an example; my parents were not pro-environment so I didn’t incorporate similar habits such as recycling or volunteering. Who is to say that they didn’t add to my strikes? Or perhaps, I fall victim to the public good problem. I don’t see others contributing therefore I choose not contribute as well. ( Schneuder, Gruman, Coutts, 2012)  Needless to say, I have become more cognitive of my abusive ways towards our beautiful earth. As a result, by the last day I had my children walk home which preserved gas cost and benefitted the children with exercise.  Then, I jogged around the neighborhood and eliminated one shower per day; coupled with, attempting to recycle. I tend to use limited lights throughout the day so I couldn’t cut that anymore. Okay, so I won’t say I was successful at completing my task… but at minimum I contributed to the earths upkeep on a very small scale by the last day.

It’s a start right?? Let’s just say I have a long way to go. I wonder if government mandated more policies enforcing environmental changes, would it really cut down on our resource issue, or perhaps implementing a cognitive dissonance program similar to Dickerson et al. (1992). The dissonance program would force me to alter my behavior to align with the image I am projecting or be viewed as a hypocrite.

 

Cite

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412976381

Dickerson, C. et al.. Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 22. 1992. 0021-9029. pp. 841-854.

 

 


13
Sep 17

The Looming Threat of Resource Scarcity

In the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, there has been a noticeable uptick in discussion surrounding disaster preparedness. As towns, cities and nations begin to rebuild critical infrastructure, some countries appear to be facing a much more serious situation. The Caribbean’s eastern islands are reported to have sustained the majority of  damage throughout Hurricane Irma. In certain islands, 90 percent of the buildings were destroyed throughout the storm (Ahmed & Semple, 2017). While island infrastructure can potentially be rebuilt, a much more serious problem has recently emerged. The absence of key resources has resulted in extreme social unrest on several islands. In the island of St. Martin, locals are reporting that there is no food left (Ahmed & Semple, 2017). Because of the lack of essential resources such as food and water, local citizens have begun fighting over all remaining items (Ahmed & Semple, 2017).

The concept of a resource dilemma remains central in this particular situation. In the aftermath of the hurricane, looting and fighting over scarce resources have become common on the island (Ahmed & Semple, 2017). In this instance, looters aren’t commonly targeting non-essential items such as clothes, alcohol or electronics, rather they are seeking food and water (Ahmed & Semple, 2017). This disaster refocuses our attention on the limited supply of natural resources in this world. Schneider et al. (2012, p. 302) note that less than 3 percent of the earths water is safe for drinking purposes. Statistics regarding the scarcity of water are often presented with data regarding population growth. It is also crucial to note that population increases of 83 million per year are forecasted to remain steady (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 302). This increase in human population will slowly create a significant level of competition for scarce resources (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 302).

Will the increased scarcity of essential items bring about significant social dilemmas? The actions of the individuals within St. Martin showcase the reality of such an occurrence. Disasters that impact essential resources have a unique way of changing social behavior. Schneider et al. (2012, p. 299) note that individuals are rewarded for their lack of cooperation in a social dilemma. This can be seen as individuals fight with each other for basic survival items on the island of St. Martin. Schneider et al. (2012, p. 299) also note that when all individuals stop cooperating, everyone begins to suffer. Individuals who have begun stockpiling resources are receiving an initial reward at the moment, however, this decision will ultimately impact them at a later point as their community begins to run out of essential items.

It is imperative that we begin to treat the threat of resource scarcity as a colossal threat to human life. At present, our ecosystems have a fixed carrying capacity (PSU, 2017). As the world continues to industrialize, the need for upgraded agricultural procedures and alternative water sources will consistently increase. Additionally, it will become increasingly important for parents to address their ability to care for and introduce children into the world. According to Pennsylvania State University (2017), psychologists may choose to focus on birth control and other preventative measures. While this subject remains controversial, it does require that we begin to grapple with the idea explosive world population growth may not be in our best interest. Should we fail to do so, our ability to equally utilize scare resources may hang in jeopardy.

References

Ahmed, A., Semple, K. (2017). Desperation Mounts in Caribbean Islands: ‘All the Food Is Gone’. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/world/americas/irma-caribbean-st-martin.html?mcubz=0

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. Lesson 4: The Environment. PSYCH424. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915534

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


12
Sep 17

Climate Change and Cognitive Dissonance

In the United States, climate change is a hotly debated topic with people polarized on either side. On one side, you have the those that believe climate change is occurring and affecting climates worldwide. On the other side is the climate change skeptic community, who either questions or refuses to accept whether or not climate change is happening. A recent article by Lavandera and Morris (2017) focused on climate change and how fisherman in Southern Louisiana are noticing the changes occurring around them but refuse to accept the role climate change could be playing. According to Loarie, Duffy, Hamilton, Asner, and Field (2009) climate change is continuing to disrupt, change, or possible even destroy the various climates around the world. Additionally, scientists have begun to caution how these rapid changes could lead the death of numerous species due to their inability to adapt from to the rapid changing climate conditions (Hoffmann & Sgrò, 2011). Despite the lack of scientific agreement and evidence offered to them in the segment, why do these fishermen refuse to believe or acknowledge the changes are a result of climate change?

One possible reason for the denial in the face of the scientific evidence could be explained by cognitive dissonance theory. Developed by Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance theory suggests that when people encounter a situation where they become psychologically discomforted by an opposing cognition that is not consistent with their current belief, it is this discomfort felt from the dissonance that causes a drive in the person to resolve the dissonance (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). There are multiple ways for someone to reduce dissonance. One way is to change the cognition causing the dissonance to match the initial belief in order to help reduce the dissonance, rather than admitting you were wrong (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). Additionally, it is also possible create a new cognition or reduce the importance of the cognition, which will help to ease the discomfort felt by cognitive dissonance (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). For example, in the segment, one of the fishermen explains he would only accept climate change if a 500-year-old scientist would tell him it was happening (Lavandera & Morris, 2017). This could be a way to attempt to reduce or change the dissonance in the mind of the fishermen since his request is impossible (Lavandera & Morris, 2017). Thus, by altering the contradicting dissonance, he is able to distort the validity of scientific finding by limiting the findings, while simultaneously requiring additional information that is unobtainable. As a result, the fisherman’s beliefs remain intact and unrefuted (Lavandera & Morris, 2017).

Using framework similar to Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and Miller (1992), an intervention could be developed to help utilize cognitive dissonance in a way to help implement positive change in attitudes and behaviors towards climate change. The solution for an intervention to combat climate change is to inform the public by attempting to reduce the effects of climate change in the areas of energy, waste, and water conservation. An intervention would entail a massive information campaign attempting to solicit the buy-in of community populations. The intervention would focus on increased public knowledge, while simultaneously attempting to enlist support with targeted reduction goals over the next few years from the public. Moreover, the intervention could use media campaigns, community advocates, and school level interventions to help increase knowledge and gain commitments from people regarding their conservation efforts. By including people into the process and allowing them to define their personal goals the intervention will establish a link between the person’s conservation efforts and the results. By creating additional buy-in it may be possible to generate cognitive dissonance if the targets are not achieved similar to Dickerson et al. (1992). Thus, the person might seek to remove the dissonance through increased participation (Dickerson et al., 1992). Finally, as the program in evaluated, results can be provided to the various participants to help show the fruits of their efforts to generate additional buy-in towards the program. If the desired targeted results are not promising during the evaluation phase then it is possible to adjust the intervention as needed in order to increase its effectiveness.

In conclusion, cognitive dissonance theory helps to provide an explanation social psychological behavior. We encounter a wide variety of social situations on a daily basis and some may conflict with our previously held cognitions. According to cognitive dissonance theory, we have an intrinsic motivation to resolve the dissonance in order to protect our self-esteem (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). As a result, cognitive dissonance is nothing more than a social response to stressful social psychologically situations to help us understand our world cognitively (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). Therefore, it may be possible to use cognitive dissonance to enhance the effectiveness of climate change efforts currently underway by providing people exposure to knowledge about climate change in a way they have not been exposed to before.

References

Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22. 841-854.

Hoffmann, A. A., & Sgrò, C.,M. (2011). Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature, 470(7335), 479-85. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/855200411?accountid=13158

Lavandera, E., & Morris, J. (2017, May 31). As the seas around him rise, this fisherman denies climate change. Retrieved August 28, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/us/louisiana-climate-change-skeptics/index.html

Loarie, S. R., Duffy, P. B., Hamilton, H., Asner, G. P., Field, C. B., & Ackerly, D. D. (2009). The velocity of climate change. Nature, 462(7276), 1052-5. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/204548344?accountid=13158

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.


Skip to toolbar