If you ever find yourself scrolling through Instagram, or stalking your friend’s sister’s roommate’s cousin on Facebook, and feeling really bad about yourself, you are certainly not alone. While social media can affect the self-esteem and body image of both genders, it takes a harsher toll on girls and women. With all the social media outlets that are used these days, it’s almost impossible to avoid constantly checking and updating them. Social media has a variety of effects on us. It makes us anxious, depressed, jealous, and feel bad about the way we look. In a study conducted by the University of Salford in the UK, of 298 social media users, 50% said that, “Facebook and Twitter make their lives worse”.

A huge problem with social media is that it’s essentially a constant stream of things we want but can’t or don’t have. Think of Pinterest for example, people (82% women) can scroll endlessly, looking at million dollar houses and designer clothes and “perfect” hair and “perfect” bodies. After a while, that is bound to take a toll on a person’s self esteem. There are many theories on the subject. According to the Social Comparison Theory, when people make “upward comparisons”, or compare themselves to people who are better off than they are, it leads to depression and negative self-image. Psychotherapist, Sherrie Campbell, explains it very well, “When we look to social media, we end up comparing ourselves to what we see which can lower our self-esteem. On social media, everyone’s life looks perfect but you’re only seeing a snapshot of reality. We can be whoever we want to be in social media and if we take what we see literally then it’s possible that we can feel we are falling short in life”.

If social media is making us feel so bad, why do we use it constantly? The answer is simple: we are addicted. The National Institute of Health added Internet Addiction Disorder in 2012; “”Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) ruins lives by causing neurological complications, psychological disturbances, and social problems”. Although it’s hard for most people, deleting social media accounts, or using them less can be very beneficial to a persons self esteem and well being.

sources:

http://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/index.cfm?parent=…&detail=4475&content=4795

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/07/11/is-social-media-destroying-your-self-esteem/

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/11/7_telltale_signs_social_media_is_killing_your_self_esteem_partner/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201405/how-facebook-can-amplify-low-self-esteemnarcissismanxiety

http://mashable.com/2012/07/08/social-media-anxiety-study/

Since Halloween is right around the corner, there has been an obvious increase in horror films on TV. Even though I’m a fan of the genre, it’s undeniable that I, and most others, feel some type of way while watching horror movies. This made me wonder, what exactly is happening to us physically and psychologically when we watch scary movies?

The physical effects of fear are pretty noticeable. Most people will experience an increased heart rate, and an increase of adrenaline. The Huffington Post UK took a poll and found that The Shining is the number one scariest film, specifically the infamous “HEEEERE’S JOHNNY” scene. They then conducted a study by holding viewings and hooking the audience members up to heart rate monitors, and found that this particular scene caused viewers heart rates’ to increase by an average of 28.21%. This heart rate (between 97-165 BPM) is equivalent the heart rate of someone doing light exercise. So if you’ve ever heard that watching scary movies burns calories, it’s true! Of course it’s not substantial and also not effective if you’re eating a large buttered popcorn in the movie theater. Other noticeable effects could be sweating, or crying, or shaking, which would vary for each viewer. While these physical effects are only temporary, there can be more lasting effects, like sleeplessness if the viewer is very traumatized after the movie.

As for psychological effects, there are quite few more than you might think. The most obvious are anxiety and stress, which relate to the physical side effects because they can lead to increased heart rate and sweating. On a neurological level, during the scary or suspenseful scenes in horror movies, there is increased activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain that deals with emotions, in this case, fear. Under more serious circumstances, horror movies can cause PTSD or desensitization. Seeing traumatic scenes in movies can trigger traumatic memories from a viewer’s own life, which can sometimes be too much to handle. As for desensitization, this would be more common in people who watched a lot of intense horror films starting at a young age.

So if horror movies make us cry and lose sleep, why do some of us keep going back for more? The answer can in part be associated with The Excitation Transfer Process and The Gender Socialization Theory. Glenn Sparks, Ph.D., from Purdue University, attributes part of the reason to The Excitation Transfer Process. This process involves what happens to us physically during the movie (increased heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate), and how we were feeling on an emotional level. If you had an enjoyable time, besides the fact that you were scared, i.e. spending time with friends, eating your favorite candy, etc, you will be more likely to associate these good feeling with the experience of seeing a horror movie. This is because you are psychologically aroused, which heightens the feeling of whatever else you’re doing. As for his theory of Gender Socialization, the experience will depend on how your viewing partner reacts. In a study conducted by Dolf Zillmann, James B. Weaver, Norbert Mundorf, and Charles F. Aust, for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, it was found that, “men enjoyed the movie most in the company of a distressed woman and least in the company of a mastering woman. Women, in contrast, enjoyed the movie most in the company of a mastering man and least in the company of a distressed man. Mastery did not enhance the female companions’ physical appeal. However, it significantly enhanced that of the low-appeal male companion. The display of distress in response to horror reduced the desirability of both male and female companions as working mates”. This also shows that this theory can have the opposite effect, and leave the viewer associating horror movies with a bad experience. As for the Excitation Transfer Process, if the viewer has a bad time at the movie, i.e. gets in a fight with their friends, spills their popcorn, can’t find a seat, they could also leave associating horror films with a bad experience, and a heightened one at that. In the end, no matter if you love horror movies or hate them, they affect you whether you know it or not.

Sources:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/31/why-some-people-love-horror-movies-while-others-hate-them/

http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-psychology-of-scary-movies/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/22777/your-brain-horror-movies

http://jarviscity.com/2012/12/22/6-health-benefits-of-watching-horror-movies/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/shingo-murakami/unearthing-how-horror-affects-the-heart_b_4234690.html

In today’s society, it is hard to turn on the TV or go on the internet without seeing something violent. Censorship in the media has decreased immensely in the past two decades. Adolescents have access to violent video games, movies, and photos with virtually no filtration. When kids have access to this type of media, it can have detrimental effects on their psychological health.

Psychologists have studied the effect of media violence on the youth demographic since the 1970’s, and disturbing content has only increased since then. During adolescence, children often imitate what they see others do, in real life and on TV. This can prove to be very problematic if they are seeing a consistent stream of violence. According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the average child will view over 200,000 acts of violence on TV before the age of 18. This doesn’t include video games, a lot of which are more violent than anything broadcast on TV, allowing kids to have a 1^st person perspective of shooting and murdering people, with increasingly life-like graphics.

As for violent video games, a direct correlation between playing and aggression has been discovered. In a study conducted by psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D., 227 college students were measured for their trait of aggressiveness, and submitted a report of their past experiences with aggressiveness, as well as their video game playing habits. After reviewing the reports, Anderson and Dill were able to conclude that the students who played video games more frequently had higher levels of aggression, and got into trouble more often. In their second study, Anderson and Dill divided a group of 210 college students. Some played a violent video game, and the rest played a non-violent video game. After the video games, the students were all exposed to a loud noise blast. Those who played violent video games became angrier in a shorter period of time than those who played non-violent video games. These studies support the hypothesis that video games have a psychological effect on a persons aggressiveness over a short period of time, and a long period of time.

One of the most common examples of violent video games having a severe, negative psychological effect on people is the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. The two gunmen, aged 17 and 18, who killed 13 classmates before taking their own lives, spent a lot of time playing violent video games on the computer. Eric Harris, the 18-year-old mastermind behind the massacre, frequently played an online video game called “Doom”, which is used to train U.S. military soldiers to make effective kills. In this game, he created his own custom levels, some of which resembled Columbine High School. After the massacre, the journals of Harris and his 17-year-old accomplice, Dylan Klebold, were examined. Experts said that after analyzing his journals, Harris, who was in court-ordered anger management therapy, claimed that he exhibited behavior associated with unconstrained aggression, among other things such as narcissism and paranoia. Klebold on the other hand, was known to cause trouble in school and at work, often verbally attacking his teachers and boss. Of course, video games are not the only factor that led to Harris and Klebold’s anger and murderous rampage, but they were a factor, and definitely did not have any positive effect on the killer’s aggressive tendencies.

In a more recent example of media influencing psychological instability, this past June, two 12-year-olds attempted to murder their friend by stabbing her 19 times, after becoming obsessed with a fictional character from the internet. The character, Slenderman, was created on an internet forum, and the stories written about him usually involve the abduction and slaying of children. Searching for Slenderman on the internet will lead to creepy photo shopped images, YouTube videos, and downloadable video games. The two 12-year-old girls, were exposed to, and became obsessed with media involving Slenderman. The girls, who claimed they wanted to commit the murder in order to “impress Slenderman”, and make him “show himself”, planned the event for months in advance.

While violent media exposure does not always lead to murder (these being extreme circumstances), there is a correlation between violent media exposure and increased aggression. If children are exposed to these things during their developmental years, they will be more prone to aggression, and become more desensitized to violence in the real world. Adding violent media to the life of someone who already has psychological issues, like Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, can prove to be detrimental, and put innocent people in danger. Based on all of this, there should definitely be more censorship in the media, and restrictions on TV and video game violence when possible.

Sources:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/protect.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/does-media-violence-lead-to-the-real-thing.html?_r=0

http://www.aacap.org/aacap/Medical_Students_and_Residents/Mentorship_Matters/DevelopMentor/The_Impact_of_Media_Violence_on_Children_and_Adolescents_Opportunities_for_Clinical_Interventions.aspx

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/violence-media-what-effects-behavior

http://education-curriculum-reform-government-schools.org/w/2012/12/violent-video-games-promote-violence/

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/12-year-olds-stab-friend-slender-man/story?id=23979903

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/justice/wisconsin-girl-stabbed/

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2000/04/video-games.aspx

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0504f.htm

I recently read an article about a tiger in a Delhi zoo that killed a man after he jumped in the tiger’s cage. In this same article, numerous other fatal mauling’s at zoos across the world are discussed. This led me to think, are the animals really the ones to blame here, or is captivity driving them insane? In 1992, actor and animal rights activist, Bill Travers, “coined the term zoochosis to describe this obsessive, repetitive behaviour, and described zoo animals behaving abnormally as zoochotic” (Circus Watch WA). Some of the abnormal behaviors Travers refers to are biting on the bars of the enclosure, licking things in the exhibit such as bars or walls, pacing back and forth, vomiting, rocking back and forth, eating or playing with feces, and self harm. In a study of wild chimps and chimps in captivity, conducted by Newton-Fisher, a primate behavioral ecologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom, it was found that out of 40 chimps observed in captivity over a two-year period, all 40 exhibited some type of abnormal behavior that was not documented in the observation of wild chimpanzees.

“All 40 zoo chimps displayed some form of abnormal behavior, according to the researchers. The chimps would poke at their own eyes and other body parts, bang themselves against surfaces, pull out their hair, pace, drink urine, and do other things not associated with wild chimpanzee populations. All of the study chimps were “kept in what are often considered the best captive conditions,” Newton-Fisher said, explaining that the primates are “socially housed, fed a varied diet according to a varied schedule, provided with environmental enrichment” and more.” (Viegas, 2011).

There are many triggers in captivity that lead to these abnormal behaviors in zoo animals. Chris T. Tromberg, from the Department of Psychology at Sacramento City College attributes the strange behavior to stress brought on by triggers such as the loud noise from zoo-goers, constant artificial lighting, exposure to temperatures that the species may not be adapted to survive in, lack of mobility and open space, set feeding times, and forced social settings. If you think about it, the average human would feel stressed in these conditions, which makes the fact that we keep animals in captivity even more upsetting.

All things considered, the negatives of keeping animals in captivity far outweigh the positives. Animals are essentially being driven insane for human viewing pleasure. Think of the last time you went to the zoo, the animals generally just lay there while you and your family stare and move on. Maybe you read the information given outside the exhibit to learn something, but ultimately you move on wondering why the animals are always sleeping and not moving around and entertaining you. If abnormal behavior is not enough to convince people that zoos make animals go crazy, there are also reports of animals escaping, injuring, or even killing zoo visitors. People can blame animals for the death of innocent zoo-goers, but in my opinion, the zoos are to blame. Animals shouldn’t be blamed for being mentally unstable, or trying to escape when they are confined for their whole lives with little stimulation.

Sources:

http://circuswatchwa.org/zoochosis.htm

http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/chimpanzee-mental-illness-zoos-110705.htm

http://www2.univet.hu/users/knagy/ETHOLOGY2011/Sources%20of%20stress%20in%20captivity_MorganTromborg2008.pdf

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/articles.php?p=1595&more=1

http://www.peta.org/living/entertainment/reality-zoos/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/animals-in-zoos-being-driven-mad-by-captivity-survey-finds-widespread-evidence-of-hypnotic-repetitive-type-of-behaviour-caused-by-confinement-nicholas-schoon-reports-1430769.html

I am currently in my 5^th year of studying Italian, and still find it very difficult. For a while I blamed it on being “too old” to learn a language. This theory is commonly attributed to the Critical Period Hypothesis. The CPH is “the claim that there is, indeed, an optimal period for language acquisition, ending at puberty” (Abello-Contesse, 2008). As it turns out, being “too old” to learn a language is a myth. Adults can still learn new languages, they just learn them differently than small children. However, both age groups have certain advantages.

In their study, “A Test of the Critical-Period Hypothesis for Second Language Acquisition”, Kenji Hakuta, Ellen Bialystok, and Edward Wiley analyzed the data (age of immigration, level of schooling) of 2.3 million immigrants (Spanish and Chinese) in the 1990 US census. Essentially, what Hakuta, Bialystok, and Wiley were looking for was a severe drop in an immigrant’s ability to learn English if they came to America to test the CPH, and that is not what they found. Although there was indeed a decrease in ability to learn a new language with the increase in age, it was not severe, and it involved more factors than age alone. Education level, and socioeconomic factors played a big part as well. While this study didn’t prove that there’s no correlation between age and language learning ability, it did prove that there is not necessarily a specific “optimal age” for language learning, seeing as it is possible at all ages.

Some other reasons that adults have a harder time learning languages are that they lack the time, motivation, and dedication. They have the upper hand in some ways as well. Adults are more cognitively developed, know what type of learning works best for them, and they can understand the complex parts of the language with more ease than small children. Of course, children have their advantages as well. Children have stronger memories, a lot more time and schooling centered on language, and more motivation from outside sources.

Based on the research, it seems that if you can start a language at a young age, or start teaching your kid another language when they are young, that would definitely be beneficial. There is no downside to starting earlier, and it can only help in the long run. As for adults, although it may be hard to find the time, motivation, or focus to learn a new language, it is not nearly impossible, and ones difficulty learning a new language can not simply be blamed on being “too old”.

Sources:

http://www.livinglanguage.com/community/discussion/340/too-old-to-learns-research-says-no./p1

http://grammar.ucsd.edu/courses/hdp1/Readings/Hakuta_Bialystok_Wiley.pdf

http://blog.esl-languages.com/blog/learn-languages/harder-to-learn-language-older-age/

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/2/170.full

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/JohnstoneEN.pdf

If you’ve picked up a newspaper, or turned on the news recently, you have definitely heard about Ebola hemorrhagic fever, more commonly referred to as Ebola. According to the CDC, “Ebola, previously known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever, is a rare and deadly disease caused by infection with one of the Ebola virus strains. Ebola can cause disease in humans and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees)”. Symptoms associated with the virus are high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, body aches, and unexplained hemorrhaging. The current Ebola epidemic has been spreading through African countries for months, killing thousands. Living so far away from Africa, it was easy for us to ignore the issue, but last week the first case of Ebola was reported in the United States. Although it seems to be under control right now, I couldn’t help but wonder: will Ebola become an epidemic here too? Of course, I am not the only one with these fears, panic spreads much faster than the virus itself, and many Americans have been on edge since hearing the news.It can be scary to imagine the possibility of an outbreak in America, but according to the World Health Organization (WHO), that doesn’t seem likely.

Ebola is spread through direct contact with the body fluids (blood, vomit, saliva, etc) of an infected individual, or from contact with something that has been contaminated with the fluids of an infected person (towels, sheets, etc). This is actually good news for us, because that makes the disease a lot harder to spread than if it was airborne. Another reason an Ebola epidemic in the United States is unlikely is because of the precautions that are already being taken. Individuals that test positive for the Ebola virus are immediately quarantined and everyone they’ve had contact with since showing symptoms is alerted and tested for the virus every day for 21 days. If any of the people who had contact with the original infected person start to show symptoms, all their contacts are alerted and tested, and so on. This technique is known as “contact tracing”.

The CDC remains optimistic about the ability to prevent an Ebola outbreak in the United States. In an interview on October 5^th, CDC Director, Dr. Thomas Friedan stated, “Here in the U.S., I remain quite confident we will not have a widespread outbreak…we will stop it in its tracks, because we’ve got infection control in hospitals and public health that tracks and isolates people if they get symptoms”. While it’s natural to feel uneasy about the spread of the virus, it’s important for people to realize that most attention should be focused on Western Africa, where the death toll continues to rise. Until Ebola is under control where the real epidemic is, there is always a risk of it spreading to other countries. It’s also important for people to be educated about the virus and prevention.

Sources:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/01/comparing-ebola-flu/16554689/

http://www.newsweek.com/us-public-response-ebola-could-echo-early-days-aids-epidemic-275249

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/31/world/africa/ebola-virus-outbreak-qa.html?_r=0

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-head-frieden-ebola-america-stop-tracks/story?id=25975221

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/qa.html

Whenever I tell people that I’m a middle child, their first response is to jokingly ask if I have middle child syndrome. It’s easy to laugh this off, but it always makes me think, am I really the neglected middle child? Am I jealous of my siblings? Am I less motivated than they are? While reading the qualities of middle children, some of them felt eerily familiar. The most common are low self-esteem, feelings of emptiness, jealousy, shyness, and possibly being the “problematic child”. While I don’t fit all of these characteristics, there are definitely times where, as a middle child, there’s a lack of attention. While everyone, no matter what order they were born in, feels these things sometimes, the middle child syndrome is when “this feeling results in many problems that the middle child faces in his/her future because he/she always doubts whether people want him/her or not” (M.Farouk Radwan, MSc.).

In severe cases, middle child syndrome can lead to psychological disorders, or cause the child to act out in negative ways. As opposed to the stereotype, many middle children turn out perfectly fine, and the middle child experience actually benefits them, leaving them more independent, and able to work efficiently in groups and on teams. Birth order studies have been conducted ever since their founding in the early 1900’s by Austrian psychoanalyst Dr. Alfred Adler. While some will argue that birth order has no influence over a persons personality, I would have to disagree, even reading the characteristics of the oldest sibling and the youngest sibling, I am reminded of my own sisters, and other oldest and youngest siblings I know. Although I’m not totally convinced that being the middle child should be classified as a syndrome, I definitely think there’s something there worth discussing.

Sources:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/field-guide-families/201210/born-in-between

http://www.today.com/id/14335112/ns/today-parenting_and_family/t/what-are-effects-middle-child-syndrome/#.VBs-31appuY

http://middlechildpersonality.com/middle-child-syndrome/

http://www.2knowmyself.com/birth_order/Middle_child_personality_traits

With exams coming up, it can be very tempting to pull an all-nighter. The idea sounds intriguing, a full night of studying with no sleep, but it will probably end up doing you a lot more harm than good. Many negative things can be connected to pulling frequent all-nighters, the first being weight gain. If you’re staying up all night, you’re most likely snacking on something, and drinking some type of coffee or sugary energy drink, doing this on a normal basis will really add up. Another, more serious effect, is having a less efficient memory. If you aren’t getting good nights of sleep regularly, it will take a toll on what you can remember, and your ability to concentrate. For people who need to maintain a specific GPA for their major, scholarship, etc, it is important to know that students who pull all-nighters regularly have a lower average GPA.

Research conducted by St. Lawrence University showed that students who had never pulled an all-nighter had an average GPA of 3.1, pulling regular all-nighters left student with an average of 2.9. Another, more bizarre, side effect of all-nighters is short-term euphoria. Short-term euphoria will make the student feel really good for a short period of time, but it will also impair decision-making, and will cause them to crash when it passes. There are also long term problems such as diabetes, ADD, stroke, and high blood pressure that can be related to all-nighters. Studying daily in moderation is a much better and more successful strategy for studying.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/all-nighter-risks-science_n_3975789.html

http://www.hercampus.com/health/physical-health/what-all-nighter-actually-does-your-body?page=3

http://greatist.com/happiness/all-night-just-how-bad-are-all-nighters

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-pulling-an-all-nighter-does-to-your-body-2012-9?op=1

Everyone has looked in the mirror and thought “I look good” or “I look awful”, but is that really how you look? Are you bringing yourself down, or are you being too confident? According to a study conducted by psychologists Nicholas Epley (University of Chicago) and Erin Whitchurch (University of Virginia), we may be thinking too highly of ourselves. Pictures were taken of volunteers then slightly morphed, one positively enhanced and the other negatively altered. The volunteers were then showed the images and the original, and asked to identify the original. In most cases, people mistook the enhanced image for the original. When asked to identify an original picture of strangers that they met three weeks before, the volunteers usually chose the original, not the enhanced image. This led Epley and Whitchurch to believe that people view themselves in a more positive light than others.

I don’t really agree with this theory. In two articles on the same study, the amount of people volunteering, and the amount of people who chose the enhanced image were never mentioned. I also find it hard to believe that the majority of people think more highly of themselves than others. I believe that in general, when someone looks in the mirror they are identifying their flaws first. As individuals we have more time to look at ourselves and focus on our flaws than strangers do, so saying that we think we are more attractive than strangers do seems kind of unlikely to me.

Sources:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-are-less-beautiful-than-you-think/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200604/the-beguiling-truth-about-beauty

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/hot-or-not-rate-our-looks

The average American between the ages of 18 and 24 watches around 23 hours of TV a week. For my whole life I was told that TV makes you stupid, and being away at college, having unlimited access to Netflix while trying to balance schoolwork, I was hoping this isn’t true, so I decided to research the subject. There are lots of conflicting reports, so it’s hard to say if TV makes you smarter or more stupid for sure, but there are definitely arguments for both sides. The argument for stupidity comes from a study conducted at Ohio State University, in which preschool aged kids with TV’s in their rooms, or TV’s in their houses that were left on often, were given assessments on mental and emotional development. Researchers found that these children weren’t growing emotionally at the rate they should be, and that they lacked “theory of mind” which is the ability to realize that not everyone has the same opinions and views as you. This shows that even having a TV on as background noise can impact people without them realizing it. Many people are also quick to point fingers at “mindless” reality shows such as Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or The Bachelor, claiming they make people stupid due to their lack of substance. There is no proof that listening to Kim Kardashian complain is directly linked to lowering your IQ, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

The argument that TV makes you smarter is that if you don’t grow up in an intellectually stimulating home, TV would do more good for you than anything else. Children with non-stimulating family lives can use TV to build their vocabulary, learn how to better interact with people, or watch educational programming. There are also studies to show that kids who watch TV in their free time have higher reading achievement scores, which are directly related to higher IQ scores. It’s hard to get a solid answer on the question of TV making you stupid because there are so many factors that need to be taken into account. Personally I don’t think TV makes people stupid, I think the 23 hours a week spent on TV could be put to good use doing other things.

Sources:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200903/does-watching-tv-make-us-stupid

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/24/yes_television_makes_you_stupid_partner/

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/average-american-watches-5-hours-tv-day-article-1.1711954

As a college student, it is important to be aware of the severity, and prevalence of students with mental health problems, most notably anxiety and depression.  The transition from high school to college, or just the college lifestyle in general causes students immense amounts of stress every year. In a 2012 American College Health Association National College Health Assessment, almost 30% of students reported feeling so depressed that it was hard for them to function. It should also be taken into account that some mental health disorders don’t develop until early adulthood, or college age years. According to an Associated Press-mtvU poll conducted in 2009, four out of every ten college students are depressed. This means that even if you personally are not affected by depression, you most likely have a friend, or roommate, or classmate who is even if you do not know it.

A recent article published by Gregg Henriques, Ph.D., an associate professor at James Madison University, discussed the most likely causes of the dramatic increase in college student mental health problems. Henriques lists seventeen possible reasons. The most probable of these are the general increase of depression worldwide, advanced technology/ social media dependence, the flawed US health care system, a lack of education about or inappropriate attitude towards mental illness, low self-esteem, the extreme and intense transition into college life, and pressure (financial, academic, etc).

After doing some research on the subject, I think that mental health of college students deserves a lot more attention. Many college kids feel hopeless, or like there is no one to turn to for help. If you notice any symptoms of depression or other mental illness in your peers, it is in their best interest to alert someone.

References:

http://psychcentral.com/lib/depression-and-anxiety-among-college-students/0001425

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201402/what-is-causing-the-college-student-mental-health-crisis

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/09/crisis-campus.aspx

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30865590/ns/health-mental_health/t/college-kids-are-depressed-hopeless/#.VBHPpVappuY

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/time-for-a-mental-health-checkup/

Hi everyone, my name’s Kathleen, and I’m from Mt. Laurel NJ which is like 20 minutes from Philly. I know everyone says they’re “20 minutes from Philly”, but it’s the truth. I’m currently in the College of Communications and plan on double majoring in Public Relations and Psychology. I never really liked science and had especially bad experiences with biology in high school so when I found out this class was an option I was all about it. I’m not majoring in science because I struggled with it and always found it generally pretty boring.