Psychologically Minded

Musings from Shawn Meghan Burn Ph.D, Social Psychologist

[shawnburn]

What Are The Chances of a Clinton or Fiorina Presidency? Cross-cultural data provide insight on Fiorina's and Clinton's chances.

There are two American women seeking their party’s nomination for President: Carly Fiorina (Republican) and Hillary Clinton (Democrat). Were one of them to be elected, they would join what is largely a fraternity of men. Excluding figurehead monarchs (queens), only about 1-in-10 of the world’s heads of state are women. Of these 18 women, 11 were elected. Half are the first women to hold their nation’s highest political office. It’s interesting to consider the Clinton and Fiorina candidacies in light of how women come to occupy these customarily male power positions.

Historically, one of the most common paths to executive government office is kinship. Many women heads of state were the daughters or wives of political figures. Citizens (and political party leaders) are often more comfortable with a woman head of state if they believe that she is a “political surrogate” (stand-in) for a husband or father (especially if that man was a political martyr, or a founder of democracy). That’s especially true in countries with traditional gender roles (for example, Corazon Aquino of, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi, and Violeta de Chamorro). There are aspects of political surrogacy in Hillary Clinton’s presidential run and Clinton likely benefits from the Clinton name and Bill’s proximity. Fiorina, however, won’t benefit from the political career of a husband or father.

 The “insider path” is another frequent path to women’s executive political power. Some women heads of state demonstrated loyal party service and worked their way up through party hierarchies, but even these women usually come to power under unusual circumstances, such as a divided political party or party scandal (true of Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Angela Merkel, for example). In parliamentary systems where prime ministers are elected by parliament or granted the position based on the application of party rules, insider women have a better chance because they can bypass a potentially biased public. Like many women heads of state that were first accepted into the party elite as surrogates, but eventually became political insiders (like Bhutto, Gandhi, Aquino, and Bandaranaike), Hillary Clinton is now a political insider. Although she is an ardent supporter of the Republican Party, Carly Fiorina’s insider credentials are weak but if the party believes they need a woman on the ticket, or if the party is divided and she’s a compromise candidate, she has a chance, though more likely as a VP.

 When people are fed up with politicians, “outsiders” have more of a chance. Some women heads of state are more “outsider” than “insider.” They come to power as their countries recover from brutal dictatorships, corrupt governments, scandal, or a transition to democracy. Michelle Bachelet of Chile is a good example. Outsider women typically have a dash of insider and benefit from a combination of government service experience and a past history of activism in pro-democratic or anti-corruption movements. This increases people’s trust they’ll serve democratic ends rather than use their power for personal gain and political repression. They usually benefit from gender stereotypes that women are more ethical, less corrupt, less selfish, and less violent than men. Clinton and Fiorina are both disadvantaged in this regard since Americans currently mistrust insider politicians (hurts Clinton) and mistrust corporations and their influence over American politics (hurts Fiorina). Although in some ways Fiorina is a political outsider she’s not the right kind. Meanwhile, Clinton’s stint as Secretary of State and the Benghazi scandal may prevent her from being seen as an ethical outsider. From this vantage point, Senator Elizabeth Warren may have been the best outsider woman candidate because the focus of her government service is consumer protections and regulation of the financial industry.

Things are changing. The unstated requirement that the president must have military command or combat experience has fallen away and many more women have law degrees. Women in formal politics are more accepted and less likely to be rejected for violating their traditional gender role. The number of women with the types of legislative and state executive experience that lead to the White House is slowly growing. Organizations like Emily’s List provide support and funding for women’s election to office. Major political parties are showing greater willingness to support women candidates. And, according to a recent PEW report, about 75% of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents say men and women are equally qualified for political leadership (though 22% of Republicans and 9% of Democrats say men make better leaders). But that same research found 38% of Americans believe a major reason there aren’t more women in top elective office in the U.S. is that they're held to higher standards than men. More than a third (37%) say the nation is just not ready to elect female leaders. 

References

Burn, S.M. (2010). Women Across Cultures: A Global Perspective (3rd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business Press.

Jalalzai, F. 2004.  Women political leaders.  Women and Politics, 26, 85-108.

Jalalzai, F. 2008.  Women rule: Shattering the executive glass ceiling.  Politics and Gender, 4, 205-231.

Jalalzai, F. (2013). Shattered, Cracked, Or Firmly Intact? Women and the Executive Glass Ceiling Worldwide. Oxford University Press, USA.

[shawnburn]

Boundary Setting Ambivalence:  How to manage internal conflict so you can set effective boundaries with others

Most of us must set boundaries around our helping and giving at some point in our lives. But internal conflict is common when we place limits on what we’ll do for or give to others, even when we know it’s the right thing to do. Managing this boundary-setting ambivalence is key to setting and maintaining healthy boundaries. 

Prosocial behavior (helping, giving, and cooperating) is humans’ saving grace. It counters our selfishness, competitiveness, prejudice, and aggressiveness. Research finds helping and giving distract us from our troubles, improve our moods, increase our sense of control and usefulness, promote relationships, and meet social needs. Our support helps people recover and helps people succeed. The outpouring of giving following tragedy provides hope and the courage to carry on. Prosocial behavior promotes the success of individuals, relationships, groups, and societies. Helping and giving are good.

But most of us have to set boundaries around our helping and giving at some point in our lives. We can find ourselves in a one-sided relationship with a “taker.” Our giving can turn into enabling and promote dependency or addiction. Temporary offers of help can become unexpected long-term burdens. Our helping and giving isn’t always sustainable given our energetic and financial resources. Instead of strengthening our relationships, our giving can strain them.

In my book Unhealthy Helping: A Psychological Guide to Overcoming Codependency, Enabling, & Other Dysfunctional Giving, I provide guidelines for telling when your help or giving has crossed the line from healthy to unhealthy (outlined in a previous blog post). I also provide techniques for setting effective boundaries with little drama. But I recognize that while it’s sometimes necessary to pull back on our helping or giving, that doesn’t mean it’s easy.

The truth is, boundary setting ambivalence is common when we consider placing limits on our helping and giving, and even after we do it. While some things shout in favor of setting helping and giving boundaries, other things argue against it and create cognitive dissonance (psychological tension from clashing thoughts). Concerns about what will happen without our support confuse us. We may go back and forth about whether a need for our assistance is real, or whether it’s concocted by someone avoiding responsibility or seeking dependency. We might question whether boundaries are fair given another’s health condition, addiction, or psychiatric disorder. We might struggle with feelings of selfishness for limiting our sacrifice for others. Some people will get angry and resist your boundaries, or reject you when you limit what you do for them or give to them. Setting boundaries can end relationships.

Boundary-setting ambivalence can prevent us from setting needed limits, or weaken our resolve once we do. The solution is managing the ambivalence, guilt, and loss so we can do what needs to be done. Here are some suggestions from my book for managing boundary setting ambivalence for healthy boundary setting:

1.     Reduce ambivalence before or after boundary-setting by strengthening the cognitions (thoughts) that support your boundary. Ease your dissonance with a list of the reasons why your boundaries are necessary (my book and a trusted friend or therapist familiar with the situation can help). Ask yourself:

·      “How is my continued helping interfering with my accomplishing important personal or family goals? (Such goals may be financial, professional, social, or related to your mental or physical health.)

·      “How is my helping or giving actually unhelpful? How does it interfere with other people’s long-term health, well-being, competency, or autonomy? How does it harm relationships?”

·      “Why did I/do I feel the need to set these boundaries?”

2.     Further offset boundary-setting ambivalence and strengthen boundary commitment with affirmative self-statements. For example, self-statements like these may help:

▪       “It’s their right to be displeased with my boundary but it’s my right to set limits around what I will and won’t do. After all, it’s my money, time, effort, etc.”

•       “Their anger or displeasure is unfortunate and I wish it weren’t so, but I can handle it, and they’ll probably get over it.”

•       “I didn’t make this decision lightly and it’s the right thing for me to do even if it’s hard. I know the status quo can’t continue.”

•       “I’m not a bad or unhelpful person for setting this boundary. Being a good, helpful person sometimes means setting helping or giving boundaries.”

•       “I hope they’ll manage without my help but if they don’t, it’s their choice, not my fault.”

3.     When you feel distressed after setting a needed boundary, remind yourself that discomfort is a normal, but usually temporary, part of the boundary-setting process. It doesn’t necessarily mean you were wrong to set your boundary. Your ambivalence will ease with the passage of time, especially if you do #2 and #3 above.

4.     When you set helping or giving boundaries, it’s normal to feel sad and to grieve. When your boundaries are an acknowledgement of someone’s selfishness, immaturity, or willingness to take advantage, you might mourn the person you thought they were (or would become) when you agreed to help or give. You might grieve for the dashed hopes that your giving would strengthen a relationship or help someone progress, or that it would be part of a mutually giving relationship. Some boundaries lead relationships to end or become distant, so you might mourn a relationship. (But don’t mourn prematurely: If there was more to the relationship that your giving and someone else’s taking, the relationship will probably recover). Grief doesn’t usually mean you’re wrong in your limits, it just means you experienced a loss that will ease with time.

 References

Shawn Meghan Burn (2015). Unhealthy Helping: A Psychological Guide to Overcoming Codependence, Enabling, and Other Dysfunctional Giving. E-book available for Kindle, ibook, Kobu, and Nook readers.

R. Alberti & M. Emmons. Your Perfect Right: Assertiveness and Equality in Your Life and Relationships (2008; 9th Edition). Impact Publishing.

L.A. Penner, J.F. Dovidio, J. A. Piliavin, & D. A. Schroeder (2006). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392.

N. Weinstein & R. M. Ryan  (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, pages 222-244.

W.R. Miller & S. Rollick (2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. Guilford Press.

[shawnburn]

Breast Cancer Screening Anxiety: Worry Is Common Over Abnormal Mammogram Findings and Callbacks

Breast cancer screening anxiety is common, especially for high-risk women with personal or family histories of breast cancer. But it’s understudied and overlooked, especially given how many women it affects.

Breast cancer screening and diagnostic procedures can be anxiety provoking, especially for those of us with personal histories of cancer, and those who are high-risk. I’m considered high-risk for breast cancer. I have many risk factors. These include having a high-grade ductal carcinoma in sutu (DCIS; a non-invasive cancer) when I was 32 and having two close relatives who had invasive breast cancer. Indeed, the threat of breast cancer has shadowed me like a tumor on a mammogram. For twenty years, medical professionals have watched me with wary eyes, pokey hands, and privacy-invading technologies. Depending on the year, lumps were felt, MRIed, mammogrammed, ultrasounded, and biopsied. Each time (except for the first), when all was said and done, I was given the “all clear.”

Weary of so much ado about what turned out repeatedly to be nothing, last year I had a breast exam and skipped the mammogram. But this year my doctor was adamant I get a mammogram so I did. A few days later I received the dreaded callback: I would need additional tests.  After additional imaging and an ultrasound, two biopsies were recommended, as the findings were “suspicious for cancer.”

 I actively work to manage my anxiety during these scares. I have become pretty good at being detached and optimistic. Your life (and death) can flash before your eyes if you’re not careful. This is a waste of perfectly good energy because most of the time, additional tests or surgery find nothing (they call these cases “false-positives”). I can usually manage pesky fears with cognitive behavior techniques. For example, countering fears by reassuring myself that according to research, the odds are still in my favor, or that if it’s something, it’s likely early and treatable. This time however, my anxiety has been particularly intense. It led me to wonder whether enduring years of mammograms, painful procedures, and false-positives were the culprit (though perhaps I should also consider that my aunt died from breast cancer when she was my age).

Ever the researcher, I looked to the literature on anxiety and breast cancer screening. What I found was that abnormal mammography results often create intense short-term anxiety. I also learned that because callbacks and additional testing are common after an initial mammogram, breast cancer screening anxiety is frequent. The more extensive the additional testing, the more anxiety a women is likely to experience. Perceived personal risk is also associated with heightened anxiety. Women who’ve had a prior breast biopsy also generally have greater anxiety after an abnormal mammogram result. (Aha! My anxiety makes sense given I’m high-risk and I’ve already had four biopsies in the other breast! I’m starting to see why someone might have a prophylactic mastectomy!).

I found that according to research, women benefit from minimal delays between screening and the time when definitive results are given, especially those women who perceive themselves to be high risk. I can relate to that too: I had to wait three weeks for my biopsies and managing my anxiety proved more difficult than in times past when waiting times were shorter. I would like to see more radiology professionals adapt their practices to reduce breast cancer screening anxiety, for example, giving scheduling priority for additional procedures to at-risk women.

Unfortunately, breast cancer screening produces many false-positive results so it's not uncommon for women to undergo additional testing and procedures before the “all-clear” is given. According to research, breast cancer screening anxiety is reduced when a woman can easily reach a medical professional whose primary job assignment is to talk to patients about their concerns. And many women experience undue anxiety because they overestimate the likelihood that they’ll receive a cancer diagnosis. Unfortunately, most radiologists provide patients with very little information and it can take a while to get an appointment to speak with your physician, a surgeon, or a therapist. I can see why being able to easily reach someone, like a specially trained nurse, could help.

 At the height of my anxiety, I called a community cancer support center. Within a few hours Gloria, the “nurse navigator,” called me back. She was very empathic, listening to my confusion and concerns and assuring me that my upset was understandable. She gave me useful information and she acted toward me with great kindness when I most needed it. I didn’t feel like I was burdening her with my anxiety (a barrier to my sharing my anxiety with friends and family). In my opinion, nurse navigators, or their equivalents (like a medical social worker), should be part of the mammography medical team.

 Breast cancer screening anxiety is common and causes suffering, especially for high-risk women. Psychologists need to give it more research attention. We don’t know enough about how it affects future willingness to participate in breast cancer screening, nor how we can best help women and medical professionals manage it. Medical practices need to use what we already know to improve patient care. Individuals need to recognize its existence and provide support to friends and loved ones who following a mammogram, experience the dreaded callback or face additional breast cancer diagnostic procedures.

 Epilogue: I did not have the biopsies after all. After being prepped and given medication which led to an allergic reaction lasting several days, a different radiologist recommended that we adopt a “wait and see” approach, and that I be rescreened in six months. I had suggested such an approach to the first radiologist who reacted as if I was high on skunkweed and insisted the biopsies were imperative. I’m unsure whether I will follow through with additional testing in six months.

  References

Brett, J., Bankhead, C., Henderson, B., Watson, E., & Austoker, J. (2005). The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psycho‐Oncology, 14, 917-938.

Haas, J., Kaplan, C., McMillan, A., & Esserman, L. J. (2001). Does timely assessment affect the anxiety associated with an abnormal mammogram result? Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 10, 599-605.

Lebel, S., Jakubovits, G., Rosberger, Z., Loiselle, C., Seguin, C., Cornaz, C., & Lisbona, A. (2003). Waiting for a breast biopsy: Psychosocial consequences and coping strategies. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 55, 437-443.

Smith, R. A., Cokkinides, V., & Brawley, O. W. (2012). Cancer screening in the United States, 2012. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62, 129-142.

 Wardle, J., Robb, K., Vernon, S., & Waller, J. (2014). Screening for prevention and early diagnosis of cancer. American Psychologist, 70, 119-129.

Watson, E. K., Henderson, B. J., Brett, J., Bankhead, C., & Austoker, J. (2005). The psychological impact of mammographic screening on women with a family history of breast cancer—a systematic review. Psycho‐Oncology, 14, 939-948.

[shawnburn]

Earth Day 2015 and the Personal Environmental Sustainability Behavior Quiz

Environmental sustainability is about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. April 22nd is Earth Day. It’s a good time to think about our personal practices and environmental sustainability. What are you doing right and what could you be doing be better when it comes to environmental sustainability? Take the quiz to find out.

Personal Environmental Sustainability Quiz©

Directions:

•    Number a piece of paper from 1 to 50 (the quiz is 50 items)

•    Use the scale to indicate how frequently you perform the behaviors described, writing the scale number next to the item number. 

Scale:

•    0=Never

•    1=Rarely  (you only do it about 25% of the time you could do it)

•    2= Sometimes (you do it about 50% of the time you could do it)

•    3=Usually (you do it about 75% of the time you could do it)

•    4=Always (you do it almost every time or every time you could do it)

•    If an action doesn’t apply to you, then write down “NA” (non-applicable) or if you don’t know, put “DK” (don’t know)                  

_____  1.    I put my computer into “sleep mode” instead of using the screen   saver.

_____  2.    I make a deliberate effort to buy products with little packaging.  

_____  3.    I only print documents when I absolutely need to.

_____  4.    I recycle paper at my residence instead of putting it in the regular trash.

_____  5.    I recycle glass at my residence instead of putting it in the regular trash.

_____  6.    I recycle plastic products at my residence instead of putting them in the regular trash.

_____  7.    I shut off my computer completely when not in use.

_____  8.    I keep electronic devices (e.g., computers, toasters, printers, chargers, etc.) unplugged when not in use.

_____  9.    I walk, bike, carpool, or ride the bus to work or school.

_____  10.  I take short showers (less than 10 minutes long).

_____  11.  I drink tap water instead of bottled water.

_____  12.  I compost my kitchen trash.

_____  13.  I take my showers in a shower with a low-flow showerhead.

_____  14.  When I buy an appliance or TV, I buy an energy-efficient one.

_____  15.  I use recycled paper.

_____  16.  I use recycled or refillable printer cartridges.

_____  17.  I check my car’s air filter at least every 3000 miles and change it if it’s dirty.

_____  18.  I keep my car’s tires properly inflated.

_____  19.  I use compact fluorescent bulbs.

_____  20.  I only run the dishwasher with a full load.

_____  21.  I only do full loads of laundry.

_____  22.  My water heater is set no higher than 120 degrees.

_____  23.  I don’t eat “fast” food.

_____  24.  I “trip-chain” (planning so errands can be combined to reduce trips).

_____  25.  I don’t drink beverages from disposable cups.

_____  26.  I don’t dry clean my clothes.

_____  27.  I receive and pay my bills online.

_____  28.  I turn off the water while brushing my teeth.

_____  29.  I use the cold water setting on my washing machine.

_____  30.  I reduce the amount of junk mail I receive by “opting out” and calling companies that send me merchandise catalogues I don’t want.

_____  31.  I don’t buy food at the grocery store that is packaged in individual servings.

_____  32.  When shopping, I bring and use my own bags.

_____  33.  When shopping, I decline a bag for my purchase unless I really need it.

_____  34.  I buy organic food.

_____  35.  I turn my television off when I leave the room for more than a few minutes.

_____  36.  I drive a fuel-efficient car.

_____  37.  I don’t drive when I can bike or walk.

_____  38.  At home, I don’t use disposable plates.

_____  39.  When washing dishes by hand, I use as little water as possible.

_____  40.  I use my clothes dryer efficiently, for example, drying my clothes on a clothesline or rack when I can, drying loads in quick succession, and not drying clothes any longer than needed.

_____  41.  I reduce home energy leaks by plugging seams, cracks, and openings to the outside.

_____  42.  If no one else is in the room, I turn off the lights as I leave.

_____  43.  I request alternative packaging (such as aluminum foil) when getting takeout or leftovers from a place that uses non-recyclable Styrofoam.

_____  44.  I don’t run the furnace or air conditioner when no one is at home.

_____ 45. I support organizations working for environmental sustainability (e.g., I do things like sign their petitions, give them money, or volunteer).

_____ 46. In the colder months, I keep my thermostat at 68 degrees during the day and reduce it to 60 degrees at night.

_____  47.  I contact my congressional representatives to encourage them to support legislation to environmental legislation.

_____  48.  I try to make things last rather than buying new things.

_____  49.  I dispose of used batteries, electronics, and cell phones, by taking them to state-designated drop-off     sites; I don’t put them in the regular trash.

_____  50.  When I carry water with me, it’s in a reusable (not just recyclable) water bottle.   

Scoring:  

 First, sum your item scores: _______

 Second, divide your sum by the total number of items you answered:   

______ / ______ = ______                                                                                                    (sum)     (#items)   (mean score)           

Score Interpretation

Excellent 3.6-4         You’re clearly doing what you can to be environmentally responsible. You’re an inspiration to us all.

Good       3-3.5           You’re doing a good job of behaving in an environmentally responsible way.

Fair         2.6-3          You’re doing some things right but could do a lot more to reduce your negative impact on the environment.  

Poor         2-2.5            You’re not doing much to reduce your negative impact on the environment.  

 Abysmal (below 2)    Seriously?  You’re not doing anything to reduce your personal environmental impacts?

 Look over the items and mark those that you scored low on (0, 1, or 2).  Initial next to those behaviors you will seriously try to adopt so that you can do your part to promote environmental sustainability. For each one you select, create a plan of action—what do you need to do to make it happen?  Make a pledge, post reminders, set up your home, car, or workplace to make it easier to remember or do the desired behavior.

  ©Shawn Meghan Burn [email protected]

 Notes.

This is a broad measure of  personal environmentally sustainable behavior and is by no means a  complete list of the sustainable actions you can take. Items were  developed based on recommendations from the US Department of Energy and US Environmental Protection Agency, and the book “Cooler, Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living” by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

This test has not undergone psychometric validation.

It’s easy to promote environmental sustainability by donating money or participating in electronic campaigns offered by the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, the Sierra Club,and the League of Conservation Voters

For my other blogs on environmental sustainability see

Are You A Sustainability Hypocrite? 

Blown Away By Climate Change

The Yin and Yang of Gender and Environmentalism

We Have Met the Enemy of the Environment and It is Us (Psychological Reasons Why Americans Aren’t Acting to Prevent Climate Change)

Earth Day Pessimism and Earth Day Optimism Part One

Earth Day Pessimism and Earth Day Optimism Part Two

[shawnburn]

Five Research-based Tips for Improving Your Body Image

  Body image dissatisfaction is relatively common. Many women and men internalize unrealistic physical standards and base their self-worth on their bodies. When they fail to fit cultural ideals they experience negative consequences including body shame, appearance anxiety, eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression, and sexual and romantic relationship dissatisfaction. Some try to meet cultural ideals through unhealthy means like restricted eating, purging, extreme diets or fasts, over-exercise, supplement and anabolic steroid use, and surgery.

A negative body image is bad for our mental and physical health. Fortunately, there are things you can do to feel better about your body. Here are five research-based practical tips for improving your body image.

1.Reduce your exposure to media imagery of idealized, unrealistic bodies and compare yourself to normal healthy people, not to unrealistic media ideals. Social comparison theorists explain that media contribute to body image problems when we compare ourselves to unrealistic ideals and fall short. Our media is saturated with beautiful, thin toned women and beautiful, V-shaped muscular men. Research finds that viewing media portrayals of ideal bodies is associated with body image dissatisfaction in both women and men.

2.Think about whom you’re “hanging” with and whether they’re healthy for your body image. Avoid or distance from “lookist” people and groups that are overly focused on physical appearance and achieving unrealistic physical standards. Cultivate relationships with people and groups with healthy body images and practices. The research is clear: interpersonal interactions with family, peers, and strangers can negatively affect our body image. The things people say to us about men and women’s bodies, their own bodies, and about our bodies, communicate cultural ideals and affect our self-evaluations. Hearing people critique other people’s appearances leads us to believe that we too will be judged.  People who talk a lot about their weight, their workouts, their supplements, their weight control or cosmetic procedures, or how they hate their body, also influence us. If you can’t distance from lookist friends, family members, or groups, practice a simple assertive statement that you can use to shut down looks-focused conversations (e.g., “Do you mind if we talk about something else? I’m trying to focus less on how I look and more on just being healthy”).

3.Write a letter to a hypothetical younger woman or man, or a young daughter or son that outlines the costs of pursuing the idealized body and the benefits of a healthy body. This dissonance approach will help cement your commitment to a healthier ideal because you will feel hypocritical if you continue pursuing the culturally ideal body at the cost of your mental or physical health.

4. Identify and challenge any irrational absolutist thoughts that feed your body image dissatisfaction.  Make this your practice until you’ve truly banished these damaging little devils from your head. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches to body image problems recommend we identify the extreme thoughts that aggravate our body image problems and counter them (e.g., “What are my extreme thoughts that make me feel so badly about my body? What’s wrong with this pattern of thought? What are some reasonable arguments against it?). 

To use CBT to counteract your negative body image thoughts, catch yourself when you're feeling badly about your body. Take a piece of paper and make two columns. Write down the extreme things you’re saying to yourself in one column and in the other write down rational (and healthier) thoughts to counter them. Every time you start to berate yourself with your extreme thoughts, silently chant your healthy counter thoughts like a mantra.

For instance:

“I must have a perfect body or else people won’t like me.” Counter with: “I like people who don’t have perfect bodies and obviously other people do too. And if someone doesn’t like me because I don’t look like that, then their priorities are screwed up.”

“My body is awful because of [insert imperfection here].” Counter with:  “My stomach might not be flat but I’m healthy and my partner still finds me attractive,” or, “I may not have the abs of Thor, but I look pretty decent for a regular guy,” or “Just because my [blank] isn’t perfect, that doesn’t mean that I’m unattractive.” 

“Because my body is imperfect, I’m worthless.” Counter with: “Fitting the societal ideal doesn’t make a person good. What makes a person good is their character and how they treat other people. I’m a person of worth even if my body isn’t ideal.”

“I hate my body because it’s so different from the beautiful bodies I see in the media or at the gym.” Counter with: “It’s unfair to hate my body just because it’s not perfect. A perfect body is unrealistic for me, as it is for most mortals! Very few people have the genetics, time, and resources to look like that!”

“I’m not a real man or woman because I don’t look like the ideal man or woman.” Counter with: “Muscles aren’t the only thing that make a man, men are more than just their bodies,” or “I may not look like the ideal woman but my less-than-ideal body is a marker of my womanliness. Look around: real women don’t have flat stomachs!”

5. Switch from thinking of your body, diet, and exercise in terms of how it will make you look to thinking of your body, diet, and exercise in terms of how it will benefit your health. Aspire to the healthiest body you can realistically achieve rather than the ridiculously flat stomach, no body fat, and small waist achievable only with extreme and unhealthy sacrifice.

Finally, while many people can successfully address their body image dissatisfaction on their own, many need professional help to do so.  Depending on the depth and severity of your body image issues, you may benefit from therapy with a licensed mental health professional that specializes in the treatment of body image dissatisfaction and eating disorders.

References

Barlett, C. P., Vowels, C. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2008). Meta-analyses of the effects of media images on men’s body-image concerns. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 279–310.

Cafri, G., Thompson, J. K., Ricciardelli, L., McCabe, M., Smolak, L., & Yesalis, C. (2005). Pursuit of the muscular ideal: Physical and psychological consequences and putative risk factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 215-239.

Cafri, G., Yamamiya, Y., Brannick, M., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). The Influence of Sociocultural Factors on Body Image: A Meta‐Analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 421-433.

Cash, T. F. (1997). The body image workbook: An 8-step program for learning to like your looks. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Cash, T. F. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 38–46). New York: Guilford Press.

Cash, T. F., Maikkula, C. L., & Yamamiya, Y. (2004). Baring the body in the bedroom”: Body image, sexual self-schemas, and sexual functioning among college women and men. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 1-9.

Celio, A. A., Winzelberg, A. J., Wilfley, D. E., Eppstein-Herald, D., Springer, E. A., Dev, P., & Taylor, C. B. (2000). Reducing risk factors for eating disorders: comparison of an Internet-and a classroom-delivered psychoeducational program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 650-657.

Daniel, S., & Bridges, S. K. (2010). The drive for muscularity in men: Media influences and objectification theory. Body Image, 7, 32-38. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.08.003

Davey, C. M., & Bishop, J. B. ( 2006). Muscle dysmorphia among college men: An emerging gender-related counseling concern. Journal of College Counseling, 9, 171– 180.

Farquhar, J. C., & Wasylkiw, L. (2007). Media images of men: Trends and consequences of body conceptualization. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(3), 145. DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.8.3.145

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206.

[shawnburn]

Are You Worrying Too Much About What Your Gifts Say? Wrapping Wrapping Your Holiday Gifts With The Right Kind of Symbolic Significance

Gifts are wrapped with wrapping paper and with symbolic social meaning. While the right gift can say, “I really know you and love you,” the wrong gift can hurt our social image and aggravate relationship problems. But some gift givers worry a bit too much about what others will think of them and their holiday gifts and get themselves into a gift giver tizzy.

 For some of us, gift giving is no simple matter. Not just because it’s challenging to find affordable, thoughtful gifts given our limited time or finances, but because we recognize that gifts are often wrapped in symbolic meaning.

Especially in complicated or conflicted relationships, gifts are not just gifts. Holiday gifts may be peace-making gestures, or symbols of anger, hurt, indifference, or dislike (or interpreted as such regardless of our motives). Indeed, we have to accept that sometimes there is no right gift we may bestow. A recipient with low self-esteem or depression may have trouble interpreting the gift as the loving gesture intended. When someone has a negative stereotype of us, our gift may be wrong for no other reason than it came from us. Our thoughtful gift will be interpreted as thoughtless, our expensive gift as trying to buy love or show off.

Fearing embarrassment or judgment, self-conscious people worried about what others think may spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to make the right impression and gain others’ approval with their gift giving. Will our gifts make us look like we’re thoughtful or thoughtless? Like spendthrifts or cheapskates? Will they fit with the group’s norms regarding how much effort or money to expend? Will our gifts look paltry or generous in comparison to others’ gifts? Will we be embarrassed that our gift is smaller than the one received?

For empathic people, gift giving can engender all kinds of time-consuming thought and effort as they anticipate what their gifts may mean to others. Recognizing that some people will see their gifts as love yardsticks (“How do you love me? Let me count the gifts!”), they take great pains to choose the right gift. Knowing that some of their children (or friends) are like holiday hounds sniffing for scents of favoritism, they struggle to insure gifts are of equal quantity and quality.

For those of us who need to reduce our holiday giving for financial or “energetic” reasons, the threat of disappointing recipients looms large, especially when our generous gift giving is part of a long-standing tradition. The threat of disappointing others and messing with beloved traditions leads some of us to continue giving at levels that strain our finances or our health. Although it might feel like the end of a family era to cut back and adopt new family norms, it might be time for your family to adopt new gift giving traditions to reduce the gift-giving burden. Consolation may found in the knowledge that even if that particular family tradition changes, other less materialistic traditions can remain intact, and new traditions quickly become old ones.

Not everybody experiences such anxiety around holiday gifting. To some, a gift is just a gift, a holiday token rather than a loaded relationship or public image symbol. To those rejecting materialism or rebelling against norms equating love with gifting, gift giving is a social obligation to be rejected or minimized. While these minimalist approaches to holiday gift giving may be misconstrued as uncaring, some of us can stand to take a page out of this simpler holiday book.

Rather than worrying obsessively over choosing the right gift, we need to accept that we only have so much control over how other people experience and respond to our gifts. We need to find comfort in our own good intentions, even when they are twisted and twirled by others into something unfair and unrecognizable. And it’s good to remember that even if we fall short, the hit to our public image is usually smaller and more short-lived than we imagine. We can survive it! And if it’s not, perhaps we should scale down our relationships with such superficial and materialistic people (or the space we rent them in our heads), and scale up our relationships with people that get what the holidays are really about. 

References

 Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1991). Personal values and gift-giving behaviors: A study across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 22, 149-157.

Cheal, D. (1987). ‘Showing them you love them”: Gift giving and the dialectic of intimacy. The Sociological Review, 35, 150-169.

Sherry, J. F., McGrath, M. A., & Levy, S. J. (1993). The dark side of the gift. Journal of Business Research, 28, 225-244.

[shawnburn]

Twelve Red Flags of Unhealthy Helping and Giving

You don’t have to be codependent to find yourself in an unhealthy helping relationship (though it helps!). Use these twelve signs of dysfunctional helping and giving to tell whether your helping is healthy or whether it’s time to pull back.

Helping and giving are character strengths as far as I’m concerned. But sometimes our helpful intentions give way to dysfunctional helping and giving. The solution isn’t to stop helping altogether; it’s to set helping boundaries once telltale signs of unhealthy helping appear. I call these signs the “Twelve Red Flags of Dysfunctional Helping and Giving.”

Red Flag 1:  It’s increasingly obvious that your help and giving fosters dependence, irresponsibility, incompetence, or poor character. Sometimes we have to face the fact that our good intentions have gone bad. Continuing to help and give under these conditions is a waste of our resources and isn’t really helpful. Remember healthy helping promotes other people’s growth, independence, and the development of their positive potential. Unhealthy (dysfunctional) helping does the opposite. Use your helping energies and resources to help people and causes that will truly benefit from your help.

Red Flag 2: The other has violated numerous agreements, required many bailouts, and hasn’t used the help to do as promised. At this point, it’s time to stop believing them and giving them chances, at least for now (once you get strong evidence that they are ready to use your help to progress in life, you might try helping them again). When people use your help to escape responsibility over and over again, it’s best to summon the strength to terminate your helping. Continuing to give to people who don’t uphold their end of the deal is a waste of your time and resources. If you continue, you’ll become increasingly angry and resentful.

Red Flag 3: The help or giving helps someone to stagnate, or become stuck in an age-inappropriate earlier stage of development, or prevents them from developing needed life or professional skills. You can be too helpful and in the process create people that can’t take care of themselves or do their jobs well. Unhealthy helping can doom others to be less than they’re capable of. Healthy helping promotes others’ independence and life progress; it doesn’t retard it.

Red Flag 4: Your helping or giving requires your dishonesty or somehow compromises your integrity. For example, making bogus excuses for another or covering for another, are almost never forms of healthy helping and giving. Healthy helping doesn’t typically involve deception, secrets, nor does it require that we violate our moral code.

Red Flag 5: You have the distinct impression you’re being manipulated into helping or giving. Sometimes it’s obvious, such as when the other says things to trigger your guilt feelings, and then conveniently offers a giving opportunity that will reduce your guilt. Sometimes it’s only a feeling in your gut warning you that someone and their requests for your assistance are “off.” Manipulation is a sign of someone who is willing to be deceitful and take advantage of others and you should pay attention to your early warning system (your gut). The odds of your giving being short-term and having a positive outcome are probably close to zero.

Red Flag 6: Your help is increasingly unsustainable given your resources. Look for that positive helping sweet spot where you can help without sacrificing your own physical or mental health, your self-respect, or your financial wellbeing. Be willing to back out of negative helping arrangements that sap your resources. Decline rescuing and helping opportunities you really can’t afford. Healthy helping means helping within your means.

Red Flag 7: Since helping or giving to someone, the relationship with them has deteriorated due to bad feelings having to do with the helping or giving relationship. Healthy helping and giving have long-lasting positive effects on a relationship. Unlike unhealthy helping and giving, it strengthens a relationship and isn’t fraught with relationship imbalance, conflict, hurt, and resentment.

Red Flag 8: Your helpful accommodations make it easier for someone to remain physically unhealthy, put off getting professional help, avoid taking their medication or working their program, etc. Admit when someone’s problems or challenges are bigger than you and require professional assistance. Withdraw help and giving that makes it easier for someone to avoid empowering themselves and managing their own condition. Recognize when your help sands down another’s discomfort just enough that they’re unmotivated to seek the professional help they really need. Instead, help by connecting them to relevant resources and appropriate professionals, and supporting their going into treatment, working their treatment program, doing their physical therapy exercises, sticking to their medically prescribed diet, taking their medication, using the strategies they have been taught to manage their condition, etc. However, accept that they might not manage their condition as you think they should and that this is their choice and their life.

Red Flag 9: Your help or giving in a group setting fails to inspire a cooperative group culture where everyone helps one another; instead, it leads others to slack and leaves you feeling taken advantage of. When you see this, pleasantly announce that you are pulling back and making room for others to step up, assist with skill development (show them how to do things they may not have learned due to your helpfulness), and then get out of the way.

Red Flag 10:  You find that what you intended as a one-time, modest offer of help or giving has morphed into an unintended long-term obligation that you resent or find burdensome. This is a sign of helping and giving entrapment. Remind yourself that your past helping does not serve as a commitment to help forever. You didn’t commit to this. Had you known it was going to go this way, you would not have agreed, so you are not violating your commitment or being a bad person if you back out.

Red Flag 11: You’re in a self-sacrificing relationship that reeks of “codependence.” It’s one-sided and closeness is based on one person being a giver and the other an under-functioning taker. Much of the love and intimacy in the relationship is experienced in the context of the one person’s distress or poor functioning and the other’s rescuing or enabling. Or the relationship is mostly about one person’s excessive giving and the other person’s excessive taking.

Red Flag 12: You’re willing to overlook the ill effects of your helping and giving because it makes you feel or look like a “good” person. You should pull back from “helping” that isn’t truly helpful to the recipient and is more about you proving to yourself or others what a good person or family member you are, how selfless you are, or how nice you are. 

[shawnburn]

Why You Might Want to Procrastinate Now Rather Than Later

Are we all lazy-boned laggards? Well, not exactly. While procrastination is common, laziness isn’t the usual cause. After all, most people are unmotivated to do things they dislike until they absolutely have to. It’s also hard to get started when we’re not sure what we face when we begin pursuing a goal so it’s common to procrastinate on ambiguous tasks we’re unsure how to perform. Some procrastination isn’t even a choice but merely a matter of having too little time and too many responsibilities.

 Some people say they procrastinate because they work better under last-minute pressure. Cartoonist Bill Waterson (“Calvin & Hobbes”) once said, “You can't just turn on creativity like a faucet. You have to be in the right mood. What mood is that?

Last-minute panic.” According to the Yerkes-Dodson Law, people aren’t motivated to perform a task until they have the optimal level of arousal. Too little and they’re unmotivated, too much and they experience performance-inhibiting anxiety. One of my theories is that habitual procrastinators don’t get to that “optimal” level of arousal as quickly as non-procrastinators. Non-procrastinators are sometimes anxiety-prone and reach that motivating level of arousal much sooner; for them, putting tasks off only leads to uncomfortable anxiety.

  It appears to me that some habitual procrastinators are fiercely independent types who rebel when their personal freedom is challenged. They’re high in “psychological reactance.” More than most people, they experience deadlines and task obligations as affronts to their personal freedom and they rebel by procrastinating. Their procrastination is their way of saying, “Nobody can boss me around. I am the Captain of my own ship.” Meanwhile, in an ironic twist, procrastination often sinks their ship.

  Procrastination is sometimes a killer of self-actualization, the realization of our own unique potential. This is more likely when procrastination is a self-handicapping strategy. Self-handicapping occurs when prior to performance on an “ego-relevant” task (one central to the self-concept), you place an obstacle in your own way. The point of self-handicapping is to have something to blame if you don’t perform well. This allows you to believe that were it not for the obstacle, you would’ve performed at a high level. If you perform decently despite the obstacle, your ego benefits. For instance, habitually procrastinating students are usually very proud of their B or C grade point averages. They feel incredibly smart because they achieved this despite their procrastination. Unfortunately, many later regret their academic underachievement when it prevents them from attending graduate school or getting a good job.

  Self-handicapping is typically motivated by a lack of confidence. The person wants to believe they have a particular talent or ability or potential for “greatness” but secretly fear that they don’t. They’re afraid to try their best because they’re afraid they might find out that they’re not as smart, talented, special, etc. as they want to believe they are. They do things like procrastinate, don’t get needed mental health treatment so they can blame their anxiety for their underachievement, abuse drugs or alcohol so they can blame their hangovers or late nights, take on responsibilities that prevent them from giving it a real go, etc. Ironically, they’re so afraid of dealing with possible failure they end up preventing their own success. While their ego is protected in the short run, in the long run they don’t reach their goals and ultimately they live with regret and feelings of failure.

  Procrastination isn’t necessarily bad. In fact, I have often wondered if procrastinators have greater life quality than us highly disciplined people who rarely procrastinate. We complete tasks promptly, which only leaves time to complete even more tasks! There’s always something that needs doing. Sometimes I think that what looks like procrastination is sometimes just having your priorities straight. Letting the housework or yard work go so you can play with your kids, read a book, check in on Facebook, do your hobby, take a bath, or spend time with a friend might be hallmarks of balanced life rather than something to feel guilty about. They can be evidence of good self-care, rather than procrastination.

If you never procrastinate it may mean that you don’t make time for rejuvenating leisure, creative pursuits, or your relationships. You may see these things as productivity threats and procrastination instead of the health and happiness necessities they are.  In yet another ironic twist, too much productivity can harm productivity. Without occasional restoration, burnout is likely and our productivity ultimately suffers. Interestingly, your productivity at socially approved tasks may even mask your procrastination. When you think about it, many highly productive people may be procrastinators; they just procrastinate on self-care, leisure, and tending their relationships.

So your procrastination may not be a problem and could even be healthy! However, if your procrastination significantly interferes with your achieving important life goals or desired success, it’s cause for concern. Ditto if it harms your personal or professional relationships because of its negative impact on others. When you get around to it, you might visit a therapist to explore the roots of your procrastination. And, if you never procrastinate, that too could be a problem worthy of therapeutic exploration. Your excessive focus on productivity may be unhealthy.

[shawnburn]

Bleeding for Conflict, Sweating for Peace

I’ve been thinking a lot about conflict. This summer I’ve seen couples hit by unusual relationship lows (interpersonal conflict) and work groups plagued by conflicts that threaten their productivity and commitment (intragroup conflict). Civil and international conflicts (intergroup conflicts), like those between American political parties and Hamas and the Israeli government, flame.

One interesting thing is that the basic features of destructive conflict are remarkably the same, whether it’s an interpersonal, intragroup, or intergroup conflict. Knowing about these features is useful for reducing conflict escalation and promoting peace-making. Choose a serious conflict that concerns you and think about what I say below with it in mind. 

We humans are a reciprocating bunch. Give us birthday card and you’ll get one but act aggresively towards us, and you’ll get that back too. Destructive conflicts involve conflict spiralling, an escalating series of negative reciprocal interactions, the conflict growing with each exchange. One party (person or group) does something perceived as aggressive or disrespectful by a second party who then reciprocates. The first party believes that this retaliation is excessive or unjust and counter-retaliates. The second party is angered by this counter-retaliation since they believed their retaliation was only to even the score, and so they counter-counter-retaliate, and so on, with each round getting progressively nastier. The parties get away from problem solving and spend their time reacting to the previous enemy attack and mirroring the other's negative actions. Trust is eroded.

In the worst-case scenarios, the relationship disintegrates as the conflict escalates. Communication is poor and contact may be broken off (this is called autistic hostility). Perceptual distortion, the exaggerated misinterpretation and attribution of hostile intentions to an opponent's actions, fuels the conflict. Each side has a negative enemy stereotype of the other leading to biased processing of self and other actions. Each side views their own negative actions as justified and a reaction to the situation, while the other's negative actions are viewed as evidence of evil or insanity. Each side fails to appreciate that their adversary's aggression is at least partly a response to their own behavior. Instead, they view it as evidence of the others' hostile intentions and power motivations. New issues produced by the conflict overshadow the issues that initially triggered the conflict (this is called meta-conflict). Now they are mad not only about the original “hurt” but about all the hurts that followed during the course of the conflict.

Once people perceive one another as enemies, cooperation is challenging. There’s the perception that the goals and interests of the parties are fundamentally incompatible. Competition ensues to prove who is the superior, mightier group or individual. At this point, the conflict has a competitive goal structure where it is assumed that one party will win, and one will lose. Advantage for one's own side is sought through coercion, misinformation, and obstructing the fulfillment of the other's wants. Violent conflict is likely if one party believes that its interests are more important than the interests of the other, and that it will be successful if it acts violently in pursuit of its goals. There’s no motivation to pursue peaceful resolution until prolonged conflict demonstrates that neither side will win without significant costs (stalemate).

These common dynamics of destructive conflict certainly explain how conflicts escalate and why conflict resolution is so difficult.  But they also tell us a few things about preventing conflict escalation and promoting peace-building:

If possible, turn the other cheek and don’t escalate the conflict. Two wrongs rarely make it right, and usually make it worse. You may think their poor actions justify yours, but your retaliation will escalate the conflict. Revenge may satisfy your pride or indulge your anger, but you will likely pay a big price for it.

When embroiled in a conflict, don’t give into your impulse to cut off contact or avoid talking about it (unless it’s just to cool off so you can respond rationally). Avoidance only insures that the conflict will remain unsolved and relations tense or hostile. Instead, make a move to rebuild trust such as a small peaceful gesture, such as acknowledging and apologizing for your contibutions to the conflict and expressing a willingness to resolve the conflict. Once that is reciprocated, make another baby step towards peace with another small gesture and so on.

Put your defensiveness aside, and take responsibility for any poor behavior on your part. Consider that some of the other’s poor behavior is/was a reaction to your behavior towards them. Consider that you may be biased in your processing of your own and the other’s actions.

Once parties come to the “peace table,” they should agree on some norms for respectful interaction, share what each party wants and why, and seek solutions that satisfy the major issues of both parties.

Bring your best self to the peace table. Behave respectfully and maturely. Don’t act defensively, don’t show contempt towards the other party, and don’t attempt to shame them. Make a genuine effort to understand the other’s perspective and seek workable solutions. Usually, this will be reciprocated, and progress towards resolution can be made.

 Notes

For more information go to the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence (American Psychological Association Division 48).

http://www.peacepsych.org

Art by Kane Lynch  kanelynch.com

References

Burn, S. M., & Oskamp, S. (1989). Ingroup biases and the US‐Soviet conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 73-89.

Christie, D. J., Tint, B. S., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. D. (2008). Peace psychology for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 63, 540-552. http://www.tonyhoffmanucsc.net/sipp_readings/PeacePsychologyPcflWorld.pdf

Deutsch, M. (1977). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.

Kemmelmeier, M., & Winter, D. G. (2000). Putting threat into perspective: Experimental studies on perceptual distortion in international conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 795-809.

 McEwen, C. A., & Milburn, T. W. (1993). Explaining a paradox of mediation. Negotiation Journal, 9, 23-36.

MacNair, R. (2011). The psychology of peace: An introduction. ABC-CLIO.

[shawnburn]

Do Dysfunctional Helping and Codependence Run In Your Family? How to Break Family Patterns of Codependence and Dysfunctional Helping

A reader recently asked me what she could do to prevent codependence in her grandchild. Apparently, alcoholism runs in the family along with codependence. I’m not surprised; the enabling apple doesn’t fall far from the enabling tree. Codependence and dysfunctional helping and giving are often family traditions. Bowen’s family systems theory is just one of many theories suggesting that our problems are often generations deep and that we inherit problems from our parents.

One way that dysfunctional helping and giving are probably “inherited” is through observational learning (though our genetic inheritance may also influence personality traits, like empathy, associated with dysfunctional helping and giving). The basic idea is that people often learn how to act by observing the behavior of another (a “model”) rather than through direct experience. Indeed, quite a bit of research finds that parents’ helping behavior, and what they say about helping, influences the helping of their children, even when those children become adults. Although what models do might be a bit more important than what they say about helping, apparently both are important.

In short, growing up watching important adults over-help, rescue, and enable, makes us more prone to it ourselves, especially if we identify with those adults and hear them exalted by others as saintly for all they put up with. These behavioral scripts are usually learned unconsciously when we are too young to understand or have access to their negative consequences. Instead, we just learn that in this situation this is what people do. Dysfunctional helping becomes familiar and routine, despite its hazards. Because these patterns often repeat without awareness, family therapy is sometimes necessary for identifying and breaking them.

This means that one of the most important things we can do is model healthy helping. We have to clean up our own codependent act for the sake of our (grand) children, making sure that our youngsters don’t grow up watching us provide “helpful” accommodations that make it easier for others to maintain addictions, be irresponsible, underperforming, or unhealthy, etc.

You don’t want to model that “good” and responsible people sacrifice themselves to care for under-functioning others whose need for help is manufactured by their own poor choices. You need to show them and tell them that loving someone and being a good person doesn’t mean accepting imbalanced relationships and allowing others to take advantage of you. You have to teach them, verbally and through example, that once it’s obvious our help and giving has fostered dependence, irresponsibility, incompetence, harmed our relationships, or led us to feel disrespected or taken advantage of, we should call the deal off and save our resources, nurturing, and support for people that will use our assistance to move forward with their lives.

Codependence involves relationship patterns characterized by imbalanced giving and receiving where relationship intimacy and closeness are built on one’s person’s ongoing crisis and the other’s rescuing and enabling. We have to make sure this isn’t the model we provide to our youngsters with our own relationships. Instead, we have to show (and tell) them that satisfying intimate relationships are equitable over time and that mutual caring and giving builds healthy intimacy.

People prone to codependent relationships are often very empathic so it makes sense that you might teach your (grand) child to manage their empathy so it doesn’t set them up for trouble. Teach them verbally and through example to step back and think it through before impulsively helping or giving. It can be hard to watch someone suffer the consequences of their irresponsible actions but to assume those for them (for example, by bailing them out or covering for them) is to interfere with their learning of important life lessons.

People prone to codependent relationships often have low self-esteem. Sometimes they doubt that people will want to be in a relationship with them unless they give more than they receive. People with low self-esteem are also more easily manipulated into enabling “takers” and people in the throes of addiction. Sometimes people with low self-esteem boost their self-esteem by helping low-functioning others who, by comparison, make them feel capable and competent. If you can, redirect their helpful tendencies to animals, people, and causes that will truly benefit from their help. This is a more stable and satisfying source of self-esteem, and a less troublesome helping path.

Low self-esteem usually results from parental absence, indifference, or neglect, which suggests to a child they are fundamentally not of value. In families with long-standing codependence patterns, a parents’ codependent relationship with another child or adult can also lead a child to feel unloved and unlovable, setting them up for future codependence, or for their own poor functioning (since that appears to be the route to receiving love and care). Promote a healthy self-esteem in your youngsters by telling them they are loved, by prioritizing your relationships with them, paying them attention, supporting their interests, and providing consistent and loving attention to their needs. Show them you care about them and their future by using positive disciplinary methods rather than shame-based methods that make them feel like they are bad people when they mess up (being too permissive is almost as bad since it can send a message that you don’t care enough to bother or think they’re hopeless).

You and your loved ones may need to seek professional help. Breaking family codependence patterns sometimes requires family and individual therapy to address the self-esteem and attachment issues that make codependence more likely to occur. 

Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 52, pages 1-26.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Burn, S.M. (in progress). Beyond Declarations of Codependence: The Psychology of Dysfunctional Helping and Giving.

Rushton, P.J. (1982) Social Learning Theory and the Development of Prosocial Behavior Academic Press.

[shawnburn]

Earth Day Pessimism and Earth Day Optimism: Part One Cultivating Your “Realistic Optimism” to Reduce Climate Change Impacts

  This week brings us Earth Day, a day when we should renew our commitment to environmental sustainability and develop personal plans of action to reduce our own environmental impacts.  But if you read my last blog on the environment, you know a pessimistic storm has been brewing in my head. Continued bad news about the climate change and the many psychological and political barriers to reducing greenhouse gases challenge my hopefulness about our future. I’m trying to snap out of my pessimism and have hope, for if we feel hopeless the likelihood of disaster only increases since we won’t see any point in action.

My pessimism wasn’t helped by a Gallup poll released on March 12th. Climate change was ranked second to the last of fifteen worries about national problems (51% of those surveyed said they worried about it only a little or not at all).* Meanwhile, the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which includes 12,000 scientific references) provides evidence of shrinking glaciers, species migration, dwindling crop yields, rise in vector-borne diseases, and an increase in extreme weather events. As IPCC Chairperson Rajendra K. Pachauri said about the report: “In view of the impacts and those that we have projected for the future, we know that nobody on the planet will be untouched by climate change.” The IPCC report is also clear that human activities, in particular, carbon-based fuel use and deforestation, are major culprits in climate change.

Ironically, the “wrong” kind of hope and optimism is part of the problem. As suggested by environmental psychologist Robert Gifford, “optimism bias” is a psychological barrier to individuals’ responses to climate change. Some research finds that when people acknowledge environmental risks they often assume that they personally will be relatively unaffected and so are unmotivated to engage in preventative or preparatory actions.

Most psychologists agree that hope and optimism promote the positive illusions that can promote good mental health. But we also acknowledge that optimism has a downside. In the case of climate change, unrealistic or blind optimism can prevent needed action as people optimistically assume that technological and political solutions will save the day. Given the magnitude of the problem, and given that people feel powerless to do much about it, it’s unsurprising that we might rely on positive illusions to reduce our anxiety about humanity’s future.

So we need “optimistic realism.” We need to heed warnings about what will likely happen if we don’t act and we need to temper the unrealistic optimism that may lead us to assume that engineers, politicians, and the free market will solve this problem. But we also need enough optimism and hope to fuel the belief that our personal actions can effectively reduce the impacts of climate change. After all, there is some chance that if we change our practices now we can arrest the pace of climate change and reduce its undesirable consequences.

 It’s still possible to avoid the worst-case scenario. The IPCC says that we can probably keep global mean temperature increases to two degrees Celsius (after which point sustainable development may be almost impossible and climate change outcomes devastating), if we lower our global greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent (compared with 2010 levels) by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century.

The Union for Concerned Scientists’ book “Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living” suggests that a low-carbon future is possible if we all take steps in our personal lives and push for change around us.

In the teaser for the new Showtime climate change documentary series “Years of Living Dangerously” someone says, “You don’t want to be on the side that says ‘I had a chance to do something and I didn’t.’” This is really something we should all think about. Adults, young and old, will have some explaining to do to their children and grandchildren if we don’t take action while we can.  As Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said, “We cannot play a waiting game where we bet on future technological miracles to emerge and save the day - and why would we?” Part Two of this blog "Earth Day Pessimism and Earth Day Optimism" talks about what you personally can do to inspire hope and action. 

* This is the glass half empty.  Looking at it as half full, almost 50% of the poll participants said they worried about climate change either a “great deal” or a “fair amount,” almost as many that worried about it little or never. These people may be significant change agents as they help change the attitudes and behaviors of those around them. 

References

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC March 2014). http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47569&Cr=climate%20change&Cr1=#.U0sG3164mlI Retrieved on April 12, 2014.

Gallup (March 2014). http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx  Retrieved on April 12, 2014.

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302. http://psychologyforasafeclimate.org/resources/The%20dragons%20of%20inaction%20Robert%20Gifford.pdf Retrieved on April 15, 2014

Kruger, J., & Burrus, J. (2004). Egocentrism and focalism in unrealistic optimism (and pessimism). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 332-340. 

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55.

Snyder, C.R. (2000). The past and possible futures of hope. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 11-28.

Union of Concerned Scientists (2012).  Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living.  Washington, DC: Island Press. 

[shawnburn]

Earth Day Pessimism and Earth Day Optimism: Part Two How you can inspire hope and action to reduce climate change impacts

  In Part One of “Earth Day Pessimism and Earth Day Optimism” I wrote about the need for optimistic realism and hope in the face of climate change news.  The “take-away message”: Unrealistic optimism may lead us to underestimate the impacts of climate change on ourselves and those we love, and to assume that we personally do not need to act. Realistic optimism requires that we accept that governments and free markets are unlikely to act in time to slow climate change. It requires believing that our own personal and political actions can make a difference.

This Earth Day consider developing a personal plan for low-carbon living.  The psychological theorizing on hope says that when we have hope we believe that eventually our goals will be achieved, we think goal-oriented thoughts, and we plot a route to our goals which we believe we can initiate and sustain. Barriers are looked at as challenges to surmount (or to go around), not reasons to give up. Have hope that you can successfully act to retard climate change.

This Earth Day I challenge you to make a personal pledge to reduce your “carbon footprint” by 20%. Here are some of the things you can do:

1. Because forest destruction produces as much as 15 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, take actions that reduce deforestation. 

Reduce or eliminate use of paper towels, paper plates, and napkins (use actual plates and cloth napkins) and use recycled paper products if you can. If you get takeout food to eat at home, decline napkins, plates, and utensils. Avoid products with palm oil to reduce the demand that drives burning the Indonesian forests to plant palm trees. Support organizations like the Nature Conservancy that work with governments to provide economic incentives to reduce deforestation.  

 2.  Over 70% of Americans’ energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels (petroleum, coal, and natural gas) that contribute to the greenhouse gases that trap heat and increase global warming.  The production of electricity is responsible for approximately 32% of greenhouse emissions. This means that reducing your electricity use is one of the most useful things you can do (added bonus: it will save you money).

I recommend reading the Union of Concerned Scientists’ book “Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living” but here are some suggestions to get you started. All of us can adopt simple practices such as unplugging electronic chargers when not in use, turning off your computer if you’re not going to use it for while, using computer “sleep” mode instead of a screen saver if you do leave it on, buying local, using compact fluorescent bulbs, turning off lights or the TV when you leave the room for more than a minute, setting the water heater no higher than 120 degrees, choosing Energy Star certified appliances (especially refrigerators, washers and dryers, and TVs), reducing water use (take shorter showers, turn off water when soaping up dishes or brushing teeth), and washing clothes in cold water. If you are a residential or commercial property owner, there are many things you can do to increase energy efficiency and fossil fuel use, some of which are relatively inexpensive. 

 3. Transportation accounts for about 28% of United States greenhouse emissions and for most Americans, transportation accounts for a quarter of their “personal” carbon emissions. Altering a few of your transportation practices can make a difference.

 If you can, buy a fuel-efficient car that won’t only reduce emissions, but will save you money in the long run.  Consider that most everyday tasks do not require a truck or SUV.  Of course, many of us cannot afford to trade in our gas guzzler but many of us can drive less by doing things like “trip chaining,” where we avoid making separate trips for going to work, shopping, and errands and instead perform car-necessary tasks as part of an efficient circuit. 

Increasing our walking, bicycling, carpooling, and public transportation use are also a good idea. 

Driving smarter also makes a difference. Avoid rapid acceleration and deceleration. Regularly changing your oil, air filters, and spark plugs, keeping your tires properly inflated, removing excess weight from the trunk and backseat, avoiding engine idling, and reducing long-distance travel (especially by airplane or in fuel-inefficient vehicles), all reduce emissions and save you gas money.  Many people that travel for business can accomplish some goals without travel by teleconferencing. 

 4. Food accounts for approximately 14% of the average American’s climate change emissions and one of the most impactful things you can do to reduce this source of emissions is to reduce or eliminate dairy and meat (especially beef) in your diet.  Americans eat nearly four times the amount of meat than the global average. Beef production accounts for at least 20 percent of the world’s global warming emissions, partly due to the cutting of forests for cattle grazing, but also because livestock production results in the release of powerful greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.  Without reductions in meat and dairy consumption, experts say it is unlikely we will meet emissions-reduction targets in time to avert the worst effects of climate change.

Your personal climate change plan might include cutting down on cheese consumption, eating at least one meat-free meal per day, going meatless at least once a week, or adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet. Not only will you save money, but also eating less meat and dairy are recommended for heart health and for animal-lovers, eating less meat reduces cognitive dissonance arising from the poor treatment of factory-farmed animals.  Typing “meatless Mondays” into a computer search engine will yield a variety of tasty recipes to get you started.

  References

Cederberg, C., Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., & Sonesson, U. (2013). Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal food products–implications for long-term climate targets. Animal, 7, 330-340.

Gallup (March 2014). http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx  Retrieved on April 12, 2014.

Nature Conservancy.  http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/how-we-work/creating-incentives-to-stop-deforestation.xml#sthash.l9xBN8xu.dpuf Retrieved on April 19, 2014

Snyder, C.R. (2000). The past and possible futures of hope. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 11-28.

Union of Concerned Scientists (2012).  Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living.  Washington, DC: Island Press. 

 United States Environmental Protection Agency.  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html Retrieved on April 19, 2014

 United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/home.html Retrieved on April 19, 2014

 Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F., & Mohlin, K. (2011). Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Climatic Change, 108(1-2), 159-184.

[shawnburn]

The Persistent Gender Pay Gap: Why men tend to earn more, why it matters, and what to do about it

April brings us Equal Pay Day, a day when we call attention to the gender pay gap, argue about it, and then carry on as usual. This year, Equal Pay Day was marked by partisan squabbling and culminated in the U.S. Senate voting down the Paycheck Fairness Act (intended to strengthen the 1963 Equal Pay Act). 

You probably know many employed women because in the United States, the majority of women (including mothers) are employed either full or part-time. But women frequently receive less pay for their work than do men. This gender pay gap for full-time/year-round workers is 23.5 percent, a persistent gap that has shown little change since 2001. Women’s median annual earnings in 2012 were $37,791 compared with $49,398 for men. This gap is even larger for African American and Hispanic/ Latina women who earn only 54.1 percent of the white men’s median annual earnings.

The gender wage gap should concern us because it is evidence we do not have a gender-equal society. But is not just a women’s issue. Like most women’s issues, it’s a family and children’s issue as well. Many families rely on a woman’s income, and some can’t survive or thrive unless she makes a fair wage. As those who study this issue will tell you, women’s lower wages affect where they (and their children) live, the educational opportunities they can provide for their children, and the food that they can put on the table---especially for families where women are the sole or major family earners. Women’s lower wages also put them at greater risk for poverty in their retirement years as they affect retirement savings and benefits. The gender pay gap even makes student loan burdens greater for women.

Why do employed women make less money than men?  One main reason is what researchers call gender occupational segregation. Women and men tend to work in different jobs and employment sectors. Jobs mainly held by men have substantially higher pay rates compared to those mainly held by women. Nearly twice as many women as men work in occupations paying poverty wages.

Gender occupational segregation is less than it was but it persists. Gender stereotypes, gender roles, and gender socialization prepare women and men for different types of jobs as well as affecting employers’ perceptions of who is appropriate for a given job. Most of us also seek training, education, and jobs consistent with our gender role and receive encouragement from others to do so.

But even when women work the same jobs as men, and when men work at traditionally female occupations, women often earn less. For example, women supervisors of retail sales workers earn 79% of what their male counterparts make; women nurses earn 88% of what male nurses make; and male elementary and middle school teachers earn 9% more than their female colleagues. This situation is partly due to outright gender wage discrimination. Although it is technically illegal in the United States (since 1963) to pay women less than men for the same work, many women are unaware that they earn less than their male coworkers and few women have the time and money to pursue legal action. While many employers would never discriminate, many others are happy to pay women less if they can get away with it because it saves them money.

Of course sometimes women get paid less because they are less skilled, less educated, or less experienced workers relative to men (this is called the human capital explanation). This is particularly an issue for mothers. Unavailability of quality affordable childcare in combination with women’s lower wages means that in many families it makes sense for the mother to leave the workforce. Women who reenter the workforce after an extended period of childrearing lack current work experience and job skills leading to depressed wages.

What can we do about the gender wage gap?  Enforcing and strengthening existing legislation (such as the Paycheck Fairness Act) and increasing the availability of affordable high-quality childcare would certainly help. The AAUW also recommends that companies do their part by conducting salary audits to make sure that women are not being paid less for doing the same work as men.

  Reducing gender occupational segregation is another important part of the solution. The AAUW suggests that women should pay attention to the salaries associated with college majors and occupations and think about the long-term financial implications of their career decisions. They also recommend that women seek union jobs and do research on typical salaries for a job so that they can better negotiate salary. But the truth of the matter though is that until the gendered stereotypes that lead to gendered occupational roles diminish even further, until we stop seeing women’s employment and jobs as supplements to a family’s income, until we stop insisting that we can’t support ameliorative efforts because it will “hurt business,” and until we stop devaluing “women’s work” relative to “men’s work,” the gap will persist.

  References 

American Association of University Women (AAUW).  Fact Sheet Road Map to Pay Equity.  http://www.aauw.org/resource/road-map-to-pay-equity/  retrieved on April 7, 2014. 

American Association of University Women (AAUW). http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/03/Graduating-to-a-Pay-Gap-The-Earnings-of-Women-and-Men-One-Year-after-College-Graduation-Executive-Summary-and-Recommendations.pdf retrieved on April 7, 2014. 

American Association of University Women (AAUW).  The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap.  http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ retrieved on April 7, 2014. 

 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014).  Labor Statistics from the Current Population Survey.  http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm Retrieved on April 2, 2014. 

Catalyst (March 2014).  Do Women Outearn Men in the United States? The Facts.   http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/do-women-outearn-men-united-states-facts  retrieved on April 6, 2014

Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR).  http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination (see this site for a variety of research reports and fact sheets on gender pay equity)

United States Department of Labor. http://www.dol.gov/wb/equal-pay/WH-Equal-Pay-fact-sheet.pdf retrieved on April 6, 2014 

[shawnburn]

If You Laugh Does It Mean You’re Prejudiced?

Every few months it seems that a comedian, television show, or movie is called out for racist, sexist, or heterosexist comedy (what we social psychologists call derogation or disparagement humor). Invariably those that enjoy such humor minimize these concerns. Offended others are told they “need to lighten up,” “get a sense of humor,” or “stop being so sensitive.” The generators and consumers of derogation humor sometimes respond defensively because written between the lines of the callouts is the suggestion that they are racist, sexist, or heterosexist. Ironically, they feel unjustly stereotyped as prejudiced.

Does making and laughing at jokes that capitalize on group stereotypes mean you’re prejudiced?  Maybe. For example, studies of sexist humor find that people are most likely to enjoy sexist humor when they have negative (sexist) attitudes toward women. Enjoyment of sexist humor is also correlated with rape-related attitudes and beliefs as well as self-reported likelihood of forcing sex. Studies do find that when people are prejudiced, they are more likely to interpret disparagement humor with a non-critical mindset.

Also consider that jokes that put down groups of which we are not members may boost our self-esteem. As psychologists Wicker, Barron, and Willis once said, the jokes we think are funny may reflect our prejudices and our laughter comes from feelings of superiority. According to social identity theory we categorize into ingroup and outgroup and we gain self-esteem from believing we’re members of a superior group (this type of self-esteem is called collective self-esteem). Jokes at the expense of another group can provide a source of downward social comparison, where comparisons to “lesser” others make us feel good about our group and ourselves because in contrast, we do not “suck” in that particular way (such jokes provide positive distinctiveness).

There are many problems with disparagement humor, including that it can shape beliefs and attitudes about other groups. Our beliefs about other groups are partly derived from what our group (and the media) tells us about those groups, especially when our experiences with members of those groups are limited. And, when people laugh, it reinforces the idea that these perceptions are socially acceptable. Disparagement humor also feeds enemy perceptions and conflict between groups because it can feel hateful and aggressive.

Disparagement humor at the expense of traditionally discriminated against groups may be especially hurtful since it is a bitter reminder of their group’s lower status and historical experience of discrimination. The cleverness of derogation humor and that it is not intended to harm, sometimes masks its meanness and makes us forget that many people from the derogated groups may experience it as prejudiced, hurtful, and exclusionary.

All that said, I grant that some people that enjoy disparagement humor may not be prejudiced or attempting to boost their collective self-esteem. Some people (especially professional comics and comedy writers) process humor with a different critical mindset where comedic cleverness (and sometimes pushing the comedic envelope) trumps all other lenses of humor evaluation. I am conflicted about disparagement humor because I love comedy and humor and consume it in many forms, but also recognize its potentially negative social effects.

Disparagement humor intended to reduce prejudice by extreme portrayals of the prejudiced (meta-disparagement humor) adds another wrinkle. Should we “grant a pass” to meta-disparagement humorists given their good intentions? Maybe. For example, Stephen Colbert’s “Ching Chong Ding Dong” is a parody of old-fashioned racism. The ridiculous Colbert character doesn’t believe he is prejudiced even declaring he “doesn’t see color” and can’t discern the ethnicity of his guests or himself. In this way the “bit” illustrates how many prejudiced people are oblivious to their prejudices (an idea documented by many studies on aversive racism and implicit bias). Colbert is in a bit of hot water for this comedic bit because a related Tweet was too short to provide the meta-context. Even some folks that get it’s supposed to be meta, still think it fosters negative stereotypes of Asian Americans (a concern with some merit).

As Dave Chappell, Paul Rodriquez, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker would likely attest, even meta-disparagement humor can inadvertently promote prejudice and harm to others and making fun of your own group is often interpreted by non-group members as permission for them to do so as well. As I sometimes say to my students, the problem with humor that capitalizes on group stereotypes, even meta-disparagement humor, is that it’s potentially dangerous when consumed by the uninformed or non-critical.

Take for example the South Park episode where after giving a presentation on 'Ginger Kids' (red-heads) in class, Cartman gets the other students to discriminate against them. The episode actually demonstrates how prejudice is sometimes used to boost self-esteem, how members of discriminated-against groups may turn a badge of shame into a mark of pride to feel good about themselves in the face of stigma, and how this generates the ingroup solidarity necessary to fight for equality. It’s really quite sophisticated social commentary in some ways. But this is not what many viewers got out of the episode. Instead, the take-away message for some viewers was that prejudice towards red-headed people is funny and red-headed people are humor objects. After this episode aired, many red-haired children and adolescents found themselves bullied and teased because they were “ginger.”

I’m unsure how to resolve these concerns but I have a few thoughts. I think parents should recognize that their children might misinterpret meta-disparagement humor so parents should pay attention. I think we should be more discerning senders and receivers of humor, expressing our concerns when we feel a line has been crossed and apologizing when informed we have crossed one.

I think that instead of telling people they shouldn’t be offended we should have some empathy and a conversation instead of getting defensive and minimizing their concerns. Likewise, we should understand that “racist,” “sexist,” etc. are fighting words that will elicit defensiveness. To reach a peaceful understanding we must choose our words carefully and keep our approach friendly if we want others to understand why we feel a comedic instance may harm the progress of our group.

I think we should appreciate that when people make fun of their own group it’s different from when we make fun of them. I think we should realize that despite that, making fun of our own group carries the risk of promoting stereotypes in non-group members instead of appreciation for our culture, and some of them will think that if it’s funny when we say it it’s even funnier when they say it.

I think we should recognize that telling and laughing at jokes that stereotype other groups is risky since it can harm our social or professional reputation, hurt people, and promote prejudice, regardless of our intent. And I think that sometimes we need to ask ourselves why we are laughing and whether our humor is a way to get away with putting down other groups.

Note: You might want to watch this clip from the March 29th 2014 episode of Saturday Night Live using a critical humor mindset. The episode, about an African American version of “Jeopardy,” cleverly capitalizes on a number of negative stereotypes.

  References

Ferguson, M. A., & Ford, T. E. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor: International Journal Of Humor Research, 21, 283-312.

Ford, T. E., Woodzicka, J. A., Triplett, S. R., & Kochersberger, A. O. (2013). Sexist Humor and Beliefs that Justify Societal Sexism.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.390.6256&rep=rep1&type=pdf retrieved on March 28, 2014

Romero-Sánchez, M., Durán, M., Carretero-Dios, H., Megías, J. L., & Moya, M. (2010). Exposure to sexist humor and rape proclivity: The moderator effect of aversiveness ratings. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2339-2350.

Ryan, K. M., & Kanjorski, J. (1998). The enjoyment of sexist humor, rape attitudes, and relationship aggression in college students. Sex Roles, 38, 743-756.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K.J.(2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, controversies. In Brown, R. and Samuel Gaertner (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pages 133–152.

Wicker, F. W., Barron, W. L., & Willis, A. C. (1980). Disparagement humor: Dispositions and resolutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 701-709.

[shawnburn]

Dysfunctional Helping & Codependence Mindtraps

Many helpful caring people, particularly those that identify as codependent, impulsively rescue others from their self-imposed predicaments.  They stay in dysfunctional helping and giving relationships even when their resources or relationships are strained, or they enable others’ addiction, incompetence, or irresponsibility.  The cognitive-behavioral perspective helps us understand how self-defeating thoughts (mindtraps) lead us into dysfunctional helping and giving, and keep us coming back for more.  Fortunately, some relief can be found by challenging six common mindtraps. 

Mindtrap #1: Catastrophizing.  Are you a person that immediately jumps to the worst possible conclusion about someone’s predicament, and assumes that your intervention is necessary to prevent imminent disaster?  (e.g., “Without my intervention the other will end up dead, broke, homeless, in jail, fired!”) Has this led you to impulsive rescuing?

 Catastrophizing Mindtrap Challenge.  Ask yourself: Is it really and truly true that without my help, total disaster will occur and the other won’t survive? Or, is it possible that the other will be okay (and possibly benefit) if they have to solve their own problems or assume their own consequences? 

Mindtrap #2: Mind-reading.  Are you a person that assumes other people will think badly of you if you don’t continue to give at such a high level? (e.g., “If I don’t help or give, other people will think I am bad or selfish” or, “If I don’t help or give, they will be very angry with me and I won’t be able to stand it”)

Mind-reading Mindtrap Challenge.  Ask yourself: Do I really know that other people will think I’m “bad” if I don’t over-give, rescue or enable, or “good” if I do? Can I check this out with people that I respect?  Do I know that others will be incredibly mad at me (rather than accepting it, or merely being temporarily irked) if I pull back on my helping or giving? Is it really true that others’ disapproval is so unbearable I must sacrifice myself or is the truth that I can survive others’ displeasure if I determine my help or giving is not really necessary or will not be helpful in the long run? Does rescuing and enabling really protect me from experiencing others’ disapproval?

Mindtrap #3: All-Or-None Thinking.  Are you like many dysfunctional helpers and givers who are “black-and-white” thinkers whose absolutist proclamations lead them astray? Do you look at situations and people as completely right or wrong, good or bad (e.g., “If I don’t help, I am a bad or selfish person,” “I love them so I have to give them another chance,” or “I have to help them, they’re family”). 

All-Or-None Thinking Mindtrap Challenge.  Ask yourself: Is it a fact that I am a “bad” person if I do not rescue, enable, or over-give, and a “good” person if I do?  Or can good people sometimes decline to bail others out or set boundaries around their helping and giving?  Is it possible that saying “no” to fostering the other’s dependence is what a “good” person does?  Is it always the “right” thing to solve others’ problems and the “wrong” thing not to?

Mindtrap #4: Personalization.  Do you feel compelled to help or give because you think someone’s negative behavior or circumstances are somehow your fault and therefore your responsibility? (e.g., “If I was a better parent, teacher, spouse, manager (or whatever), they wouldn’t be in this mess, therefore, I am responsible for rescuing them”).  This belief often involves confusing having an influence on others with having control over what those others do. 

Personalization Mindtrap Challenge:  Ask yourself: Is it really true that at this point in time I am responsible for the other’s misfortune such that it is my responsibility to fix it? Even if I bear some responsibility, aren’t there other factors (including the other’s choices) that played a role?  What do people I trust say about my responsibility for fixing the other’s problems—why should I believe my distorted thoughts instead of them?

Mindtrap #5: Emotional Reasoning.  Do you use your emotions as evidence of facts? For example, you feel distress and alarm over another’s predicament and automatically think you must intervene?

Emotional Reasoning Mindtrap Challenge.  Ask yourself: Can I say with certainty that my emotional reactions to others’ predicaments are always or even mostly right and they rarely, if ever, mislead me into unnecessary or harmful helping or giving? Does my empathy ever lead me astray such that I impulsively offer help without considering the costs of helping to others and me?  Does honoring my first impulse to rescue or give lead me to make offers I later regret?

Mindtrap #6: Shoulding.  Are you a duty-bound person that “shoulds” yourself into carrying the load of others?  Do you think things like, “I should be giving and selfless” and “I should sacrifice my time/energy/resources if I am a good spouse/parent/coworker/friend/person”?

Shoulding Mindtrap Challenge.  Ask yourself: Am I holding myself to standards that I do not hold others to?  Can I soften my “should statements” so they are more reasonable? For example, instead of “I should be selfless and sacrifice myself for others” perhaps I can say, “It is generally good to help others but there are times when it is all right not to.” “I must help or I am a bad person” can be softened to “Being a helpful person is part of what makes me a good person but there are times when being a good person may mean not intervening to solve another’s problems.” 

Finally, many codependent people irrationally believe they can solve others’ unmanageable problems. But think about this:  Although your good intentions are powerful stuff, are you really so gifted (or omnipotent) that it’s realistic to believe your efforts can solve the other’s problems even if those problems are complicated, the other is not ready for change, and the evidence is that your efforts are not working? Or, does available evidence indicate that you can’t change the other or their situation, or that the other is not ready to live differently? Are you really being fair to yourself if you feel you’re a failure if you back away from trying to fix them or their problems? What would you say to a friend in this situation, would you support them in withdrawing their aid?

  Based on ideas from the upcoming book “Beyond Declarations of Codependence: The Psychology of Dysfunctional Helping and Giving” by Shawn Meghan Burn

  * I applied the mindtraps and irrational beliefs described by David Burns’ 1999 book Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy (Harper Collins Publishers) and by Albert Ellis in The New Guide to Rational Living (Wilshire Book Co; 3rd edition 1975), and Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy (Citadel, 1974). Mindtraps are most often described in the context of mood disorders but I think they are useful to consider in regards to codependence and dysfunctional helping and giving.

[shawnburn]

Ten New Year’s Resolution Mistakes That Sabotage Success How To Make and Keep New Year’s Resolutions

“Effective self-regulation of behavior is not achieved by an act of will. It requires certain skills in self-motivation and self-guidance.”

Albert Bandura, 1986

Approximately 50% of Americans make New Year’s Resolutions, most having to do with weight loss, eating healthier, improving finances, or getting a new job. But only 8% successfully achieve their goals. Here are ten common mistakes that explain why people sometimes fail to achieve their New Year’s resolutions, along with tips to help make your New Year’s resolutions a success.

Mistake #1 Forgetting Change Is Process and Resolutions Are Only the Beginning

Resolutions are not wishes granted by God or a magical “Baby New Year”; you will need a specific plan and some patience. Too many people make their resolutions and leave it at that. You need to do more than just hope for change.

Mistake #2 Making General Rather Than Specific Resolutions

Resolutions are personal change goals and research on goal setting as a motivational technique is clear: you need to set specific goals. You might start with a general goal like “get my finances in order” or “eat better” but you need to unpack vague goals into smaller, specific, do-able goals. What exactly do you mean by “eat better” or “improve finances” or “exercise more? These goals should be so specific that you can schedule deadlines for completion, and track and reward your progress. For example, your goal should not just be "exercise more," it should be "exercise for this amount of time on these days and times by doing these things."

Mistake #3 Making Unrealistic Resolutions

Goal setting research also tells us that voluntarily setting challenging, yet realistic goals is best. You won’t stick to goals that are unrealistic for you and you won’t stick to goals that are not truly yours. This is a Goldilocks situation where the goals have to be “just right,” not too easy and not too difficult. Many people give up on their New Year’s resolutions because their goals were too lofty and unrealistic (making failure likely and demotivating), or because they were “forced” to adopt goals to make someone else happy. 

Mistake #4 Having A Half-Assed (or No) Specific Change Plan

You need to create a specific plan that charts a clear path to your goals. What are the specific steps you need to take to achieve your personal change goal? These should become specific mini-goals that carry you down the road to success. Assign deadlines for completion of these success-related tasks. If you’re unsure how to create a plan, seek professional advice.

Mistake #5 Giving Up Too Quickly

You do not have to be perfect and a “slip” or “fall off the wagon” shouldn’t be used as an excuse to abandon the whole endeavor. Old habits are hard to break and new ones take time to develop. Your change may occur in fits and starts because much of our behavior consists of the unconscious enactment of habits. So one key to change, especially at the beginning, is the use of reminders.  You may find it useful to post sticky note prompts to help you remember, or phone alarms reminding you to perform the new, desired behavior. Do what you can to remind yourself to do the new behavior and it will become your new normal and you won’t have to think about it so much.  

Mistake #6 Failing to Overcome Or Manage Ambivalence

One barrier to change is ambivalence.  In other words, there are some good things associated with the behavior you need to change and some bad things about the new behavior you're trying to adopt. Do some research so that you are fully aware of the negative consequences of not changing. To overcome change-retarding ambivalence, remind yourself often of the ways in which changing your behavior fits with important personal goals and how not changing does the opposite. Write these down and place in a space where you will see it regularly.

Mistake #7 Failing to Obtain Social Support & Identify Healthy Role Models 

Believing in your ability to do the things necessary for change is critical to your success; this is called self-efficacy. Research on self-efficacy tells us that key to this is social support (“cheerleaders” for our change), and role models (people like yourself that have successfully achieved similar goals). For example, Weight Watchers is one of the more effective weight loss programs because people meet regularly in a group setting where they receive inspiration and encouragement from others and publicly track progress towards their goals. Surround yourself with healthy role models and cheerleaders for your change.

Mistake #8 Failing to Address Emotional Issues That Sabotage Success

Some people are unsuccessful in their change efforts because they need to address the emotional or psychological issues that drive their unhealthy behavior. Many people find that a good counselor can help them overcome this barrier to change.

Mistake #9 Failing to Address Environmental Issues That Sabotage Success

It can be hard to change your behavior without also changing your environment. You can boost your willpower by avoiding the situations and people that “trigger” the behavior you want to change. Avoid or ignore people that ridicule or sabotage your change. Clear your pantry of the foods you want to stop eating.  Change your route to/from work so that you don’t find your car taking you to your favorite doughnut shop or budget-busting store, etc.

Mistake #10 Adopting Simple Solutions Peddled By Unscrupulous Salespeople 

To avoid the hard work of personal change, people are sometimes seduced by sales professionals offering easy solutions to problems that don’t have quick and easy solutions. It is unlikely that you will meet your goals simply by paying for a “quick weight loss solution” in the form of a pill or exercise device. Do your research so that you know what reputable experts recommend you do to achieve sustainable change.

 References

Bandura, A. (1977).  Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.  Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.

Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38-48.

[shawnburn]

Myths of the Men's Rights Movement: We Need A Movement, But Not This One

I have studied gender for a long time and believe that it is important to acknowledge the disadvantages of traditional gender roles and norms for both genders.  

The disadvantages of the traditional female gender role are perhaps more obvious: the gender pay gap, the glass ceiling, the disproportionate experience of sexual violence, sexual objectification, women’s disproportionate share of household and care labor), etc.  

Because as a group, men are more advantaged than women in many ways, the disadvantages of traditional masculinity have received less attention.  To me, this is unfortunate because there are some real psychological and societal costs to the traditional male role's emphasis on making money, being tough, and avoiding the feminine.  This means that we do need a men’s movement, one that focuses on how traditional masculinity harms men and advocating for changes in the male gender role.  Unfortunately, this is not the movement we have. The current "Men's Rights Movement" frames men as victims of feminism and gender role change, and appears to be a tool of a conservative family values agenda.

Here are my concerns about this "movement":

People in this movement typically frame men’s rights and women’s rights as mutually exclusive and feminists as the enemy of men. Feminists advocate for gender equality, not for men's subordination and women's domination.  

People in this movement often act as though acknowledging that women disproportionately experience sexual violence (i.e., sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence) and that men are the most common perpetrators is an affront to men.  They minimize women’s experience of sexual violence. They falsely assume that prevention and treatment programs don’t provide services for men. They cast men as victims of sexual assault prevention and intimate partner violence programs, and as victims of women’s false accusations.  To really address problems of violence that affect both men and women, they should instead focus on how traditional masculinity contributes to the perpetration of violence by men and experience of violence by men. They do men and women a disservice with their misplaced focus, and inadvertently protect male perpetrators of violence against women.

Please see the CDC document http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_overview_insert_final-a.pdf for statistics.

I feel it especially important to dispel the part of the men's rights movement ideology that insists false accusations of rape are common.  Some from the movement have deliberately sabotaged university sexual assault reporting mechanisms.  

False accusations of rape are rare, but admittedly harmful (they waste resources, they harm the falsely accused, and make it harder for real victims to seek justice and receive support).  Just as it is true that most men are not sexual assault perpetrators, it is true that most women would never falsely cry rape.  It is still quite common to blame sexual assault survivors for their assault or not to believe them to begin with.  Cops and the legal and justice system are often unkind to sexual assault survivors.  Because of this, most sexual assault survivors never report their assault, and when they do, choose not to proceed with legal action.  Minimizing that women experience higher rates of domestic violence and sexual assault than men, and that men are the most frequent perpetrators, reduces support for policies, programs, and services that address the problem, and does not help anyone other than the abusers.  See the CDC document at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5412a8.htm for a brief summary and http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf

Many in the men's rights movement also propagate the notion that most feminists are lesbian and most lesbians are feminist.  The truth of the matter is that until relatively recently, the feminist movement distanced itself from issues specific to lesbian women because many leaders were heterosexual and prejudiced themselves, or thought including lesbian women and lesbian issues would hurt the movement.  Calling feminists lesbians (lesbian-baiting/ sexuality-baiting) capitalizes on people’s prejudice as a way to discredit women’s rights activists and their work, and to discourage women from identifying as feminist. Also, for most lesbians, being a lesbian is a quiet, personal matter that arises out of a natural sexual attraction to women or from falling in love with a woman. Lesbians, like heterosexual women, are diverse in their feminism and vary in their awareness of women’s issues and in their activism for women’s equality.

I do think that if you scratch some of the arguments made in by those in the men's rights movement you will find some kernels of truth.  For example, it is true that men from some ethnic-cultural groups and social classes are more likely to experience “male privilege” than others.  It is also true that there are more men in prison than women in prison.  It is also true that men are sometimes victims of sexual assault and intimate partner violence (fortunately, sexual assault prevention and recovery programs and intimate partner violence programs, like shelters, now provide services for male victims). It is also true that men are more likely to be found in dangerous professions. 

But those in the movement often misinterpret these points and miss the real ones.  For instance, it is much more constructive to think about the role of traditional masculinity in promoting men’s violence; to address the fact that men from some ethnic and social classes are more privileged than others; to consider the role of traditional masculinity in men’s mental and physical health; and why some men are less or more likely to be charged and convicted of crimes due to their ethnicity and social class. It does not serve men’s (or women’s) interests to suggest that men’s issues are the result of feminism, or that men’s issues somehow make women’s issues, non-issues.