Dr. Sabiha Alam Choudhury is currently working as the Head of Department of Psychology and Counselling at School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Assam Don Bosco University, Tapesia, India.
Her research areas are Positive Psychology, Counselling & Psychotherapy, and Marriage and Family Counselling.
Our weekly round-up of the best psychology coverage from elsewhere on the web
In the UK, the clocks went back last weekend and we’re now faced with dark, gloomy evenings. But around the world, many countries have decided that the time has come to abolish clock changes. And there are good reasons for doing so, Beth Malow tells Diana Kwon at Scientific American: changing the clocks throws our circadian rhythms out, which can affect our sleep and stress response
People who generally do more “media multitasking” — using social media while watching TV, for instance — showed more lapses of attention during a recall task in a recent study,reports Kat Eschner at Popular Science. The results suggest that media multitasking could be related to poorer concentration and memory — but as the story notes, there are plenty of unanswered questions about the direction of causality, as well as the suitability of the measures used in this kind of work.
There is a relatively rare subtype of dementia called “autoimmune dementia”, caused by antibodies binding to brain tissue. It may often be misdiagnosed, writes David Cox at The Observer — but the good news is that, once identified, it is treatable.
A study of UK MPs and councillors reveals the extent to which politicians have to engage in “emotional labour”,writes researcher James Weinberg at The Conversation. For instance, the majority of those surveyed said that they frequently had to be artificially friendly or act nice to others, no matter how they were treated themselves. Consistent with findings from other professions, women seemed to end up taking on more of this emotional labour than men.
A new tool for studying the human brain has recently been added to the neuroscientist’s toolbox: brain organoids, rudimentary brain-like structures grown in the lab from stem cells. But the use of these “mini-brains” also brings up tricky ethical issues. At Nature, Sara Reardon asks at what point a collection of brain cells becomes conscious.
Meanwhile, optogenetics, in which neurons can be activated using light, continues to produce scientific insights — in rodents, at least. It’s been much more challenging to use the technique in primate studies, however, which are an important step towards developing optogenetics-based therapies for humans. But researchers hope a new open data initiative will help, writes Kelly Servick at Science.
One last interesting neuroscience study from this week: scientists have created a brain-computer interface by attaching electrodes onto a stent, which they then threaded into a blood vessel in the brain. The technology enabled patients with paralysis to click a cursor on a computer, reports Adam Rogers at Wired, allowing them to text and shop online.
There are some curious cultural ideas around sleep, namely that there’s something virtuous or impressive about not getting very much of it. “Burnout” is often shorthand for success: if you’re successful it follows that you’re also pretty busy, in which case you’re less likely to get enough sleep. Margaret Thatcher famously boasted that she only needed to sleep four hours a night, as has Donald Trump — though whether that bolsters or damages the prestige associated with sleepless nights probably depends on your politics.
There may also be links between sleep and perceptions of masculinity, a new paper in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research suggests. In a number of studies, Nathan B. Warren and Troy H. Campbell from the University of Oregon found that not only do we associate sleep deprivation with masculinity, but that men who sleep less actually experience more favourable social judgements than their better-rested counterparts.
In the first study, 144 participants were asked to imagine a man shopping for a bed; when approached by a salesperson, the man is asked how much he sleeps. Participants were randomly assigned to two conditions: in one, the man answers that he sleeps a lot, while in the other he states that he sleeps very little. After hearing the man’s answer, participants rated how masculine they felt he was — and when participants heard that he had lots of sleep, masculinity ratings were significantly lower than in the little sleep condition.
Next, participants were asked to describe either a masculine or non-masculine man’s habits and behaviours: what he would like to do for fun, for example, as well as how much sleep he would get on average. As in the first study, there was a link: those in the masculine condition described their character sleeping for 33 minutes less than the non-masculine character.
The team then explored why men who sleep less are seen as less masculine. They asked 207 participants to describe a man who either gets “lots of sleep” or “little sleep”, rating his character on seven measures of agency (e.g. “he is individualistic” or “he is assertive”).
Again, participants rated men who sleep a lot as significantly less masculine than those who sleep a little. But participants’ perceptions of agency seemed to be key to this link: characters who sleep a lot were described as having less agency than those who sleep a little, and this in turn led people to rate those characters as less masculine.
A later study looked at social judgements: are men who sleep more judged more harshly than those who sleep less? Participants were asked how American society would judge various people (e.g. “athletes” and “adult males”) if they either slept “a lot” or ”very little”.
As predicted, men who sleep a lot were evaluated more negatively than those who sleep a little, while there was no difference for women. Interestingly, judgements across other categories were uneven — athletes were positively evaluated when they slept a lot, whilst lawyers were more favourably looked upon when they slept a little. A subsequent study again showed that perceptions of agency and masculinity were important when making these social judgments.
Finally, the team found that even self-evaluations were influenced by stereotypes about sleep and masculinity. Men who imagined telling another person that they slept more than average felt significantly less masculine than those who imagined saying they slept less than average.
The key factor in understanding why there is such a strong link between sleep and perceived masculinity, the team argues, is agency. Many facets of agency are considered to be stereotypically masculine — assertiveness, individualism, orientation towards goals — compared to the more “feminine” traits of empathy or affection. If you’re goal-oriented and assertive, you’re likely to be someone who strives to use their time efficiently — which is where the perceived link between success, sleep and masculinity might come into play.
For those who aren’t particularly interested in abiding by gender stereotypes or reject them altogether, the results probably don’t make much difference. But if men are sleeping less because of worries around masculinity, they could face some seriously negative consequences: physical or mental health issues have often been linked to poor sleep. Challenging stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, as in so many other areas, may prove beneficial when it comes to persuading men it’s alright to have a good night’s sleep.
Unfortunately, bullying is not an uncommon experience for many of our children. It is a worldwide phenomenon, with prevalence rates ranging from 5% to 61%. In South Africa bullying appears to be on the rise. However, collecting truly representative data is very difficult due to the complicated nature of this phenomenon, which involves a combination of psychological, social and cognitive factors. It is unclear whether there is truly an increase in the amount of bullying taking place, or whether there is simply an increased awareness around bullying and its potentially damaging consequences.
What is Bullying?
Bullying is a pattern of unwanted or aggressive behaviour which is meant to hurt others and in which a child uses their power over others to harm or control them. This power imbalance might come from having greater physical strength, but also might result from having power through popularity, or access to embarrassing information. Bullying can be:
Verbal: such as name calling, taunting or unwelcome teasing
Physical: such as hitting, spitting or tripping
Social: purposefully excluding someone from a group, spreading rumours about them or telling other children not to be friends with them.
Bullying has always existed, however more recently bullying has extended its reach in the form of cyberbullying. Examples include mean text messages or emails, rumours or embarrassing pictures posted on social networking sights, or fake profiles created. The difference with cyberbullying is that it can happen around the clock and doesn’t require a face to face encounter.
“Cyberbullying: when a child is tormented, threatened, harassed or embarrassed by another using the internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones.”
The growth and access to technology is not necessarily to blame for cyberbullying and can be used for a great deal of good. Children can use the internet and social media to connect with family and friends. It can help children access knowledge for schoolwork and is a means in which to explore and express their identity. However, there is the potential for a great deal of damage to be done. This happens without education on appropriate use, parental monitoring and a means in which to protect yourself.
Risk Factors, Effects and Potential Warning Signs
Bullying Risk Factors
No one factor puts a child at risk of being bullied or for bullying others. Regardless of gender, culture or socio-economic standing, anybody can potentially engage in bullying bahaviour or be bullied. Bullying happens in cities and rural towns, in private and public schools and is prevalent in both co-ed and single sex schools. However, depending on the environment certain children may be more at risk of being bullied.
Those more at risk might be perceived as being different, such as children who are overweight, new to a school, wear glasses or have some kind of disability. Children who do not have a good sense of self, are anxious or struggle with confidence, are sometimes perceived to be weak and therefore might be more at risk of being bullied. Socially isolated children and those who do not have many friends are also more easily targeted for bullying. However, having one or all of these risk factors does not mean a child will necessarily be bullied.
The Effects of Bullying
While bullying is an act of power, this does not mean to say that children who bully are necessarily bigger or stronger than those they bully. Remember that the power imbalance can come from a number of sources, including popularity, intelligence or physical strength.
Bullying not only affects the child who is being bullied, but can have strong negative consequences for the person doing the bullying. As well as for bystanders who witness bullying. Bullying is closely linked to significant negative effects on mental wellbeing and in its extreme form is linked to suicide.
Warning Signs of Bullying
Children are often reluctant to disclose information to others because they are embarrassed or afraid of the repercussions of telling a friend, teacher or even their parents. It is therefore important to speak to your child openly about bullying before it happens. However, there are some signs to potentially look out for which may suggest that your child is being bullied:
Physical: unexplained injuries; sore tummy or headaches, changes in sleeping or eating habits, bedwetting
Emotional: increased anxiety, sadness or anger; decrease in school performance, struggles to tolerate criticism, suicidal tendencies in sever instances
Social: school refusal or school phobia, reluctant to socialise, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities such as sport or hobbies, loss or damaged personal items such as clothing, books, valuables.
These signs are also related to other emotional problems and so are essentially a sign that your child is experiencing some form of emotional trauma, but might not necessarily only be related to bullying.
What to do when I find out my child is being bullied?
Finding out that your child is being bullied is generally a difficult and highly emotive experience for parents. Often the immediate response is to want to take action and revenge against the child or children who are doing the bullying or even take action against their parents. In most cases this is probably not the best idea, as by acting on emotion, without reason or logic, you will most likely only make the situation worse. It is important to try and remain as calm as possible – easier said than done!
Talk About It
Firstly, talk to your child about it! If you suspect your child is being bullied or she tells you that she is, try to get as much information as possible. This is going to take patience, because children might struggle to speak about their experiences. Listen in a non-judgmental way and try not to solve your child’s problem for her. Ask questions around what happened and what emotions it evoked for her. Help her to feel heard and understood. Don’t label or judge the other child, because you are only hearing part of the story. Once you have the whole story you can decide on what it is you should do next.
Remember, the key here is to stay calm. If you go storming off to the school to tackle the child who is doing the bullying, your own child will not trust you with important information again and you won’t be doing his self-esteem or sense of agency any favours. Encourage your child to tell trustworthy adults when incidences of bullying occur, such as the teacher or sport’s coach.
Develop Solutions
Ask your child to come up with ideas on how to deal with the bullying situation in future. Let him come up with suggestions to what he might say or what actions he might take if it were to happen again. Don’t belittle his ideas, but rather ask questions about what the consequences of his idea might be. For example, retaliating with “leave me alone you jerk” might serve to increase aggression and lead to a fight. So guide gently, but be sure that he is the one who is coming up with the solutions and not you, as your child’s ability to problem solve in these instances will be a skill used throughout his life.
Speak to their Teacher
If your child has come home more than once in a week and mentioned being bullied or you have strong suspicions that it is taking place, make an appointment to see your child’s class teacher. Together you and the teacher can come up with a plan of action to be taken to eradicate the bullying and ensure your child’s safety and happiness at school. If the bullying persists then be sure to go to the school principal. It is fair to put it in the principal’s hands and ask for a plan and steps that will be taken to ensure the bullying is stopped. If your child is being physically bullied, then it is imperative to act immediately and to ensure your child’s safety.
Prevention is Better Than Cure
There are important ways in which parents can help their children before they bully other children or are bullied themselves. In this way we are aiming to prevent bullying rather than just react to it. Whilst children’s exposure to violence in our society and in the media might be having an impact on our children, it is important to remember that most importantly children are always looking to their parents to model behaviour. The way in which competition, frustration and aggression is dealt with in the home is more important than something like television, which is somewhat more removed from the child’s immediate life.
1. Your own relationships
It is important to think about how you use power in your own life to deal with those around you. Encourage respect and support of others. Remember that there is always an audience in the form of your child learning from your behaviour when you deal with frustration and conflict in your own life. Furthermore, a healthy and positive relationship with your child will set the precedent for peer relationships. Through their relationship with you, your child can learn social skills, self-expression, as well as a sense of boundaries and respect.
Keep talking to your child. Often you will need to be the one to come forward and start the conversation.
2. Promote diversity
Promote diversity and acceptance of those that are different from yourself. Talk to you child about stereotypes and learning to accept and respect those of different races, religions and sexual orientations. Remember your child is constantly learning from your example, monitor the way you speak about those different from yourself.
3. Build self-esteem
Be sure to build your child’s self-esteem. The most basic ingredient for a positive self-esteem is unconditional love from their parent(s). This means that a child with positive self-esteem will feel loved for who she is rather than for what she is capable of or achieves. Remember to acknowledge effort and not just success. In this way our children learn to tackle tasks even if they appear difficult.
Registered Counsellors, Cherith Langenhoven and Nabilah Davis, discussed the academic steps you need to take in order to become a Psychologist in South Africa.
Cherith Langenhoven, who has also completed her Masters in Research Psychology, shared about her professional journey and the experiences as a Registered Counsellor that contributed to where she is today.
Nabilah Davis, who is currently a Programme Coordinator at SACAP, spoke a bit about the role of the Bachelor of Psychology Degree in leading to registration with the HPCSA as a Registered Counsellor before going on to complete a Masters in Psychology in order to register as a Psychologist.
Vital questions were answered in the live Q&A session including job opportunities, the HPCSA, the board exam and the role of the Registered Counsellor once again.
Artificial intelligence agents play ever more influential roles in our lives. As the authors of a new paper, published in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, point out, they do everything from suggesting new friends and connections to recommending purchases and filtering the news that reaches us. They are even beginning to drive our cars. Another role that they are tipped to take over is negotiating on our behalf to sell a car, say, or resolve a legal dispute.
So, reasoned Jonathan Mell and colleagues at the Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California, it’s important to know whether using a bot might affect how we negotiate —and it turns out that it does. One of the most striking findings from the team’s series of studies is that less experienced negotiators are more willing to be deceitful if they assign an AI agent to do their dirty work for them. The studies also illuminate how our stance on various negotiating tactics alters through experience — information that would be needed to program negotiating bots to accurately represent us.
In the first online study, 741 participants were asked about their experience in negotiating for good deals or prices. Then they were told to imagine that they were negotiating for something important to them, such as a house or a car. Next, they were told either that they would negotiate for themselves, or they would program a bot to do the job for them. They all then completed the team’s new Agent Negotiation Tactics Inventory (ANTI), indicating just how tough, deceptive and pleasant or otherwise they wanted to be (in the case of the first group) or wanted their bot to be.
For example, they could endorse making an opening demand far greater than that they’d be willing to settle for (a “tough” stance) and/or convey a “positive disposition” or express sympathy with the opponent’s plight (and so come across as pleasant). But they could also indicate that they — or their agent — would “strategically express anger toward the opponent to extract concessions” or “convey dissatisfaction with the encounter so that the other party will think he/she is losing interest”. These are both examples of deceptive strategies. The team found that participants who thought about programming the agent to negotiate on their behalf endorsed deceptive tactics more than those thinking about negotiating for themselves.
The second online study found that more negative previous negotiation experiences (arguing over a deal, for example) were linked to a greater willingness to use deceptive tactics across the board. For the final study, again run online, 190 participants completed the ANTI then engaged in a 10-minute negotiation using an online platform in which “players” must negotiate (using pre-written phrases, questions, statements and also emotion buttons) to split a number of items between them. Each player is told how much each item is worth to them, but they don’t know how much it’s worth to their opponent. In this study, each participant in fact went up against a bot, rather than a human player. The bots had one of four different negotiating profiles: nice plus competitive, nice plus consensus-building, nasty plus competitive and nasty plus consensus-building. None, however, used any deceptive tactics.
At the end of the negotiation, the participants filled out the ANTI again, to indicate how they would behave next time. The team found that whether the agent was nice or nasty didn’t change the ANTI ratings. However, while interacting with a competitive “tough” agent increased endorsement of deceptive tactics, interacting with a “fair” consensus-building agent reduced intentions to be deceptive. Though the agents had not used deception, even brief experience with a hard-ball negotiator bot made the participants more willing to be underhand. As the researchers write, even if participants are initially keen for their representative to negotiate fairly, “exposure to the real world of aggressive, tough negotiators is enough make them forsake their qualms and embrace deception”.
When designing future agents to accurately represent us in real-world negotiations, these findings should, then, be taken into account, the researchers say — the work suggests that bots should be programmed to become more deceptive in response to a tough negotiation. As the team writes, “Shying away from this during agent design could lead to unsatisfied users and would have severe implications for the adoption of future agent representative systems.”
Psychologists call Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) a neurodevelopmental (mental health) disorder which means that we think it is mostly caused by mechanisms in our brain. Over time, we have also learned that ADHD might be caused by being exposed to environmental toxins like lead and other toxins while in the womb. ADHD is found in children and adults. It is mostly known for causing impulsive behaviours, hyperactivity and difficulty sustaining focus for longer periods of time.
“ADHD is most commonly expressed through inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity.”
What does ADHD look like?
We’ve come to think of ADHD as something that is best understood on a scale or spectrum. On the one side, we have difficulty sustaining attention and on the other side is hyperactivity and impulsivity. Being inattentive makes it difficult to stay on task, in addition to being forgetful and distracted. On the other hand, having high levels of energy and being impulsive makes it difficult to sit in one place or wait in turn to speak. Someone can also be in the middle of the scale and exhibit aspects of both sides.
What does Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder feel like?
People experience ADHD in a variety of ways that can also change over time. Some will commonly report:
Finding it extremely difficult to focus on unstimulating tasks
Feeling overloaded with ongoing or torrential thoughts
Being nervous of what might have been forgotten
Wandering attention, daydreaming and lost time
How can ADHD impact your life?
Although being overly distractible or excitable (or somewhere in-between) can sound relatively benign, living with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is difficult, for children and adults alike.
“Having ADHD can be frustrating, isolating and emotionally tumultuous.”
Parents might feel like they are constantly needing to address misbehaviour and a family could experience disruptions to routines. ADHD most often emerges for the first time in primary school. As such, teachers will report interruptions, difficulty sitting still and now, more frequently, “tuning out” or daydreaming. As a result, children with ADHD can struggle academically and can develop learning problems although research tends to agree that there is no relationship between ADHD and intelligence. Sometimes our standard teaching practices in classrooms are just not stimulating enough. Therefore, we see learners with ADHD left behind, low in confidence and disinterested.
ADHD can also affect social or relational wellbeing. Being inattentive can make one seem distant or non-caring while being hyperactive and impulsive will sometimes lead people with ADHD to crash through social conventions like turn-taking. For someone with ADHD, feelings of isolation, being misunderstood or even being deemed stupid are sadly quite common. This can make building relationships difficult, especially during childhood. It can result in one feeling socially awkward or like an outsider. Thus, it is believed people with ADHD are at higher risk of experiencing depression and anxiety.
Finally, in some studies, as many as one in four people with ADHD use substances and typically begin using substances earlier than their peers. Being impulsive and having adverse experiences in early childhood will often result in self-medication with substances to cope with unpleasant feelings and is also linked with depression and anxiety.
Treating and Managing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
There are a few options when it comes to treating and managing ADHD. These interventions can be both psychological and pharmacological (treatment with medication) and may be supported by remedial learning and health promoting activity. Good treatment plans involve close monitoring, implementing routines, follow-ups and the willingness to make adjustments where necessary.
“Left untreated, ADHD will negatively impact the individual as well as those around them.”
Identifying ADHD early can help prevent or mitigate some of the social and educational hardships that often occur. Doctors, paediatricians and teachers may refer caregivers to a psychologist for assessment and, if necessary, a treatment programme. This may include consulting with the individual, family and teachers to promote shared understanding and to develop coping strategies. Promoting physical and mental health can have a profoundly positive effect on ADHD. Healthier eating, regular exercise and good sleep hygiene serve as powerful protective factors too. Remedial work or one-on-one tutoring may also be helpful. Psychologists may also suggest psychotherapy (talking-therapy) or refer to a psychiatrist for medication.
ADHD debates
Over-diagnosis
Many people worry that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is over-diagnosed, with some studies showing an increase of 30% in the number of ADHD cases between the years of 2003 and 2011. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 6.4 million children in the world aged 4 to 17 are diagnosed with ADHD and 4.2 million of those take psychostimulants. Some fear the effects that psychoactive drugs will have on children and say that that we risk simply trying to make our learners more compliant, even in instances where their behaviour might be appropriate or expected. On the other hand, ADHD is really tough to face alone. Without a diagnosis and the appropriate support, further issues can develop and become difficult to deal with over time.
“Some worry that ADHD is over-diagnosed and others see it as a different way of being in the world.”
Nuerodiversity
As our knowledge of the brain and its structures has grown, so too have we developed a deeper sensitivity for people with neurological differences like people with ADHD or those on the autism spectrum. There has been an effort to promote the view that diverse neurology is another aspect of human uniqueness and expression, rather than something that makes one inferior. Thinking about neurodiversity in this way has called many to question our everyday practices and assumptions, especially in education. What if the way we currently do education really isn’t stimulating enough? Is there a better, more inclusive way? These questions evidence the value that diversity brings and what we could stand to gain from recognising difference.
You can gain more insight into the many facets of the human experience by studying psychology. SACAP offers a range of courses that can pave the way for a career in psychology, while developing skills that will prove valuable in a variety of other career paths. For more information, enquire now.
Imagine that you live in a village which is threatened with rising sea levels. If you don’t do anything, your home is going to be flooded. You could pool your resources together with other villagers and build a large dam around the entire village to ensure that everyone’s property is safe. Or, if you have enough resources yourself, you could build a smaller dam around your own house, protecting your property — and leaving everyone else to either do the same or try and co-operate without you.
Human societies constantly face similar choices between public and private solutions to pressing issues: think about the provision of healthcare or education, for instance. But only some people can afford to build a dam around their own house, or send their child to a private school. Now a new study in Nature Communications suggests that when group members are able to be self-reliant in this way, the provision of public goods suffers.
Jörg Gross and colleagues at Leiden University recruited 200 participants, who were divided into 50 groups of four to play an economic game. Across a series of rounds, each participant chose how many of their personal “resource points” to invest in both a public and private fund. If the four participants collectively put enough points into the public fund to reach a certain threshold, then they would each be able to keep any of their remaining uninvested points, which could later be converted into real cash (this is like the villagers coming together to invest enough to successfully create a large dam, write the authors).
If the group failed to invest enough to meet the public threshold, then they wouldn’t be protected as a group. But if an individual had put enough points into their private fund, they would still be able to keep their uninvested points (in other words, they had invested enough to complete their own private “dam”). If neither threshold was met, then that person would lose all their uninvested points for the round.
The researchers tweaked a few rules between groups and across the course of the game. In half of the groups, participants each had 90 points at their disposal every round. But in the other half, points were distributed unequally: two participants were given 120 points and two were given just 60. And while the threshold for the public solution was always set at 180 points, the cost of the private one varied between 45 to 75 points, and in some rounds was not even an option.
The team found that when a private solution wasn’t available, the participants worked together, and on nearly 80% of trials successfully invested the 180 points needed for the public solution. This was true whether resources were distributed equally or unequally within the group.
Things changed when there was the possibility of creating a private solution. The cheaper the private solution, the more likely participants were to invest in it, and the less likely groups were to successfully invest in the public alternative. In groups in which resources were distributed unequally, this left the two poorer participants in a tricky place. Remember, these participants had just 60 points each, so were either forced to rely on contributions from the wealthier participants to meet the 180 point threshold for the public solution, or had to spend almost all of their points on the private option (in the rounds where they could afford it). The two wealthier participants, on the other hand, could be much more self-reliant.
Sometimes the wealthier participants did indeed co-operate with their poorer counterparts to create a public solution. But often they made no contributions to public funds at all, particularly when the private solution was cheap. And overall they dedicated a smaller proportion of their resources to the public fund than did the poorer participants.
This all had the knock-on effect of increasing the “wealth gap” between participants. As private options got cheaper, the wealthier, self-reliant participants were able to save more uninvested points to convert into cash. But at the same time, the poorer participants ended up saving fewer uninvested points, presumably because they could no longer depend on there being a public option, and so were forced to spend most of their points on the private solution.
The study shows that groups can co-operate well when they need to, write the authors. But as people amass wealth and are able to be more self-reliant, they become less dependent on the group, which undermines that cooperation. “With increased self-reliance, groups increasingly fail to efficiently create public goods which amplifies wealth inequalities [and] undermines social cohesion,” the team writes.
Of course, a lab-based economic game doesn’t reflect all the nuances of how public and private services work in the real world. Fortunately, people have no choice but to contribute to many public services — healthcare, schools, and so on — through their taxes, even if they opt to use private alternatives themselves. Still, the study lays bare a friction that clearly exists in society— even if the results are not entirely surprising.
Opioids are a specific class of drugs that are known to have neurological and pain reduction properties. When prescribed and used properly, these drugs can have significant, positive impacts in terms of pain reduction. Unfortunately, they can also be extremely addictive, and this makes them a common substance for abuse. Furthermore, opioid abuse can often contribute to an individual eventually turning to illegal and highly dangerous drugs like heroin.
Opioid addiction is a huge problem in the United States, with more than 67,300 Americans dying of an opioid overdose in 2018. However, some areas of the country have a bigger opioid problem than others. The issue is often tied to a state’s economy, with more depressed, changing economies linked with higher levels of opioid abuse and death. However, several treatment programs are available such as:
Medical detox
Residential treatment
Partial hospitalization
Intensive outpatient treatment
Outpatient treatment
Medication assisted treatment
Some of the states that could benefit most from these treatment programs are listed below.
West Virginia
In terms of deaths per 100,000 people, West Virginia is the leader, having lost 42.4 people for every 100,000 of its residents. The opioid problem is particularly acute in West Virginia for many reasons, including its changing economy, older workforce, and relative lack of educational attainment. In response to the crisis, West Virginia has declared opioids to be a public health hazard and developed an extensive plan to fight the disease.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania is next on this list, having lost roughly 35 people per 100,000 to opioids. According to available data, the problem is worse in the state’s rural counties, with four of the top five counties with the highest death rates located in very rural areas. Thankfully, concentrated action is paying off, and opioid deaths are down in large swaths of the state.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire is third on this list and is the most affected state in New England when it comes to opioid abuse. According to available records, New Hampshire lost 33.1 people per 100,000 to opioid abuse. Thankfully, those numbers are down from their peak in 2016.
Ohio
Ohio is another Rust Belt state that has struggled with opioid deaths, having lost 29.6 people per 100,000 to the disease. Ohio’s opioid abuse problem seems to have peaked in 2017, and the numbers have dropped significantly since that time.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts rounds out the top five most severely impacted states when it comes to opioid deaths, with 29.3 people per 100,000 dying in 2018. Unlike other states, Massachusetts actually saw it’s numbers worsen between 2017-2018, though it remains to be seen if this trend will continue.
Thankfully, concentrated action by states, the federal government, and a variety of non-profit actors have helped to reduce opioid deaths and give people a chance at recovery. AOIN Health is one such example of a group that has helped people recover from the physical, mental, and emotional effects ofopioid addiction. AOIN is a recovery center that uses the latest practices and evidence in order to assist its patient’s recovery from their addiction and ultimately lead a better life. They specialize in many areas, including opioid abuse and recovery.
Our weekly round-up of the best psychology coverage from elsewhere on the web
You’ve probably heard tales of people who are suddenly able to speak a language they didn’t know while hypnotised. It goes without saying that the evidence doesn’t really support these claims — but it’s interesting that linguistics seems to attract this sort of pseudoscientific idea. At Knowable Magazine, Charles Q. Choi discusses “fantastic linguistics” with historical linguist Sarah Thomason.
Neuroscientists are increasingly recognising the influence of our internal states, such as heart rate, on our mental processes. Researchers studying “interoception” hope that a better awareness of what’s going on in the body could help people manage symptoms of anxiety and other mental health conditions. João Medeiros has more at Wired.
We tend to place too much value on the ending of an experience, which can bias our view of the experience as a whole, reports Ali Pattillo at Inverse. A recent study found that the brain encodes the overall value of an experience in the amygdala, while dislike of a disappointing ending is represented in the insula. Whether we make good choices or are unduly influenced by the ending of an experience seems to be related to the pattern of activity in those two areas.
In the internet age, pornography is more accessible than ever —and many people have voiced concern about its harmful effects. But what does the research actually say about the consequences of viewing porn? Well, like so much in psychology, the story is complicated. Zoe Cormier explores some of the nuances at BBC Science Focus.
The concept of “wisdom” has a rich history in philosophy and religion — so how do you go about studying it in a scientific fashion? At Aeon, Igor Grossmann discusses the attempts he and colleagues have made to establish a “scientific consensus on the psychological characteristics of wisdom and best practices for its measurement”.
Chimpanzees show a similar pattern of “social ageing” to humans, with the size of their social networks shrinking in older age. And just like us, older chimps also seem to have stronger social bonds than their younger counterparts, reports Ian Sample at The Guardian.
Local lockdown measures are ramping up across various regions of the UK,which once again poses challenges for connecting with our friends and families. At The Conversation, Pascal Vrticka and Philip J. Cozzolino have some psychologically-informed tips for maintaining that feeling of connection at a distance. And of course don’t forget to listen to our recent podcast on the topic as well.
Psychologists have long discussed the idea that there exists a set of “dark” personality traits alongside the more benign Big Five — so much so, in fact, that one team of researchers argued that too much time had been spent pondering the darker side of human nature and that a “Light Triad” was needed to counteract it.
There is also debate around whether such traits — psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and sadism — are stable, or whether they can be induced. The most famous exploration of the question is almost certainly Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment, which claimed that being in a powerful position over others — in this case, acting as a prison guard — could induce sadistic behaviour in apparently non-sadistic people. The experiment’s influence is undeniable; it’s even been made into a film. But it has also been subject to criticism, casting some doubt over the extent of its findings.
Now a new paper in Personality and Individual Differences has joined the conversation, examining whether sadistic tendencies can be induced. The study finds that they can — particularly in people who already have some level of sadistic interest — but leaves a question mark over what that might mean for real world behaviour.
Leonie Themelidis and Jason Davies from Swansea University recruited 322 participants to take part in the study. First, participants completed the Varieties of Sadistic Tendencies measure, in which they rated themselves on various statements measuring the enjoyment of directly sadistic or cruel behaviour (e.g. “I enjoy mocking losers to their face”) and the enjoyment of watching such behaviour without taking part (e.g. “I love YouTube clips of people fighting”).
Next, participants were split into two groups. One group saw 20 images of hands being given accidental or self-inflicted injuries (such as being cut while chopping vegetables), while a control group saw similar images without any depiction of injury. For each picture, participants completed an “empathy rating”, designed to make them think about how the person in the photograph might feel.
Finally, participants filled in another scale designed to screen sadistic personalities, rating on a scale from one to five how much they agreed with statements including “hurting people would be exciting” and “I enjoy seeing people hurt”.
For their analysis, the researchers split the participants into groups depending on whether they had low, medium, or high sadism scores at the beginning of the study. Among people with low scores, those who viewed the images of harm showed very slightly higher levels of sadism at the end of the study compared to those who viewed the control images.
But this effect was much more pronounced in those participants who had higher levels of sadism to begin with, supporting the hypothesis that images of harm can increase sadistic feeling. Female participants also tended to show a greater increase in sadism after viewing the pain pictures compared to males. This suggests that while to some degree sadism remains stable over time, particular states and contexts may increase it to a greater or lesser degree.
Why the images induced sadism, however, is unclear. The team makes two suggestions: that viewing pain was simply enjoyable to those with sadistic traits, or that the pictures triggered an elaborate fantasy or recall process, increasing sadistic feeling.
It’s important not to make too strong a conclusion about what the findings might say about sadistic behaviour. For one, the follow-up measure took place immediately after viewing images of harm, so the increase in feeling experienced by the participants may not endure over time. And the team only measured sadistic feelings and tendencies, so it’s unclear whether this kind of intervention actually produces changes in people’s behaviour. It’s also worth pointing out the scales included questions related to videogames (enjoying watching blood spurt in violent games) and sports (MMA matches) — things that many people enjoy harmlessly with little or no impact on their behaviour. Future research may look into the correlation between sadistic urges and the likelihood of actually harming others.
