A psychological perspective on meditation

The importance of Buddhism within Thai society is reflected virtually everywhere one looks. From ornate Buddhist wats or temples and beautiful images of the Buddha in his traditional poses, to the gracious and peaceful temperament of the Thai people, the influence of Buddhism seems to permeate the culture.

The high degree of respect offered to Buddhist Monks and the reverence accorded Buddhist symbols and rituals are powerful indicators of the continuing influence of this ancient tradition within contemporary Thai society. The central practice of Buddhism, meditation, is practiced on a daily basis by many Thai Buddhists.

The altered physiological and mental states produced by the practice of meditation have been the object of great interest among psychologists over the years. Researchers have extensively studied meditation using devices that measure and record neuroelectric activity in the brain, and modern brain imaging technologies. A summary of the current state of psychological understanding of meditation is presented in this month’s issue of the journal Psychological Bulletin published by the American Psychological Association.

Meditation is viewed by psychologists as a set of practices that can be learned as a means of regulating the body and the mind. Like hypnosis, progressive relaxation, and trance-induction techniques, meditation is used to bring about a state of relaxation and an altered state of consciousness.

Two general styles of meditation have been identified: mindfulness and concentrative techniques. Mindfulness involves allowing one’s thoughts and feelings to occur as they will, while focusing attention on them without judgment or analysis. Concentrative techniques focus the attention upon some sound, image, or sensation. Intense concentration upon the process of breathing is an example of a commonly used concentrative technique.

Researchers make a distinction between a meditative state and a trait. A meditative state refers to the immediate changes in sensations, mental activity, and self-awareness that can occur during the practice of meditation. Trait refers to the more lasting changes in those parameters that remain evident, whether or not the individual is actively meditating at a given time. The regular practice of meditation has been shown to produce both short-term state, and long-term trait effects.

State changes are said to include such things as “…a deep sense of calm peacefulness, a cessation or slowing of the mind's internal dialogue, and experiences of perceptual clarity and conscious awareness merging completely with the object of meditation.” Trait changes include “…a deepened sense of calmness, increased sense of comfort, heightened awareness of the sensory field, and a shift in the relationship to thoughts, feelings, and experience of self.”

A number of psychological benefits have been found to result from training in meditation techniques. For example, meditation has been shown to reduce the negative effects of anxiety and stress upon a person’s psychological and physical functioning. In addition, there is some suggestion that the rigorous, long-term practice involved in meditation training could result in long term changes in the way the central nervous system itself functions. Chemical and hormonal changes could, in turn, bring about beneficial changes in behavioral traits. For example, after exposure to stressors in the laboratory, meditation practitioners have been shown to return more quickly to baseline for measures of heart rate and skin conductance.

Mindfulness meditation training has also been shown to hold promise for clinical practice. Improvement in anxiety, immune functioning, pain, and stress-related skin disorders have all been attributed to the practice of meditation. A form of cognitive therapy which employs mindfulness-meditation training has been used effectively to treat depression.

Those who have practiced meditation over long periods of time are usually quite enthusiastic concerning the value of meditation. In addition to the benefits of relaxation and stress management, they often cite the enhancement of self awareness, understanding, and spiritual growth. As one with limited personal experience using meditation, I must defer to the results of the research and to more experienced practitioners. Perhaps as our knowledge of meditation progresses in the future, we will better understand the scientific basis for the more mystical claims of its most ardent promoters.

Employee control over work provides dividends to both employer and employee

How much control do you have over your work? Can you determine when, where, and how you perform your job? Do you have the authority to change aspects of the workplace that need changing?

Your answers to these questions have important implications for your well-being. There is persuasive evidence in the psychological literature that the experience of control over one’s work environment can reduce stress and fatigue, and enhance motivation and personal growth. Likewise, the lack of employee control can have negative consequences for both employer and employee.

The experience of control has long been recognized as being an important factor in helping people deal with stress. Compared to workers with a high degree of control, those perceiving low control typically experience more exhaustion after work, trouble awakening in the morning, depression, nervousness, anxiety, and insomnia or disturbed sleep. These findings led psychologist Robert Karasek to propose the demand/control model hypothesis, which predicts that the most unpleasant psychological reactions occur when job demands (the need to work quickly and hard) are high, and the worker's ability to make decisions is low.

Workers who experience low control over work conditions are not only at risk for depression, exhaustion, and job dissatisfaction. For those of us unlucky enough to be in a low-control workplace, there is new evidence of increased health risks. Low control over work has most recently been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, poor health functioning, and absenteeism due to illness.

The relationship between employee control and occupational stress has not gone unnoticed by progressive-minded employers, and for good reason. Workers who experience emotional distress or reduced health functioning can negatively affect the corporate bottom line through lowered work efficiency, absenteeism, and high employee turnover. Accordingly, some employers have begun looking for ways to give workers a greater sense of control as a means of improving employee health, morale, and productivity.

Ford Motor Company, for example, has instituted a team-based approach in many of its manufacturing operations. This model allows employees to assume much greater control over their work. Whereas the conventional approach is for employees to simply follow directions from their supervisors, under Ford’s new system employees have the ability to resolve quality issues with parts suppliers, and take other actions independently to improve work conditions and product quality.

An even more progressive means of allowing employees control over their work is known as “telework.” Telework allows employees the ability to choose the time or place that best allows them to accomplish their work duties in an effective and efficient manner. As you might guess, many employees choose their home as the preferred place to work. Obviously, certain occupations would seem more conducive to telework than others. Many solitary activities, such as writing, typing, and tasks performed at a telephone or computer terminal would appear readily adaptable to telework. I would probably not like it, however, if my physician chose to do his work from his home.

One interesting aspect of the literature on control is the fact that it is the belief in control that is essential in determining our responses to situations. Implicit in this finding is the fact that we always have the ability to increase our belief in, and experience of control. The idea is not that we should delude ourselves into believing that we have control where we don’t. Rather, we have the ability to focus attention on those aspects of our work situation over which we do have control, while ignoring those aspects over which we have little or no control.

There are also ways to lessen the impact of unpleasant situations over which we determine we have no control. We can, for example, view an undesirable situation as temporary, one that might improve on its own in the future, or one we might better control in the future. Another method is to change our perspective on the situation. A snake may seem dangerous and threatening when thought of in a certain way. However that same snake may also be viewed as a creature of exquisite beauty, an object of tremendous interest and fascination. It’s not so much the situation that’s critical. It’s how we perceive it.

Finally, it can be empowering to consider that even when we can’t change an unpleasant workplace situation, we always have the option of removing ourselves from the situation, of changing to a different work setting. Although one might legitimately choose to remain in a low control situation, simply realizing the availability of other options can enhance one’s perception of control, in theory, reducing the risk of emotional distress and stress-related ailments.

Is your workplace “psychologically healthy?”

Have you ever thought about how aspects of your work environment might be affecting your psychological health? Perhaps there were times that you felt that your job was draining you of energy or making you “crazy.” On the other hand, if you are fortunate, you may have felt that your work situation was invigorating, making a substantial contribution to the quality of your life, to your ultimate fulfillment.

There is now a large body of research indicating how policies and practices in the workplace can have a dramatic impact upon the psychological health, performance and productivity of employees. As a result, some organizations have made it a priority to provide innovative programs designed to have a favorable impact upon their employees’ mental and emotional health.

Experts in the field have identified five categories of psychologically healthy workplace practices: employee involvement; health and safety; employee growth and development; work-life balance; and employee recognition. Workplaces that institute practices that positively impact upon these areas have been shown to provide positive benefits to both the employer and employee.

Employees who are consulted by management and involved in decision making processes usually feel more empowered in their work. Toward this end, some organizations have instituted self-managed work teams, or engaged in participative decision making with employees. Providing structured opportunities for suggestions and input from employees is another way of increasing employee involvement.

Obviously, employees have lives and responsibilities apart from their work. Employers can promote the psychological health of their workers by helping them balance the competing demands of their lives. For example, some organizations allow flexible work arrangements, such as flextime and telecommuting. Some offer childcare and eldercare for employees’ family members. Programs like these can make a big difference for employees trying to balance the demands of work and their private lives.

Another way of encouraging psychological health in the workplace is to provide regular opportunities for employees to upgrade their job related knowledge and skills. Employers can promote this by offering regular workplace in-services, tuition reimbursement, leadership development, career development and counseling programs. By offering opportunities for educational advancement, organizations can better attract and retain high quality employees.

Companies can also provide programs to promote the physical health and safety of their workers. For example, a mental health organization for which I once worked used to provide CPR training, workplace safety, accident prevention, and fire-fighting instructions to all of its employees on a regular basis. Some organizations offer their employees programs to help them quit smoking, increase cardiovascular fitness, or reduce weight. Health and safety programs can result in greater productivity and reductions in healthcare costs, absenteeism and accident/injury rates.

Management recognition of employees for outstanding contributions to the organization can also go a long way toward promoting a psychologically healthy workplace. Employee contributions can be recognized through monetary forms, such as fair monetary compensation, attractive benefits packages, performance-based bonuses and pay increases. Non-monetary forms of recognition, such as employee awards and recognition ceremonies can also be useful.

Communication obviously plays a vital role in any organization. Ideally, communication should flow freely from the bottom of the organization up to the top management, as well as from the top to the bottom. Some organizations provide regular on-going opportunities for employees to provide feedback to management through surveys, town hall meetings, focus groups, and an organizational culture that supports open communication.

Organizational policies and programs that promote a psychologically healthy workplace pay dividends to the organization, as well as the individual. Individuals within organizations that provide for employees’ psychological health typically report greater job satisfaction, higher morale, and a stronger commitment to the organization. Corporate attention to employees psychological health have also demonstrated increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, and reduced employee turnover. In fact, research has demonstrated that, all things being equal, an organization that makes the psychological health of its workers a priority is more likely have a healthy bottom line than one that doesn’t.

Why does a lapse in smoking cessation so often lead to a relapse?

A friend of mine was a heavy smoker for many years. He had attempted to quit on several occasions; actually did quit several times, only to eventually resume smoking. Each relapse began with the smoking of a single cigarette. That cigarette would invariably be followed by another, and another, until something resembling his previous smoking pattern had become reestablished.

My friend’s experience is not unusual. Research indicates that as many as 9 out of 10 smokers who attempt to quit, resume regular smoking within one year. Each relapse, of course, begins with the smoking of a one or more cigarettes in what might be considered a lapse, or a slip. The vast majority of individuals experiencing such a lapse subsequently resumes a regular pattern of smoking.

Researchers have reported that from 79% to 97% of those experiencing a smoking lapse subsequently continue smoking. Why is it that so many of those attempting to quit resume smoking following a lapse? Why do so few overcome what could conceivably be a temporary setback? Does a lapse itself directly cause a relapse, or does it set in motion other factors that increase the probability of a relapse? A study published this month in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology published by the American Psychological Association casts light upon these issues.

Various theories have suggested a number of different mechanisms that may operate when a smoker attempting to quit experiences a lapse. A “pharmacological” explanation proposes that a lapse exposes the person to the effects of an addictive substance, in this case, nicotine, which reinstates a strong craving, thus motivating attempts to acquire more of the drug.

There is also believed to be an effect produced by “nonpharmacological” factors. It has been shown in animal studies that cues associated with a drug that are presented during a lapse can increase the animal’s motivation to reacquire the drug. The appearance of the cigarette itself, the feel of the cigarette between the fingers or the lips, the ritual of lighting up, and the taste and odor of smoke are examples of some of the stimuli associated with smoking.

A third explanation involves so-called “cognitive and affective” reactions, thoughts and emotions which occur as a result of a lapse. According to this idea, a person who experiences a lapse responds with negative thoughts and feelings that undermine his success at quitting. For example, a person who lapses might prematurely conclude that he has failed to kick the habit. He might further label himself a failure, experience feelings of guilt, and depression. These thoughts and feelings promote a resumption of smoking.

Psychologist Laura Juliano of American University and her colleagues at Johns Hopkins conducted a study to in an attempt to illuminate the role of a lapse in promoting a smoking relapse. Smokers were recruited to take part in a “practice quit attempt,” rather than a stop-smoking program. All participants were instructed to quit smoking for 4 days. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Following the 4 days of abstinence from smoking those in two of the groups were instructed to lapse by smoking five cigarettes provided by the experimenter. Those in one of these groups lapsed by smoking cigarettes containing the usual amount of nicotine. The other group was provided “denicotinized” cigarettes, containing negligible amount of the drug. A third group was not induced to lapse.

Subjects were monitored for a period of six days following their “lapse” (or no lapse) to determine how long it would take for them to spontaneously resume smoking. Results showed that those in the nicotine and denicotinized conditions did not differ in any significant way from one another. At the end of six days 45% of the nicotine group and 40% of the denicotinized group were still abstaining. This suggests that exposure to nicotine following smoking cessation might not be an important factor affecting relapse.

Compared to the two lapse groups, the no lapse group fared significantly better. At the end of the six days of follow-up 70% of those who had not been induced by the experimenter to lapse were still abstaining from cigarettes. This finding supports the idea that conditioning, cognitive, and emotional factors may play a critical role in influencing people to relapse following a lapse in smoking cessation.

The finding that nicotine in cigarette smoke did not play an important role in the lapse to relapse process provides greater insight into the process by which many smokers fail in their attempt to abstain from smoking. As a clearer understanding of the elements of smoking relapse emerges from psychological studies like this one, clinical and health psychologists will be better able to design effective treatments to prevent the progression so many smokers make from lapse to relapse.

The controversial concept of IQ

Have you ever taken an intelligence or “IQ” test? Many of us have taken IQ tests at some point during our school experiences. Occasionally “pop psychology” IQ tests appear in popular magazines. These days you can even find IQ tests on the internet. Are IQ tests valid measures of intelligence? Perhaps more to the point, what is intelligence? Is there such a thing, really?

The notion of intelligence begins with the observation that we humans seem to differ from one another in our ability to perform various mental tasks. At one extreme we find that a relatively small percentage of people demonstrate remarkably high levels of performance of complex and sophisticated tasks. Some individuals perform amazing mental feats which demonstrate remarkable innovation, creativity and/or ingenuity.

At the other extreme, we find an equally small minority of people labeled as “mentally retarded” who have difficulty performing the most basic tasks necessary for their own safety and survival. They usually have difficulty learning to read and write. They seem incapable of understanding abstract concepts, or using language in a way most of us do. They may even have trouble performing so-called “motor tasks” involving complex movement and coordination.

Artists, creative writers, talented musicians, brilliant scientists, skilled athletes, and others seem to have an abundance of something which seems in shorter supply within the general population. By comparison, others seem to be severely lacking in that same something. Most of us seem to have it in various quantities in between. That “something” is what psychologists refer to as intelligence.

Sir Francis Galton, the cousin of the famous Charles Darwin, was the first to devise tests of intelligence over a century ago. Since then, psychologists have attempted to further develop and refine IQ tests. Whether our modern IQ tests are measuring what they purport to measure is an open question among today’s psychologists. The nature of intelligence and our methods of measuring it are issues that have been hotly debated over the years. A hundred years after Galton, the controversy is still not settled.

There is a strange truth to the circular definition of intelligence provided by the psychologist E.G. Boring; “Intelligence is whatever it is that IQ tests measure.” Since intelligence cannot be observed directly, we are left to infer its existence and measurement from a person’s performance on a test. A test simply provides a sample of behavior. Since intelligence is conceived to be something other than behavior, we are left to wonder whether it is really intelligence we are measuring. This is a question about the validity of IQ tests.

Psychologists have tried to establish the validity of IQ tests by measuring the relationship between measures of IQ and other tests measuring things like aptitude, achievement, and cognitive abilities. When they find a strong relationship or correlation with such measures, they usually feel more confident in the validity of the IQ test. Other psychologists consider IQ tests to actually be measures of achievement, reflecting more about knowledge gained, as opposed to actual abilities. That would also explain their strong correlation with measures of achievement.

The disagreements don’t stop there. Those psychologists who do believe in IQ generally do not agree on a theory of intelligence. Some believe in a single “general intelligence” factor, dubbed “g” by the psychologist Charles Spearman. The idea is that a person could be determined to be generally bright or generally dull, according to the amount of “g” he or she has available. Furthermore, special intelligence factors, called “s” are proposed to have affects on particular abilities.

Other psychologists have proposed that, rather than a general factor, intelligence consists of a combination of primary abilities that can individually vary from person to person. Louis Thurston suggested seven such factors. Other investigators have proposed that intellectual abilities can be represented by anywhere from 20 to 150 factors.

One of the most controversial issues concerning intelligence has come from who have tried to find IQ differences among different “races.” Because high intelligence is highly valued by our societies, some have tried to suggest that racial superiority could be demonstrated using IQ tests. The main problem with this approach is that the notion of “race” is not a scientific concept, but rather a social one (see last week’s Psychological Perspectives for more on that). Also, IQ tests have been demonstrated to be culturally biased, meaning that they do not measure the same thing among culturally distinct people.

There is a funny story about a man waiting at a bus stop who encounters a mother with a small child. “My, what a lovely child you have!” says the man. “Oh, don’t go by that,” replies the woman. “You should see her photographs!” Some treat IQ scores like that. The usefulness of IQ derives from its ability to make predictions about future behavior. We make a mistake when we treat the scores as more important than the person whose behavior they are intended to predict.