A final perspective

As a rule, we humans seem naturally drawn to learning about what makes us tick. Issues of human behavior, thoughts, and emotions form the subject matter of psychology. Topics such as intelligence, creativity, human sexuality, relationships, abnormal behavior, personality traits, interpersonal attraction, success, and happiness grab our attention; pique our curiosity to learn about ourselves and others.

Popular theories pertaining to human behavior permeate our culture. We are taught that if you build your self-esteem you will be happy and successful; men are from Mars, women are from Venus; and you are the product of your childhood experiences. Pseudo-psychological notions like these often capture the public’s imagination and become accepted uncritically by our societies. Unfortunately, such theories often have little or no empirical support.

It’s not that authoritative information isn’t available. At this moment, thousands of psychological research projects are underway around the world. Each month perhaps thousands of reports and monographs are published in hundreds of peer-reviewed psychological journals, revealing the latest information from the greatest researchers and theorists in the field. The problem is that this information is often written in a very technical language that is inaccessible to all but the specialist. It remains largely out of public awareness.

It has been my goal over the past ninety-one weeks to highlight some of the more interesting ideas from the field of psychology, particularly those of topical and local interest to the Pattaya community, and present them in an entertaining and accessible way to you, the Pattaya Mail reader. I hope that to some degree I have succeeded.

This column will be the last in this series. I will soon be leaving Asian University where I have taught for the past 8 years, to take on a challenging new position as an EAP (Employee Assistance Program) counselor for an American company that employs over 60,000 people in 43 countries around the world. I will be providing mental health services to company employees on location in war torn Iraq.

I might not have taken such a seemingly hazardous position, were it not for Bill C. a friend of mine and former coworker from my days as a struggling graduate student in the 1980s. Bill has been in Iraq doing EAP work since January. He has patiently answered my many questions about security, living conditions, job satisfaction, etc. His support and reassurance has made it much easier for me to take this plunge.

For those readers who have enjoyed this column and would like to learn more about psychology, I recommend the website of the American Psychological Association, www.apa.org for helpful information and links to other psychology-related resources on the web.

For those interested in keeping up with my personal experiences and perspectives on events in Iraq (that’s you, Mom), you can visit my weblog, Iraq Chronicles, at http://iraq-chronicles.blogspot.com/ where I hope to keep a periodic narrative of my future activities, as my time allows.

For my part, no matter where I roam, I will always be a part of the Pattaya community. My family and I will continue to maintain our home here, and I hope to visit as often as I can. While I’m away, I plan to keep track of local events by reading the Pattaya Mail online edition, of course!

My warmest thanks go out to my proofreaders: James C., George, and especially, Marisa for routinely extending her work-week into Friday night in order to provide comments on my last minute writings. Best wishes to Dan, Peter, and the Pattaya Mail staff, my readers, my students, and to my friends at Asian University.

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.

The meaning of race

As far back as I can remember I have always identified myself as a member of the “White” race. I don’t recall specifically how I came to think in those terms. It might have been while filling out one of those standardized test forms in school. Perhaps Sister Beatrice, my kindergarten teacher, instructed me to blacken the “White” or “Caucasian” balloon on the form with my number two pencil. Perhaps it was my mother or father who taught me that I am “White.” I don’t remember.

No one ever provided me with a definition of “White.” Like most such concepts, I learned to recognize different races through my experiences. Most of the people I knew, my family and friends, were “White.” Other darker-skinned people I saw while growing up in New Orleans, I would learn, were “Black.” I think the other categories were “Asian,” “Hispanic,” “Pacific Islander,” and “Other.” I didn’t know any of those, although I probably first learned to recognize them from TV and the movies.

Like most people, I originally assumed that “race” was a scientific classification, indicating distinctions that could be made at a biological level. It was only much later that I began to realize that the concept of race was problematic. It is now clear that “race” is a concept that was invented by our human societies. It actually has no basis in biology. The research bearing on this surprising conclusion was reviewed by Yale University researchers Robert Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko, and Kenneth Kidd in the January issue of American Psychologist, published by the American Psychological Association.

Scientists generally accept that all of us humans are descendants of humans who first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some time around 100,000 years ago, small numbers of people began migrating out of Africa and into southwestern Asia. The descendants of that non-African population are now believed to have migrated further, over subsequent tens of thousands of years, to eventually populate all continents and habitable regions of the world.

Over many thousands of years, populations living in relative isolation from one another changed for various reasons. Some of the changes were cultural, such as developing different foods and different clothing. Some of the changes, of course, were genetic.

Sometimes changes occurred as a result of Darwinian natural selection, meaning that those with gene patterns providing some advantage for survival or reproduction would, in time, become more prevalent. Other changes could occur randomly through genetic mutations, and also through a mechanism known as “random genetic drift.” Interbreeding within groups would also, over time, result in members of those groups becoming more and more similar to one another, and less similar to groups more geographically distant.

Obviously, differences in skin color are based in the genes. Sternberg and his colleagues insist, however, that “there is nothing special about skin color that serves as a basis for differentiating humans into so-called races.” That’s because if you identify any two groups of people that are different in one way, you can naturally find a cluster of ways in which they are different. For example, it has been noticed that groups who have survived over many generations in cold climates, such as Eskimos, tend to have rounded bodies, which are better suited for conserving heat. On the other hand, some populations that survive in hot climates, such as the Masai, have lanky bodies. A high ratio of surface area to volume, it is argued, permits better heat radiation, allowing such individuals to remain cooler.

Using our current racial classification systems, lanky and rounded people are viewed as representing two kinds of members of the Black and White races. It would, however, be just as reasonable to decide that classification of races should be done on the basis of lanky, versus rounded bodies, resulting in Black and White members of the lanky and rounded races. One could then identify certain genetic patterns that correspond to lankiness and roundedness, just as we could find genetic patterns corresponding to different skin colors.

Interestingly, we don’t speak of different “races” of, say moths, based upon differences in coloration within a given species. According to some, the concept of “race” is used by humans exclusively to classify human populations in order to create social divisions that are beneficial to the majority or ruling classes. Also, different racial classification systems are commonly found in different places and times. There is no universal agreement concerning a method of racial classification, nor can there be.

Human societies will probably always make racial distinctions. We categorize things quite naturally, it seems, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Racial categories often serve as a source of pride and personal identity. Unfortunately, racial classifications are too often used as a basis for discrimination against groups of people, even genocide. Perhaps as our societies come to grips with the fact that race is a social, rather than scientific construct, we will become less tolerant of such injustices.

Sexual dysfunction, like sexual enjoyment, is psychological in nature

At its best, sexual activity is one of the most powerfully enjoyable and satisfying human experience available. Likewise, when sexual problems develop, it can become a source of emotional distress and unhappiness like no other.

With the current widespread availability of modern medical remedies for sexual dysfunction, such as Viagra and Cialis, it is easy to forget that psychological processes typically play an essential role in problems involving sexual performance and satisfaction. A study appearing this month in the International Journal of Stress Management published by the American Psychological Association underscores the importance of “performance anxiety” in the development and maintenance sexual difficulties.

Experts have traditionally divided the human sexual response into four stages: desire, arousal, orgasm, and resolution. While problems could occur in any of these four stages, the first three appear particularly prone to the development of sexual dysfunction. Problems which appear initially in one phase may progress to affect another phase or phases of the sexual response cycle.

A person who experiences a problem in the desire phase typically experiences a lack of interest in having sex. He or she might not experience sexual thoughts or fantasies, and would be unlikely to initiate sexual activities.

A man experiencing difficulty with the arousal phase, as one might guess, would have difficulty achieving or maintaining an erection, making it difficult to engage in sexual intercourse. A woman would experience difficulty with the physiological responses which are needed to prepare her for sexual intercourse, such as the increased secretion of vaginal lubrication.

Problems in the orgasm phase are experienced by men as premature ejaculation, ejaculating too soon; or retarded ejaculation, taking too long to ejaculate. The female counterpart is known as inorgasmia, or having difficulty achieving orgasm.

Difficulty achieving orgasm is not rare among females, as I have pointed out here previously, and is not necessarily an indication of sexual dysfunction. In fact, as the pioneer sex researcher Alfred Kinsey demonstrated, sexual behavior is generally so diverse in its human manifestations that abnormality can in no way be considered a sign of pathology. Clinical psychologists often find it useful to consider emotional disturbance as a useful indicator for treatment, rather than targeting some sexual behavior that happens to fall outside of the mainstream.

Psychological problems may occur as a consequence of sexual dysfunction, and/or contribute to the development sexual dysfunction. Experts believe that performance anxiety plays an important role in the development of sexual dysfunction, particularly among men, although women with orgasmic dysfunction may also experience performance anxiety.

Sexual dysfunction may occur for any number of reasons; including problems in the relationship, attitudes toward sex, drugs or alcohol, anxiety, stress, fatigue, etc. A man who has experienced difficulty achieving an erection might subsequently entertain concerns over whether or not he will be able to achieve a sufficiently strong erection to permit sexual intercourse. Experts propose that performance anxiety may occur as a result of efforts at “willing” an erection, rather than permitting it to occur naturally as a product of sexual enjoyment. Anxiety may be increased with thoughts of imagined dire consequences of failing to perform adequately. Losing his erection at the point of vaginal penetration, when it is most needed, could serve to reinforce a man’s fears, increasing his anxiety level further.

Similarly, a woman who has difficulty experiencing orgasm might begin to entertain thoughts that her partner might become tired, and lose interest in continuing the session. She might excessively monitor her own arousal level, and feel an urgent need to experience an orgasm in order to satisfy her partner. She may, likewise, imagine dire consequences of not responding as she believes she should. The resulting anxiety interferes with her sexual enjoyment, and on and on in a vicious cycle.

Psychological treatment for sexual dysfunction typically aims at reducing the person’s anxiety level by identifying and changing the thought patterns implicated in contributing to the problem. Building a warm and mutually supportive alliance between the partners also can’t hurt. If each partner can learn to give and receive unconditional acceptance of the other during lovemaking, anxiety levels can diminish, and performance and enjoyment can increase. Just as they can interfere with sexual excitement, psychological factors can also enhance enjoyment, thus contributing positively to a couple’s relationship.

Why are men both attracted to and threatened by sexually attractive women?

Psychologists, as well as social commentators from other professional backgrounds have long noticed an interesting paradox: Men celebrate yet disparage, pursue yet fear sexually appealing women. Perhaps nowhere is this paradox more aptly represented than in Pattaya’s sex industry. Here men pay money for the sexual favors of mainly women, while the activities of those same women are socially denigrated, even criminalized by laws written by men.

Men’s ambivalence toward women is certainly not confined to this particular activity, place and time. References to the dangerous and deceitful nature of women can be found in folklore, religious texts, and other writings from the earliest civilizations. Noteworthy examples are the feminine mythical characters, Pandora and Eve, through whom evil and suffering were first introduced into human history. The Sirens of Homer’s Odyssey were powerfully seductive, yet harbingers of death and ruin, an attractive force to be avoided at all cost.

Women have suffered greatly as a result of these attitudes. Women who violate societal rules against sexual taboos typically face much more severe sanctions than do men. The vast majority of individuals identified and executed as witches during the 17th century in New England, U.S. were women. Many cultures continue to practice the barbaric act of female circumcision. Infibulation, a similar practice performed in some cultures, removes the clitoris and stitches the vagina closed until marriage.

The reason for this curious ambivalence by men toward women and sex is the subject of a report appearing this month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published by the American Psychological Association. The team of researchers led by psychologist Mark Landau of the University of Arizona proposes that negative reactions experienced by heterosexual men toward sexual impulses and attractive women could be explained by Greenburg, Pyszcynski, and Solomon’s “terror management theory,” (TMT).

The central claim of TMT is that we humans, like other creatures, have a basic impulse to avoid threats to our survival. In doing so, we primarily rely upon our superior intellectual abilities. The sex act, according to this line of thinking, by its nature, is a reminder of our animal heritage, our vulnerability, our mortality. Because reminders of our inevitable death tend to stir feelings of anxiety within us, our societies have developed ways of thinking to counteract these disturbing emotions.

One method we have discovered to relieve these unpleasant feelings is to elevate the sex act above the purely physical plane, to associate sexual activity with lofty values that are uniquely human, such as spirituality and romantic love. Furthermore, we suppress our natural biologically driven sexual inclinations through social, legal, and religious rules and taboos intended to govern when, where, and under what circumstances our sexuality is properly expressed.

To test this theory, the authors conducted five innovative studies to evaluate various predictions generated by TMT. Results tended to support the notion that concerns about mortality play a role in the negative attitudes of heterosexual men toward sexual attraction and women. For example, when men were presented with reminders of their mortality, they exhibited decreased interest in and sexual attraction toward women who inspired lust. As predicted, no such decrease in attraction was found for women who were presented as chaste and wholesome. No such patterns were found among women.

Obviously, men are not a homogenous group, and individual men are likely to experience varying levels of ambivalence toward sexuality and women. Missing from this analysis is an examination of the worldviews and attitudes of self- and other-acceptance of men with particularly healthy attitudes toward women.

It would be interesting to discover what attitudes and values would allow men to accept their sexual impulses and sexually exciting women independently of the romantic and spiritual associations, or the socially generated sanctions which are currently in place. If TMT holds true, one would predict that men who are more attuned and accepting of their mortality and animal nature would experience less ambivalence toward sexual attraction and sexually provocative women. Future psychological research will, no doubt, cast further light upon this interesting question.

Psychologists’ evolving understanding of the development of phobias

My nine year-old son Joseph has an overwhelming fear of dogs. In the language of psychology, he has a phobia, an intense and irrational fear of a specific object, resulting in avoidance of the object. This became painfully obvious recently when my family and I attended a party for Asian University students at the home of the University Vice President for Administrative Affairs Khun Panit.

During the course of the evening, a small, extremely active, yet obviously friendly and harmless dog was scampering about on Khun Panit’s front lawn, endearing himself to all of the guests; all, that is, except Joseph. Initially, Joseph took steps to avoid the dog. Following a few close encounters, however, it became clear that he could not maintain a comfortable distance between himself and the animal. Eventually, Joseph began crying hysterically, eventually prompting us to leave the party a bit prematurely.

As we were leaving, one of my psychology students asked me if Joseph had had a previous traumatic experience with dogs. I replied that, to my knowledge, he had not, although his eleven year-old brother Michael had recently been bitten by a stray. The dog bite had made it necessary for Michael to undergo a series of unpleasant injections to prevent rabies. Surprisingly, Michael continues to show no signs of fear or apprehension when in the presence of strange dogs. Joseph’s fear, however, appeared long before Michael’s unfortunate experience. Why, then, would Joseph develop a phobia, while Michael would not?

The traditional psychological explanation, originally proposed by the behaviorist John Watson in 1920, suggests that phobias result when a traumatic event becomes associated with a neutral stimulus, like an object or place. In the classic experiment, Watson repeatedly exposed his subject, “Little Albert” to the frightening sound of a loud noise while the child was in the presence of a white rat. As a result, Little Albert developed a fear of the rat, as well as other objects resembling the rat. Watson referred to this as conditioned fear.

Many people with phobias can, in fact, trace their fear to some traumatic event. Like my son Michael, however, many people exposed to traumatic events do not develop a phobia. Watson’s theory concerning the development of phobias fails to explain the development of a phobia in one who, like Joseph, had never been exposed to trauma, or the absence of a phobia in one who, like Michael, had experienced trauma.

In the January 2006 issue of the journal American Psychologist published by the American Psychological Association, psychologists Susan Mineka and Richard Zinbarg reviewed contemporary research which offers a better understanding of how anxiety disorders like phobias develop. Essentially, they propose that there are individual differences in peoples’ susceptibility to developing phobias. These differences could be produced by genetic variations among individuals, as well as by differences in life experiences.

The authors cited research indicating that genetic factors can produce variations in what they call “trait anxiety,” an enduring tendency some people have to be a bit more nervous or high-strung than average. There is evidence that high trait anxiety, in turn, can affect the speed and strength of conditioning. Likewise, timid or excessively shy toddlers have been shown to be more prone to developing phobias than more outgoing youngsters. In this view, genetically produced personality factors could account for differences in people’s susceptibility to the development of phobias. Indeed, Michael is the more outgoing of my sons; Joseph is a bit more anxious and shy.

In addition to genetics, life experiences can also affect people’s susceptibility the development of phobias, for better or worse. For example, children who had experienced more nontraumatic visits to the dentist’s office were less likely to develop dental anxiety in response to dental trauma than children with fewer nontraumatic encounters. Thus, it appears that previous exposures to a potentially fearful object or situation could serve to “inoculate” an individual against the development of a phobia.

Similarly, other life experiences could affect people’s susceptibility to the development of phobias following traumatic experiences. Children raised in households in which they experience greater control over their environments, for example, show less fear when confronted by potentially frightening events, compared to children raised with less of a sense of control.

Again, our own family experiences lend some support to developments in learning theory emerging from the research literature. Michael spent the first three years of his life in our household in the U.S. with our pet dog Pancho. At two years of age, he was leading Pancho around on a leash. He would abuse the poor dog mercilessly, and Pancho would take it.

Shortly after Joseph’s birth, however, we were forced to give Pancho away in preparation for our move to Thailand. Joseph had none of Michael’s early experiences of having a pet in the home, and of mastering the animal. It seems plausible, therefore, that different experiences like these, in concert with their different personalities, could help account for the boys’ remarkably contrasting susceptibility to developing a fear of dogs later in life.

The psychology of worry

"There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power of our will."

Epictetus

When it comes to worrying, my wife and I have a mutual understanding: She is to do all the worrying, and I am to let her. If you were to ask her why she worries so much, she would say it’s because she has to do the worrying for two people.

Worry is a common human response to challenge and uncertainty. The word “worry” is not a technical or well-defined psychological term, but it is probably related to the emotional state known as anxiety. Not all worry is considered undesirable and to be avoided, however. A distinction can be made between a healthy concern, leading to preparation for a challenging event, and less healthy nervousness or anxiety which serves no useful function. The distinction rests upon whether or not the emotion is helpful in achieving some desired outcome.

It is well established that nervousness or anxiety can, under certain circumstances, enhance a performance of a task. Research in sports psychology, for example, suggests that there is an optimal level of physiological arousal or anxiety, which leads to improvement in players’ performances. Too much or too little arousal can interfere with performance. Skilled coaches know how to manipulate athletes’ levels of arousal in such a way as to optimize their performance.

Likewise, many performers, such as actors and musicians admit to experiencing nervousness or anxiety, sometimes called “stage fright” before a public performance. Effective performers are able to use this experience to their advantage, creating an edge to their performance. Others may feel overwhelmed by nervousness and anxiety, so much so, that they avoid performing. Many people, for example, experience a debilitating fear of public speaking, and refuse to speak before a group.

Worry can sometimes present as a passive mental activity which is unpleasant and unproductive. This type of worry is characterized by the phrase, “spinning your wheels.” Worrying is sometimes performed as habit, a ritual to ward off undesirable events. Some people experience repetitive, unwanted, and intrusive thoughts called obsessions. These are often disturbing, and can interfere with normal functioning.

According to cognitive behavior theory advanced by psychologists like Albert Ellis, emotions like anxiety are intimately associated with our thoughts or self-statements, the conversation which goes on inside our heads. Rational thoughts are associated with healthy, adaptive emotions and effective behavior. Irrational thoughts are associated with disturbing, emotions and ineffective behavior.

Faced with the challenge of having to give a public speech, for example, I can disturb myself by thinking, “I must do well. I must not make a mistake or say something stupid. If I do, the audience will not approve of me. If the audience does not approve of me, it proves I am stupid and worthless.”

Thinking in this way would likely have the effect of increasing my anxiety level to a point at which I am unable to perform at my best, consequently increasing the probability of a screw-up during my speech.

If, on the other hand, I think more rationally, my self-talk might go something like this: “I hope to do well; however, being human, it is not out of the question that I could make a mistake, even say something stupid. It is even possible the audience will not approve of me. But if I don’t perform well, as I prefer, it’s still all right. Likewise, I would prefer to receive the audience’s approval, but if I don’t get it, that’s OK. My worth is not affected. Through the experience, I can, nevertheless, improve my speaking skills and perhaps perform better in the future.

Thinking in this way would likely have a calming effect, reducing my anxiety, and in the process, decreasing my chance of making a serious blunder. In the likely event I do make a mistake, or perform below my standard, I can recover quickly and generally offer a better performance than I would in a heightened state of anxiety.

The good news, I suppose, is that we have a great deal of control over our thoughts. Even though much of our thinking is done rather automatically, with practice we can learn to recognize irrational, unhealthy thinking that is associated with disturbed emotions. By disputing and changing that type of thinking, we can change disturbed, unhelpful emotions to more appropriate ones that are more compatible with effective behavior.

But don’t tell this to my wife. We have this mutual understanding…

Establishing norms of privacy in an era of surveillance technology: A role for psychologists

One morning a couple of years ago my family and I awoke to the shocking realization that intruders had broken into our home and entered the very rooms where we lay asleep.

Although we lost several items of significant material and sentimental value in the burglary, I believe the most disturbing aspect of the crime was the feeling that my family and I had been violated, that we had suffered a loss of privacy and security. It would be months before we would again begin to feel safe and secure within our own home.

People generally place great value on privacy. It is one of those commodities we tend to take for granted. Who among us wants strangers snooping through our private belongings, reading our correspondence, listening in on our phone calls, watching us, intruding upon our personal life? We Americans, however, recently learned that our government is engaged in just that sort of snooping.

Americans, it seems, are a very forgiving people, at least with regard to the errant behavior of our president. The limits of our willingness to forgive and forget, however, appear to have been severely tested by recent revelations of electronic eavesdropping on American citizens, authorized by President Bush in 2002, and without the legal safeguards established to monitor and control such intrusions. Out of the array of issues facing the Bush presidency, it is interesting that the issue of privacy would finally be the one that produces a broad bipartisan public outcry and demands for the investigation and reigning in of presidential powers.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was established to protect the people of our country from unreasonable searches. Searches are generally considered reasonable only if they are conducted pursuant to a warrant which has been issued by a court based upon probable cause. If an activity is not a search, it is not governed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the question of what constitutes a search becomes very important.

Originally the word “search” was considered to necessarily involve a physical intrusion into some place. It eventually became apparent that emerging technologies like telephone “bugs” provided means of conducting surveillance that did not necessarily involve a physical intrusion.

In a 1967 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that what an individual "seeks to preserve as private" is to be afforded constitutional protection, regardless of whether a physical intrusion is involved. In the words of the court, the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places." In order to be protected, the individual must 1) have an expectation of privacy, and 2) this expectation must be considered reasonable by society.

This determination by the Court has raised questions for psychologists to address: What do individuals seek to preserve as private, and what privacy expectations does society consider to be reasonable?

Psychologists have identified some of the variables that influence people’s perceptions of the degree of intrusiveness of surveillance activities. For example, Dorothy Kagehiro and Ralph Taylor reported that undergraduates tended to view searches of their own property as more intrusive than searches of others’ property. Furthermore, roving, searches in the absence of suspicion were deemed more intrusive than searches directed toward acquiring specified evidence.

Some have theorized that people tend to view the intrusiveness of surveillance activities as a function of the strength of the presumption of guilt. For example, in a case where a suspect is handcuffed and detained, the presumption of guilt is high, and searches would be considered less intrusive. When a search relates to a serious crime, and when the motives of law enforcement officials are judged to be protective, the theory would predict a tendency to view the search as less intrusive.

In general, psychological research has agreed with Supreme Court decisions concerning the degree of perceived intrusiveness of various search activities. In some cases, however, research has revealed social sensitivities in areas not yet protected by the Court. For example, the public seems to view drug testing by employers, and activities by undercover agents and dogs as highly intrusive. Nevertheless, the Court has yet to establish a substantial privacy issue pertaining to such tactics.

Psychological research will, no doubt, continue to explore factors that influence people’s notions of privacy and the perception of intrusiveness by law enforcement officials. For example, to what extent do the nature of the measures used influence their perceived intrusiveness by the public? Does the nature of the place being searched make a difference? Does the degree of physical intrusion have an effect upon the public’s perception? How do privacy expectations change in response to advances in surveillance technologies? Questions like these are well suited to psychological investigation.

Lessons of the South Korean stem cell research scandal

The world of scientific research has been rocked by the recent revelations of fraud by a South Korean medical researcher. According to investigators, stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang lied and falsified research when claiming that he had cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells genetically matched to patients. Hwang’s research was published last May in the prestigious American journal, Science. The journal editors are expected to publish a retraction of the report.

The story represents a huge embarrassment to the Korean people, who had regarded Hwang as a national hero. It is, likewise, a tremendous disappointment to those hoping that the achievements of the team of South Korean medical researchers might eventually result in the development of revolutionary new treatments for such debilitating conditions as spinal cord injury and Parkinson’s disease. In addition, the apparently unethical activities of this investigator might be viewed as tarnishing the reputation of other scientific investigators in the field of stem cell research.

Episodes of misconduct like this are not unknown in science. Perhaps the most famous is that of the so-called “Piltdown man.” Piltdown was the site of an archaeological find in England. In 1908 and 1912 human, ape and other mammal fossils were found in close proximity at Piltdown. British anthropologists subsequently became convinced that fossils discovered at a nearby site in 1913 represented a single individual possessing a human cranium and an ape’s jaw.

This find was interpreted as evidence favoring one particular theory of human evolution over a competing one at the time. In 1953, however, the find was determined to have been a forgery. The skull was shown to be that of a modern human, while the jaw had come from an ape. The teeth had been deliberately filed down to give them a more human appearance. The identity of the forger was never determined with certainty.

It might seem surprising when scientists are involved in misconduct, particularly one as egregious as this. Perhaps our surprise when episodes of scientific misconduct come to light stems from a basic misunderstanding within modern societies about the nature of science, and of scientists. We live, after all, in a world transformed by spectacular technological advances. Revolutionary progress has been made in fields of medicine, transportation, communications, space travel and warfare, to name a few. We generally attribute such advances to the progress in our understanding of the world ushered in by modern scientists.

Revolutionary scientific and technological achievements of our time have created a sort of “halo-effect” around scientists and their work. The popular image of the scientist is that of a dispassionate and ethical observer of nature, who dutifully abides by strict ethical codes of conduct, one who operates unaffected by the political, social, economic, religious, cultural forces around him/her. This image is, however, unrealistic.

Scientists are, in fact, human beings. Like the rest of us, they possess human traits, prejudices and biases. They are subject to errors in judgment, sloppiness, and incompetence. They can be lazy, greedy, and ambitious. They are capable of being wise or just plain ignorant.

Scientists operate in an extremely competitive and materialistic world. Most academics are subject to powerful pressures to “publish or perish.” The competition for the limited funds available for scholarly research can be fierce. Research agendas are often dictated by political and social priorities, passing professional trends, and economic incentives. Scientists can be bought and sold by commercial and other special interests.

The humanity of scientists is nothing new, nor is the imperfection of the societies in which they operate. Nevertheless, science endures and prospers. Unfortunate events like the stem cell research and Piltdown man scandals, in the long run, demonstrate the very characteristics that enable science to survive, despite errors and adversities. Unlike other knowledge bases, science is a self-correcting enterprise. It has the unique capacity to critically examine its own activities, to scrutinize its practitioners, to renounce flawed research, to correct errors, to revise or replace faulty theories. In this way, science can continue to advance, despite the limitations and shortcomings of its celebrated, illustrious, yet fallible human practitioners.

Men are also victims of domestic abuse

The following is a letter from a Pattaya Mail reader which appeared in the December 16 Postbag section.

Domestic violence not a gender equality issue

Dear editors,

I’m writing regarding Michael Catalanello’s column on domestic violence in the December 9 issue of the Pattaya Mail.

Dr. Catalanello rightly pointed out that, like just about everywhere else in this world, domestic violence is rampant in Thailand. Unfortunately he perpetuates the canard that women are always victims, never perpetrators, of domestic violence.

In reality, in at least half of all cases, the perpetrators are women. Domestic violence is no more a “male problem” than it is a “blond problem” or a “gay problem” or a “left-handed problem.” Women batter their men with the same frequency, the same severity, and with broadly the same causes. Domestic violence rates do not significantly differ between heterosexual couples, lesbian couples and gay male couples. In short, it is not a gender equality issue.

The academic evidence for this is overwhelming and startlingly consistent, starting right from the landmark studies by Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz to the National Family Violence Survey and National Violence Against Women Survey (!) in the United States, the Dunedin longitudinal study in New Zealand, and the annual statistics compiled by Statistics Canada. There is no room in this letter to list the hundreds of studies I could cite, but the scientific data are voluminous and publicly available, and they all point in one direction: Women are violent to their partners, on average, just as frequently and severely as men, if not more.

The study Dr. Catalanello cited simply assumed that only women were the victims, and did not bother to survey men about their suffering. This approach is typical.

A real solution to the problem of domestic violence will not be found until we start looking for the real causes of domestic violence, instead of twisting the facts into a stick to bludgeon men with.

Informed Reader
Jomtien

In my column appearing in the Pattaya Mail on December 9, 2005, I reported on two recently published studies of domestic violence in Thailand, one by the World Health Organization (WHO), and another by the Ministry of Public Health. The WHO study interviewed 24,000 women from both rural and urban settings in 10 countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, Japan, Namibia, Peru, Samoa, Serbia and Montenegro, Thailand, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The Ministry of Public Health study, likewise, focused upon violence against women and children. Both studies concluded that domestic violence is on the increase in Thailand.

I pointed out that experts in the field often point to gender inequality as an important factor in perpetuating and protecting the crime of domestic violence. For example, women in this society are often taught that it is a virtue to be submissive and accepting of male domination. Further, women who seek legal remedies for domestic abuse often encounter attitudes among public officials implying that domestic abuse is a private matter between the husband and wife.

A reader responding to my piece correctly pointed out that men, too, are often victims of domestic abuse. In fact, according to the reader, some studies have shown that men are victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women as frequently as are women at the hands of men. The reader evidently felt that I was being unfair by focusing exclusively on men’s abuse of women. He/she then reasoned that because domestic violence is found equally among heterosexual couples, lesbian couples and gay male couples, it could not be related to gender inequality.

A few points bear mentioning in this regard. First, domestic violence is not exclusively a problem of men abusing women. According to the research, women also abuse men, men abuse men, and women abuse women. Suffering produced as a result of domestic violence is suffering, regardless of the respective genders of the victim and perpetrator.

As for the relative frequency of episodes of man to woman violence versus woman to man violence, I am not aware of any studies addressing the question within Thai society, and I would be cautious in generalizing findings from the United States, New Zealand, and Canada to a society as different as that of Thailand.

I am not prepared to comment here on the methods and findings of the studies cited by the reader; however, there are some important distinctions to keep in mind in interpreting studies like these. For example, are those researchers adequately distinguishing between the initiation of violence, and violence performed in self-defense? Are they lumping together discrete episodes of violence with long-term patterns of abuse? Are they distinguishing between physical abuse and verbal/psychological abuse?

My colleague, psychologist Sombat Tapanya at Chiang Mai University has cited anecdotal reports that Thai females have become somewhat more “aggressive” in recent years, as compared to the past. He, likewise, observes that Thai women seem to favor using tactics involving psychological, rather than physical abuse against men. Obviously, questions like these could form the basis for further research on local domestic abuse which Dr. Sombat and I intend to pursue.

Finally, I fail to see the logic of concluding that if gay males and lesbians abuse their partners with equal frequency as heterosexual couples, gender inequality can not be a factor in promoting domestic abuse. That’s because even within gay male and lesbian partnerships, there is usually a partner who adopts a dominant “male” role, while the other partner adopts a submissive “female” role. Unequal gender expectations inherent in these culturally defined roles can often be observed, even within such partnerships.

As I pointed out, domestic abuse is a complex issue. Questions of what “causes” this unfortunate phenomenon are complicated. Furthermore, ethics and other practical limitations prevent us from carrying out the kind of research that would be needed to provide a definitive answer to the question of what causes domestic violence. Nevertheless, the evidence for gender inequality, particularly within Thai society, seems to me compelling. Certainly, not all individuals holding attitudes reflecting gender inequality end up in abusive relationships. It would be quite surprising, however, if the inferior status of women in Thai society were not somehow implicated in domestic abuse, whether perpetrated by men upon women, or by women upon men.

The death penalty debate: A case of emotion versus reason?

The high-profile and controversial execution last week of Stanley “Tookie” Williams in California, has reignited the public debate on issues surrounding the use of the death penalty. But will this new round of debate result in death penalty reform? Don’t count on it.

Williams was cofounder of the notorious Crips gang, reportedly implicated in countless killings and other criminal activity. He was convicted for the 1981 killing of convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, and Los Angeles motel owners Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43.

Over the years Williams has maintained his innocence in the murders. He, nevertheless, renounced his former life as a gang leader, and spent his time on death row writing children’s books about the dangers of gangs and a life of violence. For his efforts Williams received international acclaim, even being nominated for Nobel Prizes in peace and literature. In the end, however, even appeals on his behalf by international celebrities were not enough to enable him to escape death by lethal injection. Even celebrity Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to intervene to commute Williams’s sentence to life in prison.

Like many attitudes, those concerning the use of the death penalty, whether pro or con, are usually held quite firmly and passionately. The arguments on both sides are familiar. The logic of the arguments, however, does not always succeed in persuading, particularly those most affected by the crime. Research has demonstrated that emotions sometimes trump logic, particularly among those less educated or less analytical.

Some arguments, such as those based upon appeals to authority, religious, or cultural values, cannot be easily challenged by appeals to “facts,” or “evidence.” Bible passages, for example are sometimes used to defend capital punishment for murder. Few, however, would tolerate capital punishment for those engaging in premarital sex or adultery, although support for such punishments can also be found in passages from the Bible. The contradictory injunctions, “You shall not kill” and, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” are also Biblical.

Other arguments can be informed by research carried out by social scientists, and can be factually challenged and refuted. For example, the claim that it is less costly to execute a convicted criminal, than to incarcerate him for life has been investigated, and refuted. Likewise, the notion that the threat of execution acts as a deterrent to other would-be murderers has been found to be without empirical support. Nevertheless, such beliefs persist among the public, and arguments like these continue to be offered in support of capital punishment.

Death penalty advocates often correctly point out the harm experienced by the family and friends of the murder victim. A victim’s family members can often be seen attending the murder trial, applying whatever influence they can muster to obtain a conviction and maximum penalty against the accused. Some victims take the position that they cannot possibly achieve “closure,” find peace, and get on with their lives until they see their loved one’s murderer duly convicted and executed. The evidence of others who have done just that, despite a failure to receive “justice” for some reason, fails to persuade that nonviolent routes to achieving peace and closure are also available.

Death penalty advocates often base their arguments upon appeals for justice, a sort of balancing of the scales. They, nevertheless, appear to overlook the secondary trauma and suffering produced as a result of the offender’s execution. For example, innocent family members of the accused and convicted offender, already adversely affected by their loved one’s heinous crime, are further traumatized when the offender is subsequently killed by the state. It has also been demonstrated that those who serve on juries at capital trials are prone to suffer the effects of trauma as a result of their role in putting another human being to death. Witnesses to an execution have also experienced psychological distress as a result of the experience. Can the traumatization of other innocent people be considered a “just” outcome? Who is to determine when the requirements of justice are sufficiently fulfilled?

Our world is, after all, filled with injustice. One need not look far to see evidence of this fact. Death penalty advocates appear quite selective in their choice of injustices to attempt to rectify. If fighting injustice were truly the motivating principle behind death penalty advocacy, wouldn’t such proponents be equally vocal on other glaring injustices, such as poverty, hunger, and similar human right abuses? Viewed in this way, the use of appeals for justice as a rationale for capital punishment begin to appear more as rationalizations for further acts of violence, perhaps motivated by darker impulses, such as hostility and a desire for vengeance.

Crime is certainly not pretty. Murder is arguably the ugliest of all crimes. Those impacted by crimes are understandably affected emotionally, and anger is a quite natural human response to such events. Punishment and retribution, however, by no means guarantee a sense of closure, nor do they necessarily restore justice and dissipate anger. We have other more humane means at our disposal for resolving anger and for working toward social justice. Perhaps future societies will evolve away from the use violence as a response to violence. Perhaps we will begin to develop and make use of more creative alternatives available to us.

Airport shooting highlights human rights problems faced by people with mental illness

A man was shot to death by federal air marshals at a Miami airport last week. Media reports indicated that the man, Rigoberto Alpizar, an American citizen, ran from an aircraft after claiming to have a bomb in his backpack. No bomb was found.

It was later revealed that Mr. Alpizar may have been mentally ill, suffering from a bipolar disorder, and off his medication.

This copy of an undated family photo shows Costa Ricans Rigoberto Alpizar, right, and his brother Rolando Alpizar, left, and his sister-in-law Violeta Castro, center, outside their home in Costa Rica. Alpizar, a passenger who claimed to have a bomb in his backpack was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2005, after he bolted frantically from an American Airlines jetliner that was boarding for take off at Miami International Airport. No bomb was found. (AP Photo/Courtesy of the Family)

This tragic incident is by no means unique. A nonprofit group called Treatment Advocacy Center this year published results of a study indicating that people who are mentally ill are four times more likely to be killed by police as compared to other members of the public. Moreover, people who suffer from a severe or chronic mental illness face a number of daily obstacles few of us can even imagine.

First, the mentally ill are confronted with the problem of dealing with the disturbing and potentially debilitating symptoms of a mental or emotional disorder. One’s symptoms might range from nervousness, anxiety, and depression, to hallucinations, and bizarre and frightening delusions. The simple process of reliably distinguishing between reality and fantasy, an ability taken for granted by most of us, can be a major challenge for a person experiencing a severe thought disturbance, known as psychosis.

Further, the mentally ill are often misunderstood and demonized by our societies. People often look upon mental disorders as a sign of low intelligence, indecisiveness, or worse. Some groups hold that the mentally ill are impious, immoral, even influenced or possessed by evil spirits. Despite the development and availability of effective treatments for mental illness, there is a persistent belief in our societies that psychological disorders are untreatable.

Ironically, Mr. Alpizar's killing approximately coincided with December 10, designated as Human Rights Day, a day the World Health Organization (WHO) has dedicated to people with mental disorders. The following important facts are offered by WHO on this occasion:

• 450 million people worldwide are affected by mental, neurological or behavioral problems at any time.

• About 873,000 people die by suicide every year.

• Mental illnesses are common to all countries and cause immense suffering. People with these disorders are often subjected to social isolation, poor quality of life and increased mortality. These disorders are the cause of staggering economic and social costs.

• One in four patients visiting a health service has at least one mental, neurological or behavioral disorder but most of these disorders are neither diagnosed nor treated.

• Mental illnesses affect and are affected by chronic conditions such as cancer, heart and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and HIV/AIDS. Untreated, they bring about unhealthy behavior, non-compliance with prescribed medical regimens, diminished immune functioning, and poor prognosis.

• Cost-effective treatments exist for most disorders and, if correctly applied, could enable most of those affected to become functioning members of society.

• Barriers to effective treatment of mental illness include lack of recognition of the seriousness of mental illness and lack of understanding about the benefits of services. Policy makers, insurance companies, health and labor policies, and the public at large – all discriminate between physical and mental problems.

• Most middle and low-income countries devote less than 1% of their health expenditure to mental health. Consequently mental health policies, legislation, community care facilities, and treatments for people with mental illness are not given the priority they deserve.

It is important for us to develop an increased awareness and sensitivity to the problems faced by those with mental illness. Treating these individuals with greater understanding and compassion makes good sense, both from a humanitarian and a practical, economic perspective.

To learn more about mental health issues, visit the WHO website at http://www.who.int/, or the American Psychological Association’s website at http://www.apa.org/.

Research reveals relationship between people’s response to stress and cholesterol levels

Stress is an inescapable part of our lives. From exposure to major traumatic events like the Asian tsunami, to minor hassles like negotiating our way through rush hour traffic on Sukhumvit, dealing with the stress of life is the name of the game.

Taken individually, most stressful events might seem rather harmless and inconsequential. Few would think twice about the health consequences of routine annoyances we all have to contend with on a daily basis; the difficult coworker, the reckless motorcycle driver, running out of money before we run out of month. Nevertheless, there is gathering evidence that even minor stressful events can have an important impact upon health.

Stress, for example, has been shown to increase heart rate, lower resistance to the common cold, and increase some indicators of tissue inflammation. Now it appears that stress can also increase cholesterol levels, at least for some people. New evidence for the link between stress and cholesterol was published in the November issue of Health Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association.

Cholesterol is a fat-like compound that is found in many foods, in the bloodstream, and in cells of the body. Our bodies produce cholesterol, and we take in additional amounts in many of the foods that we eat. Cholesterol is necessary for several essential body functions.

The word “cholesterol,” of course, has some negative connotations for many of us. We hear talk of “good” and “bad” cholesterol. Bad cholesterol refers to low-density lipoprotein (LDL), which can deposit on artery walls, dangerously reducing, or possibly blocking the flow of blood. Good cholesterol refers to high-density lipoprotein (HDL), which is thought to provide protection against artery blockage.

When your doctor tests you for cholesterol he is measuring the amount of cholesterol circulating in your blood. Most of the cholesterol detected, about 85%, is produced by the body. The rest comes from what you eat and drink. Because high levels of total cholesterol, low levels of HDL (“good cholesterol”), high levels of LDL (“bad cholesterol”), and undesirable ratios among these factors place a person at risk for developing coronary heart disease, it is important to understand the variables that affect cholesterol levels.

Researchers Andrew Steptoe and Lena Brydon of University College London exposed 199 healthy middle-aged men and women to moderately stressful tasks in a laboratory setting. Before and after their exposure to stress, subjects’ cardiovascular, inflammatory and hemostatic functions were examined. Results showed that averages for total cholesterol, LDL, and HDL levels increased following the stressful behavioral tasks. Individuals, however, varied considerably in their level of increase in cholesterol, some showing more dramatic increases than others.

Three years later, these subjects’ cholesterol levels were again measured. As expected, cholesterol levels had increased with the passage of time. Surprisingly, those who had responded greatest to the laboratory stress showed significantly greater increases in cholesterol than those who had responded least. These changes were unrelated to baseline cholesterol levels, or to such factors as gender, age, body mass, smoking, and alcohol consumption.

The researchers speculated that the stress responses they observed in the lab were indicative of the way these people responded to everyday stresses. Those who showed the largest cholesterol increases might be expected to respond more dramatically to daily challenges of life. As those experiences accumulate they could result in an increase in fasting cholesterol years later.

It is quite interesting that individual differences in people’s response to stress would be associated with increases in cholesterol levels three years later. Although the stress responses in this study were not exceedingly large, techniques like these could provide a means of identifying those whose response to stress might be a risk factor for developing coronary heart disease. Such individuals could then be offered early interventions to help maintain their cholesterol levels within a healthy range. It also reinforces the notion that psychological interventions designed for stress management could help those who respond unhealthily to stress to learn more adaptive ways of handling the inevitable hassles and annoyances of everyday life.

December 1 is World AIDS Day

Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

While strolling along a California beach, a psychologist stumbles upon an antique lamp. He picks it up, rubs it, and out of a plume of smoke, there appears a genie.

The genie says, “Because you have released me, out of gratitude, I will grant you one wish.”

The psychologist thinks for a moment, and then replies, "I've always wanted to go to Hawaii, but I hate to fly, and I get seasick on ships. Would you build me a bridge to Hawaii so that I can drive there to visit?"

The genie grimaces and says, "Are you kidding? Think of the logistics! How would the supports ever reach the bottom of the Pacific Ocean? Think of the concrete, the steel, the shipping hazards. I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. Please think of another wish."

“OK,” says the psychologist. “Forget about the bridge. Just answer some questions concerning my patients. Why do some of my patients continue to smoke cigarettes and eat in ways that severely compromise their health? Why do they engage in risky behavior and maintain unhealthy lifestyles, knowing that they significantly increase their chance of resulting disability, illness, or premature death?”

Why do some of my patients do such things as sexually abuse their children, physically assault their wives, cheat, lie, and steal? In short, why do my patients think, act, and feel the way they do?

The genie thinks for a moment. Then with a sigh, he replies, “That bridge you wanted; would you prefer two lanes or four?”

Perhaps nowhere is the mystery of human behavior more puzzling than in the unfolding of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Here, we have a life-threatening illness for which we have no cure or medical vaccine. It is preventable, yet for the past twenty years it has continued to spread worldwide. There is no end in sight.

The statistics are hard to fathom. Over 5 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2004. That amounts to about 570 infections per hour. Particularly worrying is the fact that over half of all new HIV infections worldwide are now appearing in young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Each day 6,000 young people are diagnosed with AIDS.

Over 20 million people have died of AIDS complications since the beginning of the epidemic. Each illness and death affects countless others, resulting in financial hardship, families without a breadwinner, children without parents, intensely personal loss, and heartache.

Early in the pandemic, Thailand distinguished itself by providing a model for successfully fighting the disease. Then Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, Senator Mechai Viravaidya, and other courageous Thai leaders are generally credited with stabilizing, and then reversing an alarming trend in new HIV infections.

One key element of Thailand’s effective response to HIV/AIDS was to initiate a massive public education campaign. A 100% condom program was launched with the support of the Kingdom’s existing health infrastructure. Rather than attempting to suppress Thailand’s commercial sex industry, authorities wisely chose to aggressively promote condom use among sex workers and their clients. After reaching a peak of 143,000 new HIV infections in 1991, the number fell steadily to about 21,000 in 2003.

Despite these early successes, there are worrying signs on the horizon. The United Nations Development Program has reported that HIV continues to spread among diverse groups within Thai society, posing new challenges for detection and prevention efforts. About 600,000 people nationwide are now living with HIV, and they require care and support. HIV/AIDS is a major killer among young adults.

Experts warn that prevention efforts have not kept pace with the rapid changes that have occurred in the epidemic. Public concern has diminished, as AIDS spending has failed to keep up with the growing threat. Public education and awareness campaigns are on the decline. Today we hear more about the threat of a bird flu epidemic, which has yet to materialize in human populations, than we do about HIV/AIDS.

Like many modern health problems, HIV infection is produced by certain modifiable behavior. The most common method of transmission is through unprotected sexual intercourse with a partner who is HIV+. Another way is by sharing needles or other contaminated injection or skin-piercing equipment with others who are HIV+.

HIV can also be transmitted through blood and blood products, for example, through infected blood transfusions. An infected mother can also transmit the virus to her child in the womb or during delivery, and through breastfeeding. In all of these cases, transmission can be easily prevented. Through effective prevention we could eradicate the disease within a generation.

If we know how to prevent HIV infections, why does the epidemic continue to grow? Why are certain groups of people so poorly informed about the risks and methods of avoiding HIV infection? Why do educators resist making comprehensive sex education an urgent priority? Why do knowledgeable individuals nevertheless engage in risky behavior? Why do we place a stigma upon those who are living with HIV? Why do we permit discrimination against such people?

It would seem that finding solutions to these issues would be considerably less problematic than building a bridge from California to Hawaii, whether two lanes or four.

Crisis in France: Understanding violent behavior by groups

At the time of this writing, violence continues to erupt in nearly 300 cities and towns across France.

Destructive rioting that originated on October 27 in Paris's suburbs has spread, recently turning deadly, as a 60 year-old man was reported killed. Thousands of cars have been torched during more than two weeks of nightly violence; two churches and three schools were firebombed, according to news reports. Even police, attempting to quell the violence, have come under fire, leaving thirty-six officers wounded, two seriously.

The sudden, widespread appearance of mob violence like this raises some interesting questions about human behavior. Why would so many people suddenly resort to such extreme, destructive behavior? What forces are at work in episodes like this?

The general wisdom that has emerged in news commentary relates these ugly incidents to frustration experienced by ethnic minorities over poverty, racial discrimination, high rates of unemployment, their low status in French society, and related injustices. The violence was reportedly triggered by the accidental electrocution of two teens as they attempted to elude police. It subsequently seemed fueled by the unfortunate comments of France's Interior Minister, who characterized the rioting immigrant youths as “rabble.”

While frustration over long-festering injustices might seem to be a reasonable factor leading to this explosion of anger fueled violence, is it sufficient to account for the extreme behavior exhibited by the members of these mobs? What light might psychological research shed upon these troubling events?

Psychologists have demonstrated that groups have a set of dynamics that do not exist when people are acting individually. Do you recall the feelings you experienced as a member of a crowd at a sporting event, a music concert, or a political rally? Perhaps you felt a sense of excitement and power, a sense that you were a part of something bigger than yourself. Members of groups have been shown to be aroused, meaning that they are more physically activated, excited, primed and ready for action.

Researchers have also theorized that a person generally feels less personal responsibility as a member of a group, than as an individual. For example, a person is less likely to offer assistance if he encounters an emergency situation as a member of a group, than if he witnesses the same emergency while alone. In addition, a person seems capable of performing acts as a member of a group that he or she might never even consider performing as an individual. It’s as if responsibility for behavior becomes diffuse within a group situation.

Like the rioting in France, episodes of looting, police brutality, rioting at sport events, military massacres of civilians, and lynchings are actions that are performed almost exclusively by groups. It would be difficult to imagine these activities being performed by individuals. Psychologists Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone, and Theodore Newton coined the term, “deindividuation” to describe a process whereby people lose a sense of their own identity, adopting instead, the norms of behavior of the group which make these activities possible.

Deindividuation occurs most easily when certain conditions are in place. The size of the group is one important factor. Vandalism performed by a large group hides the vandalism of an individual. Participants become faceless in a rioting mob. Darkness serves the same purpose, hiding the identities of the individuals performing the violent acts. It is noteworthy that the rioting in France occurred predominantly or exclusively at night and in groups. Larger crowds are capable of greater atrocities because they afford greater anonymity to their members.

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo hypothesized that crowded cities create conditions of anonymity for the inhabitants, permitting antisocial acts to more easily occur. To test his hypothesis, he abandoned two cars with their hoods left open. One car was left on a busy New York City street, and the other in Palo Alto, a comparatively smaller city. As predicted, the New York vehicle was quickly and repeatedly vandalized; a total of 23 times over three days. By contrast, the car abandoned in Palo Alto was never touched, except when a passerby stopped to lower the hood when it started to rain.

There is no doubt that the violent behavior by crowds of people is a complex phenomenon with multiple causes or influences. The apparently longstanding injustices suffered by ethnic minorities in France must certainly be considered an important factor leading to their decision to participate in these violent acts. There is, however, more involved than injustice.

The French, after all, do not have a monopoly on injustice, and rioting is not a common response to such conditions. Further, it is not unheard of for groups to choose to respond to injustice using nonviolent means. Psychologists and other social scientists are actively exploring issues like these. Perhaps as we advance our understanding of group behavior, we will develop means of reducing the potential for violent and destructive acts like those we are witnessing today in France.

Can we trust our intuitions?

A reader writes, “Years ago I ‘felt’ something was wrong with my sister. I kept trying to call her with no response. At the time I was working on a very busy switchboard and had contacts all over the place, so I rang the local exchange in the town where she was living. Two hours later I had my sister on the phone, telling me her house had burned down around the time I had tried to call her. Luckily everyone managed to get out. It was a very freaky feeling.”

Have you ever felt that you knew something without the use of reasoning or detailed analysis? Perhaps you had a hunch, a piece of knowledge for which you could not account. Are you guided by “gut instincts?” Are there advantages to heeding your intuitions?

Some peak performance gurus advocate intuitive decision making. They suggest turning off the analytical mind, and tuning into the “right brain,” a hidden source of wisdom useful for making important decisions. Is this a valid claim? Is there a reason to trust our intuition?

There is plenty of evidence that we are routinely guided or influenced by automatic or unconscious mental processes, and that these processes can serve us well. When we respond emotionally to situations, for example, we usually do so without extensive deliberative thought or analysis. If experiencing a sense of uneasiness in unfamiliar and dangerous surroundings motivates you to move quickly to a place of safety, that feeling might be considered wise or adaptive.

Irrational or disturbed emotional reactions, however, are often maladaptive. Those who refuse to board an airliner out of fear, but seem unconcerned about using earthbound automobile transportation are ignoring statistics which demonstrate the far greater danger associated with automobile travel.

There are other types of mental processes that occur outside of our awareness. If there is a task that you perform with great regularity and expertise, you probably perform it efficiently with very little conscious thought or effort, seemingly intuitively.

For many of us, driving a car is one such over-learned skill. Having driven daily for many years, we are able to do it more or less automatically, without much effortful thought. We can sing along with the radio, talk on a cell phone, converse with passengers, and even eat a snack while navigating mindlessly and more or less flawlessly through rush hour traffic.

Some people will insist following an event that, “I intuitively knew it all along.” Social psychologists have researched this hindsight judgment and found it to be notoriously error prone. Similarly, people like the above reader, occasionally report experiencing a premonition, unexplained knowledge of events which later occur, or are shown to have occurred. Some people are passionately confident in the validity of premonitions, based upon remarkable experiences like this one.

A scientific explanation of premonitions usually goes like this: A premonition that is confirmed by subsequent events tends to be remembered, while premonitions of events that fail to occur are typically forgotten. The result is that people experiencing premonitions tend to overestimate the reliability of these random experiences, leaving them with a false impression of extrasensory perception.

Psychologist David Dunning and his colleagues were interested in this feeling of overconfidence we have in decisions we make. They allowed students to interview people about their backgrounds, hobbies, interests, and whatever else they wished. Following each interview, the students were asked to predict how the interviewee would respond to 20 two-choice questions.

The students guessed correctly 63% of the time, 13% better than chance; however they felt 75% confident of the accuracy of their predictions. Studies like this have led theorists to conclude that we are biased toward overestimating the accuracy of our judgments and decisions. Could this help explain the confidence of some in the validity of their intuitions?

Human decision making is an interesting area of psychological investigation. I suppose that being human means that we are bound to make errors in our judgments. Nevertheless, as we learn more about the ways in which human decisions go awry, we might likewise sharpen our ability to think critically, possibly improving the precision of our decision making processes.