I’m in the process of redesigning the website. It might take me a month or two to complete as this is a very busy semester for me. I will try to keep posts coming but I probably can’t write more than one post per week between classes, research, clinic work, and family responsibilities (I’m the proud parent of two beautiful daughters and the proud spouse of one beautiful wife). Please be patient with the relative paucity of posts. Hopefully the newly redesigned page will be better than this one – that is the point of redesigning after all. I’m working on a Joomla-based site instead of WordPress (I have nothing against WordPress, I just wanted to try something new).
Descartes and Modern Psychology
Psychology is a field that traces its roots back thousands of years. In its earliest forms it was a subset of philosophy; Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek philosophers all posited psychological principles. Decartes is sometimes considered the founding father of modern philosophical psychology. He is possibly the most famous dualist; he believed that there was a split between mind and body. The mind influenced the brain through the pineal gland, a small structure in the middle of the brain. It is situated near the ventricles in the brain. Descartes believed that the pineal gland moved the “animal spirits” in the ventricles and sent them throughout the body, through the nerves, to control behavior and movement. 
This was not true but back in the day it seemed a very logical explanation, especially in light of the new discovery about how the heart worked like a pump for blood. The pineal gland was Descartes ideal structure where mind and body interacted because it was in the middle of the brain and was a singular brain structure (most structures in the brain are in both hemispheres. So for example, there are two hippocampi, two caudates, two frontal lobes, etc…). Even with Descartes advances, psychology remained a philosophy until the 1800s when Wundt and other empiricists created experimental psychological laboratories. From there, the field of psychology grew exponentially into the major field it is today.
Many other people influenced psychology over the years, people such as William James, Charles Darwin, B. F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, and Jean Piaget but Descartes is the earliest of “modern psychologists,” even though he was involved in so much more than psychology. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Descartes was someone who came before the horse and led the way (pun intended; “Don’t put the cart {Descartes} before the horse.”).
Britney Spears and Dr. Phil
I don’t normally follow celebrity news but a recent event occurred that warrants comment. Dr. Phil recently and unexpectedly showed up at Britney’s hospital room to “lend support”. He ended up talking with her for an hour (there are differing reports about this incident – some say they talked for an hour, others that Britney kicked him out right away). Dr. Phil came under fire for his actions. I think what he did was completely unacceptable. Even if he truly was concerned for her, Dr. Phil’s actions were inappropriate.
He stated that her family asked that he visit Britney. That request shows that her family really doesn’t care about her. If they cared, they would have recommended a real psychologist. Sure, Dr. Phil has a PhD in psychology. However, he’s a pop clinical psychologist who dishes out insults faster than inspiration.He doesn’t provide empirically supported treatment, he doesn’t provide therapy at all. He’s a TV personality; Dr. Phil is to clinical psychology as N’Sync is to music. Additionally, his “tough love” method of therapy is not effective for the vast majority of patients.
Britney did not request that Dr. Phil visit her. Her medical doctors certainly didn’t either. Dr. Phil visiting is like giving the bones of a fish to a starving person. I don’t have anything against Dr. Phil personally, I just don’t think he should be making unsolicited (Britney is an adult after all and can make – however poorly – her own decisions) visits. Besides, he was talking to the press afterward, talking about Britney and her problems. So much for confidentiality. His actions are downright unethical. He was even planning a whole show around her and her problems (which he has since canceled or postponed, thankfully).
Again, Dr. Phil is not a psychologist, he is a TV star. He had no business visiting Britney, who needs real help, not his pseudopsychology.
Biological Determinism
As someone with a strong neurobiological foundation, I believe that the brain is the center of all behavior. What is the evidence for that belief? Remove someone’s brain and see if they have any behavior (note: I’m not endorsing this behavior, I’m merely postulating a hypothetical situation). Without the brain, there is no behavior. So, the brain is necessary for behavior but is it sufficient?
In psychology we often talk about necessary and sufficient conditions for behavior. That is, you may need a certain factor in order for a behavior to happen but without other factors, the behavior will not occur. For example, you need water to live – it is necessary – but you also need food, so thus not sufficient. So, the brain is necessary for behavior but can all behavior be explained solely by the brain? Another way of phrasing this question is, “Does biology determine all behavior?” The term for this belief is biological determinism.
To answer the question we first have to investigate and uncover other potential influences on (causes of) behavior. If behavior is biologically determined, do people have free will? That is, do people really have the ability to consciously make and choose different behavior? Or are all behaviors simply determined at the neuronal (or genetic) level and free will is only an illusion? This post is an expansion on one of my previous posts concerning alternative assumptions to naturalism in neuroscience.
If you really believe that the brain (and by reductionism, genes) are solely responsible for behavior, then you cannot believe that people have free will. You also cannot believe that the environment is directly responsible for behavior – it can influence it – but at the core, your genes and your neurons create behaviors. Alternatively, you can believe that humans have free will, that we can make choices because of or in spite of our biology. Agency can influence biology and biology can influence agency – they are not mutually exclusive categories. While the brain is a necessary condition for behavior, it is not sufficient; agency is a factor in human behavior.
Attractiveness and Social Perception
An example of how people judge others based on attractiveness. There is a lot of social psychology research showing that attractive people are treated better, trusted more, liked more, and viewed more favorably even if they are complete strangers.
|
Generalizing Therapy Treatment
There are a number of different strategies to promote generalization of treatment effects in therapy. One common method is to assign homework. Homework is used both for the client to practice therapy techniques as well as for the therapist to assess compliance with and understanding of treatment. As clients complete homework they learn to apply treatment skills to new situations outside of the therapy room; homework is key to CBT. Another method that can promote generalization is exposure (or desensitization), in vivo or imagined. Exposure techniques, especially when they are in vivo, allow for clients to learn how to apply skills they may have learned cognitively but not behaviorally. In vivo exposure provides a way for people to learn that they will live, they will survive, and be happy during and after the time they are facing feared objects or situations. As with any skill, perfection only comes with practice, so desensitization methods provide those opportunities to practice and learn application in multiple situations.
Cognitive restructuring (and flexibility) allows for generalization of therapeutic techniques. When people successfully learn to rethink their reactions to specific situations and events, they then can learn to apply this new way of thinking to multiple situations. This cognitive flexibility allows clients to adapt, progress, and generalize.
Third Wave Behavior Therapies
I’ll continue with another post about psychotherapy. For this post it might be beneficial to read a little about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and other behavioral therapies to best understand my post. I wrote it assuming that the reader had at least a basic understanding of these therapies.
The first wave of behavior therapy was closely tied to the theories of Skinner and Watson. Second wave treatments added in cognitive components and expanded on basic behaviorism. Third wave models keep many of the good techniques from the first two waves but focus more on contextual behavior than atomistic behavior, flexible skills than pathology, and function than form. Third wave methods emphasize the broad constructs of values, spirituality, relationships, and mindfulness whereas first and second wave therapies are focused mainly on the immediate problems. For example, with second wave behavior therapy, the therapist might seek to challenge and change cognitions but in a third wave therapy the therapist might focus more on understanding and accepting the cognitions and how they tie into a person’s value system (that is not the end goal of third wave therapies – the therapists also seek change but change is effected differently than in second wave therapies). Continue reading “Third Wave Behavior Therapies”
Underlying Assumptions of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
Cognitive behavior therapies (CBT) all have (or should have) the general underlying model of: Activating Event –> Schemas –> Thoughts –> Behavior/Emotions –> Outcome. In other words, there is a specific and precipitating event that is mentally interpreted, thought about, and acted (or not) upon; all of the steps following the precipitating and activating event lead to a consequence, or outcome. More specifically, our thoughts are really the cause of our behaviors and emotions – our behaviors are internally driven, even in the face of powerful external events. In order for this model to work there are a few basic assumptions that serve as the foundation for cognitive-behavior therapy.
One of these assumptions is that cognitions affect and cause behavior. This goes beyond traditional behavior therapy because cognitions serve as mediating responses between the initial stimuli and behavioral responses. So in effect, it is our cognitions that cause behavior because how we interpret events determines how we react to them. Behavior also can affect cognitions but the general point is that cognitions are not only involved in the behavioral process but necessary to it.
Another assumption is that cognitions are not simply mysterious ephemeral processes – they can be measured, monitored, and altered. Asking people how they think and feel is thus a potentially effective way to understand their behavior. If cognitions can be measured they can also be altered. This means that the way that people think about the world and think about themselves can be changed, which is the goal of CBT when there is maladaptive behavior and cognitions.
As cognitions change, behavior may change. CBT does not ignore the role that changing behaviors (separate from cognitions) has in the therapeutic process but it is important to change cognitions to exact lasting behavioral change. Also, cognitive change is important in cases where situations and external influences on behavior do not, cannot, or will not change.
Image by Dinovitch.
Finals
I’m just finishing up finals and will resume posting next week. In the mean time, if you are a student in psychology and wondering what you can do with a degree in it, visit the APA’s website for resources.
Moral Development and the Brain
Moral reasoning is the ability a person has to reason in and through social, ethical, and emotional situations. One component of moral reasoning is moral behavior, which is the intentional and voluntary acting in a prosocial manner (Walker, 2004). Moral behavior and reasoning are the foundation for “many human social and cultural institutions such as family structures, legal and political government systems that affect the lives of virtually every person” (Eslinger, Flaherty-Craig, & Benton, 2004, p. 100). Often situations in life are morally ambiguous and involve a choice between two actions that both have consequences that may or may not be in opposition to each other. Some researchers, such as Lawrence Kohlberg, believe that people will reason through these situations at varying levels or stages, with some in a very concrete and egotistic manner and others in an abstract and universal manner.
Lawrence Kohlberg was the first researcher to come up with a major testable theory of moral development. He formulated six stages of development, with most adults reaching stage four, a few five, and very few stage six. The first two stages are at the pre-conventional level (typically self-centered and concrete reasoning), stages three and four are at the conventional level (recognition of social norms and laws), and the last two stages at the post-conventional level (recognition of universal rights and responsibilities). While Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is a stage model, the progression through the stages is not necessarily viewed as invariant. This means that people reach them at different rates and do not always reason at a particular stage with any given dilemma. There is significant variability within and between people in moral reasoning abilities. Most research focuses on between-person variability.
Continue reading “Moral Development and the Brain”