Jul
15
Playing Hard To Get
July 15, 2008 | | Leave a Comment
How many times have you asked yourself when a relationship went wrong, “Was it something I did or did not do?”
Schneider is a co-author of the best-selling book series on “The Rules” a woman must follow to reel in a good man. In the In Touch article, we learn that Jessica Simpson’s relationship with Dallas Cowboy’s quarterback Tony Romo is cratering because she failed to play hard to get. She called him too frequently and was not sufficiently preoccupied with non-Tony activities.
This explanation may be intuitively appealing.
However, there is only one problem: she actually played it just right.
For almost 40 years now, social scientists have tested whether women who play hard to get light men’s fire.
In 1973, Elaine Hatfield (formerly Walster) and her colleagues published six experiments designed to test the hypothesis that men desire hard-to-get women more than easy-to-get women. In one study, for example, women who initially declined a date with a man before eventually accepting it were no more or less desirable to the man than women who eagerly accepted the date right away. The first five experiments failed to yield any support for the hard-to-get hypothesis.
After these five experiments failed, Hatfield finally recognised that there are two distinct ways in which a man can think of a woman as hard to get: (1) how hard it is for me to get her and (2) how hard it is for other men to get her.
In her sixth and final study, Hatfield discovered the truth: Men are most attracted to women who are hard for other men to get - but easy for themselves to get!
If you are woman, you are probably rolling your eyes in disbelief by now…
Speed-dating procedures were carried out to extend these findings. People can tell almost immediately whether you have a special attraction for them, and this special attraction seems to inspire their attraction in return.
So if you are at an event with the man you would like to “keep”, it is important to show that you desire him more than any other woman at the event desire him, and that you are not interested in the other men at the event.
Okay… you can roll your eyes one more time… 
Of course, it’s never good to be desperate, either. The key is to be selectively hard to get. If you are interested in somebody, make sure he knows you like him or her, but do so in a way that does not suggest that you would take just anybody. It is okay to be eager, as long as you do it with dignity.
Jul
10
Resilience and Succeeding in Life
July 10, 2008 | | 2 Comments
Resilience is something that most people need to bounce back from whatever life throws at them. Everyone experiences difficulties in life, and some people will even experience traumatic events that create an upheaval in their lives. Resilience is the process by which people adapt to changes or crises, like death, divorce, tragedy, the loss of a job, or financial problems. Resilience is not a character trait - it can be learned by anyone, but learning resilience does require time and effort.
Several factors involved in resilience include having a loving support system, the ability to make plans and follow through with them, communication and problem-solving skills, having a positive view of yourself and your abilities, and the capability to manage your feelings and impulses. Building resilience is a different process for everyone, and what works for one person may not work for another. Each person should determine what works for them and do that.
It may be helpful to imagine resilience as a mountain climb to Mount Kinabalu for example. It is best to take that trip with someone else, particularly someone you love and trust. Having a plan in mind for how to navigate the trail is a good idea. Trusting your own instincts and abilities will help guide you along the way. Lastly, stopping along the trail to rest can be a great idea, but you will have to get back on and continue your journey in order to finish the trip.
Building resilience can be a challenging process. Here are a few tips for developing and strengthening resilience:
*Maintain good relationships with your family and friends, and accept their help in times of stress. Also, getting involved in community groups or faith-based organizations may help give you social support when you need it.
*Try to look at the big picture of life, and avoid viewing difficult times as insurmountable. Take small steps toward your goals and take one day at a time.
*Accept that change is a part of life and learn to embrace the circumstances that you cannot change.
*Keep working toward your goals every day, and ask yourself “What can I do today to move in the direction I need to go?”
*Keep a positive view of yourself and your ability to solve issues and challenges.
*Maintain a positive view of life and visualize what you want.
*Notice how you have changed after a tragedy or crisis. Many people report having more confidence in themselves after a crisis and some even have a deeper appreciation for life. Get what you can out of these tough times.
*Take care of yourself! Get enough food, sleep, and exercise to keep yourself healthy. This is especially important during times of stress.
*Lastly, seek professional help if you feel that the situation is too hard for you to handle on your own. A licensed mental health professional, such as a counselor or psychologist, can help you develop a strategy for moving forward in your life.
Jul
3
The Milgram Obedience Experiment
July 3, 2008 | | Leave a Comment
The Perils of Obedience
“The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” –Stanley Milgram, 1974
If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people would answer this question with an adamant no, but Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments during the 1960s that demonstrated surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.
Introduction
Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun.
Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following orders when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?”
Method
The participants in the study were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.
Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including “slight shock,” “moderate shock” and “danger: severe shock.” The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous “XXX.”
Each participant took the role of a “teacher” who would then deliver a shock to the “student” every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who would pretend to be shocked.
As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.
Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:
- Please continue.
- The experiment requires that you continue.
- It is absolutely essential that you continue.
- You have no other choice, you must go on.
Results
The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go? When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.
Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.
Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception. However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.
Discussion
While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.
Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of factors about the situation that can explain such high levels of obedience:
- The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
- The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
- The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
- Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
- The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.
Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.
“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority” (Milgram, 1974). Milgram’s study has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is heavily influenced by both external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.
Suggested Reading:
Milgram, S. (1973). The perils of obedience. Harper’s Magazine, 62-77.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harpercollins
Jun
26
Holding Hands
June 26, 2008 | | Leave a Comment
After many years of working with couples, I am a firm believer in the importance of nonsexual touch in marriage.
What is Nonsexual Touch?
Here are more examples of affection and nonsexual touch in marriage:
- Holding hands both privately and in public.
- Nonsexual massage of neck, shoulders, back.
- Hugs.
- Sitting close to one another both privately and in public.
- Kisses, especially unexpected kisses.
- Holding one another.
- Cuddling, snuggling.
- Walking arm in arm.
- Stroking.
- Reaching across the table to touch hands.
- Simple caring and tender gestures such as resting your hand on your spouse’s leg.
- Putting your hand on your spouse’s shoulder.
- Gentle caresses.
Why is Nonsexual Touch Important in Your Marriage?
Nonsexual touch and other signs of affection strengthens your marriage relationship, creates a comforting and calming atmosphere in your home, builds trust between the two of you, and deepens your intimacy with one another. Do not let nonsexual touch become a thing of the past in your marriage!
Jun
19
The Many Hats of a Psychologist
June 19, 2008 | | Leave a Comment
A sample statement from my client, Cindy, who is discussing the significant relationships in her life.
“Well, there’s my parents, but they don’t really listen, they just tell me what to do. There’s my brother and sister, but they’re caught up in their own lives. I’ve got three or four close friends, but we seem to be drifting farther apart. And then there’s you, but this doesn’t count.”
I believe that understanding our relationship takes top priority, as it is the foundation for all our work. I ask for her to clarify.
“This is your job. I pay you, and we only meet 50 minutes per week. You seem to care and everything, but it’s not a real relationship.”
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard a client say that. I know what she means, though. We don’t chat on the phone, see one another at block parties or exchange birthday cards. Our relationship has a particular structure and boundaries that set it apart from other relationships Cindy might call “real.” But I believe it is still very much a relationship; an intense, dynamic, powerful one at that. The question is not whether or not the relationship is real, but what kind of relationship it is.
The media doesn’t help matters much. Depending on the movie or TV show, viewers may come to understand therapists as cold dictators, magical psychics, brainwashing manipulators, inept goof balls or secret lovers. The topic for a future blog, to be sure. But it’s not all Hollywood’s fault: I don’t think our profession does a very good job of clearly defining the therapist’s role either.
Therapy shares qualities with many other professions and relationships, yet none are a complete match. I’ll do a little compare and contrast:
Physician: We go to physicians seeking the diagnosis and treatment of physical illness or injury. The physician is the authority, asking the questions and applying the treatments we passively receive. Clients do come to therapy for diagnosis and treatment, but the process requires much more collaboration. It’s you and me working together on your problem, not me working on you.
Friend: Friends share experiences with one another and talk about anything from the deep and meaningful to the mundane. They feel mutual respect, provide support for one another and give advice. While communication, respect and support are at the heart of therapy, therapy includes one-way disclosure, infrequent or inconsistent advice, and does not typically involve shared experiences. You’re not going to have your therapist over for this weekend’s barbecue.
Teacher: Some people imagine therapy works like an individual tutoring session: “Today the topic is codependency, take good notes.” There are times when therapists may teach certain theories or techniques (we call this “psychoeducation”), and some theoretical orientations do include giving homework like reading a book or writing a letter. Just like the comparison with the physician, however, therapy is much more collaborative than the classroom.
Psychic: The allure of the psychic stems from their ability to read minds and predict the future. Therapists study human behavior and may have a deep understanding of their client’s lives, but they can’t read minds.
Priest/Pastor/Rabbi/Shaman: You may choose to discuss spiritual issues in therapy or confess transgressions. You may even have epiphanies that feel like divine intervention. But therapists do not absolve sin and don’t typically dispense moral advice.
Parents: Like a friend, a parent may listen and/or give advice. In some situations, the parents may even take steps to resolve their child’s problem for them. Sometimes therapy does help fill in gaps or re-tool messages we heard in childhood, picking up where parenting left off. The aim of therapy is helping empower clients to face life’s challenges on their own, not fostering the dependency of an early parent/child relationship.
Personal Trainer: This may be the closest match. People go to personal trainers with a goal - lose weight, get toned, drop a dress size, etc. The trainers work with you to develop a plan of action, stand next to you as you do the work, give encouragement, and revise the plan if obstacles arise. It’s collaboration with distinct roles: both trainers and therapists use their knowledge and experience to guide the process, but you do the work and reap the benefits.
So where does that leave us? At times, the therapist’s role can look similar to any of the above relationships. It can seem a little confusing. But like every other relationship in your life, each therapy relationship is unique. Together you can decide what kind of relationship works best to meet your needs.
