Tag Archives: Psychology

March 13, 2009 · 3:38 am

Physiology Phriday: Anticipation and Anxiety


Anticipation and its relationship to anxiety.

This week we have been thinking about how we evaluate our world. Evaluations or judgements come from a variety of locations. Our expectations and desires prep us to look for certain kinds of “data.” Our histories and past perceptions prep us as well. Finally, what is actually happening is part of the data we use to evaluate ourselves and our world. Notice that we aren’t as logical and objective as we’d like to think. Instead, we ANTICIPATE life and then respond to data that fits into that anticipation.

The primary feature of chronic anxiety is that anticipation of negative, dangerous outcomes. The anxious person views ambiguous data (e.g., a boss who is grumpy, a funny feeling in the chest, etc.) and reads that data in the worst possible light (I’m going to get fired, I’m having a heart attack).

If the problem is bad habits in thought patterns, it would make sense that the treatment ought to be to challenge these logical fallacies with the truth. And while cognitive counseling does indeed work (clear data that one can challenge and reject anxious, ruminative thinking) most find that counseling stops anxiety from growing but doesn’t often stop it from starting in the first place. This struggle to fight anxiety leaves many Christians feeling quite guilty for not trusting God more. 

But what about the amygdala? There is significant research that anxious people have very activated flight/fight activity in the amygdala. In fact, brain scans of this area show greater activity in anxious people than non-anxious people even when they are responding to neutral events. Thus, the anxious person’s brain is in a chronic state of hypervigilance even when nothing is going on. Hypervigilance maintains higher levels of norepinephrine the body, which in turn keeps the adrenal system in high alert. Medications (of the SSRI and NSRI type) have the capacity to positively impact serotonin and Norepinephrine and thereby allow individuals to decrease the negative hormonal activity in the brain.

Which comes first?

So, does biological hyperactivity in the amygdala result from either bad experiences or bad thinking? Or does a predisposition towards overactivity of this part of the brain encourage negative and anxious thinking, forming a vicious cycle? 

Seems to me good treatment needn’t answer this question. Good treatment would include (a) medications that might make it easier to slow down the anxiety processes (biology and behavior), (b) recognition that vigilance can be directed via counseling work away from the feared object and to a better understanding of the brain, and finally (c) that one changes the goal from cessation from fear to a more godly and humble response to Jesus in their fear.

What I mean by (b) is that the anxious person see themselves as like unto a person with colorblindness or dyslexia. In each case, the brain functions in a way to send the wrong messages. The dyslexic person learns to recognize the problem and designs a means to compensate in order to truly see the right order of letters/words. The anxious person accepts that their brain sends certain messages but that their job is to stay remember that while something real is happening it is not necessarily the way their brain is putting the “facts” together. Thus, the work is not to remove the fear but to practice a better response to it.

Ironically, when the person reinterprets the stimulus differently, they do see a marked reduction in fear triggers.

1 Comment

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Cognitive biases, counseling science, Psychiatric Medications

Tagged as , , , ,

March 12, 2009 · 12:28 pm

Expectations and the will


We’ve been thinking a bit about expectations this week. Now, when our expectations fail to be met, we have a couple of less than optimal options;

1. Slide toward despair and anger. A passive response to not getting what we hoped for.

2. Find new ways to get what we expect or want (and, if necessary, justify our actions in case others think we are selfish).

On this second point, my pastor preached last Sunday on Judges 18 (The tribe of Dan looking for a reason to take a land not offered them by God). He listed several ways (tongue in cheek) we can become good syncretists (having the appearance of Christianity but operating on unbiblical principles). They are worth repeating as we may find that we actively seek to justify willful behavior so that we get what we want. I don’t have his list in front of me so I’m going on memory here:

1. Start going after what you want but then on the way ask God if he’s going to bless what you are doing

2. When you get an answer, be sure to read any ambiguity as supporting your own interests. Don’t consider that the person telling you that God is favoring you might be off his rocker (the priest was not following the Law because he was allowing Micah to have idols as well).

3. When you see that you can be successful at grabbing something not yours, assume that success means that God is in it. Assume might makes right.

4. If a better deal comes along (the priest or seeming success of Micah and his idols), assume the better deal is a good idea and grab all you can.

My pastor did a better job with these and I’m not doing justice here to his creativity but I do find that it is so easy for me to justify my expectations, find ways to fulfill them–even if I know God is not in it. Some examples I see from others:

1. Justifying rage towards children because they are rebellious

2. Justifying sexual sin because God wants me to be happy

3. Justifying overeating/undereating because celebration is good/too many people overindulge

4. Justifying withholding love because others aren’t doing their fair share

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Cognitive biases, conflicts, deception, Desires, Psychology, self-deception, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

March 11, 2009 · 5:45 am

A culture of criticism?


Some further thoughts about our propensity for evaluation. Is it only my perception or have we become a culture of critics? In past generations, we overlooked the flaws of others to maintain the looks of stability, honesty, and integrity. Now, we love to out leaders (sports, religion, politics, etc.) when they are immature, foolish, or downright evil. And the advent of the cellphone camera and blog means we can catch it on tape and share it immediately with the world.

I’ve noticed that this culture of criticism extends to the local community–even the church. Stand around with neighbors. How long does it take to hear your first gossipy complaint? Stand around at coffee at some churches and you might just hear a complaint about the sermon, the way the youth leader operates, a question about how the budget is being formed. Recently, I was at a function (non-church) of friends and I was surprised to hear catty complaints about whether or not others brought enough food or the right kind.

Why are we inclined to talk this way? What do we gain by pointing out the flaws of others? Pride? Self-righteousness? “Reasons” for why we can overlook our own sins? 

One more thought. Do we take greater pleasure in noticing the brokenness of the world than pointing out the good?

I am all for speaking the truth in love; for standing up against injustice and incompetence. But the repetitious meditating on what is wrong with others (including systems) seems to tear down more than it offers a way up.

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity, church and culture, conflicts, Doctrine/Theology, Psychology, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

February 25, 2009 · 5:14 am

Breaking down Christian Counseling barriers


Maybe it’s a stage of life, maybe I’m hallucinating, but it seems to me that the divisions withing Christian forms of counseling are exploding. And to that I can only say hurrah!!

Let me give you the clifnotes version of American Christian counseling history (minus many important details) starting with the 20th century:

  • Fundamentalist/Modernist fallout after the turn of the century builds division between fundamentalist/evangelicals and academics, including psychology. Division over naturalism
  • Christians authoring psychology related books (Boisen, Clinebell, Hiltner, Narramore) in 30s-50s
  • Creation of Christian Association of Psychological Studies in 1956 by Dutch Reformed pastors but later broadened to include those wacky Californian evangelicals interested in psychology. Writings at this time were broadly evangelical but often contemporary psychology models with bible verses attached. Beginnings of the integrationof psychology and Christianity movement with creation of doctoral training programs by Fuller Seminary and others.
  • Jay Adams counters in late 60s and early 1970 (Competent to Counsel) with nouthetic counseling model to return to the power of the Scripture to change people and to throw off the humanistic clutches of psychology. Numerous models of biblical counseling birthed. Most prominent: CCEF
  • Divide between Biblical counseling models and professional Christian Psychology widens in the church. Much maligning of each other. To associate with one meant no possible association with the other. Biblical counseling avoids professional jargon; integrative psychology pushes for meeting state licensing standards
  • Biblical Counseling moves in 1980s from predominantly deconstructive and critique oriented to more positive model building
  • 1990s: some beginnings of dialogue between key thinkers/authors in biblical counseling and integration movement. Integrative clinicians see benefits of the biblical work done by biblical counselors, see problems with many superficial integrative models, and both sides seem to be less separatistic and more open to learning from each other
  • Now in the 21st century: A new version of Christian Psychology willing to embrace biblical counselors, psychologists, theologians, etc. and desiring to build a robust, biblically founded understanding of people informed by psychological research.

Okay, that’s in broad brush strokes and I left out huge developments and individuals. But yesterday I received a survey about biblical counseling programs. It’s clear our old divisions and categories no longer work. Now, today I get an advertisement for a biblical counseling conference that includes a wide variety of speakers. We are truly crossing lines! I’m interested to see what comes of this in the next 5 years.

FYI, interested in a fuller history? Start with the 1st chapter in Eric Johnson and Stan Jones’ “Psychology and Christianity: 4 Views” book. Follow their reference list. Then check out David Powlison’s U Penn PhD dissertation on the history of Jay Adams. Neftali Serrano published his PsyD dissertation on the beginnings of CAPS. That will whet your appetite.

5 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, History of Psychology, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

February 20, 2009 · 10:00 am

Please “Lie to Me”


Have you caught the television show, “Lie to Me”? It is a newer show based on the work of psychologist Paul Ekman who has researched the ways we involuntarily respond (movements, facial expressions, eyes, etc.) when lying. If you are bored, try watching your friends and family as you ask them penetrating questions. Last night I was up watching TV because I couldn’t sleep. A couple of actors were involved in a infomercial about an enhancement product. I couldn’t help but laugh when the host (a woman) kept saying “this is great” and other praiseworthy statements while looking down and away and shaking her head. She looked about as comfortable as someone having to undress in public.

But, can you really tell if someone is lying? Ekman has compiled an interesting history of research but the data suggest to me that we aren’t all that good in detecting lies. In fact, we’re probably no better than chance. I read a Washington Post article that talked about how some people become quite good at detecting deception in particular situations (e.g., police with thieves) but that these same people don’t seem to be as good at doing that in other parts of their lives.

Wonder why?

1. We make these decisions based on our gut as well as our observations. And our gut is about as accurate as coin flips. We consider particular data and reject other data, but not in a thoughtful, conscious way.

2. We don’t always want the truth (this has been brought by other reviewers of this show). We can’t handle the whole truth. If we tried, we’d never trust anyone. We would become paranoid.

3. Deception is a practiced activity, and frankly, we’re pretty good at it. Some are better than others. The best get away with it for a long time.

You might wonder if we can spot lying with other technologies and as you know some things can be detected. Lie detectors do detect autonomic responses. Unfortunately, they can’t tell why you had that response. Some computer programs can detect some unique features often found in text written by those lying (has to do with the amount of positive and negatives used).

One more thing about deception. It is my belief that many people want to tell a portion of the truth. And that is what comes out–the portion they want to believe and they want you to believe. They want to confess–just not the truth as it really is. A good interviewer can draw out these “confessions” and then expose the mis-information to reveal the lie.

Be sure your lies will find you out? Well, we know that is true in light of eternity. And maybe we will find us exposed in this life as well.

5 Comments

Filed under Cognitive biases, Cultural Anthropology, deception, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

February 4, 2009 · 5:37 am

Try your hand at diagnosing clients…


Ever wondered if your counselor really knows what is in the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM, ver. 4TR)? Or do they just do the flip and dip method (let the large book open to any page and blindly point to a spot on the page)? Let’s hope not. Well, some professors are trying to increase the accuracy of their students via video vignettes.

One such person, Dr. Aaron Rochlen of U. Texas, has a website with 5 video vignettes available on his website (http://www.edb.utexas.edu/psychopathologypractice/index2.html) for students to watch and then try their hand at giving a DSM diagnosis.

Warning. Site is free. There are no answers given so don’t bother submitting your diagnostic considerations as they won’t go anywhere unless you send them to someone. Second warning: At least one of the “clients” uses some curse words.

1 Comment

Filed under counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology, teaching counseling

Tagged as , , ,

January 26, 2009 · 12:36 pm

Doing the unthinkable: Obeying Commands to do Evil


Have you ever wondered how a person could participate in a genocide? How was it that the average German citizen either explicitly or implicitly participated in the extermination of millions of Jews? Or consider the more recent genocides in Sudan, Rwanda, and the Congo. If you are honest, you’ve asked this question and have thought, “there’s just no way I would do something like that.”

Or would you? The January issue of the 2009 American Psychologist is devoted to the topic of obedience and the controversial studies by Stanley Milgram. Recall your Psych 101 class and the obedience studies in the 60s where he found that participants would be willing to shock “learners” when they made mistakes despite the learner’s protests. Shocks were administered to the point of the learner becoming non-responsive. Well, no, there wasn’t any real shocks in the study, but participants didn’t know that and agreed to obey the instructor and push buttons for increasing shock levels when the confederate learner made a mistake.

But, we’re more advanced nowadays, right? One of the authors, Jerry Burger (Santa Clara U.) modified Milgram’s study (by eliminating some of the ethical controversies in the study) and found that still obeyed the instructor to apply shocks even when the “learner” cried out and asked for it to stop–EVEN when they saw defiant participants (really, confederates) refuse to obey the instructor.

So, why do we not speak up? Why do we go along with bad ideas? What is it that happens when we know we should not go along with something but do anyway? What happens then to our conscience?

Is the problem the power of the situational factors, as some assume, that make us feel we should obey? Or is it our dislike of being in conflict that causes us to be willing to pass on conflict to another in order to stay free from it?

Consider how you have listened to off-color jokes and said nothing. Consider how you have watched someone do something inappropriate or say something inappropriate to another but decided to say nothing. While we can give ourselves a break due to the surprise and shock factor and time to consider what the best option should be, we have to admit we have times of non-action.      

I saw a recent TV show filmed at a deli where someone behind the counter made fun of individuals trying to order but lacking in English skills. It was all staged so as to see what would those waiting behind do. Would they agree with the ethnic comments? Would they stand up and demand the server stop the offensive language? Would they leave? Many did speak up, but some did not and some even participated in telling those immigrants to go back where they came from.

Fact is, we don’t like suffering and we prefer comfort. But, living in a sinful world means speaking up and taking one on the chin from time to time. Some of us have “hero” fantasies where we imagine us taking the high road, but if we are honest, we are just as likely to freeze up and go along with things we ought not.

8 Comments

Filed under christian psychology, Christianity, conflicts, Cultural Anthropology, Psychology

Tagged as , , ,

January 13, 2009 · 5:38 am

Does “Zero Tolerance” work?


The December 2008 edition of the American Psychologist takes up this question when their task force on the matter publishes the article, “Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations (pp 852-862).

What did they find?

1. “…despite a 20-year history of implementation, there are surprisingly few data that could directly test the assumptions. Moreover, zero tolerance policies may negatively affect the relationship of education with juvenile justice and appear to conflict to some degree with current best knowledge concerning adolescent development.” (abstract, p. 852)
2. Zero tolerance is based on several assumptions that the authors found wanting

a. school violence is at a crisis level and increasing still. No (is this because of the policies?)
b. Zero tolerance increases consistency of discipline and sends a clear message. Not found in the data.
c. Removal of violent children will create a better climate for those who remain. Data suggests the opposite, schools with higher suspension rates have lower climate ratings.
d. Swift punishment is a deterrent. Not borne out in the data. Opposite may be.
e. Parents are overwhelmingly in favor of the policy. Mixed data here at best, depending on whether your child is a victim or offender.

3. Impact on minority and disabled children? The assumption was the zero tolerance wouldn’t be a respecter of persons. Data suggests disproportionate discipline of students of color not based on poverty or wealth. The suspicion is that teachers may need some help breaking down cultural stereotypes.

There’s a lot more in the article but I’ll stop here. Interestingly, the policy was created to be more fair across the board. The article suggests more wise implementation with more options for psychological care (no surprise there) rather than immediately going to the juvenile justice route. Either way, the problem has to do with wisdom. If you give administration options (akin to Judges discretion with repeat offenders) some will use it well, others not so much. If you make rules, they work well in decisions IF making the decision the same way every time is the goal. But of course, no one really wants that since wisdom dictates different responses. But then underlying prejudices will come back into play. However, it appears the policy doesn’t really address prejudice and stereotype anyway.

Is there a better solution?

1 Comment

Filed under Civil Rights, conflicts, counseling science, cultural apologetics, education, Psychology, Race

Tagged as , , , ,

November 12, 2008 · 5:06 am

Ideas don’t change people…


Trying to find intellectual ways of saying something I believe is rather simple (for an academic paper I am to deliver):

Ideas don’t change you, stories do.

Was reading an unpublished OT theology paper and the author mentioned the shift in approach to truth, from the Hebraic story to the Platonic “idea” or concept. Truth is best embodied in experience and yet we idolize systematizing truth.

How many of you turned to Christianity because of its great concepts or because someone convinced you of a truth by force of logic? How many because you had an experience that changed your perspective?

6 Comments

Filed under christian psychology, counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

November 11, 2008 · 5:29 am

The addict in us all


Later this week, CCEF will hold their annual teaching conference in Valley Forge, PA. The theme this year is addictions. I have the pleasure of teaching on Friday along with their faculty/staff. Also teaching are Diane Langberg, John Freeman, Leslie Vernick and guest appearances by Mark Driscoll and music by the Gettys. Will have my slides up here after the conference. I will be outlining two main techniques useful in the early stages of counseling those struggling with addictions.

Should be a fun time. If you come, stop by the Biblical Seminary table to chat…

4 Comments

Filed under addiction, biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling skills, Ed Welch, Psychology

Tagged as , ,