Tag Archives: Psychology

August 8, 2008 · 5:07 am

APA’s resolution on religious, religion-based, and/or religion-derived prejudice


Just got my 2007 annual report from the American Psychological Association. I rarely read this thick document except for the ethics violation reports. But I saw that the board and council passed the above-named resolution. Some key passages to consider in the long document:

Prejudice based on or derived from religion and antireligious prejudice has been, and continues to be, a cause of significant suffering in the human condition. …

Prejudices are unfavorable affective reactions to or evaluations of groups and their members…

…it is a paradoxical feature of these kind of prejudices that religion can be both target and victim of prejudice, as well as construed as justification and imperative for prejudice. The right of persons to practice their religion or faith does not and cannot entail a right to harm others or to undermine the public good.  …

While many individuals and groups have been victims of antireligious discrimination, religion itself has also been the source of a wide range of beliefs about and attitudes and behaviors toward other individuals…

Allport and his colleagues observed that the relationship between religion and prejudice is curvilinear rather than linear, with highly religious individuals having lower levels of prejudice than marginally religious adherents.

It is important for psychology as a behavioral science, and various faith traditions as theological systems, to acknowledge and respect their profoundly different methodological, epistemological, historical, theoretical, and philosophical bases. Psychology has no legitimate function in arbitrating matters of faith and theology, and faith traditions have no legitimate place arbitrating behavioral and other sciences.

The document goes on to list multiple “whereas” and “therefore be it resolved” statements. The gist of which is to say, don’t discriminate; respect religion and spirituality; avoid prejudice; give no preference (as an Association to either belief or unbelief; recognize that psychology and religion cannot adjudicate either party’s tenets (but psychology can comment on the psychological impact of spiritual beliefs and religion can comment on theological implications of psychology); and try to collaborate if you can.

Problems galore despite their effort not to just paint religion as the bad guy. I’ll post just two. First, what is prejudice? They mention it as an “unfavorable affective reaction.” Okay. So, if I gently and cognitively say that my faith disapproves of certain behaviors or beliefs and based on those differences I decide not to hire you in my private, faith-based school, is that prejudice? I think some would say so. Currently, the debate over the appropriateness of having someone seek counseling to change sexual orientation has plenty of folk arguing that the problem is not affective but cognitive. If you believe you can or should change your orientation then you are accepting dominant prejudices.

Second, the whole document stinks of the separation of science and faith–as if science is all empirical and faith is all unsubstantiated belief. Also, what do those psychologists do who find themselves well trained in both worlds. It would seem from this document that the psychologist training trumps theological training. Again this is thought to be best for “the public good” and yet they do not recognize this as value, non-emprically based statement.

Leave a comment

Filed under church and culture, philosophy of science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

August 6, 2008 · 10:59 am

The root of conflict in couples?


We often say that most conflict between spouses boils down to money, sex, or power–and the first two are also all about power in the relationship. I think that is true. But, don’t forget that the power struggle may be less about the two people and more about a life-long pattern of feeling powerless  and unsafe in the world. In psychology terms we talk about this as the lack of secure attachment.

Here’s a few summary statements about attachment that I wrote up some time ago. I have no idea where these thoughts came from or why I wrote them so I apologize now for plagarizing them. They may well be my own thoughts or someone else’s…

1. Attachment injuries are often the culprit behind continuously conflicted couples.

2. Fights, then, are more symbolic than content driven.

3. Attachment insecurity precedes most conflict: the feeling of being alone, abandoned, rejected, etc.

4. Injuries usually are trauma based (or the perception of) in the present marital relationship or much earlier in childhood. There is a “violation of connection”

5. Two common problems result: (a) numbing, and (b) obsessional repeating/self-reminder of the experience of the violation. (example: the person repeatedly recalls the time 5 years ago that their spouse treated them as an object)

6. As a result of #5, the person experiences (a) and increased desire/”need” for a safe haven, but (b) lacks trust in the spouse, and (c) is vigilant for any sign of relational danger (i.e., reads ambiguous data in the worst possible manner)

7. The other spouse feels pushed/pulled at the same time and commonly physically and/or emotionally withdraws

8. The cycle perpetuates itself allowing both parties to solidify their labels for each other

9. The GOAL of therapy is to get a commitment to stop the cycle/script and to have each party soften towards each other so as to see the desires behind the emotion/behavior. If couples can see beyond the criticism or withdrawal to common desires of intimacy, they may be able to re-interpret and validate that desire while at the same time supporting a healthier way of expressing that desire.

7 Comments

Filed under Communication, conflicts, counseling, marriage, Psychology, Relationships

Tagged as , , ,

July 25, 2008 · 4:45 am

When your brain lies to you


Ever were sure of some “objective truth” only to find out that you are wrong?

My dentist told me this week that my brain isn’t telling the truth. After installing a crown on a lower tooth, he asked me how it felt. I stated that the crown was too high and was touching first in my bite. He checked it, concurred, and made some corrections. Then he asked me how it felt. It was better, I thought, but still too high. He checked again with something that tells him how my bite is coming together and that is when he told me my brain is not telling the truth. He stated that the the nerves are sensitive around this newly rebuilt tooth and so it pays attention to that feeling and ignores the rest of the bite sensation.

I’m not surprised. Our brains don’t always tell us the truth. People have phantom pains on amputated legs. Our eyes play tricks on us and so we “see” what isn’t actually there.

Isn’t it hard to accept that some of what we think or perceive isn’t real? It can be quite unnerving.

What about our emotions, assumptions about others, about what God wants us to do? What about our ability to correctly perceive these things? Does our brain/heart lie to us here as well? Have you ever thought someone was mad at you and found out later that it wasn’t the case? Did you ever experience panic over something that turned out not to have happened?

Where are you inclined to hear and believe lies? How did you come to realize you perceived wrongly? What have you done to try to counter these lies, to train yourself to hear the truth?

As to my tooth, I want to believe my dentist. He has a good track record for being right. But right now my mouth says something is wrong. I’m going to make an effort to either ignore the sensation or be mindful of the interesting way the brain works with new information. In a couple of weeks I may change my mind. Maybe my bite is different AND the crown isn’t too high.

2 Comments

Filed under Psychology

Tagged as , ,

June 23, 2008 · 1:00 pm

Last Practicum Monday: Christian counselors in a secular world


Today marks the end of the 2007-8 school year for our MA Counseling students. Some have completed their final credits and others are half-way to their diplomas but I’m sure all are glad the school year is over.

Our students here do fieldwork in a variety of settings: churches, christian private practices, nonprofit social services (hospice, pregnancy centers), and secular or state/federal financed mental health facilities. Those who work in secular settings are often faced with questions about their faith from colleagues and supervisors. Are they going to try to get their clients saved? Will they leave their faith at the door? And students struggle to know what to do with helping clients in some ways (new communication skills) but not being able to help them in deeper ways (putting trust in God during difficult times). Just how should Christians working in secular mental health agencies function? 

First, I very much believe that Christians should be in all aspects of society if they have any hopes of being salt and light in the world. Far too frequently we sequester ourselves from the world and then wonder why they persist in using caricatures of us.

So, if we are going to be in the world but not of it, how might we do it as counselors in a secular setting? I suggest 3 things to consider as we interact with supervisors/colleagues, clients, and our own self:

1. When dealing with an  Agency/Supervisor/Colleague

  • Get to know your context and its/their history with Christians and Christianity
  • When you hear slams or other suspicious questions be sure to explore the “back story” and validate, if appropriate, the bad experiences with naive or offensive behaviors by Christians
  • Discern who you might be able to have a reasonable conversation with regarding the nature of faith and psychology, philosophy of science, ethical care of people (including the exploration of their faith traditions), and the fact that all counseling is evangelistic to some construct of health). In this conversation be sure to using starting points that the other will understand (e.g., ethics, empirical evidence, concerns, etc.) just as St. Paul does at the Areopagus.
  • Communicate that you do not see your job as coercing anyone. You are not responsible for our clients behavior, neither are we for their beliefs. When we raise questions about faith it is to provoke their thinking a bit further

2. When dealing with clients

  • Be sure to ask early in clinical work about faith traditions, current practices, and experiences. These questions fit with what the AMA suggest as important for healing, as community and spiritual resources are quite powerful in the medical literature
  • When given an opening (e.g., questions about God, faith, etc.) pursue gently NOT with statements but questions that may reveal further beliefs, fears, wants, desires, demands, etc.
  • Further, ask how they came to believe what they do believe
  • Point out inconsistencies in belief/behavior; raise possibilities, pros/cons, potential places for hope that may lead to further discussion of God’s handiwork in their lives; Point out places where they seem to recognize their inability to love enough, tolerate enough (gently of course)
  • Be wary of the habit of “telling” others the truth. Many times clients already know the “right” answer. Exhortations may be useful at times but more often than not they cause individuals to become passive–even when they agree with your point.
  • Be ready to answer their questions about YOUR faith with honesty (e.g., what does belief in God look and feel like when everything is caving in?). Be sure not to sugarcoat the Christian life. Be ready to talk about your hope in a broken world (not just for eternity but for now)
  • And if you do talk about your faith, immediately turn it back to them for them to react, explore, challenge, etc.

3. To ourselves

  • Answer the following questions
    • Can I work with integrity within this system?
    • Is giving a “cup of cold water” (e.g., better communication skills) enough for right now?
    • Can I defend what I do say about the Christian faith in my sessions?
    • Am I giving the impression that I believe that there are many ways to God?
  • Develop a theology of mercy ministry akin to God’s providing rain, sun, and health to the just and unjust alike

3 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, church and culture, counseling, counseling and the law, counseling science, counseling skills, Evangelicals, philosophy of science, Psychology, teaching counseling

Tagged as ,

May 22, 2008 · 10:04 am

Subtle Racism: How do you know it’s happening?


“You just know.” Well, how DO you know? It seems that in the US minorities are well aware of both explicit and implicit or subtle racialization. But on the other side, dominant culture (White) folk are quick to point out that certain comments (“you are so articulate” to a Black man) might not be racist. Stupid but not racist. So, whose being over-sensitive?

The latest American Psychologist (63:4) has comments and author reply to a previous article by Derald Wing Sue et al on the topic of microaggressions(in vol. 62, entitled: Racial microaggressions in everday life: Implications for clinical practice). 3 of the 4 commenters were defensive of Sue’s allegations of these microaggressions. And Sue replied saying that their defensiveness is ample evidence that white people can’t take the reality of racism. They always want to find other reasons for racist activity (i.e., oversensitivity of minorities).

End result? No good dialogue; distance; defensiveness. One guy questions one of Sue’s hypotheses in his article and suggests an alternative (innocently portrayed). Sue replies and says he of course considered (and rejected) that hypothesis and that the guy has a problem because he can’t deal with the reality of racism.

What got the commenters up in arms wasn’t the science in the article but Sue’s personal story of being asked to move to the back of a small prop plane to balance the weight out when 3 late arriving white businessmen were not asked to move. In a personal story, we make ourselves vulnerable to attack because it is our perceptions that we state as reality that tempt others to challenging what we “saw”. 

Unfortunately, the inability to talk about microaggressions is based on the problem of defensiveness of both sides and feelings of invalidation when one questions our sense of the world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Black and White, Psychology, Race, Racial Reconciliation

Tagged as , ,

May 20, 2008 · 5:19 am

APA says sexual orientation isn’t biological but from yet to be determined factors


Last week I commented on sexual identity formation in little kids. It spawned a large number of comments, both on and off topic. Hesitantly, I will make another post on the topic of sexual identity–this time from a brochure published by my own clinical association.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a pamphlet on sexual orientation and homosexuality designed to aid understanding and reduce prejudice. My friend, John Freeman, gave me this to me and pointed out an interesting line which we’ll look at in a moment. But first, let me summarize the pamphlet

Sexual orientation, according to the APA is

“an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.”

Right away it is clear they don’t really distinguish between attraction and identity and orientation and identity. You see the simple equation: attraction=orientation/identity. This is where Yarhouse’s studies with individuals within a gay affirming church give ample concrete evidence that such an equation is simplistic and mischaracterizes a set of complex issues. The reality is that one may recognize an attractional pull without it forming a private or public identity.

The APA document continues with the following,

“According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence.”

Again we see the attractions = orientation. This fits with the popular identity development theory that one moves from discomfort with to pride in attractions and accepts orientation as a given. Interpretive assumptions are given short shrift here.

Now to the good stuff. The brochure asks the question: What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? And here is their answer,

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientist to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

This is an interesting paragraph. The APA rightly recognizes that no one factor is likely to determine later orientation. In fact, we’re not really at a point where we can say one factor is X% of the equation. There is no equation yet. It doesn’t mean we won’t have a better sense of it in the future, but as of yet, the problem is not merely a biological process. So, this opens the door to choice and manipulation of one’s orientation unless one subscribes to behavioral naturalism–something most of us would not accept in other areas of life. Obviously no one is suggesting that sexual orientation is as transitory as a passing fancy. And yet the APA recognizes that even when folks don’t experience themselves choosing orientation, there is an interpretative and choice element however subtle and slow the process.

At this point the brochure turns to the problem of discrimination and its impact on gay and lesbian people. No matter your beliefs about homosexuality, you ought to recognize that there is great stigma and mistreatment for those so identified (and also for those who may not fit stereotyped roles but do not have a gay identity). Then the brochure covers the question of mental disorder. 

Is homosexuality a mental health disorder? No says the APA and I agree based on the definition of mental illness where it has to cause distress. Not all with a gay identity are distressed, period. This really isn’t the issue.

The brochure goes on but I will mention only one last section. They discuss the validity of therapy intended to change orientation. They state there is, “no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation is safe or effective.” First, this sentence is full of highly charged words whose meaning can be debated: adequate…safe…effective. What constitutes adequate? Safe? Effective? There is some data that is not merely anecdotal suggesting that change is possible and not unsafe (see Yarhouse and Jones’ Ex-Gays(IVP). Now, their data isn’t as strong as it could be, isn’t overwhelmingly positive, but neither can it be denied as an anecdote. On the flip side, there isn’t any adequately scientific data suggestive that change therapies are unsafe and ineffective. Both sides of the research agenda have the same set of weaknesses that one would expect in researching this particular population (i.e., convenience samples).

I agree with the APA that we therapist must respect and person’s right to self-determination. But the APA violates this very principle by disrespecting those who have carefully thought about change. It is a paternalistic stretch to say that every person who wishes to change orientation only does so because of biases or because of a fundamentalist upbringing. The APA wants to be sensitive to a client’s “race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion…” as long as their religion doesn’t guide them to see sexuality in a different light.

All in all, the APA takes a complex set of factors and ends up with, “It just is, so be nice!” I’m all for reducing mistreatment and violations of constitutional rights. But, I expect my scientific organization to spend my dues in a more balanced manner–faithfully representing what is true, whether attractive or not.  

13 Comments

Filed under Psychology, sexual identity, sexuality, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

April 14, 2008 · 10:01 am

Practicum Monday: Basic Competencies


Today starts our 3rd trimester of the 2007-8 school year and Cohort 3 begins their Practicum and Professional Orientation course and first fieldwork experiences of the program. Last year I ran across an article (see reference at end) trying to articulate the domains and levels of competence in focus in a psychology practicum experience. Though the article is directed to doctoral level practicums, I think the domains fit for any level of trainee and are a good reminder for both practicum students and their professors. The authors summarize the “Practicum Competencies Outline” and in turn I will quote/summarize/highlight them below. Click here for the whole document.

  • Baseline Competencies (for entry to practicum)
    • Personality Characteristics
      • interpersonal skills (verbal and nonverbal forms of communication, open to feedback, empathic, respectful)
      • cognitive skills (intellectual curiosity, flexibility, problem-solving, critical thinking, organizing)
      • affective skills (ability to tolerate affect and conflict and ambiguity)
      • personality/attitudes (desire to help, openness to new ideas, honesty, courage, valuing ethics)
      • expressive skills (ability to communicate ideas, feelings, ideas in multiple forms)
      • reflective skills (ability to examine and consider own motives, attitudes and behaviors and recognize one impact on others)
      • personal skills (ability to present oneself in a professional manner)
    • Knowledge from the classroom
      • assessment and interviewing
      • intervention
      • ethics and legal issues
      • diversity
  • Skills to Develop during Practicum
    • Relationship/interpersonal skills
    • Applying research (less so for MA level)
    • Psych assessment (not for MA level)
    • Intervention
    • Consultation/interprofessional collaboration
    • Diversity
    • Ethics
    • Leadership
    • Supervisory skills (not for MA level)
    • Metaknowledge/metacompetencies

This second major bullet point (competencies built during practicum) is fleshed out further by listing levels of competencies. The article illustrates relationship/interpersonal skill competencies by listing how it will show up with clients (e.g., ability to form working alliances), colleagues (e.g., ability to accept feedback nondefensively from peers), supervisors (ability to self-reflect), support staff (respectful of support staff roles), clinical teams (participates fully in team work), community professionals (ability to further the work and mission of the site).

Hatcher, R.L, & Lassiter, K.D. (2007). Initial Training in Professional Psychology: The Practicum Competencies Outline. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1, 49-63.

Leave a comment

Filed under counseling, counseling skills, Psychology, teaching counseling

Tagged as , ,

April 11, 2008 · 5:10 am

Assuming the best or the worst?


Consider for a moment that person you tend to assume the worst when you think about their motivation for doing/not doing something. Now, consider your best friend and consider how you would react if they did the exact same thing as the first person. Would you assumption be different?

We like to believe that that our feelings and actions are based in facts and knowledge when in fact they are much more based on prior experiences (not necessarily facts) and interpretations we made about those experiences. What I find interesting is that we tend to either assume the best or the worst and find it difficult to remain neutral. We tend to perceive that people are for us or against us. Once someone crosses the divde from “for” to “against” we tend to go back and reinterpret our history with them to read their behavior toward us in an completely new light. Some times this is warranted. Other times it is not.

Can we live without making assumptions? No. But, our challenge is being humble about those assumptions and willing to be flexible (assuming the best) as much as possible as 1 Corinthians 13 calls us to. Such a move should not be naive but merely recognizing that we ought to be equally suspicious about our own assumptions.

1 Comment

Filed under Cultural Anthropology, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

March 14, 2008 · 12:06 pm

Note-taking in sessions?


Counselors have vastly differing styles of counseling. Some choose to be directive, others are remain passive even when the client wants them to give advice. We are different because of our varying theories and personalities. But I always assumed that most counselors do not take notes during sessions unless needing to record very specific details (say taking a family genogram or collecting details for a psychological report). But after having conversations in several different locations I learn that many write during the session. They write down key client phrases and other things that they wish to come back to and explore at a later date.

I’m curious about your experiences–either as a counselor or counselee. Was there note-taking going on during the session and was it helpful (for both)? Did it cause problems?

I don’t take notes in session so that I can stay engaged in good dialogue with my clientele. I don’t want to miss subtle details and I don’t want to break up the work by taking a note. It seems to me that if I take a note during the session, the client waits for me to do so and then they move out of an experience to only describing an experience–and so distance themselves from their feelings and thus any insight or intervention is also distant.

What do you think?

11 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling skills

Tagged as , ,

December 10, 2007 · 11:26 am

Copycat killings, why do they happen?


Notice that certain suicides and homicides lead to copycat suicides and homicides? Sadly, we seem to be witnessing this with the new shootings in Colorado right after the Omaha mall shooting. Locally, in the past year officials stopped two different individuals seeking to replicate the Columbine massacres. Why does this happen? Is it a desire to be famous (as the Omaha young man said in his note written before he went on a rampage)? Is is a fad done by those who want to fit in or connect to a certain identity (a certain APA published article sees it this way since their is an upturn in similar events and then a gradual fade)?

Obviously, this is hard to decipher well since the population of copycatters in question is actually rare, often dies in the process, and is quite twisted altogether. But, there is some research. There is a popular book, entitled: The Copycat Effect, by  Loren Coleman. Haven’t read this book but I suspect he provides lots of interesting anecdotes and lurid details, but may be thin on the actual research. I perused the APA literature this am and found most dealing with copycat suicides and guidelines for media coverage. One article spoke of the “Werther Effect”:

Debate about whether the media can influence suicidal behavior began in the late 18th century with an example from the fictional media. In Goethe’s novel The Sorrows of Young Werther, the protagonist falls in love with a woman who is beyond his reach, and consequently decides to end his own life. He dresses in boots, a blue coat, and a yellow vest, sits at his desk with an open book and shoots himself. The launch of the novel was followed by a spate of suicides across Europe, with strong evidence that at least some of those who died by suicide were influenced by the book – they were dressed in a similar fashion to Werther, adopted his method, and/or the book was found at the scene of death. For example, one young man killed himself with a pistol and was found with a copy of the book lying by his side, another young man threw himself out of a window with a copy of the book in his vest, a young woman drowned herself with a copy of the book in her pocket, and another young woman took her own life in bed with a copy of the book under her pillow. The book was banned in various European countries, despite a disclaimer included in later editions in which concluded, “Be a man, he said; do not follow my example” (Minois, 1999).

Phillips (1974)coined the term “Werther effect” to describe the situation where an observer copies behavior he or she has seen modelled in the media, in a paper describing a landmark study of the relationship between news media reports of suicide and subsequent suicidal behavior. Using a quasi-experimental design, Phillips examined the frequency of suicide in months in which a front-page suicide article appeared in the U.S. press between 1947 and 1968, and compared this with the frequency in corresponding months in which no such article appeared. Adjusting for seasonal effects and changing trends in this way, he found a significant increase in the number after 26 front-page articles, and a decrease after seven of them.

This article spoke of the existence of media guidelines for coverage of suicides (and I would add homicides). Sadly, they mention that most American journalists seemed unaware of these guidelines (avoiding rich detail, sensationalism, addressing the hurt to families more than the shooter’s background, etc.)

In 2002 Julie Peterson-Manz wrote a dissertation on the link between increases in homicides after the media sensationalized celebrity involved homicides with rich descriptive, words, multiple stories, identification with the killer. When two or more of the priming effects were found, homicides increased in LA over the subsequent 2 weeks. BUT, when the media spent more time on the consequences to the perpetrator, same weapon homicides decreased over the next 2 weeks.

So, why do copycat murders and suicides take place? Media. And who drives media? We do. Are we to blame? Partly. We do lust to know the details. I admit to getting on-line to learn what I could about the Colorado shootings. I wanted to know who, when, where, why? The same desire to know, leads some to use this information to repeat what they see. Are we responsible for that? No. But, do we need to know as much as we desire? That is the question of the day.

I suspect this problem is much more common than we think. Who’s to say that copycat murders aren’t happening every day in Philadelphia?

3 Comments

Filed under Cultural Anthropology, Psychology

Tagged as , ,