Psychology Research

Coturnix pointed out that many people may feel too shy to just put their condom breakage experiences in the comments, but Sci is extremely curious to find out why condoms in general break in the population. So she made a SURVEY!* Please do take it, and I’ll graph up the results in a few days. *Of course all information entered will be completely confidential. I will be using this survey exclusively for the purposes of enlightening the internet, and possibly enlightening the people who take it when they see the results. There is no obligation to take the survey and you may exit at any time. Also, please let me know if there are any major questions I may have missed on the survey. Sci has never made a survey before, and if her first job is shoddy, she would really like to improve in the future. The survey can be found here: Click Here to take survey High n’s are always better! Please share with your friends! And in the comments on the survey, please try to keep it clinical. My cat reads over my shoulder sometimes. Read the comments on this post…

tags: get religion , religion , godlessness , atheism , streaming video Here’s an ad for one of the world’s favorite time and life-wasters: Religion. Presented here as a public service (notice the background music) [1:25] Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

This is disturbing stuff. According to the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences , No-Lie MRI has recently produced a report that’s being offered as evidence in a California court. The case is a child protection hearing being conducted in the juvenile court. In brief, and because the details of the case are sealed and of a sensitive nature, the issue is whether a minor has suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a custodial parent and should remain removed from the home. The parent has contracted No Lie MRI and apparently undergone a brain scan. The defense plans to claim the fMRI-based lie detection (or “truth verification”) technology is accurate and generally accepted within the relevant scientific community in part by narrowly defining the relevant community as only those who research and develop fMRI-based lie detection. [Note: California follows its own version of the Frye test of admissibility, not the current federal test under Daubert.] Limiting the “relevant community” to only those who research and develop fMRI based lie detection is without merit, if only because such a definition precludes effective or sufficient peer-review. Indeed, it is arguable such a narrowly-defined community has a strong incentive to exaggerate its claims of accuracy and overlook unanswered questions for financial gain if such techniques are “legally admissible.” I think we need to tread very, very carefully when it comes to incorporating fMRI data into the legal system. Brain scans can be incredibly useful, and have generated lots of really exciting research, but I worry about juries and judges subscribing to a false metaphor, which is that these massive magnets are accurate “windows” into the brain/mind/soul. (This is the “myth of transparency,” which I’ve written about before.) It’s important to remind ourselves that every fMRI image is highly processed snapshot of blood flow, not some magic readout of our secret thoughts. And then there’s the bias that’s introduced when people are shown silhouettes of the skull, complete with splotches of primary color: Deena Skolnick Weisberg, a researcher at Rutgers University, recently demonstrated how referencing brain scans can bias the evaluation of scientific papers. When she gave neuroscience students and ordinary adults a few examples of obviously flawed scientific explanations, people were consistently able to find the flaws. However, when the same explanations were prefaced with the phrase “Brain scans indicate” both the students and adults became much less critical. In short, I’d want to see a lot more peer-reviewed work on fMRI and truth detection before I’d feel comfortable seeing brain scan data in court. Otherwise, I think it’s too easy to be seduced and convinced by data that looks scientific (the Latinate anatomy! the cortical references! the expensive machines!) but might actually be shoddy pseudoscience. Read the comments on this post…

Now that you’ve gained some familiarity with the first two proven strategies, it’s time to introduce the third strategy, which will help you bring all your awareness together in a way that you take positive action that will help you build the muscle to stop overshopping and start getting what it is that you’re really shopping for. Proven Strategy #3: Instead of shopping, tailor-make alternatives. Tailor-made alternatives are an important strategy for eliminating overshopping, a defense for when the urge is sharp and strong. A tailor-made alternative is an activity you prepare ahead of time to do instead of shopping, an activity carefully chosen to address your authentic needs. The process works on several levels. Do something instead of shopping and you’re taking control of your life and your habit. Do something instead of shopping and you’ll probably find that the urge has dissipated. And every time you do this, you reinforce your power to resist subsequent urges. To use this strategy successfully, however, you must choose or discover or invent tailor-made alternatives that genuinely address your needs, for when you do that you are strengthening the disconnect between those needs and shopping. Perhaps, for example, you overshop out of a craving for the easy personal attention of salespeople, the ready rapport available, buyer and seller joined (if only briefly) in transaction. Underneath this urge, in all probability, is loneliness, the feeling of being unconnected, not belonging, not engaged enough with other people in a way you find meaningful. Instead of shopping, you might choose to sit with and pet a beloved animal. You might call someone you feel close to and meet for coffee or a movie or conversation. You might volunteer your help or expertise, since what we get back when we do this is a feeling of connection. You might even choose some comforting way to connect with yourself, maybe a bath with bubbles and scent and candlelight and soft music. Now that you’ve thought about and listed your triggering emotions and authentic, underlying needs in Part I of this blog, start to think about tailor-made alternatives that meet those needs. These are activities that you will do instead of shopping. Be sure that each contributes to the genuine fulfillment of your specific, important, authentic needs. Take your time with this list and bring all your creativity to it. Triggering        Authentic             Tailor-made Emotion            Need                  Alternative ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________ ________       ________        _________________________________   Keep in mind : These three strategies outlined may appear simple on the surface, but each is a powerful new way of addressing your overshopping problem. Don’t be surprised if you try one and discover it may take some time to succeed. Overcoming a long-term destructive habit doesn’t happen overnight; it takes commitment and daily attention. Be patient with yourself, congratulate yourself for every step in the right direction, and above all, resist any tendency to judge yourself for the inevitable occasional step backward. What to Expect as You Stop Overshopping As you stop overshopping, you might feel worse before you feel better. The feelings that you’re trying to handle by buying can well up because you’re no longer anesthetized or distracted from them by your buying behavior. Be ready for this; having solid strategies for riding out those intense initial feelings is crucial. As you continue to resist the shopping impulse and begin to practice healthier ways of dealing with your feelings, the intensity of the difficult feelings will lessen and your power to resist overshopping will grow. The change you are making is a significant one-you wouldn’t be struggling with it if it weren’t-and anxiety always accompanies major change. Diffuse that anxiety by focusing on your new tools and strategies and by visualizing what you’ll gain: self-control, self-esteem, better relationships, relief from debt and shame and secrecy, and a general feeling of being grounded and competent. If the compulsion to shop is so strong that you can’t follow through on the strategies outlined above or if you want even more strategies and tools, you might want to consult To Buy or Not to Buy: Why We Overshop and How to Stop and Shopping Journals . We also offer group coaching to complete the work of the program. I wish you much success in stopping overshopping, and to moving from mindless buying to mindful being.

I didn’t long for a baby who melted into me, who captured my hair between her soft fingers. I longed to be the type of woman who did. It seemed as though this trait were woven into my biology as much as the fair skin and curly hair. As a child I played with dolls, but didn’t fantasize about a real baby I could love, or dream of pregnancy the way some girls do. I never stuck a pillow beneath my dress to pretend I was having a baby. It scared me even then the whole idea of someone growing inside me, and having to push that little person out from between my skinny legs. The girls I played with shriveled their noses at me, then blithely offered to have the baby for me. Babies, with their hands like rose petals and their toes like creamy pebbles, were natural. My lack of maternal instinct was not. The truth is I’d always wanted to adopt. However, I never wanted to adopt a baby. Not that I have anything against babies (I don’t!). But when I spoke of adoption, the words baby, infant and birthmother were never used. I was more interested in adopting someone a bit older, a toddler or – gulp – a child. When my husband and I eventually did adopt, we went further than that. Our daughters were 10 and 13 (almost 11 and 14, actually) when we got them from a Russian detsky dom , children’s home: orphanage in 1999. A teen and a ‘tween–they were, indeed, not babies. Yet from the moment I saw them, during their brief stay as part of a dance troupe sponsored by the adoption agency, I wanted these grown children as much as any mother wants the unborn babies who swim silently in her womb. I don’t see adoption as better or worse than having biological children, stepchildren, foster children or no children at all. I do, however, see it as a different spin in the cycle of family. But I won’t go around saying you should think about adoption the way people (often) tell women they should think about having a baby because biological clocks run out and you’re not getting any younger . I think often about how I made adoption real, but I’m interested in all the people who do real – ancestral lines from the past and future – and the relationships we share with one another. Which makes Adoption Stories for all of us. If you’re adopted or have adopted, if you don’t understand why anyone would want to adopt-or why anyone wouldn’t. If you longed for a baby or didn’t.    

The Supreme Court yesterday gave one to the people at the expense of corporate power.  In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld a Vermont Supreme Court verdict awarding a large judgment to a woman who lost an arm against the Wyeth pharmaceutical company.  Wyeth had appealed the decision on the basis that once the Food and Drug Administration approved a drug, a company was shielded from individual suits.  For those who are concerned about corporate power and health care (I for one feel that for profit drugs companies are single biggest influence in the way our society — read doctors, parents, teacher and even kids — thinks about normal and abnormal behavior in children and how to treat them — read drugs) the possibility, that the right to sue a drug company over an FDA approved medication be eliminated, was frightening.   And there were reasons to be frightened.  Earlier in this term the Court had ruled against a plaintiff who sued over a medical device saying that the right to sue was explicitly denied in the law governing the approval of medical devices.  It was over this “technicality” that the justices decided in favor of the plaintiff in this drug case.  In this current case there is no explicit waiver of the right to sue in the approval of a drug by the FDA and the justices felt to expand this prohibition abrogated too many rights of the patient.  Even Clarence Thomas who rarely votes against his “twin,” Antonin Scalia, decided to side with the majority making the decision much more impressive at 6-3 instead of 5-4.   As an M.D. I was never a big fan of trial lawyers but in my dealings with the drug industry over the last two decades I’ve seen the extent of their power in my field of behavioral-developmental pediatrics in an unchecked, pro-business, post Reagan/Bushes environment.  There’s lots of reasons why a brain based view of behavior has gained ascendancy in the American consciousness, but from the sponsoring of medical research and medical education, to direct to consumer advertising and to free samples of drugs, the drug companies in my mind have been the single bigger factor promoting biological psychiatry.  Drugs do work (at least short term) and can be a very useful intervention.  I prescribe medication every day, but I remain opposed on both medical and ethical grounds to a medication first or medication very quickly approach to children’s emotional, behavioral and performance problems.  I feel like I’ve been working on an increasingly steep Sisyphisian slope for the last fifteen years.   So in America where the only way anything happens is if someone can make some money, the trial lawyers have been, in my opinion, the only check against increasing corporate power in our society.  Supervising government agencies have been castrated during Republican administrations.  Most politicians have huge contributions coming from industry lobbyists (Charles Grassley, the senator from Iowa stirring up “s” for academic researchers taking money from drug companies is a startling exception).   Using suits as a check against corporations is not a particularly efficient method (the lawyers take typical from thirty to fifty per cent of settlements) but taking on a Fortune 500 company with all its resources is a very daunting proposition.  Many of the lawyers who have taken on the drug companies have had to borrow and scrape.  I know one guy in the SSRI and pediatric depression suits who was about to be thrown out of his home because he had second mortgaged it to keep a suit going.  I remember when the FDA added the black box warning to the SSRI label, he and his staff danced on the tables of a restaurant, feeling elated and saved.   So here I am a doc who’s come to defend trial lawyers and the right to sue.  I know they can also sue me for malpractice and have no doubt added to the cost of practicing defensive medicine.  But doctors also have a great deal of power in the society and without the check of suit, their fraternity often bands together to protect one of their own.  Anyway, the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday protected a very important right for the American people in keeping a balance between the profits of industry and the ethical health of our country.      

Jones GABA a slickly advertised new energy drink that contains the neurotransmitter GABA , described as enhancing “focus + clarity” and putting you “in the zone”. It is backed by ‘one of the world’s leading authorities on natural medicine’ Dr Michael Murray , who seems completely unaware that GABA doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier and so drinking it is unlikely to have any effect. The active ingredient in the drink is called ‘Pharma GABA’, which, despite the ‘Pharma’ prefix is just powdered GABA, commercially sold, normally as a ‘nutritional supplement’. This has actually been subject to research, albeit in a poorly controlled trial of 13 people in one experiment, and two groups of four people in another. It used surrogate outcomes (measuring saliva and EEG) rather than actually measuring stress or focus and was completed by the company that sells the product. But even without this experimmercial, we can be pretty sure that swallowing GABA doesn’t work, because, despite various experiments that have investigated the neurotransmitter, it has never been found to cross the blood-brain barrier in any significant way. However, this isn’t the first junk food product to include neurotransmitters as a gimmick. We found some Japanese GABA sweets for sale last year. I have to say, I love the geekiness of having neurotransmitter junk food, but it would be infinitely better if it wasn’t packaged with junk science. It would also be infinitely better if it was highly caffeinated, but that’s just a personal opinion. Link to GABA in a can spoilt by the pseudoscience (thanks Sara!)

It’s an epidemic.  Everywhere I look I find normally calm, compassionate friends and colleagues foaming at the mouth whenever the word “octuplets” is mentioned.   ”You have an illness,” I say.  “Own up to it- it’s the first step towards recovery.”  Alas, if it were only so easy. Anger, Hatred, Moral Outrage! The accusations and recriminations flow one after another, with pressured speech. “That woman is so irresponsible!” “How is she going to take care of all those babies?” “Why should I have to pay for her crazy actions!” “She’s crazy! She’s had plastic surgery to look like Angelina Jolie.” “The doctor who did this should go to jail!” “Disgusting use of our health care dollars!” For those of you unaware of this case because you are living in a cave in Afghanistan waiting for Osama bin Laden and his dialysis machine to return to select you for the glory of a suicide mission, here is what you need to know. An unmarried woman in California allegedly underwent in-vitro fertilization (IVF), had six embryos implanted, and somehow delivered eight babies, all of whom have so far survived (A scientific miracle!). She already had six children at home, all conceived via IVF. So, baby (ies) make 14. Everyone involved in the case has been interviewed by People, Dr. Phil, etc, except for the studly tail-wagging sperm that could create eight babies from six embryos (Another miracle). It’s hard to know why a particular story captures the imagination the way this one has. My opinion is that the reasons are deeper than those usually expressed. I don’t find the common arguments particularly compelling. To begin, no law was broken; none of my angry friends live in California, and will not be contributing one cent directly or indirectly to care for her children; and I have sympathy for a woman who actually loves and wants her children, even if the numbers are beyond anything I can imagine. As for wanting to look like Angelina Jolie, this seems an indicator of good mental health- I’d be worried if she strove to look like Renee Zellweger. Let’s not forget that there are millions of unwed mothers (often just kids themselves) on welfare with multiple children, unplanned and unwanted, who became pregnant the old-fashioned way. Is that somehow better? And what about the deadbeat dads who flit from woman to woman without taking any financial or parental responsibility for their offspring? Less objectionable? I don’t think so. Not long ago a man in his early 40s came to my office. He proudly told me he had 12 children from seven different mothers. What did he want? A vasectomy(!). I have no idea whether or not he supports any or all of his children, so I’m not criticizing, but just pointing out that Octo-mom may not be so beyond the pale. If only one birth had resulted from the six implanted embryos (as apparently happened with an earlier IVF cycle), leaving her with a final tally of seven children, would her behavior have been any less crazy? I believe the passion engendered by this case comes from being forced to confront the fact that reproductive science has brought us to a place where traditional notions and experience are inadequate to deal with some of the issues that arise. How do we apply a sense of what is right or wrong when we’ve never even considered the possibility before? Frankly, it is a testament to the integrity of the clinicians and scientists involved in IVF centers in this country that cases like this one are so rare, because the potential for crazy stuff is a daily hazard.  The ethical questions are really challenging. The woman had six of her embryos stored in a frozen state. If some of my froth-addled commentators had their way, she should never have been implanted with any of them. But to whom do they belong, if not the woman? Who is to say what should happen to the embryos, if not her? The doctors? The government? Her church or community? Who decides how many children are enough- two, four, six? One, as in China? Does the calculus change for a single mom versus a married couple? A rich couple versus one on state assistance? And what if fertility treatment is required? Is having children a right? Does it change if a person pays with their own money for infertility treatment? It’s a brave new world, folks. Let’s not be too quick to judge. And if you think these issues are tough to handle, just wait until cloning arrives!

In the past I have written about therapy dogs and how they have helped people overcome both psychological and physical difficulties-even if the dog is not trained to assist and is unaware of the help it is providing. I recently received an email from Pete Dowan which described the therapuetic effect of a dog and the resulting emotional effect it had on him. Dowan is a Canadian who began writing songs at age 16 and is now based in Southern Ontario near Niagara Falls. He played, wrote and sang rock music in several Canadian bands which resulted in a number of releases. He suffered from a medical disability which made him unable to continue as a performer. However, with the help of his dog Scuttle he recently overcame this setback and returned to the scene as a song writer and now co-writes with Jan Blumentrath. The help of his dog inspired him to write a song in his pet’s tribute. Here is an edited excerpt of his letter. Hi Dr. Coren: I am a medically disabled songwriter from St Catharines, Ontario, Canada, and have written many songs about many different subjects and in several different styles. One song in particular was a personal thank you to my dog. The song is called “Good Friend”. I mention my disability because various factors of my condition stop me from being able to use professional studios to record my songs, so I have to do them here, at home, in my basement, on donated equipment from musicians I used to work with. For the same reason, I also am unable to perform my music live. History of the song: For the first few years that I had my current health condition I had a very difficult time walking. One of my doctors figured out the reason, and when that was dealt with, it was up to me to get myself “going”. That’s where our dog, Scuttle, came in. He bugged me daily to take him out … wouldn’t let up until I did so. His determination was catching, and within a year we were both going on outings that I never dreamed I’d be able to do again. As a thank you, I wrote the above mentioned song for him. (R.I.P. my boy) If you know it’s about a dog, the lyrics jump out at you as being obvious, but if you don’t, there’s only one line that definitely points to it. Musically Yours, Pete Dowan [pronounced like plowin' ] I thought that you might like to hear this song for his therapy dog. It is located at http://www.myspace.com/petedowan and is called “Good Friend.” It is the second song down the list. Stanley Coren is the author of many books including: Why Do Dogs Have Wet Noses? The Pawprints of History: Dogs and the Course of Human Events, How Dogs Think : Understanding the Canine Mind, How To Speak Dog, Why We Love the Dogs We Do, What Do Dogs Know? The Intelligence of Dogs, Sleep Thieves, The Left-hander Syndrome.

Tired, self-regulatory control depleted from an exhausting day that demanded non-stop self-control, we may give up and give in. Like a tired muscle, our willpower seems unable to do any more. However, with the right incentive we can exert our physical strength even with tired muscles. And, so it is with our willpower . . . it’s about motivation, isn’t it? In my earlier posts (see Self-Regulation Failure Part 1 and Part 2 ), I summarized research that has established how our self-regulatory strength is like a muscle. When we exert self-regulatory effort on one task, there seems to be less available for subsequent tasks. The thing is, subsequent research demonstrated that we could strengthen our willpower or self-regulatory ability by regular focus on self-regulation. More interestingly, even a boost of positive emotions or a focus on our values and goals through a self-affirmation process diminished the self-regulatory exhaustion. What isn’t clear is if positive emotions or a focus on values actually replenishes the depleted willpower resources or if it simply motivates us to make the effort despite the relative depletion. The role of motivation You’ll recall that the basic paradigm for this research consists of an experiment where participants in the experimental group are required to self-regulate on a first task (e.g., resist a plate of cookies while hungry or suppress their emotional reaction while viewing a film), and this results in poorer self-regulatory performance on subsequent task. Interestingly, these self-regulatory impairments are eliminated or reduced when participants are highly motivated to self-regulate on the second task. For example, when participants are paid for doing well on the second task or they are convinced that their performance will have social benefits, they perform well despite the apparent self-regulatory exhaustion from the first task. The key thing about these findings is that it indicates that self-regulatory depletion may be reducing motivation. Given that depleted self-regulatory strength may leave us feeling like we won’t succeed, “we’re too tired to try,” it may be that the reduced expectancy of success undermines our willingness to exert effort. It’s not that we’re so impaired that we can’t respond. It’s that we “don’t feel like.” Sound familiar? “I’ll feel more like it tomorrow.” This is a common phrase we use to rationalize our procrastination. Perhaps it simply captures our perceptions of self-regulatory strength at the moment. Of course, it’s a perception, and, I argue, at least partly an illusion. It’s about our motivation, not about the reality of not being ability to muster the self-regulatory effort – Unwilling perhaps, not unable. From this perspective, what we see is that we may fail to self-regulate because we acquiesce. In the case of procrastination, we find resisting the urge to do something else (an alternative intention) impossible to resist, so we give up and give in. Of course, during this internal self-regulatory struggle, we must restrain this impulse to leave the task at hand, our intended goal, in favor of the competing goal (one that is usual specious to our values and long-term goals). Strategy for change We all feel depleted throughout the day. We all have moments where we think, “I’m exhausted, I just can’t do anymore” or “I’ll feel more like this tomorrow.” This is true, this is how we’re feeling at the moment, however our success depends on us moving past these momentary feelings of depletion. Given the role of motivation in self-regulatory failure, it is crucial to acknowledge the role of higher-order thought in this process, particularly the ability to transcend the feelings at the moment ( mindfulness helps here ) in order to focus on our overall goals and values. In the absence of cues to signal the need for self-regulation, we may give in to feel good, and stop trying. It’s exactly when we say to ourselves “I’ll feel more like it tomorrow,” that we have to stop, take a breath and think about why we intended to do the task today. Why is it important to us? What benefit is there in making the effort now? How will this help us achieve our goal? From there, if we can just muster the volitional strength for one more step, that is to just get started , we will find that we had more self-regulatory strength in reserve than we realized. Our perception can fool us at times, and this self-deception can really be our own worst enemy.