Posts

3 Takeaways From the Latest Emotional Intelligence Study

A new review paper shows the secrets to success of having a high EQ.

You’ve undoubtedly heard of the concept of “emotional intelligence,” or “EQ.” It took hold in the 1990s and has only continued to attract the attention of both everyday people and academic psychology. Claims about its contribution to success in life, announced even before its heyday, still remain somewhat controversial, however. In part, this is because the concept has become so blurry and all-encompassing that some of the original subtleties in its definition have since become long lost.
To understand whether EQ really matters for life success, it’s necessary to dig down deep into its original meaning and then take a clear-headed look at the available research. Fortunately, this is now possible due to the publication (in press) of a new major review article that does just that.
What Is Emotional Intelligence?
According to this new paper headed up by UCLouvain’s Thomas Pirsoul and colleagues (2023), this blurring of definitional lines is a major problem in evaluating EQ’s role in promoting life success. In their words, the “plethora of definitions and conceptualizations” can be categorized into two main areas: EQ as a trait-like quality or ability (personal resources approach) and EQ as a behavioral disposition that helps people feel better about their ability to navigate emotional situations (self-efficacy approach).
From the standpoint of EQ’s role in promoting life success, the Belgian authors narrowed their search through the vast literature to studies specifically focused on career. If EQ helps promote career success, it would do so by “developing awareness of one’s emotions” (p. 3). Defined as a general form of adaptive functioning, EQ allows people to “identify, understand, express, regulate, and use one’s own and others’ emotions” (p. 2).
Think now about people you would consider high in EQ. Perhaps you know someone at work, or who works with someone you’re close to, whom you regard as not just friendly but also sensitive, kind, and willing to listen. You trust this individual to show consideration to you but also to make good choices in their own life. They seem confident but not conceited, and you’ve seen them progress through their career in ways that you admire. Importantly, they are liked both by coworkers and supervisors, meaning that their progress up their career ladder seems that it should be easier for them than is true for most people.
EQ and Job Success
The route from high EQ to career ladder progression, as the UCLouvain authors propose, is charted through the intermediary step of adaptability. As you no doubt know from your own life experiences, being adaptable means that you can anticipate problems and then cope with them once they arise. If you are high in EQ, you can use your emotions to guide yourself through these difficulties.
High self-efficacy can build upon the strengths gained through career adaptability by helping individuals feel more confident about their ability to navigate work-related decisions. If you can, as high EQ implies, listen to your “gut,” you’ll feel that you have a more accurate career compass.
Self-efficacy can also contribute to an individual’s confidence in their so-called “entrepreneurial” skills. The belief that you can sell yourself, which is part of this skill, can help you be a more effective communicator of your own personal strengths. You might also be better able to read people, making you a better negotiator. Finally, you could be better able to launch new ventures based on EQ’s role in helping you manage the stress associated with striking out on your own.
The ability to manage stress becomes its own contributor to occupational success for those high in EQ. There are many situations in work settings, from job interviews to performance evaluations, in which people have to exert effort as they try to keep their stress down to manageable levels.
In evaluating the contribution of all of these factors to career success, the authors contrasted two theoretical models. In the trait or resource model, EQ alone would be enough to predict the objective favorable career-related outcome of salary and the subjective outcomes of feelings of job and career satisfaction. If career adaptability and self-efficacy serve as the intermediary influences on these outcomes, then this would support a model in which factors involving these two components are statistically better predictors than EQ is on its own.
After extracting data from more than 150 samples representing nearly 51,000 participants, Pirsoul and his collaborators concluded that the behavioral, rather than the trait or resource model, proved to have the strongest relationship to measures of objective and subjective career success. Supporting what they call the “career self-management model,” these findings show that people high in EQ do well because they are higher in self-efficacy. Supporting the “career construction model,” the findings also showed that people high in EQ do well because they can adapt to their circumstances, and they can also make better career decisions.
One set of findings also provided intriguing support for the notion that people high in EQ are lower in career turnover intentions, meaning that they are less likely to decide to quit their jobs or abandon their careers. Their greater self-understanding means that they choose a pathway that will be consistent with their needs and interests. Their better emotional self-regulation could also make them less likely to have problems with their coworkers and supervisors, going back to the idea that people high in EQ are just nice to have around.
Supporting the idea that EQ can continue to grow in adulthood, as is evident from prior research, the effect sizes for EQ and career outcomes were stronger for older samples included in the meta-analysis. It is possible that as people gain greater self-understanding, their EQ growth is reflected in these career adaptability and self-efficacy dimensions.
3 Ways to Get EQ to Work for You
These three takeaways from this study suggest that IQ is more than just a popular idea without academic merit:
1.People high in EQ do well in their careers, not just because they possess an overall higher level of knowledge about themselves but also because they know how to make good decisions and can approach work-related challenges with expectations that they can succeed. They also have greater internal self-awareness, allowing them to have a better idea of what they want out of their work lives. They can also negotiate with others more effectively, meaning that they are both better collaborators and also better strategists.
2.The UCLouvain study focused on work and, therefore, wouldn’t have direct applicability to relationships or other areas of adult life. However, given the importance of satisfaction with and success in one’s work role, it would make sense that the EQ findings would have favorable implications for well-being in general. There is extensive evidence throughout the career–family literature showing that satisfaction at work is related positively to satisfaction with one’s home life.
3.The final important conclusion of this study was the view that EQ isn’t a “thing” that you have or don’t have. Although high EQ may help improve an individual’s adaptability and self-efficacy, these latter two components of the Belgian model are behavioral in nature and, therefore, can be acquired.
To sum up, if you’re not naturally high in EQ, the Pirsoul et al. findings suggest that by using the skills that high-EQ individuals seem to have cultivated, you can find fulfilling outcomes in your most important life pursuits.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/202305/4-takeaways-from-the-latest-emotional-intelligence-study
/58 Comments/by

How to Talk About Mistakes in a Romantic Relationship

Talking about errors can make a difference in how a couple feels.

When I teach my class on the psychology of close relationships, at some point I get around to talking about the “not so bright and shining” moments that partners have. You know, those moments when someone inevitably takes a wrong turn and does something that’s likely to feel upsetting to their partner. To be clear, even though not all misdeeds are inevitable, it’s a certainty that, generally speaking, an offense of some type or another will happen because we’re all human and everyone makes mistakes.
For instance, perhaps you promised to do your partner a favor and then lost sight of it. Maybe you’re regretting those inconsiderate words you uttered a couple of days ago. Or your partner might have been really opening up to you in a vulnerable way, but you closed up and weren’t listening. No matter whether we’re talking about a mistake that’s more significant or a smaller misstep, stumbles are going to happen in a couple's journey together and, as long as that couple chooses to remain together, it’s healthy and important to be able to repair hurts in an effective way.
This brings us to the question of how couples might be able to fruitfully repair interpersonal wounds. In a recently published study, a team of researchers examined this question as they created a new questionnaire with the idea of “co-rumination” in mind. Co-rumination is “the extended and or recurring discussion of issues in social relationships.” They drew upon past psychological research suggesting that how an individual person thinks about difficult experiences is linked with that person feeling better or worse. More specifically, they referred to two concepts that have been linked to the idea of rumination: Reflection and brooding. Reflection involves thinking about the problem to try and work it out, whereas brooding involves repeating the same types of thoughts about what’s wrong and how upset a person feels, and magnifying the problem.
As you can probably guess, the former is useful and gets you somewhere, and the latter can be harmful, even though it can seem compelling. Although these elements of rumination have been applied to relationships (that is, co-reflection and co-brooding being two sides of co-rumination), the research team pointed out that these ideas haven’t really been used to understand how romantic partners might talk in the wake of a misstep and whether co-reflection and co-brooding may be connected to how the conversation goes.
First, they created and studied a measure of co-rumination and found that it mapped onto three forms of communication: Co-reflection, co-brooding, and co-avoidance. Co-reflection involved trying to reach a shared understanding and address an issue, whereas co-brooding involved focusing on one’s own views and feelings and not making headway on an issue. Co-avoidance involved staying away from the issue altogether. Then, the research team looked at how these three elements were connected with how partners feel after discussions about relationship mistakes. Co-reflection was the only style that was linked with better experiences for partners, such as more dedication to the relationship, more goodwill, and a person’s ability to truly take responsibility and forgive themselves. For co-brooding and co-avoidance, these styles were connected to experiences such as less goodwill, more vindictiveness, less dedication, and less of a capacity to really take responsibility and pardon oneself.
Certainly, no study is perfect. The team correctly highlighted the need for more research with more diverse groups of people. Also, the investigators were right to state that their research doesn’t make it possible to say that co-reflection, co-brooding, or co-avoidance causes a particular outcome, and other studies should clarify the link between how partners talk about relationship errors and what emerges from their conversations. All the same, given that co-reflecting is connected with more beneficial experiences for partners, it’s probably not a bad idea to try it the next time you and your partner are addressing a stumble and hurt feelings.

What could this look like? Based on the team’s research and their questionnaire, here are some possible ideas:
1.Try to really acknowledge, accept, and support how your partner feels (for example, hurt, hopeful, scared, angry, sad, confused).
2.Try to set aside your own position for a moment. Instead, try to really listen to your partner and see if you can understand where they’re coming from.
3.Try to be open and receptive to your partner in the conversation.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/your-future-self/202304/how-to-talk-about-mistakes-in-a-romantic-relationship
/47 Comments/by
,

What Does the Term Frenemy Really Mean?

Do you feel like someone might not have your best interests at heart?

A new study published in the Southern Communication Journal offers a succinct definition of a term that has become commonplace in pop culture over the past decade: What it means to be a ‘frenemy.’
“Despite the prevalence of frenemies in popular culture and the significant effect these relationships can have on our lives, frenemy scholarship is limited and contradictory,” says Dr. Jenna Abetz, the lead author of the study. “Developing an in-vivo definition of the frenemy relationship portrays the realities of these relationships as they are lived.”
To land on such a definition, Abetz and her team interviewed 29 adults between the ages of 19 and 62 to get a better sense of how individuals who have had a frenemy define and understand the term.
They found that many of the interviewees shared similar feelings about frenemy relationships, leading the researchers to land on the following definition: “Relationships, often negative, steeped in situational ties and shared social connections that outwardly appear friendly but are fraught with underlying competition, jealousy, or distrust.”
Unlike genuine friendships, the researchers found that frenemy relationships displayed three prominent characteristics:

1.Competitiveness (viewing the other more as a rival to outdo than a friend to support)
2.Jealousy (either in terms of social connections or material possessions)
3.Distrust (a lack of respect and care in the friendship)
The dynamic was described by some interviewees as ‘hot and cold,’ with the frenemy repeatedly giving mixed signals as they shifted between friend-like and foe-like mentalities.
While many of these relationships were found embedded in unavoidable social circles and networks like family, school, and work, some participants stated that frenemy relationships evolved from seemingly true friendships that became pressured due to external circumstances.
Interestingly, having a frenemy was more of a ‘felt’ experience than a verbally defined label. In other words, frenemy relationships have an element of ‘unspokenness’ in them.
This is not to say that frenemy relationships don’t come with their own silver linings. Some interviewees shared positive outcomes amidst the dark cloud of a frenemy relationship.
“For some, the outcome of having a frenemy was better awareness of what they wanted and deserved in a true friendship,” explains Abetz. “Others reflected on those teachable life lessons — and that having a frenemy highlighted future relational red flags for them."
Here are two thoughts shared by interviewees that highlight the positive side of their experience with frenemies:

* “I’m more cautious, I see how they treat others before I get close to them.”
* “You learn how people are and what signs to look out for in a friend. It helps you reconsider all the earlier signs.”
Experience with frenemies or frenemy-like relationships underscores the importance of learning what a good friendship looks and feels like by having experience with a wide range of social relationships. This is especially important for children and adolescents to understand as they learn how to navigate the social world. They need to know that while no friendship is perfect, frenemy dynamics are not genuine friendships and they should not feel compelled to maintain them if there is a clear undercurrent of distrust.
“It is important for parents and educators to be able to assist adolescents in identifying unhealthy relational patterns and how they manifest in friendships,” says Abetz. “While learning how to make and be a friend is one of the central developmental tasks of elementary school, as children age they still need guidance and support navigating challenging friendship dynamics.”
Abetz hopes that her research not only helps people define a somewhat indescribable relationship feeling but that it can be used to teach young adults how to seek out more positive relationships in their own lives.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/social-instincts/202304/what-does-the-term-frenemy-really-mean
/10 Comments/by

The Troubling Truth About Drinking in Moderation

It appears that no amount of alcohol is good for you.

It turns out that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol daily does not—as previously thought—protect against heart disease or contribute to a longer life. Apologies if your alcohol consumption depends in part on this popular belief and (until now) useful rationalization.
For decades, scientific studies suggested moderate drinking was better for most people’s health than not drinking at all, and could even boost longevity. But, a new analysis of more than 40 years of research has concluded that many of those studies were flawed and that the opposite is true.
Just published in JAMA Network Open, this meta-analysis reviewed 107 observational studies that involved more than 4.8 million people. The massive study stressed that previous estimates of the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption on the risk of death by “all causes” — meaning anything, including heart disease, cancer, infections, and automobile accidents — were “significantly” biased by flaws in study design.
According to the researchers, earlier research did not adjust for numerous factors that could influence the outcome, for example, age, sex, economic status, and lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, smoking, and diet. Using statistical software, they essentially removed such bias, adjusting for various factors that could skew the research. After doing so, there were no significant declines in the risk of death by any cause among the moderate drinkers.[1]
While these previous observational studies could identify potential links or correlations, they could also be misleading and didn’t prove cause and effect. Moreover, they failed to recognize that many light and moderate drinkers had other healthy habits and advantages and that non-drinkers used as a comparison group often included people who had given up alcohol after developing health problems.
This represents the largest study to effectively call B.S. on the widely held belief that moderate drinking of wine or other alcoholic beverages is healthy. In contrast, it found that the risk of numerous health problems, as well as that of dying prematurely, increased significantly after less than two drinks per day for women and after three per day for men.
This data adds to that of another substantial meta-analysis from 2022 in which researchers in Britain examined genetic and medical data of nearly 400,000 people and concluded that alcohol consumption at all levels was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.[2]
The modern-day belief that daily alcohol consumption promotes health emerged in the 1980s, when researchers identified the so-called “French paradox,” which suggested that low rates of cardiovascular disease among men in France was associated with daily wine consumption. Although later analyses found flaws in the research, the idea that moderate drinking improved health became broadly accepted. Wine—particularly red wine—developed a reputation for having health benefits after news stories highlighted its high concentration of resveratrol, a protective antioxidant also found in blueberries and cranberries.
However, the hypothesis that moderate alcohol use is health-enhancing has come under increasing scrutiny over the years as the alcohol industry’s role in funding research became clear, revealing that many of the studies that purport the alleged health effects of alcohol have been funded by that industry. A 2020 report found that 13,500 studies have been directly or indirectly paid for by the alcohol industry.[3] Concurrently, a range of other studies has found that even moderate consumption of alcohol—including red wine—may contribute to cancers of the breast, esophagus, head and neck, high blood pressure, and atrial fibrillation, a serious heart arrhythmia.
Dietary guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 recommend that adults limit alcohol intake to two drinks or fewer a day for men and one drink or less for women, adding “that drinking less is better for health than drinking more.” The guidelines also warn that even drinking within the recommended limits may increase the overall risk of death attributable to various causes, including some types of cancer and heart disease, even at levels of less than one drink per day.[4]
This past January, Canada issued new guidelines warning that no amount of alcohol consumption is healthy and urges people to reduce drinking as much as possible. Issued by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, the new guidance was a significant departure from its 2011 guidelines, which recommended women limit themselves to no more than 10 standard drinks a week and men no more than 15.[5]
Alcohol is the most used recreational drug, and unfortunately, for those who enjoy drinking for relaxation and recreation, this is unwelcome news. As comforting as it might be to think that it’s good for one’s health, increasingly the science simply does not support it. The extensive new research decimates the hope of many that moderate alcohol use is healthy and makes clear that people should not drink alcohol for the express purpose of improving their health. If maintaining and/or improving health is your priority, in terms of alcohol consumption, less is more.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/some-assembly-required/202304/alcohol-is-not-good-for-your-health-even-in-moderation
/42 Comments/by
,

The Surprising Role of Empathy in Traumatic Bonding

Research examines the relationship between traumatic abuse and bonding.

A recent study by Effiong et al. suggests empathy intensifies traumatic bonding—the formation of a strong bond between the victim and his/her abuser. Published in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, the study is discussed below.
But first, a few definitions.
What is empathy?
Empathy is defined in a number of ways. Depending on the definition chosen, its meaning may overlap with similar concepts, such as empathic concern, emotional empathy, cognitive empathy, sympathy, care, and compassion.
According to a commonly used definition, empathy is composed of affective and cognitive empathy:
Affective/emotional empathy refers to the ability to generate an appropriate emotional response to another person’s emotions. Affective empathy overlaps with sympathy and compassion.
Cognitive/intellectual empathy refers to the ability to understand another person’s psychological state and point of view (to put oneself in another’s shoes). Cognitive empathy is related to theory of mind.
In the study by Effiong and colleagues, empathy was assessed using the Basic Empathy Scale, which measures both affective and cognitive empathy.
What is traumatic bonding?
Traumatic bonding refers to the formation of a powerful emotional attachment, due to repeated cycles of violence, between the victim and the abuser (whether a boyfriend/girlfriend, spouse, or complete stranger).
The fact that the abuse often comes in cycles—meaning that the violence is interspersed with positive reinforcement—also explains, in part, why victims find it difficult to leave their abusers.
For instance, after harming the victim, the abuser may (in an apparent reversal of power) apologize profusely, beg for forgiveness, or behave with great love and surprising tenderness.
Nevertheless, sooner or later, the next cycle of violence occurs, confusing the victim.
Another reason victims of abuse don’t leave has to do with their low self-worth. As the maltreatment continues, the victims—with their self-esteem eroded—find themselves in an increasingly powerless and dependent position.
In fact, they may no longer even believe that they deserve to be treated with kindness, dignity, and respect. This makes it much harder to stand up to the abuser and risk more rejection and humiliation.
The three dimensions of traumatic bonding
Traumatic bonding has three dimensions:
1. Core Stockholm syndrome: Associated with interpersonal trauma, cognitive distortions (e.g., rationalization, self-blame, seeing the abuser as a victim), unrealistic hope for things getting better on their own, believing love will prevent the abuser’s aggression, etc. Many of these behaviors are essentially (dysfunctional) coping mechanisms.
2. Psychological damage: Associated with depression, interpersonal difficulties, low self-esteem, the loss of sense of self, and many symptoms commonly seen in borderline personality disorder, like fear of abandonment or never finding a loving partner after leaving the abusive relationship.
3. Love dependency: Associated with assuming that one’s survival is dependent on the abusive partner’s love and protection, thinking the abuser’s love would be worth any pain, experiencing a loss of identity when alone, and believing that one would have nothing to live for without the partner.
Let us now turn to the new research on the link between empathy and traumatic bonding.
Investigating traumatic bonding in victims of intimate partner violence
Sample: 345 women from the Sexual Assault Referral Centre (n = 145) and the Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team (n = 200) in Nigeria; average age of 36 years old (18-61 range); married an average of 10 years.

Measures
1. Intimate partner violence: Measured with the short version of the Composite Abuse Scale (30 items). Participants were asked about the frequency of emotionally or physically abusive behavior by an intimate partner. Sample items: “Slapped me”; “Told me that I wasn’t good enough”; “Harassed me at work”; or “Tried to rape me.”
2. Empathy: Measured with the Basic Empathy Scale (20 items). For example: “After being with a friend who is sad about something, I usually feel sad,” and “I can often understand how people are feeling even before they tell me.”
3. Traumatic bonding: Assessed with the Stockholm Syndrome Scale (49 items). For instance: “Without my partner, I have nothing to live for”; “I cannot make decisions”; “When others ask me how I feel about something, I do not know”; “I both love and fear my partner”; and “If I give my partner enough love, he will stop getting so angry at me.”
Results
Analysis of the data showed empathy was a mediator of the relationship between intimate partner violence and traumatic bonding, including core Stockholm syndrome, psychological damage, and love dependency.
So, for all three aspects of traumatic bonding, empathy appears to be a path through which intimate partner violence is “translated and intensified” into traumatic bonding.
Takeaway
Empathy, particularly cognitive empathy—meaning the ability to understand another person’s psychological state—appears to be a pathway through which intimate partner violence intensifies traumatic bonding.
One way of explaining this finding is that victims use their empathic ability to rationalize the mistreatment they endure.
For instance, they may view the perpetrator as a victim, a victim who needs their help or one who cannot be held responsible for the aggression or abuse.
Such rationalizations are not surprising. After all, with their self-esteem and sense of self eroded by abuse, these women find it difficult to generate self-compassion and are instead prone to guilt, self-blame, and self-sacrifice.
Not only do victims of intimate partner violence tend to feel unworthy of respect, kindness, and love, but many also feel they will never find someone who treats them well.
Since victims additionally believe they cannot survive on their own (due to impaired autonomy), they find it extremely difficult to leave the toxic relationship, and as a result continue to suffer terribly. Unless, of course, they seek therapy and try to break this vicious cycle.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/finding-a-new-home/202207/the-surprising-role-of-empathy-in-traumatic-bonding
/9 Comments/by
, ,

How Rudeness Can Negatively Affect Your Mind

Being exposed to someone who is rude can be unsettling, especially when it is completely unprovoked. New research shows how rudeness also affects your ability to think clearly.

When was the last time someone was unnecessarily rude to you? Perhaps you were happily minding your own business while reaching for an item on a high shelf at the drugstore. Unaware of the person standing behind you, you happened to step back and bumped into their foot. It was an innocent mistake, so you couldn’t understand why this person tapped you on the shoulder and yelled at you for being so clumsy. If you were in their place, you know you wouldn’t react with such venomous rage. Unsettled by the whole episode, you find that you can’t even concentrate on what else you were supposed to pick up at the store and leave empty-handed.
Rudeness and the Ability to Concentrate
As it turns out, the mental effects of exposure to rudeness have actually been studied in the laboratory. According to Carnegie Mellon University’s Binyamin Cooper and colleagues (2022), rudeness constitutes a “low intensity negative behavior that violates norms of civility” that can actually interfere with a person’s ability to get work done (p. 481). In the extreme, rudeness can even have life-or-death consequences. Previous research shows that medical personnel exposed to rudeness not only “perform at suboptimal levels” but also could actually make poor decisions with lethal consequences.
What might account for the detrimental effects of rudeness on someone’s mental capacity? Reflecting on the shopping example, you might be able to resonate with the idea that when you’re the target of an unprovoked attack, you simply cannot think straight.
The type of mental draining that Cooper and his colleagues believe has the most negative impact on an individual relates to the process of “anchoring.” This is a mental bias that occurs when people fixate on one idea to the exclusion of other possibilities. In the words of the authors, it “appears to pose a significant risk to the quality of individual judgment” (p. 482).
In their theoretical model, rudeness has this impact on your ability to think because it engenders negative arousal (sadness, anger). This pathway is further influenced by a loss of the ability to engage in perspective-taking, where you think about a situation from someone else’s point of view. You also become unable to lay out the ordinary set of possible solutions to the problems that face you. It’s as if you zero in on one idea, fixate on that, and become unable to see any alternatives. The problem occurs when that first thought is actually wrong.
Putting Rudeness to the Test
As indicated in the title of the study, “Trapped by a First Hypothesis,” the first step in testing their theoretical model required that the research team trap their participants by exposing them to rudeness and then seeing how their thought processes evolved as a result. Across a series of three studies, as well as a pilot, a combination of medical students and online participants imagined themselves in simulated situations that, in the rudeness condition, involved someone speaking to them in a highly inappropriate manner.
For example, in one study, participants were to imagine themselves as bookstore employees when a customer complained about the advertised price of a book being too high. In the rude condition, the customer said: “What kind of bookstore is this? Are you all a bunch of idiots who work here or something? There’s a sign there saying all the books in that area are SEVEN DOLLARS. It’s not that complicated—you put the price on a book, and that’s what it costs. It doesn’t take a genius to do that, but maybe that’s asking too much from someone who works at a bookstore. Forget it; I don’t want it.”
To assess the impact of rudeness on anchoring, the researchers used several variants of a task in which participants could be led to settle on an incorrect answer without considering others. In one of these, participants answered whether Mount Everest’s height is greater or less than 45,000 feet (anchoring) and then, in the second question, simply guessed what they thought the mountain’s height is. Anchoring would be shown by the extent to which the freely given answer was closer to the anchor than the actual height (which is 29,029 feet).
To examine whether the effect of rudeness could be mitigated, the research team investigated the effects of various manipulations such as giving participants a chance to engage in perspective-taking and an exercise that challenged them to think in more depth about the problem.
In this well-controlled and imaginative study, the authors were able to tease apart the various components of their overall model. The findings were consistent with the model’s predictions and showed that although exposure to rudeness engendered such negative emotions as anger, hostility, and disgust, the effect of this negative arousal on anchoring could be offset by simple interventions. These “rays of hope” (p. 495) can therefore provide an antidote to the effect of rudeness on an individual’s ability to think rationally.
Offsetting Rudeness in Your Own Life
With these findings in mind, you may now have a better idea of what it is about being subjected to rudeness that can be so deleterious to your mental ability. The raw emotions that become triggered narrow your focus and make it difficult for you to think of anything else other than the horribleness of the situation.
You don’t have to remain trapped in those negative emotions, however. You may not feel like thinking nice things (perspective-taking) about the person who wronged you, at least not in the heat of the situation. However, you can take advantage of information elaboration by forcing yourself to stick to the task at hand and figure out various ways to tackle it. In other words, as you roam about that drugstore boiling over with anger at the person who reacted so harshly to you, pull out the list you came in there with or just stop and think about all the items you could possibly need by looking up and down each aisle.
These situations can also help you develop your own resistance to becoming a rude person yourself. Knowing how harmful this behavior can be, it might be helpful for you to consider the value of civility the next time you’re tempted to lash out at a stranger.
To sum up, positive relationships benefit interpersonal civility as well as mental agility. Rudeness is unpleasant to encounter in your daily life, but it doesn’t have to rule your rationality.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/202303/how-rudeness-can-negatively-affect-your-mind
/15 Comments/by
, , ,

What COVID Can Teach Us About Stress Management

Different coping styles tell us a lot about healthy eating

Now that COVID is somewhat behind us, we have some space to stop and reflect. We can remember the days when masks were mandatory, lockdowns were frequent, and many businesses were shutting down (except, of course, hospitals).
Some of us used the time to down-regulate our lives, taking advantage of a less hectic lifestyle. Others’ lives became even more hectic as schools closed, and daycare was a non-starter. Job insecurity became a huge issue. Supply chains were questionable. Not to mention the loss of loved ones and acquaintances.
And we had no idea when things were going to improve, at least until a vaccine became widely available. That first year was quite a challenge, and there was nowhere to go. It was a worldwide health threat.
COVID Anxiety and the Consumption of Junk Foods
A couple of studies presented in a 2022 research paper (Juad and Lunardo) looked at anxiety during 2020 in adults aged 18-35 in the United Kingdom and France. Their background research showed that this age group tended to struggle more with anxiety than older adults, showing a greater tendency to feel isolated, overwhelmed, and helpless.
This particular study decided to look at the uptick in eating junk foods (high-calorie, processed foods) and sugary drinks as a coping strategy for pandemic anxiety. Juad and Lunardo also found that there were specific coping strategies used by some individuals that did not lead to continued states of anxiety and turning to compensatory eating practices.
They discovered that feelings of helplessness caused many individuals to have a lower acceptance of the situation. Helplessness indicates a general feeling of not having the ability to find a way to cope with the situation. This is known as low self-efficacy.
Individuals who felt helpless tended to eat more junk food (often accompanied by weight gain) during the first year of the pandemic. On the other hand, those who were able to accept the situation were then able to develop positive coping strategies. As a result, they did not turn to junk food as a coping strategy.
Anxiety and Self-Efficacy
Other research has explored the connection between helplessness and feelings of low-self efficacy. Low self-efficacy can lead to ignoring or rejecting positive coping strategies that a person does not feel capable of performing. The opposite would be self-efficacy, or a person’s belief in their ability to find and use coping strategies to achieve a goal or complete a task.
These same concepts are evident when designing behavior change interventions that promote a healthy eating style compatible with maintaining a healthy weight.
What do they have in common? Both have to do with conquering the negativity that comes with stress that can leave a person stuck in an unproductive belief system. Without self-efficacy on board, it is easy to stay focused on the negative, use negative self-talk, and stay in black-and-white thinking. These patterns can lead a person to think that changing the situation is impossible.
The question is, can some interventions increase self-efficacy, and if so, how?
The Role of Stress Management
A study in 2022 (Carfora, Morandi, and Catellani) identified several techniques that had a positive effect on developing dietary self-efficacy. Self-monitoring, feedback on performance, review of behavioral goals, setting up a reward system, and social support all increased dietary self-efficacy.
The kicker was that stress management was consistently associated with self-efficacy across all analyses and came out as the strongest indicator.
This finding takes us right back to what was happening during COVID with regard to turning to unhealthy foods. Anxiety is a big part of stress. Jaud and Lunardo found a huge association between being able to handle the anxiety of an uncontrollable situation like the pandemic and the ability to make healthy food choices. That association points to the role of self-efficacy when handling the stress of the situation.
Rewriting Stress
Getting back to the question of whether self-efficacy can be increased, it would appear that stress management plays a key role. Taking it a step further, what actions can be taken to respond to stress that will lower its effect on us?
As Jaud and Lunardo indicated, the ability to accept the situation could then serve as the basis for developing coping strategies leading to the ability to maintain healthy eating during the pandemic.
Other research has supported several techniques used to reduce stress and develop coping strategies when designing healthy eating interventions. These techniques have been proven effective time and again. These strategies can be applied to the successful management of stress during challenging times, such as the pandemic, as well as using behavior change interventions in healthy eating or weight-loss programs.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/health-and-human-nature/202303/what-covid-can-teach-us-about-stress-management
/12 Comments/by
, , , ,

Does Having a Baby Actually Make Parents Happy?

The first year tends to be great. The fifth, not so much.

For many couples, having a baby is one of their greatest wishes in life. But does having a baby really make parents happier? And if yes, how long does this baby bliss last? A new study published in the journal Emotion focused on answering these questions (Asselmann & Specht, 2023).
A New Study on How Parents Feel After Having a Baby
In the study, German scientists Eva Asselmann and Jule Specht analyzed data from more than 5,000 first-time parents from the German Socio-Economic Panel, a large-scale cohort study that started in 1984. All parents included in the study had experienced the birth of their first child between 2007 and 2019. The parents were interviewed yearly and asked about a number of different things. These included life satisfaction (“How satisfied are you currently with your life as a whole?”), as well as happiness, sadness, anxiety, and anger in the four weeks before the interview. These data were analyzed from five years before the couple became parents to five years after they became parents.
A Surprising Result
The scientists found out that having a baby changes psychological well-being in several ways.
The most pronounced effect was a strong increase in life satisfaction and happiness in the first year of parenthood – so baby bliss is indeed real! However, life satisfaction and happiness gradually bounced back in the years following the baby’s birth. Altogether, couples showed similar levels of life satisfaction and happiness five years after becoming parents compared to five years before becoming parents.
Regarding negative emotions, the strongest effect was found for anger. Anger decreases in the five years before a couple becomes parents and reaches its lowest point during the first year of parenthood. After that, it increases, and five years after the baby was born, anger was even larger than five years before the baby was born.
The authors of the study suggested that these higher anger levels reflect a reaction due to the stressful aspects of being a parent, such as sleep deprivation or time conflicts between family and work. For sadness and anxiety, the effects were only small. Sadness showed similar effects to anger but did not reach higher levels five years after the baby was born compared to five years before the baby was born, and anxiety gradually increased the five years before the baby was born, which may reflect anticipation effects.
An analysis of gender effects revealed that mothers experienced a more substantial increase in happiness and life satisfaction than fathers but also experienced stronger anger effects. The study's authors suggested that biological factors or gender role expectations may explain this effec.
Take-Away: Baby Bliss Lasts for a Short Time
Taken together, the results of the study clearly show that baby bliss exists. In the first year of a baby’s life, the parents are happier and more satisfied with their life than before. However, this effect only lasts shortly and when the child is five years old, both happiness and life satisfaction of his or her parents had bounced back to the level they were at five years before the child was born.
Moreover, anger levels rise, reflecting the stressful aspects of parenthood. This shows that having a baby has a lot of positive short-term effects on psychological well-being, but for high long-term life satisfaction, it is essential to find strategies to cope with the stressful aspects of having a child.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-asymmetric-brain/202303/baby-bliss-does-having-a-baby-make-parents-happy
/19 Comments/by
, , ,

Do Introverts Really Have Less Fun?

New research traces whether introverts can squeeze joy out of their daily lives.

Finding joy in everyday experiences is an important way to keep yourself stressless and carefree. It may be something as simple as a young relative taking your hand as you walk down a hallway. That immediate boost helps shine a little light on your day. Known as an “uplift” in the psychological literature, such events are known to help reduce stress. Uplifts can counteract the effects of “hassles,” which are equally small events that, through wear and tear, can impact your mental and physical health.
As described in a new study by Pennsylvania State University’s Natasha DeMeo and colleagues (2023), “uplifts and hassles not only make up the topography of daily life…but these experiences… have implications for health and well-being” (p. 355). Importantly, though, people differ in their propensity to and resistance to such impacts.
Why Introverts Might Have Fewer Uplifts
Previous research has established that extraverts seek out and relish joyful experiences, even those tiny ones that qualify as uplifts. Introverts, with their greater inner focus, may be less likely to take advantage of these stress-buffering effects. However, they may also be more affected by hassles. Laboratory studies provide compelling evidence that introverts show greater emotional and physiological reactivity to external stressors. They may also be less likely to see themselves as successful copers and even take a bleaker view of a stressful situation than people high in extraversion. These self-perceptions, seen as critical in the so-called “cognitive” model of stress, can further exacerbate the deleterious effects of stress on health.
The Penn State authors note that, despite the strength of these prior studies, they may fail to capture the nuances of the personality–stress relationship. A lab study is useful for experimentation purposes, it but lacks the so-called “external validity” of seeing how people react in the context of their daily lives. Furthermore, prior studies rely on people’s memories for their hassles and uplifts, making the data subject to a retrospective bias. You can appreciate this problem if you think about the way you recall an event from several days or even hours ago. The details fade and, worse, become colored by the emotions the event arises after the fact.
Testing the Personality–Stress Link
Taking the approach that hassles and uplifts are best studied as they occur in real time, DeMeo and her collaborators used the method known as “ecological momentary assessment” (EMA). Their 242 participants ranging in age from 25 to 65 years lived in housing development in the Bronx and were part of a larger study on aging through which the EMA data were collected. Racially and ethnically diverse, nearly two-thirds were non-Hispanic Black, and a quarter were Hispanic; three-quarters either had a college degree or had at least some college courses.
Each participant was beeped through a smartphone app five times a day for 14 days. At each assessment, they reported on “any event, even a minor one, which affected [the participant] in a positive way.” If they did report an uplift, follow-up questions asked them to rate its intensity on a 1-to-100 scale. To measure introversion, the Penn State researchers administered a standard 10-item questionnaire, and the research team also measured hassles at the same time as they assessed uplifts.
The sample appeared relatively fortunate in the sense of experiencing relatively few hassles (less than 1 per day on average) and on the 0-to-100 scale, the average hassle amounted to about 67 points in intensity. Also fortunately for the sample, they reported about 19 uplifts over the 14-day period, and these qualified for a rating of nearly 80 in intensity.
Although prior research indicated a tendency for introverts to derive less joy out of their days, DeMeo et al.’s analyses hinged on the findings with respect to uplifts, based on the idea that introverts would be less sensitive to rewards. Consistent with prediction, those scoring higher on introversion reported fewer uplifts on a daily basis and they rated those uplifts as less enjoyable than did their less introverted counterparts. In round numbers, this amounted to only 15 uplifts over the two weeks that were rated as 76 rather than 79 out of 100.
Introversion alone, however, wasn’t the only factor affecting uplift ratings. When neuroticism, depression, and anxiety were taken into account, the effect of introversion remained only for frequency of uplifts, not intensity.
In terms of predictions regarding the ways that introverts would perceive their own coping abilities, the finding did emerge of a tendency for them to regard “miscellaneous” hassles (i.e., not specific to situations such as finances or traffic) as higher in intensity. As the authors concluded, “we found some preliminary evidence of person-environment interactions—where the occurrence or experience of an event depends on the characteristics of both the situation and the person” (p. 361). In other words, whether people high in introversion believe an event to be a hassle may be specific to the given situation and the match between the way they see themselves and the nature of the hassle itself.
How Introverts Can Extract More Joy From Life
As the Penn State study suggests, people who tend to focus on their inner life appear to be more resistant to the possibility that an ordinary experience, however small, could produce a rush of positive feelings. Although the authors didn’t explore this particular line of reasoning, it may very well be that this focus on an inner state may not only inoculate them from hassles but also stand in the way of the simple pleasures that are so much a part of everyday life.
Given the high stakes in terms of mental and physical health associated with achieving a favorable pleasure–pain balance, the DeMeo results suggest that it would be worth the effort for people high in introversion to find ways to let the sun shine in on a more frequent basis.
To sum up, successful coping is more than a matter of fending off the bad. Finding joy in the seemingly insignificant experiences in life can help build not only resilience but also fulfillment.

reference:
psychology today

link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/202303/do-introverts-really-have-less-fun
/6 Comments/by