Showing posts with label Living Well. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Living Well. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Psychology of "triggers"

In psychology, triggers are events that elicit a response. Clinicians often focus on helping people recognize triggers or events that appear to produce a distressing response as if they had stepped on a mine that triggered an explosion.

People, places, films, songs, smells, words, and many other stimuli can trigger a response or a chain of responses. Some trigger-response pairs are innate like cringing in response to loud noises. But the relatively benign triggers may come to elicit extreme responses following traumatic experiences. For example, my mother was trapped under the stairs when a bomb exploded near our house. She remained hyper-reactive to fireworks, thunder, and gun shots throughout her life.


Although the concept of triggers is often associated with recognizing and coping with events that are upsetting. A different perspective would be to view triggers as those stimuli that routinely elicit a response or chain of responses. In high school, a few of us knew what questions to ask to get a particular teacher off topic, which we often did just to make class more interesting.

A variety of events can elicit pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant reactions. And, the same event may affect different people in different ways. A beach scene with ocean waves may trigger pleasant memories, a smile, and good feelings in some, but remind others of some horrible event. In fact, depending on context, the same stimulus may be perceived as pleasant in one context but obnoxious in another. Certain words are accepted as pleasant teasing from a friend but may trigger anger when coming from a stranger.

Powerful triggers can affect many aspects of our core self. Using the SCOPES model, we can think of a hypothetical response set of a person who survived a mass shooting in church.

Potential triggers could be someone who looked like the shooter, the sounds of gun shots, people who look like those who did not survive, news stories or movies of similar events, and churches.


Hypothetical responses to a trigger of surviving a mass shooting in church
Spiritual
Cry for help. Anger with God.
Cognition
Recurrent images of the horrid event
Overt Behavior
Tensing muscles, closing eyes as if to avoid the image
Physical
Increased heart rate
Emotion
Fear, anger
Social context
Response worsens in church setting



Psychotherapists have helped people recognize triggers of distressing responses and reduce the impact.

Developing life enhancing characteristics may help "trigger" positive rather than negative responses.


Living Well on AMAZON











Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)





Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Gratitude psychology


Gratitude is an attitude of appreciation experienced as a pleasant feeling with thoughts about good people, experiences, things, or benefits in response to a gift or experience. Gratitude also includes behavioral responses such as a smile and an expression of thankfulness.

Gratitude is associated with indicators of better health such as lower blood pressure, longer and more refreshing sleep, and better self-care. Grateful people report less aches and pains.

High levels of gratitude are correlated with other positive emotions. People with high levels of gratitude feel more alert, joyful, optimistic, and happy.

High levels of gratitude are linked to better social relationships characterized by forgiveness, generosity, compassion, and helpfulness. People high in gratitude feel less lonely and tend to be more outgoing.

As a feeling, gratitude is associated with the E or emotional domain of functioning in the SCOPES model. Grateful thoughts are part of C (cognition) and expressions of gratitude are part of O (Observable Behavior). The improved health factors are part of the P (Physical domain). Of course, gratitude may be a component of self-identity--including the link  with spirituality thus, the core Self. Finally, gratitude occurs in a Social Context.

Several researchers are associated with gratitude science.

Robert Emmons is the leading expert. He is professor at the University of California, Davis. He has published many articles and books on the subject.

Michael McCullough, Professor of Psychology, University of Miami

See also the names in the references below.


Read more about gratitude, which is chapter 4 in Living Well available on AMAZON and other fine booksellers in many countries.














Related Posts

How to measure gratitude

Grateful People: The Psychology of Gratitude 

         *Big 12 features of Gratitude
         *How to develop gratitude - journals and more

Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)



Some Gratitude References


Algoe, S.B. & Stanton, A.L. (2012). Gratitude when it is needed most: Social functions of gratitude in women with metastatic breast cancer. Emotion, 12, 163-168. DOI: 10.1037/a0024024

Emmons, R. A., & Crumpler, C. A. (2000). Gratitude as a human strength: Appraising the evidence. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 56-69.

Emmons, R. A., & Kneezel, T. T.(2005). Giving thanks: Spiritual and religious correlates of gratitude. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 140-148.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: Experimental studies of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.

Froh, J. J., Bono, G., & Emmons, R. A. (2010). Being grateful is beyond good manners: Gratitude and motivation to contribute to society among early adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 144-157.

Froh, J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being.  Journal of School  Psychology, 46, 213-233.

Kashdan, T.B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E., & Froh, J.J. (2009). Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes in psychological needs. Journal of Personality, 77, 691-730. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00562.x

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82-112-127.
 
Rash, J.A., Matsuba, M.K., & Prkachin, K.M. (2011). Gratitude and well-being: Who benefits the most from a gratitude intervention? Applied psychology: Health and well-being, 3, 350-369. DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01058.x

Toepfer, S.M., Cichy, K., & Peters, P. (2012). Letters of gratitude: Further evidence for author benefits. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 187-201. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-011-9257-7

Toussaint, L. & Friedman, P. (2009). Forgiveness, gratitude, and well-geing: The mediating role of affect and beliefs. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 635-654. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-008-9111-8

Tsang, J., Ashleigh, S., & Carlisle, R.D. (2012). An experimental test of the relationship between religion and gratitude. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 40-55.  DOI: 10.1037/a0025632

Monday, December 23, 2019

Hope Theory


C.R. Snyder and his colleagues are credited with the development of hope theory.  Goals are the key cognitive component of hope theory. Goals organize the mind’s processes leading to the achievement of a goal. Hope is a motivational state that arises from thoughts about pathways thinking and agency thinking in the pursuit of a goal.

Hope theory has two major components: Pathways Thinking, and Agentic Thinking. 















Pathways Thinking refers to a person’s thoughts about ways to reach a goal. True hope relies on a person’s ability to generate at least one realistic way to reach a goal. People with high levels of hope are skilled at finding more than one pathway to a goal.

Agency or Agentic Thinking is a strong belief in one’s capacity to reach a goal. The primary example of agency thinking is the statement, “I can do this.” This is especially true when some barrier arises.

Pathways thinking and agentic thinking interact to strengthen each other when a person’s mind is engaged in the process of sequencing action toward a goal.

Snyder and his colleagues developed measures of hope. See the Adult Hope Scale for more information including Snyder’s classic book on the Psychology of Hope.

Hope is a significant variable in the Psychology of Religion as well. For example, Christians focus on hope embodied in Jesus during Christmas and Easter.

Hope is also a significant contributor to positive outcomes in psychotherapy (Sutton, Kelly, Worthington, Griffin, & Dinwiddie, 2018).


C.R. Snyder (Charles Richard "Rick" Snyder) was a psychological scientist at the University of Kansas (1944-2006).

Links

Adult Hope Scale

The Paradox of Hope at Advent

References

Sutton, G. W., Jordan, K., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2014). Spirituality, hope, compassion, and forgiveness: Contributions of Pentecostal spirituality to godly love. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33, 212-226


Reference for using scales in research:

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON

 


  


Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 


Friday, February 22, 2019

Psychology of Forgiveness





















There are several definitions of forgiveness. At a basic level, forgiveness refers to the completion of a process of “letting go” of all the negative feelings experienced when one person is hurt by the actions or words of another person. 

As in the classic moral story about a debtor asking forgiveness for a debt he could not repay (Luke 7:40-50), forgiveness balances the scales of justice by cancelling the debt owed by an offender toward the person who suffered because of the offender's offense. 


Forgiveness can be a single act. People can let go of a past hurt and the accompanying distressing emotions such as strong anger. They also give up a desire to get even (revenge motivations).




Forgiveness is also a personality trait. Forgiving people have a habit of forgiving others. Sometimes this type of forgiveness is called forgivingness. Psychological scientists may also refer to this type of forgiveness as dispositional forgiveness.


Forgiveness does not require reconciliation but reconciliation may help with the process of reconciliation.


Forgiveness deals with the problem of intrapersonal pain. Forgiveness heals the inner hurts and sets hurting people free from the toxicity of holding on to hurtful memories. Constantly reviewing old hurts (nursing grudges) perpetuates inner distress.



Unforgiveness, is a state of holding onto a hurtful experience characterised by remembering the hurt and re-experiencing distressful emotions such as anger. Unforgiveness may be accompanied by thoughts of revenge. Unforgiveness is captured in ordinary language by the phrase, "holding a grudge."

Forgiveness comes with blessings of good health and well-being. Forgiveness is not a cure-all, but it often helps with aspects of depression and anxiety. We may feel less stressed and less angry when we forgive. Research indicates a reduction in cortisol levels when people forgive. Our cortisol levels are elevated when we are under stress.

Forgiveness is positively correlated with humility, hope, love and compassion.


Two psychologists have led the way in developing approaches to forgiveness that have helped many people: Robert Enright and Ev Worthington, Jr. (see references below).

Findings published by Chelsea Greer and her colleagues indicate improvement in forgiving when using a workbook.

Self-forgiveness is an important aspect of forgiveness because some people are overly self-critical about their past actions.

Reconciliation
Some theorists view Christian forgiveness as including a positive attitude toward the offender with a desire to reconcile. However, most agree that there is a danger of reconciling with offenders who continue to abuse the forgiver. Thus, even when reconciliation may be a desirable goal, forgiveness does not require reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a process of restoring a broken relationship. Reconciliation requires trust. Reconciliation works best when it is safe to reconcile. Reconciliation involves at least two parties who are committed to repair the damaged relationship.

Counselors, clergy, and psychotherapists are among those who may be trained in forgiveness interventions. Some people naturally forgive others and some learn to forgive through spiritual practices like prayer. Some benefit from reading self-help books. Others may benefit from one or more sessions with a professional.


Learn more about forgiveness in Chapter 6 of Living Well on AMAZON.






See Also, Forgiveness Books and Reviews


Learn more about forgiveness by reading these online articles

5 Beliefs about Forgiveness - Survey Data

10 Beliefs about Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Forgiveness Quotes

Forgive? Yes. Reconcile? Maybe.

Forgiveness and Psychotherapy

Sexual Harassment, Apologies, Forgiveness, and Restoration

Self-Forgiveness

Psychology of Forgiveness and Spirituality

How Forgiveness Promotes Hope


Learn more about forgiveness in these Books

References


Enright, R.D. & Fitzgibbons, R.P. (2015). Forgiveness therapy: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Greer, C. L., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Lin, Y., Lavelock, C. R., & Griffin, B. J. (2014). Efficacy of a self-directed forgiveness workbook for Christian victims of within-congregation offenders. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1(3), 218-230.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/scp0000012


Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York: Brunner-Routledge.


Worthington, E.L., Jr., (2013). Moving forward: Six steps to forgiving yourself and breaking free from the past. Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook. 

Links to Connections


Checkout My Page    www.suttong.com

  

My Books  AMAZON          and             GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton   X  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Articles: Academia   Geoff W Sutton   ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 



Friday, October 12, 2018

Altruism






In common language, we think of altruism as self-less actions that benefit others. In psychology, the concept of altruism has been studied for decades. 


Not surprisingly, researchers have looked at the benefits to the person acting altruistically as if such benefits might undermine the concept of altruism.

One scientist who is known for extensive study of altruism is Batson. Batson was skeptical of the concept of altruism but his experimental work changed his mind. Following is his definition (Batson, 2010).


By altruism I mean a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
another's welfare. Altruism is juxtaposed to egoism, a motivational
state with the ultimate goal of increasing one's own welfare. I use the term
ultimate here to refer to means-end relations, not to a metaphysical first or
final cause. An ultimate goal is an end in itself. In contrast, an instrumental
goal is a stepping stone on the way to reaching an ultimate goal. If a barrier to
reaching an instrumental goal arises, then alternative routes to the ultimate
goal will be sought. Should the ultimate goal be reached while bypassing the
instrumental goal, the motivational force will disappear. If a goal is ultimate,
it cannot be bypassed in this way (Lewin, 1938). Both instrumental and ultimate
goals should be distinguished from unintended consequences, results of
an action—foreseen or unforeseen—that are not the goal of the action. Each
ultimate goal defines a distinct goal-directed motive. Hence, altruism and
egoism are distinct motives, even though they can co-occur (p. 16).

 Not all scholars agree with Batson. There is a problem of understanding human motivation thus, some have focused on helping behavior. A value of Batson's approach is the focus on motivation and the psychological understanding of goal-directed behavior. I appreciate his understanding of self-benefits, which may be due to unintended consequences or even the possibility that altruism and egoism may both be present.

Finally, I should point out that altruism research overlaps with studies of generosity. You will see online sources where generosity and altruism are synonyms (e.g., Oxford, 2018).

Read more about generosity and altruism in Chapter 3 of Living Well 10 BIG IDEAS of FAITH and a MEANINGFUL LIFE available on AMAZON.

















Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON





Reference


Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-001 



Connections



My Page    www.suttong.com


My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE


FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)

Friday, September 28, 2018

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)





Moral Foundations Theory 
(MFT) was developed by  Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. (See references at the end of this post). A good overview of the theory can be found in the book, 
The Righteous Mind (2012).


 There are five core moral foundations in Moral Foundations Theory.

1 Care-Harm
2 Fairness/cheating (*equality-Fairness)
3 Loyalty-Betrayal
4 Authority-Respect; aka Authority/subversion
5 Purity-Sanctity aka Sanctity/degradation

An additional foundation of liberty has been added to the theory so there are now six foundations.

The core moral foundations

1 Care-Harm: derived from the development of attachment and empathy, people value the moral virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance and abhor causing pain to others.

2 Fairness/cheating: people have developed a sense of reciprocal altruism, which leads to concerns for justice, rights, and autonomy. Equality was dropped in favor of a sense of proportionality.

3 Loyalty-Betrayal: people form groups and tribes and a sense of loyalty to the group, which supports patriotism and a willingness to sacrifice for the group.

4 Authority/subversion: people organize themselves into hierarchies and consider leadership a virtue. Followers are expected to defer to legitimate leaders and show respect for group traditions.

5 Sanctity/degradation: derived from research into the psychology of disgust and contamination, people find certain things and by extension, some people, to be disgusting. There is a separation for that which is unclean. In religion, that which is sacred is set apart from that which is profane. Cleanliness of self and clothing are virtues. The body is a temple in some religious teachings.

The expanded theory includes a consideration of liberty.

6. Liberty/ oppression: people resist oppression and leaders who restrict their liberty. People hate bullies and tyrants.

Researchers usually find support for a two factor model. 
Conservatives view moral issues from 3-5 perspectives with an emphasis on the foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Sociopolitical liberals emphasize care and fairness foundations. In A House Divided, you will  find examples of Christians using the same moral foundations in different ways. For example, in abortion arguments conservatives focus on care and harm of the unborn child and liberals emphasize care-harm concerns of the mother.


Notes
*I added the "aka" because you will find somewhat different words in some articles.



Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your projects.


Available on AMAZON in multiple countries


Here are some applications of moral foundations theory:

For applications to Christian views of moral issues see A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality and Christian Cultures.

For a recent study of Moral Foundations Theory, Identity, and Politics, see Sutton, Kelly, and Huber (2019).

Link to learn more about the Moral Foundations Questionnaire



References


Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. doi: 10.1177/1088868309353415
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009).  Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007).  When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555
Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding Libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified Libertarians. Plos One, 7(8): e42366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral foundation priorities reflect U.S. Christians’ individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.037.
Sutton, G. W. (2016). A House Divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888
Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H. L., & Huver, M. (2019). Political identities, religious identity, and the pattern of moral foundations among conservative Christians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, xx, pp. xx-xx. Accepted 6 September 2019. ResearchGate Link     Academia Link


Friday, September 21, 2018

Compassion



The behavioral science concept of compassion is similar to the common definition of the term.

Compassion is the feeling people describe when faced with another person’s 
suffering and the motivation to help reduce the impact of the suffering.



Compassion is related to the concepts of empathy and altruism but compassion is not the same as those concepts. Compassion involves emotional and cognitive empathy—the ability to take the perspective of another person and feel similar feelings. Compassion is different because it included the motivation to help improve someone’s situation.

Compassion shares with altruism the giving of oneself or resources to another. But compassion is not the only motive for altruism.

Compassion is related to love. The biology of compassion includes the presence of the hormone oxytocin, which has been called the “love drug” or the “bonding hormone.” In brain studies, the region of the brain linked to caring for others is activated in studies of empathy and caring. During sex, both men and women produce oxytocin. It’s also produced by women during childbirth and lactation.

Ad
Read more about love and compassion in Chapter 10 of Living Well on AMAZON.














One set of items to measure compassion is the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale (Hwang, Plante, & Lackey, 2008), which is derived from the longer, 21-item, Compassionate Love Scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005).






Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON



References
Hwang, J., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr's Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychology56, 421-428. doi:10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651.
Sutton, G. W., Jordan, K., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2014). Spirituality, hope, compassion, and forgiveness: Contributions of Pentecostal spirituality to godly love. Journal of Psychology and Christianity33, 212-226. Academia Link     ResearchGate 

Photo credit: I took the photo of Convoy of Hope helping people on the site where the tornado of 2007 destroyed the Assemblies of God church in Greensburg Kansas, USA. The tornado wiped out over 90% of the city.
Related Posts
Connections and Links to Resources

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books   AMAZON

FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
    
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)