One of the classic distinctions made by motivation researchers concerns the difference between extrinsic motivation (where behavior is pursued because of the desire for secondary gain) and intrinsic motivation (where behavior is pursued for its own sake). In general, decades of psychological research shows that extrinsic motivation is associated with negative emotions, such as anger, fear, and sadness. Although sometimes contributing to short-term performance benefits (such as when a student completes a homework assignment to earn points), in the long-run, extrinsic motivation is associated with performance difficulties (such as why many people stop reading for pleasure after extrinsic benefits for doing so cease). In contrast, intrinsic motivation is associated with a better emotional experience and long-term performance benefits, particularly when individuals encounter a setback and need to persist to overcome difficulties.

There are a variety of factors that influence whether an individual will express extrinsic or intrinsic motivation (or, given that motivation occurs on a continuum, the extent to which they show these motivational styles).

Continue reading →

For centuries, various religious, spiritual, and philosophical traditions have taught that compassion and pride play an important role in moral and social behavior. One way in which these moral emotions may influence people is by influencing perceptions of similarity with others. That is, whereas compassion may encourage people to perceive others as being more similar to themselves, pride may encourage people to perceive others as being more different. Put another way, compassion may cause people to think of others as being more universally alike, while pride may encourage people to think more hierarchically, viewing others as being “higher” or “lower” on the totem pole.

Continue reading →

What causes emotional difficulties such as depression, chronic anxiety, and excessive anger, as well as the behavioral problems that often mask them (such as alcoholism)? What can be done to prevent and treat these difficulties? These are extremely important questions, given the amount of suffering that these difficulties cause. Furthermore, research shows that many of these problems increasingly are being diagnosed and treated. For example, research shows that approximately 5% of all American men and approximately 10% of all American women now are taking some kind of antidepressant medication.

Most experts now agree that emotional difficulties are due to a complex interaction among biological, psychological, and social causes. Although psychotherapy is an effective treatment – often times more effective than psychotropic medications – biological treatments are becoming more and more popular.

Increasingly, though, I wonder if we are overlooking certain factors and remedies because of the bio-psycho-social paradigm that dominates medicine. Aristotle once suggested that virtue (and its opposite, vice) underlies human happiness. As the field of “Positive Psychology” continues to establish itself as the scientific study of virtue, there seems to be increasing support for this notion. For instance, virtues such as compassion, forgiveness, self-control, gratitude, hope, and faith increasingly are being studied by scientists, with impressive results for emotional health. On the flip side, vices such as pride and greed have been shown to be counterproductive to emotional health.

Continue reading →

Often times, faith and science are presented as being at odds, impossible to reconcile because of competing truths. Personally, I have never thought this was the case, especially when I consider the relationship between Christianity and Psychology. In fact, increasingly I wonder how these two pillars of wisdom might be integrated to form a more complete picture of human nature and to obtain a fuller understanding of how to live well.

One area in which I think Christianity and Psychology may be particularly likely to benefit each other concerns the topic of virtue. Here, Christianity (and other religious, spiritual, and philosophical traditions) offer insights into what constitutes virtue (and vice). However, rarely are details elaborated or specific advice made possible.

Continue reading →

Understanding biological influences on behavior often makes me pause. It is so counterintuitive and interesting to think that the brain underlies our thoughts, feelings, and actions. If someone suffers from some serious brain damage, they often will experience a profound change in thoughts, feelings, or actions, for example. When researchers have manipulated the brain, they find that individuals will experience new and sometimes unexpected thoughts, feelings, and activities. This has led many biological scientists to conclude that the brain determines thoughts, feelings, and actions. I can totally understand why someone might draw this conclusion.

However, I often have wondered how to reconcile the biologically deterministic view with the idea that we are free to choose our thoughts and actions. One way that I have framed this in my mind is to question whether there is a mind separate from the brain. That is, is there a non-physical part of us (mind, soul, or spirit) that is capable of choosing our thoughts and actions, separate to some extent from the brain? Clearly, this part of us does not exist entirely separate from the brain, as suggested by brain science, and as mentioned above, but might there be a mind that is connected, but not completely reducible to, a brain?

David Myers and Malcolm Jeeves, in their excellent book “Psychology through the Eyes of Faith,” write about this issue as well. They note:

“Monism, sometimes called physicalism, holds that humans are one and only one substance – that is, a physical body. Typically, however, the concept has been associated with reductive materialism and determinism. . . Recently, Warren Brown and his colleagues have suggested an alternate version of monism. . . They call it nonreductive physicalism. They agree with physicalizing about the biological nature of humans. Yet by qualifying this physicalism with nonreductive they want to assert that conscious decisions are real phenomena effective in exerting ‘top-down’ causal influence on the brain’s neurophysiology. This view agrees that thinking and deciding depend on lower-level neural processes, but claims that they are causal in their own right – that is, that they have top-down causal influence on the lower-level processes.”

With this, I agree. However, then Myers and Jeeves ultimately go in a different direction, which perhaps reflects the scientific consensus on this matter:

“When we bring together evidence from studies of brain-damaged people. . . the one thing that emerges repeatedly is the interdependence of what we think, remember, and see, and how we feel and express our feelings, with what is happening in our brains. Indeed, the interdependence is so all pervasive that we could label it as an ‘intrinsic’ interdependence, meaning it is the way the world is as regards the links between brains and cognitive behavior. . . Thus we see mental activity ’embodied’ in brain activity. The link is not a causal one in the most common way of using causal in science, with one physical force causing another. The relationship is between two interdependent levels. Description at both levels is necessary to give a full account of what is happening. . . So far as we can tell, mind is not an extra entity that occupies the brain. As Roger Sperry emphasized, ‘Everything in science to date seems to indicate that conscious awareness is a property of the living brain and inseparable from it.'”

Part of this makes sense to me. The brain definitely is dynamic, interacting with the environment in many counterintuitive ways. For instance, research shows that individuals going through psychotherapy often achieve the same changes in the brain that medication produces (but that the effects last longer). In this way, the brain seems to act like a muscle, growing stronger and weaker depending on how it is exercised.

However, I do not understand the basis for the conclusion that “conscious awareness is a property of the living brain and inseparable from it.” Consider, for example, what the Dalai Lama says about this issue in “The Art of Happiness:”

“. . . Underlying all Western modes of analysis is a very strong rationalistic tendency – an assumption that everything can be accounted for. And on top of that, there are constraints created by certain premises that are taken for granted. For example, recently I met with some doctors at a university medical school. They were talking about the brain and stated that thoughts and feelings were the result of different chemical reactions in the brain. So, I raised the question: Is it possible to conceive the reverse sequence, where the thought gives rise to the sequence of chemical events in the brain? [The scientist replied,] ‘We start from the premise that all thoughts are products or functions of chemical reactions in the brain. . . I think that in modern Western society, there seems to be a powerful cultural conditioning that is based on science. But in some instances, the basic premises and parameters set up by Western science can limit your ability to deal with certain realities. . . But when you encounter phenomena that you cannot account for, then there’s a kind of tension created; it’s almost a feeling of agony.'”

In other words, science is based on certain assumptions such as determinism, reductionism, and naturalism. These assumptions have taken us a long way. However, I think it’s important to recognize that these assumptions bring with them certain limitations. In this case, if we’re talking about an entity that is free from biology, then perhaps this is not a scientific issue. I always have thought that science is the best way of knowing for understanding measurable phenomena, but the question of a mind seems beyond this because, by definition, it involves something unmeasurable.

If the brain influences our thoughts, feelings, and actions, must it necessarily be the case that there cannot be a separate part of us that also can influence the brain? Might the relationship between biology and cognition not be one-directional, but reciprocal? This is the way most relationships concerning human behavior seem to work. If free will exists, it seems that there must be some entity that has a top-down influence on our biologies that, at least sometimes, has a primary causal role.

Of course, this leaves the question of why it should be assumed that freedom does exist. To a large extent, this is a philosophical or perhaps religious question that is beyond the scope of my expertise. Clearly, it is the assumption of most people and all religious systems that people have free will. My larger point here, though, is that science cannot disprove it as easily as most are lead to believe. This has many implications, including the recognition that individuals can choose different thoughts or environments to improve their lives. Thus, biological problems do not necessarily require biological remedies in every instance.

I just re-read “Psychology through the Eyes of Faith,” by David Myers and Malcolm Jeeves. This is maybe the best book I’ve ever read that reflects on mainstream psychological science from a Christian perspective. These are some points that struck me on this reading.

“. . . men go out and gaze in astonishment at high mountains, the huge waves of the sea, the broad reaches of rivers, . . . the stars in their courses. But they pay not attention to themselves.” (Augustine)

I always have loved how Myers and Jeeves describe their understanding of the relationship between religion and science:

“It’s like viewing a masterpiece painting. If you stand right up against it you will understand better how the paint was applied, but you will miss completely the subject and impact of the painting as a whole. To say the painting is ‘nothing but’ or ‘reducible to’ blobs of paint may at one level be true, but it misses the beauty and meaning that can be seen if one steps back and views the painting as a whole.”

Similarly, these authors suggest, science only provides information on “what” and “how” questions. Religion, on the other hand, deals with questions of meaning, questions of “why.”

Myers and Jeeves at one point discuss research on meditation, which since the time of their writing, has exploded. In fact, research increasingly shows that meditation helps people physically and psychologically, and increasingly is being incorporated into psychotherapy. However, this doesn’t have to be a solely Eastern practice. As these authors point out, there are Christian forms of meditation as well. “‘Sit down alone and in silence,’ advised the fourteenth-century mystic Gregory of Sinai. ‘Lower your head, shut your eyes, breath out gently, and imagine yourself looking into your own heart. . . As you breath out, say Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me. . . Try to put all other thoughts aside. be calm, be patient, and repeat the process very frequently.'”

Given the degree to which humans have problems thinking accurately, Myers and Jeeves discuss the value of doubt a great deal. For instance, they say:

“. . . it’s okay to have doubts. Doubt reveals a mind that asks questions, a humble mind, one that does not presume its own ideas to be certainties, one that checks its presumptions against the data of God’s creation. Indeed, the intellectually honest words belief, faith, and hope acknowledge uncertainty. . . One need not await 100 percent certainty before risking a thoughtful leap across the chasm of uncertainty. One can choose to marry in the hope of a happy life. One can elect a career, believing it will prove satisfying. One can fly across the ocean, having faith in the pilot and the plane. To know that we are prone to error does not negate our capacity to glimpse truth, nor does it rationalize living as a fence straddler. Sometimes, said the novelist Albert Camus, life calls us to make a 100 percent commitment to something about which we are 51 percent sure.”

In another section, they write, with a similar theme:

“‘Christian religion,’ said C. S. Lewis, ‘is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in [dismay], and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay.’ The first step toward wholeness and inner peace is to acknowledge that self-interest and self-deception taint every corner of our lives. The insights gleaned from psychological research on illusory thinking and self-serving pride therefore have deep Christian significance, for they reinforce the biblical view of our human limits and our spiritual poverty.”

Sometimes, the authors explicitly discuss psychological research findings in light of Bible stories, such as the wisdom of Mary, who was willing to enjoy the moment with Jesus, as opposed to Martha who always was someplace else psychologically.

I love how Myers and Jeeves connect Carl Rogers ideas about what he termed “necessary and sufficient conditions” for change – empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard – with grace. As they suggest, “What better definition of grace than unconditional positive regard – knowing someone as he or she truly is and valuing the person nonetheless.”

Most of the time, Christian psychologists really are not psychologists as much as they are applied theologians. In closing, what I like most about this book is that the authors are both fully psychologists and fully Christians and do not think that there is a problem with integrating the two. I agree. As they close, all truth ultimately is God’s truth.

One of the most intriguing questions regarding personal religiousness and spirituality concerns why some people are more motivated than others to seek and find a faith perspective. For many, this raises the question of whether nature (for example, genetics) vs. nurture (for example, upbringing) makes more of a difference.

Psychologists often use behavioral genetics research to try to untease the relative effects of nature vs. nurture.

Continue reading →

People often question the meaning of the terms “religion” and “spirituality.” One of the challenges in defining such terms is to identify a definition that captures the essence of the concepts, while at the same time limiting them to not be all-inclusive.

Psychologsts of religion often have defined religion and spirituality in terms of the “Sacred,” which further is defined as that which is holy, set apart, or distinct. The problem with this seems to be that the terms used in the definition are no clearer than the terms trying to be defined!

In light of all the great religious and spiritual traditions across the world, I’ve always thought that the Sacred has something to do with an entity that lasts forever. God, Jesus, the soul, and everyday objects connected with such entities (for example, Holy Communion) fit this definition. When I present this definition to students, many agree, while others say that this leaves out their view of that which is Sacred and, by implication, also what is spiritual. For instance, an atheist who finds intense positive emotion in sex or music might say that they have had a “spiritual experience,” which my definition wouldn’t recognize as such. My response typically is that the Sacred and the spiritual seem to have qualities different from merely experiencing intense positive emotion.

Continue reading →

The more that I learn about different cultures, the more that I become fascinated by cultural differences. Each person has a unique cultural heritage consisting of a blend of different cultural influences. However, research suggests that there are a couple of dominant cultural orientations across the world.

The individualistic cultural orientation generally values individuals distinguishing themselves, relative to others. This is seen in values to self-actualize, fulfill one’s potential, achieve self-esteem, reveal one’s unique talents, stand up for one’s personal rights, and take personal responsibility for one’s actions. Although it may be difficult to recognize, this orientation uniquely is promoted in the United States. In contrast, the collectivistic cultural orientation generally values the honor of the group (for example, one’s family, community, tribe, or country). This orientation is promoted most clearly in Asia and Africa. Both orientations are represented in key cultural institutions (for example, democratic vs. communist governmental structures) and practices (sending kids to day care when young while parents work vs. staying with them).

It is easy to believe that the values taught to us are universal values. Often times, however, they are culture-specific. For instance, people in the United States often do not recognize that they have internalized a purpose in life heavily influenced by their culture (i.e., distinguishing themselves, relative to others), ironically not as freely chosen as individuals might like to believe. It seems helpful to reflect on whether this really fits deeper values that someone might hold. Once there is a recognition that other cultures possess different values, it is natural to think through what values someone might like to follow. In my view, I often have tried to consider how to take the best of different values in order to achieve a good life.

Clearly, the freedom and opportunities associated with an individualistic cultural orientation is the envy of the world. This probably is part of the reason why the United States historically has received so many immigrants. The focus on independence also encourages individuals to achieve. American society obviously has benefited from this achievement, as seen in the tremendous wealth that has been attained. On the other hand, the focus on standing out in excellence brings with it many disadvantages, including an unhealthy kind of pride, isolation, and the stress of trying to do well in everything. In contrast, a collectivistic cultural orientation often possesses the advantages of humility, interconnectedness among people, and a more laid-back lifestyle.

I often wonder how I can appreciate the opportunities I have in the United States, choosing what fits best for me, while at the same time rejecting those aspects of American culture that seem less healthy, such as pride, materialism, isolation, and toxic busyness. One specific practice we have adopted to do this is to spend one day a week in a traditional “Sabbath.” On this day, we spend our time very intentionally in ways that rejuvenate us. On a typical Sabbath, for instance, we might attend church, go for a hike, have a special drink at a local coffee shop where we will play a game with family and friends, take our time to make a nice dinner, and taking our time to enjoy that dinner with family and friends. We also try not to do things that drain us on this day, including work (something that feels like work anyway) and any technology that can distract us from the present moment or from each other. This is an amazingly peaceful and restorative time for us, and allows us to be more effective the rest of the week.

Sometimes, I’ve struggled with the meaning of my life, and how to index whether my life is well spent. I’ve sometimes sought accomplishments as an objective indicator of this, but have found that this kind of external focus brings with it considerable stress. Thinking through the best of other cultures gives me a different perspective. In this regard, I love the words of Henri Nouwen, when he writes:

“More and more, the desire grows in me simply to walk around, greet people, enter their homes, sit on their doorsteps, play ball, throw water, and be known as someone who wants to live with them. It is a privilege to have the time to practice this simple ministry of presence. Still, it is not as simple as it seems. My own desire to be useful, to do something significant, or to be part of some impressive project is so strong that soon my time is taken up by meetings, conferences, study groups, and workshops that prevent me from walking the streets. It is difficult not to have plans, not to organize people around an urgent cause, and not to feel that you are working directly for social progress. But I wonder more and more if the first thing shouldn’t be to know people by name, to eat and drink with them, to listen to their stories and tell your own, and to let them know with words, handshakes, and hugs that you do not simply like them, but truly love them.”

Continuing with my recent entries summarizing new scientific findings, I’d like to devote this post to an article that came out today in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science that reviews all of the research on the effects of parental divorce on children’s development. This is a particularly important topic considering that approximately 50% of first marriages in the United States will end in divorce and that approximately 50% of children in the United States will have parents who divorced.

Continue reading →