Anxiety disorders are the most commonly experienced psychological disorder in the world. In the United States, for example, approximately 18% of adults between the ages of 18 and 54 – approximately 40 million people – experience an anxiety disorder in a given year. Many of these individuals take medication (often times an antidepressant medication) to help with their condition.

Anxiety disorders generally involve a pattern in which an individual possesses a fear that either significantly interferes with their daily life or is endured in their daily life with significant distress. The mental health profession formally considers generalized anxiety disorder, phobias of various kinds (including agoraphobia and social phobia), obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, acute stress disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder to be anxiety disorders. Other mental illnesses often involve the experience of significant anxiety as well, including hypochondriasis, eating disorders, depression, substance use disorders, and several personality disorders such as avoidant personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder.

One of the best ways to conceptualize the psychology of anxiety disorders is through an understanding of classical conditioning principles. In general, in the acquisition phase of classical conditioning, an individual learns to associate a response (conditioned response) to a previously neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus). This learning occurs because that previously neutral stimulus was associated with a stimulus (unconditioned stimulus) that automatically triggered a response (unconditioned response). Often times, this process may be very adaptive, as it helps to prepare individuals for potentially harmful stimuli. Many individuals with anxiety disorders, however, have generalized a conditioned response to a conditioned stimulus to the point where it impairs their functioning in daily life.

For example, when I used to work at the Veteran’s Hospital in Minneapolis, I worked with veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Often times, they reported being in combat situations (unconditioned stimulus) that naturally elicited fear (unconditioned response). Certain stimuli often were associated with these situations, including loud noises or particular smells (conditioned stimuli) which, by themselves, became able to elicit fear as well (unconditioned responses). Although this might be helpful during times of war to help soldiers prepare for threat, many people generalize the process well beyond combat situations, often times years afterward. Many of my patients, for instance, would experience flashbacks if they encountered loud noises or smelled gunpowder. Many became hypersensitive to threatening situations. Naturally, this also led many to avoid situations that had the potential to evoke these kinds of fear responses. These symptoms often times significantly impaired their daily lives.

Thankfully, much of what can be learned can be unlearned as well. In classical conditioning, the extinction phase refers to a process in which individuals learn to distinguish between the conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus. This is possible because the conditioned stimulus may be presented repeatedly without the unconditioned stimulus. For instance, if a soldier showed a post-traumatic response to the smell of gunpowder, they might be encouraged to smell gunpowder repeatedly outside of a combat situation. The individual would be expected to show a strong fear response initially, but eventually, they likely would learn that the gunpowder is not associated any more with danger, leading their fear to gunpowder to decrease.

For many people who struggle with anxiety, what they most fear is the experience of fear itself. I have had times in my life where this has been true for me and, though different from a classically conditioned response, I find behavioral exposure helpful for this as well. During times where I become sensitized to being anxious, I slow myself down and focus on the sensations of anxiety. For instance, I allow myself to experience a feeling of tenseness in my stomach or chest, quickened breathing, or a jumpy heart. When I do this, the experience of anxiety tends to fade, often after I realize that, though I don’t really prefer the sensation, it’s actually not that bad.

Clinical trials have shown that these applications of behavioral exposure very effectively treat various kinds of anxiety disorders. For instance, exposure is more effective than medication or other forms of psychotherapy. Furthermore, behavioral exposure seems to be an effective treatment even when the cause of an anxiety problem cannot be traced to the acquisition phase of classical conditioning.

One of the primary reasons why behavioral exposure works so effectively with anxiety disorders is that it counteracts the natural tendency people have to avoid what they fear. This kind of treatment conveys to people that they are capable of confronting their fear and, typically, provides an experience that supports this new, empowering belief.

Like all human behavior, anxiety responses cannot be understood through a single process; they are complex and multi-faceted. For example, some people who go through traumatic experiences will not develop post-traumatic stress disorder, perhaps because they are not as biologically predisposed to negative emotion, because of coping and social resources they possess that make them more resilient, because of lifestyle factors that minimize the effects of stress, or because of a “what if” negative thinking pattern. Some people who go through exposure therapy may not improve as much as others for these reasons as well. Yet, classical conditioning provides a framework for conceptualizing anxiety disorders that provides a significant contribution to understanding and treatment. Effectively applied, it might mean that many people who suffer from anxiety disorders, or who take medication to help them to cope, may be able to overcome their difficulties through natural processes.

Why do we do what we do? Why are we the way we are? What makes us different from each other? These kinds of questions naturally intrigue us. Historically, they have been approached through one of two perspectives. First, the nature perspective suggests that human behavior is driven mostly by biology (evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and hormones). In contrast, the nurture perspective suggests that behavior is driven mostly by the psychosocial environment (for example, how we were raised, our peers, the situations we are in at present).

Interestingly, almost everyone in our culture seems to believe that nurture is more powerful than nature. More than likely, this is because it is easier to observe the effects of nurture in our lives and because it feels more empowering to believe that nurture has more of an effect, perhaps because it seems more controllable.

Continue reading →

Consciousness is a mystery. Nobody really understands the mechanisms that explain how non-conscious beings somehow became conscious. Nobody really understands what influences our consciousness. Why is it, for example, that when some people read something, they are entirely focused on what they are reading and enjoy the process so much that time seems to “fly by,” while others can read the exact same material and find that their attention drifts and they feel that time “drags?” Although most equate the desire for an “altered state of consciousness” with the desire for illegal chemical substances, I can’t help but notice that almost everyone seeks altered states of consciousness regularly in their everyday lives – for example, being “addicted” to activities such as running, gambling, worship, reading, Facebook, sex, and television. Why is it that most people seek altered states of consciousness in some form so frequently? How is it that the addictions we pursue determine the quality of our lives?

To help answer some of these questions, I long have been intrigued by a psychological state called “flow.” The idea of flow was first advanced by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced “Chick-SENT-Me-High”). Csikszentmihalyi has studied many different kinds of people (for example, artists, athletes, martial artists, musicians, rock climbers, various kinds of spiritual practitioners) and found that the best experiences of life often come with certain characteristics, including a loss of self-consciousness, the quick passage of time, high enjoyment, and sometimes exceptional performance. According to Csikszentmihalyi, flow tends to occur when there is an intersection of high perceived challenge and high perceived competence. This combination of high perceived challenge and high perceived competence seems most likely to occur when an individual is pursuing something that they find particularly meaningful or interesting. In contrast, boredom results when perceived competence is greater than perceived challenge and anxiety results when perceived challenge is greater than perceived competence. For more information on “flow,” check out Csikszentmihalyi’s TED talk here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html

For example, then, the student who is able to read a reflection such as this with great concentration and enjoyment likely is able to do so because it challenges them to do something that they find meaningful or interesting that they also believe they are capable of doing. However, the student who has a difficult time reading a reflection such as this because they are bored may find that it does not challenge them enough, make enough use of their perceived skill, or connect with what they find meaningful or interesting. Finally, the student who finds material such as this anxiety-provoking may find that it challenges them beyond a level of their perceived competence for whatever reason.

To me, flow theory suggests that all of us have a certain need for “optimal experience.” Of course, this kind of desired state can be pursued in ways that are personally fulfilling and socially productive or in ways that are not. The person who is able to follow a passion at work, for instance, is likely to excel in many ways; for instance, they are likely to enjoy themselves as they work and achieve much as they continually challenge themselves and develop greater abilities. In contrast, people who have a more difficult time finding flow in healthy ways may find themselves drawn to unhealthy, and ultimately unsatisfactory, ways to alter their consciousness.

As Csikszentmihalyi writes in one of Psychology’s most prestigious journals, American Psychologist, in an article entitled “If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy?:”

“When a person finds few meaningful opportunities for action in the environment, he or she will often resort to finding flow in activities that are destructive, addictive, or at the very least wasteful. . . Juvenile crime is rarely a direct consequence of deprivation but rather is caused by boredom or the frustration teenagers experience when other opportunities for flow are blocked. Vandalism, gang fights, promiscuous sex, and experimenting with psychotropic drugs might provide flow at first, but such experiences are rarely enjoyable for long.”

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a colleague who worked with people struggling with powerful problems with addiction. I asked him what he found to be most helpful in this kind of work and he remarked that, ultimately, people who overcome addiction problems typically exchange one addiction for another. One might say that this does not reflect true change, but he added that we all have addictions; the question is what kind of addiction we have and the results these addictions have on our lives.

In this context, it is interesting to note how often society does not encourage individuals to follow their interests, challenge themselves, or develop their abilities. Often times, individuals are encouraged, rather, to seek external markers of success such as wealth, status, or other markers of achievement (such as college degrees), but to do so while putting forth as little effort as possible. Rather than finding optimal experience in the ordinary tasks of everyday life (such as work), individuals are encouraged to find it in leisure-time pursuits that typically are too passive to really result in such a state or that lead to self-destruction.

All of this suggests that rather than seeking happiness through some external marker, or hoping to find happiness at some later date, true happiness that fulfills and that produces good fruit must be experienced in the present. As Csikszentmihalyi notes, “the [only] prerequisite for happiness is the ability to get fully involved in life.”

As the world has become smaller, people increasingly have recognized the wide variety of ways in which individuals differ. Most focus on the content of differences in how people think, feel, and act. However, it equally is true that people differ in how they think. That is, even if two people agree about some issue, vast differences in how they think about that issue often are evident.

From a philosophical perspective, “epistemology” concerns how people think about what is true. From a psychological perspective, what may be of most interest is that people differ in how they approach this task, however. For example, as discussed by Laird Edman, professor of Psychology at Northwestern College in Iowa, many psychologists who study personal epistemology believe that individuals develop thinking skills in a roughly stage-like fashion. At the lowest level, individuals view knowledge as certain and absolute; these people believe that single correct answers exist for all questions. As a result, such individuals often defer to authorities who they presume know the truth. At a middle level, people recognize that uncertainty is part of the knowing process. However, conclusions often are not reached because it seems that “all truth is relative.” At the highest level, people recognize that uncertainty is part of knowledge, but based on the best evidence and reason they can muster, they reach tentative conclusions. They are capable of understanding and respecting others’ views while still holding firmly to what they believe.

Continue reading →

If I were to guess what topic most interested people about human behavior, I would say it would have something to do with “evil.” I long have been struck by the observation that people are fascinated with what constitutes evil and what explains evil. This can be seen in people’s curiosities about mass murderers such as Jeffrey Dahmer.

For better or worse, I share many of these interests. In fact, in recent years, I have become, at times, almost obsessed with what is perhaps the best example of mass evil ever committed – the Holocaust of World War II – during which over 10,000,000 people (Jews, Roma, homosexuals, political opponents, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and mentally ill) were murdered. I have read many books detailing first-person accounts of what the Holocaust really was like, both from the perspective of victims, of which there are many more accounts (my “favorite” is “Night,” by Nobel Peace Prize winner, Elie Wiesel), and from the perspective of perpetrators. At some point, I decided that I wanted to teach a course related to the topic. To learn more, I applied, and was accepted, to be a part of a small, intense, week-long seminar at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. in January, 2011. I also have interviewed several concentration camp survivors in the past year, and have brought several to Normandale to speak on campus. Along with my friend and colleague, Dr. Jay Anderson, I will be teaching a course in the Psychology of the Holocaust during Spring semester, 2012, which will include a Spring Break tour of Holocaust sites in and around Berlin, Prague, Krakow (including Auschwitz), and Budapest.

In all of this, I have struggled with the meaning of “evil.” Phil Zimbardo, lead scientist of the “Stanford Prison Study” provides a comprehensive definition in his book “The Lucifer Effect:”

Continue reading →

Human beings long have been on a quest for happiness. This often is expressed in
religious, philosophical, and psychological thought. Perhaps this is why so many people
are interested in these disciplines, as they may further individuals‟ personal quests for
happiness.

As the world has become more interconnected, the quest for happiness increasingly is
approached through study of different cultures. This is one of the reasons why I like to
travel and read about different customs across the world. I have read two books
specifically geared toward trying to understand what enables some places in the world to
produce people with more happiness. Although life circumstances such as location
generally appear only to play a minimal role in causing happiness, these still are
instructive.

Continue reading →

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 →