REPOST: Should there be a word for an ‘almost alcoholic’?

Psychology experts believe that because the word “alcoholic” is always associated with rowdy, nomadic people, those who consume alcohol in more-than-usual amounts, believing that their drinking habits are still normal, tend to refrain from seeking help. Olivia Sorrel-Dejerine of BBC discusses this issue in detail.

Image Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Everybody thinks they know what an “alcoholic” is, but what about those who drink too much but fall short of the common definitions of alcoholism? Should there be a word that bridges the gap between alcoholic and non-alcoholic?

The term alcoholic – on its own to denote someone addicted to alcohol – was first used in 1852 in the Scottish Temperance Review.

Since then, millions of heavy drinkers have been confronted by friends and families with the stark question: “Are you an alcoholic?”

And millions have denied it. Rejected the label. Confessed only to maybe, possibly drinking too much. But utterly denied the A-word.

Alcoholics are people who fall asleep in skips. Alcoholics get into fights. Alcoholics start the day with a shot of whisky. Alcoholics are drunk all the time. Alcoholics can’t hold down jobs.

Image Source: www.bbc.co.uk

None of the above is necessarily true, but the intensely negative nature of the word alcoholic leaves some people scrabbling for an alternative.

“There is so much stigma,” says Kate, author of the blog The Sober Journalist. People are so frightened of it – their head fills with images of men drinking under bridges. “There is this huge number of people out there who don’t fit that stereotype but perhaps their drinking isn’t quite normal.”

Kate went to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings when she started to think she was drinking too much, about four or five years ago. “I felt I was out of place, I wasn’t alcoholic enough. I felt that everyone else had worse problems with drinking than I did,” she says.

There are other words for people who drink a lot. There is everything from the lightly derogatory “lush” to the more flowery “bibulous” to the prosaic “heavy drinker”.

But there is nothing as succinct as alcoholic. And some believe that this gap has an effect.

Professionals have started using other terms that would not be as negative as alcoholic because “many doctors feel that it is quite difficult to engage a patient if you talk to them about alcoholism”, says Dr Sarah Jarvis, a consultant for Patient.co.uk.

People have such vivid mental images of what it means to be an alcoholic that they measure themselves against that standard and do not seek help.

“They all have an idea of what an alcohol or problem drinker is but there is a different pattern for every drinker,” Jarvis says.

Not all experts share this view, however.

There’s a danger that avoiding the term “alcoholism” will only serve “to reassure people their drinking is OK when it isn’t”, says Moira Plant, emeritus professor of alcohol studies at the University of the West of England.

She agrees the widespread impression of the alcoholic as a vagrant or street-drinker prevents higher-functioning people with drink problems from seeking help. But she says the best way to tackle this is to correct false stereotypes, not downplay the situation faced by such individuals – many of whom are already in denial.

“People normalise heavy drinking,” she says. “They tend to overestimate what everyone else drinks. They say, ‘I don’t drink as much as my friends so it’s OK.'”

There have been other words to describe someone drinking too much. In the 19th Century “inebriate” was a popular term and the word “drunkard” goes all the way back to the 15th Century.

England’s Department of Health recommends that men should not regularly drink more than three to four units of alcohol a day and women should not regularly drink more than two to three units a day.

But drinking above these recommendations does not necessarily mean that the person is an alcoholic. It just means increased risk of health damage.

“An alcoholic is anyone who is dependent on alcohol and who is drinking to a level that will endanger their health,” Dr Jarvis says.

The term alcoholic is very much alive in the vocabulary of ordinary people, says Tim Leighton, director of professional education and research at Action on Addiction.

“In Europe and in the UK, there was a move away from the term in the 1960s; it was seen as derogatory. We now talk about ‘alcohol dependence’, but you don’t hear people in the street saying he is an ‘alcohol dependent,’ they say he is an ‘alcoholic,'” he says.

Dr Jarvis says it is a shame the words “hazardous” or “harmful” drinker aren’t used more widely.

The issue with the use of the word “alcoholic” is that it is narrow. “You are either one or you are not,” Leighton says. “This is why some people prefer the term ‘alcohol dependence’. You can be an alcoholic without drinking too much – it is all about dependence, about losing control.”

For a long time, it was a strict category, there were specific criteria and if you fulfilled these criteria, you were an alcoholic, says Joseph Nowinski, one of the authors of the book Almost Alcoholic.

This is a stage for a lot of controversy – as long as you didn’t meet the alcoholic criteria, you would say, “I am not an alcoholic so I don’t have a drinking problem”, he says.

“There has never been a word for people who come to the point of asking themselves the question, ‘Do I have a problem or not?'”

Based on this, Nowinski and Robert Doyle came up with the concept of being an “almost alcoholic” to describe people who are not alcoholics but who “fall into a grey area of problem drinking”.

“The almost alcoholic zone is actually quite large. The people who occupy it are not alcoholics. Rather, they are men and women whose drinking habits range from barely qualifying as almost alcoholics to those whose drinking borders on abuse,” they wrote in the Atlantic.

“An expanded view of drinking behaviour in terms of a spectrum as opposed to discrete categories might be viewed by some as opening the door to over-diagnosing the associated problems. We believe the opposite will prove to be the case: that this paradigm shift will allow people to recognise problems earlier and to seek solutions without having to be labelled as alcoholics.”

“There is a huge range of alcohol problems,” Leighton says. “A lot of people with alcohol problems are not alcoholics.”

Until a new label is popularised there will be people who struggle to admit they have a problem, he says.

But for Kate, the existing term has come to make sense as her recovery has progressed.

“I feel that eight months ago I wouldn’t have said that I was an alcoholic and now I could say I am because I know what it means,” she says.

Dr. Sam Klein Von Reiche is a New Jersey-based psychologist specializing in treating addiction, including alcohol abuse. Learn more about her practice here.

REPOST: Thinking About Getting Marriage Counseling?

Couples who are undergoing marital conflicts are advised to seek counseling before calling it quits.  Psyche Central argues that the best time for couples to agree on counseling is before the relationship has begun to deteriorate.  Read more below.

Image Source: psychecentral.com

“Marriage is a pit full of pitfalls devised by a devious deity for our conscious evolution” – Wavy Gravy

There are few if any couples who have been together any amount of time who have managed to successfully avoid any of the many pitfalls that that are inherent in committed partnerships. We know (personally and professionally) many couples who were convinced that theirs was a relationship that was the exception to this rule only to find after the first major disappointment, or the first child, or the first serious disagreement, or the last straw, that they were wrong. And while there are some couples who do experience deep marital fulfillment with little if any serious conflict along the way, for the vast majority of couples, not just those who are mismatched or emotionally unbalanced, stuff happens. Sometimes it’s bad stuff that doesn’t just go away over time, or when you ignore it, or when one partner intimidates the other into backing down or shutting up.

The noted marriage researcher, John Gottman claims that the average couple that enters marriage counseling has been in a troubled relationship for over six years. That could be one of the reasons that marriage counseling has gotten a lot of bad press and has the lowest rating of satisfaction of all the different types of psychotherapy. As in cancer diagnosis, early detection is a big plus.

While past generations of couples have taken the attitude of “grin and bear it” when difficulties have arisen in their relationship, these days most couples are less willing to tolerate an unhappy marriage for very long without trying something, such as books, DVD’s, workshops, or couples’ retreats. If none of these resources prove sufficiently helpful, there is finally the option of marriage counseling. If you are ever in a position in which you are considering that possibility, here are a few things that you might want to think about before (and after) you make that decision.

It’s not a good idea to wait until both partners are completely on board with the idea of getting professional help. If one person is clear that they feel the need for another set of eyes and ears, it’s probably time. One way to minimize any potential conflict around this decision is to make an agreement that either partner has the authority to unilaterally exercise the couples’ therapy option if she or he feels it’s necessary. The best time to create this agreement is before, rather that after the relationship has begun to deteriorate.

1. Timing is everything. The question of when you choose to go is, as we suggested earlier, an important one. Waiting too long can be very costly, in more ways than one. The more entrenched the problems, the longer it takes to resole them, and in some cases irreparable damage can occur if the situation undergoes extreme deterioration. By all means make your best effort to improve your relationship and repair what is broken on your own. But also, be mindful of recurring negative patterns that don’t respond to your best efforts. That could mean that you might need to call in the cavalry.
2. Choose a person that you both feel that you can work with. There is no generic answer to the question of how you know whether you have the right counselor, but it is important that you are both in agreement that this is someone that you can at least begin the process with. It’s unrealistic for a counselor to expect that you can commit to doing extensive work before having even had any experience working with him or her. Beware of therapists who try to extract a commitment from you to a specific time period or number of sessions before you’ve had any experience getting to know their work. And on a related note, be willing to ask your counselor any questions that you feel might be relevant to your ability to accurately assess their competence and fit for you, such as their experience, degrees, success rate, education, or even marital status and history. If the counselor refuses to answer or turns your request into a question about your trust issues, you might want to think about seeking help elsewhere.
3. Get clear about what you really want to get out of this process. Couples come into counseling with a wide range of intentions, some conscious, and some unconscious, some shared, and some unshared. Some are content to simply deal with the situation that brought them there and get back to their ‘normal’ level of relatedness. Others may be looking for a transcendent experience, one that will transform their relationship into a source of spiritual realization. It’s likely that very early on your counselor will ask you about your goals. Giving some thought to this question beforehand will expedite the process considerably. And try to keep in mind that it’s normal for even the clearest intentions to shift, change, or (hopefully) be fulfilled in the process. If that happens you can extend or adjust the goals that you have for counseling. You are not permanently locked into anything that you say in response to the “purpose question”. But it’s a very good place to begin.
4. Your counselor is a consultant, not a fixer. Although couples may strongly disagree on many points, one thing that they usually do agree on is that it is the therapist’s responsibility to fix the marriage. After all, why else would we be paying him all that money? Going to the dentist may not be a particularly pleasant experience for most of us, but one thing that we can count on from the dentist is that he will take responsibility for handling our dental concerns without expecting any more from us than to follow a few pretty simple instructions, like open, close, rinse, spit, grind. Not so in couples counseling, which is a more dynamic process that involves interactions between three people and requires each partner to take an active role in the process and to be willing to be an involved agent in influencing its outcome.The marriage counselor is there to assist and guide you to consider new ways of looking at things, to redirect the focus of your attention from your partner’s behavior and more towards yourself and the relationship. We can’t control other people but we can influence our own behavior and doing so will change the dynamics of the relationship.Your therapist might offer you tools or behavioral suggestions for you to try on or suggest possibilities that you may not have previously considered. Your job is to be as honest and engaged as you can be and to explore new possibilities. Vulnerability and risk are two things that many of us try to minimize in our lives, particularly when we have been scarred (and scared) by emotional wounding. They are usually, however key factors in the healing process.
5. The real “work” of marriage counseling occurs between sessions. The marriage counselor’s office isn’t the only place where the work of therapy gets done, but it is the place where many of the lessons are learned. As most of us know from experience, knowing what you need to do generally isn’t enough to bring about real change. What’s required is to engage the practices that will promote the development of the qualities that we need to embody, in order to bring about the changes in our relationship that we desire. These qualities include (but are not limited to) responsibility, compassion, integrity, authenticity, commitment, courage, and emotional honesty.

Our life outside of the office is the place where we get to practice and ultimately integrate new styles of relating and communicating that invite openness and trust and discourage avoidance and defensiveness. If you feel that it’s much easier to implement those changes in the therapy office than it is at home, that’s probably because your counselor’s added support has created a safety net that has enabled you to risk more emotional vulnerability. Your counselor’s job is to help you to internalize that support so that you will be able to do outside of the office what you learn to do inside of it. Although there’s no generic answer to the question: “How long will that take?” We can however, assure you that with time, practice and good help, it will happen.

The art of co-creating mutually fulfilling relationships requires more of us than we may have originally bargained for. Fortunately, we are not alone. Help is available, not just in the form of marriage counseling, but through the wisdom, support, and shared life experiences of others who have walked this path before us and learned valuable lessons. Jack Kornfield, the author and gifted spiritual teacher is one of those people. He reminds us that loving relationships require a cup of understanding, a barrel of love, and an ocean of patience. Given what’s at stake, we can all use all the help we can get!

Dr. Sam Klein Von Reiche is a licensed psychologist who provides counseling for couples undergoing relationship strain.  Follow this Twitter page for more updates on couples therapy.

REPOST: Sleep Therapy Seen as an Aid for Depression

“If you hate yourself in the morning, sleep till noon.” As cliché as it may sound, Science seems to agree. A new study from the National Institute of Mental Health suggests that sleep therapy could double the chance of a full recovery in people with depression. The New York Times has the story below.

[A student demonstrating equipment at Colleen Carney’s sleep lab at Ryerson University. Dr. Carney is the lead author of a new report about the effects of insomnia treatment on depression.] Image Source: nytimes.com

Curing insomnia in people with depression could double their chance of a full recovery, scientists are reporting. The findings, based on an insomnia treatment that uses talk therapy rather than drugs, are the first to emerge from a series of closely watched studies of sleep and depression to be released in the coming year.

The new report affirms the results of a smaller pilot study, giving scientists confidence that the effects of the insomnia treatment are real. If the figures continue to hold up, the advance will be the most significant in the treatment of depression since the introduction of Prozac in 1987.

Depression is the most common mental disorder, affecting some 18 million Americans in any given year, according to government figures, and more than half of them also have insomnia.

Experts familiar with the new report said that the results were plausible and that if supported by other studies, they should lead to major changes in treatment.

“It would be an absolute boon to the field,” said Dr. Nada L. Stotland, professor of psychiatry at Rush Medical College in Chicago, who was not connected with the latest research.

“It makes good common sense clinically,” she continued. “If you have a depression, you’re often awake all night, it’s extremely lonely, it’s dark, you’re aware every moment that the world around you is sleeping, every concern you have is magnified.”

The study is the first of four on sleep and depression nearing completion, all financed by the National Institute of Mental Health. They are evaluating a type of talk therapy for insomnia that is cheap, relatively brief and usually effective, but not currently a part of standard treatment.

The new report, from a team at Ryerson University in Toronto, found that 87 percent of patients who resolved their insomnia in four biweekly talk therapy sessions also saw their depression symptoms dissolve after eight weeks of treatment, either with an antidepressant drug or a placebo pill — almost twice the rate of those who could not shake their insomnia. Those numbers are in line with a previous pilot study of insomnia treatment at Stanford.

In an interview, the report’s lead author, Colleen E. Carney, said, “The way this story is unfolding, I think we need to start augmenting standard depression treatment with therapy focused on insomnia.”

Dr. Carney acknowledged that the study was small — just 66 patients — and said a clearer picture should emerge as the other teams of scientists released their results. Those studies are being done at Stanford, Duke and the University of Pittsburgh and include about 70 subjects each. Dr. Carney will present her data on Saturday at a convention of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, in Nashville.

Doctors have known for years that sleep problems are intertwined with mood disorders. But only recently have they begun to investigate the effects of treating both at the same time. Antidepressant drugs like Prozac help many people, as does talk therapy, but in rigorous studies the treatments, administered individually, only slightly outperform placebo pills. Used together the treatments produce a cure rate — full recovery — for about 40 percent of patients.

Adding insomnia therapy, however, to an antidepressant would sharply lift the cure rate, Dr. Carney’s data suggests, as do the findings from the Stanford pilot study, which included 30 people.

Doctors have long considered poor sleep to be a symptom of depression that would clear up with treatments, said Rachel Manber, a professor in the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department at Stanford, whose 2008 pilot trial of insomnia therapy provided the rationale for larger studies. “But we now know that’s not the case,” she said. “The relationship is bidirectional — that insomnia can precede the depression.”

Full-blown insomnia is more serious than the sleep problems most people occasionally have. To qualify for a diagnosis, people must have endured at least a month of chronic sleep loss that has caused problems at work, at home or in important relationships. Several studies now suggest that developing insomnia doubles a person’s risk of later becoming depressed — the sleep problem preceding the mood disorder, rather than the other way around.

The therapy that Dr. Manber, Dr. Carney and the other researchers are using is called cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia, or CBT-I for short. The therapist teaches people to establish a regular wake-up time and stick to it; get out of bed during waking periods; avoid eating, reading, watching TV or similar activities in bed; and eliminate daytime napping.

The aim is to reserve time in bed for only sleeping and — at least as important — to “curb this idea that sleeping requires effort, that it’s something you have to fix,” Dr. Carney said. “That’s when people get in trouble, when they begin to think they have to do something to get to sleep.”

This kind of therapy is distinct from what is commonly known as sleep hygiene: exercising regularly, but not too close to bedtime, and avoiding coffee and too much alcohol in the evening. These healthful habits do not amount to an effective treatment for insomnia.

In her 2008 pilot study testing CBT-I in people with depression, Dr. Manber of Stanford used sleep hygiene as part of her control treatment. She found that 60 percent of patients who received seven sessions of the talk therapy and an antidepressant fully recovered from their depression, compared with 33 percent who got the same drug and the sleep hygiene therapy.

In the four larger trials expected to be published in 2014, researchers had participants keep sleep journals to track the effect of the CBT-I therapy, writing down what time they went to bed every night, what time they tried to fall asleep, how long it took, how many awakenings they had and what time they woke up.

When the diaries show consistent, seldom-interrupted, good-quality slumber, the therapist conducts an interview to determine if there are any lingering issues. If there are none, the person has recovered. The therapy results in sharp reductions in nighttime wakefulness for most people who follow through.

In interviews, several researchers noted that the National Institute of Mental Health had sharply curtailed funding for work in sleep treatment. Aleksandra Vicentic, the acting chief of the agency’s behavioral and integrative neuroscience research branch, said that in 2009 the funding strategy changed for sleep projects.

In an effort to illuminate the biology of sleep’s impact on behavior, the agency is now focusing on how sleep affects the functioning of neural circuits. But Dr. Vicentic added that the agency continued to fund clinical work like the depression trials.

Dr. Andrew Krystal, who is running the CBT-I study at Duke, called sleep “this huge, still unexplored frontier of psychiatry.”

“The body has complex circadian cycles, and mostly in psychiatry we’ve ignored them,” he said. “Our treatments are driven by convenience. We treat during the day and make little effort to find out what’s happening at night.”

Dr. Sam Klein Von Reiche is a licensed clinical psychologist whose areas of expertise include depression and chronic unhappiness. Follow this Twitter page to keep abreast of the latest news in psychology.

REPOST: Addiction recovery programs heal through love

In an effort to bring the love of Christ to those who suffer from addiction, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has established programs that provide emotional and spiritual support to recovering addicts through a difficult period. The Standard-Examiner has the details:

OGDEN — There isn’t a person alive who can’t identify with experiencing pain in their life.

But some former addicts say the means they chose to dull that pain caused them and their families untold grief.

And they want to help others find their way out of similar situations.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has developed programs for addiction recovery that offer help for those who are suffering every day of the week.

Image Source: www.addictionrecovery.lds.org

“They realize they are not alone,” said Kristin Stroud, who, with her husband, serves as an assistant coordinator of an arm of the program that runs out of Ogden LDS Family Services. “They become best friends and help each other through a very trying time.”

An Ogden-based group of leaders in the program met this month for training and to discuss ways to better lead their meetings that are held nearly every day of the week. Online and telephone meetings and help is available on a continual basis.

The leaders said they have seen lives change as participants have wrapped the love of Jesus Christ around themselves and allowed their resulting feelings to change their hearts.

“It’s a safe place to share and help one another and to share common experiences,” said Ron Dickson, coordinator of the Ogden program.

His wife, Gwenn Dickson, said, “To me, the success of the program is the love and the sharing they give to the addict.”

The Dicksons, the Strouds and others shared an outline of the meetings they promote that includes prayer, a discussion of the mission statement of the program and a five-minute presentation by a former addict talking about how he or she was able to turn his or her life around.

Image Source: www.alcohol.addictionblog.org

The meetings introduce a different step in the 12-step program, infused with LDS doctrine, each week.

Following those portions of the meeting, participants are allowed to share and support one another.

Visiting missionaries rotate through groups, trading to new responsibilities each time a group starts over again with the 12 steps.

In the Ogden area alone, there are 14 meetings a week in 10 different locations.

The meetings are divided into general addictions, pornography addictions and family support groups for those who are addicted.

A woman who now is a facilitator of a family support group, said she found out her husband was addicted to pornography when she was about to give birth.

“It wasn’t until I let go and realized that it was his problem, that it wasn’t my fault, that I had a lot of peace,” she said. “Everyone has their rock bottom. If your addict has not hit rock bottom, you cannot help them.”

The church has produced a great deal of literature, available on the Internet, to address addictions.

Image Source: www.lds.org

One scripture used to illustrate this literature is Doctrine and Covenants 84:88.

“I will be on your right hand and on your left, and my Spirit shall be in your hearts, and mine angels round about you, to bear you up,” states the scripture.

The Internet literature is meant to be a help to the programs, as well as a place for families and addicts to turn, particularly when they can’t attend meetings, organizers said.

The websites are: arp.lds.org and overcoming-pornography.org.

To find meetings near where you live, go to arp.lds.org and click on “find a meeting” in the lower right side of the site. On the right is a place where you may enter your zip code.

The meetings are listed by what they cover and other features. For instance, some meetings are only for women and some are only for men. Some are for younger people.

James Wadman, coordinator for services at Ogden LDS Family Services, said all the meetings look and feel exactly the same.

“We want the programs to be a good support and structure, a good balance,” he said.

Personal transformation coach Dr. Sam Klein Von Reiche helps those suffering from addiction overcome their challenges and achieve personal growth. Practicing for over two decades, she promotes short to medium counseling terms that last from three to six months, which enable patients to cope with their problems and move on with their lives without relying on their therapists. More information about her practice can be found on this website.

REPOST: What are the risks of student cyberbullying?

As long as laws on Internet safety are not yet completely strengthened, cyberbullying will continue to exist. Research has shown that such form of harassment can have a severe, long-term effect on the victims, especially the young ones.

Details of a survey of middle and high school student attitudes to cyberbullying and online safety will be published in the International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments. The analysis of the results shows that many children are bullied and few understand internet safety.

Stacey Kite, Robert Gable and Lawrence Filippelli of the Johnson & Wales University, in Providence, Rhode Island, USA, surveyed more than 4200 students about their knowledge of potential risks, appropriate use, and their behaviors on the internet and social networking sites, especially regarding behaviors that may lead to cyber bullying or contact with potential internet predators. The survey was based on the 47 items and five dimensions of the “Survey of knowledge of internet risk and behavior” (SKIRB).

Image Source: www.sidedooryk.com

The team found that an alarming number of students, almost one in three admitted to being bullied at school. They also found that parental involvement in monitoring internet activity is low among this group with about a third of middle school and 17% of high school students reporting that their parents monitor their internet. Overall, the researchers found that students had little or no knowledge of internet safety.

While parents and carers endeavor to protect children from danger usually outside the home, the environment in which the so-called digital natives are growing up in is very different from the world in which their parents reached adulthood. Information and communications technology is almost ubiquitous with almost nine out of every ten children having access to a computer at home now and 93% of teens using the internet.

“The need to monitor children’s behaviors has become increasingly difficult with the extension of the internet and cell phones. No longer are children safe and sound in their home or school. In fact, the threats found on the internet may be more dangerous and threatening since there are often no barriers,” the team says. They add that it is becoming increasingly apparent that many teens are unaware of the risks of inappropriate behaviors online, viewing them as trivial and taking an “it won’t happen to me” stance. Unfortunately, this lack of understanding and frivolous interpretation often leads to them coping on their own, not informing a parent or adult in a judicious time, if at all, and exposing them to real dangers in the offline world.

Image Source: www.opencolleges.edu.au

The team reports that educating youngsters about the risks in an non-patronizing way as well as teaching them about respect and having an open anti-bullying approach to relationships is vital to reduce the risk of children and teens being exposed to potential harm, whether physical or psychological, originating online.

Dr. Sam Klein Von Reiche is a clinical psychologist and transformation coach who helps patients suffering from various behavioral challenges. Her website provides more details about her expertise and credentials.

REPOST: Myths About Addiction: “They Could Stop If They Wanted To”

In her blog entry for PsychCentral.com, Donna M. White discussed some of the notions people have on drug addiction and uncovered the real truth about substance abuse.

Image source: psychcentral.com

Whether we like to admit it or not, we all have our own ideas of what an addict looks like. We have our beliefs about why they engage in the behaviors they engage in and why they just won’t quit.

This is also true for addicts themselves. Often it is difficult to overcome addiction because of the perception of what addiction really is.

But the truth of addiction is sometimes hidden behind common, long-standing myths. So here are some of those common myths — and the real truth — about addicts and addiction.

• Addicts can stop if they really want to.Research shows that long-term substance use alters brain chemistry. These changes can cause intense cravings, impulse control issues, and the compulsion to continue to use. Due to these chemical changes it is very difficult for a true addict to quit solely by willpower and determination.
• Addicts can’t be productive members of society.Many often believe that addicts are unemployed, involved in criminal behaviors, homeless, and have a host of interpersonal issues. While this is sometimes true, there are many addicts that continue to “function” in society by remaining employed, providing for their families, being involved in family activities, and not appearing to be an addict.
• Addiction only affects those who are weak, uneducated, or have low morals.Addiction does not discriminate. Addiction affects the lives of people of all ages, ethnicities, cultures, religions, communities, and socioeconomic statuses. Addiction is not a result of low morals. Often addicts behave in ways that violate their personal beliefs, values, and morals. Addiction is an equal opportunity disease.
• Addiction is a disease, so there is nothing you can do about it.If your doctor told you that you had cancer, would you not begin necessary treatment and making the necessary lifestyle changes? Addiction isn’t much different if you believe in the research that suggests that addiction is a disease of the brain. Just because you have the disease of addiction doesn’t mean you throw in the towel. Research shows that the brain damage resulting from substance use can sometimes be reversed through abstinence, therapy, and other forms of treatment.
• Addicts who relapse are hopeless.Addiction is a chronic disorder. Just as a pathological liar has to work continuously on honesty, an addict has to commit to working on not using. Addicts are most prone to relapse in the first few months of being clean and sober. A relapse does not constitute failure. Processing the events surrounding a relapse can be healthy and aid in preventing future relapses.
• Alcohol and drug use cause addiction.There are several factors that contribute to a person becoming addicted to substances. While alcohol and drugs may trigger a substance use problem for some, there are those who can drink alcohol and experiment with drug use and never become addicted. Factors that contribute include environment, emotional health, mental health, and genetic predisposition.
• Addicts should be excused from negative behaviors.Some may believe since addiction is a disease addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. This is not true. An addict may not be responsible for their disease, but they are responsible for their choices and their recovery.

It is easy to judge and criticize what we don’t understand. You don’t have to walk a mile in addicts’ shoes to understand addiction and addictive behaviors. If someone you know is struggling with an addiction, consider learning more about addiction and extend a helping hand instead of hurtful words.

Visit Dr. Sam Klein Von Reiche’s official website to learn more about breaking free from substance abuse.

REPOST: Understanding Anger-Guilt Splits

What is an “anger-guilt” split, and how does it manifest in individuals? Dr. Gregg Henriques explains in this article:

Do you know anyone who fits the following description: Around others they outwardly tend to be giving, friendly, avoiding of conflict, and sensitive to the feelings and the approval of others, but when they are alone, they feel inwardly frustrated, annoyed, unheard, and have the sense they are always being taken advantage of? The individual might have what I would call an “anger-guilt” split. To understand the nature of such a split and where such splits might come from, we need to understand what emotions are and the role they play in orgainizing our experience and guiding us in our relationships. Once we understand that, then we can understand why our consciousness can become split into various conflicted and emotionally charged states of mind.

Let’s start with a basic question: Why do we have emotions and what do they do for us? First, emotions orient us toward the things that are important. Second, emotions energize actions with the (gut) intention of addressing those interests. Third, emotions function to track outcomes and foster learning. In addition to these three basic principles, emotions come in different flavors because we need to respond to different kinds of events in different ways. For example, despair shuts us down in the face of the repeated inability to restore or protect our interests; joy activates us to pursue the enhancement of our interests and build on them so we can respond in similar ways in the future.

 

Image Source: psychologytoday.com

 

Anger and guilt are social emotions that are activated as a function of social exchange. Anger is activated when we perceive the social exchange to be in the other person’s favor. That is, the kinds of situations that activate the emotion of anger are when we perceive ourselves as being treated unfairly, when our interests are not being respected, when we are not listened to or deferred to when we have legitimate authority, when someone who owes us fails to pay us back, when we are not given what we believe we are entitled to, or similar such situations. In short, when others devalue our interests relative to what we perceive we deserve, we get angry.

Guilt, in contrast, is activated when we perceive ourselves to be overly self-centered and not as concerned as we ought to be with the feelings or interests of others. Guilt results in an anxious feeling that keeps us from acting selfishly, orients us toward seeking the approval of important others, and allows us to maintain an affiliative, connected stance with the other. Indeed, when people feel guilty, they often will want to make amends by giving or doing something for others. (For a more detailed map of social motivation and emotion, see here).

As the above description delineates, anger and guilt are very much opposing emotional forces.Understanding that guilt and anger orient us toward fundamentally different action states at their base allows us to begin to see how someone might develop a split. But it is still a bit murky. After all, if someone wrongs us, we get angry; if we are acting too selfish and inconsiderate, then we feel guilty. Where is the split?

The conflicts emerge because of the fact that much social exchange takes place in shades of grey, and the meaning of acts depends enormously on the context and audience. For example, if your spouse has told you they would empty the dishes and you get home and find the dishes not done, is that an injustice? Maybe. Maybe not. The context makes a big difference. For example, if there had been an emergency, or if they had spent their entire day cleaning the house and did not have the time to get to the dishes, that is quite a different context from them having a clear history of never following through with chores and spending the day watching TV. And because issues of context matter, it is often not clear cut who has been wronged or what is the extent of the injury.

The second issue is the audience of the act. Notice in the opening paragraph I mentioned the difference between the outward (or public persona) and the inward (or private self). This gives rise to the issue of audience. When we act publicly, our actions potentially have to be justified to others. When we keep our thoughts private, we are our own audience. This is an important distinction because when we are in public, the vantage point of others may well be salient in our minds. If we see our behavior through their eyes, we are much more likely to feel anxious and guilty. However, when we then are alone thinking back on it later, we may be much more inclined to emphasize our interests and thus feel angry.

The final piece has to do with learning. Although it depends some on the individual, it is very likely that for many people, a more giving, submissive, affiliative style will be better received (at least in the short term) than angry, self-centered statements or actions. Thus, the public context potentially reinforces the guilty and anxious mind set. Yet the private context will potentially reinforce the angry mindset, as it can represent one’s interests without having to explicitly deal with the consequences from others.

Given these factors, it is not at all uncommon for people to experience themselves and their emotions as split into different self-states that compete against one another. And one of the most common of those splits is the split between anger and guilt.

Dr. Sam Klein Von Reiche is a clinical psychologist and transformation coach who helps those suffering from an addiction and depression. Her website provides more details about her expertise and credentials.

The essence of Raymond Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor test

Image source: Cattell.net

The world of psychology wouldn’t be what it is now had Raymond Cattell never braved the then-treacherous undertaking of understanding the human personality.

Prior to 1946, the fundamental traits of human personality were a blurry psychological ideology. In fact, many renowned names in the field, including Gordon Allport, Henry Odbert, and Alexander Baumgarten, had attempted to unravel this mystery. Although their efforts to understand human behavior were unsuccessful, Cattell was not discouraged and continued on to find answers to the issues at hand. He conducted a thorough research that focused on identifying the personality relevant adjectives in the language relating to specific human traits. What resulted was what many psychologists of today refer to as The Sixteen Personality Factors.

Image source: IMT.ie

The Sixteen Personality Factors were put to print in the form of 16PF Questionnaire, a multiple choice personality answer sheet consisting of 164 statements about one’s self, which is answerable in the scale of 1 as disagree to 5 as agree.

Like many psychological studies, The Sixteen Personality Factors went under fire and was greatly criticized. However, the introduction of this psychological model changed the face of modern psychology forever, as many psychologists use 16PF as their psychometric instrument to study patients, and diagnose and treat them for any psychological disorders.

Image source: BP.blogspot.com

 

This Facebook page for Dr. Samuelle Klein Von Reiche, licensed psychologist and success coach, shares more online articles on psychology and mental health.

REPOST: Workers Who Delay Retirement May Be Happiest

The economy may not be in the best of shapes, but people who continue to persevere in it may come out on top for more than one reason.

Much has been made of the slow economy forcing older people to stay on the job longer than they’d like. Older workers believe health care costs alone will consume their savings in retirement, and about half plan to keep working for no other reason. But how terrible is this, really?

A growing body of research suggests that staying on the job longer is good not just for your wealth but for your health, too. That was the central premise of my first book with gerontologist Ken Dychtwald, and when we published The Power Years in 2005 this was an under appreciated view.

Today this line of thinking is broadly accepted and often the central tenet of financial firms’ advice to under-saved baby boomers. Working just two or three years longer can shore up your retirement security; it gives you the added benefit of staying busy, connected and relevant, all of which diminish stress and loneliness which are so damaging to mental and physical well being.

Of course, this is the glass half-full point of view. Others note that not everyone is able to work longer. In a post last year I noted:

“A McKinsey study of retirees in 2006 found that 57% quit work for good earlier than they had expected; 40% were forced to quit because of job loss (44%), their own health (47%) or to become a caregiver (9%). In a more recent survey, the Employee Benefit Research Institute found this year that half of workers will retire earlier than planned because of health issues (51%), job loss (21%), caring for a spouse (19%), or obsolete job skills (11%).”

But for those with the choice, the benefits of staying at work are no longer mere conjecture. A study last fall from the American Psychological Association Center for Organizational Excellence found that the top reasons working Americans aged 18 and older stay with their current employers are that their jobs fit well with their lives and they enjoy what they do. These ranked above benefits and pay.

The demographic most likely to cite work-life fit and enjoyment are workers past age 55, according to the study. Some 80% cited job enjoyment while 76% cited work-life fit. That compares to 58% and 61%, respectively, of workers aged 18 to 34.

“Top employers create an environment where employees feel connected to the organization and have a positive work experience that’s part of a rich, fulfilling life,” David Ballard, head of APA’s Psychologically Healthy Workplace Program, said in a release. Increasingly, older workers are the prime beneficiaries and it’s helping to solve the retirement security puzzle.

 

This Facebook page provides more information about living a fully happy life.

REPOST: Smile and the world smiles back. Can looking at faces lower aggression?

Facial recognition is one of the ways humans recognize each other and is an important aspect of day-to-day human communication. Do faces really have an effect on people? The Guardian’s Suzi Gage finds out, with surprising results. The full article can be read here.

Before I started my PhD, I worked as a “research assistant”. That’s a fancy title for an academic dogsbody; well, it can be. I was lucky and had some great bosses in the five years I had that job, but sometimes it can involve menial tasks like data entry, or running experiments you think are a complete waste of time.

One such experiment, that I was asked to run by my boss while we waited for ethics approval on another study, was published last week in the journal Psychological Science. Shows what I know!

It showed that a simple task involving looking at faces and judging their emotion could reduce anger and aggression in a population of aggressive young people, and a group of controls at Bristol University.

When I was asked to run the experiment, I was sceptical because it was a novel way to try and reduce aggression. There is a suggestion that antidepressants work by changing the way a person processes emotions, reducing a negative emotional bias that is a symptom of depression. But would the same be true for aggression?

Does biased processing of emotionally ambiguous faces lead to aggression? Illustration by Alexander Bertram-Powell
Image source: guardian.co.uk

The premise is: perhaps aggression is at least in part caused by biases in emotion perception. So if you see a neutrally emotional face, due to biases in your emotional processing you view that face as angry or hostile. You respond with hostility towards the owner of that face, and, like a vicious circle, they see your hostility and respond accordingly.

The experiment was simple. We showed people a series of emotionally ambiguous faces: happy and angry expressions blended together at different ratios to create a spectrum of faces. Those at either end were clearly happy or angry, but others in the middle were ambiguous.

Each person will have a slightly different boundary point, where on one side they see happy, and the other side angry. If you work out where a person’s boundary is, you can then give them biased feedback to try and “shift” it so they see “happy” further along the spectrum than previously.

The feedback, “yes, that was angry” or “no, that was happy” (for example), is given after every face is responded to, and is tailored to each individual’s boundary, attempting to shift their perception of happy to include a larger range of ambiguous faces.

But would this really make people less aggressive? I was tasked with running the pilot experiment. Half the participants got biased feedback, and half got unbiased feedback consistent with where their boundary actually was, as a control condition. They were asked about their mood with a couple of standard mood questionnaires before and after the experiment.

As I watched people doing the task, I confidently predicted to myself that those who were getting the biased feedback would be angrier afterwards. After all, they were being told they were wrong a lot of the time!

When the experiment was over and we looked at the data, I was astounded to see that the opposite was true. Those who had received the biased feedback had not only shifted their boundary by the end of the experiment, but they rated themselves as less angry than the control group afterwards (there was no difference in anger before the experiment). It didn’t affect how happy or sad they were.

The real acid-test for the technique came afterwards. I wasn’t involved in this part of the experiment, but another researcher ran the same task in a group of aggressive youths who had been referred to a youth programme because they were at high risk of criminal offending.

They did the same experiment, but repeated it four times, roughly once a day. Again half received biased feedback while the others got consistent feedback. And again, those who received the biased feedback rated themselves as less aggressive afterwards. But not only that, the staff on the programme (who didn’t know who had been assigned to what condition) rated them as less aggressive too, up to 14 days after the training had finished.

This is one experiment, and the plan is to replicate it in different groups of people, to see how robust the effect it. Also, while two weeks post-training is a long time in terms of an experiment, it’s not that long in terms of the behaviour of a youth with a high probability of offending. It would be great to run the experiment over a longer timescale, and with more realistic outcomes, such as re-offending rates.

But this unexpected finding astounded me, and may have really useful benefits. And it just goes to show that ideas are worth testing, even if your data monkey (in this case, me) has doubts!

Dr. Sam Klein von Reiche is an acclaimed psychologist with a markedly different approach to psychiatry and psychotherapy. Learn more about her “less is more” approach and more on this website.