# Question
Title: Could the knowledge of the construct of self-efficacy affect the student's aptitude to a certain task?
I am a tutor for children with learning disabilities and i have read that they have lower levels of perceived self-efficacy than students without this learning disabilities. I decided to deepen the construct of self-efficacy reading something of Bandura and i found that the perception of our efficacy can influence our behaviour and performance outcomes (Bandura, 1977).

So i asked to myself: if people - with or without learning disabilities - knew that they have thoughts (sometimes latent) about their abilities, it would affect their **attitude** to a certain task? In another way: Could, just the **knowledge** of self-efficacy, have some influence?

# Answer
> 5 votes
Bandura and Cervone (1983) posit: "Those who have a low sense of self-efficacy may be easily discouraged by failure, whereas those who are assured of their capabilities for goal attainment intensify their efforts when their performances fall short and persist until they succeed" (p. 1018). The same paper also provides empirical evidence for this claim.

Accordingly, the answer to your question is *yes*. However, it seems more appropriate to speak of "sense" instead of "knowledge" when referring to the self-efficacy.

## References

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, learning, abnormal-psychology, performance, self-control
---


# Question
Title: What is the difference between work engagement and flow?
Work engagement has three aspects: vigor, dedication, and absorption.

Flow according to wikipedia "is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus".

What is the difference between the two concepts?

# Answer
While there are some differences, the two concepts are closely related. Both flow and work engagement are "positive emotional states" (Schaufeli, Bakker and Van Rhenen, 2009, p. 898).

According to Schaufeli et al. (2009, p. 895) "recent research suggests that vigor and dedication constitute the core of engagement, whereas absorption seems to be related to the concept of flow" as defined by Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989).

"However, typically, flow is a more complex concept that includes many aspects and refers to rather particular, short-term ‘peak’ experiences instead of a more pervasive and persistent state of mind, as is the case with engagement" (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 75). Moreover, work engagement refers specifically to "identification with one's work" (Schaufeli et al., 2009, p. 895).

## References

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595

Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
> 2 votes

---
Tags: terminology, motivation, io-psychology
---


# Question
Title: What does it mean for there to be more variance within groups than between groups in IQ?
I was watching a short YouTube video that comments on the validity of IQ. That video contains the following claim (verbatim):

> "You know nothing about a person's intelligence on the basis of his or her skin color. That is just a fact. **There is much more variance among individuals in any racial group than there is between groups**..."

This was shortly after he stated that there are real differences in the average IQ of different races.

I find the bold statement confusing and am not certain how to interpret it. I understand what variance means when discussing **a single** probability distribution however, my learning never extended to variance **between** distributions. Could someone please explain how this is done and more importantly, why this measure justifies the first (non-bold) statement?

# Answer
> 4 votes
> "You know nothing about a person's intelligence on the basis of his or her skin color. That is just a fact. There is much more variance among individuals in any racial group than there is between groups..."

The first two sentences are wrong. The final sentence is true. It is presumably motivated by the idea that we should not infer properties of a group to the individual especially where such inference will result in discrimination.

**Empirical perspective:** As an empirical point, racial and national differences in intelligence test scores are well established in the literature (for a review see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:\_Knowns\_and\_Unknowns). There is plenty of debate that can be had about what this means (i.e., to what extent does it reflect genetic differences versus environmental conditions? in what ways do standard IQ tests fail to measure aspects of intelligence that might be of interest? To what extent are differences declining with reduced inequality and improved living conditions? etc.). But as an empirical point, I've often seen studies with many thousands of people find differences between racial groups in the vicinity of one standard deviation. By conventional rules of thumb, this is a large difference.

**Statistical perspective:** If groups differ on a variable, then you can use knowledge of group membership to improve your prediction on that variable. For example, occupation predicts income. If I know someone is a doctor, I can predict that they earn more money than other people. As group differences get larger, so will be the improvement in prediction that is provided by knowing group membership.

Here is an example where groups differ by one standard deviation (i.e., one group has mean IQ of 100, and the other has mean IQ of 85):

```
# Create data: 2 groups differing by 1 SD
> group1 <- data.frame(group = 1, iq = rnorm(1000, mean = 100, sd = 15))
> group2 <- data.frame(group = 2, iq = rnorm(1000, mean = 85, sd = 15))
> x <- rbind(group1, group2)
>
> summary(lm(iq ~ group, x))

Call:
lm(formula = iq ~ group, data = x)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max
-47.168 -10.344   0.013  10.132  52.188

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept)  114.344      1.064  107.46   <2e-16 ***
group        -14.279      0.673  -21.22   <2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 15.05 on 1998 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.1839,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.1835
F-statistic: 450.2 on 1 and 1998 DF,  p-value: < 2.2e-16

```

I then ran a multiple regression. The R-squared represents the percentage of variance explained by group (i.e., 18.4%). Thus, the within-group variance is 100% - 18.4% = 81.6%. So that is the basis for the claim. So one possible estimate based on the literature is that within-group variance is around four times larger than between-group variance. Of course the exact numbers would depend on which groups were being compared and which empirical literature was used to form the estimate.

This raises the question of how big group differences need to be before you could say that "you know something about a person based on group membership". Presumably, such inference are partially based on practical and ethics issues related to over generalization. In general, group differences need to be extremely large (perhaps 2 or 3 standard deviations) before the overlap between group distributions gets small.

**Legal/ethical perspective:** More importantly, generalizing from groups to individuals is illegal in many contexts. For example, many countries have legislation that aims to prevent the use of age, race, gender, religion, etc. as the basis for making employment, education, and other defined decisions. Thus, even if membership of these categories is predictive of something relevant, decision makers are forbidden from using this information. Rather, if they want, for example, to use intelligence scores to influence hiring decisions, then they need to actually measure intelligence, rather than rely on a meta-analysis that shows that the group to which the applicant is a member tends to score higher or lower.

There are many good reason why such a legal regime is ethical and desirable. From a practical perspective, measurement will be far superior if you actually measure the thing of interest rather than inferring it from group membership. Furthermore, in many cases, people base their beliefs about group differences on stereotypes with no empirical backing. But more importantly, it reduces the perpetuation of social inequality. It focuses attention on the skills, competencies, and capacities of the individual.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In the video he is discussing some work of Charles Murray (not sure how familiar you are with it). In any case, the main point of your confusion comes from the difference between **presence** and **size**. Dr. Harris admits that there are differential IQ values between the races: there **is** (presence) a difference. The immediate follow up, though, is that the **size** of that difference pales in comparison to the variability with the group, indicating that no practical conclusions can be made.

For a silly example (and not leave any Earth groups out), consider Martians and Plutons (poor Pluto...): Martians may have a slightly higher IQ than Plutons, but the variability within each group is much higher than the between group difference. Dr. Harris' whole point is that, upon meeting a random Pluton and a random Martian, you practically have no idea which of them will be smarter, *even though we know that Martians tend to be smarter*. A pretty picture illustrates the two groups below.

I hope this helps! **Take home message** from the video is that even though there are small differences between races in terms of IQ, they should not play a role in someone's judgement of another person due to the *immensely* higher variability of IQ within any given race (there are some super smart Plutons and some super dumb Plutons, just like there are some super smart Martians and some super dumb Martians: you won't know which you are speaking to until you actually talk to them).

Graph coded in R:

```
boxplot(cbind(Plutons = rnorm(1000, mean=100, sd=15), Martians = rnorm(1000, mean=102, sd=15)))

```

---
Tags: measurement, iq
---


# Question
Title: How does the brain process generalizations?
What is the current thinking on how the brain processes generalizations? For example, the abstract idea of a right angled triangle vs specific instances of right angled triangles? Or the general idea of a cat vs specific instance of cats?

How does a generalization live in the brain? What's the current thinking on how it is encoded?

Medieval philosophers point to such abstractions (that are not material timeless "things") to argue that something itself not material and timeless must exist to "sense" them i.e. a soul. Which is hogwash. But how does one state the nature of such things in terms of human cognition? What is going on when we consider such abstractions?

# Answer
> 1 votes
The thing that comes to mind first are the **Gestalt principles**. Up front - the Gestalt theory of perception has been **criticized as being a descriptive theory**, and not providing much insight into the processes that lead to perception.

However, the principles do address your question, as the Gestalt theory dictates that humans **visually and psychologically attempt to make order out of chaos**, to create harmony or structure from seemingly disconnected bits of information. Much of the principles deal with figure/ground separation, but an important other aspect is **similarity**, and specifically

> Gestalt theory states that things which share visual characteristics such as shape, size, color, texture, or value will be seen as belonging together in the viewer’s mind.

The principle of **grouping** (Quinn *et al*., 2002) is indeed fundamental here:

> The similarity principle claims that elements tend to be integrated into groups if they are similar to each other.

<sub>**Reference**
**-** Quinn *et al*, *Psych Sci* (2002); **13**(4)</sub>

# Answer
> 1 votes
Accroding to the excellent book The Big Book of Concepts by Gregory Murphy, in the prototype view every category is represented by a summary of representation features, with weights for each value of each dimension (e.g. color, hair length). When a new member of the category is encountered we add weights of the present features and subtract the weights of it's features that are not parts of a category, and if above a certain threshold then it is judged to be in category. The prototype is the generalisation that you are looking for.

This is an extract from the book The Big Book of Concepts by Gregory Murphy :

# Answer
> -1 votes
Perhaps you are interested in the study to analogy making. According to Wikipedia, an analogy:

> \[...\] is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another (the target).

An analogy is often considered between to somewhat seemingly unrelated subjects (e.g. an atom vs the solar system), sharing an abstraction, i.e. a general abstract concept. This abstraction may be similar to your "general idea of a cat", which can be specified to specific kind of breeds.

A quick google search resulted in the following review (French, 2002) of computational models that try to explain analogies. In short, there are symbolic models, connectionist models and hybrid models that each use different approaches. The rather unsatisfactory conclusion of the paper is:

## References

French, R. M. (2002). The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends in cognitive Sciences, 6(5), 200-205.

---
Tags: cognition
---


title: Subconscious vs Unconscious

text:
# Question
Title: Subconscious vs Unconscious
From what I know, we use the term 'subconscious' to refer to the things that we can bring into our conscious. and, we use the term 'unconscious' for things that we can't know, they come automatically to our mind without having to think.

So, I was reading this question on meta and it seems that we don't use the term 'subconscious' to refer to the processes that occur outside of our conscious awareness. **How do we put everything together if we disregard that term?**

# Answer
> 20 votes
The confusion originates from Sigmund Freud who initialized the field with his idea of the unconscious mind. Freud was of course Austrian, and used the terms *das Unbewusste* and *das Vorbewusste*. These are most accurately translated to *unconscious* and *preconscious*. The latter is the technical term for what you called 'subconscious'.

The word 'subconscious' is usually frowned upon in academic settings (because it is often unclear if it is talking about the unconscious or the preconscious). However, it is very popular in the everyday lexicon and thus creeps into scientific writing as well.

You can introduce further distinctions (such as subliminal) and if you want a nice and thorough modern treatment of all three terms in the context of visual processing, then I recommend:

Dehaenea, S., Changeux, J.-P., Naccachea, L., Sackura, J., and Sergent, C. (2006) "Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy" Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(5): 204-211. (pdf)

# Answer
> 1 votes
The word *subconscious* is rarely used in scientific terminology, it is widespread in popular culture, where it is used alternately as a synonym for *unconscious* or *preconscious*.

Freud used to identify the dynamic unconscious with the process of removal. Today, a lot of psychologist use the term "unconscious" to refer to a wide range of processes that are not necessarily considered part of the removal (Lyons-Ruth 2004; trad.it. 2012, 56). I think that when we talk about **unconscious** we should delineate what we are referring to a little more precisely. For example, we have a procedural memory which is **not conscious** but not "actively restrained out of the consciousness by the force of removal" (Amedei G., Cavanna D., e Zavattini G.C, 2015)

I recommend: Amedei G., Cavanna D., e Zavattini G.C, \[Psicologia dinamica\]: https://www.mulino.it/isbn/9788815245670 and this article about \[procedural memory\]: https://www.livescience.com/43595-procedural-memory.html

---
Tags: terminology, consciousness, unconscious
---


# Question
Title: Models of romantic relationships evolution
I was looking into the concept of limerence as a stage of evolution in a romantic relationship, however I couldn't contrast it with other models and their components. Assuming that romantic relationships probably vary largely depending from cultural background, what are the leading models of monogamous relationship evolution in the field of social psychology?

# Answer
In my opinion, the most important model of monogamous relationships is the attachment model, developed by Bowlby (1969). According to Fraley and Shaver: all romantic, or couple, relationships are attachment relationships. After *imprinting*, the characteristics of the attachment's figure (generally the mother), and the style of parenting will be recognised by the baby as the ones who are deputy to take care of him. So the baby develops expectations and begins to build his IWM (internal Working Models). People actively seek and select - even at an unconscious level - people, situations, and relationships that match their expectations and their IWM (Grazia Attili, 2004)

In this frame, Cindy Hazan and Debra Zeifman introduced a model of **Romantic relationships** based on 4 stages:

1. Attraction, courting, flirt
2. Falling in love
3. Love
4. Ordinary life and attachment

For more information I recommend:
> 3 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, reference-request
---


# Question
Title: What is the difference between flow and cannabis induced high?
I am doing research on flow. So far I found out that flow is a short-term positive peak experience, but not a persistent state of mind. I wonder, what is the difference between flow and cannabis induced high? (The ICD-10 code is F12.0 cannabinoid intoxication.)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Following your links I understand you are relating to:

> **Flow**: also known as the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does and loses sense of space and time.

While the **effects of cannabis** intoxication include, but are not limited to:

* general alteration of conscious perception;
* euphoria;
* feelings of well-being;
* relaxation or stress reduction;
* increased appreciation of the arts, including humor and music;
* joviality;
* metacognition and introspection;
* enhanced recollection (episodic memory);
* increased sensuality;
* increased awareness of sensatio;
* increased libido and creativity;
* abstract or philosophical thinking;
* disruption of linear memory;
* paranoia or anxiety;
* greater enjoyment of food taste and aroma;
* enhanced enjoyment of music and comedy;
* marked distortions in the perception of time and space (where experiencing a "rush" of ideas from the bank of long-term memory can create the subjective impression of long elapsed time, while in reality only a short time has passed).

At higher doses:

* altered body image;
* auditory and/or visual illusions;
* pseudohallucinations;
* ataxia;
* rarely dissociative state (depersonalization and derealization);
* acute psychosis;

So in all, based on a cursory wikipedia search, I would say there are more differences than similarities between the two states of mind.

---
Tags: emotion, psychopharmacology
---


# Question
Title: Is dyslexia less common among visually impaired?
I couldn't find any information on whether dyslexia is equally prevalent in normally sighted people and among visually impaired people who learned reading and writing through braille?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The term Dyslexia is used to refer to a pattern of learning difficulties characterized by problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities.

DSM-5 posit: "The learning difficulties are not better accounted for by intellectual disabilities, **uncorrected visual or auditory acuity**, other mental or neurological disorders, psychosocial adversity, lack of proficiency in the language of academic instruction, or inadequate educational instruction"

This is one of the diagnostic criteria for a "Specific learning disorder". Accordingly, the answer to your question is *no*, because in that case we should talk about another deficit.

---
Tags: developmental-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Where can I find the connectivity matrix of the connectome of C. Elegans?
I am trying to find the entire connectivity matrix for the connectome of the roundworm *C. elegans*. It is a much studied animal, as it features just a handful of neurons in its nervous system, 302 to be axact.

I've been looking forever and have come across this website that seems to have *parts* of the connectome (131 neurons and 277 neurons), but unfortunately it does not include the full connectome. In the Worm Atlas, under section 2.1 Connectivity Data, it says it has all the data, but it doesn't seem to have the adjacency matrix for the connectome.

If anyone can direct me to a s**ource where I can find a connectivity matrix of the *C. elegans* connectome** that would be a great help to me.

# Answer
> 2 votes
The full connectome of *C. elegans* (Fig. 1.) is described by Farber (2012) and as far as I know, the most complete data on *C. elegans*, including its connectome is available from the **OpenWorm Project** found here.

Fig. 1. *C. elegans* connectome. image source: Farber (2012)

**Reference**
**-** Farber, *Sci Am* February 2012

**Further reading**
**-** Are there organisms with fewer than 1000 neurons?

---
Tags: neuroscience, neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, experimental-neuroscience
---


# Question
Title: Is there a standardised questionnaire measuring tendency to think emotionally versus logically?
I want to conduct a research on the effect of emotions on decision. It is about the role of affective and cognitive processes in making a decision. I want to know if an individual relies more on emotions or logical thinking, but could not find any validated measure/questionnaire for that. I found some that measures the dual process theory : rational or intuitive but that is not what I am looking for. Wondering if there is any survey/test for this?

# Answer
I studied the *Child and Adolescent participation in decision-making questionnaire* of L. O'Hare, O. Santin, K. Winter, C. McGuinness

They found that children and young people's involvement in decision-making, when it went well, had a four stranded positive ‘therapeutic effect’ in that it led to better child/professional relationships, higher levels of self-esteem in children and young people, increased their sense of mastery and control and reduced their stress and anxiety.

Some items are:

1. Information to make a decision is presented to me in a way I understand
2. I am given the full information to make a decision
3. I feel involved in making decisions in my life
4. I am given the opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons to make a decision
5. I have the ability to weigh up the pros and cons to make a decision

(...) I wish this questionnaire will be useful for your research.

**REFERENCES:**

L. O'Hare, O. Santin, K. Winter, C. McGuinness (2016), "The reliability and validity of a child and adolescent participation in decision-making questionnaire", *"Child: care, health and development"*,5,692-698.

LINK : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cch.12369/full
> 1 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, emotion, measurement, psychology, rationality
---


# Question
Title: What happens with stress, if there's distraction before a story reaches it's end?
I remember reading of a study where children were told stories. During the telling of the story tension rose and the heart rate increased. After the story was over the heart rate went back to normal.

There was another experiment where the story wasn't told to the end. During the telling of the story, attention shifted elsewhere while the tension was still up and the story never reached its end. In that condition, the heart rate stayed elevated.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact source. Can you tell me whether the described effect exists and if so, point me to the studies about it?

# Answer
> -1 votes
When stress is chronic it could provoke bad effects:

* High blood pressure
* **Impaired cognition** (maybe it explains the distraction)
* Lowered immune system

In my opinion, the distraction could be the effect of the increased level of cortisol... I wish my intervention will be useful.

**REFERENCES** Michael S. Gazzaniga, Richard B. Ivry, George R. Mangun (2013), *"Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind: 4th Edition"*

---
Tags: reference-request, terminology, stress
---


# Question
Title: What is a phobia against babies or kids called?
I have heard about people that experience fears for other people, or groups of people; for example a fear for babies.

* Is this a recognized pathologocal condition, or is it just a form of antisocial behavior; or maybe a sort of fear for the unknown, such as new fathers fearing their newborn?

# Answer
> 6 votes
A rather cursory search brought me to the wikipedia page for fear of children:

> \[The\] fear of children, fear of infants or fear of childhood \[..\].

This as opposed to a pathological love for children, or pedophilia, which as an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children.

In case it is a fear specifically for infants, there is a more narrowly scoped type of phobia defined, namely:

> \[T\]he fear of infant. It is more commonly suffered by adults, especially fertilizable women. The fear is commonly triggered due to miscarriage, and pressures on caring for baby.

# Answer
> 1 votes
This specific phobia doesn't exist, but I think that the symptom you described could be part of a **Social Anxiety Disorder (Social Phobia)**

According to DSM-5, a criterion for the diagnosis is: "Marked fear or anxiety about *one* or more social situations in which the individual is exposed to possible scrutiny by others. Examples include social interactions (e.g., having a conversation, meeting unfamiliar people), being observed (e.g., eating or drinking), and performing in front of others (e.g., giving a speech)."

**REFERENCES** DSM - 5 (2013)

---
Tags: abnormal-psychology, terminology, phobia
---


# Question
Title: Understanding a negative correlation between Pc and signal strength
When I present two signals in paired comparison and ask the respondent to select the stronger signal in the pair, I find that it is the signal strength of the second signal that more so determines correct detection (0,1) yet the correlation between probability of correct detection (p) and both signals is significant and negative. Yes, the contrast contributes to the prediction of (p) but I cant figure out why my correlations are negative. It is as if the respondent is anchoring on the first signal and the "smallness" of the second signal determines (p). Does anyone have an explanation for this?

**Experiment backgrounds**

* The stimulus is paired comparison words with each having a different factor loading based on it's measurement of agreeableness. So each word taps the construct more or less deeply than the other;
* The contrast between the words in terms of their factor loading is the signal;
* A set of 122 such paired comparison tasks was developed and the task before the respondent is to select the more agreeable word.
* The stronger loading was alternated between being on the first and second word. I did find that the contrast predicted probability of correct detection (r = .20\*). I know this is an unusual application of signal detection theory and you might not has seen this before.

# Answer
> 2 votes
> I find that it is the signal strength of the second signal that more so determines correct detection (0,1)

The ideal unbiased observer bases the decision on $X1-X2$ while it sounds like your subjects are basing their decision on $aX1-X2$ where $a \< 1$. While it is suboptimal, it is not a big deal. The fact that you know it means either report it or train the subjects out of it.

> the correlation between probability of correct detection (p) and both signals is significant and negative.

If the first stimulus is very weak, the difference between it and the second stimulus will on average be larger than if the first stimulus is of moderate strength. One would therefore expect Pc to initially decrease as the strength of the first stimulus decreases. Additionally, if the first stimulus is very strong, the difference between it and the second stimulus will again be larger on average than if the first stimulus is of moderate strength. Therefore, for an ideal observer, the dependency of Pc of the strength of the first signal should be non-monotonic. The same holds for the second stimuli.

We know from the above statement that your subjects are not ideal. If the bias depends on the strength of the first signal (i.e., $a(X2)$ increases with X2) then the non-monotonicity of Pc on the strength of the stimuli could be hidden.

---
Tags: measurement, experimental-psychology, psychophysics, signal-detection, experiment-design
---


# Question
Title: Within psychiatry, how is homosexuality discussed or classified?
I acknowledge the fact that we currently don't understand the causes of homosexuality nearly well enough, but I have read about the following points:

* That homosexuality may not be a choice and could have genetic grounds (different studies and views presented in this article).
* That it may be a result of a traumatic experience (as this article suggests).

Without intentional cause of offense, based on these I am under the impression that homosexuality *could* potentially be a mental disorder.

**Within psychiatry, how is homosexuality discussed or classified?**

# Answer
> 6 votes
To add to these great answers, I'll go on and link to this article. It discusses the DSM (as mentioned in other answers), but also includes a discussion of the homosexual classifications in the ICD (which is maintained by the WHO, as opposed to the APA). The ICD is much broader than the DSM, though. "It is distinguished from the DSM in that it covers health as a whole" (Wikipedia).

As with all other answers to this question, the answer from *both* of the manuals is currently "no" (though it was "yes" for both of these in the past).

**However**, relating to the mention of homosexuality not being a choice: if someone was homosexual, but *wished they weren't* (or weren't homosexual, but wished they were), this may classify under ego-dystonic sexual orientation, which *is* listed under the ICD-10 as a disorder of sexual development and orientation. It is not formally listed under the DSM (though it can still be implied: read the linked Wiki article for more details). This is also discussed in @Chris' answer.

The disorder here wouldn't be the homosexuality per se, but the fact that the sexual orientation clashes with the individuals ideal self image. An example may be something like this case of a homophobic homosexual (the key piece being that someone wants to be different than how they are).

# Answer
> 30 votes
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) (Jack Drescher, 2015).

Theories of pathology which declared that some internal defect or external pathogenic agent causes homosexuality, have been rejected, such as the theories of immaturity which considered the homosexuality a "developmental arrest".

It is rare to find a theory of homosexuality that does not draw upon gender beliefs that contain implicit cultural ideas about the “essential” qualities of men and women. Who is a real man? Who is a real woman? Since there weren't scientific evidences to claim: "Homosexuality is a mental disorder", after a vote, Homosexuality has been **depathologized**.

Accordingly, the answer to your question is *no*. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, it's just a normal sexual orientation.

For further informations i suggest: "Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality" (Jack Drescher) 2015 : LINK:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/

# Answer
> 10 votes
Whilst there have been arguments for the idea that homosexuality has a genetic base or a result of malformations of human development, today's consensus is that homosexuality is a normal variant of human behaviour (e.g. Gonsiorek, 1982) \[not resulting in — or a result of — psychological disturbances or maladjustment\], and therefore it is not a mental disorder.

Homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder in 1973, but it is not now \[as of 1987\].

## The history

There is an extensive write-up on the history of this on the AGLP Website, and when classifying behaviours as mental disorders, you currently need to refer to the the American Psychiatric Association \[APA\] publication, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders \[DSM\]. homosexuality had been officially classified as a mental disorder in first DSM \[DSM-1\] in 1952. However, the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM (AGLP, n.d.).

Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the sixth printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder.

> Although some investigations published since Hooker's study have claimed to support the view of homosexuality as pathological, they have been methodologically weak. Many used only clinical or incarcerated samples, for example, from which generalizations to the population at large are not possible. Others failed to safeguard the data collection procedures from possible biases by the investigators – for example, a man's psychological functioning would be evaluated by his own psychoanalyst, who was simultaneously treating him for his homosexuality.
>
> Some studies found differences between homosexual and heterosexual respondents, and then assumed that those differences indicated pathology in the homosexuals. For example, heterosexual and homosexual respondents might report different kinds of childhood experiences or family relationships. It would then be assumed that the patterns reported by the homosexuals indicated pathology, even though there were no differences in psychological functioning between the two groups.
>
> In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74)

(Source: University of California, Davis)

After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of "sexual orientation disturbance" and a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality \[EDH\] (Spitzer, 1981).

> During the revision process of DSM-III in the mid 1980's EDH also engendered enormous controversy. In these debates openly gay and lesbian members of the APA played a decisive role in bringing about change (Krajeski 1996). Those on the APA Advisory Committee working on the revision who wanted to retain the EDH category argued that they believed the diagnosis was clinically useful and that it was necessary for research and statistical purposes. The opponents noted that making a patient's subjective experience of their own homosexuality the determining factor of their illness was not consistent with the new evidence-based approach that psychiatry had espoused. They argued that empirical data do not support the diagnosis and that it is inappropriate to label culturally induced homophobia as a mental disorder. The APA Committee agreed with the opponents and the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality was removed from DSM-III-R (1987).

## References

AGLP, n.d. *The History of Psychiatry & Homosexuality* \[Online\]
Available at: http://www.aglp.org/gap/1\_history

Gonsiorek, J. C., 1982. *Results of psychological testing on homosexual populations*. In: W. Paul, J. D. Weinrich, J. C. Gonsiorek, & M. E. Hotvedt (Eds.), *Homosexuality: Social, psychological, and biological issues* (pp. 71–80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Krajeski, J., 1996. *Homosexuality and the mental health professions*. In: Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. R. Cabaj & T. Stein, pp 17-31. Washington: American Psychiatric Press.

Spitzer, R.L., 1981. *The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issues*. American Journal of Psychiatry. 138(2): pp 210–215.
PMID 7457641. DOI: 10.1176/ajp.138.2.210.

# Answer
> 8 votes
The idea that homosexuality is disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective is, in my view, an example of how cultural bias is confused with biological process. While there is evidence that sexual identity has some genetic basis, it is certainly a complicated feature of our identity that cannot be explained by a single gene, and should not be oversimplified into saying 'gay men had so and so trauma'. To me, that sounds similar to the argument 'vegetarians were never taught to hunt', i.e we're taking a complicated matter and trying to explain it using an argument that is based on shaky and highly individual grounds. It sounds like you're not offering any evidence on this (correct me if I'm wrong), but instead basing your claim off of some stereotypes and anecdotes about gay men. Well, how about gay women? Or bisexual people?

Crucially, we cannot, in a just society, consider homosexuality (or any sexual or gender identity) as a mental disorder, because that denies individuals the right to self-identify. If everyone who is gay is said to have a disorder, then we take away the right of those people to speak for themselves and describe their own experiences.

Finally, we shouldn't base our mental disorders off of the question 'does this help one achieve the goals of living and breeding?' This would be an example of teleological thinking about evolution, that is, assuming that evolution has a specific end goal in mind. Evolution, instead, is a natural process based off of random chance. It does not make sense to assume that what is good for our species (classically, surviving and breeding) should be the same as what is good for an individual member of the species.

I hope this answer was a helpful addition to the discussion.

# Answer
> 7 votes
Not by the standards of the DSM-IV-TR. Other answers discuss the case of homosexuality specifically, but the *general* principles of psychiatric diagnosis *also* rule out the idea of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

> The DSM-IV-TR characterizes a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual \[which\] is associated with present distress… or disability… or with a significant increased risk of suffering." It also notes that "no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of 'mental disorder'… different situations call for different definitions". It states that "there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder" (APA, 1994 and 2000).

Mental disorders are defined by distress, disability, and suffering, *not* by nebulous concepts like evolutionary fitness. Likewise, they are not defined by choice or nature or nurture.

# Answer
> 3 votes
For something to be a disorder, it must of itself cause a negative outcome for the individual.

(As an aside: "...there is a recurring theme among men who live a homosexual lifestyle that they had an absence of a father figure and attempt to overcompensate..." Evidence required, please?)

"...as gay couples can not generate offspring..." This statement implicitly assumes that offspring can only be generated as part of a relationship, which is clearly and categorically untrue. Of course two gay people cannot (without medical help) produce offspring, but a gay person is perfectly at liberty to have heterosex if they choose. This may be as part of a relationship (as Kinseyshowed first, homo/hetero preferences are a sliding scale and not binary), because they enjoy heterosex but do not form heterosexual relationships, or simply holding their nose and doing something distasteful because they want the results. In the latter case, "the results" doesn't just include children but also social acceptance in a homophobic social environment.

Naturally it is physically easier for a woman to have heterosex without enjoyment than a man. Even so though, it is perfectly possible for a man to keep a mental fantasy going which does allow him to perform, even if he doesn't find his partner attractive. A genetic cause for homosexuality therefore cannot be "evolved out", because there is no limit to homosexual people of either gender having children. This therefore puts homosexuality into the same category as lefthandedness - a deviation from the majority, certainly, but not one which makes an evolutionary difference.

This all purely relates to whether homosexual people are physically able to conceive children. Survival and life chances are also highly relevant to whether a child prospers though, after the child has been conceived. This is hard to analyse, but studies of outcomes since gay couples have been allowed to adopt suggests that they are at least as good parents as heterosexual couples.

So your proposition fails. Homosexuality cannot be a disorder, because it does not by itself produce any negative outcomes for the individual.

---
Tags: sexuality, personality-disorder
---


# Question
Title: How can you tell the difference between "natural" homosexuality and "trauma related" homosexuality
When stumbling across the question: Is homosexuality a mental disorder? I realized that it is very close to a personal question that My wife and I (mostly me to be fair) about the source of homosexuality in sexually abused children and young adults.

First, as I know this is a sensitive subject please understand that my goal is understanding and not offence. I am simply trying to understand a situation that may or may not arise, in our lives.

Let me explain, and hope that this will make this question clearer. My wife and I are currently in the process of becoming Foster parents. One of the things we need to do, is to be honest about where our "personal lines" are. For an extreme example you don't want the leader of the KKK to be tasked with raising African American children. However a lot of our interactions are focused on finding much more mild cases of "Oh I didn't realize that would be a problem for us, I never thought about it that way."

In recent classes the topics of homosexuality and sexual identity have come up. And while I have no problem with homosexuality as a choice or a pre-disposition. I wonder about homosexuality as a result of trauma.

For example, A teen that decides that he is homosexual, under normal circumstances is fine by me. If it is an active decision and preference then it doesn't matter, it's his choice. If it's a passive trait (for example genetic) then again it doesn't matter. It's like being left handed. It just is, move along. This is summarized for brevity, obviously. But that is a good summary of how we (both my wife and I) feel.

But one of our responsibilities as a Foster parent could include caring for sexually abused children and teens. The question is how can we, or should we try to differentiate between homosexuality as a response to trauma or naturally occurring homosexuality?

# Answer
> 2 votes
There is no evidence that trauma influences sexual orientation. I *hope* that you would not try to decide for your foster children whether their "gayness" was real or not and "cure" them of it if you felt it was other than innate. Love your child for who they are and you'll be fine.

Side note: I don't know where you are located, but in the U.S., the term "homosexual" has a slightly pejorative connotation (yes, I know it was once the correct term, but so were "colored" and "retarded". Times change). "Gay" or "LGBTQ" are preferred.

---
Tags: sexuality
---


# Question
Title: How many diagnosable mental disorders are included in the DSM?
This Wikipedia page says:

> The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the American Psychiatric Association's standard reference for psychiatry **which includes over 450 different definitions** of mental disorders.

However, I haven't been able to find this information on any credible (government or academic) websites.

Is there a more credible source for determining the number of diagnosable mental disorders in the DSM?

# Answer
I have not come up with a definitive answer myself as there is a wide range of figures online.

Michael Noll-Hussong states on ResearchGate

> The total number of specific diagnoses was reduced from 172 in DSM-IV to 157 in DSM-5. see, e.g., McCarron RM. The DSM-5 and the art of medicine: certainly uncertain. Annals of internal medicine. 2013;159(5):360-1.

I have recently managed to access this referenced article (DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-7-201310010-00688) and it states

> The number of psychiatric disorders decreased from 172 (DSM-IV) to 152 (DSM-5). (This does not include disorders that are “Not otherwise specified” or “Other specified/unspecified.”)

The Huffington Post states that there are over 300 in DSM-5

Because of discrepancies in the information available I have seen, I have therefore, painstakingly gone through my copy of DSM-5 and pages 877—896 provide a

> Numerical Listing of DSM-5 Diagnoses and Codes (ICD-10-CM)

ICD-10 codes are provided for cross-referencing, and I have counted **roughly 742** of them by saying that a full page has 45 and there are 20 pages with some listings taking more than 1 line. The problem with the approximate figure of 742 is that in the list are items such as obesity which are not mental disorders.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, abnormal-psychology, terminology, psychiatry, psychology
---


# Question
Title: What do we know about schizophrenia and mathematics?
Schizophrenia is usually associated with intellectual problems. I don't think that cognitive deficits are only associated with vulnerability to schizophrenia, though there is the much cited

> Russell et al (1997) recently proposed that intellectual decline in schizophrenia was a nothing more than a ‘myth’. They followed up patients who had received an intelligence test as a child, who then developed schizophrenia, and had their intelligence re-tested some 19 years later. There were no differences between the child and adult IQs. However, others have criticised this study on the grounds that the sample was unrepresentative in that the individuals had presented to child psychiatry units and were far more intellectually impaired than subjects in other studies of children who subsequently developed schizophrenia.

From my research prior to this question, it seems that there is a loss of ability, but likely not chronic decline over the course of the illness, one before or during the transition to psychosis. Another well known meta review claims this, that there's

> no support for hypothesizing a degenerative process in schizophrenia once positive symptoms appear... a static encephalopathy rather than a degenerative process

I've seen it said that it is centered on mathematical ability.

What do we know about mathematical ability pre and post psychosis, in schizophrenia? e.g., was John Nash a worse mathematician after he went mad?

## References

Russell, A. J., et al. (1997) *Schizophrenia and the myth of intellectual decline*. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(5), pp 635–639.
DOI: 10.1176/ajp.154.5.635 PMID: 9137118 WOS: A1997WX13000009

# Answer
> I spent times of the order of five to eight months in hospitals in New Jersey, always on an involuntary basis and always attempting a legal argument for release. And it did happen that when I had been long enough hospitalized that I would finally renounce my delusional hypotheses and revert to thinking of myself as a human of more conventional circumstances and return to mathematical research. In these interludes of, as it were, enforced rationality, I did succeed in doing ***some respectable*** mathematical research.

Seems like he himself is saying his research suffered while unwell and not staying in institutions.

However, the standard deficit in IQ, of it seems around 10 points, may be inconsequential in someone like Nash. Even if the executive function and memory impairments are more significant.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: mathematical-ability, schizophrenia
---


# Question
Title: Does spanking a child teach them that it's ok for another person to touch them against their will?
The debate over whether spanking is an appropriate punishment largely revolves around proponents saying that it creates a more "disciplined" person and opponents saying that it traumatizes the child or makes them grow up violent.

One thing that, as far as I know, has been overlooked is the issue of how it affects a person's sense of personal physical sovereignty. Can a child really compartmentalize spanking such that they can believe "It is acceptable for my parent to spank me as long as a child, but nobody else, and not when I am an adult."? It doesn't seem likely to me. It seems that, if a child is conditioned to believe that spanking is a normal and acceptable thing, it isn't a stretch to believe that other entities, such as the government, have potential suzerainty over the individual.

Given that any rational person should want their children to believe that nobody but nobody has the right to touch them against their will, for any reason, would it not make sense that spanking is detrimental to an individual's psyche?

# Answer
## Short answer

It depends on the definition you are referring to on "touch them against their will?"

If you are referring to violent touching in the form of physical punishment/restraining etc. then it is proven by the accounts given by may people who advocate physical punishment.

If you are talking about sexual touching, spanking does not necessarily teach them that it's ok for another person to touch them against their will, but it can lead to someone touching them against their will.

## Long Answer

### Preable before answering the question

To cover the point raised by @user13275 in the comments, **physical punishment** (also known as corporal punishment) has been defined as

> the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience bodily pain or discomfort so as to correct or punish the child’s behavior” (Gershoff, 2008, p. 9)

**This includes: spanking**, hitting, pinching, squeezing, paddling, whipping, ”whupping,” swatting, smacking, slapping, washing a child’s mouth with soap, making a child kneel on painful objects, and forcing a child to stand or sit in painful positions for long periods of time. (Holinger, 2015)

In a 2012 editorial piece within the Canadian Medical Association Journal, John Fletcher, MB BChir MPH, Editor-in-Chief says

> Is spanking wrong? Clearly, hitting anyone in anger or when losing an argument is bad behaviour. To do this to children sets a bad example and may only teach them that violence is a means to getting their own way. But what about a slap as the ultimate sanction and a means of enforcing boundaries and discipline? It’s an obvious question and one in which parents will be interested. Are those who use physical punishment bad parents?
>
> If they are, then they are in the company of roughly 90% of my parents’ generation, including 70% of family doctors and 60% of pediatricians, who thought spanking acceptable in some circumstances. The proportion of parents who spank toddlers now is still high but closer to 50%.

He also states in the editorial

> So heated is this debate, and so long-running, that the question of whether spanking is morally “right or wrong” is probably intractable. A more promising line of enquiry, however, is whether the physical punishment of children is effective.

Whilst there are opponents to the idea that physical punishment is wrong, Birbalsingh (2012) for example provides an argument for how physical punishment provides an ultimate form of discipline, a key piece or research on the effects of physical punishment on the child, which the editorial points to, is Durrant and Ensom (2012) which was also published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. This article looks at lessons learnt from 20 years of research.

> Today, research showing the risks associated with physical punishment is robust, the convention has been integrated into the legal and policy frameworks of many nations, and 31 countries have enacted prohibitions against the physical punishment of children. These three forces — research, the convention and law reform — have altered the landscape of physical punishment.
>
> The growing weight of evidence and the recognition of children’s rights have brought us to a historical point. Physicians familiar with the research can now confidently encourage parents to adopt constructive approaches to discipline and can comfortably use their unique influence to guide other aspects of children’s healthy development.

One of the pieces of research that this article pointed to shows that spanking leads to escalated levels of Antisocial Behaviour from children 6-9 years of age (Straus, et al. 1997)

In a treatment study, Marion Forgatch showed that a reduction in harsh discipline used by parents of boys at risk for antisocial behaviour was followed by significant reductions in their children’s aggression. (Forgatch, 1991)

### In answer to your question

> Does spanking a child teach them that it's ok for another person to touch them against their will?

If you are referring to sexual touch,

The way physical punishment is used will determine whether the child's autonomy is challenged or not.

> Controlling parents are motivated by the Authoritarian Personality Syndrome and therefore are compelled, by fear of loss of control, to restrict the child's self-directed, autonomomous efforts. While parents motivated by the Authoritarian Personality Syndrome are controlling, it does not follow that the converse is true. Some subgroups of controlling parents permit high autonomy in many areas of the child's life. Hoffman, et al. (1960) described a subgroup of parents who were perceived by their children as both coercive and permissive of high autonomy. (Baumrind, 1966)

This indicates that a parent can use physical punishment but still provide the child some autonomy over their personal rights. The other personal rights taken away contravene articles 19, 28(2) and 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) \- which is legally binding in international law and signed by 140 signatories involving 196 UN States.

However, some may use physical punishment in order to take the child's autonomy away completely or deminish the child's feelings of self-worth, which can lead the child to look for love and affection elsewhere.

Spanking does not necessarily teach them that it's ok for another person to touch them against their will, but it can lead to someone touching them against their will. Although with sexual touching, that there are other factors which can play a role including whether the concept of "good touch/bad touch" or the pants/swimsuit/underwear rule has been taught to them, but again, that does not necessarily completely prevent it when the child is really desperate for attention, love and affection.

Anthony (2008) on page 253, says that you can have the following initial belief (iB)

> "I absolutely must be loved by so-and-so, and if not it's awful and I am and inadequate person **because** he/she does not love me!"
>
> When you question and challenge this iB you often can come up with an Effective New Philosophy that is accurate but still in the infancy stages and therefore weak: "I guess that there is no reason why so-and-so must love me, because there are other people who will love me when so-and-so does not. I can therefore be reasonably happy without his/her love."

From experience from talking to and supporting abused people, in the bid to find love elsewhere it can lead a child (or adult in later life) to get into an abusive relationship with someone in the belief that that person is doing the things they do (including inappropriate touching etc.) because that person loves them.

## References

Anthony, R. 2008. *Ending the Epidemic of Child Abuse*. Raleigh, NC:Lulu.com
Paperback at Amazon.com
PDF eBook at Lulu.com **at a much cheaper price**

Baumrind, D. 1966. *Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child Behavior* Child Development 37(4): pp 887—907
DOI: 10.2307/1126611

Durrant, J. and Ensom, R. 2012. *Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research*. Canadian Medical Association Journal 184(12): pp 1373–1377
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101314 PCMCID: PMC3447048

Forgatch M.S. 1991. *The clinical science vortex: a developing theory of antisocial behaviour*. In: Pepler DJ, Rubin KH, editors. *The development and treatment of childhood aggression*. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum; p. 291–315

Hoffman, L., et al. 1960. *Parental coerciveness, child autonomy and child's role at school*. Sociometry 23(1): pp 15—22
DOI: 10.2307/2786134

Gershoff ET (2002). *Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review*. Psychological Bulletin 128(4): pp 539-579.
DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539

Holinger, P.C. 2015. *Physical Punishment—and Violence* Psychology Today \[Online\]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201508/physical-punishment-and-violence

Straus M.A., et al. 1997. *Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children*. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Journal 151(8): pp 761—767
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.1997.02170450011002 PMID: 9265876
> 1 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, social-psychology, developmental-psychology, parenting
---


# Question
Title: Is habituation responsible for inaccurate airport security screenings?
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has "red teams" who try to sneak dangerous items through airport security. The security personnel often fail up to 95% of these tests. Is this high failure rate to be expected because of habituation to visual stimulus? Specifically, a screening agent is expected to find a single weapon amidst thousands of X-rays without a weapon.

If this is habituation, are there techniques for reducing its impact in scenarios such as this?

# Answer
The main reason for these failures is mental fatigue and lost of concentration, in conjuction with the weak target signals.

> Vigilance decrement is defined as "deterioration in the ability to remain vigilant for critical signals with time, as indicated by a decline in the rate of the correct detection of signals". Vigilance decrement is most commonly associated with monitoring to detect a weak target signal. Detection performance loss is less likely to occur in cases where the target signal exhibits a high saliency. ... Under most conditions, vigilance decrement becomes significant within the first 15 minutes of attention, but a decline in detection performance can occur more quickly if the task demand conditions are high ... More recent studies indicate that vigilance is hard work, requiring the allocation of significant cognitive resources, and inducing significant levels of stress.

Habituation plays very little role in these failures.

> Early theories of vigilance explained the reduction of electrophysiological activity over time associated with the vigilance decrement as a result of neural habituation. ... **More recent** ERP studies indicate that when performance declines during a vigilance task, N100 amplitude was not diminished. These results indicate that vigilance is not the result of boredom or a reduction in neurological sensitivity

Training and motivation can decrease failures.

> Training and practice significantly reduce the vigilance decrement, reduce the false alarm rate, and may improve sensitivity for many sustained attention tasks. Training improvements may also occur due to the reduced mental workload associated with task automaticity. In pilotage and airport security screening experiments, trained or expert subjects exhibit better detection of low salience targets, a reduction in false alarms, improved sensitivity, and a significantly reduced vigilance decrement. In some cases the vigilance decrement was eliminated or not apparent.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: vision, habituation
---


# Question
Title: Guidelines for self-help group for people who go through divorce/breakup
I'm working on organising a self-help group for people who go through a divorce or a difficult break-up, and I'm wondering if there's a list of dos and don'ts with regards to things one should avoid saying, and things that might help people to recover faster.

The rough thing I have in mind is:

* Everything is confidential and stays in the group
* Listen actively and don't interrupt
* No jugement
* Immediately redirect severe cases to licensed professionals and social workers

But that doesn't answer the question of how one can help people to recover faster. "Everything's going to be alright" won't work, and "there-there" with a tap on the shoulder too.

Of course I'm going to contact my local therapists and ask them the same question, but you never know what's going to work out in the end. Maybe someone here has a good idea or/and can nudge me into the right direction.

# Answer
Aaron Beck is an psychiatrist and psychotherapist. He is considered the founder of classical approaches to cognitive psychotherapy.

One technique that he suggests is the cognitive technique that generally consists of some steps. *N.B. These steps may change depending on the problem, depending on the therapist and depending on the patient-therapist alliance.*

According to Beck, negative thoughts result from two separate minds:

* The first feels uneasy thinking to flaws of the couple, to all goals not reached, to interpersonal difficulties...
* The second cannot ignore these thoughts, because the risk is to loose useful informations that would help to identify the issues that need to be addressed.

You should help the couple to pay attention to those negative thoughts that have to be taken into consideration, neglecting those that you do not think to be useful.

I wish to have been helpful...In conclusion, i suggest Aaron Beck *"Love is never enough" (1990)*

**REFERENCES**

Aaron Beck *L'amore non basta. Come risolvere i problemi del rapporto di coppia con la terapia cognitiva*, Roma: Astrolabio, 1990

## @Chris' Edit for English version of book

**English version is**
Beck, A. 1989. *Love Is Never Enough: How Couples Can Overcome Misunderstandings, Resolve Conflicts, and Solve Relationship Problems Through Cognitive Therapy*. New York:Harper & Row
> 1 votes

# Answer
The first thing I must say is that if you are not a psychology or psichiatry professional, you should not face such a task, because you will undoubtedly underestimate the difficulties of this task.

You ask about what to say or what not to be cir but to get to that ...

With regard to self-help groups there are many elements to take into account:

* To begin with, **your own profile or pattern of emotional coping and problem solving**, as well as your metaconsciousness about related psychological processes (in yourself and in others) matters a great deal.
* It should also have training in social psychology, particularly in cooperative negotiation, discussion groups and **group dynamics**, of course also be important **adaptive disorder**, clinical issues and problems, difficulties, obsessions, etc.
* **Self-help groups are positive under a number of particular conditions** but sometimes it is difficult to decide if organizing group sessions is positive, for example, it is usually positive when the group is relatively homogeneous, but this is a difficult question (would have that asking a question only on this issue), **it may not suffice that people find themselves through a divorce**.
* In groups that may be not homogeneous, it may be convenient to establish rather **implicit rules** and not so explicit, since it can not be guaranteed that the rules are met, it can be treated as **trustworthy** (on the other hand trust-based groups have difficulties in admitting new members). A group of these characteristics requires standards but a lot of **flexibility**.
* In relation to the above, keep in mind that the supposed rules imposed (confidentiality) may break and you should think about how to deal with these situations, in fact you must foresee them (I would not raise confidentiality).
* You must keep in mind the **role you adopt** since that is valid for certain issues but may make you non valid for opinions.
* In many cases it will be important, not just the management of words, but the same **space** or physical organization of the sessions can greatly influence, for example do not bring participants together too much if they do not want to talk to each other or form **subgroups** or internal chats.
* The most convenient, against the norms, can be, the agenda of the day or the subjects to be addressed, can first proceed to a presentation of official data (name, age, city of birth, profession), **non personal matters but characterize**.
* Concerning couples issues, it is important to discuss in questions or therapy questions about **3 factors**: factors related to one person, factors or causes related to the other person, and factors related to the partner couple, these will be the issues that require the most time.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: psychiatry, therapy
---


# Question
Title: Does taking antidepressants, anxiolytics and sleep pills significantly affect a person's intelligence?
Do antidepressants, anxiolytics and sleeping pills significantly affect the intelligence of a person, for example as expressed by the general (g) factor? Do these compounds affect the *g* factor each individually? And what about the combinations of the two or three of them?

To narrow down the scope of the question, if necessary, we can go for commonly encountered drugs like Duloxetine (antidepressant), Xanax (anxiolytic), and Zolpidem (hypnotic/sedative).

I did a Google search, but the results were not that satisfying. I couldn't find a reliable resource which properly treats the topic.

# Answer
> 3 votes
About intelligence: The subject of intelligence is broadly addressed in research in psychology, one of the most supportive theories is Spearman's bifactorial theory of intelligence, in this theory the **factor g is a huge stable factor** that explains the common variance (in scores) to all the different cognitive tasks that can be put to a person. Although intelligence would approach a series of constructs that explain the abilities in the resolution of cognitive problems, other factors that modulate these intelligence factors, such as motivation (volition or will) and attention (concentration), should always be taken into account. Among others (tiredness, stress, activation, etc). External factors exert their influence in early stages of information processing, can be identified with physical characteristics (light conditions, letter size, presence of the public, the person requires lenses, etc.). In conclusion, what we call intelligence, which we consider to be very stable, does not explain everything at all in cognitive tasks, there are many other causes that can influence, for example, and as mentioned, the level of activation (sleep, fatigue) or motivation and will.

Before considering an adverse drug effect, a **period of adaptation** should also be considered, based on factors such as: affinity (ability of the drug to match the receptor), intrinsic activity (ability to activate the receptor after its use ) And effective dose which is the amount of drug that produces the desired effect in 50% of users. In summary there is a period in which the person is adapting to the effects of the drug and even if the dose is adequate the person may experience a great change.

Adverse effects of drugs: Adverse effects are defined as an unwanted reaction that can be sometimes harmful and permanent, (not considered adverse effect inappropriate use) **a high number of people report adverse effects, it is estimated that around 10 % of people experience effects but for most benefits obtained are greater than undesirable effects**.

There are different types of adverse effects (cutaneous, gastrointestinal, respiratory system, cardiovascular system), if a drug produced damage to intelligence, it would be a late cognitive adverse effect, ie it would manifest after a high time consuming drug (sometimes long after withdrawal of the drug). **In relation to adverse effects in the central nervous system, the most common are: tiredness, dizziness, confusion, tremors, headache and seizures. The increase in fatigue occurs in almost all drugs that have a suppressive effect of the central nervous system (analgesics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, hypnotics, sedatives and anticonvulsants)**

Depending on the country of residence, there are agencies that freely disclose information regarding the trade names with which the medicines are distributed in the state, these agencies also collect and study information about adverse effects recorded in other countries.

Duloxetine (R) (Duloxetine hydrochloride): Inhibitor of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake. It weakly inhibits dopamine reuptake without significant affinity for histaminergic, dopaminergic, cholinergic and adrenergic receptors. Adverse effects: Headache, drowsiness, dizziness, lethargy, tremors, paraesthesia; Decreased appetite; Insomnia, agitation, decreased libido, anxiety, abnormal orgasms, abnormal dreams; blurry vision; Tinnitus; Increased blood pressure, flushing; Yawning; Nausea, dry mouth, constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, dyspepsia, flatulence; Increased sweating, rash; Musculoskeletal pain, muscle spasm; Dysuria; Erectile dysfunction, ejaculation disorder, delayed ejaculation; Falls, fatigue; weightloss.

Xanax (R) (Alprazolam): It is believed to exert its effect by binding to the ester-specific receptors located in SCN. It has anxiolytic, hypnotic muscle relaxant and anticonvulsive properties, as well as a specific activity in distress crisis. Adverse effects: Depression, sedation, somnolence, ataxia, memory impairment, dysarthria, dizziness, headache; Constipation, dry mouth; Fatigue, irritability.

Zolpiden (R) (Zolpidem hemitartrate): hypnotic type non benzodiazepine. Group of Imidazopyrines. Specific agonist of central receptors belonging to the GABA-omega macromolecular receptor complex that modulates the opening of the chlorine ion channel. Adverse effects: bitterness and dry mouth, upset stomach, drowsiness, dizziness and paradoxical reaction that usually disappear with a dose adjustment.

**In summary, it seems that they are drugs that, in their phase of adjustment or adaptation, may well cause a temporary reduction in cognitive performance, but this effect should be reduced and temporary, that is to say, very brief, in case the Problem persists or in case of doubt can always be accessed to make consultations to pharmacists or general medicine (even for second opinions beyond the professional who has prescribed these drugs)**.

Sources:

* Stephen M. Stahl. (2000). Essential Psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific Basis and Practical Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
* Stephen M. Stahl. (2005). Prescriber's Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

---
Tags: cognitive-neuroscience, memory, intelligence, cognition, medication
---


# Question
Title: Psychological theories about the end of a romantic relationship
There's no doubt: many couples break and many marriages break, what happens in these cases?

In the loving encounter brain areas aimed at judgment and critical analysis, are clouded by an increase of dopamine: the neurotransmitter that activates our most irrational and euphoric drives. The biology tells us that this pleasant situation lasts a few months (activation of oxytocin receptors) because of the decrease of dopamine in the intersynaptic space.

**Which other theories could explain the decline in desire/closeness?**

**Does exist a split between desire and love?**

**References:**

* Massimo Recalcati (2014) "Non è più come prima", Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore
* Michael S. Gazzaniga, Richard B. Ivry, George R. Mangun (2015) Neuroscienze cognitive, Zanichelli.

# Answer
> 1 votes
## Is there a split between desire and love?

---

Of course, love and lust/desire are two completely different things. A simple definition I have of the word **love**: *An involuntary response to virtue.*

This obviously means I can't "love" someone without knowing whether or not they are honest, benevolent, or have integrity. It also means that I can't love someone if I am morally corrupt, because doing so would expose my corruption. To protect myself, I would be repulsed from that person.

Lust, of course, is biologically programmed in our brain and nearly impossible *not* to experience, unlike love. I can scarcely be attracted to a woman, go on one date with her, and conclude that I love her.

Like you said, dopamine and other chemicals in the brain can cloud our judgement and lead us to believe we love someone and ignore their red flags for negative behaviors like abuse, when we are merely biologically driven to reproduce with them. I have heard that this euphoria lasts for about six months until desire fizzles and romantic interest is lost by someone and the relationship ends.

## Which other theories explain the decline in closeness?

---

Abuse of all kinds. Verbal, physical, and sexual abuse cause big problems, particularly if the abuse is at a young age. **Simply spanking children has been conclusively found to reduce empathy and IQ and increase "brain disorders."** With this information available, more than 80% of American parents *still* spank their children! From Christian culture, to Tongan culture, to Muslim culture, spanking and abuse is *the norm*. How can we be close to someone if we cannot empathize with them? Empathy is the deepest level of understanding we can have for someone at any point in time.

I would argue that we are increasingly trying to ignore our unconscious responses to trauma and grief, particularly as children, in society. The problems are ignored by parents with empathy and emotional distance from their kids which allows them to spank their children and let depression and other problems that could be significant, go unnoticed or even criticized. Endless amounts of "culture propaganda" about how parents are inherently good and loving people despite their abuses, and schools that are teaching kids *what to think* instead of *how to think & solve problems* only exacerbate the problem.

Depression and substance abuse is a natural and valid response to events that are usually traumatic - childhood sexual abuse is just one example. These valid responses in our brain are being labeled with "brain disorder" diagnoses and antidepressants when the unconscious brain is doing exactly what it was designed to do - *Warn us that something is wrong*. The benefit for this is obvious. Just look at the millions of dollars worth of advertising spent for antidepressants on American television. Often victims are told something is *wrong with them*, when more often than not, *someone wronged them*.

Instead of finding the problems in our past that have contributed to unhealthy lifestyle patterns through therapy or self-knowledge work, we, with the help of our "what to think" education, run to the nearest "answer" - a mind-altering drug and a label for *our problem*.

## A closer look at how ignoring the truth can affect society as a whole...

Biologically speaking, as children we are genetically designed to understand that our parents are biologically successful. They reproduced. We grow up and learn patterns of behavior from parents in order to be biologically successful based on their success.

Generally speaking:

* A boy will model general behavior patterns in his father and be attracted to the general behavior patterns found in his mother
* A girl will model general behavior patterns in her mother and be attracted to the general behavioral patterns found in her father

Patterns can be categories such as honesty, empathy, integrity, etc.

For example, children that grow up without a father (exception: children of widowed mothers) experience:

* Increased promiscuity
* Increased likelihood of committing crimes, violence, and abuse
* Increased aggression
* Increased teen pregnancies
* Increased likelihood of being abused
* Increased likelihood of divorce

This is an example of two parents that had an apparent lack of empathy for their children. It is important to remember that empathy is taught behavior and instead of empathy, they were largely traumatized and abandoned. The boys absence of a father leads them to have less empathy, shown through crimes and violence against other people. The pattern often repeats through promiscuity and teen pregnancy and can extend to other families through crime.

I think the evidence suggests that poor parenting choices, whether directly or indirectly, is deteriorating our closeness, community, and ability to love and empathize. How long before the unabused outnumber the abused? That, I believe, is up to us.

Sources (unfortunately can only do 2 links):

Single Mother Childhood (additional sources)

Facts About Spanking (additional sources)

Search "sins of the father" on the same channel for a firsthand abuse story

Search "confessions of a womanizer" on same channel for a firsthand story from a cheater!

Search "an honest conversation with a single mother" on same channel for a firsthand story from a single mother

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, neuroscience, love, dopamine
---


# Question
Title: How to frame survey questions to get honest response?
I'm doing a (statistical) survey on whether or not international students at my college receive satisfactory grants. Here's the deal, I don't expect them to say yes it is satisfactory. I need a way to formulate questions to tricking them into giving me an accurate questions. I've already got my formalities written but how can I approach them with these questions? Bonus would be to tell how much more they would need (if at all).

# Answer
> 1 votes
In my opinion, ***test-retest*** *method* would be suitable to your request.

This procedure is quite simple: individuals are asked to take the test and then take the same test again at a later date. The scores are then compared. The closer the scores are, the more reliable the test.

This methodology is appropriate for instruments such as IQ tests and surveys because there is little chance of people experiencing a sudden jump in IQ or suddenly changing their opinions.

I wish i have been helpful.

**REFERENCES**

PICONE L., Pezzuti L., Ribaudo F., (2013), *"Teorie e tecniche dei test"*, Roma: Carocci.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Shuffle the questions to make at least two survey versions, which you then statistically compare to filter out any "leading" questions. this to compensate for the (mental state) influence that certain earlier questions will have on the following questions.

---
Tags: survey
---


title: Why are people insecure?

text:
# Question
Title: Why are people insecure?
Many people, especially teenagers, are insecure about some aspects. They may be insecure about their looks, their (odd) behavior, or may question whether they belong to a group (of friends, colleagues and what not). I quickly looked at some social psychological literature but I could only find that in some cultures people are more self-oriented and in others they are more group-oriented (see the abstract of this book, I was not able to read more).

**I was wondering thus: why people are insecure?**

If I would consider an evolutionary perspective, insecurity (1) should have some beneficial effects, (2) should disappear if harmful for people, or (3) is not harmful enough to disappear. It is not likely to be the second for it then should not exist, so hypothesis (1) and (3) remain. Is there some benefit to being insecure, or is their some other explanation for why it exists?

# Answer
> 6 votes
**Short answer**
Hypothesis (1)

**Background**
The question is quite broad, as exemplified by the statement: *They may be insecure about their looks, their (odd) behavior, or may question whether they belong to a group (of friends, colleagues **and what not***).

Personally and anecdotally, I think that a healthy **self-doubt** forms the core of **self-reflection** and allows a social animal like *Homo sapiens* to improve its behavior and mold itself according to the social structure with all its rights and obligations.

To approach this question with a less opinion-based perspective, I think that the root of a possible answer is the question what happens when people **lack any self-doubt**. I'm not a psychologist, but **narcissistic personality disorder** (NPD) comes to mind. The characteristic features of this condition are dominance, arrogance, superiority, power seeking, and disregard of others. All these traits seem to fit a total lack of self doubt (Ronningstam, 2011). However, some phenotypes of this condition may include insecure people, but it is just for the purpose of showing what people may turn into that lack self-doubt (and admittedly oversimplifying NPD). The typical NPD sufferer therefore won't fit in well in a social structure, and humankind, obviously, has built highly complex social societies.

In terms of evolution, **Joseph Henrich** explains that long before the origins of agriculture, when humans expanded across the globe from the arid deserts of Australia to the frozen tundra of the Canadian Arctic, survival in the immense diversity of habitats depended not on specific genetic adaptations, but on large bodies of culturally transmitted know-how, abilities, and skills that **no single individual could figure out in his or her lifetime**. Even among **foraging societies, humans show an immense variety of social organizations, group sizes, kinship structures, and mating patterns**. He explains that this diversity is at least partially rooted in culturally-acquired and **widely shared social rules**.

<sub>**Reference**
**-** Ronningstam, J Psychiatric Practice (2011); **17**(2): 89–99</sub>

# Answer
> -1 votes
I have not studied cognitive sciences but questions such as this always come into my mind as well. And my answer to your question:

> Is there some benefit to being insecure, or is their some other explanation for why it exists?

is:

Yes there is benefit. Let's think of another trait: *fear*. Fear can be a person's greatest strength but too much fear can also be detrimental. Therefore, I say the same is true for insecurity: some insecurity means the person is well aware of their weaknesses and have the ability to self reflect. Thus this trait can be beneficial. I mean if a person does not care about belonging to `a group (of friends, colleagues and what not)`, what are their chances of survival in certain situations? Especially situations back in the days when the enemy would attack.

Thus your hypothesis:

> insecurity (1) should have some beneficial effects

is correct.

# Answer
> -2 votes
I suggest you read about attachment theory. The most common reason for insecurity is a failure to form secure attachments or a traumatic loss of an attachment. This is especially harmful in early childhood. By the way, narcissistic personality disorder is invariably associated (and caused by) severe insecurity. It is the result of an attempt to overcome that insecurity.

---
Tags: social-psychology, evolutionary-psychology, social-desirability
---


# Question
Title: Do people with birth defects feel phantom limbs?
The phenomenon of phantom limbs in people who have lost arms or legs to amputation is pretty well-established. It makes a fair amount of sense. The "brain mapping" of the limb (and for that matter the nerves that led to it) don't go away just because the limb does.

But what about people who never had the limb? Does a person who was born with one arm due to a birth defect ever "feel" the second arm that should be there?

# Answer
> 3 votes
Here is a link to an article that discusses the very thing. Specifically, it discusses a case study conducted by Paul McGeoch and V.S. Ramachandran on a woman whose hand was amputated at 18, but who has been missing a thumb and index finger since birth. This woman "sprouted a phantom hand that contained five digits, including a phantom thumb and index finger that had been absent since her birth." The end of the article discusses similarities between this phenomenon and supernumerary phantom limb.

Ultimately (from the article): "The authors say that most people born with congenitally missing limbs do not experience phantom ones, but a small subset do."

In case you are curious, below is the citation for the case study conducted.

As a side note, depending on whose definition you use, "phantom limbs" are defined solely for individuals who have had the limb amputated (though this may be due to unintentionally specific wording).

**References**

McGeoch, P. D., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2012). The appearance of new phantom fingers post-amputation in a phocomelus. Neurocase, 18(2), 95-97. doi:10.1080/13554794.2011.556128

---
Tags: sensation
---


# Question
Title: Does verified evidence for Freudian repression of traumatic memories exist?
This is sort of related to this other question, except that here I am not asking whether the brain is viewed as being capable of repressing memories, but about any **verified** cases of where that has happened.

I was watching a documentary in which a psychiatrist said that an individual always remembers traumatic events, and that there is no evidence for the Freudian notion that the brain represses traumatic memories.

So here I specifically want to exclude as evidence **solely** from claims from people who say that they were abused as children but suppressed these memories (and consequently either did, or did not, develop multiple personalities).

What I am interested in is verified evidence of cases where a person suffered trauma but the memories of the trauma were repressed **as per the Freudian notion**. With this I mean that I also want to exclude cases where the individual learned to live with the past and consequently memories of the trauma faded because it no longer carried any emotional significance to the person.

I would appreciate references to academic literature or articles where the evidence is mentioned.

Does verified evidence for Freudian repression of traumatic memories exist?

# Answer
I find this question very interesting, for this reason i did some digging.

**Short answer**

*Yes*, there're many studies about neurobiological implication of "repressed memories" and they underline how informations do not disappear. Through the mechanisms of complex neural processes, it is obvious that this information is exposed to various kinds of cellular and molecular operations. These processes can not be deleted. The brain never “forgets” at the cellular and molecular levels.(Mehmet Emin Ceylan, M.D., Aslıhan Sayın, M.D., 2012)

**Long answer**

In recent years, an effort has been made to identify the underlying neuroanatomical, neurophysiological and molecular underpinnings of psychoanalytical concepts like repression. The view that, every mental action is caused by a change in an identifiable neural system (or vice versa), is not surprising. **Any decision we make, any feeling we have, is the result of activity in neural networks and molecular-level structures such as receptors, messenger systems, neurotransmitters etc. that are involved in the process of neurotransmission. Moreover, this fact applies not only to conscious mental activities, but also to mental activities that are not conscious.** Everything that goes on in the brain affects our mind, but we are not consciously aware of everything that goes on in our mind. This situation is described by Freud as the equivalent of an unconscious mental process.

We know that repression is a defense mechanism that plays a role in the formation of unconscious mental activities and processes. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that repression must have a neural mechanism. The technology of Freud’s time was incapable of explaining the biological correlates of the mental processes described by his psychoanalytic theory. Today’s technological capabilities, advances in brain imaging methods, advanced methods in brain electrophysiology and molecular biology promise an opportunity to observe and analyze these mechanisms.

1. Neural representation of the external event is bound by hippocampus
2. Then, the LTP (long-term potentiation) process provides the neural mechanisms of consolidation, in which a particular external event becomes a lasting memory, which is the basis for long-term memory.
3. While the hippocampus controls consciouss memory,the amygdala is required for the unconsciously associated vegetative reaction (Bechara et al., 1995).
4. fMRI studies in post-traumatic stress disorder patients indicate that recall of traumatic events is associated with an increased activation of the amygdala and a reduced activation of the hippocampus
5. It is reasonable to assume that repression must have a neural mechanism: The following study suggests that **dorsolateral prefrontal cortex**, and especially its caudal part plays a major role for repression of childhood traumatic events. Possible molecular mechanism of memory erasure in repression is long term depression of *glutamatergic neurotransmission* between prefrontal cortex- thalamus- limbic system.

**REFERENCES**

Neurobiology of Repression

Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Adolphs, R., Rockland, C., Damasioa, A.R., 1995. Double dissociation of conditioning and declerative knowledge relative to the amigdala and hippocampus in humans. Science 269, 1115-1118.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: memory, ptsd
---


# Question
Title: Is the concept of "employee engagement" flawed?
In theory, improving business performance by improving engagement makes sense. Yet surveys suggest that since 1991, the workforce is about 30% engaged, 40% disengaged and the remaining 30% actively disengaged, as widely reported by Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/services/178517/state-global-workplace.aspx

Billions are being spent for no result, despite the considerable benefits the engaged enjoy, and the disbenefits suffered by the others. It seems that engaged people are so both at home and work, likewise the disengaged. Neither group seem able to turn it on or off.

Does the failure to improve aggregate employee engagement levels suggest that the concept of employee engagement is flawed?

# Answer
> 4 votes
A few points:

* Cut-offs are somewhat arbitrary. Engagement is typically measured using a mulit-item scale. It will generate a scaled response. E.g., there might be 10 items each measured on a 1 to 5 scale. Presumably, Gallup adopts an approach of carving up that scale into categories of engagement. I think they use 12 items from the Gallup Q12; they might be the items listed in Harter et al (2002). Anyway, the main point is that employees will get a score from 1 to 5. If an employee gets a mean of 3.9 on a 1 to 5 scale do we say that they are engaged or neither engaged nor disengaged. If you define 3 as the cutoff for being engaged, then more workers will appear engaged than if you make 4 the cutoff. I'm not saying that the cutoff is completely arbitrary. Presumably you could ask managers about what set of responses imply engagement. I had a read of some Gallup material (see here) and I could not find a specification of how these categories are operationalised other than they were based on the 12 items. My main point is that a consulting company could readily choose cutoffs to present a more positive or pessimistic picture of engagement in the workplace if they were so motivated. Furthermore, the choice of items will also influence the means you obtain. If you choose more extreme items, then you'll get lower means (e.g., mean agreement will be lower on items like "I absolutely love my work" than on "I like my job").
* Self-report measures of engagement correlate extremely highly with job satisfaction. Thus, the entire literature about job satisfaction is relevant. I agree that the construct of engagement has greater linkages with motivation and commitment. However, the survey responses you get pick up on largely the same variance as obtained when measuring job satisfaction.
* Job satisfaction is influenced by personality (Judge et al 2002). So there is a degree of stability that is driven by underlying individual differences. That said, just because group-level means may have remained stable over the years, individuals will change over time in their job satisfaction.
* Job satisfaction is related to expectations, and expectations can change over time (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy\_theory). So for example, if workplaces implement flexible work practices or other initiatives to increase motivation and engagement, then this will be begin to form an expectation. And the absence of these expectations will lead to lower satisfaction. A parallel line of research examining life satisfaction often shows that mean life satisfaction is often around 7.5 out of 10 and that it does not change much over the years as economic conditions have improved. The idea is that there is a homeostatic process related to expectation management and so on that leads to fairly stable scores (Cummins et al 2003).

Despite all of the above, organisations should still invest in increasing the motivation, satisfaction, and commitment of their staff. Employee opinion surveys also serve a range of useful purposes for organisations. In particular, the provide a more data-driven approach to tracking and understanding the satisfaction-levels of their workplace. Furthermore, there are a range of interventions and strategies that are important for managing engagement, which in turn should influence productivity and retention.

### References

* Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.
* Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social indicators research, 64(2), 159-190.
* Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 530.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The concept of *work engagemen*t (Schaufeli et al., 2002) is not flawed.

However, recent research — which unfortunately for this site, is in German — shows that more research about the predictors of *work engagement* is needed.

Höge and Schnell (2012) demonstrate that *meaning in work* (or: meaningful work) can fully mediate the relation between *core job dimensions* (e. g. predictor variables like *task autonomy* or *task identity*) as defined by Hackman & Oldham (1975) and the criterion variable *work engagement* (Schaufeli et al., 2002). In other words: Perceiving one's work as meaningful is an important but not well known antecedent of work engagement.

## References

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.

Höge, T., & Schnell, T. (2012). Kein Arbeitsengagement ohne Sinnerfüllung.: Eine Studie zum Zusammenhang von Work Engagement, Sinnerfüllung und Tätigkeitsmerkmalen. Wirtschaftspsychologie, (1), 91–99.

Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

## Further readings

For those wanting to learn more about *meaning in work* there is an English-language paper which is, however, not related to work engagement:

Schnell, T., Höge, T., & Pollet, E. (2013). Predicting meaning in work: Theory, data, implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830763

---
Tags: io-psychology
---