# Question
Title: Why didn't the Left Twix/Right Twix ad campaign take off?
This is intended to be a psychology question about human decision making and behavior as concerns advertising. As this is only my second ever question on Cognitive Sciences SE, please advise as to any reasonable improvements to the question, and now for the fun part!

A few years ago, Mars the candy company decided they weren't selling enough Twix candy bars, and launched an ad campaign centered on the idea of the left and right sides of the candy bar being a point of controversy, based on the idea that one is better than the other. Now, three years later, they are even selling packages carrying "only left Twix" or "only right Twix". Now obviously, this entire ad campaign is preposterous. There's no difference between the left side of a Twix bar and the right side of a Twix bar.

And yet the idea of stoking controversy over meaningless polarization of the public has been a very successful strategy for viral marketing in the past. Remember that yellow and gold dress? It seems to be fact at this point that pointless controversy creating conflict between two polar-opposite groups of people is an immensely successful means of propagating the story. In my limited marketing expertise, I'd say Mars did everything right with their Twix campaign.

So why does no one care? People as a matter of fact think it ridiculous. Why isn't it working?

# Answer
Because people do not see the parallels between the candy and any other dividing issue. People, just like Twix are neither left nor right when created. It is through labeling that divisions are made. So while left and right Twix are still just Twix, a difference in labeling makes them seem different to those that bestow the labels.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, social-psychology
---


# Question
Title: How to help an adult that has grown up, but was unloved by their parents?
Is there anything that can be done to support a person that was raised without any love from their parents? Does it help to make them feel loved, or does rather that core hurt need to be tackled? In other words, can love from friends and relatives reduce the hurt, or does the issue need to be confronted directly?

# Answer
Past issues are hard to tackle. They become wired in the brain and can manifest into feelings of helplessness, depression, fear, anger etc. Feeling unloved as a child can also lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where you believe that being 'unloved' is part of your identity. And because you have to be consistent with this identity, you may never really accept love or praise from someone who is genuine.

But no amount of love from someone else is going to resolve this issue! The solution is to love yourself and to be a parent to yourself. Get in touch with that inner child and tell it you love him/her. Make praising yourself and loving yourself familiar.

The most important relationship you should have is with yourself. When you start to love yourself you become open to feeling loved.

So to solve this issue, I would do two things. Firstly, I would get in touch with that feeling of feeling unloved and rejected, however painful it might be, and I would apply the Havening technique repeatedly until the pain has eased significantly.

Secondly, according to Marisa Peer, understand that feeling unloved or rejected as a child develops a belief, and therefore feeling of not being good enough. So the next thing to do is to persevere with this:

repeat every day before you go to sleep, in the shower, brushing your teeth, before you wake up, put it on your phone alerts, phone screen saver, and even write it on your mirrors at home:

"I am enough. I have always been enough, and I will always be enough." "I like myself, I matter, I love myself."

Repeat these statements until you have deeply accepted them at a subconscious level.

You see you can't hold a feeling of being unloved and rejected and a feeling of being enough at the same time! But by communicating with yourself in a different way, it will change the way you feel about yourself.

It will take time, but it will work. You can't change the memories of the past but we can change how we feel. In your case, we can use the past as a catalyst for change and learn to become your own parent and friend and learn to make praising yourself a habit.

Peace
> 3 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology
---


# Question
Title: In a class room setting, why do people look at you when you are asking a question?
Picture this scenario:

1. You are a student enrolled in a large class
2. You arrived slightly late to the class, so you are sitting at the back of the class
3. You raise your hands to ask the teacher a question.
4. As you speak, you observe that the entire class turn their body sideways to look at you, even the students who are sitting in the front row. You feel self-conscious

Three thoughts are now going through your mind:

1. What are "ears" for, again?
2. It must be really uncomfortable and awkward to twist your body like that.
3. What is the incurred "loss" if the other students did not look at you and simply listened?

**Can some expert chime in the reasoning as to why students have to look at you when they are listening?**

Could this be some sort of form of peer pressure?

Could the act of looking help to localize the sound (or synthesize the information) in some way?

Do we look so we can prejudge? For example, if we see that the asker/speaker is another professor, we pay more attention to the question as it might be more sophisticated than asked by a student.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Well, your ears are shaped in a way that is optimized for sound sources in front of you, so it could be that. But my non-expert bet is that probably they're using gaze to signal that they're paying attention. The signal is not just to you "I'm following what you're saying" but to everyone else as well, "hey, check out what's going on over there" creating joint attention that coordinates the group in thinking about your question. This might be uncomfortable for you (although it's probably a compliment that you're worth paying attention to), but the general mechanism of having super-obvious cues to attention and a predisposition to follow them to create joint attention is a very effective way of coordinating social behavior. This is so fundamentally human that most people take it for granted, but that doesn't stop academics from studying it. You could maybe try something like

Pfeiffer, U. J., Vogeley, K., & Schilbach, L. (2013). From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(10), 2516-2528.

or

Brooks, A. M. M. R. (2017). Eyes wide shut: The importance of eyes in infant gaze-following and understanding other minds. In Gaze-Following (pp. 229-254). Psychology Press.

...if you really want a deep-dive into this.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Gaze goes a bit beyond merely focusing on the source of sounds. I think it's fair to say that not everyone is going to do this all the time. Context and the person(s) involved matter:

> Decades of research into the use of gaze in natural interactions \[...\] shows how gaze can signal attentiveness, competence and social dominance. This means that gaze can be a positive, neutral or negative cue, depending on the context. Direct gaze can be used to regulate conversation shifts \[...\] and to signal social interest \[...\]. Prolonged gaze or staring leads to avoidance behaviours \[...\]

So really interesting or dumb questions are more likely to get a head turn. And the participants doing the head turns are more likely to be those really interested or at least not socially shy. Also, long exchanges with the podium speaker are more likely to get that either because the exchange could be really interesting or perceived as really boorish. In that latter case a long gaze is a form of peer pressure to shut up and let the podium speaker continue; or maybe just let the rest of the students leave the amphitheater if this is an end-of-class question.

Since you're from Japan, I tried to find if there's a cultural difference with Europe or US on this issue specifically (gazing at someone asking questions in class or other large audience)... but I couldn't find anything particular insofar. In general, it is known that gaze behavior is culture-related to some extent, e.g. Japanese tend to gaze less at someone (compared to Canadians) when answering a question.

Another interesting issue would be how many students initiate this type of gaze and how many are simply respond (follow) the gaze of others... The two are distinct processes:

> Whereas first elements of RJA \[Responding Joint Attention\] are already evident at 6 months of age, IJA \[Initiating Joint Attention\] does not emerge before the second year of life (Mundy and Newell, 2007; Mundy et al., 2007). Chimpanzees followed the experimenters gaze on a frequent basis but did not try to initiate JA (Tomasello and Carpenter, 2005). Interestingly, differential development of both RJA and IJA can be observed in brain systems from childhood to adulthood (Oberwelland et al., 2016), as well as during atypical development in disorders such as autism (Oberwelland et al., 2017). In autism, IJA is typically more impaired than RJA and emerges much later than in typical development (Mundy, 2003). These empirical findings clearly point toward separate underlying cognitive systems of RJA and IJA (Mundy and Newell, 2007).

---
Tags: educational-psychology, behavior, behaviorism
---


# Question
Title: Why is the theory of mind named as such?
> Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc.—to oneself, and to others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.

So am I correct in saying that for a dyadic relationship, there are 2 "theories of mind", and for a group of $n$ person, there would be $n^2-n$ "theories of mind"? I understand a system of inferences is properly called as "theory", but when so many people has different theory it loses the universal connotation as commonly used in "theory of planned behavior" or "theory of gravitation". Should it better be named as "theory-forming of other's minds"?

# Answer
Probably because it was defined as:

> An individual has a theory of mind if he imputes mental states to himself and others. \[...\]
>
> In this paper we speculate about the possibility that the chimpanzee may have a "theory of mind," one not markedly different from our own. In saying that an individual has a theory of mind, we mean that the individual imputes mental states to himself and to others (either to conspecifics or to other species as well). A system of inferences of this kind is properly viewed as a theory, first, because such states are not directly observable, and second, because the system can be used to make predictions, specifically about the behavior of other organisms.

Since this definition entails that roughly the same "theory" applies to all minds from a given organism's point of view, I don't see why your proposal(s) would be useful. And as far as I know neither did the thousands of papers citing that seminal work.

If you want an alternative terminology that is reasonably widely, "mental state reasoning" is a good candidate... but it is somewhat narrower in that some research distinguishes between decoding and reasoning.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, social-psychology, terminology, theory-of-mind
---


title: Can dreams predict the future?

text:
# Question
Title: Can dreams predict the future?
On Quora there is a discussion that dreams can predict the future. I have experienced the feeling that things happening to me in real-life had occurred in my dreams, before these events actually happened. Can dreams predict the future?

# Answer
> 4 votes
**Short answer**
Dreams cannot predict the future.

**Background**
Likely you are referring to **Deja reve** ('already dreamed'), which has been hypothesized to be (Schredi *et al*., 2017):

> ...the distinct impression that the uncanny familiarity one is sensing has come from a preceding dream, but one not usually remembered until the experience is taking place.

Deja reve are reported by Schredi *et al.* to occur in nearly 80% of the population.

Dreams are representations of past experiences (re-)generated is our minds creates while we sleep. It has been proposed that dreams reflect biological processes of long-term memory consolidation. Consolidation strengthens the neural representations of recent events (*i.e.*, their memories) and embeds these new memory fragments into older, existing memories. This also maintains the stability of existing memory representations in the face of subsequent experiences (Payne & Nadel, 2004). In sleeping rodents, for example, neurons in the hippocampus fire in patterns remarkably similar to those recorded during a previous maze-running session—almost as if the animals replay the experience in their sleep (source: Science Magazine).

In all, dreams are related to memories and memory formation. However, they have nothing to do with future events. The brain cannot recall what never has perceived in the past. Hence, déjà vu experiences and dreams have nothing to do with what the future may bring, other than cases of pure coincidence.

<sub>**References**
**-** Payne & Nadel, *Learn Mem* (2004); **11**(6): 671–8
**-** Shredi *et al*., *J Consciousness Studies* (2017); **24**:(7-8): 155-62</sub>

---
Tags: memory, sleep, dreams, long-term-memory
---


# Question
Title: Cognitive Effects of studying for the LSAT?
Is this study/article scientifically valid.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/08/22/intense-prep-for-law-school-admissions-test-alters-brain-structure/

# Answer
> 3 votes
The study you refer to shows that a measure of brain white matter connectivity, called diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) shows increases in structural connectivity between brain areas that have been previously implicated in reasoning and other brain functions.

The news article goes on to make additional claims, not made in the paper, that this result means studying for the LSAT improves reasoning overall. The study itself does not make that claim, and they did not test reasoning besides measuring LSAT performance. Therefore, you cannot conclude from this work that studying for the LSAT improves performance on anything besides the LSAT, only that studying is sufficient to make detectable changes in brain structure.

I would certainly say it is plausible that studying one set of tasks, like studying for the LSAT, would cause improvement in related skills (certainly this assumption is the basis of a whole lot of pedagogy), but that certainly doesn't mean it is the *best* way to improve or that it is special compared to other types of study.

Note also that the participants in the study were involved in a *particular training program* and the results may not generalize to other forms of LSAT preparation.

As a side note, it is always important to read original research articles before taking news at face value. Even the researchers quoted in a news article may not approve of how exactly they were quoted. The news process is subject to sensationalization and the qualifying language that scientists frequently use may not reach the final edits.

---

Mackey, A. P., Whitaker, K. J., & Bunge, S. A. (2012). Experience-dependent plasticity in white matter microstructure: reasoning training alters structural connectivity. Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 6, 32.

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, neuroscience, cognitive-neuroscience, learning
---


# Question
Title: Does similar writing style tell us the writers are similar with respect to some measure/perspective?
Does similar writing style in small texts such as on Twitter or long texts such as articles/novels tell us anything about similarity between

* "thinking process" *OR*
* "personality" *OR*
* "writing preferences" etc.,

of the writers?

For some instances we can be sure about such correlation, for example persons who like to use abbreviation(short-form), e.g. nite(“night”) or abbreviation(acronym), e.g. lol (“laugh out loud”), or emoticons in short-texts like tweets, are hesitant to write long words(I couldn't find any research on this , but this is being said after a small survey by me and also this deduction seems trivial). Of course, there can be a number of reasons for some preferred writing style like role of culture.

Similarly can we say something about relation between the people who follow similar writing style? By similar writing style, I meant following kind of things,

* short-text : use of emoticon vs writing emotion in plain text
* short-text : use of Non-dictionary slang, e.g. that was well mint vs “that was very good”
* long-text and short-text : preference to adjectives than combination of verb and adverb

Is there any resource throwing light in this direction in a scientific way?

# Answer
To me the most obvious similarity factor would be culture/schooling. And that also creates a large confounder for the things you ask about (personality etc.)

A bit of searching did find a paper from 1981 by Ruffner & Burgoon, but it has very few citations. It also uses a pretty antiquated personality test (the Omnibus Personality Inventory). The climax of the paper is predicting various stylistic aspects using personality and education aspects:
> 2 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, reference-request, personality, preferences, psycholinguistics
---


# Question
Title: How is the relationship between hypothalamus and homeostasis & fear and how does it evolve across human development stages?
This is my claim, or what I \[mis?\]understood:

Hypothalamus is well-known for its role in homeostasis (self-regulation including, but not limited to, temperature/energy) and also reactions / stimuli like fear, fighting, hunger (which we could refer as the primitive needs, say), and it aims to appear (prosencephalon needs more divisions) in the 5th week of pregnancy (in the neural tube).

As I read from several scattered sources in the www, like this one, this one regarding pregnancy, and wikipedia.

This is what I'm asking for:

I would like a reference telling, if any, relationships and evolution between the primitive/embryonic process of homeostasis and the fears / survival instinct we experience when we... fear something considering, if available, different degrees of responses since the 5th week of pregnancy AND... say, the first months (or first year) of already-born baby.

I'd expect here:

* That my claim is wrong, undecidable, irrelevant, or with few elements there being true, and WHY / to what extent.
* Reliable source(s) describing this evolution.

# Answer
TLDR: the hypothalamus is involved in fear processing, but not in the way you think.

Wikipedia has a decently sourced article on the hypothalamus and it does play some role in fear processing:

> Fear processing
>
> The medial zone of hypothalamus is part of a circuitry that controls motivated behaviors, like defensive behaviors.\[29\] Analyses of Fos-labeling showed that a series of nuclei in the "behavioral control column" is important in regulating the expression of innate and conditioned defensive behaviors.\[30\]
>
> Antipredatory defensive behavior
>
> Exposure to a predator (such as a cat) elicits defensive behaviors in laboratory rodents, even when the animal has never been exposed to a cat.\[31\] In the hypothalamus, this exposure causes an increase in Fos-labeled cells in the anterior hypothalamic nucleus, the dorsomedial part of the ventromedial nucleus, and in the ventrolateral part of the premammillary nucleus (PMDvl).\[32\] The premammillary nucleus has an important role in expression of defensive behaviors towards a predator, since lesions in this nucleus abolish defensive behaviors, like freezing and flight.\[32\]\[33\] The PMD does not modulate defensive behavior in other situations, as lesions of this nucleus had minimal effects on post-shock freezing scores.\[33\] The PMD has important connections to the dorsal periaqueductal gray, an important structure in fear expression.\[34\]\[35\] In addition, animals display risk assessment behaviors to the environment previously associated with the cat. Fos-labeled cell analysis showed that the PMDvl is the most activated structure in the hypothalamus, and inactivation with muscimol prior to exposure to the context abolishes the defensive behavior.\[32\] Therefore, the hypothalamus, mainly the PMDvl, has an important role in expression of innate and conditioned defensive behaviors to a predator.
>
> Social defeat
>
> Likewise, the hypothalamus has a role in social defeat: Nuclei in medial zone are also mobilized during an encounter with an aggressive conspecific. The defeated animal has an increase in Fos levels in sexually dimorphic structures, such as the medial pre-optic nucleus, the ventrolateral part of ventromedial nucleus, and the ventral premammilary nucleus.\[36\] Such structures are important in other social behaviors, such as sexual and aggressive behaviors. Moreover, the premammillary nucleus also is mobilized, the dorsomedial part but not the ventrolateral part.\[36\] Lesions in this nucleus abolish passive defensive behavior, like freezing and the "on-the-back" posture.\[36\]

Just based on that it's easy overemphasize the importance of the hypothalamus in fear processing; it's actually not that central. If you want the popsci version, then the amygdala gets the center stage in regulating fear. From a review of the "Neuronal circuits for fear and anxiety":

I don't see why the homeostasis circuitry would be involved in fear processing (as you propose), and as far as I can tell, it isn't.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, reference-request, fear
---


# Question
Title: Emotional energy exchange between bodies?
I'm not sure on which platform to ask this question:

Is it possible to exchange emotional energy between two bodies via acts of goodwill? Two examples of acts of goodwill are: Help someone with their groceries, and buy someone a thoughtful gift. Is it possible that in these examples, both bodies gain emotional energy, which both bodies can store and then have the ability to dispatch subsequently to other bodies?

Science has proven that doing an act of goodwill for someone else benefits both parties.

So what if the human network stopped doing acts of goodwill? Would the network suffer in some way? For example, I do know that babies die if they are not held. What if all bodies in the network lost the ability to do acts of goodwill to another?

Would all the babies die?

If so, that would be very dangerous to society, because we would all go extinct. So shouldn't we be looking into this?

> Thanks to the late great David Hawkins, MD, Ph.D., we have proof that emotions have measurable energy and can either foster or negate actual cell life. Dr. Hawkins’s groundbreaking work, as explained in his book Power vs. Force, shows how a person’s log level--the measurable energy level in their magnetic field--increases as that person experiences more positive emotions. Hawkins’s most interesting finding was that cells actually died when the log level was below 200, where the emotions of scorn, hate, anxiety, shame, regret, despair, blame, and humiliation reside. So it’s key to regulate and manage our emotional state, not just for our overall well-being (and that of those around us) but also for our physical health.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecomaford/2018/06/02/emotions-have-energy-what-energy-are-you-sending/#579d0b512545

# Answer
I would not consider David Hawkins to be a credible source. His PhD was from a degree mill that was shut down by court order. He has been flagged by the Cult Education Institute and Quackwatch.

Emotional energy is not quantifiable in a physical sense. Most studies on the subject use a proxy for physical well-being such as vagal tone (Kok et al., 2013) or corrugator EMG/galvanic skin response/etc. (Witvliet et al., 2001). The general consensus of these studies are that forgiveness and pro-social behavior do lower both perceived (patient-described) and physiological markers of stress. That is, that being a pro-social person seems to be actually healthy.

In terms of emotional neglect leading to poor health, the most infamous experiments were performed by psychologist Harry Harlow, which he reported in "The Nature of Love" in 1958. His experiments focused primarily on maternal bonding, demonstrating that infant monkeys will most often choose the comfort of a mother-monkey effigy over food. These studies do seem to indicate that there is something crucial about positive socio-emotional contact that promotes well-being in primates.

Many psychologists and social neuroscientists are researching the effects of pro-social behavior, neglect, and stress. There are scientific journals dedicated to the subject (*viz.* Child Abuse & Neglect).

If you are interested in the question of why everyone doesn't stop behaving in a cooperative manner, there are many papers on the subject. Researchers are indeed looking into the matter:

* Behavioral economists want to understand how collaboration builds economic societies. That is, the balance between pro-social behavior and selfishness that drives economics. (Bowles & Gintis, 1998)
* Sociologists and social policy researchers want to understand the societal effects of neglect, abuse, and cooperation in order to understand the dynamics of large groups of people and to design better policies to improve the well-being of those societies (and the people in them). (Frey & Meier, 2005)
* Evolutionary biologists, psychologists, and social neuroscientists want to understand the biological mechanisms that underlie pro-social behavior and its effects on reproduction and survival. (Lukas et al., 2011) (Frey & Meier, 2004)
* Synthetic biologists and microbiologists are attempting to understand how colonies of bacteria solve these problems in the microbiome, in order to survive and propagate.

<sub> Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1998). The moral economy of communities: Structured populations and the evolution of pro-social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(1), 3-25.
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(1), 65-88.
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2005). Social Comparisons and Pro-Social Behavior. American Economic Review,(forthcoming).
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American psychologist, 13(12), 673.
Kok, B. E., Coffey, K. A., Cohn, M. A., Catalino, L. I., Vacharkulksemsuk, T., Algoe, S. B., ... & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). How positive emotions build physical health: Perceived positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and vagal tone. Psychological science, 24(7), 1123-1132.
Lukas, M., Toth, I., Reber, S. O., Slattery, D. A., Veenema, A. H., & Neumann, I. D. (2011). The neuropeptide oxytocin facilitates pro-social behavior and prevents social avoidance in rats and mice. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(11), 2159-2168.
Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Laan, K. L. V. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological science, 12(2), 117-123.
</sub>
> 7 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, social-psychology, emotion, social-networks
---


# Question
Title: What are the effects of rejection from both parents on a child?
How would rejection from both parents affect a child?

How would they act? what would their personality be like? And the most important question of all: What would help them get rid of or at least lessen these effects?

# Answer
The psychological theory most commonly used to describe these sorts of situations is **Parental Acceptance-Rejection Syndrome**. Most of this research was pioneered by Ronald P. Rohner at the University of Connecticut.

The best book on the subject is probably *New perspectives on family. The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory* by R. Rohner (1986).

Here are some highlights from his research

Rohner & Rohner, 1980

> For example evidence shows that the effects of parental rejection and emotional abuse are not limited simply to individual personality and behavior disorders, but they reach into such abstract domains as the religious beliefs of a people, their art, music, and other expressive behaviors. There now seems to be little doubt that the results of parental rejection as well as the mechanisms which produce or distort parental warmth work uniformly throughout our species, regardless of differences in race, nationality, time or other limiting conditions.

The main difficulty that a child who has experienced total parental rejection will have is an inability to give or receive love. Specifically, because the child has not learned strategies for how to emotionally and socially process unconditional positive regard, they will be at a significant disadvantage should it appear in their life, much like how a child who never learned French will have difficulty learning it as an adult. Children in this scenario tend to hide their emotions. They will, in many cases, cease to try to get affection from people who are important to them. Emotional attachments will inevitably be constrained by emotional constriction, or defensiveness.

> Beyond a certain point, the dependency response may be extinguished or transformed. The seriously rejected child has not learned how to give love, because he has never known a loving parent after whom he can model his own behavior, and for reasons described below, even though he craves affection he has difficulty accepting it. In order to protect himself from more emotional hurt, the rejected child tends to wrap his emotions in cotton, to encyst his emotions. Ultimately he may stop trying to get affection from the people who are important to him. That is, dependency responses disappear. Thus the rejected child becomes emotionally insulated, unable to freely and openly form warm, lasting, intimate relations with others. His attachments tend to be troubled by emotional constriction or defensiveness, and in extreme cases the rejected child may become apathetic or emotionally bland or flat. In addition, as a result of the grave psychological damage brought about by rejection, the rejected child is inclined to have less tolerance for stress and he is therefore likely to be less emotionally stable than those who were accepted as children.

Children who are allowed to express anger without recrimination generally prefer that mode to becoming withdrawn. Totally-rejected children who find violence as an outlet will usually exploit it.

> The rejected child is especially likely to become hostile, aggressive, or passive-aggressive if rejection takes the form of parental hostility. Under these conditions he is provided with an aggressive model to emulate, and thus his own aggressive responses may intensify.

Children who experience total rejection generally see the supernatural, if they believe in it, as a hostile, terrifying force. This includes perceptions of religion.

In general, rejection is experienced, and processed, similarly across all races, nationalities, times, or limiting conditions.

In terms of how to overcome such trauma: Abusive parents tend to live in isolation themselves, cut off from an effective network of friends, family, or other community support. It is sadly quite common for abusive parents to simply be overwhelmed, either with too many children, too little emotional, social, or financial support, or a terrible combination of many of these factors.

Social workers and clinical psychologists are best equipped to handle patients who suffered from such abuses. Providing social services, both physical, tangible benefits (food, shelter, education, healthcare) and intangibles (companionship, romantic love, open and honest communication) do a great deal to help someone who has been abused. The best strategy is unconditional positive regard. That is, to accept and love without judging or feeling a need to dissect, rehash, or understand. This is a sort of ego-less interaction that can be very draining on the provider.

In order for the patterns of behavior that develop from systematic abuse to be ameliorated, the subject must be treated kindly consistently for a long period of time so that the defensive habits can be unlearned.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, parenting
---


title: situations might cause a PTSD

text:
# Question
Title: situations might cause a PTSD
I recently came to realize something which happened almost 10 years back, which I didn't realized then, but upon recollecting the past events I went in to PTSD. But the persons who where involved in that incident didn't consider it to be a big issue.

So my questions are, How long after the incident will PTSD happen?

And what incidents can be categorized as an traumatic incident ?

What situations might cause a PTSD for a person ?

# Answer
> 0 votes
In the clinical definition, PTSD is a psychological disorder that develops in some people after a trauma. Interestingly, not every traumatized person develops chronic (ongoing) or acute (short-term) PTSD, nor has every person who develops PTSD gone through a dangerous event. The 'trauma' in the name can refer to events as diverse as hearing about a traumatic event from another person or seeing it on TV, or the death of a loved one (even if you weren't there).

The most important parts of diagnosing any mental illness are (a) is it causing suffering (either to the patient or other people), (b) it is statistically significant (is it unusual for the culture of the patient).

In the case of PTSD, it is enough that they are suffering for the clinician to look further.

PTSD usually occurs within 3 months of the incident, but some people develop symptoms after more than a year. Most people recover within 6 months, but others have long-term chronic symptoms.

To be diagnosed, a patient must have a constellation of varied symptoms. The ICD-10 and the DSM-5 describe the most common diagnostic criteria used today.

The best plan for a clinician is generally to develop a holistic outlook that takes into account the dynamics of the patient's case rather than to try to pigeonhole the patient into diagnostic criteria. Someone who experienced a traumatic event and has residual anxiety and depression may or may not be diagnostic with PTSD. PTSD, under the DSM-5 criteria, must include one re-experiencing symptom, one avoidance symptom, two arousal and reactivity symptoms, and two cognition and mood symptoms.

Since the treatment most commonly indicated for PTSD is anti-depressants/sleep aids and psychotherapy, which are also the treatments for many other mental illnesses, the particular diagnosis is less important than the welfare of the patient. PTSD patients can also benefit from exposure therapy and cognitive restructuring.

The US National Institute of Mental Health has a good introductory article on the subject.

---
Tags: ptsd
---


# Question
Title: Connection between sociosexual orientation and parental instincts?
According to wikipedia:

> Sociosexual orientation, or sociosexuality, is the individual difference in the willingness to engage in sexual activity outside of a committed relationship. Individuals with a more restricted sociosexual orientation are less willing to engage in casual sex; they prefer greater love, commitment and emotional closeness before having sex with romantic partners. Individuals who have a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation are more willing to have casual sex and are more comfortable engaging in sex without love, commitment or closeness.

The same page suggests there are many connections with others traits. But there is no info on parenting traits.

Do individuals with less restricted sociosexual orientation on average have weaker parental instincts?

By parental instincts I mean the desire to have and grow children, the ability of being better parents, etc. This may mean that individuals who want to have more sexual partners are also more inclined to have children and are worse in doing it.

Is there any study confirming or rejecting it?

# Answer
There's not much research on this, but one study I found Kruger (2017) found no significant relationship between parenting effort and the usual measure of sociosexuality (SOI):
> 1 votes

---
Tags: reference-request, personality, sexuality, parenting, preferences
---


title: Effectiveness of "non-focused" learning

text:
# Question
Title: Effectiveness of "non-focused" learning
Is anything known how effective is "non-focused" learning. For example when I am focused on something else (watching TV, doing work in the office) while listening to language learning material (words and phrases and their translations for example). Or playing scales on your guitar while watching TV (okay, seem to be more invovled then merely listening, but I guess you get the idea).

So is there anything known about that, or any studies on that?

*EDIT*: I do not have found any studies, mainly because I do not know what to search for, googling terms like "non-focused learning", "passive learning", "distractive learning" do not give anything useful. I have a minor in psychology and if I see a study I can relate it to what I am looking for, but I am not a researcher in psychology. So this question came up out of curiosity of my own (and to be honest, its quite practical if possible to learn something by "not even trying" to say in lax language). I know about the 10k rule of expertise, and they always talk about "deliberate practice", obviously the kind of practice I am looking for is not deliberate, but maybe someone asked if its still beneficial, even if on a much smaller scale. I would suspect that it is not difficult to design studies for it, just let people perform some task, tell them its the main task, then do some distraction in the background (which is the supposed learning content, melodies, words whatever). Then afterwards (obviously to the surprise of the subject) ask question about that your let it perform a task to access gained knowledge.

# Answer
I think this is a somewhat controversial area of research. On one hand

> Participants were asked to predict the weather after receiving a repeated set of cues. During part of the learning, researchers added a second task where participants had to keep a running mental count of high tones that they heard, thus adding an element of distraction.
>
> The results showed that when doing single-task learning, the brain used the region associated with declarative memory, while the habit memory region was associated with dual-task learning.
>
> The dual-task learning did not affect the participants' ability to predict weather at the time, but it reduced their knowledge about the task during a follow-up session later.

On the other:

> Psychologists know that the things we learn in one context might not be remembered in another. Famously, investigators once showed that words learned while scuba diving are easier to recall underwater than on dry land. Now Brown University psychologists suggest something similar happens with distraction. The researchers trained 48 people to hit a computer-screen target using a wonky touch pad—tracing up, for example, might move the cursor diagonally—and later evaluated them on their ability to quickly hit the mark. During both training and the test, participants were randomly selected to do a distracting second task: counting letters on a screen. Those distracted during just one phase performed poorly when tested, but those who had done the letter-counting task during both training and testing performed just as well as those who had trained and been tested without distractions, according to the results published in February in Psychological Science.
>
> The consensus remains that distraction is typically bad for learning, the scientists explain. But if you anticipate a distracting testing or performance environment, try to mimic those distractions as you study or practice to avoid being caught off guard.

So distractors are generally bad, but not always.

There's even more controversy whether background music helps or doesn't with school activities or learning other stuff.
> 1 votes

# Answer
In the past, I have ran into something similar while just looking for self help links related to attention deficit disorder. While I am unable to find the exact explanation I saw, I believe it was related to split-attention or selective attention. The bit I saw described the mechanisms in the brain involved in filtering information. While attempting to relocate what I had seen previously, I found an article that might be related to your inquiry: The role of selective attention on academic foundations: A cognitive neuroscience perspective
> 1 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, learning, educational-psychology, multi-tasking
---


# Question
Title: Recommended resources (journals, blogs, etc) for nurturing a background of statistical/methodological rigour in behavioural science research?
**Background** :

There seems to considerable debate regarding the output of psychological research lacking

a) appropriate, rigourous statistical treatment of data b) replicability

As a second year undergrad psych student, it's one of my biggest fears that my future research might be marred by my lack of knowledge in the above two.

---

**What I am asking for in this post:**

I would like reading suggestions in the form of journals, blogs, textbooks or even specific paper/articles that may lead me to other resources. My aim is to develop a sound background in stats/methodology to avoid making embarrassing errors. I feel like it's important to mention my current mathematical level so that suggestions may be easier to make: I'm comfortable with univariate calculus and basics of differential equations, introductory probability theory and high school (done in South Asia) algebra and geometry.

---

**Extra:**

I have read this post on psychology.stackexchange regarding replicability and found it to be helpful.

Please let me know if I must edit this post in order to receive fruitful answers.

# Answer
> 5 votes
There are various loosely-defined 'camps' among reform-minded methodologists, so you probably want to try to follow a representative of each.

Andrew Gelman is a prominent landmark in this area, and runs a really nice frequently-updated blog at statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu with frequent paper critiques.

The JASP crew also have a blog, https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/ which is a bit on the aggressive side, but JASP is great and it'll point you to things like the recent 'redefine statistical significance' paper, which will give you plenty to talk about if you run into a methods guru on their coffee break.

You might also enjoy http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/ and the author Daniel Lakens has a Coursera MOOC on this sort of thing. To be sure, there are a ton of good stats MOOCS, just this one happens to be by a psychologist with similar concerns to you :-)

This is a short list but I think it cuts across the camps I'm aware of (I'd love to know more about the camps in methodology myself, maybe some other StackExchange folks have some pointers!) My impression is that at minimum you should try to read someone who solves their problems with parameter estimation and cares about S and M errors (Gelman, Kruschke), someone who solves their problems with model selection and cares about Bayes Factors (EJ Wagenmakers 2018 "Bayes factor design analysis" maybe?), and someone who is happy to be frequentist so long as you're super careful about the interpretation (Lakens, I think? Or, like, most of statistics? Efron's awesome feats of bootstrapping are a great antidote to Wagenmakers' extreme takedowns of everything frequentist).

In my particular corner of psychology, Stan is taking over the world, if that's interesting to you you might get some good mileage out of http://elevanth.org/blog/ I reckon upwards of 20 people recommended the 'rethinking' textbook to me, and they were right! It's pretty great.

---
Tags: methodology, statistics
---


# Question
Title: Dutch RCT of mindfulness therapy vs methylphenidate in ADHD
Meppelink et al. (2016) note that

> The effectiveness of mindfulness training for children and adolescents with ADHD has been demonstrated by a number of studies; however, research in this field is limited by a lack of randomised controlled clinical trials with large samples, standardised formats of mindfulness training and objective measures. Further assessment of mindfulness training for childhood ADHD is, therefore, needed. A randomised controlled trial, which compares mindfulness training for ADHD with methylphenidate, is currently being conducted in the Netherlands.

Has this resulting study been published since then?

# Answer
This is the protocol study referred to:

https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12888-016-0978-3

The trial only remained in a planned state:

http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4206

For people interested in mindfulness in ADHD I would like to mention the main evidences ***(I HAVE ORDINATED BY DATE)***:

Zylowska, L., Ackerman, D., Yang, M., Futrell, J., Horton, N., & Hale, T. et al. (2007). Mindfulness Meditation Training in Adults and Adolescents With ADHD: A Feasibility Study. Journal Of Attention Disorders, 11, 737-746.

Smalley, S. L., Loo, S. K., Hale, T., Shrestha, A., McGough, J., Flook, L., & Reise, S. (2009). Mindfulness and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(10), 1087-1098.

Singh, N. N., Singh, A. N., Lancioni, G. E., Singh, J., Winton, A. S., W., & Adkins, A. D. (2010). Mindfulness training for parents and their children with ADHD increases the children's compliance. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(2), 157-166.

van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Formsma, A., de Bruin, E., & Bögels, S. (2011). The Effectiveness of Mindfulness Training on Behavioral Problems and Attentional Functioning in Adolescents with ADHD. Journal Of Child And Family Studies, 21, 775-787.

van der Oord, S., Bögels, S., & Peijnenburg, D. (2011). The Effectiveness of Mindfulness Training for Children with ADHD and Mindful Parenting for their Parents. Journal Of Child And Family Studies, 21, 139-147.

Carboni, J. A., Roach, A. T., & Fredrick, L. D. (2013). Impact of mindfulness training on the behavior of elementary students with attentiondeficit/ hyperactive disorder. Research in Human Development, 10(3), 234-251.

Mitchell, J., McIntyre, E., English, J., Dennis, M., Beckham, J., & Kollins, S. (2013). A Pilot Trial of Mindfulness Meditation Training for ADHD in Adulthood: Impact on Core Symptoms, Executive Functioning, and Emotion Dysregulation. Journal Of Attention Disorders.

Edel, M., Holter, T., Wassink, K., & Juckel, G. (2014). A Comparison of Mindfulness- Based Group Training and Skills Group Training in Adults With ADHD: An Open Study. Journal Of Attention Disorders.

Schoenberg, P., Hepark, S., Kan, C., Barendregt, H., Buitelaar, J., & Speckens, A. (2014). Effects of mindfulnessbased cognitive therapy on neurophysiological correlates of performance monitoring in adult attentiondeficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Clinical Neurophysiology, 125, 1407-1416.

Bueno, V., Kozasa, E., da Silva, M., Alves, T., Louzã, M., & Pompéia, S. (2015). Mindfulness Meditation Improves Mood, Quality of Life, and Attention in Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1-14. doi:10.1155/2015/962857

Haydicky, J., Shecter, C., Wiener, J., & Ducharme, J. M. (2015). Evaluation of MBCT for adolescents with ADHD and their parents: Impact on individual and family functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(1), 76-94.

Janssen, L., Kan, C. C., Carpentier, P. J., Sizoo, B., Hepark, S., Grutters, J., & Speckens, A. E. (2015). Mindfulness based cognitive therapy versus treatment as usual in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). BMC Psychiatry, 15(1), 216.

Lo, H. H., Wong, S. Y., Wong, J. Y., Wong, S. W., & Yeung, J. W. (2016). The effect of a family-based mindfulness intervention on children with attention deficit and hyperactivity symptoms and their parents: design and rationale for a randomized, controlled clinical trial (Study protocol). BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 65.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: reference-request, adhd, mindfulness
---


# Question
Title: What is a "psychological evaluation" for kids?
What does a psychological evaluation consist of for pre-teens and adolescents?

I work with a child who has been abused (physically and emotionally) who is having suicidal ideations with one parent, but is also having problems with the "good" parent who is also supposedly making them feel like they don't like the other parent (which I don't think is actually true). The authorities have come in and determined that the child needs a "psychological evaluation" and I'm trying to understand what's going on here.

# Answer
First, they must assess whether intervention is necessary in a episode of acute crisis.

http://psychiatryonline.org/pb/assets/raw/sitewide/practice\_guidelines/guidelines/suicide.pdf

Subsequently, the evaluation that must be carried out by an expert aims to determine the psychological impact in the present, if it is advisable to follow up and that possible implications would take place in the future.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/assessment.aspx
> 1 votes

---
Tags: test, depression
---


# Question
Title: What are the main differences between gestalt therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy?
Can someone explain the main differences in an easy to understand way between gestalt therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy?

Which is better suitable in which situations? I read some articles online but I still don't have a clear picture.

# Answer
> 1 votes
In a very elementary and basic way Cognitive Behavioral Therapy focuses on mental **schemas** and **behavior modification techniques**.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema\_(psychology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_behavioral\_therapy

In the formulation of the case the professional analyzes how attitudes, behavioral dispositions, behavior and the interpretations of all this are related to the different problems and disorders.

You can find numerous information about this so I will try some differentiations of Gestalt therapy.

I would emphasize first that Gestalt therapy maintains a greater link with therapies close to **emotions** or where a therapy must have special consideration of emotional processes, this feature is easy to see at first, and in his theory some develop principles to analyze emotions, his theory considers what, how, why of those emotions, in this way become important **goals** and **objectives** that represent important factors of emotional and behavioral change.

Some features commented very briefly:

* **Awareness** and **responsibility** (initially could be considered similar to locus of control): The immediate **holistic experience** is considered, this means that are considered perceptions, sensations, feelings, thoughts and wishes or intentions, it is about going a little further beyond simple words or superficial conversations, it is about what the person thinks and does but also about what they feel, how they perceive certain situations or how they interpret them.
* Concept of **self** (this theory of Rogers is well known: self-worth, self-image, ideal-self) considering a holistic perspective or integrated cognitive but emotional, motivational and relational or social system, which perceives, evaluates, experiences and that is related to behavioral tendencies and manifest behavior about the environment. For example, not only what is done but what is wanted to do or intentions or make small changes to the behavior are considered.
* The attention to the **present moment** is prioritized, the professional and the client during the sessions work in a direct way with the problems, not with the words about the problem, that is, in therapy they working all the aspects involved in the problem while the problem manifests.
* A **therapeutic relationship** style close to Client-Centered Therapy, for example working from a style where the professional only directs to the client in front of a style of authoritarian expert.

Finally, it is very important to highlight the evidences of Gestalt Therapy that are sometimes ignored as in the case of humanistic-experiential therapies and there is also an important publication bias, one of the most important documents from which follow the evidences of this therapy is this chapter released or freely accessible:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/110659465.pdf

Elliott, R., Watson, J., Greenberg, L.S., Timulak, L., & Freire, E. (2013). Research on humanistic-experiential psychotherapies. In M.J. Lambert, Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 495-538). New York: Wiley.

---
Tags: therapy, cbt, gestalt-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Why is solo dancing not as popular as contra and partner dancing?
I have been to dance lessons. They only taught partner dancing and cobtra dancing. No solo dancing was taught at all. In Sweden where I'm from solo dancing is kind of unpopular. In music on the other hand you have both solo and ensemble being popular. What are some psychological theories that speak about this in some way or another? And what theories are generally accepted as scientific.

# Answer
Should be something associated with Courtship Display. Not entirely sure if this explains entire thing fully. There might be some other factors.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Is there a region of the brain that mediates pain in a manner reminiscent of the mesolimbic pathway?
The mesolimbic dopamine pathway is a common neural pathway upon which rewards converge AKA the pleasure pathway.

So I am trying to find a comparable pathway in the brain for pain -- is there such a thing? Ideally, one where a probe could be inserted and stimulated to induce intractable pain in the victim. Is there anything reminiscent of the mesolimbic pathway but for pain, perhaps with some sort of somatosensory mapping?

What you never thought about using Deep Brain Stimulation to torture someone before?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Based on the most recent (all post-2009) research, it seems to be the same general pathway, just with different gradients in the same areas of the brain. From Taylor et al. (2016):

> Recent studies suggest that dopamine neurons in the VTA \[ventral tegmental area\] and SN \[substantia nigra\] form a heterogeneous population tuned to either (or both) aversive or rewarding stimuli.
>
> The heterogeneity of dopamine neurons in response to aversive and rewarding stimuli suggests that they serve unique functional roles. Cells activated by reward and inhibited by punishment are well suited to code motivational valence, whereas neurons activated by both rewarding and punishing stimuli are likely to code motivational salience \[stimulus awareness\]. Neurons coding motivational valence \[whether the stimulus is positive or negative in value\] would provide a signal for reward seeking, evaluation, and value learning, in line with current theories on the role of dopamine in reward processing. In contrast, neurons coding motivational salience would provide a signal for detection and prediction of highly important events independent of valence, pursuant to dopamine's role in salience processing. These distinct aspects of dopamine neurotransmission might be neuroanatomically separate: dopaminergic neurons coding motivational valence have been found more commonly in the ventromedial SN and lateral VTA with projections to nucleus accumbens \[NAc\] shell, whereas neurons coding motivational salience are more often reported in the dorsolateral SN with projections to the nucleus accumbens core.

The primary evidence for this updated view seems mostly based (in order of the number of citations) on 3 papers:

---

The part of your question that probably confused Alice and also confuses me a little is that you also ask (in your final paragraph) about somatosensory mapping. The latter doesn't generally involve tracing any pathways beyond the sensory areas of the brain, e.g. for macaques

Also such maps are not totally fixed as there is some use-dependent plasticity.

---
Tags: neuroscience, neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, electrophysiology, pain
---


# Question
Title: Is "havening" pseudo-scientific or effective?
A fairly recent answer here offering havening as a therapy has only upvotes. But a quick internet search found a rather brief and contested Wikipedia page alleging havening is pseudo-scientific.

So what's the status of this technique/therapy in psychology? E.g are there meta-analyses showing that it's effective? And how is the quality of primary research assessed in this area? E.g. is the sub-field reasonably free of publication bias (which nowadays is also assessed in the better-off meta-analyses)?

# Answer
First off, I am not familiar with this therapy. There seems to be 251 hits on Scholar (excluding citations and patents) at the time of this writing with a search for "Havening Technique'. Of these 251, there seems to be one single journal article from Gursimran *et al*. (2015). The publisher of this 'journal', *i.e.* the *Health Science Journal* (Insight Medical Publishing) is listed on Baell's list and hence a suspected predatory publisher.

In all, this Havening technique can safely be considered as a technique that has not been described in the scientific literature.

I am deliberately leaving out the reference to the paper, as I regard it a source, not a reference
> 2 votes

---
Tags: therapy
---


# Question
Title: Can addiction develop to the absence of a normally present negative stimulus?
I am wondering, can someone become addicted to the absence or the removal of a negative stimulus? Normally, addiction is associated with pleasure-inducing drugs, like opiates and amphetamines as notorious examples. These compounds induce massive release of dopamine in the limbic system, ultimately leading to addiction. Addiction is a collection of behaviors:

> Addiction is characterized by **inability to consistently abstain**, **impairment in behavioral control**, **craving**, **diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships**, and a **dysfunctional emotional response**. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission.

It is known that training can be assisted by positive reinforcement (well done! here's a candy), or by negative reinforcement (wrong! here's an electroshock). Can addiction be caused by either? In other words, suppose someone is constantly aware of something unpleasant (pain, itching, unwanted perceptions such as tinnitus (ringing in the ears), negative emotions or thoughts) **can the removal/lessening of such a stimulus lead to an addiction of the means to remove it?**

For the sake of the question I think it is sufficient to focus the question on one (*e.g.*, *craving*), or several of the symptoms, as existing studies, if any, may have focused on only one or few of the symptoms of addiction.

In short: **are there studies on the addiction to the absence / removal of a negative stimulus**?

This question was fueled by the comments to an earlier question

# Answer
> 1 votes
In short, the answer to your question

> can someone become addicted to the absence or the removal of a negative stimulus?

is most definitely yes.

Whilst **not intended to be used as “diagnostic criteria”** for determining if addiction is present or not, the characteristics of addiction provided through the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) are widely present in most cases of addiction, and gives an outline of the mechanism required for what you could be talking about, and therefore your hypothesis definitely has legs. You only have to look at alcoholism as an example.

The mechanism works through positive reinforcement, which as you put it, *"Well done! here's a candy"* in which the "candy", as you will see below, can be pain relief.

The same ASAM link you gave also points out that

> Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry.

Although experimental studies have produced mixed results, there has been a long-standing belief in the analgesic properties of alcohol and a meta-analysis of controlled experimental studies conducted by Thompson et al. (2016) found that alcohol has the ability to provide a sense of relief from pain.

> * Alcohol resulted in a small increase in pain threshold.
> * A moderate-large decrease in pain ratings was also observed.
> * Higher blood alcohol content is associated with greater analgesia.
> * Analgesic effects may contribute to alcohol dependence in those with persistent pain.

Alcohol is also a big problem amongst many seeking help from severe stress, depression and/or anxiety through negative urgency which is correlated with greater caudate nucleus activity to alcohol cues (Chester, et al. 2016).

This is because, as pointed out by Sharot (2012)

> The caudate nucleus is one of the major targets for the brain’s dopaminergic system (Wise & Rompre, 1989). Dopamine is a principal neuromodulator for reward learning and reward-seeking behaviour (Bayer & Glimcher, 2005; Belin & Everitt, 2008; Schultz, 2001). In particular, dopamine is suggested to signal predictions of rewards, and errors in such prediction–providing a learning signal when predictions do not align with outcomes (Montague, Hymann & Cohen, 2004; Schultz, 2001, 2007).

Through the dependency on the false friend called Alcohol, there is the **inability to consistently abstain** from seeking relief from pain (emotional or physical) which is **part** of the **impairment in behavioural control**. The feelings of escape from physical pain or the emotional attachment to life's hardships, after a while, can lead to **craving** for the same feeling, either to remove the returning pain, or to prevent its return.

**Diminished recognition of significant problems with their behaviours and interpersonal relationships** forms another part of the **impairment in behavioural control** and can arise from this constant "need" for an alcoholic drink, and **dysfunctional emotional responses** develop.

## References

Chester, D. S., Lynam, D. R., Milich, R., & DeWall, C. N. (2016). Craving versus control: Negative urgency and neural correlates of alcohol cue reactivity. *Drug and alcohol dependence*, 163, S25-S28. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.10.036

Sharot, T. (2012). Chapter 3 - Predicting Emotional Reactions: Mechanisms, Bias and Choice. In R. Dolan & T. Sharot (Ed.), Neuroscience of Preference and Choice (pp. 53-72). Academic Press doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381431-9.00003-6

Thompson, T., Oram, C., Correll, C. U., Tsermentseli, S., & Stubbs, B. (2017). Analgesic effects of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled experimental studies in healthy participants. *The Journal of Pain*, 18(5), 499-510. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.11.009

# Answer
> 1 votes
I think this involves more a discussion of what addiction is (or how it's conceptualized) rather than anything about the neuroscience of rewards and aversion.

I think it's uncontroversial that "typical" humans can experience both appetitive and aversive conditioning (Andreatta and Pauli, 2015). However, the issue is that addiction is not merely that, e.g. your definition mentions "diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships".

A recent study (Myers et al., 2017) of addicts on methadone maintenance found that

> On the initial training phase, both groups performed similarly on learning to obtain reward, but as memory load grew, the control group outperformed the addicted group on learning to avoid punishment.

This seems to suggest that people who are addicted don't just like some reward excessively, but perhaps (more interestingly) also fail to dislike enough the negative (aversive) effects of that stimulus. (This is not necessarily the most clear-cut study, because the addicts were not drug-free.) But if you want the dual of this notion inversing the roles of reward and aversion, it would have to be people who don't get enough reward from a positive stimulus, so the dual of addiction in this sense would be anhedonia. And not surprisingly anhedonia is a result of exposure to too much aversive stimuli, e.g. it's a feature of PTSD (Olson et al., 2017). But my take is also a bit simplistic, because anhedonia is also exhibited by drug addicts particularly in withdrawal (Hatzigiakoumis et al., 2011).

---

Regarding the question update

> In other words, suppose someone is constantly aware of something unpleasant (pain, itching, unwanted perceptions such as tinnitus (ringing in the ears), negative emotions or thoughts) can the removal/lessening of such a stimulus lead to an addiction of the means to remove it?

If we exclude the obvious physical-dependence drugs like opioids, we're still left with a notion of "medication overuse headache", which apparently can be caused by aspirin or acetaminophen:

> In order to emphasise the regular intake of drugs as the basis of this form of headache, the new name “medication-overuse headache” (MOH) has now been introduced into the International Headache Society’s classification from 2004. \[...\]
>
> There is now substantial evidence that all drugs used for the treatment of headache can cause MOH in patients with primary headache disorders. The use of drugs that lead to chronic MOH varies substantially from country to country and is influenced by cultural factors. In many patients it is difficult to identify a single causal substance, because 90% of patients take more than one compound at a time and each component of antimigraine drugs might induce headache. This has been shown even for substances such as aspirin and paracetamol.

(As you probably know, even aspirin or acetaminophen have potential negative effects, e.g. bleeding or kidney damage, respectively).

And while it may seem that MOH has nothing to do with addiction, some have suggested otherwise, e.g. a more recent (2017) review:

> In line with the concept that patients with MOH share similar characteristics to persons with addiction \[Cupini, 2010\], some authors have suggested that mechanisms involved in dependence processes also apply to MOH \[Fumal, 2006\].

Obviously this is not quite a settled piece of science.

---

Beyond medication for intrinsic pain, you'd have to consider torture and what people would do gain relief from that. Apparently almost anything:

> Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent with considerable experience interrogating al-Qaeda operatives, pointed out in Time that:
>
> > When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless.
>
> He isn't alone in this assessment – a number of former intelligence people have expressed similar views, and his words are echoed by the US Army Training Manual's section on interrogation, which suggests that:
>
> > …the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

Surely saying anything is some kind of "impairment in behavioral control" (from the definition of addiction you gave), but it would be hard to find \[published\] scientific studies on torture nowadays (and I'm not talking about studies on after-effects).

---
Tags: neuroscience, addiction
---


# Question
Title: What's the psychological reason for the fascination with gossiping or scandalous life?
Why do people find fascination in a tabloid magazine, paparazzi magazine, gossiping or whether prince and kings are dating or not or if actors, actresses, singers having any scandalous affairs or not?

I find gossiping similar to character assassination.

I have no business in their lives.

So what's the psychological reason for the fascination with gossiping or scandalous life?

# Answer
> 4 votes
Only evolutionary psychology seems to have something to say about the "why" here. And (somewhat predictably) the hypothesis advanced has something to do with social information in ever larger groups:

> From Dunbar's evolutionary theories, gossip originated to help bond the groups that were constantly growing in size. To survive, individuals need alliances; but as these alliances grew larger, it was difficult if not impossible to physically connect with everyone. Conversation and language were able to bridge this gap. Gossip became a social interaction that helped the group gain information about other individuals without personally speaking to them. It enabled people to keep up with what was going on in their social network. It also creates a bond between the teller and the hearer, as they share information of mutual interest and spend time together. It also helps the hearer learn about another individual’s behavior and helps them have a more effective approach to their relationship. Dunbar (2004) found that 65% of conversations consist of social topics.
>
> Dunbar (1994) argues that gossip is the equivalent of social grooming often observed in other primate species. Anthropological investigations indicate that gossip is a cross-cultural phenomenon, providing evidence for evolutionary accounts of gossip.

FYI: depending who you ask, it's a social skill and not a character flaw.

> When disparaging gossip, we overlook the fact that it’s an essential part of what makes the social world tick; the nasty side of gossip overshadows the more benign ways in which it functions. \[...\]
>
> In the workplace, studies have shown that harmless gossiping with one’s colleagues can build group cohesiveness and boost morale.
>
> On the flip side, the awareness that others are likely talking about us can keep us in line.
>
> Studies of California cattle ranchers, Maine lobster fishers and college rowing teams confirm that gossip is used in a variety of settings to hold individuals accountable. In each of these groups, individuals who violated expectations about sharing resources or meeting responsibilities became targets of gossip and ostracism. This, in turn, pressured them to become better members of the group.
>
> For example, lobstermen who didn’t respect well-established group norms about when and how lobsters could be harvested were quickly exposed by their colleagues. Their fellow lobstermen temporarily shunned them and, for a while, refused to work with them.
>
> Belgian psychologist Charlotte de Backer makes a distinction between strategy learning gossip and reputation gossip.
>
> Indeed, de Backer discovered that our interest in celebrities may feed off of this \[latter\] thirst for learning life strategies. For better or for worse, we look to celebrities in the same way that our ancestors looked to role models within their tribes for guidance. \[...\] From an evolutionary standpoint, “celebrity” is a recent phenomenon, due primarily to the explosion of mass media in the 20th century. Our ancestors, on the other hand, found social importance in the intimate details of everyone‘s private life, since everyone in their small social world mattered. \[...\]
>
> \[Additionally, in a highly mobile, industrial society\] Because of the familiarity we feel with celebrities, they can serve an important social function: they may be the only “friends” we have in common with new neighbors and coworkers. They’re shared cultural touchstones that facilitate the types of informal interactions that help people become comfortable in new surroundings. Keeping up with the lives of actors, politicians and athletes can make a person more socially adept during interactions with strangers and even offer inroads into new relationships.

I.e., it's a matter of degree and content whether it greases the wheels of society enough to make them spin well (rather than slip).

A couple of peered-reviewed refs for the latter quote (from that research group):

* De Backer, C., Nelissen, M., Vyncke, P., Braeckman, J. & McAndrew, F. (2007). Celebrities: From Teachers to Friends. A Test of Two Hypotheses on the Adaptiveness of Celebrity Gossip. Human Nature, 18(4), 334-354. (IF2007: 1.814)
* De Backer, C. J., Larson, C., Fisher, M. L., McAndrew, F. T., & Rudnicki, K. (2016). When Strangers Start to Gossip: Investigating the Effect of Gossip on Cooperation in a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1-10.

The latter paper concludes that:

> gossip may spark initial relations, yet is insufficient to ignite a social bond sustained by cooperative action among complete strangers.

And the former:

> The Learning Hypothesis explains interest in celebrity gossip as a by-product of an evolved mechanism useful for acquiring fitness-relevant survival information. The Parasocial Hypothesis sees celebrity gossip as a diversion of this mechanism, which leads individuals to misperceive celebrities as people who are part of their social network. Using two preliminary studies, we tested our predictions. \[...\] In support of the Learning Hypothesis, age proved to be a strong predictor of interest in celebrities. In partial support of the Parasocial Hypothesis, media exposure, but not social isolation, was a strong predictor of interest in celebrities. The preliminary results support both theories, indicate that across our life span celebrities move from being teachers to being friends

---
Tags: developmental-psychology, compulsive
---


title: Do most people want to murder?

text:
# Question
Title: Do most people want to murder?
It seems like the most popular theory among philosophers and neuroscientists who believe in free will is something called **free won’t**. This basically means that we cannot *will* what we want to will, but we have the power to *veto* a thought that our brain has produced.

This would mean that a person who is about to murder another person should have the power to veto pulling the trigger- but if they don’t, then they should be held morally responsible because they didn’t use their *free won’t* power.

Now, I don’t think about murdering people, but I might be a weirdo. **Do most people want to murder other people, but they use their *free won’t* to refrain- so that they should be praised for their *self-control*?**

# Answer
\[Just addressing your title question:\] supposedly so, but there isn't a lot of data on this. One of David Buss' students has this in his PhD thesis:

> participants from the Austin community completed a survey instrument that asked a series of questions about their most memorable fantasy of killing someone else. Seventy-six percent of women and 91 percent of men reported having at least one homicidal thought in their lifetime. The person both men and women most frequently thought of killing was an intrasexual rival. The majority of homicidal fantasies involved the murder of someone who was not a genetic relative. Men were significantly more likely than women to have a murder fantasy triggered by a romantic partner’s infidelity. Women were more likely than men think of killing a rival who damaged their sexual reputation. These and other findings were predicted in advance by Homicide Adaptation Theory \[HAT\] (Buss & Duntley, under review).

As you can probably tell, their angle is evolutionary psychology; they don't care about any free will debates, it seems. I could easily find a criticism of HAT by Durrant (2009), which cites several works of Duntley and Buss on this; the latest cited in there being:

* Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The origins of homicide. In J. D. Duntley, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary forensic psychology: Darwinian foundations of crime and law (pp. 41−64). Oxford: Oxford University Press

A more recent paper Reynolds & McCrea (2017) summarizes a few of the older studies on prevalence:

> Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research on homicide fantasies, with most of the research historically focused on criminals or the pathological \[...\] This tells us little about the psychology process of homicide in typical individuals. Kenrick and Sheets (1993) conducted two studies with college students as subjects to address just this limitation. In the first study, participants were asked about their most recent homicide fantasy, and in the second study participants were asked about their homicide fantasies in several contexts. Results indicated that the majority of participants did have at least one fantasy, with males recalling more homicide fantasies (e.g., 73% vs. 66% in Study 1), and males reporting longer and more detailed fantasies. Results were interpreted as supporting evolutionary explanations for homicide like the byproduct hypothesis.
>
> Crabb (2000) also found that homicide thoughts were common in normal undergraduates. Crabb investigated homicidal thoughts and the weapons used in these fantasies. Similar to Crabb, Kenrick and Sheets (1993) explicitly asked undergraduates questions concerning their thoughts about killing someone. Replicating previous research, most participants admitted to a homicide fantasy. Results also indicated that homicide fantasies were preceded by a threatening interpersonal event and involved weapons like firearms, knives, and clubs, rather than weapons like hands and feet. The evidence was interpreted as supporting the existence of evolved psychological mechanisms able to associate material–cultural implements, like firearms, with aggressive actions and to rehearse this through fantasy. These studies are important as they demonstrate that homicide fantasies are common and unlikely the result of pathological processes. Furthermore, they support evolutionary explanations for homicide like the by-product hypothesis and homicide adaptation theory.

Reynolds & McCrea's study tried to elicit subjects to spontaneously think of murder by providing them with some typical contexts in which murders occur, but they weren't terribly successful at this: less than 5% of participants reported such cued homicidal thoughts, although many more reported violent thoughts.
> 5 votes

# Answer
This is a very interesting question.

I think that there are many both conscious and unconscious factors that determine destructive behavior. The conflict between the id and super-ego (mediated by ego) can, at some level, be understood as a conflict between needs and social norms. Murder seems to be universally accepted as "bad behavior" so it must be coded both on the conscious and unconscious level in our psyche, therefore, I assume the wide majority of people try to combat destructive impulses with defense mechanisms.

Here is a set of questions you can toy with:

* When would your evolutionary ancestor murder someone?
* When is it okay to murder someone? Why?
* What behavioral and mental changes you'd have to undergo to become the evilest person you know of?

Jordan Peterson does quite a good job describing what leads to resentfulness and how can it manifest itself in the world in his biblical series. / Short clip about him discussing hell.

Jungian concept - Shadow \- is also an attempt to articulate evil aspects of a human being which is worth exploring. Especially because Jung stressed the importance of getting to known your own shadow. In other words, incorporating the evilest aspects of your personality and learning how to live with it properly.

One of the things that are common among rape victims and soldiers who develop PTSD is the naivety and inexperience prior to the accident of evil. Peterson and other psychologists hypothesized that PTSD can be a shock effect upon realization of the depth of the evil within self or within another human being.

Based on this, I'd say that almost all people have thought about murdering someone at least once, however, have stopped / didn't behave destructively. I'd go further and say that the wide majority of people at a certain point of their lives have fantasized about murdering someone and enjoyed that fantasy.

Based on my personal experience and practice, I'd say murder impulses, desires and fantasies are a very good self-improvement tool that one can use to understand the deep nature of their own personality. Murder correlates with some aspects of our personality. Assumption #1: those personality traits (for example narcissistic features) have to do with the evolutionary survival patterns that can, in some sense, be useful. However, there must be a trigger behind extremes - assumption #2: those triggers are subtle and very hard to notice. So, if one can trace the link between feature and trigger they can improve their lives.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: moral-psychology, self-control, free-will
---


# Question
Title: Correlation between anxiety disorders and PTSD
The mega study on the genetic correlations of psychiatric (and neurological) disorders published in Science this summer has one interesting non-correlation: between anxiety disorders and PTSD.

Are the two (anxiety disorders and PTSD) correlated epidemiologically though? If so, is there a good explanation for the lack of genetic correlation?

# Answer
# TLDR

The DSM-5 recognises the epidemiology of anxiety within PTSD, and the reason for the lack of genetic correlation is the fact that in PTSD, the anxiety is exogenous (environmental) rather than endogenous (biological via genes or other means).

# The debate

The DSM-5, is the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders written by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2013).

As highlighted by Fizz,

> surprisingly, it looks like \[the classification of PTSD\] is not just a naming issue. It looks like there was a big brouhaha about moving PTSD out of anxiety disorders in DSM-5 (Pai, Suris, & North 2017).

Changes to the diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV to DSM-5 include:

* the relocation of PTSD from the anxiety disorders category to a new diagnostic category named “Trauma and Stressor-related Disorders”,
* the elimination of the subjective component to the definition of trauma,
* the clarification and tightening of the definitions of trauma and exposure to it,
* the increase and rearrangement of the symptoms criteria, and
* changes in additional criteria and specifiers.

Some people even question the validity of such a diagnosis (Summerfield, 2001).

> Summary points
>
> * A psychiatric diagnosis is not necessarily a disease
> * Distress or suffering is not psychopathology
> * Post-traumatic stress disorder is an entity constructed as much from sociopolitical ideas as from psychiatric ones
> * The increase in the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder in society is linked to changes in the relation between individual “personhood” and modern life

An editorial in the *American Journal of Psychiatry* commented that it was rare to find a psychiatric diagnosis that anyone liked to have but post-traumatic stress disorder was one (Andreasen, 1995).

# The History

## War Cowardice

In World War One, the executions of 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers took place (Trueman, 2015; Taylor-Whiffen, 2011). Such executions, for crimes such as desertion and cowardice, remain a source of controversy with some believing that many of those executed should be pardoned as they were suffering from what later called shell shock, even during World War 2.

> Between 1914 and 1918, the British Army identified 80,000 men with what would now be defined as the symptoms of shellshock. There were those who suffered from severe shell shock. They could not stand the thought of being on the front line any longer and deserted. Once caught, they received a court martial and, if sentenced to death, shot by a twelve man firing squad. (Trueman, 2015)

## Shell Shock

> Shell shock - now called post-traumatic stress disorder - was first recognised in print by Dr Charles Myers of the British Psychological Society in 1915. By the end of the war the army had dealt with more than 80,000 cases. (Taylor-Whiffen, 2011)

Britain was not alone in executing its own soldiers. The French are thought to have killed about 600. The Germans, whose troops outnumbered the British by two to one, shot 48 of their own men, and the Belgians 13. In 2001, 23 executed Canadians were posthumously honoured by their government, and five troops killed by New Zealand's military command also recently won a pardon. Not one American or Australian soldier was executed, but the Americans often used humiliation as a punishment for desertion.

## PTSD

The US National Center for PTSD covers the start of PTSD being a diagnosis within the DSM.

> The risk of exposure to trauma has been a part of the human condition since we evolved as a species. Attacks by saber tooth tigers or twenty-first century terrorists have probably produced similar psychological sequelae in the survivors of such violence. Shakespeare's Henry IV appears to meet many, if not all, of the diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as have other heroes and heroines throughout the world's literature. The history of the development of the PTSD concept is described by Trimble (1985).
>
> In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) added PTSD to the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) nosologic classification scheme (APA, 1980). Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma".

### DSM-III

Page 236 states

> **Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic or Delayed** The essential feature is the development of characteristic symptoms following a psychologically traumatic event that is generally outside the range of usual human experience.
>
> The characteristic symptoms involve reexperiencing the traumatic event; numbing of responsiveness to, or reduced involvement with, the external world; and a variety of autonomic, dysphoric, or cognitive symptoms. The stressor producing this syndrome would evoke significant symptoms of distress in most people, and is generally outside the range of such common experiences as simple bereavement, chronic illness, business losses, or marital conflict. The trauma may be experienced alone (rape or assault) or in the company of groups of people (military combat). Stressors producing this disorder include natural disasters (floods, earthquakes), accidental man-made disasters (car accidents with serious physical injury, airplane crashes, large fires), or deliberate man-made disasters (bombing, torture, death camps). Some stressors frequently produce the disorder (e.g., torture) and others produce it only occasionally (e.g., car accidents). Frequently there is a concomitant physical component to the trauma which may even involve direct damage to the central nervous system (e.g., malnutrition, head trauma). The disorder is apparently more severe and longer lasting when the stressor is of human design. The severity of the stressor should be recorded and the specific stressor may be noted on Axis IV (p. 26).

### The current (DSM-5) definition of PTSD (under Specific Phobia: Differential Diagnosis within the Anxiety section of DSM-5)

> If the phobia develops following a traumatic event, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) should be considered as a diagnosis. However, traumatic events can precede the onset of PTSD and specific phobia. In this case, a diagnosis of specific phobia would be assigned only if all of the criteria for PTSD are not met (APA, 2013 p.202)

Trauma- and stressor-related disorders include

> disorders in which exposure to a traumatic or stressful event is listed explicitly as a diagnostic criterion. These include reactive attachment disorder, disinhibited social engagement disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), acute stress disorder, and adjustment disorders. Placement of this chapter reflects the close relationship between these diagnoses and disorders in the surrounding chapters on anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, and dissociative disorders. (APA, 2013 p.265)

Psychological distress following exposure to a traumatic or stressful event is quite variable.

> In some cases, symptoms can be well understood within an anxiety- or fear-based context. It is clear, however, that many individuals who have been exposed to a traumatic or stressful event exhibit a phenotype in which, rather than anxiety- or fear-based symptoms, the most prominent clinical characteristics are anhedonic and dysphoric symptoms, externalizing angry and aggressive symptoms, or dissociative symptoms. Because of these variable expressions of clinical distress following exposure to catastrophic or aversive events, the aforementioned disorders have been grouped under a separate category: trauma- and stressor-related disorders.

### See also: DSM-5 info. sheet on PTSD (Free PDF)

# So, to your question

**Are the two (anxiety disorders and PTSD) correlated epidemiologically? If so, is there a good explanation for the lack of genetic correlation?**

DSM-5 recognises the epidemiology of anxiety within PTSD, and the reason for the lack of genetic correlation is the fact that in PTSD, the anxiety is exogenous (environmental) rather than endogenous (biological via genes or other means).

# References

Andreasen, N. C. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder: psychology, biology, and the manichaean warfare between false dichotomies. *The American journal of psychiatry*, 152(7), 963–965. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.7.963

APA (1980). *Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders*, (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

APA (2013). *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders*, (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Pai, A., Suris, A. M., & North, C. S. (2017). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the DSM-5: Controversy, Change, and Conceptual Considerations. *Behavioral Science*, 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7010007

Summerfield, D. (2001). The invention of post-traumatic stress disorder and the social usefulness of a psychiatric category. *BMJ : British Medical Journal*, 322(7278), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.95

Taylor-Whiffen, P. (2011) Shot at Dawn: Cowards, Traitors or Victims? *BBC History* \[Online\] Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain\_wwone/shot\_at\_dawn\_01.shtml

Trimble, M. D. (1985). Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: History of a concept. In C.R. Figley (Ed.), *Trauma and its wake: The study and treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder*. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Trueman, C. N. (2015). World War One executions. *The History Learning Site* \[Online\] Retrieved from: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/the-western-front-in-world-war-one/world-war-one-executions/
> 1 votes

# Answer
Actually, epidemiological studies are not as clear-cut, showing some overlap/comorbidity Spinhoven et al. (2014):

> Prevalence of 5-year recency PTSD among anxiety and depressive disorders was 9.2%, and comorbidity, in particular with major depression, was high (84.4%). Comorbidity was associated with female gender, all types of childhood trauma, neuroticism, (low) extraversion, and symptom severity. Multivariable significant risk factors (i.e., female gender and child sexual and physical abuse) were shared among anxiety and depressive disorders. Our results support a shared vulnerability model for comorbidity of anxiety and depressive disorders with PTSD.

To my mind, it's somewhat of an open question whether the generic studies are lacking in this respect (overlap) or if diagnostic criteria are too blurry used in practice. The authors of this study however seem to incline toward the latter in their discussion/conclusion:

> Our study results have some clinical implications in showing that PTSD is common in unselected persons with anxiety and depression. In spite of this finding, outpatient mental health and primary care professionals do not consistently apply a trauma perspective focused on diagnosis and treatment of PTSD (Zimmerman & Mattia, 1999). This lack of application may be because PTSD is very frequent a comorbid condition, and therapists often treat depressive or other anxiety disorders first. Thus, they may not be aware of the comorbid PTSD or wait to see whether treating trauma-related symptoms remains necessary in a later phase of treatment. Other reasons may be the resistance of the patient to talk about their traumatic experiences and resistance of the treatment staff in treating the sequelae of trauma (Jacobson & Richardson, 1987). Without sufficient knowledge about PTSD, or a strategy for regularly focusing on trauma,treatment staff may allow a more established diagnosis to come to the forefront (Al-Saffar, Borga, & Hallstrom, 2002).

The older review of Collimore et al. (2010), focused just on the overlap of PTSD with social anxiety \[disorder\] (SA\[D\]), notes:

> Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and social anxiety disorder (SAD) are frequently comorbid among veteran and community samples. Several studies have demonstrated significant comorbidity between trauma, PTSD, and social anxiety (SA), and a growing number of studies have explored the nature of this association. Although a diagnosis of either PTSD or SAD alone can result in significant impairment in social and occupational functioning, these difficulties are often magnified in persons suffering from both disorders. \[...\] we describe possible explanatory models of the co‐occurrence, with a specific focus on the shared vulnerability model. \[...\] we describe additional factors—guilt, shame, and depressive symptoms—that may help to explain the co‐occurrence of PTSD and SA.

So despite the \[current\] lack of genetic evidence, a shared vulnerability is not entirely flown out of the window. Actually the latter review has something more specific to say about that:

> Behavioral genetic evidence of a moderate genetic overlap between PTSD and other commonly co-occurring conditions also exists, including major depressive disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance use disorder.\[47–50\] Only one behavioral genetic study has examined whether aspects of PTSD and SAD share a genetic component. We explored whether socially related fears (i.e. the fear of socially observable arousal symptoms) and risk for trauma shared a genetic component in a subsample of twin pairs (n = 191). Although socially related fear was influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, trauma exposure was best explained by environmental factors. Given that genetic correlations can only be computed between two variables that are influenced by genetic factors, we were unable to compute the genetic correlation between socially related fear and trauma exposure; however, earlier research has shown that exposure to assaultive trauma may be influenced by genetic and environmental factors.\[34\] Future research may clarify whether PTSD (and not only trauma exposure) shares a genetic component with SA and other socially related fears.
>
> : Collimore KC, Asmundson GJG, Taylor S, Jang KL. Socially related fears following exposure to trauma: environmental and genetic influences. J Anxiety Disord 2009;23:240–246. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.07.006.
> \[34\]: Stein MB, Jang KL, Taylor S, Vernon PA, Livesley WJ. Genetic and environmental influences on trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: a twin study. Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1675–1681, doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.10.1675
> \[47\]. Chantarujikapong SI, Scherrer JF, Xian H, et al. A twin study of generalized anxiety disorder symptoms, panic disorder symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder in men. Psychiatry Res 2001;103:133–145.
> \[48\]. Fu Q, Koenen KC, Miller MW, et al. Differential etiology of posttraumatic stress disorder with conduct disorder and major depression in male veterans. Biol Psychiatry 2007;62: 1088–1094.
> \[49\]. Scherrer JF, Xian H, Lyons MJ, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder; combat exposure; and nicotine dependence, alcohol dependence, and major depression in male twins. Compr Psychiatry 2008;49:297–304.
> \[50\]. Xian H, Chantarujikapong SI, Scherrer JF, et al. Genetic and environmental influences on posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol and drug dependence in twin pairs. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;61:95–102.

The only other paper cited there that's clearly about anxiety disorders is Chantarujikapong's twin study:

> Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder (PD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often co-occur. \[...\] Genetic model fitting was performed to estimate the magnitude of genetic and environmental contributions to the lifetime co-occurrence of GAD symptoms, PD symptoms and PTSD. The liability for GAD symptoms was due to a 37.9% additive genetic contribution common to PD symptoms and PTSD. Liability for PD symptoms was due to a 20.7% additive genetic contribution common to GAD symptoms and PTSD, and a 20.1% additive genetic influence specific to PD symptoms. Additive genetic influences common to symptoms of GAD and PD accounted for 21.3% of the genetic variance in PTSD. Additive genetic influences specific to PTSD accounted for 13.6% of the genetic variance in PTSD. Remaining variance for all three disorders was due to unique environmental factors both common and specific to each phenotype. These results suggest that these disorders each have etiologically distinct components and also have significant genetic and unique environmental contributions in common.

Based on this twin study it looks like there should be some shared genetic factors between GAD/PD and PTSD; it seems that they haven't identified in terms of actual genes though. Note that that this does not imply the disorders are not distinct (just like any of the other known gene overlaps \[in the Science study\] don't imply that.)
> 1 votes

---
Tags: abnormal-psychology, anxiety, genetics, ptsd, correlation
---