Yesterday at a staff meeting I pitched the idea of our setting goals for our psychology education programs. My argument, in a nutshell: Goals lead to plans, which lead to focused behavior, which leads to achievement. I mentioned that I set goals with my psychotherapy clients and I set goals for the courses I teach. Goals are good, I argued.

The best goals are measurable ones. With a client, the goal might be that she moves into the normal range with regard to level of social anxiety. With a course, the goal might be to earn student ratings at a certain numerical level. For research the goal might be to publish a malouff’s dozen papers in the the. You may have heard of a Baker’s dozen, which equals 13 — the bakers show how nice they are. A malouff’s dozen equals 11 — on the theory that I always give people a little less than they would expect. That digression is my joke for this blog entry. All these goals are measurable. So I can tell how I am doing and make adjustments as needed.

Not everyone likes goals. Some individuals worry that they might not achieve their goals. That risk, of course, is part of what makes goals fun and motivating. Setting realistic goals creates a fair chance of achieving the goals — with the needed effort. Other individuals say live in the moment — seek nothing and you will find much. I like this sentiment. I often feel totally in the moment when I exercise or read. Perhaps it is best to set goals at times and to live in the moment at times — that could be part of a life of moderation.

What goals have you set in recent years? Which have you reached? How does goal setting help you? What are your goals now?

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Associate Professor of Psychology

I just watched an Australian 60 Minutes TV episode about parents spanking (“smacking”) their children. I watched a mother hit her children as hard as she could on the rear. The mother seemed to spank the kids every day, for every misbehavior.

The show host indicated that some countries ban spanking, as recommended by psychologists and other experts. Australia and the U.S. do not.

Why do psychologists oppose spanking?
Here are several reasons. Spanking:

1. Sets a bad model: Getting your way thru using violence against someone smaller and less powerful. This is especially a danger when the parent shows anger when spanking.

2. Can lead children to act more violently.

3. Can make the parent a conditioned punisher, so that the child feels punished whenever the parent is present.

4. Can harm the parent-child relationship.

5. Can lead to strong negative emotions in a child — essentially a stress reaction.

6. Can lead to the development of undesirable avoidance behaviors, such as lying.

7. Is so reinforcing for some parents that they use it more and more to the point of emotionally or physically abusing their child.

8. Looks and sounds inhumane, especially when accompanied by angry speech and facial expressions.

To these arguments, parents usually say that there is no good alternative. But there are! Parents can control child behavior by encouraging specific good behavior, setting rules, explaining the purpose of the rules, reinforcing (e.g., praising) good behavior, modeling good behavior, creating engaging activities for children so that they stay out of trouble, and using nonviolent forms of punishment, such as time out from reinforcement (go sit on the stairs) and response cost (e.g., no TV for an hour).

Trying to convince parents to replace spanking with other parenting methods is very tough. What do you think about spanking? Ought there to be a law against it?

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Assoc Prof of Psychology

Humans have long thought that they are smarter than other animals, although that could depend on one’s perspective. A New Scientist article on this topic quoted Douglas Adams: ‘Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much — the wheel, New York, wars and so on — whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man — for preciesely the same reasons.”

Rather than join the debate about the relative intelligence of humans and other animals, I want to explore a related but new topic: Do humans have better personalities than other animals? Let’s use the Big 5 personality characteristics to boil down personality to conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, openness to experience, and emotional stability and say that high levels of these characteristics are good.

On conscientiousness, we lose to social insects such as bees. No bee ever claims to be as busy as a human. Lions, however, sleep about 20 hours a day and in the other few hours do little other than eat and procreate. So let’s call conscientiousness a draw.

Wolves seem more agreeable with each other than humans are with each other. Tasmanian devils, however, act like devils with each other. Another draw.

Magpies seem quite extraverted compared to humans; butterflies and dolphins too. Put the platypus and the mole in the introvert category. A third draw.

Animals don’t seem much interested in the arts or pleasure travel or learning for the sake of learning. Chalk openness up for humans.

Animals can have low emotional stability. If they are cooped up (by humans), they may become distressed and bite themselves. Humans show similar reactions to being cooped up. In their natural state, humans, however, also show many other negative emotions that are rare in animals — jealousy, envy, disappointment, rage, embarrassment, shame, etc. So give this one to animals.

So we end with humans and animals tied for best personality. But we have combined many species in the animal category. What if we picked one single species to represent animals?

Let’s choose chipmunks — because they are cute. Chipmunks — hiding those nuts for winter — seem more conscientious than humans. Chipmunks don’t seem as agreeable — chipmunks do their own thing. Chipmunks seem extraverted — but no more than humans. Chipmunks show no interest in music or literature — we have the edge in openness. Humans are ahead going into the category of emotional stability. There we lose again — chipmunks are happy-go-luck creatures. So no matter what way you cut it, humans have personalities on a whole that are no better or worse than animals.

At least, that is my conclusion. What do you think?

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Assoc Prof of Psychology

Last week I played “Bridge over Troubled Water” for my students and described Paul Simon, the composer, as a genius. Yesterday I read a story about Carl Gauss, another genius, known for his contributions to mathematics. When Carl was in primary school his teacher gave him a task to keep him busy: Determine the sum of all the whole numbers 1 thru 100. The teacher imagined that Carl would use pencil and paper to add the numbers: 1+2+3… Instead, Carl looked at the teacher for a moment and gave him the answer. Can you determine the answer without any external help, even from pencil and paper? I couldn’t. I will put the answer below.

Was Charles Dickens a genius in writing novels? He saw extreme poverty and wrote about it with the goal of changing government policy, which had been very harsh toward the poor. After he published “Ä Christmas Carol”,” the government changed its policies, and the world had a story for the ages.

Other individuals are extremely talented in athletics, in organizing others, in helping others, in making others laugh, in parenting, etc. Howard Gardner of Harvard University invented the term “multiple intelligences” to describe ability in different realms of life.

Are you a genius in some aspect of life? If not, what would it take to move into the genius range? More effort, more learning, more experience?

For me as a scientist, I try to think of new ideas — novel ideas with power in them. What about you — which of your goals give you the opportunity to show genius?

The correct answer to the Gauss question is 5,050. My answer was 5,000, but I had a feeling I might be wrong. Here is one way to answer the problem in your head: Divide the 100 numbers into 1-50 and 51-100. The median is 50.5 (half way between 50 and 51). Assume that in a set of consecutive whole numbers, the median always equals the mean. Take the mean, 50.5, and multiply that times the number of numbers (100) to determine the total of the numbers. You can do that by moving the decimal two places to the right. Then 50.5 becomes 5050.0

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Assoc Prof of Psychology

Last week I was interviewed by a radio-show host about my collection of good and bad surnames. The host told me later that the interview led to many calls to the station and and days of discussion among the radio-show staff members. Below is what I said.

When I was a law student I read a case in which one of the lawyers was Mr. Brilliant. I had a feeling his side would win, and it did. He had a great name for a lawyer or for anyone. I decided to start collecting good surnames and have continued to do so for decades. I often think of these names as just right for an expert witness for my side of a case: Dr. Wise, Dr. Winner, Dr. Smart. I also collected names I’d like for experts on the other side: Dr. Wrong (who was an expert witness in a case), Dr. Boring (a well-known psychologist), Dr. Loser. Other names in this category: Sillitoe (the name of a well known writer), Sicko, Carnage, Lipschitz, Mishmash.
Many of us have little or no choice in our surname, but women (and men in some places) can marry into a surname. A woman could become Mrs. Worm, Mrs. Toad, or Mrs. Death.

A person phoned in to mention Cardinal Sin (of the Philippines) as a person with an unfortunate name. I responded by saying that a high school classmate of mine had the surname of Doktor. If he had gone on with his education, he could have become Doctor Doktor.

The show host mentioned famous psychologist Karen Horney as having an unfortunate name. She also said that years ago when the Netherlands forced everyone to adopt a surname, some individuals protested by choosing absurd names, such as (in Dutch) Carrotonmyhead.

I ended the interview by saying that all the undesirable surnames I collected were from individuals getting positive media exposure — that’s how I heard of them. So, to answer my own question, names are not destiny, but some are certainly more appealing than others.

What memorable surnames have you heard?

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Assoc Prof of Psychology

Knowledge is power, said Francis Bacon. Are you putting your knowledge to good use? You know that if you praise someone for a specific behavior, the person is likely to show that behavior more in the future. Also, praising has the side-benefit of helping to maintain rapport. Whom did you praise today? For what? Did you prasie someone in front of others? That has additional potential in that the observer can learn also to show the specific behaviour more in the future. For instance, yesterday I sent a department email to praise publicly five academics whose units received high student ratings. They likely felt that my comments showed appreciation for their hard and successful work. If others commend them too, they might try even harder in the future. At the least, I would expect the praise to help keep them working hard. Other academics observing the praise might see the potential for themselves to obtain appreciation of their teaching efforts. But I didn’t commend the academics so much to motivate them as to celebrate with them their success. Celebrating someone’s success is fun — that is another benefit of reinforcing desirable behavior. Finally, praising someone else’s good behavior often comes back as a matter of reciprocity. If I do something of note, the odds will be higher now that these individuals will join me in my moment of success.

So think about what you know. Use that knowledge, that power. Use it for good purposes.

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Assoc Prof of Psychology

You may be aware of evidence that taking a daily small amount of aspirin (e.g., 75 mgs) helps to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Newer studies show that a daily small amount of aspirin also helps to prevent cancer. These positive effects may be the result of aspirin’s reducing of inflammation. Some scientists now consider aspirin a vitamin, although others say the evidence is not strong enough for that conclusion. So does it make sense to take 75 mgs of aspirin a day as a preventive against disease? Is it worth the risk of side-effects?

Life has many tough decisions like that. We make a decision and see what happens, but sometimes we cannot tell whether the decision proved to be good or bad. On the question of aspirin, I decided yesterday to take a small amount (a tiny pill, indeed) daily and monitor for short-term positive and negative effects. If I observe no negative effects, I will continue as long as the scientific evidence seems to point in that direction. So I have made my life a small aspirin experiment. Other individuals try a new religion, a new romantic partner, a new diet, or a new career. Students in my behavior modification unit experiment with sets of behavior-change principles. At work, I experiment with different teaching methods. Humans experiment throughout their lives.

With what are you experimenting? Are you collecting data like a good scientist to test whether your hypothesis is supported? What experiments have paid off for you in the past?

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Assoc Prof of Psychology

Thousands of studies have shown that, on average, psychotherapy has a moderate positive effect on psychological problems. Most of the research examined cognitive behavioral therapy, but other bona fide therapies tend to work also. Why does psychotherapy worK? Here are some possible answers, most of which originated in a class work. “Persuasion and Healing,” by Jerome Frank:

1. Psychotherapy usually increases hope, or in more modern terms, self-efficacy for overcoming the problem. This effect leads to a great feeling of relief and to extra efforts to overcome the problem. Effort often translates into benefits.

2. Psychotherapy usually leads to reinforcement for taking actions to overcome the problem. Going to a psychotherapist is a bold action. If the client feels better at the end of the first session (because of increased hope or enjoying the interaction, for instance), the feeling better can reinforce taking bold actions to overcome the problem. The person therefore takes more bold actions to overcome the problem and may start an upward spiral of improvement, where actions lead to benefits, which serve as reinforcement for further actions to overcome the problem.

3. Psychotherapy usually involves a professional healer accepting clients as they are, while trying to help them overcome a problem. Humans are such social creatures that this acceptance and the formation of a goal-directed team can lead to powerful positive effects on motivation and emotions.

4. Psychotherapy can lead to positive changes in thinking and behavior of clients and can lead them to improve key situations, usually involving important relationships. These changes can have beneficial psychological effects, thereby reducing the level of the problem.

How do you think that psychotherapy works? If you agree with any of points 1-4 above, what does the point suggest that you do as a psychotherapist to maximize your effectiveness? Could you apply the same insight into your behavior as a parent? As a friend?

John Malouff, PhD, JD
Associate Professor of Psychology

If you go to see a psychotherapist, will you feel more interpersonal warmth from the therapist if the room is warm rather than cool? Probably yes, according to a long line of research starting with Harry Harlow and his motherless monkeys. He found that when monkeys were kept warm while motherless, they were not as socially impaired later as motherless monkeys not kept warm – the monkeys reacted to physical warmth to some extent as they would have to maternal warmth. Later studies with humans show that we react to physical warmth with warm interpersonal feelings toward anyone present. It is as if we interpret the physical warmth as interpersonal warmth from the other person! What is going on? There could be implicit (unconsicous) cognition happening, perhaps with classical conditioning from past pairings of physical and interpersonal warmth. Also, studies have shown that the same areas of the brain are active when a person feels physical warmth and interpersonal warmth, so there could be a biological sharing of reactions to the two types of warmth. Are there any pracitical implications of these findings? Idit Shalev and John Bargh of Yale University, who have studied the phenonenon, suggest that in important interactions, e.g., a first therapy session, keep the temperature up. That could be especially important if there is a contrast with the temperature the person has just experienced, e.g., outdoors. A warm therapy room might help lead the new client to experience feelings of interpersonal warmth. These in turn may help the therapist establish rapport and gain cooperation from the client. Other possible applications: On a first date, go somewhere warm — you may be liked more.

What other possible applications occur to you?

To read more about physical and interpersonal wamth, go to the article by Shalev and Bargh in “Perspectives in Psychological Science,” Vol 6 (No.5), Sept 2011, pp. 488-492.

John Malouff, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology

How good are you as an auto driver compared to others? If you say better than average, you give the same answer as about 80% of people. If we ask university roommates how well they will be doing in five years and how well their roommate will be doing in five years, the predictions about themselves are far rosier than predictions about the roommate. These research findings show that people tend to over-rate themselves. Why do they do that? It could be that evolution selected individuals who are overconfident. Perhaps guys who feel lucky tend to get lucky. Perhaps individuals who take chances based on overconfidence tend to survive and reproduce more than their more realistic friends — maybe because they keep trying. Self-efficacy (the thought that I can do this) is a concept associated with success in many studies. Are rich and successful individuals very confident? Their success might help produce confidence, but their confidence could help produce success.

Is there any downside to being overconfident? Indeed! Overconfidence likely plays a role in (1) gambling addiction, (2) engaging in physically dangerous activities like BASE jumping and unsafe sex (these ought never be done at the same time!), and (3) outrage at judgments of others (e.g., supervisor ratings, journal reviewer comments).

So what is a person to do? Try this: Maintain confidence (you can do things!) but be careful and be aware that you may be biased toward judging yourself more highly than others do.

What other risks are there for being overconfident?  For being under-confident? What ways have you found  to keep your confidence level just right?

John Malouff, PhD, JD, Assoc Prof of Psychology