Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Consumerism and its discontents

Consumerism and its discontents

Materialistic values may stem from early insecurities and are linked to lower life satisfaction, psychologists find. Accruing more wealth may provide only a partial fix.

BY TORI DeANGELIS
Print version: page 52

Compared with Americans in 1957, today we own twice as many cars per person, eat out twice as often and enjoy endless other commodities that weren't around then--big-screen TVs, microwave ovens, SUVs and handheld wireless devices, to name a few. But are we any happier?

Certainly, happiness is difficult to pin down, let alone measure. But a recent literature review suggests we're no more contented than we were then--in fact, maybe less so.

"Compared with their grandparents, today's young adults have grown up with much more affluence, slightly less happiness and much greater risk of depression and assorted social pathology," notes Hope College psychologist David G. Myers, PhD, author of the article, which appeared in the American Psychologist (Vol. 55, No. 1). "Our becoming much better off over the last four decades has not been accompanied by one iota of increased subjective well-being."

These findings emerge at a time when the consumer culture has reached a fever pitch, comments Myers, also the author of "The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty" (Yale University Press, 2000).

So what does psychologists' research say about possible effects of this consumer culture on people's mental well-being? Based on the literature to date, it would be too simplistic to say that desire for material wealth unequivocally means discontent. Although the least materialistic people report the most life satisfaction, some studies indicate that materialists can be almost as contented if they've got the money and their acquisitive lifestyle doesn't conflict with more soul-satisfying pursuits. But for materialists with less money and other conflicting desires--a more common situation--unhappiness emerges, researchers are finding.

"There's a narrowing of the gap between materialists and nonmaterialists in life satisfaction as materialists' income rises," notes Edward Diener, PhD, a well-known researcher of subjective well-being and materialism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "So if you're poor, it's very bad to be a materialist; and if you're rich, it doesn't make you happier than nonmaterialists, but you almost catch up."

Why are materialists unhappy?

As with all things psychological, the relationship between mental state and materialism is complex: Indeed, researchers are still trying to ascertain whether materialism stokes unhappiness, unhappiness fuels materialism, or both. Diener suggests that several factors may help explain the apparent toll of pursuit of wealth. In simple terms, a strong consumerist bent--what William Wordsworth in 1807 called "getting and spending"--can promote unhappiness because it takes time away from the things that can nurture happiness, including relationships with family and friends, research shows.

"It's not absolutely necessary that chasing after material wealth will interfere with your social life," Diener says. "But it can, and if it does, it probably has a net negative payoff in terms of life satisfaction and well-being."

People with strong materialistic values appear to have goal orientations that may lead to poorer well-being, adds Knox College psychologist Tim Kasser, PhD, who with Berkeley, Calif., psychotherapist Allen Kanner, PhD, co-edited a new APA book, "Psychology and Consumer Culture" (APA, 2004), featuring experts' research and views on the links between consumerism, well-being and environmental and social factors.

In Kasser's own book, "The High Price of Materialism" (MIT Press, 2002), Kasser describes his and others' research showing that when people organize their lives around extrinsic goals such as product acquisition, they report greater unhappiness in relationships, poorer moods and more psychological problems. Kasser distinguishes extrinsic goals--which tend to focus on possessions, image, status and receiving rewards and praise--from intrinsic ones, which aim at outcomes like personal growth and community connection and are satisfying in and of themselves.

Relatedly, a not-yet-published study by University of Missouri social psychologist Marsha Richins, PhD, finds that materialists place unrealistically high expectations on what consumer goods can do for them in terms of relationships, autonomy and happiness.

"They think that having these things is going to change their lives in every possible way you can think of," she says. One man in Richins's study, for example, said he desperately wanted a swimming pool so he could improve his relationship with his moody 13-year-old daughter.

The roots of materialism

Given that we all experience the same consumeristic culture, why do some of us develop strongly materialistic values and others don't? A line of research suggests that insecurity--both financial and emotional--lies at the heart of consumeristic cravings. Indeed, it's not money per se, but the striving for it, that's linked to unhappiness, find Diener and others.

"Research suggests that when people grow up in unfortunate social situations--where they're not treated very nicely by their parents or when they experience poverty or even the threat of death," says Kasser, "they become more materialistic as a way to adapt."

A 1995 paper in Developmental Psychology (Vol. 31, No. 6) by Kasser and colleagues was the first to demonstrate this. Teens who reported having higher materialistic attitudes tended to be poorer and to have less nurturing mothers than those with lower materialism scores, the team found. Similarly, a 1997 study in the Journal of Consumer Research (Vol. 23, No. 4) headed up by Aric Rindfleisch, PhD, then a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and now an associate professor of marketing there, found that young people whose parents were undergoing or had undergone divorce or separation were more prone to developing materialistic values later in life than those from intact homes.

And in the first direct experimental test of the point, Kasser and University of Missouri social psychologist Kenneth Sheldon, PhD, reported in a 2000 article in Psychological Science (Vol. 11, No. 4), that when provoked with thoughts of the most extreme uncertainty of them all--death--people reported more materialistic leanings.

More money=greater happiness?

The ill effects of materialism appear subject to modification, other research finds. In a longitudinal study reported in the November 2003 issue of Psychological Science (Vol. 14, No. 6), psychologists Carol Nickerson, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Norbert Schwarz, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Diener, and Daniel Kahnemann, PhD, of Princeton University, examined two linked data sets collected 19 years apart on 12,000 people who had attended elite colleges and universities in the 1970s--one drawn in 1976 when they were freshmen, the other in 1995.

On average, those who had initially expressed stronger financial aspirations reported lower life satisfaction two decades later than those expressing lower monetary desires. But as the income of the higher-aspiration participants rose, so did their reported life satisfaction, the team found.

James E. Burroughs, PhD, assistant professor of commerce at the University of Virginia's McIntire School of Commerce, and the University of Wisconsin's Rindfleisch conclude that the unhappiest materialists are those whose materialistic and higher-order values are most conflicted. In a 2002 paper in the Journal of Consumer Research (Vol. 29, No. 3), the team first gauged people's levels of stress, materialistic values and prosocial values in the domains of family, religion and community--in keeping with the theory of psychologist Shalom Schwartz, PhD, that some values unavoidably conflict with one another. Then in an experimental study, they ascertained the degree of conflict people felt when making a decision between the two value domains.

The unhappiest people were those with the most conflict--those who reported high prosocial and high materialistic values, says Burroughs. The other three groups--those low in materialism and high in prosocial values, those low in prosocial values and high in materialism, and those lukewarm in both arenas--reported similar, but lower levels of life stress.

His findings square with those of others: that the differences in life satisfaction between more and less materialistic people are relatively small, says Burroughs. And most researchers in the area agree that these values lie along a continuum, he adds.

"Material things are neither bad nor good," Burroughs comments. "It is the role and status they are accorded in one's life that can be problematic. The key is to find a balance: to appreciate what you have, but not at the expense of the things that really matter--your family, community and spirituality."

The bigger picture

Even if some materialists swim through life with little distress, however, consumerism carries larger costs that are worth worrying about, others say. "There are consequences of materialism that can affect the quality of other people's and other species' lives," says Kasser.

To that end, he and others are beginning to study links between materialistic values and attitudes toward the environment, and to write about the way consumerism has come to affect our collective psyche. Psychotherapist Kanner, who co-edited "Psychology and Consumer Culture" with Kasser, cites examples as minor as parents who "outsource" parental activities like driving their children to school and those as big as international corporations leading people in poor countries to crave products they can ill afford.

Indeed, consumerism is an example of an area where psychology needs to stretch from its focus on the individual and examine the wider impact of the phenomenon, Kanner believes.

"Corporate-driven consumerism is having massive psychological effects, not just on people, but on our planet as well," he says. "Too often, psychology over-individualizes social problems. In so doing, we end up blaming the victim, in this instance by locating materialism primarily in the person while ignoring the huge corporate culture that's invading so much of our lives."


Tori DeAngelis is a writer in Syracuse, N.Y.

A Work in Progress: the Adolescent and Young Adult Brain: A briefing paper

A Work in Progress: the Adolescent and Young Adult Brain: A briefing paper

Background

Until recently it was thought that the structure and make-up of the human brain was largely fixed from early childhood onwards. However, research 1  on post-mortem human brains and the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanning technology have demonstrated that the human brain does, in fact, undergo changes after this early sensitive period and develops throughout adolescence, young adulthood and even beyond.

Since neuroscience is confirming what mental health professionals working with this age group have long observed – that adolescence and young adulthood is a time of great potential for change and development – then policymakers need increasingly to focus on the opportunities for helping and influencing young adults that this crucial stage presents.

This paper summarises some recent findings from the field of neuroscience into adolescent and young adult brain development. It explores these findings, discusses the links between brain development and mental health, and concludes with some implications for mental health service policy for the 16-25 age group.

Areas of anatomy important for brain functioning

The human brain has a hierarchical organisation, from the lower, simpler areas (which function automatically and control our basic instincts: breathing, heart rate, and sense of territory, for example) to more complex functioning carried out by the limbic system (which controls our emotions, sexuality, sleep and immune system, and plays an important role in long-term memory), right up to the most complex operations carried out by the cerebral cortex (where capacities such as those for using language and abstract thinking are based).

Linkages between these different structures – essentially how parts of the brain ‘talk’ to each other – have a great influence on how people function.

Brain changes in adolescence and young adulthood

Just prior to puberty a wealth of grey matter is created and, as neurons develop, a layer of myelin is formed which greatly increases the speed of transmission of electrical impulses from neuron to neuron. A period of synaptic pruning then occurs throughout adolescence, a process not completed until the early 20s 2 , which is believed to be essential for the fine-tuning of functional networks of brain tissue, rendering the remaining synaptic circuits more efficient 3  . ‘The frontal cortex [where this development takes place] is essential for such functions as response inhibition, emotional regulation, analysing problems and planning. Many of these aptitudes continue to develop between adolescence and young adulthood’ 3  , whereas spatial awareness functioning and sensory functions (such as hearing and language processing) are largely mature by adolescence.

This pruning occurs on the ‘use it or lose it’ principle: this means that the activities undertaken by adolescents are critical to ensuring that circuits (or processing systems) which underpin adaptive, rather than maladaptive, functioning strengthen and grow. The frequency and intensity of experience determines the likelihood of particular synapses surviving this period of pruning.

Emotional functioning in adolescence

Research findings 4  suggest that there is a mismatch between emotional and cognitive regulatory modes in adolescence. The brain structures mediating emotional experience change rapidly at the onset of puberty, generating powerful emotional urges for sexual behaviour, independence and the formation of social bonds. However, the maturation of the frontal brain structures that underpin cognitive control lag behind by several years. This leaves the adolescent with powerful emotional responses to social stimuli that he or she cannot easily regulate, contextualise, create plans about or inhibit.

Equally, over-stimulation or under-stimulation of certain responses can lead to miscommunication between different areas of the brain 5 ; and the consequences of early stress include attenuated development of the left neocortex, hippocampus and amygdala 6 .

Psychological development

Neuroscientists use the term ‘executive function’ to refer to capacities such as controlling and coordinating our thoughts and behaviour, directing our attention, planning future tasks, inhibiting inappropriate behaviour, and keeping more than one thing in mind at once. All these are crucial for our ability to make sense of the life experiences we accumulate and to enable us to deepen our understanding of other people.

Studies have shown that the parietal and frontal cortices – brain regions which undergo continued development during adolescence 3  – are associated with making the distinction between first-person perspective and third-person perspective. ‘In order to reason about others and understand what they think, feel or believe, it is necessary to step into their ‘mental shoes’ and take their perspective. 3 ’ These findings may link with Peter Fonagy’s work on mentalisation 7 .

Studies show that our perspective-taking capacity dips during puberty 3  (our capacity for prospective memory – the ability to hold in mind an intention to carry out an action at a future time – also dips during this period). The elimination and reorganisation of prefrontal synaptic connections after puberty may explain why pubescent children have been shown in studies to be significantly poorer at responding to third-person perspective scenarios compared to first-person scenarios, whereas pre-pubescent children and young adults showed no difference in ability.

Too much, too young

Since self-restraint in the face of intense emotional experience is often less than robust at this age, it is hardly surprising that consumerism and the availability of alcohol and other drugs, for example, present great risks. Despite this, society continues to allow the adolescent a degree of agency never before afforded to people so inexperienced. Not only is the range of issues that young people are expected to make decisions about arguably wider than for previous generations, but the consequences of these decisions are less clearly articulated than ever before. The result is a tacit condoning of almost all aspirations, behaviours and lifestyles, leaving young people largely without guidance.

Because young people whose brains are still developing have relatively limited capacity to regulate their emotional responses, the predictable and usual social challenges they face can prove very difficult to surmount. The timing of the ‘normal’ maturation of prefrontal structures suggests that society’s expectations for young people’s planning, organisational and self-regulating capacities are often misplaced and may – when inflexibly imposed – create excessive stress for the adolescent brain. This stress has the potential for adverse (neurotoxic) effects on neuronal growth, functioning and organisation 8 .

Implications for service providers, commissioners and policymakers

The neuroscience research discussed in this paper demonstrates the great neuroplasticity of the brain throughout adolescence and beyond. The growth of capacities which one might, in common parlance, term emotional maturity are being shown to depend upon the physical development of the brain. The structure and provision of mental health services for young people up to the age of 25 needs to take into account the possibility of positive changes in the brain. If some young people do not have the capacity to benefit from services as they are presently structured, then it is incumbent upon service providers to offer different kinds of intervention, rather than deeming those young people unsuitable for treatment.

Although there are services that address the psychosocial needs of young people, such as Early Intervention in Psychosis Teams and drop-in services linked to Young People’s Information, Advice, Counselling and Support Services (YIACS), these resources are not universally available.

Commissioners need to consider the specific needs of this age group when planning and commissioning services 9  ;  failure to do so may contribute to the development of mental health service users being stuck in a cycle of hopelessness, unable to realise their full potential.

Conclusions

  • Advancements in medical technology and research are rapidly expanding our knowledge and understanding of the structure and function of the developing human brain.
  • A growing body of research is demonstrating that the adolescent brain is remarkably neuroplastic and undergoes specific and significant remodelling at many levels from the basic cellular architecture to the formation of new neural pathways and networks.
  • The nature and location of these underlying neurobiological changes occur in parallel with, and help to explain, key shifts in psychological development observed during the adolescent period, particularly in the areas of executive functioning, emotional processing and social cognition.
  • There is accumulating evidence that the neuroplasticity of the developing brain, particularly during adolescence, may be experience-dependent. In essence, the life experiences of each young person have a unique influence in the development of that individual’s brain and his/her current and future patterns of thinking, relating and behaving. 
  • The current understanding of the adolescent brain is pointing to the existence of a developmental period in which there is both increased vulnerability to negative environmental experiences and enhanced receptivity to positive, including therapeutic, life experiences – both of which may carry long-term consequences for adult life.
  • An evolving awareness of the complex changes in the developing adolescent brain carries major implications for the types of interventions and policies designed to improve outcomes for youth, particularly those already identified as being at increased risk.

Glossary

Adaptive functioning

A term which refers to an individual’s ability to modify behaviour to meet the demands of a changing environment.

Amygdala

A region at the centre of the brain, involved in the speedy and automatic processing of emotions, in particular fear and distress.

Cerebral cortex

Outermost layer(s) of brain tissue, particularly evolved in the human brain.

Executive functioning

High-level psychological processes of the frontal cortex, such as the ability to inhibit inappropriate behaviour, plan, select actions, hold information in mind and do several things at once.

Frontal cortex/lobe

The large region at the front of the brain just behind the forehead. This region is responsible for high-level cognitive processes, including planning, integrating information, controlling emotions and decision-making.

Grey matter

Masses of cell bodies in the brain that appear grey to the naked eye and as viewed on MRI scans.

Hippocampus

A seahorse-shaped structure deep in the brain’s temporal lobe and part of the limbic system, involved in storage and retrieval of memories, and spatial navigation.

Limbic system

A part of the brain (comprising structures such as the hippocampus, amygdala and thalamus) associated with basic needs and emotions, for example hunger, pain, pleasure, satisfaction and sex.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

A brain-imaging technique used for viewing the structure of the living brain.

Mentalisation

A term used to describe the unique human capacity that enables us to experience the subjective experience of our fellow humans 10 .

Myelin

A white, fat-like substance that forms a sheath around nerve fibres and which speeds up transmission of electrical impulses along neurons.

Neuron

Brain cell; the human brain contains 100 billion neurons.

Neuroplasticity

The ability of the brain to change physically in response to stimulus and activity.

Neurotoxicity

The propensity of a substance (including hormones and neurochemicals produced within the body) to cause harm to neuronal growth or functioning; stressful experiences are known to produce excessive amounts of neurotoxic substances.

Parietal cortex

A large region of cortex at the top and back of the brain on both sides, where spatial processing occurs.

Sensitive period

The period during which the brain is particularly likely to be affected by experience.

Synapse

Connection or specialised junction that allows information to be passed between neurons.

 

References

 1  Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Holmes, C. J., et al. (1999). In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2 (10), pp. 859-861.

 2  The adolescent brain: beyond raging hormones. (2005). Harvard Mental Health Letter (July). www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter.htm

 3  Blakemore, S-J. & Choudhury, S. (In Press). Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition.

 4  Monk, C. S., McClure, E. B., Nelson, E. E., et al. (2003). Adolescent immaturity in attention-related brain engagement to emotional facial expressions. NeuroImage, 20 (1), pp. 420-428.

 5  Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L., et al. (1995). Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and 'use-dependent' development of the brain: How 'states' become 'traits'. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16 (4), pp. 271-291.

 6  Teicher, M. H., Andersen, S. L., Polcari, A., et al. (2003). The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood maltreatment. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 27 (1-2), pp. 33-44.

 7  Fonagy, P., Gergley, G., Jurist, E. L., et al. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press.

 8  Schore, A. N. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development, affect regulation and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal 22 (1-2), pp. 201-269.

 9   YoungMinds, (In Press). SOS Commissioning Guidelines. See www.youngminds.org.uk/sos/outputs.php

 10  Hartley-Brewer, E. (2005). Perspectives on the causes of mental health problems in children and adolescents. London: YoungMinds. See www.youngminds.org.uk/sos/YM_MH_Causes_Symposium.pdf

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Power and Perspectives Not Taken

 

Study shows that powerful individuals have a reduced ability to comprehend how others see, think and feel

January 10, 2007 - Walking a mile in another person’s shoes may be the best way to understand the emotions, perceptions, and motivations of an individual; however, in a recent study that appeared in the December 2006 issue of Psychological Science, it is reported that those in power are often unable to take such a journey.

In the article, Power and Perspectives Not Taken, Adam Galinsky of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Joe Magee of the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University and Stanford University’s M. Ena Inesi and Deborah H. Gruenfeld found that possessing power itself serves as an impediment to understanding the perspectives of others. Through four experiments and a correlational study, the researchers assessed the effect of power on perspective taking, adjusting to another’s perspective, and interpreting the emotions of others.

To study the link between power and perspective taking, Galinsky and colleagues used a unique method in which the participants were told to draw the letter E on their forehead. If the subject wrote the E in a self-oriented direction, backwards to others, this indicated a lack of perspective taking. On the other hand, when the E was written legible to others, this indicated that the person had thought about how others might perceive the letter. The results showed that those who had previously been randomly assigned to a high power group were almost three times more likely to draw a self-oriented E than those who were assigned to the low power condition. Galinsky and colleagues also found that power leads individuals to anchor too heavily on their own vantage point, thus leaving them unable to adjust to another person’s perspective and decreases one’s ability to correctly interpret the emotions of others.

Galinsky says that this research has “wide-ranging implications, from business to politics.” For example, “Presidents who preside over a divided government (and thus have reduced power) might be psychologically predisposed to consider alternative viewpoints more readily than those that preside over unified governments.”

Galinsky also adds that a key is to somehow make perspective-taking part and parcel of power, “The springboard of power combined with perspective-taking may be a particularly constructive force.”

For more information please contact Tara Prasad at the Kellogg School of Management: t-prasad@kellogg.northwestern.edu or 847.491.5446.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Connecting the Global Warming Dots

If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today.

The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and acidifying oceans for good measure.)

But the prognosis — and the proof that people are driving much of the warming — still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people to change their behavior.

Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific agreement on the planet's warming even in the face of blurry details?

As in a pointillist painting, the meaning emerges from the broadest view, from the "balance of evidence," as the scientific case is described in the periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panel's fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in Paris on Feb. 2.

In the panel's last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused most of the recent warming. A number of trends have been identified:

¶The global average minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating from the earth's surface, even after the sun has gone down.)

¶The stratosphere, high above the earth's surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the sun's output, for example, would instead cause similar trends in the two atmospheric layers instead of opposite ones.)

¶There has been a parallel warming trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot be the only culprit.)

"There's no urbanization going on on the ocean," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Another important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and present.

In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr. Lawrimore said.

"Without the greenhouse gases," he said, "you just don't get what we've observed."

Monday, January 15, 2007