Information

Are people less bothered by problems they create for themselves?

Are people less bothered by problems they create for themselves?

I notice that I am more annoyed by problems when I am not the one that created them. Two examples would be

  1. Cleaning up someone else's mess is much more annoying than cleaning up my own
  2. When spelling autocorrect "fixes" a word that I typed in correctly fixing it annoys me much more than fixing words that I misspelled.

My second example alludes to the fact that this is a very important phenomenon to consider when automating a process. A user could be much more annoyed by fixing a mistake caused by the automation than they would have been doing the whole thing themselves.

I have been unable to find a name for this phenomenon or any research relating to it. Is it true in general? Is there a name for it that would point me towards some research?


How to Repair Low Self-Esteem

If you have low self-esteem it's important to recognize the ways in which you might be inadvertently sabotaging yourself. Some of your short-term strategies that are meant to protect you from pain may actually cause you more distress in the long-term.

Once you recognize the problem, however, you can takes steps to create positive change and banish the belief that you're not good enough.

If you notice someone around you is struggling with self-esteem issues, be patient. Consider how their responses stem from their fear of being rejected. While you can't make someone feel better about themselves, you can work on doing your part to help them feel supported.


Successful People: The 8 Self-Limiting Behaviors They Avoid

In my work, I’ve been fortunate to learn from amazingly successful, impactful professionals and entrepreneurs. I’m defining “success” here as achieving what matters most to you, individually and authentically – not as some objective measure of outer wealth, accomplishment or achievement. Observing people in action who are living fully on their terms and absolutely loving it, I’ve seen how they think, react, interrelate, problem solve, and lead. I’ve applied these lessons to my own life, and to those I coach.

I’ve noted that people who love what they do for a living and have created tremendous success and reward, not only engage continuously in life-supporting (and generous) behaviors, but also avoid certain negative actions and mindsets that other, less successful people habitually get lost in.

The 8 self-limiting, negative behaviors successful people avoid are:

Engaging in “below the line” thinking

“Below the line” thinking refers to a particular mindset that shapes how you view the world in a limiting way. It leads to your believing that what’s happening to you is outside your control and everyone else’s fault – the economy, your industry, your boss, your spouse, etc. Below the line thinking says, “It’s not fair what’s happening, and I don’t have what it takes to overcome these challenges. I didn’t expect this and I can’t handle it.” Above the line thinking, on the other hand, says, “I clearly see the obstacles ahead, and I’m addressing them with open eyes. I’m accountable for my life and my career, and I have what it takes to navigate through this successfully. If I fail, I’ll still wake up tomorrow exactly who I am, and will have learned something critical.”

Mistaking fantastical wishful thinking for action

Successful professionals pursue outcomes that flow organically from their current actions. Unsuccessful individuals attach to fantasies that may relieve them momentarily of their situational pain but have no basis in reality. For instance, I've heard from corporate professionals who share, “Kathy, I really hate my job and desperately want to leave. I've been wanting to write a book and become a motivational speaker for several years now. What’s your advice?” I’ll respond, “OK, great. Are you writing and speaking?” and more often than not, the answer will be, “Uh…no.” Y ou can’t write a book if you’re not writing anything, and you can't speak in public if you haven't developed any material to speak about. It's critical to take bold action toward your visions,in order to create success. Successful people develop huge goals too, but they crush them down into smaller, digestible (but courageous) action steps that they then build on, which leads naturally to the end goal they’re pursuing.

Remaining powerless and speechless

Successful people are in touch with their power, and are not afraid to use it and express it. They advocate and negotiate strongly for themselves and for others, and for what they care about, and don’t shy away from articulating just how they stand apart from the competition. They know how they contribute uniquely and the value they bring to the table. In addition, they don’t wait to bring up concerns – they tackle challenges head on, speaking about them openly, with calm, poise and grace. They don’t hide from their problems. And they don’t perceive themselves as hapless victims.

Putting off investing in themselves

I see this behavior over and over in those who feel thwarted and unsuccessful – they are incredibly reluctant to invest time, money and energy in themselves and their own growth. They are comfortable only when putting other people’s needs ahead of their own. They’ll make any excuse for why now is NOT the time to invest in themselves or commit to change. They feel guilt, shame and anxiety over claiming “I’m worth this.” Successful people don’t wait – they spend money, time and effort on their own growth because they know without doubt it will pay off – for themselves and everyone around them.

Resisting change

Successful people don’t break themselves against what is or drown in the changing tides. They go with the flow. They follow the trends, and embrace them. They are flexible, fluid and nimble. They react to what’s in front of them, and improvise deftly. Those who are u nsuccessful bemoan what is appearing before them, and stay stuck in the past or in what they “expected,” complaining about how life is not what it should be and why what is feels so wrong.

Honoring other people’s priorities over their own

Successful people know what matters most to them – their priorities, values, concerns, and their mission and purpose. They don’t float aimlessly on a sea of possibility – they are masters of their own ship and know where they want to head, and make bold moves in the direction of their dreams. To do this, they are very clear about their top priorities in life and work, and won’t be waylaid by the priorities and values of others. In short, they have very well-defined boundaries, and know where they end and others begin. They say “no” to endeavors and behaviors (and thinking) that will push them off track. They know what they want to create and the legacy they want to leave behind in this lifetime, and honor that each day. (Here's more about how to do that).

That doesn't mean that they're selfish and think only of themselves. It means they know specifically how they want to use their talents and passions in the world and commit to living out their visions (and very often, these visions are about being of service to others).

Doubting themselves and their instincts

Those who doubt themselves, lack trust in their own gut or instincts, or second-guess themselves continually find themselves far from where they want to be. Successful professionals believe in themselves without fail. Sure, they acknowledge they have “power gaps” or blind spots, and areas that need deep development. But they forgive themselves for what they don’t know and the mistakes they’ve made, and accept themselves. They keep going with hope and optimism, knowing that the lessons from these missteps will serve them well in the future.

Searching for handouts and easy answers

I can often tell from the first contact I have with someone if they’ll be likely to succeed in their new entrepreneurial venture and career, or not. How? By the nature of their expectations, and how they set out to fulfill them. Here’s an example - if a complete stranger reaches out to me expecting free help without considering what she may offer in return, it’s a bad sign. Let’s say she asks something like this: “I’m launching my new business and wondered if you can give me some advice. I can’t pay you because I’m a startup, but I hope you can help me anyway.”

From this one email, I know she’s not ready to make it happen in her own business. Why? Because successful professionals (and those destined to be) wouldn’t consider asking for help in this way. Instead, they: 1) understand that they have something important and valuable to offer in any situation, 2) are willing and happy to share or barter that in return for what they want, and 3) they treat others exactly as they would like to be treated.

Successful professionals are respectful, resourceful, curious, competent, tenacious, and they figure out how to get the help they need without asking for handouts. That doesn’t mean they don’t seek assistance when and where they need it , or make use of the many free resources available to them (like Score.org, etc.). It means that they don’t expect something for nothing. They treat others equitably and fairly and know they deserve the same. Successful professionals realize that if they’re not willing to pay for products and services they want, then others won’t be willing to pay them (yes, it works like karma).

They also know that their success is directly proportionate to the effort they put in. Most of all, they understand there are no short cuts or easy answers on the road to success.


The Road Less Traveled Quotes

&ldquoConsciousness and Healing

To proceed very far through the desert, you must be willing to meet existential suffering and work it through. In order to do this, the attitude toward pain has to change. This happens when we accept the fact that everything that happens to us has been designed for our spiritual growth.&rdquo
― Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth

&ldquoIt is lonely behind these boundaries. Some people-particularly those whom psychiatrists call schizoid-because of unpleasant, traumatizing experiences in childhood, perceive the world outside of themselves as unredeemably dangerous, hostile, confusing and unnurturing. Such people feel their boundaries to be protecting and comforting and find a sense of safety in their loneliness. But most of us feel our loneliness to be painful and yearn to escape from behind the walls of our individual identities to a condition in which we can be more unified with the world outside of ourselves. The experience of falling in love allows us this escapetemporarily. The essence of the phenomenon of falling in love is a sudden collapse of a section of an individual's ego boundaries, permitting one to merge his or her identity with that of another person. The sudden release of oneself from oneself, the explosive pouring out of oneself into the beloved, and the dramatic surcease of loneliness accompanying this collapse of ego boundaries is experienced by most of us as ecstatic. We and our beloved are one! Loneliness is no more!

In some respects (but certainly not in all) the act of falling in love is an act of regression. The experience of merging with the loved one has in it echoes from the time when we were merged with our mothers in infancy. Along with the merging we also reexperience the sense of omnipotence which we had to give up in our journey out of childhood. All things seem possible! United with our beloved we feel we can conquer all obstacles. We believe that the strength of our love will cause the forces of opposition to bow down in submission and melt away into the darkness. All problems will be overcome. The future will be all light. The unreality of these feelings when we have fallen in love is essentially the same as the unreality of the two-year-old who feels itself to be king of the family and the world with power unlimited.

Just as reality intrudes upon the two-year-old's fantasy of omnipotence so does reality intrude upon the fantastic unity of the couple who have fallen in love. Sooner or later, in response to the problems of daily living, individual will reasserts itself. He wants to have sex she doesn't. She wants to go to the movies he doesn't. He wants to put money in the bank she wants a dishwasher. She wants to talk about her job he wants to talk about his. She doesn't like his friends he doesn't like hers. So both of them, in the privacy of their hearts, begin to come to the sickening realization that they are not one with the beloved, that the beloved has and will continue to have his or her own desires, tastes, prejudices and timing different from the other's. One by one, gradually or suddenly, the ego boundaries snap back into place gradually or suddenly, they fall out of love. Once again they are two separate individuals. At this point they begin either to dissolve the ties of their relationship or to initiate the work of real loving.&rdquo
― M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth


Are people less bothered by problems they create for themselves? - Psychology

Same here. It was worse when you live in a small town, and everyone knows you and where to find you. I wanted to just be in my room. I had things to keep me entertained. But sadly, people always dropped in to see my parents, which was fine if they didn't come knocking on my door wanting to talk to me as well. Especially with my grandfather who was annoying and always wanted to meddle with, and tease me. I found so annoying, I would have some less than nice thoughts.

But it's mainly family. Overall I wasn't close with anyone other than my parents, and thus didn't wanna be bothered with anyone else. I was wasn't, and am still not, too much of a social butterfly who loved tons of company and attention. But with a family of talkers, and extroverts, you're seen as the weird one with the problem for not wanting to be bothered. I would say I am probably the most quiet one in my family. Then even with Church, you have people wanting to come up and make small talk that nobody cares about.

I was a bit more lively and social when I was younger. Then around HS to present day, I just got more and more tired of people..or maybe it's just family I am sick of lol. After all, family is the group of people you got stuck and thrown together with. Holidays being the worst when even more family come to visit. But the town may have contributed. Being so small, and everyone knowing everyone and being clustered up together, and family who know where you are and can + will drop in whenever they want to,, it can lead to just being annoyed constantly.

Not just toxic, but boring, and often truly annoying. To be fair, I'm probably not the person lots of other people would like to be around anyway. I watch very little TV, have no idea about any of these reality shows or whose on Dancing with the "Stars", the latest political scandal, whose saying what or posting what on Facebook, I just kind of glaze over when people start talking about those things - I don't care about them one iota, not interested. Tell me about an interesting hobby or craft you're working on, or a special place you've traveled (NOT Disneyworld or a Carnival Cruise, ugh), new dish you cooked, and I may perk up and get engaged. I guess I march to the tune of a different drummer than most. I'm fine with that.

Partly, I think the fact that I have to smile, chat, and deal with the public all day long in my job is one reason that outside of that, I crave my solitude. But I have always been an introvert at heart, which surprises people because I can be very out going and sociable, but often, it's forced on my part. Except around my immediate family, whom I love deeply. We don't have any drama queens (or kings), and for that I am truly blessed. One of the problems in my former marriage was that my husband took my need for space and solitude personally. If I don't have time to myself for a certain amount of time, I start to feel as though I can't breathe. I also feel that way in crowds of people - you won't find me shoulder to shoulder with other people trying to get into the door at some store on Black Friday or anything like that - ever!

I hope when I retire to find a little house somewhere and spend most of my time in pleasant solitude, with the occasional visit from my children, or truly like-minded friends, etc. Sounds like a hermit life I know - and that's OK with me.

Same here. It was worse when you live in a small town, and everyone knows you and where to find you. I wanted to just be in my room. I had things to keep me entertained. But sadly, people always dropped in to see my parents, which was fine if they didn't come knocking on my door wanting to talk to me as well. Especially with my grandfather who was annoying and always wanted to meddle with, and tease me. I found so annoying, I would have some less than nice thoughts.

But it's mainly family. Overall I wasn't close with anyone other than my parents, and thus didn't wanna be bothered with anyone else. I was wasn't, and am still not, too much of a social butterfly who loved tons of company and attention. But with a family of talkers, and extroverts, you're seen as the weird one with the problem for not wanting to be bothered. I would say I am probably the most quiet one in my family. Then even with Church, you have people wanting to come up and make small talk that nobody cares about.

I was a bit more lively and social when I was younger. Then around HS to present day, I just got more and more tired of people..or maybe it's just family I am sick of lol. After all, family is the group of people you got stuck and thrown together with. Holidays being the worst when even more family come to visit. But the town may have contributed. Being so small, and everyone knowing everyone and being clustered up together, and family who know where you are and can + will drop in whenever they want to,, it can lead to just being annoyed constantly.


Are people less bothered by problems they create for themselves? - Psychology

Same here. It was worse when you live in a small town, and everyone knows you and where to find you. I wanted to just be in my room. I had things to keep me entertained. But sadly, people always dropped in to see my parents, which was fine if they didn't come knocking on my door wanting to talk to me as well. Especially with my grandfather who was annoying and always wanted to meddle with, and tease me. I found so annoying, I would have some less than nice thoughts.

But it's mainly family. Overall I wasn't close with anyone other than my parents, and thus didn't wanna be bothered with anyone else. I was wasn't, and am still not, too much of a social butterfly who loved tons of company and attention. But with a family of talkers, and extroverts, you're seen as the weird one with the problem for not wanting to be bothered. I would say I am probably the most quiet one in my family. Then even with Church, you have people wanting to come up and make small talk that nobody cares about.

I was a bit more lively and social when I was younger. Then around HS to present day, I just got more and more tired of people..or maybe it's just family I am sick of lol. After all, family is the group of people you got stuck and thrown together with. Holidays being the worst when even more family come to visit. But the town may have contributed. Being so small, and everyone knowing everyone and being clustered up together, and family who know where you are and can + will drop in whenever they want to,, it can lead to just being annoyed constantly.

Not just toxic, but boring, and often truly annoying. To be fair, I'm probably not the person lots of other people would like to be around anyway. I watch very little TV, have no idea about any of these reality shows or whose on Dancing with the "Stars", the latest political scandal, whose saying what or posting what on Facebook, I just kind of glaze over when people start talking about those things - I don't care about them one iota, not interested. Tell me about an interesting hobby or craft you're working on, or a special place you've traveled (NOT Disneyworld or a Carnival Cruise, ugh), new dish you cooked, and I may perk up and get engaged. I guess I march to the tune of a different drummer than most. I'm fine with that.

Partly, I think the fact that I have to smile, chat, and deal with the public all day long in my job is one reason that outside of that, I crave my solitude. But I have always been an introvert at heart, which surprises people because I can be very out going and sociable, but often, it's forced on my part. Except around my immediate family, whom I love deeply. We don't have any drama queens (or kings), and for that I am truly blessed. One of the problems in my former marriage was that my husband took my need for space and solitude personally. If I don't have time to myself for a certain amount of time, I start to feel as though I can't breathe. I also feel that way in crowds of people - you won't find me shoulder to shoulder with other people trying to get into the door at some store on Black Friday or anything like that - ever!

I hope when I retire to find a little house somewhere and spend most of my time in pleasant solitude, with the occasional visit from my children, or truly like-minded friends, etc. Sounds like a hermit life I know - and that's OK with me.

Same here. It was worse when you live in a small town, and everyone knows you and where to find you. I wanted to just be in my room. I had things to keep me entertained. But sadly, people always dropped in to see my parents, which was fine if they didn't come knocking on my door wanting to talk to me as well. Especially with my grandfather who was annoying and always wanted to meddle with, and tease me. I found so annoying, I would have some less than nice thoughts.

But it's mainly family. Overall I wasn't close with anyone other than my parents, and thus didn't wanna be bothered with anyone else. I was wasn't, and am still not, too much of a social butterfly who loved tons of company and attention. But with a family of talkers, and extroverts, you're seen as the weird one with the problem for not wanting to be bothered. I would say I am probably the most quiet one in my family. Then even with Church, you have people wanting to come up and make small talk that nobody cares about.

I was a bit more lively and social when I was younger. Then around HS to present day, I just got more and more tired of people..or maybe it's just family I am sick of lol. After all, family is the group of people you got stuck and thrown together with. Holidays being the worst when even more family come to visit. But the town may have contributed. Being so small, and everyone knowing everyone and being clustered up together, and family who know where you are and can + will drop in whenever they want to,, it can lead to just being annoyed constantly.


Successful People: The 8 Self-Limiting Behaviors They Avoid

In my work, I’ve been fortunate to learn from amazingly successful, impactful professionals and entrepreneurs. I’m defining “success” here as achieving what matters most to you, individually and authentically – not as some objective measure of outer wealth, accomplishment or achievement. Observing people in action who are living fully on their terms and absolutely loving it, I’ve seen how they think, react, interrelate, problem solve, and lead. I’ve applied these lessons to my own life, and to those I coach.

I’ve noted that people who love what they do for a living and have created tremendous success and reward, not only engage continuously in life-supporting (and generous) behaviors, but also avoid certain negative actions and mindsets that other, less successful people habitually get lost in.

The 8 self-limiting, negative behaviors successful people avoid are:

Engaging in “below the line” thinking

“Below the line” thinking refers to a particular mindset that shapes how you view the world in a limiting way. It leads to your believing that what’s happening to you is outside your control and everyone else’s fault – the economy, your industry, your boss, your spouse, etc. Below the line thinking says, “It’s not fair what’s happening, and I don’t have what it takes to overcome these challenges. I didn’t expect this and I can’t handle it.” Above the line thinking, on the other hand, says, “I clearly see the obstacles ahead, and I’m addressing them with open eyes. I’m accountable for my life and my career, and I have what it takes to navigate through this successfully. If I fail, I’ll still wake up tomorrow exactly who I am, and will have learned something critical.”

Mistaking fantastical wishful thinking for action

Successful professionals pursue outcomes that flow organically from their current actions. Unsuccessful individuals attach to fantasies that may relieve them momentarily of their situational pain but have no basis in reality. For instance, I've heard from corporate professionals who share, “Kathy, I really hate my job and desperately want to leave. I've been wanting to write a book and become a motivational speaker for several years now. What’s your advice?” I’ll respond, “OK, great. Are you writing and speaking?” and more often than not, the answer will be, “Uh…no.” Y ou can’t write a book if you’re not writing anything, and you can't speak in public if you haven't developed any material to speak about. It's critical to take bold action toward your visions,in order to create success. Successful people develop huge goals too, but they crush them down into smaller, digestible (but courageous) action steps that they then build on, which leads naturally to the end goal they’re pursuing.

Remaining powerless and speechless

Successful people are in touch with their power, and are not afraid to use it and express it. They advocate and negotiate strongly for themselves and for others, and for what they care about, and don’t shy away from articulating just how they stand apart from the competition. They know how they contribute uniquely and the value they bring to the table. In addition, they don’t wait to bring up concerns – they tackle challenges head on, speaking about them openly, with calm, poise and grace. They don’t hide from their problems. And they don’t perceive themselves as hapless victims.

Putting off investing in themselves

I see this behavior over and over in those who feel thwarted and unsuccessful – they are incredibly reluctant to invest time, money and energy in themselves and their own growth. They are comfortable only when putting other people’s needs ahead of their own. They’ll make any excuse for why now is NOT the time to invest in themselves or commit to change. They feel guilt, shame and anxiety over claiming “I’m worth this.” Successful people don’t wait – they spend money, time and effort on their own growth because they know without doubt it will pay off – for themselves and everyone around them.

Resisting change

Successful people don’t break themselves against what is or drown in the changing tides. They go with the flow. They follow the trends, and embrace them. They are flexible, fluid and nimble. They react to what’s in front of them, and improvise deftly. Those who are u nsuccessful bemoan what is appearing before them, and stay stuck in the past or in what they “expected,” complaining about how life is not what it should be and why what is feels so wrong.

Honoring other people’s priorities over their own

Successful people know what matters most to them – their priorities, values, concerns, and their mission and purpose. They don’t float aimlessly on a sea of possibility – they are masters of their own ship and know where they want to head, and make bold moves in the direction of their dreams. To do this, they are very clear about their top priorities in life and work, and won’t be waylaid by the priorities and values of others. In short, they have very well-defined boundaries, and know where they end and others begin. They say “no” to endeavors and behaviors (and thinking) that will push them off track. They know what they want to create and the legacy they want to leave behind in this lifetime, and honor that each day. (Here's more about how to do that).

That doesn't mean that they're selfish and think only of themselves. It means they know specifically how they want to use their talents and passions in the world and commit to living out their visions (and very often, these visions are about being of service to others).

Doubting themselves and their instincts

Those who doubt themselves, lack trust in their own gut or instincts, or second-guess themselves continually find themselves far from where they want to be. Successful professionals believe in themselves without fail. Sure, they acknowledge they have “power gaps” or blind spots, and areas that need deep development. But they forgive themselves for what they don’t know and the mistakes they’ve made, and accept themselves. They keep going with hope and optimism, knowing that the lessons from these missteps will serve them well in the future.

Searching for handouts and easy answers

I can often tell from the first contact I have with someone if they’ll be likely to succeed in their new entrepreneurial venture and career, or not. How? By the nature of their expectations, and how they set out to fulfill them. Here’s an example - if a complete stranger reaches out to me expecting free help without considering what she may offer in return, it’s a bad sign. Let’s say she asks something like this: “I’m launching my new business and wondered if you can give me some advice. I can’t pay you because I’m a startup, but I hope you can help me anyway.”

From this one email, I know she’s not ready to make it happen in her own business. Why? Because successful professionals (and those destined to be) wouldn’t consider asking for help in this way. Instead, they: 1) understand that they have something important and valuable to offer in any situation, 2) are willing and happy to share or barter that in return for what they want, and 3) they treat others exactly as they would like to be treated.

Successful professionals are respectful, resourceful, curious, competent, tenacious, and they figure out how to get the help they need without asking for handouts. That doesn’t mean they don’t seek assistance when and where they need it , or make use of the many free resources available to them (like Score.org, etc.). It means that they don’t expect something for nothing. They treat others equitably and fairly and know they deserve the same. Successful professionals realize that if they’re not willing to pay for products and services they want, then others won’t be willing to pay them (yes, it works like karma).

They also know that their success is directly proportionate to the effort they put in. Most of all, they understand there are no short cuts or easy answers on the road to success.


The Road Less Traveled Quotes

&ldquoConsciousness and Healing

To proceed very far through the desert, you must be willing to meet existential suffering and work it through. In order to do this, the attitude toward pain has to change. This happens when we accept the fact that everything that happens to us has been designed for our spiritual growth.&rdquo
― Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth

&ldquoIt is lonely behind these boundaries. Some people-particularly those whom psychiatrists call schizoid-because of unpleasant, traumatizing experiences in childhood, perceive the world outside of themselves as unredeemably dangerous, hostile, confusing and unnurturing. Such people feel their boundaries to be protecting and comforting and find a sense of safety in their loneliness. But most of us feel our loneliness to be painful and yearn to escape from behind the walls of our individual identities to a condition in which we can be more unified with the world outside of ourselves. The experience of falling in love allows us this escapetemporarily. The essence of the phenomenon of falling in love is a sudden collapse of a section of an individual's ego boundaries, permitting one to merge his or her identity with that of another person. The sudden release of oneself from oneself, the explosive pouring out of oneself into the beloved, and the dramatic surcease of loneliness accompanying this collapse of ego boundaries is experienced by most of us as ecstatic. We and our beloved are one! Loneliness is no more!

In some respects (but certainly not in all) the act of falling in love is an act of regression. The experience of merging with the loved one has in it echoes from the time when we were merged with our mothers in infancy. Along with the merging we also reexperience the sense of omnipotence which we had to give up in our journey out of childhood. All things seem possible! United with our beloved we feel we can conquer all obstacles. We believe that the strength of our love will cause the forces of opposition to bow down in submission and melt away into the darkness. All problems will be overcome. The future will be all light. The unreality of these feelings when we have fallen in love is essentially the same as the unreality of the two-year-old who feels itself to be king of the family and the world with power unlimited.

Just as reality intrudes upon the two-year-old's fantasy of omnipotence so does reality intrude upon the fantastic unity of the couple who have fallen in love. Sooner or later, in response to the problems of daily living, individual will reasserts itself. He wants to have sex she doesn't. She wants to go to the movies he doesn't. He wants to put money in the bank she wants a dishwasher. She wants to talk about her job he wants to talk about his. She doesn't like his friends he doesn't like hers. So both of them, in the privacy of their hearts, begin to come to the sickening realization that they are not one with the beloved, that the beloved has and will continue to have his or her own desires, tastes, prejudices and timing different from the other's. One by one, gradually or suddenly, the ego boundaries snap back into place gradually or suddenly, they fall out of love. Once again they are two separate individuals. At this point they begin either to dissolve the ties of their relationship or to initiate the work of real loving.&rdquo
― M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth


Contents

Type A personality behavior was first described as a potential risk factor for heart disease in the 1950s by cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman. They credit their insight to an upholsterer who called to their attention the peculiar fact that the chairs in their waiting rooms were only worn out on the front edge of the seat. [3] After an eight-and-a-half-year-long study of healthy men between the ages of 35 and 59, Friedman and Rosenman estimated that Type A behavior more than doubled the risk of coronary heart disease in otherwise healthy individuals. [4] The individuals enrolled in this study were followed well beyond the original time frame of the study. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire, that asked questions like "Do you feel guilty if you use spare time to relax?" and "Do you generally move, walk, and eat rapidly?" [5] Subsequent analysis indicated that although Type A personality is associated with the incidence of coronary heart disease, it does not seem to be a risk factor for mortality. [6] It was originally called 'Type A Personality' by Friedman and Roseman, it has now been conceptualized as the Type A behavior pattern. [7]

Type A Edit

The hypothesis describes Type A individuals as outgoing, ambitious, rigidly organized, highly status-conscious, impatient, anxious, proactive, and concerned with time management. People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving "workaholics". They push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence. [8] People with Type A personalities experience more job-related stress and less job satisfaction. [9] They tend to set high expectations for themselves, and may believe others have these same high expectations of them as well. [10] Interestingly, those with Type A personalities do not always outperform those with Type B personalities. Depending on the task and the individual's sense of time urgency and control, it can lead to poor results when there are complex decisions to be made. [11] However, research has shown that Type A individuals are in general associated with higher performance and productivity. [12] Moreover, Type A students tend to earn higher grades than Type B students, [13] and Type-A faculty members were shown to be more productive than their Type B behavior counterparts (Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984). [14]

In his 1996 book dealing with extreme Type A behavior, Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment, Friedman suggests that dangerous Type A behavior is expressed through three major symptoms: (1) free-floating hostility, which can be triggered by even minor incidents (2) time urgency and impatience, which causes irritation and exasperation usually described as being "short-fused" and (3) a competitive drive, which causes stress and an achievement-driven mentality. The first of these symptoms is believed to be covert and therefore less observable, while the other two are more overt. [15]

Type A people were said to be hasty, impatient, impulsive, hyperalert, potentially hostile, and angry. [16] Research has also shown that Type A personalities deal with reality and have certain defenses when it comes to dealing with problems. [17]

Janet Spence's research has shown that the Type A archetype can be broken down into two factors: Achievement Striving (AS) and Impatience Irritability (II), assessed using a modified Jenkins activity survey (with 7 questions assessing AS and 5 items assessing II). AS is a desirable factor that is characterized by being hard-working, active, and taking work seriously. II is undesirable and is characterized by impatience, irritability, and anger. [18] Subsequent work by Day and Jreige has further clarified the independence of these two subtypes of type A personality. Additionally, they further defined the interactions between AS and II subtypes and psychosocial outcomes. AS was more strongly linked to job satisfaction while II was linked to self-report of satisfaction and life satisfaction. Associations were demonstrated between AS and II subtypes moderating the impact of job stressors (job control, role overload, and role ambiguity) on outcomes of job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and perceived stress. [19]

There are two main methods to assessing Type A behavior. The first being the SI and the second being the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS). [20] The SI assessment involves an interviewer measuring a person's emotional, nonverbal and verbal responses (your expressive style). The JAS involves a self questionnaire with three main categories: Speed and Impatience, Job Involvement, and Hard-Driving Competitiveness. [21]

Individuals with Type A personalities have often been linked to higher rates of coronary heart disease, higher morbidity rates, and other undesirable physical outcomes. [22]

Type B Edit

Type B is a behavior pattern that is lacking in Type A behaviors. A-B personality is a continuum where one either leans to be more Type A or Non Type A (Type B). [23]

The hypothesis describes Type B individuals as a contrast to those of Type A. Type B personality, by definition, are noted to live at lower stress levels. They typically work steadily and may enjoy achievement, although they have a greater tendency to disregard physical or mental stress when they do not achieve. When faced with competition, they may focus less on winning or losing than their Type A counterparts, and more on enjoying the game regardless of winning or losing. Unlike the Type A personality's rhythm of multi-tasked careers, Type B individuals are sometimes attracted to careers of creativity: writer, counselor, therapist, actor, or actress. [ citation needed ] Their personal character may enjoy exploring ideas and concepts.

Type B personality types are more tolerant than individuals in the Type A category. [5] This can be evident through their relationship style that members of upper management prefer. Type B individuals can ". see things from a global perspective, encourage teamwork, and exercise patience in decision making. " [24]

Interactions between Type A and Type B Edit

Type A individuals' proclivity for competition and aggression is illustrated in their interactions with other Type As and Type Bs. When playing a modified Prisoner's Dilemma game, Type A individuals elicited more competitiveness and angry feelings from both Type A and Type B opponents than did the Type B individuals. Type A individuals punished their Type A counterparts more than their Type B counterparts, and more than Type Bs punished other Type Bs. The rivalry between Type A individuals was shown by more aggressive behavior in their interactions, including initial antisocial responses, refusal to cooperate, verbal threats, and behavioral challenges. [25]

Friedman et al. (1986) [26] conducted a randomized controlled trial on 862 male and female post-myocardial infarction patients, ruling out (by probabilistic equivalence) diet and other confounds. Subjects in the control group received group cardiac counseling, and subjects in the treatment group received cardiac counseling plus Type-A counseling, and a comparison group received no group counseling of any kind. The recurrence rate was 21% in the control group and 13% in the treatment group, a strong and statistically significant (p <.005) finding, whereas the comparison group experienced a 28% recurrence rate. The investigative studies following Friedman and Rosenman's discovery compared Type A behavior to independent coronary risk factors such as hypertension and smoking in contrast, the results here suggest that the negative effects on cardiovascular health associated with Type A personality can be mitigated by modifying Type A behavior patterns.

Funding by tobacco companies Edit

Further discrediting the so-called Type A Behavior Pattern (TABP), a study from 2012 – based on searching the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library – suggests the phenomenon of initially promising results followed by negative findings to be partly explained by the tobacco industry's involvement in TABP research to undermine the scientific evidence on smoking and health. The industry's interest in TABP lasted at least four decades until the late 1990s, involving substantial funding to key researchers encouraged to prove smoking to simply correlate with a personality type prone to coronary heart disease (CHD) and cancer. [27] Hence, until the early 1980s, the industry's strategy consisted of suggesting the risks of smoking to be caused by psychological characteristics of individual smokers rather than tobacco products by deeming the causes of cancer to be multifactorial with stress as a key contributing factor. [28] [29] [30] Philip Morris (today Altria) and RJ Reynolds helped generate substantial evidence to support these claims by funding workshops and research aiming to educate about and alter TABP to reduce risks of CHD and cancer. Moreover, Philip Morris primarily funded the Meyer Friedman Institute, e.g. conducting the "crown-jewel" trial on the effectiveness of reducing TABP whose expected findings could discredit studies associating smoking with CHD and cancer but failing to control for Type A behavior. [27]

In 1994, Friedman wrote to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration criticising restrictions on indoor smoking to reduce CHD, claiming the evidence remained unreliable since it did not account for the significant confounder of Type A behavior, although by then, TABP had proven to be significant in only three of twelve studies. Though apparently unpaid for, this letter was approved by and blind-copied to Philip Morris, and Friedman (falsely) claimed to receive funding largely from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. [31]

When TABP finally became untenable, Philip Morris supported research on its hostility component, [32] allowing Vice President Jetson Lincoln to explain passive smoking lethality by the stress exerted on a non-smoking spouse through media claiming the smoking spouse to be slowly killing themselves. [33] When examining the most recent review on TABP and CHD in this light, the close relationship to the tobacco industry becomes evident: of thirteen etiologic studies in the review, only four reported positive findings, [34] three of which had a direct or indirect link to the industry. Also on the whole most TABP studies had no relationship to the tobacco lobby but the majority of those with positive findings did. [27] Furthermore, TABP was used as a litigation defence, similar to psychosocial stress. [35] Hence, Petticrew et al. proved the tobacco industry to have substantially helped generate the scientific controversy on TABP, contributing to the (in lay circles) enduring popularity and prejudice for Type A personality even though it has been scientifically disproven. [27]

Other issues Edit

Some scholars argue that Type A behavior is not a good predictor of coronary heart disease. [36] According to research by Redford Williams of Duke University, the hostility component of Type A personality is the only significant risk factor. [37] Thus, it is a high level of expressed anger and hostility, not the other elements of Type A behavior, that constitutes the problem.

The initial study that pointed to the association of Type A personality and heart attacks had a massive number of questions under consideration. When there are a lot of questions there is a high probability of a false positive. A study undertaken by the U.S. National Institute of Aging, Sardinian and Italian researchers, as well as bio-statisticians from the University of Michigan, had specifically tested for a direct relationship between coronary heart disease and Type A personalities, and the results had indicated that no such relation exists. [36] A simple explanation [ weasel words ] is that the initial finding was chance due to multiple questions being under consideration. Those considerations may have changed.

A study (that later was questioned for nonplausible results [38] and considered unsafe publication [39] [40] ) was performed that tested the effect of psychosocial variables, in particular personality and stress, as risk factors for cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD). [41] In this study, four personality types were recorded. Type 1 personality is cancer-prone, Type 2 is CHD-prone, Type 3 is alternating between behaviors characteristic of Types 1 and 2, and Type 4 is a healthy, autonomous type hypothesized to survive best. The data suggest that the Type 1 probands die mainly from cancer, type 2 from CHD, whereas Type 3 and especially Type 4 probands show a much lower death rate. Two additional types of personalities were measured Type 5 and Type 6. Type 5 is a rational anti-emotional type, which shows characteristics common to Type 1 and Type 2. Type 6 personality shows psychopathic tendencies and is prone to drug addiction and AIDS. [42]

While most studies attempt to show the correlation between personality types and coronary heart disease, studies (that also later were questioned for non plausible results [38] and were considered unsafe [39] [40] ) suggested that mental attitudes constitute an important prognostic factor for cancer and that as a method of treatment for cancer-prone patients, behavior therapy should be used. [43] The patient is taught to express his/her emotions more freely, in a socially acceptable manner, to become autonomous and be able to stand up for his/her rights. Behavior therapy would also teach them how to cope with stress-producing situations more successfully. The effectiveness of therapy in preventing death in cancer and CHD is evident. [44] The statistical data associated with higher death rates is impressive. Other measures of therapy have been attempted, such as group therapy. The effects were not as dramatic as behavior therapy, but still showed improvement in preventing death among cancer and CHD patients.

From the study above, several conclusions have been made. A relationship between personality and cancer exists, along with a relationship between personality and coronary heart disease. Personality type acts as a risk factor for diseases and interacts synergistically with other risk factors, such as smoking and heredity. It has been statistically proven that behavior therapy can significantly reduce the likelihood of cancer or coronary heart disease mortality. [45] Studies suggest that both body and mental disease arise from each other. Mental disorders arise from physical causes, and likewise, physical disorders arise from mental causes. While Type A personality did not show a strong direct relationship between its attributes and the cause of coronary heart disease, other types of personalities have shown strong influences on both cancer-prone patients and those prone to coronary heart disease. [44]

A study conducted by the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine re-examined the association between the Type A concept with cardiovascular (CVD) and non-cardiovascular (non-CVD) mortality by using a long follow-up (on average 20.6 years) of a large population-based sample of elderly males (N = 2,682), by applying multiple Type A measures at baseline, and looking separately at early and later follow-up years. The study sample was the participants of the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study, (KIHD), which includes a randomly selected representative sample of Eastern Finnish men, aged 42–60 years at baseline in the 1980s. They were followed up until the end of 2011 through linkage with the National Death Registry. Four self-administered scales, Bortner Short Rating Scale, Framingham Type A Behavior Pattern Scale, Jenkins Activity Survey, and Finnish Type A Scale, were used for Type A assessment at the start of follow-up. Type A measures were inconsistently associated with cardiovascular mortality, and most associations were non-significant. Some scales suggested a slightly decreased, rather than increased, risk of CVD death during the follow-up. Associations with non-cardiovascular deaths were even weaker. The study's findings further suggest that there is no evidence to support the Type A as a risk factor for CVD and non-CVD mortality. [46]

Role of magnesium in cardiovascular health Edit

Maintaining healthy magnesium (Mg) levels in the body plays a strong role in protecting the cardiovascular health of an individual. An analysis of the literature suggests the possible role of Mg deficiency in the susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases, observed among subjects displaying a Type A behavior pattern. Type A subjects are more sensitive to stress and produce more catecholamines than Type B subjects. This, in turn, seems to induce an intracellular Mg loss. In the long run, type A individuals would develop a state of Mg deficiency, which may promote greater sensitivity to stress and, ultimately, lead to the development of cardiovascular problems. [47]

Substance use disorder Edit

In a 1998 study done by Ball et al., they looked at differences in Type A and Type B personalities based on substance use. Their results showed that Type B personalities had more severe issues with substance use disorders than Type A personalities. [48] Another discovery in their research was more Type B personalities had been diagnosed with a personality disorder than users who had Type A personalities. [48] Type B personalities were rated higher than Type A personalities on symptoms of all DSM-IV personality disorders, with the exception of schizoid personality disorder. [48]

The research conducted in the experiment was tested on 370 outpatients and inpatients who used alcohol, cocaine, and opiates. The personality types and distinctions were replicated. [48] Additionally within the personality dimensions Type A and Type B exhibited different results. Type A personality portrayed higher levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, cooperativeness, and self-directedness. In contrast, Type B personality showed higher levels of neuroticism, novelty seeking, and harm avoidance. [48] These dimensions can have high correlational levels with mental illness or substance use disorders. Furthermore, even after antisocial personality and psychiatric symptoms, these effects remained. [48]


Contents

Sources Edit

Social psychology, specifically the discontinuity effect of inter-group conflict, suggests that "groups are generally even more competitive and aggressive than individuals". [7] Two main sources of intergroup conflict have been identified: "competition for valued material resources, according to realistic conflict theory, or for social rewards like respect and esteem. as described by relative deprivation theory" [8]

Group conflict can easily enter an escalating spiral of hostility marked by polarisation of views into black and white, with comparable actions viewed in diametrically opposite ways: "we offer concessions, but they attempt to lure us with ploys. We are steadfast and courageous, but they are unyielding, irrational, stubborn, and blinded by ideology". [9]

It is widely believed that intergroup and intragroup hostility are (at least to some degree) inversely related: that "there is, unhappily, an inverse relationship between external wars and internal strife". [10] Thus "in politics, for example, everyone can get an extraordinarily comforting feeling of mutual support from their group by focussing on an enemy". [11] Freud described a similarly quasi-benign version, whereby "it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other – like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for instance. [as] a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression, by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier". [12] The harder version of the theory would suggest that "pent-up sub-group aggression, if it cannot combine with the pent-up aggression of other sub-groups to attack a common, foreign enemy, will vent itself in the form of riots, persecutions and rebellions". [13]

Belief domains that contribute Edit

Through an extensive literature review, Roy J. Eidelson and Judy I. Eidelson, identified parallels between individuals and the collective world views of groups on the basis of five key belief domains. [14]

  • Superiority: At an individual level, this belief revolves around a person's enduring conviction that he or she is better than other people in important ways. At the group level, superiority includes shared convictions of moral superiority, entitlement, being the chosen and having a special destiny. [14] Being chosen, the belief that one's own group has a superior cultural heritage (e.g., history, values, language, tradition) is common among groups who base their identity on their ethnicity. The development of Hitler's ideology of Aryans as a "master race" is one example of this belief. [15] This belief can be unconscious, with group members unaware – "The power and influence of such a worldview are directly related to its operation as an invisible veil, which makes it difficult for individuals, groups, and institutions to see their harmful consequences". [16] These authors noted that several committees studying racism were using the term ethnocentric monoculturalism to describe this belief in the superiority of your own group's cultural heritage (including history, values, language, traditions, arts and crafts, etc.) over that of other groups. As part of this belief system they also noted a corresponding belief in the inferiority of all other group's heritage, the ability to impose their standards and beliefs on less powerful groups, evidence of the group's core beliefs and values in their practices, programs and policies as well as in the institutions and structures of the group's society, and that they were able to operate outside the level of conscious awareness. [17]
  • Injustice: At the individual level, this belief revolves around perceived mistreatment by others, and/or the world at large. At the group level, this translates to a world view that the ingroup has significant and legitimate grievances against an outgroup. [14] This belief is seen as contributing greatly to the impetus for war over the past two centuries, as the majority of wars in that time period have centered on issues of justice rather than security or power (Welch, 1993). Injustice, in a group setting, can be based on the shared belief that their group has not achieved desired outcomes due to the actions or inactions of a more powerful group that has created a biased or undesirable outcome, and not due to the inadequacies or actions of the group itself. [18] Volkan termed the phrase Chosen Traumas to refer to the "mental representation of an event that has caused a large group to face drastic losses, feel helpless and victimized by another group" [19] that are distorted to perpetuate the injustice belief.
  • Vulnerability: At the individual level, vulnerability refers to a person's belief that he or she is perpetually in harm's way. At the group level, this belief is manifested in the form of fears about the future. This vulnerability can manifest itself in a group as catastrophic thinking – when the envisioned worst-case scenario is seen as being inevitable. [14] Chirot (2001) notes that the genocides of Armenia, Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda shared a common belief that "if they did not destroy their real or imagined enemies first, they would themselves be annihilated" (p. 10).
  • Distrust: At the individual level, this belief focuses on the presumed intent of others to cause harm and/or exhibit hostility. The notion of trust is often seen by psychologists as the first challenge of psychosocial development. [20] At the group level, this worldview focuses specifically on the perspective that outgroups are dishonest, untrustworthy and have negative intentions toward the in group. In more extreme manifestations, this belief is similar to collective paranoia, which is defined as collectively held beliefs, either false or exaggerated that cluster around ideas of being harmed, harassed, threatened, or otherwise disparaged by malevolent outgroups [21] Even when no such hostility exists, this distrust belief can cause group members to see any behavior by the other as hostile and malevolent. [14]
  • Helplessness: At the individual level, helplessness focuses on the belief that even carefully planned and executed actions will fail to produce the desired outcome. When taken at the group level, it translates into a collective mindset of powerlessness and dependency. The group shares a pessimistic approach which focuses on their own weaknesses, and attributes setbacks to their own limitations. [14] Helplessness, when it exists as a shared belief within a group, serves as a constraint on organized political movement, as those who participate in a social movement must see themselves as capable of righting the wrongs they perceive. [22]

Donald Horowitz also argues that the belief, regardless of its accuracy, that ones group is behind another group can also contribute to conflict and that such groups often face severe anxiety about threats emanating from other groups. The backwards group fears it will be ultimately dominated by more advanced groups. Backwards groups tend to view their individual members with negative qualities, such as laziness and lack of intelligence, while collectively they view themselves as unorganized and lacking unity, with members looking out only for themselves and not their group. In contrast, advanced groups' members are perceived as possessing positive qualities, such as conscientiousness, intelligence and industriousness, while collectively they are perceived as well-organized, cohesive and committed to advancing their group interests. Thus advanced groups are perceived as possessing superior attributes on both individual and collective levels. The resultant anxiety felt by backwards groups can cause them to believe their very survival as a group is a stake and that they risk disappearing, replaced by more advanced groups. Horowitz argues this means backwards groups are more likely to initiate violence. [23]

Sources Edit

  • Task conflict: Task conflict arises when intra-group members disagree on issues that are relevant to meeting shared goals. Effective groups and organizations make use of these conflicts to make plans, foster creativity, solve problems and resolve misunderstandings. However, people who disagree with the group do so at their own peril, even when their position is reasonable. Dissenters often receive a high level of animosity from other group members, are less well-liked, assigned low-status tasks, and are sometimes ostracized.
  • Process conflict: Process conflict refers to disagreement over the methods or procedures the group should use in order to complete its tasks. It occurs when strategies, policies, and procedures clash. For example, some group members may suggest discussing conflicting ideas, while other group members prefer to put conflicting ideas to a vote. In essence, during procedural conflicts, group members disagree on how to disagree. Situations of procedural conflict can be preemptively minimized by adopting formal rules (e.g., bylaws, constitutions, statements of policies) that specify goals, decisional processes, and responsibilities. [24]
  • Personal conflict: Personal conflicts, also known as affective conflicts, personality conflicts, emotional conflicts, or relationship conflicts, are conflicts that occur when group members dislike one another. Personal dislikes do not always result in conflict, but people often mention their negative feelings toward another group member when complaining about their groups. Also, there is evidence that a large proportion of group conflicts are indeed personal conflicts. One study of high level corporate executives revealed that 40% of disputes were due to "individual enmity between the principals without specific reference to other issues" (Morrill, 1995, p. 69). Criticism, when one person evaluates another, or his/her work negatively, is one common cause of personal conflict. [25]

Political Edit

Opinion is divided about the merits of infighting in political movements. Whereas "the majority of scholars view infighting as sapping political potency", others argue that "infighting's value lay in its potential to generate strategic possibilities and promote. accountability", and that (at least with respect to identity politics) "infighting is a key site for culture. concretizes cultural conversations". [26]

Among extremists "threatened by the existence of anyone else, unless that other person's views seem identical to his own", however, infighting and group fissions become the destructive norm: "they're all splitting up so fast. they seem to attack each other more than they attack their real enemies on the other side of the political spectrum". [27]

Small group Edit

Within small groups, the same dichotomy exists. Granted that both constructive and destructive conflict occurs in most small groups, it is very important to accentuate the constructive conflict and minimize the destructive conflict. Conflict is bound to happen, but if used constructively need not be a bad thing.

Using constructive conflict within small groups by bringing up problems and alternative solutions (while still valuing others) allows the group to work forward. [28] While "conflict may involve interpersonal as well as task issues", keeping a window open for dissent can prove very advantageous, as where a company "reaped big benefits because it did not simply try to suppress conflict, but allowed minority influence to prevail". [29]

On the other hand, there is evidence that an organizational culture of disrespect unproductively "generates a morass of status games and infighting. 'it's made people turn against each other'" - so that for example "sexual harassment becomes a chronic accompaniment to broader patterns of infighting". [30]

Individual-Group Conflict Edit

Individual-Group conflict occurs between an individual in the group and the group as a whole. This conflict can occur quite easily. Problems can arise if the individual’s needs or goals differ from the groups. [31] A common problem between an individual and their group is levels of commitment. An individual can feel different levels of commitment and transition into different roles within the group. There are then five stages the individual can go through in their membership: “investigation, socialization, maintenance, resocialization, and remembrance”. Along with these stages, there are also different types of transition the individual can go through: “entry, acceptance, divergence, and exit”. These stages and transitions can affect the individual’s personal values and commitment levels. [32]

Group-Group Conflict Edit

Group-Group conflict occurs between two or more different groups. This conflict commonly happens when the two groups are fighting and working towards the same goal. This can create contact and tension between the groups. [31] Groups may be drawn into conflict with each other on the basis of performance, importance to particular groups and, in general, union – management rivalries. [33] Although there may be conflict between groups, their members may still come into contact with one another. Contact between the intergroup can promote forgiveness and sometimes result in a reconciliation between groups. This contact between groups can also help group members form new opinions about the other, reduce prejudice, and promote acceptance. [34] An example of group-group conflict would be if two coffee shops in one town are fighting to bring in more customers than the other. Another factor that could cause problems between groups is geographic location. Conflict tends to have negative consequences for both the individual and the organization. There are numerous negative effects of group-group conflict. For example, individuals in the group tend to have an increased lack of interest in work, higher job dissatisfaction, and more work anxiety [35]

Psychoanalysis Edit

Lacan saw the roots of intra-group aggression in a regression to the "narcissistic moment in the subject", highlighting "the aggressivity involved in the effects of all regression, all arrested development, all rejection of typical development in the subject". [36] Neville Symington also saw narcissism as a key element in group conflict, singling out "organizations so riven by narcissistic currents that. little creative work was done". [37] Such settings provide an opening for "many egoistic instinct-feelings - as the desire to dominate and humiliate your fellow, the love of conflict - your courage and power against mine - the satisfaction of being the object of jealousy, the pleasures derived from the exercise of cunning, deceit and concealment". [38] Fischer (2012) distinguished between two forms of intragroup conflict in organizations. In a "restorative" form, paranoid-schizoid "splitting" can be transformed through scapegoating dynamics to produce reparative ("depressive") intragroup relations. In a contrasting "perverse" form, intragroup trauma causes paranoid-schizoid functioning to fragment, resulting in an intersubjective "entanglement" with sadomasochistic dynamics. [39]

Nevertheless, psychoanalysts have not been able to evade the constraints of group conflict themselves: "Envy, rivalry, power conflicts, the formation of small groups, resulting in discord and intrigue, are a matter of course" in the psychoanalytic world, for example, with institutions being "caught up in the factionalism of the . struggle between the ins and the outs". [40]

Girard Edit

René Girard saw "collective violence as sacred. [as] the great remedy for communal life". [41] He saw the violence directed at the group scapegoat as "absorbing all the internal tensions, feuds, and rivalries pent up within the community. a deliberate act of collective substitution". [42]

His view parallels the Freudian approach, rooted in Totem and Taboo, which considers that "transgression. is at the origin of a higher complexity, something to which the realm of civilization owes its development". [43] Freud saw violence as standing at the root of the social bond – "what prevails is no longer the violence of an individual but that of a community" [44] – and thus "politics made out of delinquency. the social contract establishes corporate virtue as an asylum for individual sin". [45]

Girard concluded therefore that regression and 'the dissolution of differences encourages the proliferation of the double bind. spells the disintegration of social institutions', [46] to reveal the group conflict latent at their core.


A mother’s work

The rise in female employment also seems to have coincided with (or perhaps precipitated) a similarly steep rise in standards for what it means to be a good parent, and especially a good mother. Niggling feelings of guilt and ambivalence over working outside the home, together with some social pressures, compel many women to try to fulfil idealised notions of motherhood as well, says Judy Wajcman, a sociology professor at the London School of Economics and author of a new book, “Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism”.

Though women do less work around the house than they used to, the jobs they do tend to be the never-ending ones

The struggle to “have it all” may be a fairly privileged modern challenge. But it bears noting that even in professional dual-income households, mothers still handle the lion’s share of parenting—particularly the daily, routine jobs that never feel finished. Attentive fathers handle more of the enjoyable tasks, such as taking children to games and playing sports, while mothers are stuck with most of the feeding, cleaning and nagging. Though women do less work around the house than they used to, the jobs they do tend to be the never-ending ones, like tidying, cooking and laundry. Well-educated men chip in far more than their fathers ever did, and more than their less-educated peers, but still put in only half as much time as women do. And men tend to do the discrete tasks that are more easily crossed off lists, such as mowing lawns or fixing things round the house. All of this helps explain why time for mothers, and especially working mothers, always feels scarce. “Working mothers with young children are the most time-scarce segment of society,” says Geoffrey Godbey, a time-use expert at Penn State University.

Parents also now have far more insight into how children learn and develop, so they have more tools (and fears) as they groom their children for adulthood. This reinforces another reason why well-off people are investing so much time in parenthood: preparing children to succeed is the best way to transfer privilege from one generation to the next. Now that people are living longer, parents are less likely to pass on a big financial bundle when they die. So the best way to ensure the prosperity of one’s children is to provide the education and skills needed to get ahead, particularly as this human capital grows ever more important for success. This helps explain why privileged parents spend so much time worrying over schools and chauffeuring their children to résumé-enhancing activities. “Parents are now afraid of doing less than their neighbours,” observes Philip Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland who studies contemporary families. “It can feel like an arms race.”


Recommended Reading

The Trash We've Left on the Moon

Garbage Everywhere

The Only Way We’ll Know When We Need COVID-19 Boosters

Education, she thinks, is the way to change the culture of littering.

“The best way for people to become engaged and change their behaviors is not just to inform them of the problem, but to have them actively experience the problem,” she said. “It’s about having the conversation—that really helps. It’s a behavioral change.”

Despite Alaska’s strict anti-littering laws, the state has a serious problem with marine debris because of ocean currents that bring trash from around the world to its shores, according to Julie Decker, director of the Anchorage Museum. In an exhibit called Gyre, the museum puts this trash on display, with artworks that incorporate and call attention to plastic trash collected from beaches worldwide.

The exhibit places litter under museum lights so that people will look at it, talk about it, think about where it came from, and ultimately change their behavior.

“In one moment you understand it,” she said. “You see yourself in the problem. You see your own products. You see your own beaches. I wasn’t sure what kind of response we’d get, but watching children go through has been one of the most powerful experiences I’ve had. They leave talking about behavior, talking about what they’re going to do.”

One of the exhibit’s goals, according to Decker, is to start a conversation about why people litter in the first place.

“People want to make it invisible to themselves, to get rid of the trash and the smell,” Decker said. “Most people litter when they’re not being watched.”

Brown’s and Decker’s hunches about why people litter and what it will take to change their behavior have a basis in social science research, such as that done by Robert Cialdini, emeritus professor of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University and author of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

“One of the things that’s fundamental to human nature is that we imitate the actions of those around us,” said Cialdini, who has conducted a number of landmark studies in littering and litter prevention—all of them pointing to the fact that people are likely to do what they think is expected of them. It’s about norms and expectations, he says: Change these, and you’ll change people's behavior.

Loretta Brown picks up litter on Bishop's Beach near Homer, Alaska. (Vivian Wagner)

“It’s the idea that look, no one is littering here, so it must not be a legitimate thing to do,” Cialdini said. “We take our cues about what to do in a particular setting by what people are doing there already.”

Some of Cialdini’s litter studies have taken place in parking lots and parking garages, with flyers placed under the windshield wipers of random cars. Unsuspecting subjects return to their cars and researchers observe them, to see what they do with the flyers. Will they throw them on the ground? In study after study, it turns out that cues in their environment are a strong determining factor in what actions people take.

“It depends on what you see immediately before you get to your car,” Cialdini said. “If you see a environment that is highly littered, you litter. If there is not litter, you are significantly less likely to litter.”

But if there is just one piece of litter in an otherwise litter-free environment, subjects are even less likely to throw their trash on the ground.

“If there is one piece, you are least likely to litter,” Cialdini said. “If you see one piece, it reminds you that most people are not littering here. It calls attention to the fact that the majority of people are not littering.”

Cialdini’s research echoes the “broken windows theory,” first introduced in 1982 by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. This theory holds that people are more likely to break windows, write graffiti, or deface an environment if it’s already been defaced. One broken window, in other words, leads to more broken windows. And likewise, a littered stretch of beach or highway leads to more littering.

In Cialdini’s research, what people see being done around them also affects their actions. Thus, if they see someone throwing a flyer on the ground nearby, they are more likely to throw their own down. And if they see someone reacting disapprovingly to littering, they are less likely to litter themselves.

“The most dramatic results we’ve gotten are from situations that show people disapproving of littering,” Cialdini said. “One study took place in a library parking lot. People left the library, and there was a piece of paper on their windshield. The thing that most affected people was when they saw someone nearby reaching down and picking up a piece of litter with a disapproving look. When they got to their own cars, not one person littered. If they didn’t see anyone picking up litter, 33 percent littered. We went from a third of the subjects littering to zero, when they saw an example of someone like them who picked up litter and showed disapproval.”

Cialdini argues that the results of his studies demonstrate that people are sensitive to what they see as normal behavior, and they’ll change their behavior to adapt to what they see being done around them.

“It all comes down to norms, and you get those cues from the environment,” he said. “People litter for reasons of convenience. They don’t want this thing. The crucial question is why don’t they litter, since the easy thing is to litter. Why would people hold onto a piece of trash? Their attitudes toward the environment make a difference, but what they perceive as the norm is key.”

He argues that the classic 1971 Keep America Beautiful television commercial showing a Native American man (who was later revealed to be actually Italian) crying amidst a polluted environment, therefore, was not as effective as it could have been, since it depicted an already trashed landscape. A more effective campaign, he says, would create and enforce a positive norm.

“You need to indicate disapproval of littering in all of your signage, not by saying that there are so many people littering, but by saying that if one person litters, it destroys the beauty of the park,” Cialdini said. “Instead of normalizing littering, you need to marginalize it with your message.”

Cialdini has recently expanded his research into other areas of environmental persuasion, such as convincing people to reuse hotel towels. He has worked with hotel chains to design signage with messages like “the majority of our guests reuse their towels”—thus creating a norm that people are likely to follow.

“You ask, ‘What are people like me doing?’” Cialdini said. “People decide what to do based on what people like them have been doing. If you say, ‘The majority of our guests have reused their towels,’ you get more compliance than if you say, ‘Do it for the environment.’”

Meanwhile, people on the front lines of the litter war are struggling to come up with messages that work. Joel Hunt, a public information officer with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), admits that despite public relations campaigns, littering in his state remains at an all-time high. According to Hunt, more than 400,000 bags of litter being picked up along Ohio’s roadways each year.

ODOT, like other state transportation agencies, is tasked with cleaning up its roadways and partnering with other agencies to educate the public about the problems with littering. A recent public information campaign called “Untrash Ohio,” sponsored by Keep Ohio Beautiful, for instance, featured billboards with images like that of someone fishing and reeling in a plastic bottle. And ODOT’s adopt-a-highway program—which gives individuals and organizations the opportunity to adopt a section of highway to keep it clean—seeks to create clean roadways so that, ideally, people will be less likely to litter on them.

Hunt says that his agency continues to try to combat the problem of littering, and he hopes that eventually its efforts will pay off.

“It’s a $4 million preventable problem,” said Hunt. “That money could be used to purchase 28 new snow plow trucks or to repave a 40-mile two-lane road every year.”

Instead, Ohio spends that money—and much time and effort—on collecting all the bottles, cans, and other pieces of trash that inevitably end up along its roadways. It’s a seemingly endless cycle, but litter research suggests that without these clean-up efforts, the problem would get even worse.


How to Repair Low Self-Esteem

If you have low self-esteem it's important to recognize the ways in which you might be inadvertently sabotaging yourself. Some of your short-term strategies that are meant to protect you from pain may actually cause you more distress in the long-term.

Once you recognize the problem, however, you can takes steps to create positive change and banish the belief that you're not good enough.

If you notice someone around you is struggling with self-esteem issues, be patient. Consider how their responses stem from their fear of being rejected. While you can't make someone feel better about themselves, you can work on doing your part to help them feel supported.


Self-Presentation Avenues

People self-present in a variety of ways. Perhaps most obviously, people self-present in what they say. These verbalizations can be direct claims of a particular image, such as when a person claims to be altruistic. They also can be indirect, such as when a person discloses personal behaviors or standards (e.g., “I volunteer at a hospital”). Other verbal presentations emerge when people express attitudes or beliefs. Divulging that one enjoys backpacking through Europe conveys the image that one is a world-traveler. Second, people self-present nonverbally in their physical appearance, body language, and other behavior. Smiling, eye contact, and nods of agreement can convey a wealth of information. Third, people self-present through the props they surround themselves with and through their associations. Driving an expensive car or flying first class conveys an image of having wealth, whereas an array of diplomas and certificates on one’s office walls conveys an image of education and expertise. Likewise, people judge others based on their associations. For example, being in the company of politicians or movie stars conveys an image of importance, and not surprisingly, many people display photographs of themselves with famous people. In a similar vein, high school students concerned with their status are often careful about which classmates they are seen and not seen with publicly. Being seen by others in the company of someone from a member of a disreputable group can raise questions about one’s own social standing.