What is depression?

Depression is a common and very severe psychological disorder.  It is an emotional state of great sadness and apprehension, feelings of worthlessness and guilt, social withdrawal, and loss of the usual drive and motivation (Davison and Neale, 2001).

Most of us will probably have an ample amount of sadness in our lives, though probably not to a degree that warrants the diagnosis of depression. However there are moves to broaden the clinical definition.

Depressed by Sander van der Wel

In the UK 10% of people will be diagnosed with depression at some point in their lives, and internationally this rate varies from 3% in Japan to 17% in the USA.


What are the symptoms?

A formal diagnosis of depressive disorder requires the presence of five of the following symptoms for at least two weeks, one of which must be either depressed mood or loss of interest and pleasure:

• Sad, depressed mood.
• Loss of interest and pleasure in usual activities.
• Difficulties in sleeping.
• Poor appetite and weight loss, or increased appetite and weight gain.
• Loss of energy.
• Feelings of worthlessness and guilt.
• Difficulty in concentrating.
• Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide.

Why do people get depressed?

The current biological model of depression suggests that the disorder relates to a malfunction of the neurotransmitter seratonin. This chemical is used by brain cells to communicate, and helps to controls mood, appetite and sleep. Chemical anti-depressant thereapies (e.g. Prozac) therefore try to boost levels of seratonin.

However, this explanation does not account for the varying worldwide prevalence of depression, nor can it explain why this neurotransmitter is faulty in the first place.

An alternative cognitive view is that some people develop faulty thinking styles, sets of negative 'schemas' about themselves, the world and the future (Beck, 1976). These are self-reinforcing and lead to negative mood and loss of motivation.

The answer may lie in a combination of the two approaches, as both drug and cognitive therapies have been found to be effective for depression. Reconciling the different approaches in psychology is an important challenge, not least in mental health.


References

Beck, A. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
Davidson, G. and Neale, S. (2001). Abnormal Psychology (8th Ed.) New York: Wiley.

The huge problems with the new system of psychiatric diagnosis

The American Psychiatric Association publishes a manual for diagnosing mental disorders, called the DSM. This year they are publishing the 5th edition ("DSM-5") - in principle, an updated and more accurate version.

In practice, its revisions have been met with widespread dismay and alarm. In fact, I have yet to read anything positive about it.

Dr Doom! Image by JD Hancock.

Among the concerns that have been raised are the following:

• Medicalising grief - grief due to sad/traumatic life events (what most of us would call 'normal' grief) is now viewed as a form of depressive disorder.
• What happened to Aspergers' syndrome? - the new version bundles together autism and Aspergers', treating differences as just a matter of quantity. While there are similarities, it is confusing for the public and in many ways just absurd to say that, for example, severely disabled non-verbal autistic individuals have the same disorder as smart, highly functional 'Aspies'. 
• Mislabelling unhealthy lifestyle choices - such things as promiscuous behaviour or refusal to be treated are now seen as aspects of mental illness.
• A generally broadening of diagnosis - more and more diagnosis, more and more disorders.  Which is especially suspicious when you consider the close financial links between the APA and major pharmaceutical companies - the very people who will gain from the increased use of psychiatric medication. 

Perhaps the most damning verdict comes from Prof. Allen Frances who chaired the previous review of DSM. He states: "DSM 5 remains a reckless and poorly written document that will worsen diagnostic inflation, increase inappropriate treatment, create stigma, and cause confusion among clinicians and the public" (source here).

What is your view of the state of psychiatric diagnosis? Are you worried about mental illness being over-diagnosed, or about the treatments used?

This post is part of #BlogFlash2013 - 30 days of flash blogging - using 

the prompt 'health' http://bit.ly/Y2BMEc

My top 5 brilliant psychology books for everyone

The following books are fantastic for anyone with an interest in psychology:

Fascinating, easy-to-read psychology books...

Nature via Nurture: Genes, experience and what makes us human by Matt Ridley

An expert on making evolutionary theory accessible, here Ridley tackles the nature-nurture debate, trying to find answers to the extent to which we are ruled by our genes. The key idea which he explains here is that the genome is not detailed enough to be a complete masterplan, but instead interacts with the environment to make us who we are. He shows how some of the great thinkers in psychology have contributed, each in their own way, to our understanding of human nature. 

Help! by Oliver Burkeman

Self-help books get a bad name, but how to distinguish the good from the bad (without having to read them all)? This book humourously runs through a vast range, current and classic. It debunks the likes of 'paraliminal' CDs and psycho-cybernetics, finds useful insights from some of the older titles in the genre, and gives intriguing summaries of many research findings. In a few cases he concludes, refreshingly, that he simply can't decide whether a technique works or not. It's light-hearted but well-researched throughout.

The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge

For years the structure of the brain has been viewed as static once we reach adulthood - no new neurons or functional change. Doidge elegantly summarises how the new field of neuroplasticity is changing that view, and how it applies to areas such as addiction and stroke recovery.

The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks

A classic - essays about mysterious neurological conditions, each fascinating and very readable. From the title case of visual agnosia to tales of memory loss to autistic savants. Curiously, Sacks himself suffers from a rare neurological condition called prosopagnosia, meaning that he is unable to recognise faces.

50 Psychology Classics by Tom Butler-Bowden

This book deserves its place in my list due to its massive scope, and it's a book I wish had been around when I was first studying psychology. By summarising both classic and contemporary works, it opens up a real magic box of research in neat, 4-page summaries and clearly shows why each is relevant to real life. I loved the 'in a nutshell' 1-sentence summaries for each one too, and the links to related chapters.

What have I missed? Share your favourites in the comments. 

This post is part of #BlogFlash2013 - 30 days of flash blogging - using 

the prompt 'books' http://bit.ly/Y2BMEc

Lost innocence: what do addiction, anorexia and Milgram's electric shocks have in common?

I recently heard several recovering substance abusers giving a talk about how they had become addicts.

All said that they had begun taking smaller amounts and/or 'safer' substances. At the start, none thought they were the kind of person who could take heroin. I asked if there was a moment at which they were aware that they were moving on from 'softer' drugs to heavier stuff but each said that there wasn't - they took a range of substances and it happened gradually.

Drugs such as cocaine can lie on the border between perceptions
of soft/hard drugs.  Image by Foxtongue.

Gradual change in behaviour

This gradual change in behaviour and attitude reminded me of other areas of psychology where behaviour and attitudes gradually shift:

• The staged electric shocks of the famous Milgram experiment - where participants began by giving a low level of shocks - 15V - to a stranger. Nobody thinks they would give the maximum 450V shock to a complete stranger, yet in Milgram's original study, 65% did (Milgram, 1963). Add in peer pressure, and that amount rose to over 90% (Milgram, 1974).

• Eating disorders. With extreme dieting as with addiction, people are compelled to do 'just a bit more'. None would expect, at the start, that they would ever be willing to starve themselves to death.  But the horrible truth is that many do - anorexia nervosa is the most deadly of psychological disorders.

In every case, the person starts as an innocent, unwilling to comtemplete the extreme behaviour, but becomes gradually sucked in by degrees.

Similarities

There is a tendency in psychology to divide things up into areas - developmental psychology, social psychology, etc. Perhaps we should focus more on the similarities, and work towards theories that apply to a multitude of situations.

There could be many more examples of people's behaviour gradually shifting - people getting used to abuse, becoming indocrinated in cults, breaking laws... Please post your thoughts in the comments.

References

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.

This post is part of #BlogFlash2013 - 30 days of flash blogging - using
the prompt 'innocence' http://bit.ly/Y2BMEc

Modifying our brains - can we make a cyborg?

With the recent developments in bionic eyes and bionic limbs hitting the news, an old question becomes ever more relevant - will we ever create true 'cyborgs' - part human, part robot?

In some ways we already are - if people's synthetic limbs can be connected to their brains in order to feel sensation. The US military has used controls wired to an insect brain to get a beetle to fly around with a tiny spy camera attached. They can actually control its movements remotely by stimulating its brain!

But still, these developments somehow feels like useful add-ons. Is there a line which will someday be crossed, requiring us to redefine what it means to be human?

How far will technology go? Image by The PIX-JOCKEY

What next?

One thing is for certain: this research is only going to go in on direction - it's going to get better and more sophisticated. Systems are going to become more sensitive, and increasingly miniaturised too. With further developments in creating artificial brain cells, it may one day be possible to have parts of the brain bionically replaced as well.

How will it feel to have synthetic brain parts?

In some ways, we already think with more than one 'brain' - our brains contain a primitive 'reptilian brain' composed of the brainstem and the thalamus which is responsible for basic bodily functions and basic emotions, and an evolutionarily newer 'thinking brain' - the neocortex - which is responsible for our more complicated perceptions and thoughts.

Perhaps these parts of the brain could be linked to Freud's ego and id - conscious and unconscious mind (Freud, 1910).

However, to 'think' with artificial brain parts? In some respects our mind can be reduced to the activity of a huge number of brain cells, each fairly simple. But for all our sophisticated modern neuroscience, the question of how this network leads to conscious thought - the 'mind-body problem' - has yet to be answered satisfactorily. It would certainly be interesting to know if people 'felt' different after having a synthetic brain system connected up.

Will it catch on?

At the moment, the new technology described above is helping people with visual or physical impairments. But if the technology became good enough, would it start to have a general appeal? Would we see athletes opt for bionic replacement body parts, for example?

And in terms of bionic brain parts, what would be the implications for personal safety and privacy if our brains had the same vulnerability to hackers as our computers currently have? Food for thought. Clearly there are a lot of questions - please post your thoughts in the comments!

Reference

Freud, S. (1910).  The origin and development of psychoanalysis. (Translated by H.W. Chase). American Journal of Psychology, 21, 181-218.

This post is part of #BlogFlash2013 - 30 days of 

flash blogging - using the prompt 'technology' http://bit.ly/Y2BMEc

What is laughter for?

Laughter is a uniquely human trait, a form of communication which is universal - it doesn't depend on language or culture. Babies laugh long before they can speak, and laughing can promote social bonding and even improve your health.

Laughing is good for you.  Image by nosha.

Good feeling

One of the simplest but most effective forms of stress relief is to laugh. Laughter, like exercise, produces endorphins, the body's 'natural high' chemicals. It may be hard to laugh in difficult situations, but doing so has been linked to a greater resistance to stress and illness (Berk et al., 2001).

Even better is laughing together with close friends, as social support can also help to relieve stress. Laughter has been shown to reduce levels of the stress hormone cortisol (Berk et al., 1989) and therefore impacts directly on the body, apparently 'switching off' the stress response.

What is laughter for?

The obvious question to ask, drawing on evolutionary psychology, is what did laughter evolve for? The universal nature of laughter suggests that it is a genetic trait, as does the finding that people laugh much more in childhood than adulthood. Could it have a social function, or be involved in making people more attractive?

Laughing may have evolved for a socially shared purpose. Freud linked it to a relief of repressed tension, Nietzsche to existential angst, but neither of these seem to provide much an an explanation of laughter in babies and children, or for why relaxed people laugh more!

Most likely is that it was a form of communication in our early evolution, perhaps before language fully developed. Dunbar et al. (2012) propose that it evolved to facilitate social bonding. Which makes a lot of sense, given the emphasis friendship groups still place on having fun together.

Laughter Boosting - 3 Ideas

• Seek out humor - find time to watch comic films/videos, even if it's just a short clip or two on the internet. Read funny books, and follow people on Twitter that share jokes and wit.
• Look for the joke - our cognitive biases can promote us to view things negatively, but it is possible to form a habit of viewing the funny side!
• Seeking others who laugh - mirror neurons in the brain help us to feel empathy for others' emotions (Jabbi et al., 2007), so if you are surrounded by mirthful people, it will boost your own tendency to laugh too.

What are your views on the psychological benefits of 

laughter? Please share them in the comments.

References


Berk, L., Felten, D., Tan, S., Bittman, B., and Westengard, J. (2001). Modulation of neuroimmune parameters during the eustress of humorassociated mirthful laughter. Altern Ther Health Med, 7, 62–72; 74–76.

Berk, L., Tan, S., Fry, W., Napier, B., Lee, J. and Hubbard, R. (1989). Neuroendocrine and stress hormone changes during mirthful laughter. Am J Med Sci, 298, 391–6.

Dunbar R. I. M., Baron, R., Frangou, A., Pearce, E., van Leeuwen, E.J.C., Stow, J., Partridge, G., MacDonald, I., Barra, V. and van Vugt, M. (2012). Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold. Proc. R. Soc. B, 279(1731), 1161-1167.

Jabbi, M., Swart, M., Keysers, C. (2007). Empathy for positive and negative emotions in the gustatory cortex. NeuroImage, 34(4), 1744–53.

This post is part of BlogFlash 2013 - 30 days of
flash blogging - using the prompt 'laughter' http://bit.ly/Y2BMEc

Multiple intelligences theory and creativity

Howard Gardner has set out a radically different view of intelligence from the traditional view of a general IQ score. Instead of a single ability called intelligence, as proposed by Spearman (1904), Gardner believed that there are many 'intelligences'.

What’s more, they are all unrelated – ability in one is totally separate from ability in any other. You do best in tasks which relate to your strongest intelligence, but levels in other intelligences can increase with practice.

The seven multiple intelligences first set out (Gardiner, 1983) are Linguistic, Visual/spatial, Mathematical/logical, Bodily/kinaesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal. Later, an eighth intelligence was added – Naturalist Intelligence.

Intelligences?

Gardner believes that it is wrong to view someone who is good at language or spatial reasoning as 'intelligent' and others who are good at music or sports as having a 'skill'.  He states that each should be viewed as an intelligence, equal in status.  Each has particular brain areas associated with it, and there is no reason other than prejudice and tradition to consider just some of these areas to be 'true' intelligence.

Gardner's 1983 book Frames of Minds states that there are seven intelligences, each one separate from the others.  By using written exams, traditional academic subjects tend to draw mainly on just one of these - linguistic intelligence - but there are others which are of equal importance and value.



The multiple intelligences theory suggests that we have
a range of separate types of intelligence. Image by Patrick Hoesly

Creativity

Gardner argues that a high level of intelligence would be necessary for a creative task - the difference between being good at playing the piano, for example, and being able to compose.

As mentioned above, school exams tend to emphasise certain types of intelligence, most obviously linguistic intelligence. However, they don't even fully test this. Why is that people who succeed at language school are not always the same as those who become great writers, journalists or poets? Part of the explanation could be that written exams only draw on one aspect of verbal-linguistic intelligence. Any test which draws largely on memory will not make much use of the higher reaches of linguistic abilities - the creative, imaginative, playful and symbolic uses of language.

Links to real life

Compared to traditional theories of IQ, this comes closer to explaining why people who are good at school are not always the same ones who succeed in life - because school only focuses on some aspects of intelligence. Someone with a strong interpersonal intelligence, for example, would thrive at networking and conferences, and might therefore do much better than their grades would suggest.

One implication could be that school curriculum be built more closely around these key intelligences.  This would mean retaining current mathematics and language courses, but linking them more to creative and practical skills rather than memorisation.  Music and sports/dance would be similar, but other areas of the school timetable might look very different. There would be more emphasis on psychological and relationship-based learning, as well as nature-based learning - something that Harry Potter's school Hogwarts had under the name Herbology!

Harry Potter's schooling may have drawn on naturalist
intelligence. Image by Michael Vough.

Genius

So where does that leave the concept of genius - how can someone be super-bright in multiple intelligences? Rather than genius being a matter of high IQ, each intelligence has its own examples of geniuses; Mozart was a genius in musical intelligence, for example, and Picasso a genius in visual-spatial intelligence. Although it is sometimes said that the theory proves that 'everyone is good at something', in fact you could be average at all of the intelligences! On the positive side, Gardner also notes that intelligences can increase with practice.

It is worth remembering that any theory of intelligence abilities only explains some aspects of performance. Things like motivation and learning are not really covered - a person could have a lot of potential in any of the intelligences, but not make use of it.

This is part of the Creativity in Education Series of 
articles - every month on this blog -
click HERE for previous post.

Reference

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

See also: Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences