Friday, April 16, 2010

“For-credit psychology workshops offered Saturday” plus 3 more

“For-credit psychology workshops offered Saturday” plus 3 more

For-credit psychology workshops offered Saturday

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 06:30 AM PDT

MARTINSBURG, W.Va. - Four continuing education credits are available for participating in three psychology workshops Saturday, April 17.

The workshops are for health care professionals and members of the public.

Topics are "An Introduction to Dream Analysis" with Sandra Bassin from 8 to 9 a.m.; "Using Dreamwork to Help Ourselves and Our Clients" with Christine Duewel from 9 to 10 a.m.; and "Positivity" with Barbara Fredrickson from 10:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

The presentations will be at Holiday Inn Martinsburg, 301 Foxcroft Ave. The cost is $80. Go to www.wvbooks.org or call the hotel at 304-267-5500.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

ADHD linked to interaction of genetics and psychology

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 02:22 PM PDT

ScienceDaily (Apr. 15, 2010) — ADHD may be caused by alterations in the serotonin neurotransmission system combined with a tendency to experience psychosocial distress.

Researchers writing in BioMed Central's open access journal Behavioral and Brain Functions found that ADHD behaviors in children and adolescents were associated with interactions between low and high serotonin activity and self-blame in relation to inter-parental conflict.

Molly Nikolas, from Michigan State University, USA, worked with a team of researchers to study a key serotonin genetic region, 5HTTLPR, and the tendency for children to blame themselves for parental arguments in 304 youths. They found that those children who reported more self-blame, and had variants of the region associated with both high and low serotonergic activity, had more ADHD symptoms. According to the authors, "To date, studies have mostly focused on the effects of genetic and environmental influences on ADHD separately. Our work examines the interaction between a specific gene variant and a family environmental risk factor in order to determine their roles in the development of ADHD via behavioral and emotional dysregulation in children."

5HTTLPR is a functional genetic region responsible for regulating the production of a protein that transports the neurotransmitter serotonin; it has previously been linked to a range of neuropsychiatric disorders and personality traits. Tendency to self-blame was assessed by questionnaire. The authors stated, "Overall, these results complement growing evidence suggesting that 5HTTLPR variants confer a liability for ADHD that is activated in particular environments, rather than conferring risk for ADHD directly."

Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by BioMed Central, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

  1. Molly Nikolas, Karen Friderici, Irwin Waldman, Katherine Jernigan and Joel T. Nigg. Gene x environment interactions for ADHD: synergistic effect of 5HTTLPR genotype and youth appraisals of inter-parental conflict. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2010; (in press) [link]

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

ADHD Linked To Interaction Of Genetics And Psychology

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 08:20 AM PDT


Main Category: ADHD
Also Included In: Psychology / Psychiatry;  Genetics
Article Date: 16 Apr 2010 - 5:00 PDT

email icon email to a friend   printer icon printer friendly   write icon view / write opinions



ADHD may be caused by alterations in the serotonin neurotransmission system combined with a tendency to experience psychosocial distress. Researchers writing in BioMed Central's open access journal Behavioral and Brain Functions found that ADHD behaviors in children and adolescents were associated with interactions between low and high serotonin activity and self-blame in relation to inter-parental conflict.

Molly Nikolas, from Michigan State University, USA, worked with a team of researchers to study a key serotonin genetic region, 5HTTLPR, and the tendency for children to blame themselves for parental arguments in 304 youths. They found that those children who reported more self-blame, and had variants of the region associated with both high and low serotonergic activity, had more ADHD symptoms.

According to the authors, "To date, studies have mostly focused on the effects of genetic and environmental influences on ADHD separately. Our work examines the interaction between a specific gene variant and a family environmental risk factor in order to determine their roles in the development of ADHD via behavioral and emotional dysregulation in children".

5HTTLPR is a functional genetic region responsible for regulating the production of a protein that transports the neurotransmitter serotonin; it has previously been linked to a range of neuropsychiatric disorders and personality traits. Tendency to self-blame was assessed by questionnaire. The authors stated, "Overall, these results complement growing evidence suggesting that 5HTTLPR variants confer a liability for ADHD that is activated in particular environments, rather than conferring risk for ADHD directly".

Notes:
Gene x environment interactions for ADHD: synergistic effect of 5HTTLPR genotype and youth appraisals of inter-parental conflict
Molly Nikolas, Karen Friderici, Irwin Waldman, Katherine Jernigan and Joel T. Nigg
Behavioral and Brain Functions (in press)

Source:
Graeme Baldwin
BioMed Central

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

What psychology tells us about the UK election debate

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 06:01 AM PDT

Raj Persaud, consultant psychiatrist

How much do we really uncover about our leaders when they are exposed to the full glare of a "presidential" style debate?

All the candidates will have been intensively prepped by various experts, so the problem for the electorate will be trying to glimpse the authentic human behind the rhetoric.

This problem may now have been solved with a combination of scientific and statistical analysis with the precise words Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and David Cameron used.

Psychologist James Pennebaker of the University of Texas has run every word each candidate used on Thursday night's debate through an exclusive computer program, which was designed to mathematically measure all the words the different candidates used, and has drawn some surprising conclusions about their underlying personalities.

Pennebaker has also previously deployed his technique of analysing in depth what candidates said during the 2004 US presidential election campaign, and was able to wrinkle out key differences in personality between the candidates, despite the welter of spin and strategy that billions of dollars in campaign contributions had purchased.

Published in the Journal of Research in Personality, Pennebaker, Richard Slatcher and colleagues found that John Kerry, the failed Democratic candidate, used language most similar to that of a person with depression, compared to all the other candidates.

This may have been vital to what was then considered the surprising failure of his, and running mate John Edwards', campaign, given that both were widely perceived to be much more intelligent and competent than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Previous psychological research has established that voters much prefer optimistic language. Given that both Democratic candidates used words that were more depressive than their Republican rivals, this could have been a key electoral factor, perhaps operating at an unconscious level in voters' minds.

For instance, in a study published in American Psychologist, Martin Seligman, a psychologist who advocates optimism as the fundamental variable that determines outcomes in competitive predicaments, was able to predict Senate and Presidential election results - even voting upsets - with truly astonishing accuracy, by merely comparing levels of optimistic vocabulary in candidates' speeches.

A 2007 study by Pennebaker, entitled "Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among US Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates", also revealed that John Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, was, from the words he used, the most "feminine" of the four candidates.

Previous research on the psychology of linguistic style has found that women display characteristic differences in linguistic styles compared to men. For example, they deploy greater references to others (they are more relational) and make fewer references to money.

The deep problem for a male politician of appearing too "feminine" to the electorate is that previous psychological research has uncovered that nearly two-thirds of voters characterise leaders of countries as "masculine".

Using the same statistical and computerised approach to analysing the candidate's words, I invited Pennebaker to apply his technique, used so powerfully in recent US presidential campaigns, on the words that Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Gordon Brown generated for their first televised debate.

Pennebaker's preliminary analysis is that Brown used more emotionally and psychologically distant language. His low use of first person singular pronouns - I-words - means that, in psychological terms, he was the least personal.

Instead of using "I", he tended to use "we". This is a sign of psychological "distancing" that Pennebaker often reports in less electorally successful politicians; John Kerry and Al Gore were both big "we" users.

Brown also used negative emotion words, especially words that signalled anxiety, at the highest rates compared to the other two candidates.

Compared to the other two adversaries, Pennebaker found Nick Clegg used more personal language (including more I-words), deployed the most positive emotion words, and tended to talk in the present tense at the highest rates. These are strong indicators of psychological immediacy: in other words, he was speaking more of the here-and-now.

Pennebaker's analysis is that Clegg's overall linguistic style on the night was characterised by verbal markers of honesty, consistent with previous research on differences between truthful and deceptive language. Linguistic honesty is associated with, among other features, higher use of I-words.

Clegg is widely regarded to have won the first round of this televised contest. His electoral secret weapons, according to Pennebaker's linguistic investigation, could include these verbal stylistic features - perhaps, in particular, his superior use of optimistic language.

What is intriguing about Pennebaker's analysis is that it provides a scientific explanation for why Clegg may have been perceived to have performed better.

Compared to the other two candidates Pennebaker found that Cameron's style was the least distinctive: other psychologists might speculate that this could be a sign of greater caution.

The perception here in the UK was that Cameron went into the debate with the highest expectations on his shoulders, and therefore had the most to lose. For him the danger was that he would fumble and drop the ball. Therefore, perhaps there was pressure to appear most anodyne?

Like Brown, Pennebaker found that Cameron scored high in negative emotion words, but was also more angry than anxious. He tended to be a bit more moralistic - using words like would, should, and could - was less specific, and had a greater focus on money-related issues.

In comparison with the other two candidates, Pennebaker found that Brown was more concrete, focusing on particular objects and things. This was indicated by his use of words such as "a" and "the" - words that are needed with concrete nouns.

Like Barack Obama, whose speeches Pennebaker has also extensively analysed, Brown also used more verbs than the other candidates. This is often a sign, Pennebaker feels, of more dynamic thinking.

Compared to Brown, Pennebaker found both Cameron and Clegg used relatively more "cognitive" or "thinking" vocabulary, including words like "think", "realise", "understand" and "because".

Pennebaker argues that people generally use cognitive words when still attempting to construct an unambiguous narrative. In other words, Cameron and Clegg's verbal styles suggest that they are struggling to generate ways of framing their thinking, unlike Brown who already has some kind of clear account in his head.

Pennebaker cautions that his preliminary language scrutiny should not be taken too seriously just yet. As the debates unfold, it is possible that  language use by the various candidates will settle down, as nerves begin to play less of a factor and the uniqueness of the situation becomes less overwhelming.

This could allow possibly more natural ways of speaking to "leak" out more, and therefore permit deeper psychological differences between the candidates to emerge.

Raj Persaud is currently at the Edinburgh International Science Festival where he is conducting an experiment on the psychology of expectation.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)