A Social Psychological View of Burnout

Have you ever been in this situation: you figure out something you love and decide to make it into your profession; soon thereafter, you find yourself diappointed and no longer deriving the same enjoyment from once once beloved activity.

Psychologists have studied these types of phenomena with children and adults. They call it the Overjustification Effect. Building on the work of Desi (1971), Greene, Sternberg, and Lepper (1976) proposed that when people who enjoy an activity are given additional and excessive justification for engaging in that activity they end up enjoying the activity less.

For example, a kid might enjoy doing a chore like vacuuming his room. His parents decide to implement a system of chores where the child will receive $2 a week for completing his chores. In the parlance of social psychology, the activity has been overjustified -- the child has been given a new reason for vacuuming. Over time, the effect predicts that the child will no longer enjoy the activity as much as he initially did. Interestingly, the Overjustification Effect disappears when the reward we receive is intangible, such as praise.

There are a few explanations for the Overjustification Effect. Daryl Bem's Self-Percpetion Theory proposes that individuals perceive themselves engaged in activity and make assessments about their own motivation. If they know that they are getting paid, or really are receiving any type of tangible remuniration, they assume that the activity is being performed for the expected reward. According to Cognitive Evaluation Theory ("CET"), internal motivation is driven by our desire for competence and our desire to determine our own future. Rewards affect both of these, in that they give us feedback about our competence and they can seem as if they're controlling us, rather than us controlling them. So, as our perception of competence and control are disturbed, our internal motivation dissolves.

Personally, I think neither of these are right. When you have a reward that is contingent on your performance, you become self-conscious about your playing, and play, by definition, has no goal.

Overjustifying Your Work

The effect offers at least one explanation for why people lose their drive when they start getting paid for things they love: the activity being reinforced with work becomes overjustified as our enjoyment begins to taper off.

So what can you do? I have not come across any research on battling the Overjustification Effect. Awareness of the effect itself may help. It may be possible to focus on the activity and see the reward as a bonus, rather than as the main drive. This isn't much different from trying to be mindful in your daily work by letting go of the reward in the future and simply amusing yourself with your activity, without forcing it or demanding enjoyment. Perhaps advising someone to seek pleasure in the details of their work would be enough to focus their attention. I'm open to suggestions, dear reader(s). LOL.

Continue Reading...

What exactly is an Identity Crisis?

The term "identity crisis" was coined by Erik Erikson (1909 - 1994) a German-Jewish psychologist who was educated and was analyzed by Anna Freud, Freud's daughter. Erikson is famous for his contributions to personality and developmental psychology. He proposed that development occured in a series of 8 psychosexual stages. Each stage proposed a certain dilemma or "crisis," and healthy psychological functional depended on the successful resolution of each crisis.

Age / Crisis / Resolution

0-1 / Basic Trust vs. Mistrust / Hope

1-3 / Autonomy vs. Shame / Willpower

3-6 / Initiative vs. Guilt / Purpose

6-12 / Industry vs. Inferiority / Competence

12-19 / Identity vs. Indentity Confusion / Fidelity

20-25 / Intimacy vs. Isolation / Love

26-64 / Generativity vs. Stagnation / Care

65+ / Integrity vs. Despair / Wisdom

The 5th stage, as you can see from the "chart" above corresponds to identity formation. In this stage, the individual undergoes the identity crisis and must make decisions regarding occupation, values, political orientation, sexual orientation, and group affiliation. You can think of identity as an internal, self-contructed organization of aspirations, skills, beliefs and experiences that each of us lugs around in our heads. In other words, it's the way you think of yourself.

Canadian psychologist James Marcia! Marcia! Marcia! expanded on Erikson's work and further divided the stage into 4 distinct states. The state one falls into depends on where they are in their crisis and what type of decisions they're made. Marcia was careful not to call them stages because he didn't believe people worked through them serially.

Marcia's four states are:

1. Identity Foreclosure - A person in this state has accepted the identity that's been foisted upon them by their friends, family, and significant others. They have not undergone a crisis, but have accepted the identity they've been assigned. They tend to be authoritarian (conventional, obediant to authority and dominating subordinates) and show little autonomy. They also tend to have low self-esteem.

2. Identity Diffusion - Diffusers don't know who they are and are not actively seeking to figure it out. They generally have low self-esteem and poor relationships, but show an ability to think independently.

3. Identity Achievement - These folks have undergone a crisis, searched for their own identity and have developed personal values and self-concepts. They have resolved the crisis successfully. These people have a positive self-image, think for themselves, are moral and reject authoritarianism. They are, in psychologists' view, teh awesome.

4. Identity Moratorium - People in this stage as in an actual crisis and searching for themselves but have not yet fully committed to an identity. They tend to be more fearful and uncertain about the future than the Achievers.

Some people never reach Identity Achievement. You might be able to think of some right now. It's interesting to reflect on your own life using Erikson and Marcia's scheme. For more reading, check out Chapter 4 of Social Problems and Social Context.

Continue Reading...

How to Diagnose Your Friends with OCD

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder ("OCD") is a pretty fascinating disorder. One in 50 people are said to have it and if you've ever taken a class in Abnormal Psychology, you probably diagnosed yourself with it too. Here's the nuts and bolts of the disorder, including some tips for identifying it.

DSM-IV Criteria

The predominant guide to diagnosing psychological disorders is called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (or just "DSM-IV"). It's a the psychologist's version of the Bible, just not as depressing. If you ever find yourself bored in life and in need of something to worry about, skim the DSM-IV and I promise you'll find at least 3 disorders to keep your mind busy.

The DSM-IV offers 5 criteria for diagnosing OCD, but as an Amateur Psychologist, you can collapse them into 3 to make it easier to remember.

1. Recurring obsessions, compulsions, or both. (Imagine that!)
   
2. The obsessive behavior is severe enough that the person recognizes their unreasonableness and it bothers them.
3. The person isn't on drugs and the obsessive thinking isn't part of another disorder. For example, if a person with an eating disorder obsessed about her weight, we wouldn't say she's OCD.

What are obsessions and compulsions?

People with OCD begin to have certain thoughts. Common thoughts include aggressive impulses, contamination concerns, and inappropriate sexual imagery. The person thinks something is wrong with having that thought and start to worry and stress out about it. For example, a person at one of my sites recently wrote in about having sexual thoughts about children, despite a long history of defending and caring for them. She thought it made her a pedophile and she freaked the fuck out.

Then comes the compulsion. The compulsion is used to drown out the obsessive thoughts. Common compulsions include whispering, praying, sorting, cleaning, thinking certain thoughts, performing strange, unconnected behaviors (like breathing in a certain way or touching a lamp 3 times). When the person engages in the compulsive behavior, the intrusive thinking goes away temporarily.

Personal Observations and a New Diagnostic Criteria

I've noticed a few features of OCD that I think might create a better understanding of the disorder. (I used to have some OCD-like behaviors when I was a kid, by the way.) First, the intrusive thought is always seen as uncontrollable and automatic. Second, the person always attaches special significance to the thought and see it as arising from their true self. For example, if they have aggressive impulses, they might think that they are serial killers. Sexual impulses? Pedophiles or fiends. Even contamination concerns are viewed as serious and legitimate.

The thing that people with OCD are not doing is recognizing that sometimes thoughts are random and just come and go, and other times, it's the things we worry about that our minds like to tease us with. Rather than being a sign that we're deviants, it's a sign of strictly held values. The more one freaks about the implications and significance of the though, the more they worry, and the more their mind teases them about having it. Therefore in my opinion, the best way to combat OCD is to have the person consider that the thoughts are only there because out minds like to tease us with stuff we find inappropriate or just send us random or even paranoid information. The thing to remember is that there is NOTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. At that point, the person can stop worrying and the obsessive thoughts won't be triggered as often.

With that in mind, here's how I would reformulate the diagnostic criteria:

1. The persistence of a thought that is viewed as uncontrollable.
2. Considerable distress that arises out of the interpretation and meaning attached to the thought (e.g., I must be a pedophile, that must be dirty, I must be a serial killer).
3. A desire to erase the thought and control the mind.
   

And there you have it folks. I know trust that you have a pretty good understanding of OCD, how to identify it, and how to give it to people like an STD. So go! Diagnose and be merry.

Continue Reading...

Hello World!

I am pleased to announce the creation of my new blog, The Amateur Psychologist. I have a few aims for this blog that I would love to share with you.

1. Bring research to the people. Researchers in psychology tend to do most of their "posting" in academic journals. As fun as they are to read (yawn), most people don't subscribe to these journals. There is a wide chasm between rigorous, academic research and mainstream understanding of psychology and human behavior. We need a conduit to escort research down from the ivory tower and back to the community where it can be enjoyed by non-academics.

2. Psychology is cool! There's a ton of cool insights psychology has to offer you to brighten your understanding of people and yourself. Having that knowledge gives you an edge in all your interactions with the world.

3. Make an army of me. What could be better than a world full of know-it-alls who discuss psychology any time it's even remotely relevant?

There you have it. I welcome feedback. If you have a question you'd like answered, whether it be a person issue or just something you've been wondering about, please send me an email.

Enjoy!

Continue Reading...