How Lie's Become Truth

Article: When a Lie Becomes Memory’s Truth
By Elizabeth F. Loftus

It has been shown, that providing misleading information to the witness of an event, can actually change what a person believes he or she saw. Current research is trying to understand how people can be “tricked” into thinking they saw something which they actually didn’t. A simple paradigm has been used to study this phenomenon - first, participants witness an event; next, half are exposed to misleading, false information; finally, all participants are asked what they saw. Many different types of experiments have been performed using this method. Again and again, it is found that those people given misleading information seem to adopt it as their memory - known as the misinformation effect.

Current research has focused on four major aspects of this effect.
1) It has been found that a longer interval between the event and the misinformation, increases false memory - memory is more likely to be affected when time allows the original memory to fade.
2) The way the false information is provided is also important. Subtle misinformation is more effective at altering memory.
3) People are also able to resist the effect when they are warned of the possibility of misinformation.
4) It has also been found that age plays a factor in this effect. Young children are more commonly susceptible to misinformation. The same is found for participants over the age of 65.

Researchers have also been interested in the original memory - where does it go? One possibility is that misinformation could physically change the previously formed memory – known as trace impairment. Another possibility is that misinformation makes the original memory less accessible, without actually changing it – retrieval impairment.

It has been concluded that misinformation can actually lead people to believe that they saw things they never did. Participants seem to really believe their memories, even though they are false. Further research is required to better understand people’s recollections. These findings are especially important for the legal field when we consider the use of eye-witness testimony.

Can Personality Change?

When we talk about 'personality', we are referring to a specific set of organized and enduring psychological traits, which influence one’s perceptions, interactions, and adaptations, to both the physical and nonphysical world. Traits – defined as dispositions which demonstrate stability across various situations and times – describe the general tendencies of people. In 1985, researchers concluded that personality can change in adulthood, although not in an overpowering or complete manner – personality holds a degree of flexibility allowing adaptations to new life situations, social roles, and cultural expectations. Personality change has two requirements: changes must be reflected internally, and changes must be relatively long-lasting over time.

It is a common belief that changes in personality are limited to childhood and adolescence, with individuals ceasing to undergo personality development once they reach adulthood. In a recent study, it was shown that the level of consistency in personality of children and adolescence is higher than normally thought. So, if people don’t change very much during those times, one might ask, when can the greatest changes be observed? Young adulthood, when people transition from their family of origin to their family of destination, and from their education to their career, is believed to be when the greatest personality changes occur.

In a 20-year longitudinal analysis, researchers wanted to assess what type of correlations exist between a person’s environment and changes in their personality. Women were assessed on measures of femininity, masculinity, work status, occupational prestige, marital status and marital satisfaction. It was found that normative increases with age are found in both feminine- and masculine-related traits, and that these changes were related to social roles. In general, women displayed more warmth with age, and women working full time developed more masculine traits over time.

Changes in personality take place well into adulthood. In fact, some of the greatest changes in personality seem to occur in early adulthood, when people are transitioning from one era of their life to the next. Going from school to establishing a career, requires that people change in ways to accommodate their new roles. It is the social pressure of these new roles which leads to the changes in personality that are seen. For example, women who are in the working world, and gaining status, will likely develop more masculine-type traits, over time, than women who work in the home, raising children.

General trends of personality change throughout adulthood include the following: extraversion and neuroticism remain relatively stable from age 20-60, decreasing after that; agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness seem to increase a little bit each year from age 20 onwards, with openness decreasing after age 60. This data represents normative change in personality, which is the tendency for people to change as a group over time.

Let us consider for a minute, why personality might not change more than it does. This is taken from the Biological Perspective of personality, which says that all traits are heritable to some extent. Psychological traits are linked to physiology, genetics and evolution. For example, men with higher testosterone levels tend to be more aggressive, thus one may assume that social pressures will have less of an impact on changing this trait. As we are, to various extents, genetically predisposed to exhibit certain personality traits, it makes sense, that the changes that do occur will be relatively small.

It is encouraging to know that you can change. It encourages the use of therapy for people with problems that they may like to fix, such as becoming less neurotic or more considerate, for example. It is also interesting to look at in the broader scope of society, and consider that social pressures and other external factors will influence people’s personality.

References:
De Fruyt, F., Bartels, M., Van Leeuwen, K.G., De Clercq, B., Decuyper, M., Mervielde, I. (2006). Five Types of Personality Continuity in Childhood and Adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 538-552.
Kasen, S., Chen, H., Sneed, J., Crawford, T., Cohen, P. (2006). Social Role and Birth Cohort Influences on Gender-Linked Personality Traits in Women: A 20-Year Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 944-958.
Larsen, R.J., Buss, D.M. (2005). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E., Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of Mean-Level Change in Personality Traits Across the Life Course: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1-25.
Stevens, D.P., Truss, C.V. (1985). Stability and Change in Adult Personality Over 12 and 20 Years. Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 568-584.
Tracy, J. (2006). Personality Psychology Class: Psyc 305A.
Watson, D., Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood: Integrating Evidence From Self-Ratings and Spouse Ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 959-974.

Ethics of Fighting Terrorism

Psychologists are valued as experts in human behaviour and as such are in the position to make important contributions to national defence efforts. As these contributions can be construed to be in alignment with the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code, some claim that the abilities of psychologists naturally give rise to a responsibility to help in this domain. Yet current issues regarding involvement of psychologists in National security has revealed ethical challenges unique to the military interrogation setting which must be overcome by the APA before psychologists may help in an ethical fashion.

The APA prohibits psychologists from engaging in, directing, supporting, facilitating, or offering training in torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment at any time, for any reason, with no exceptions. Principal A: Beneficence and nonmaleficence, of the APA Ethics Code clearly states that psychologists must strive to benefit their clients and ‘do no harm’ (APA Ethics Code). Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to be attentive to and report any such inhumane acts. There appears, however, to be a bigger issue at stake. The high standards of the APA’s ethical code clearly state that its objective is to promote health, education, and human welfare (APA Ethics Code). It would therefore be unethical for the APA to support psychologists retaining information during an interrogation in an ethical fashion (that is, in compliance with the APA Ethics Code) only to pass it over to a government who will then use it to kill innocent people. While ethical in a narrow sense, this would be unethical in a global sense. I would argue that psychologists and the APA cannot claim to be acting ethically in the obtainment of information to be later used in an unethical way. Clearly, this would not support the APA’s goal of promoting human welfare, if in fact their goal applies to all humans and not just Americans.

In order for the APA to provide guidelines for its psychologists working for the goals of US national defense, the APA would need to be sure that these goals will always be ethical. As the APA is not privileged to US government intelligence nor to the agenda and goals of their administration, there is a real danger that psychologists could attain information that could later be put to unethical use.

In the United States war against terror, there have been many reports of violations of ethical conduct in both academic and non-academic journals. Horrifying graphic photographs comprise merely a fraction of such evidence. US military interrogators are known to have used methods such as sleep deprivation, prolonged solitary confinement, painful bodily positions, feigned suffocation, beatings and psychological coercion, sometimes causing death or serious injury, all in an attempt to pressure detainees to cooperate. These horrendous conditions in which detainees are held violate existing international laws. They are not, however, in violation of US laws. The Bush administration justified such ill treatment with the premise that torture is only torture when it is intended to cause harm. This narrow definition of torture includes only those acts which result in death, organ failure, or permanent impairment, thus excluding psychological torture. While the US holds this narrow view and uses it to justify appalling acts which they feel necessary to meet their goals, the rest of the world does not share this view. The United Nations defines torture as infliction of physical or mental harm which can be premeditated, systematic or meaningless by one person to another for any reason. This broader definition places the US in a difficult spot in justifying their acts to the international community as they detain prisoners against both international laws and the Geneva Convention. With this in mind, it is questionable whether licensed healthcare providers can ethically be used to aid in reaching the imperialistic ends of the US. US interrogation centers put military healthcare professionals at risk of engaging in unethical practices either directly (that they themselves will be involved in unethical acts) or indirectly (that information they receive will be used in an unethical way).

I would argue that the APA has two reasonable courses of action. 1. If the APA would like to be involved in national defence, an emphasis on political, ethical, cultural, military, national defence and interrogation training must be mandatory so that psychologists in this area would be well informed. With a lack of government knowledge, the APA runs the risk of supporting that which is unknown to them. 2. The other option would be for the APA to steer clear of political agendas and remain independent from state, military, and national defence, and instead act with universal responsibility of having psychologists be ethical at all times, in all they do, to all people. This would entail that the APA not support the American government and its goals (via ‘consultation to interrogation’), which are questionable and unknown to the APA.

With national security efforts growing, the demand for interrogation psychologists is increasing. This growing demand corresponds with a greater risk, and thus requires that these issues be given serious consideration; it demands a more intricate approach, where no grounds be left uncovered.

References:
American Psychological Association (2003, June 1). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
American Psychological Association (2005, June). Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from
http://www.apa.org/releases/PENSTaskForceReportFinal.pdf
Behnke, S. (2006). Psychological ethics and national security: The position of the American Psychological Association. European Psychologist, 11, 153-156.
Holmes, D., & Perron, A. (2007). Violating ethics: unlawful combatants, national security and health professionals. Journal of Medical Ethics,33, 143-145.

Treating Anxiety Disorders

Anxiety is defined as diffuse, vague, very unpleasant feelings of fear and apprehension; according to the DSM-IV-TR, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is characterized by chronic, excessive, uncontrollable worry, lasting 6 months or more. Benzodiazepines are commonly used to treat anxiety disorders; they can be helpful while the patient is taking them, however, symptoms usually return when the medication is stopped.

In a recent study, the effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT), in combination with a gradual reduction in benzodiazepine, as a long-term treatment for GAD, was assessed. CBT approaches assume that problematic behaviours are due to faulty learning and that this learning can be reversed; CBT is based on techniques which change learning and restructure bad thought patterns. A fundamental goal of CBT is to identify automatic thoughts in an attempt to change maladaptive thinking patterns that lead to distress, anxiety and depression. The specific aim of this study was to determine whether combining CBT with tapering off drug use, was more effective than combining tapering with nonspecific psychological treatments (NST). Two groups were used: 1) treatment group – underwent gradual but flexible tapering of medication, along with weekly CBT sessions; 2) control group – underwent gradual but flexible tapering of medication, along with weekly NST sessions. The results revealed that the treatment group had higher success rates, with nearly 75% of patients reporting complete cessation of medication after 12 weeks of intervention; a 37% success rate was reached for those in the control group. Researchers concluded that benzodiazepine cessation among GAD patients was facilitated by the gradual and flexible tapering of medication. It was concluded that tapering off of medication, combined with CBT, was more effective than when combined with NST. This study allowed researchers to attribute the observed differences between the two groups to the specific ‘active ingredients’ of CBT.

The active ingredients of CBT are aimed to provide clients with tools to allow them to cope with their anxiety and to reduce excessive worrying. This treatment involved psycho-education on anxiety and worrying, cognitive restructuring, problem-solving training, cognitive exposure to worries, situational exposure, and relapse prevention. Therapy sessions were weekly for 12 weeks. This is important, as with CBT, the most important part of learning is believed to occur between sessions when the client can practice what they have learned in real life.

As Benzodiazepine use remains high among older adults, the risk of cognitive decline increases. Studies are needed to examine the best combination of treatment that can be used with tapering off of medications in older adults. Prevalence rates of anxiety disorders among older adults may be as high as 10%; more than 20% of older adults experience anxiety symptoms that do not necessarily meet the DSM criteria. Further studies therefore, remain an important priority.

References:
Ayers, C. R., Sorrell, J. T., Thorp, S. R., & Wetherell, J. L. (2007). Evidence-based psychological treatments for late-life anxiety. Psychology and Aging, 22(1), 8-17.
Caudle, D. D., Senior, A. C., Wetherell, J. L., Rhoades, H. M., Beck, J. G., Kunik, M. E., Snow, A. L., Wilson, N. L., & Stanley, M. A., (2006). Cognitive errors, symptoms severity, and response to cognitive behavior therapy in older adults with generalized anxiety disorder. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15(8), 680-687.
Gosselin, P., Ladouceur, R., Morin, C.M., Dugas, M. J., & Baillargeon, L. (2006).
Benzodiazepine discontinuation among adults with GAD: A randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 908-919.
Hunsley, J., & Lee, C. M. (2006). Introduction to Clinical Psychology. Mississauga, ON, Canada: Wiley.
Mohlman, J., Gorenstein, E. E., Kleber, M., Dejesus, M., Gorman, J. M., & Papp, L. A. (2003). Standard and enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy for late-life generalized anxiety disorder. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 11, 24-32.
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2005). Abnormal Psychology: The Problems of Maladaptive Behavior. New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Why the mind and the body?

With a special interest in mind-body medicine, I have learned that our mind has an immense control over our body and how it works on a daily basis. We are taught that our brain controls virtually all of the biological functions which occur in our bodies. When you are starving and need food, your brain sends out signals telling you to eat; when you are placed in a situation of danger to self, your brain sends out signals telling you to run; when it is prime mating time for your body, your brain sends out signals which increase your sexual drive. So where does the mind fit in? Well, there are different theories as to the true location of the mind, and this question may never be fully answered. But what we do know, is that when you think certain thoughts, or feel different emotions, particular and discreet areas of your brain are involved.

Whether it is cause or effect can be debated, but in essence, different firing patterns in your brain are associated with different thought patterns in your mind. If you believe then, that your mind runs through the same wiring as your brain, and your brain controls everything which happens in your body .. well it is logical to assume that your mind therefore, will have an influential effect on the control of your body.

But don't take my word for it. Let me give you some everyday examples. Your dog dies, you feel sad, and you cry. Sadness is an emotion, created by your mind which is directly correlated to crying which is physiological - a common example of the mind-body connection. When you have your heart broken, and you feel nauseous, this is another example of thoughts or feelings causing physical changes in your body.

The connection between mind and body is undeniable. Where does the control end? Well this is a hard question to answer, although research is constantly being done to try and answer questions about how this all works.

Not only am I here as a resource and a guide, to help you to find your own answers, but most importantly I am here to learn - so that one day I can be the best doctor to my patients by providing the most adequate holistic health care to them.

Dr. FeelGood

Everything you need to feel good .. mind, body and soul