There are times that I look back at the person I was during my last few years in Houston, and I’m deeply embarrassed for her.

Anyone have suggestions for templates they’ve seen/loved?

I’ve missed this.

Anyway, this was one of those papers that I had a night to sleep on the topic (had already pulled/read most of my content), and when I sat down at the computer, it poured out in short timeframe.

Written for Psyc6211, July 3, 2009

Assignment:
Consider the following scenario: A recent article was published in a popular magazine that presented information about medical treatments that were “out of the ordinary.” For example, the article discusses many alternative “cures” to some of the most studied diseases. One segment of the article discussed how you can cure an enlarged prostate with a popular method of reducing wrinkles. While this article did provide some scientifically-based research, the findings were largely taken out of context or misrepresented in some way.

Using the critical thinking skills learned thus far in the course and with the scenario’s example article in mind, find an example of a current article or media claim that draws incorrect conclusions from its findings.

With these thoughts in mind:
Post by a brief summary of the article you located and the errors that the author makes in drawing conclusions about the findings. Then explain how the author can make the article better, using the critical thinking skills that you’ve learned to date.

Facebook! Can kill you!

Facebook: purveyors of DEATH. Or not.

The article that I found — a press release, actually — promised to give life-altering information about two very timely topics: social networking sites and the current recession. The release, “Social networks could seriously damage your health — particularly during a recession” (2009), applies to me, as both a job seeker (I hope to return to work fulltime in September) and as a user of Facebook. The release author suggests that those out of work may eschew face-to-face contact in favor of less expensive time online. The potential harm spelled out in the release is no laughing matter: “our devotion to social networks such as Facebook could alter the way genes work, upset immune responses, hormone levels, and the function of arteries, and influence mental performance” (‘Social networks,’ 2009, ¶3). Diving into the source article in the British journal Biology makes the consequences of Facebook use even more dire. The article’s author, Sigman (2009), suggests that social networking site usage may also lead to isolation, cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, sleeplessness, inflammation, stroke, memory loss, and even premature death.

In light of recent New York Times pieces I’ve read about the value of social networks during a job search (Villano, 2009)(Weed, 2009), this article was a bit disheartening. You mean, to find a job, I need to use social networks, but by doing so, I might harm myself? What is a girl to do? A girl is to do her homework, that’s what a girl is to do. It turns out, all fear-mongering aside, I have no reason to fear. The research to which Sigman’s article refers not to social network usage — or even general electronic media usage, for that matter — but, rather to the primary indicators, loneliness and isolation. Social isolation, and the misery that it brings to man, is indeed implicated in all of these conditions.

Is it appropriate to blame social networks for our increased isolation? Do people eschew face-to-face contact in favor of face-to-screen time with online-only contacts? Perhaps some do. Sigman’s reference for this, however (one I had to dig to find, as it was not included in the article reference list), was an author’s personal experience — in an editorial, not even a peer-reviewed article (Abbasi, 2008). This is hardly something backed by science. If I add my personal experience with social networks to the mix — experience equally valid to one doctor’s annecdote — I find that online networks not only improve my social contacts, but also enhance my real-life connections. I may, for instance, learn more about another (local) mom’s day-to-day life, improving our ability to converse when we next meet again at a toddler play date. I also can discover more about my local connections’ personalities, assisting me in deciding with whom to spend my limited budget for face-to-face time. Social networking sites lessen, not increase, my sense of isolation.

All in all, the AIM press release and the article it references do discuss a legitimate issue; reduced social contacts are repeatedly demonstrated to have a negative effect on health. That said, placing blame on social networking sites such as Facebook is not supported by the research, and appears to be a cheap attempt at joining two “hot” news items (recession, increased social networking use) for increased consulting opportunity for AIM and readership for Sigman.

What both the release and the article neglect to discuss is the correlation/causation link between electronic media usage and loneliness. Do we give up our non-virtual social networks because of electronic media? Or, what I consider more likely, do we use online contacts as a way to build up our social lives that have been obliterated by changes in society’s general? These questions, in my opinion, would make a much more interesting — and helpful — study. It’s possible that many people use online networks as a way to mitigate otherwise unavoidable isolation.

References

Abbasi, K. (2008). MMR and the value of word of mouth in social networks [Editorial]. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 215-216. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/101/5/215

Sigman, A. (2009, February). Well connected? The biological implications of ’social networking’. Biologist, 56(1), 14-20. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://azureim.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sigmanbiologist2009.pdf

Social networks could seriously damage your health — particularly during a recession. (2009, March 20). PRWeb. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2248584.htm

Villano, M. (2009, May 2). Job-search networks, in all shapes and sizes. New York Times, 2009, March 20 [Electronic edition]. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/jobs/03networks.html

Weed, J. (2009, May 30). Finding new employees, via social networks. New York Times, 2009, May 30 [Electronic edition]. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/jobs/31recruit.html

h/t Feministe

IQ: incomplete, questionable

In popular usage, IQ has come to mean something very different than a measure of one’s academic aptitude. The population at large seems to overestimate the application of “IQ” in the same way they underestimate the scientific utility of a “theory.” What, exactly, does IQ measure?

The first standardized intelligence tests appeared just after the turn of the 20th century. At the request of the French government, researchers Binet and Simon developed the first reliable test of general intelligence. This test, intended to identify children who might need additional instruction and to moderate the bias of teacher assessments, became quite popular. By 1916, Stanford theorists introduced the scoring system we now know as the intelligence quotient (IQ), or the relationship between a child’s mental age and chronological age (Weiten, 2008). As a predictor of general scholastic achievement, IQ functions reasonably well, with a positive correlation of .65 with academic achievement (Weiten).

Beyond its intended purpose, however, the utility of the intelligence quotient wanes. While IQ can predict success, it does not explain why any given person may be successful. While it can identify children in need of supplemental instruction, it does not highlight what kind of help they require. During the 1980s, newer models of intelligence emerged as Sternberg identified three different skills sets of intelligence: verbal, practical, and social (Weiten, 2008) and Gardner posited seven modes of intelligence. Building on this idea of divided functionality, but moving into a more measurable framework, Naglieri & Das introduced the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) model of cognition and a Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) instrument to measure the PASS processes (Naglieri & Rojahn, 2004). Unlike general intelligence models, PASS identifies specific cognitive skills, including the physiological residence for each (Das, 2002).

Figure from Dass, 2002.

Planning
Planning, aka “the executive function,” resides in the brain’s frontal lobe. Planning skills apply to decision making, problem solving, and understanding the big-picture (Das, 2002).

Attention
Also known as arousal, attention is the ability to choose where to focus and what to ignore. While the attention function is difficult to pinpoint, it is likely that arousal first works in the brainstem, followed by frontal lobe involvement in directing attention (Das, 2002).

Simultaneous
The ability to see the whole and categorize its parts simultaneously is believed to reside in the cortex and in the occipital and parietal lobes (Das, 2002).

Successive
This processing skill allows filtration and ordering of stimuli into a specific and more manageable order via the frontal and temporal lobes (Das, 2002).

The testing instrument of the PASS model, the CAS, measures cognitive processes in normal, advanced, or regressed children aged 5 to 17 and in adults with reading difficulty and/or mental retardation (Das, 2002). Unlike the most widely used IQ test, the WISC-III — which measure ability within a context of expected explicit knowledge — the CAS emphasizes ability removed from the context of academic achievement (Naglieri & Rojahn, 2004). The test avoids achievement-driven questions, giving a clearer picture of actual ability (Naglieri, De Lauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006) with most of the bias from social background removed. And, in multiple comparative studies, the CAS has more strongly correlated with acheivement as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. In a 2006 paper, Naglieri and his colleagues presented a consistent .80 correlation between the CAS and the WJ-III, compared with only a .65 correlation between the most-used general IQ test and the WJ-III (Naglieri, De Lauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006).

Not only does the CAS have a higher level of validity, it is also more useful than the traditional tests of general intelligence. For most people, scores across the four cognitive abilities are fairly well aligned. In his 2002 paper, Das presented findings that children with ADD showed significant drops planning and attention skills, while testing normal on other measures. This implies a possible diagnostic utility for the CAS. In another case, a post-auto-accident 12-year-old boy tested normally on traditional IQ measures, even as his performance at school plummeted. The CAS revealed that while this boy’s simultaneous and successive scores were normal (100 and 110), his planning and attention scores had dropped through the floor (73 and 79). Understanding which portions of a child’s cognitive abilities have declined can not only allow for better educational assistance, but also can direct doctors to possible areas of brain damage.

Like any instrument, the CAS is not perfect. I’d love to see a version of this test geared toward normal and advanced-level adults. The CAS provides much more data than other tests, but it still does not give a window into “rational quotient,” a concept Stanovich (2009) explores in his new book. But, while offering predictive value, the CAS also provides an understanding of specific cognitive abilities — an understanding that will certainly inform future areas of intelligence research.

References

Das, J. (2002). A better look at intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 28. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Naglieri, J., De Lauder, B., Goldstein, S., & Schwebech, A. (2006). WISC-III and CAS: Which correlates higher with achievement for a clinical sample?. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 62-76. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Naglieri, J., & Rojahn, J. (2004). Construct Validity of the PASS Theory and CAS: Correlations With Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 174-181. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Stanovich, K. E., (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Weiten, W. (2008). Psychology: Themes and variations. Briefer version. (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.

*****

Culture & Media Institute author, ignoring evidence, makes faulty comparisons and contorts ‘Today Show’ guest’s remarks to further her agenda.

*****

On a recent segment of the Today Show, Dr. Robi Ludwig discussed new (and potentially surprising) information about marriage and divorce with Al Roker. According to Ludwig, new data shows that in some cases, specifically those where the ongoing home environment is violent, combative, and conflict-ridden, children experience detrimental effects. Ludwig challenged the conventional wisdom that an intact family is always best and stated that these effects can be mitigated by divorce *if* the parents are able to work together in a cooperative manner to co-parent. Ludwig emphasized that she was not referring to disagreements (and even stated that children’s ability to understand that love and disagreement can coexist is healthy), but rather to cases where stress ruled the roost (‘Is staying together good for the kids?,’ 2009).

From her description in nearly-identical articles for NewsBusters and the Culture and Media Institute (CMI), Catherine Maggio (2009) seems to have viewed a quite different home and parenting segment. Maggio suggests that Ludwig acted as a proponent — an apologist, even — of divorce, and accuses Ludwig of ignoring the dire consequences of divorce that children suffer (Maggio, 2009)(Maggio, 2009). Maggio’s insistence that intact marriage is always the best option is problematic, filled with fallacy and bias.

Confirmation bias (Ruscio, 2006)
The articles’ author expected a certain “liberal bias” from Dr. Ludwig’s presentation, and, as a result, found it. It is *obvious* to Maggio that, while Ludwig speaks of holding children’s best interests at heart, that rather she is a selfish liberal who thinks that if marriage is inconvenient in the least, one should jump to divorce. The possibility that data might support divorce in some cases is inconceivable.

3rd variables (Stanovich, 2007)
In her insistence that in intact marriage is always a better option than divorce, Maggio ignores the possibility that other factors come into play, and that perhaps divorce isn’t the causal variable for her data. Not surprisingly, many of the same effects of divorce are also prevalent in children from conflict-ridden homes. Perhaps, for instance, the conflict and accompanying stress, rather than divorce itself, actually cause health issues.

Self-selection, lack of study design (Stanovich, 2007)
Any analysis of divorce and home conflict is, by nature, not going to include a double-blind, randomly-assigned study design. (Wouldn’t you love to be the kid who gets assigned to the parents who constantly call each other nasty names?) Because of this, it is not possible to truly control for which effects are from divorce, and which are from other, perhaps only tangentially related, causes. In other words, even if an analyst is aware of possible alternate causes of issues, he or she cannot eliminate them entirely and give a definitive answer on causation.

Cherry-picked, self-serving references (Ruscio, 2006)
In the CMI version of her article, Maggio provides links to evidence that divorce is always, without exception, a tragedy for the children involved. A glance at these links shows, in one instance, mainstream media articles, cherry-picked statements from research which showed that a combative divorce can cause major issues. A second link brings the reader to a sensationalistic roundup of divorce-related data (all at least 15 years old) presented by, surprise, an alarmist with a stake in the belief that divorce is the moral equivalent of devil worship.

Beyond the article author herself, the site and its readers also bump into deception and bias. NewsBusters is a political and social action group committed to the documentation of “liberal media bias” (‘About NewsBusters.org, n.d.), and the promotion of the right’s perspective on what defines appropriate culture and morality. It is not a journalistic outlet. Yet, the NewsBusters site prominently features the AP logo next to a link to an actual Associated Press article, giving the deceptive impression that NB is a legitimate news source.

The NewsBusters site allows reader comments, and even the first two comments to this article provide a (sadly, representative) glimpse into the bias that feeds the site readers’ worldviews. The first commenter launches an ad-hominem attack on Dr. Ludwig:

Not sure of how much of an “expert” she is. Her undergrad work was in Media Studies and she earned a Masters in Social Work. Don’t consider her more than an apologist for divorce.

If this contributor discovered these portions of Ludwig’s background, s/he also likely chose to ignore her more recent bona fides: a post-masters certificate in clinical work and PsyD from Southern California University for Professional Studies (‘Dr. Robi Ludwig – Bio,’ n.d.).

Another commenter exposes his or her own bias against attractive blonde women:

This “woman” is a laughable blond ditz who clearly has no inkling of the devastation divorce causes in a child’s mind and life.

I’m uncertain how the hair color, questionable (or not?) gender, and appearance of the psychologist on the ‘Today Show’ apply in relation to empirical data, but this reader seems to assume 1) that the good doctor is an idiot and 2) that she has an agenda that involves intentionally ruining children’s lives.

As much as the shocked and offended story author and outraged commenters may not like to hear it, Dr. Ludwig’s comments derived from actual empirical data, not from some left-wing-inspired wish for more households to break into divorce. The studies to which Dr. Ludwig referred were likely the series of analyses in the February 2009 issue of “Marriage and Family Review” (currently only available in abstract form, except to subscribers). In an analysis of data from the NLSY97 cohort, a longitudinal study of approximately 9,000 youths, researchers learned that high-conflict marriages correlate with poor mental and physical health(Hair, et al., 2009), substance abuse(Hair, et al.), and risky sexual behavior (Kaye, et al., 2009). While single-parent homes showed a lower rate of high school graduation than even high-conflict two-parent homes, children from high-conflict two-parent homes demonstrated a markedly lower rate of post-secondary education among those who did graduate (Orthner, et al., 2009).

When it comes down to it, both the left (the psychologist talk show guest) and the right (the ‘cultural values’ organization author) agree that ensuring the best possible outcome for kids is important. The difference that I see is that on the left, the “best outcome” is a moving target informed by each particular family’s circumstance and dynamic. On the right, the starting assumption is that an intact marriage is essential to a good outcome. From there, any information about positive effects of divorce *for some children* is irrelevant. The question instead is, “how can we ensure parents remain married?”

References

About NewsBusters.org (n.d.). NewsBusters. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://newsbusters.org/about

About the Culture and Media Institute (n.d.). Culture and Media Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/about/about.aspx

Dr. Robi Ludwig – Bio (n.d.). Dr. Robi Ludwig. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.drrobiludwig.com/bio.htm

Hair, E. C., Anderson Moore, K., Hadley, A. M., Kaye, K., Day, R. D., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Effects on adolescent and young adult health outcomes [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 218-248. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Is staying together good for the kids? (2009). Today Show [Video]. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/31385534#31385534

Kaye, K., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., Hadley, A. M., Day, R. D., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Effects on sexual activity among adolescents and youth [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 270-288. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Maggio, C. (2009). Today Show: Don’t stay together for the kids. NewsBusters. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/catherine-maggio/2009/06/17/today-show-don-t-stay-together-kids

Maggio, C. (2009). ‘Today Show’: Don’t stay together for the kids: NBC guest, ignoring evidence, suggests divorce is sometimes better for children. Culture and Media Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.cultureandmedia.com/articles/2009/20090617080839.aspx

Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Day, R. D., & Kaye, K. (2009). Marital and parent relationship quality and educational outcomes for youth [Abstract]. Marriage & Family Review, 45(2/3), 249-269. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from SocINDEX database.

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: separating sense from nonsense (Second Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Stanovich, K.E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (Eighth Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson Education, Inc.

WOW! This became really tough this week to pick out the SUPER POSTINGS. Many of you really kicked it up several notches and are getting into the SOARING phase early. I am impressed. But I can only pick one Super Posting for each DQ so here we go….

SUPER POSTING #1

This was the toughest to pick out of the lot. Several of you had excellent content and wonderful references. But Allison inched out in front and took the prize on this one! WAY TO GO, ALLISON!!! KEEP UP THE MOST EXCELLENT WORK!!!

“Most excellent,” huh? Why am I suddenly wanting to time travel in a phone booth with Keanu Reeves to have a chat with the “Freud dude?”

Anyway, yay me.

Writen for PSYC 6211
Contemporary Issues in Psychology
Dr. Geyer
June 10, 2009

Maladaptive adaptation: Biological/evolutionary perspectives on aggression

Since the beginning of life, adaptation to environment has allowed both humans and animals to evolve — to retain traits valuable for reproduction and survival. Many think of evolution only in terms of physical characteristics, but even Charles Darwin recognized that behavioral traits can also persist through generations (Weiten, 2008). Aggression, one such behavioral trait, endures and is common throughout the animal kingdom (Archer & Côté, 2005)(Couppis & Kennedy, 2008). Aggression has long given humans advantages. In large-scale groups, authoritarian aggression creates societal cohesion. People often prefer the restrictive, but familiar, climate of a punitive, authoritarian society, and choose well-known rules over personal freedom. Because of this, punitive societies not only do not shrink; they may thrive (Kessler & Cohrs, 2008). Outside of society, aggressive tendencies allow animals — more often, males — to find and keep mates, gain territory and resources, provide for offspring, fend off would-be intruders, and survive attacks (Archer & Côté, 2005). With such benefits, it’s not a surprise that aggression finds roots in biology, both in genetic makeup and in individuals’ own brain circuitry.

Don’t blame me; it’s my genes!
Fresnan, et al. (2007) showed that schizophrenic patients possessing the “novelty-seeking” gene (7R allele on DRD4) also had much stronger tendencies toward aggressive behavior than those without that gene. Low monoamine oxidase A activity has long been linked to antisocial behavior, enough so that MAOA is nicknamed the “warrior gene.” New research demonstrates that the link can even predict an individual’s likeliness both to join a gang and to use weapons in altercations (Beaver, DeLisi, Vaughn, & Barnes, in press).

Once an animal is genetically predisposed toward aggression, physiology ensures that they will remain so:

Aggression is addictive.
Aggressive behavior has been demonstrated to “light up” the nucleus accumbens (NAc), also known as the reward center of the brain. This flood of dopamine to the NAc is similar in nature to that experienced with drug and alcohol abuse (Couppis & Kennedy, 2008).

Aggression breeds aggression.
The initiation of violent behavior sparks a feedback loop. In cases of defensive aggression (protecting oneself from attack), the brain creates a feedback loop. While this flood of neurotransmitters likely developed to allowed animals to survive prolonged attacks, dopamine and norepinephrine not only allow protection, but make animals (including humans) more likely to initiate attacks in the future (Siegel, Bhatt, Bhatt, & Zalcman, 2007).

Aggression is habitual.
Research has shown that animals become accustomed to their “fix.” In one study, male rats from breeding pairs were exposed to an intruder at the same time each day for 10 days. By the 11th day, the NAc levels of dopamine rose even without the presence of the intruder rat (van Erp & Miczek, 2007).

Alcohol can stimulate aggression.
In a follow-on study, rats were allowed small amounts of alcohol at the same time each day. Eventually, the mice showed levels of DA neurotransmitter in the NAc elevated to 140% of baseline, even before alcohol was provided. These same rats exhibited noticeably higher levels of biting and aggression compared to non-drinking controls even when they were not drinking alcohol (van Erp & Miczek, 2007).

It does not take much of a leap to imagine how this plays out in today’s society. A man who becomes accustomed to arguments with his wife at the end of each work day eventually comes home fighting without additional provocation. The person who puts down every aspect of others’ behavior and appearance may genuinely make him/herself feel more powerful by an aggression-related release of neurochemicals. The high school student who experiences an ongoing dopamine and norepinephrine rush from abusive peers may well be chemically “triggered” to predatory, vindictive behavior after a time — and feel justified in doing so.

Fortunately, this same biological components that spark aggression help us understand how to decrease such behavior. Couppis and Kennedy (2008) found that by turning off the dopamine receptors in mice, they decreased attacking and biting behaviors in mice. Non-double-blind research hinted that clozapine (a dopamine antagonist) might be able to almost eliminate aggression; schizophrenic patients treated for 47 weeks showed a decrease of aggressiveness from 31.4% to 1.1% of the population without sedative or antipsychotic effect. Later formal research confirmed this possibility; clozapine’s moderation of aggression stood even in relation to the drug’s effect on other psychiatric symptoms (Siegel, Bhatt, Bhatt, & Zalcman, 2007).

There’s a reason aggression commonly exists in the animal kingdom; it serves a purpose when it is used judiciously for protection and the gathering of resources. But, society has changed with blinding rapidity over the past several hundred years compared to the preceding several billion, and the same inclinations toward aggression that were once beneficial are now often problematic. Because of the slow nature of evolution, behaviors such as aggression often endure long after a time when their presence has provided a definite advantage (Weiten, 2008). With an understanding aggression’s biological roots, we can learn to wield it as a tool for building society rather than as a weapon for tearing it down.

References

Archer, J., & Côté, S. (2005). Sex differences in aggressive behavior: A developmental and evolutionary perspective. In R. E. Tremblay, W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Ed.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 425-445). New York: Guilford Publications.

Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Barnes, J. C. (in press). Monoamine oxidase A genotype is associated with gang membership and weapon use. Comprehensive Psychiatry (2009). Retrieved June 10, 2009, from Science Direct database, doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2009.03.010.

Couppis, M., & Kennedy, C. (2008). The rewarding effect of aggression is reduced by nucleus accumbens dopamine receptor antagonism in mice. Psychopharmacology, 197(3), 449-456. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Fresan, A., Camarena, B., Apiquian, R., Aguilar, A., Urraca, N., & Nicolini, H. (2007). Association study of MAO-A and DRD4 genes in schizophrenic patients with aggressive behavior. Neuropsychobiology, 55(3/4), 171-175. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Kessler, T., & Cohrs, J. (2008). The evolution of authoritarian processes: Fostering cooperation in large-scale groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 73-84. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database.

Siegel, A., Bhatt, S., Bhatt, R., & Zalcman, S. (2007). The neurobiological bases for development of pharmacological treatments of aggressive disorders. Current Neuropharmacology, 5(2), 135-147. Retrieved June6, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

van Erp, A., & Miczek, K. (2007). Increased accumbal dopamine during daily alcohol consumption and subsequent aggressive behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology, 191(3), 679-688. Retrieved June 6, 2009, Academic Search Premier database.

Weiten, W. (2008). Psychology: Themes and variations. Briefer version. (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.

Anyway:

Excellent work, Allison. I just need to get you away from the public domain websites and into the peer-reviewed literature more and you will go from good to great…. You are setting the bar high for others in this class!

64/64 A

Still, since I pride myself in using at least 3 REAL sources for any given post (anything from the news, magazines, and the like is extra, IMO), I’m feeling a bit grumbly about this. I know that having a prof who’s persnickety about sources and formatting will only make me a better student/researcher/writer, but it still rubs me the wrong way in this case.

Besides that, I think I’m a bit paranoid that he’s expecting negative things from me because in my intro post, I put it out there honestly that I’m retaking this class — and why. Show, don’t tell. Show, don’t tell. Repeat to self. My job is to kick ass so he has no choice but to give me an ‘A’ in the class, not to worry about whether the man LIKES me or not. Repeat to self.

~~~~~~~~

Don’t believe everything you think.

Dictionary.com gives ten separate definitions for the word “critical.” Two introduce the idea of severe, negative feedback. Three involve medicine and natural sciences. Two relate to analysis of literature and the arts. The remaining definitions pertain to our work here and involve the application of judgment to information and the importance of the subject being judged (‘Critical,’ n.d.). As Ruscio (2006) states, “critical thinking does not imply criticism, nor does it lead to the rejection of reasonable beliefs by being overly critical” (p.3). In other words, critical thinking involves systematic open-mindedness blended with a merciless culling of ideas not worth keeping, even if the discarded ideas are those once cherished. A critical thinker must always question his or her own assumptions and resist the temptation to selectively view only the empirical evidence that supports an established idea.

comic: xkcd

A look at recent headlines is a good reminder of the importance of critical thinking, not only in the study of psychology, but also in our everyday lives. The idea of potentially contracting the flu terrifies some, yet others fear influenza vaccinations even more than the illness itself. And, according to Age of Autism, there is reason to fear this shot; flu vaccinations triple child hospitalizations (Heckenlively, 2009)! But wait, a look at less alarmist, more reasoned reporting gives a caveat: this finding is true for a select population only (children with asthma), and even then, the director of asthma research at a major children’s hospital warns caution when interpreting this study’s findings (Gardner, 2009). The author of the study herself states clearly that her findings do not implicate vaccinations as the cause of hospital stays children, but merely indicate directions for future research (American Thoracic Society, 2009).

Without a questioning attitude and the interest (and will) to dig farther, a parent may read the first article’s “proof” of flu vaccine danger and make an immediate decision to shield children from this so-called harm. With a more critical approach, this same parent discovers one additional piece of information to include with the knowledge that vaccinations have demonstrated as extremely safe in infants and toddlers (Hambridge, et al., 2006) and that vaccinating daycare-aged children is protective of the entire household (Hurwitz, et al., 2000). Only by applying critical thinking, can a parent — or a psychological researcher, for that matter — make an informed choice.

References:

American Thoracic Society (2009). News release: Flu shot not effective in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in asthmatic children. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.thoracic.org/sections/publications/press-releases/conference/articles/2009/abstracts-and-press-releases/joshi.pdf

critical. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved June 04, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.classic.reference.com/browse/critical

Gardner, A. (2009). Hospitalization rates higher in kids who get flu shots. MedicineNet.com. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=100522

Hambidge, S. J., et al. (2006). Safety of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in children 6 to 23 months old. JAMA, 296(16) 1990-1997. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from JAMA database.

Heckenlively, K. (2009). Flu vaccine triples child hospitalizations, but won’t turn them into horned, hairy apes, say experts! Age of Autism. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/flu-vaccine-triples-child-hospitalizations-but-wont-turn-them-into-horned-hairy-apes-say-experts.html

Hurwitz, E. S. et al. (2000). Effectiveness of influenza vaccination of day care children in reducing influenza-related morbidity among household contacts. JAMA, 284(13), 1677-1682. Retrieved June 04, 2009 from JAMA database.

Munroe, R. (2009). Swine flu. xkcd – a webcomic. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://xkcd.com/574/

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense (Second Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth , Cengage Learning.