Attachment Styles

What is Attachment?

Attachment is a special emotional relationship that involves an exchange of comfort, care, and pleasure. The roots of research on attachment began with Freud's theories about love, but another researcher is usually credited as the father of attachment theory.

John Bowlby devoted extensive research to the concept of attachment, describing it as a "lasting psychological connectedness between human beings" (Bowlby, 1969, p. 194). Bowlby shared the psychoanalytic view that early experiences in childhood have an important influence on development and behavior later in life. Our early attachment styles are established in childhood through the infant/caregiver relationship.

In addition to this, Bowlby believed that attachment had an evolutionary component; it aids in survival. "The propensity to make strong emotional bonds to particular individuals [is] a basic component of human nature" (Bowlby, 1988, 3).

Characteristics of Attachment

Bowlby believed that there are four distinguishing characteristics of attachment:

Proximity Maintenance - The desire to be near the people we are attached to.

Safe Haven - Returning to the attachment figure for comfort and safety in the face of a fear or threat.
Secure Base - The attachment figure acts as a base of security from which the child can explore the surrounding environment.

Separation Distress - Anxiety that occurs in the absence of the attachment figure.

Ainsworth's "Strange Situation" Assessment

During the 1970's, psychologist Mary Ainsworth further expanded upon Bowlby's groundbreaking work in her now-famous "Strange Situation" study. The study involved observing children between the ages of 12 to 18 months responding to a situation in which they were briefly left alone and then reunited with their mother (Ainsworth, 1978).

Based on these observations, Ainsworth concluded that there were three major styles of attachment: secure attachment, ambivalent-insecure attachment, and avoidant-insecure attachment. Researchers Main and Solomon (1986) added a fourth attachment style known as disorganized-insecure attachment. Numerous studies have supported Ainsworth's conclusions and additional research has revealed that these early attachment styles can help predict behaviors later in life.

Before you start blaming relationship problems on your parents, it is important to note that attachment styles formed in infancy are not necessarily identical to those demonstrated in adult romantic-attachment. A great deal of time has elapsed between infancy and adulthood, so intervening experiences also play a large role in adult attachment styles. Those described as ambivalent or avoidant in infancy can become securely attached as adults, while those with a secure attachment in childhood can show insecure attachment styles in adulthood. Basic temperament is also thought to play a partial role in attachment.

But research in this area does indicate that patterns established in childhood have an important impact on later relationships. Researchers Hazen and Shaver (1987) found a number of different beliefs about relationships amongst adults with differing attachment styles. Securely attached adults tend to believe that romantic love is enduring. Ambivalently attached adults report falling in love often, while those with avoidant attachment styles describe love as rare and temporary.

While we cannot say that infant attachment styles are identical to adult romantic-attachment styles, research has shown that early attachment styles can help predict patterns of behavior in adulthood.

Secure Attachment

Characteristics of Secure Attachment

Children who are securely attached generally become visibly upset when their caregivers leave, and are happy when their parents return. When frightened, these children will seek comfort from the parent or caregiver. Contact initiated by a parent is readily accepted by securely attached children and they greet the return of a parent with positive behavior. While these children can be comforted to some extent by other people in the absence of a parent or caregiver, they clearly prefer parents to strangers.

Parents of securely attached children tend to play more with their children. Additionally, these parents react more quickly to their children's needs and are generally more responsive to their children than the parents of insecurely attached children. Studies have shown that securely attached children are more empathetic during later stages of childhood. These children are also described as less disruptive, less aggressive, and more mature than children with ambivalent or avoidant attachment styles.

As adults, those who are securely attached tend to have trusting, long-term relationships. Other key characteristics of securely attached individuals include having high self-esteem, enjoying intimate relationships, seeking out social support, and an ability to share feelings with other people.

In one study, researchers found that women with a secure attachment style had more positive feelings about their adult romantic relationships than other women with insecure attachment styles (Mccarthy G., 1999).

Ambivalent Attachment

Characteristics of Avoidant Attachment

Children with avoidant attachment styles tend to avoid parents and caregivers. This avoidance often becomes especially pronounced after a period of absence. These children might not reject attention from a parent, but neither do they seek our comfort or contact. Children with an avoidant attachment show no preference between a parent and a complete stranger.

As adults, those with an avoidant attachment tend to have difficulty with intimacy and close relationships. These individuals do not invest much emotion in relationships and experience little distress when a relationship ends. They often avoid intimacy by using excuses (such as long work hours), or may fantasize about other people during sex. Research has also shown that adults with an avoidant attachment style are more accepting and likely to engage in casual sex (Feeney, J., Noller, and Patty 1993). Other common characteristics include a failure to support partners during stressful times and an inability to share feelings, thoughts, and emotions with partners.

Disorganized Attachment

Children with a disorganized-insecure attachment style show a lack of clear attachment behavior. Their actions and responses to caregivers are often a mix of behaviors, including avoidance or resistance. These children are described as displaying dazed behavior, sometimes seeming either confused or apprehensive in the presence of a caregiver.

Main and Solomon (1986) proposed that inconsistent behavior on the part of parents might be a contributing factor in this style of attachment. In later research, Main and Hesse (1990) argued that parents who act as figures of both fear and reassurance to a child contribute to a disorganized attachment style. Because the child feels both comforted and frightened by the parent, confusion results.

http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/ss/attachmentstyle.htm

Rubin's Scales of Liking and Loving

The nature of love has been explored by a number of theorists. According to social psychologist Zick Rubin, romantic love is made up of three elements: Attachment: The need to be cared for and be with the other person.

Caring: Valuing the other persons happiness and needs as much as your own.
Intimacy: Sharing private thoughts, feelings, and desires with the other person.
Attachment: The need to be cared for and be with the other person.
Caring: Valuing the other persons happiness and needs as much as your own.
Intimacy: Sharing private thoughts, feelings, and desires with the other person.

Based upon this view of romantic love, Rubin developed two questionnaires to measure these variables. Initially, Rubin identified approximately 80 questions designed to assess the attitudes a person holds about others. The questions were sorted according to whether or not they reflected feelings of liking or loving. These two sets of questions were first administered to 198 undergraduate students and a factor analysis was then conducted. The results allowed Rubin to identify 13 questions for 'liking' and 13 questions for 'loving' that were reliable measures of these two variables.

The following examples are similar to some of the questions used in Rubin's Liking and Loving Scale:

Items Measuring Liking I feel that _____________ is a very stable person.
I have confidence in ______________’s opinions.
I feel that _____________ is a very stable person.
I have confidence in ______________’s opinions.

Items Measuring Loving I feel strong feelings of possessiveness towards ____________.
I like it when __________ confides in me.
I would do almost anything for _____________.
I feel strong feelings of possessiveness towards ____________.
I like it when __________ confides in me.
I would do almost anything for _____________.
Rubin's scales of liking and loving provided support for his theory of love. In a study to determine if the scales actually differentiated between liking and loving, Rubin asked a number of participants to fill out his questionnaires based upon how they felt both about their partner and a good friend. The results revealed that good friends scored high on the liking scale, but only significant others rated high on the scales for loving.

Love is not a concrete concept and is therefore difficult to measure. Rubin's scales of liking and loving offer a way to measure the complex feeling of love.

References:
Rubin, Zick. 1970. "Measurement of Romantic Love," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 16, pages 265-273.

http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/likingloving.htm

Theories of Love

Psychologists and researchers have proposed a number of different theories of love. The following are four of the major theories proposed to explain liking, love, and emotional attachment.

Liking vs. Loving

Psychologist Zick Rubin proposed that romantic love is made up of three elements: attachment, caring, and intimacy. Attachment is the need to receive care, approval, and physical contact with the other person. Caring involves valuing the other persons needs and happiness as much as your own. Intimacy refers to the sharing of thoughts, desires, and feelings with the other person.

Based upon this definition, Rubin devised a questionnaire to assess attitudes about others and found that these scales of liking and loving provided support for his conception of love. Learn more about Rubin’s Scales of Liking and Loving.

Compassionate vs. Passionate Love

According to psychologist Elaine Hatfield and her colleagues, there are two basic types of love: compassionate love and passionate love. Compassionate love is characterized by mutual respect, attachment, affection, and trust. Compassionate love usually develops out of feelings of mutual understanding and shared respect for each other.

Passionate love is characterized by intense emotions, sexual attraction, anxiety, and affection. When these intense emotions are reciprocated, people feel elated and fulfilled. Unreciprocated love leads to feelings of despondence and despair. Hatfield suggests that passionate love is transitory, usually lasting between 6 and 30 months.

According to Hatfield, passionate love arises when cultural expectations encourage falling in love, when the person meets your preconceived ideas of an ideal lover, and when you experience heightened physiological arousal in the presence of the other person.

Ideally passionate love then leads to compassionate love, which is far more enduring. While most people desire relationships that combine the security and stability of compassionate with the intensity of passionate love, Hatfield suggests that this is rare.

The Color Wheel Model of Love

In his 1973 book The Colors of Love, John Lee compared styles of love to the color wheel. Just as there are three primary colors, Lee suggested that there are three primary styles of love. These three styles of love are: (1) Eros, (2) Ludos, and (3) Storge.

Continuing the color wheel analogy, Lee proposed that just as the primary colors can be combined to create complementary colors, these three primary styles of love could be combined to create nine different secondary love styles. For example, a combination of Eros and Ludos results in Mania, or obsessive love.

Lee’s 6 Styles of Loving

Three primary styles:
1. Eros – Loving an ideal person
2. Ludos – Love as a game
3. Storge – Love as friendship

Three secondary styles:

1. Mania (Eros + Ludos) – Obsessive love
2. Pragma (Ludos + Storge) – Realistic and practical love
3. Agape (Eros + Storge) – Selfless love
Triangular Theory of Love
Psychologist Robert Sternberg proposed a triangular theory of love that suggests that there are three components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Different combinations of these three components result in different types of love. For example, a combination of intimacy and commitment results in compassionate love, while a combination of passion and intimacy leads to passionate love.

According to Sternberg, relationships built on two or more elements are more enduring that those based upon a single component. Sternberg uses the term consummate love to describe a combination of intimacy, passion, and commitment. While this type of love is the strongest and most enduring, Sternberg suggests that this type of love is rare.

http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/theoriesoflove.htm

What Is Love?

Despite the fact that love is one of the major human emotions (some would even say the most important one), love has only fairly recently became the subject of scientific. According to Sigmund Freud (1910), the study of love in the past was left to "…the creative writer to depict for us the 'necessary conditions for loving... In consequence it becomes inevitable that science should concern herself with the same materials whose treatment by artists has given enjoyment to mankind for thousands of years."

While research on this subject has grown tremendously over the last 20 years, early explorations into the nature and reasons for love drew considerable criticism. During the 1970s, U.S. Senator William Proxmire railed against researchers who were studying love and derided the work as a waste of taxpayer dollars (Hatfield, 2001).

Since that time, research has revealed the importance of love in child development and adult health. But what exactly is love? How do psychologists define this important emotion?

According to social psychologist Zick Rubin, love is characterized by three different things: attachment, caring and intimacy. Using a psychometric approach to love, Rubin devised a scale used to assess levels of liking and loving.

Is Love Biological or Is It a Cultural Phenomenon?

Biological views of love tend to view the emotion as a human drive. While love is often seen as one of the basic human emotions such as anger or happiness, some have suggested that love is instead a cultural phenomenon that arises partly due to social pressures and expectations. In a Time article, psychologist and author Lawrence Casler said, "I don't believe love is part of human nature, not for a minute. There are social pressures at work."

If love were a purely cultural invention, it would stand to reason that love would simply not exist in some cultures. However, anthropological research suggests that love is a universal emotion. Love is most likely influenced by both biological drives and cultural influences. While hormones and biology are important, the way we express and experience this emotion are influenced by our personal conceptions of love.

Sources:

Gray, P. (1993, February 15). What is love? Time. Found online at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977763-1,00.html

Hatfield, E. (2001). Elaine Hatfield. In A. N. O’Connell (Ed.) Elaine Hatfield. Models of achievement: Reflections of eminent women in psychology, 3, 136-147.

http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/f/what-is-love.htm

Lewin's Leadership Styles

In 1939, a group of researchers led by psychologist Kurt Lewin set out to identify different styles of leadership. While further research has identified more specific types of leadership, this early study was very influential and established three major leadership styles. In the study, groups of schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-fair leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts project. Researchers then observed the behavior of children in response to the different styles of leadership.

Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic)

Authoritarian leaders provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group.

Researchers found that decision-making was less creative under authoritarian leadership. Lewin also found that it is more difficult to move from an authoritarian style to a democratic style than vice versa. Abuse of this style is usually viewed as controlling, bossy, and dictatorial.

Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group.

Participative Leadership (Democratic)

Lewin’s study found that participative (democratic) leadership is generally the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members. In Lewin’s study, children in this group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of a much higher quality.

Participative leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.

Delegative (Laissez-Faire)

Researchers found that children under delegative (laissez-fair) leadership were the least productive of all three groups. The children in this group also made more demands on the leader, showed little cooperation, and were unable to work independently.

Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members. While this style can be effective in situations where group members are highly qualified in an area of expertise, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm

Major Leadership Theories

Interest in leadership increased during the early part of the twentieth century. Early leadership theories focused on what qualities distinguished between leaders and followers, while subsequent theories looked at other variables such as situational factors and skill levels. While many different leadership theories have emerged, most can be classified as one of eight major types:

1. “Great Man” Theories:

Great Man theories assume that the capacity for leadership is inherent – that great leaders are born, not made. These theories often portray great leaders as heroic, mythic and destined to rise to leadership when needed. The term “Great Man” was used because, at the time, leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership.

2. Trait Theories:

Similar in some ways to "Great Man" theories, trait theory assumes that people inherit certain qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership. Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioral characteristics shared by leaders. But if particular traits are key features of leadership, how do we explain people who possess those qualities but are not leaders? This question is one of the difficulties in using trait theories to explain leadership.

3. Contingency Theories:

Contingency theories of leadership focus on particular variables related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the situation. According to this theory, no leadership style is best in all situations. Success depends upon a number of variables, including the leadership style, qualities of the followers and aspects of the situation.

4. Situational Theories:

Situational theories propose that leaders choose the best course of action based upon situational variables. Different styles of leadership may be more appropriate for certain types of decision-making.

5. Behavioral Theories:

Behavioral theories of leadership are based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not born. Rooted in behaviorism, this leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders not on mental qualities or internal states. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation.

6. Participative Theories:

Participative leadership theories suggest that the ideal leadership style is one that takes the input of others into account. These leaders encourage participation and contributions from group members and help group members feel more relevant and committed to the decision-making process. In participative theories, however, the leader retains the right to allow the input of others.

7. Management Theories:

Management theories (also known as "Transactional theories") focus on the role of supervision, organization and group performance. These theories base leadership on a system of rewards and punishments. Managerial theories are often used in business; when employees are successful, they are rewarded; when they fail, they are reprimanded or punished.

8. Relationship Theories:

Relationship theories (also known as "Transformational theories") focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire people by helping group members see the importance and higher good of the task. These leaders are focused on the performance of group members, but also want each person to fulfill his or her potential. Leaders with this style often have high ethical and moral standards.

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/p/leadtheories.htm

Transformational Leadership

Have you ever been in a group situation where someone took control of the situation by conveying a clear vision of the group’s goals, a marked passion for the work and an ability to make the rest of the group feel recharged and energized? This person just might be what is called a transformational leader.

Transformational leadership is a type of leadership style that leads to positive changes in those who follow. Transformational leaders are generally energetic, enthusiastic and passionate. Not only are these leaders concerned and involved in the process; they are also focused on helping every member of the group succeed as well.

The History of Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership was initially introduced by leadership expert and presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns.1 According to Burns, transformational leadership can be seen when “ leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level of moral and motivation." Through the strength of their vision and personality, transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to change expectations, perceptions and motivations to work towards common goals.

Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass expanded upon Burns original ideas to develop what is today referred to as Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory.2 According to Bass, transformational leadership can be defined based on the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders, Bass suggested, garner trust, respect and admiration from their followers.

The Components of Transformational Leadership

Bass also suggested that there were four different components of transformational leadership.
Intellectual Stimulation – Transformational leaders not only challenge the status quo; they also encourage creativity among followers. The leader encourages followers to explore new ways of doing things and new opportunities to learn.

Individualized Consideration – Transformational leadership also involves offering support and encouragement to individual followers. In order to foster supportive relationships, transformational leaders keep lines of communication open so that followers feel free to share ideas and so that leaders can offer direct recognition of each followers unique contributions.

Inspirational Motivation – Transformational leaders have a clear vision that they are able to articulate to followers. These leaders are also able to help followers experience the same passion and motivation to fulfill these goals.

Idealized Influence – The transformational leaders serves as a role model for followers. Because followers trust and respect the leader, they emulate the leader and internalize his or her ideals.

References

1 Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. N.Y: Harper and Raw.

2 Bass,B. M,(1985). Leadership and Performance. N. Y,: Free Press.

3 Riggio, R.E. (2009, March 24). Are you a transformational leader. Psychology Today. Found online at http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/200903/are-you-transformational-leader

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/transformational.htm

What Is Social Psychology?

According to psychologist Gordon Allport, social psychology is a discipline that uses scientific methods "to understand and explain how the thought, feeling and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of other human beings" (1985).

Social psychology looks at a wide range of social topics, including group behavior, social perception, leadership, nonverbal behavior, conformity, aggression and prejudice. It is important to note that social psychology is not just about looking at social influences. Social perception and social interaction are also vital to understanding social behavior.

Brief History of Social Psychology

While Plato referred to the idea of the "crowd mind" and concepts such as social loafing and social facilitation were introduced in the late-1800s, it wasn't until after World War II that research on social psychology would begin in earnest. The horrors of the Holocaust led researchers to study the effects of social influence, conformity, and obedience.

The U.S. government also became interested in applying social psychological concepts to influencing citizens. Social psychology has continued to grow throughout the twentieth century, inspiring research that has contributed to our understanding of social experience and behavior.
How Is Social Psychology Different From Other Disciplines?

It is important to understand how social psychology differs from other disciplines. Social psychology is often confused with folk wisdom, personality psychology and sociology. What makes social psychology different? Unlike folk wisdom, which relies on anecdotal observations and subjective interpretation, social psychology employs scientific methods and empirical study of social phenomena.

While personality psychology focuses on individual traits, characteristics, and thoughts, social psychology is focused on situations. Social psychologists are interested in the impact that social environment and interaction has on attitudes and behaviors.

Finally, it is important to distinguish between social psychology and sociology. While there are many similarities between the two, sociology tends to looks at social behavior and influences at a very broad-based level. Sociologists are interested in the institutions and culture that influence social psychology. Psychologists instead focus on situational variables that affect social behavior. While psychology and sociology both study similar topics, they are looking at these topics from different perspectives.

http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/f/socialpsych.htm

The Stanford Prison Experiment

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo, a former classmate of Stanley Milgram (who is best-known for his famous obedience experiment, was interested in expanding upon Milgram's research. He wanted to further investigate the the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

The question the researchers asked was how would the participants react when placed in a simulated prison environment. "Suppose you had only kids who were normally healthy, psychologically and physically, and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed. Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place—would their goodness triumph?" Zimbardo explained in one interview.

The Participants

The researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Standford University's psychology building, and then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The participants were selected from a larger group of 70 volunteers because they had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues and had no major medical conditions. The volunteers agreed to participate for a one- to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.

The Setting and Procedures

The simulated prison included three six by nine foot prison cells. Each cell held three prisoners and included three cots. Other rooms across from the cells were utilized for the prison guards and warden. One very small space was designated as the solitary confinement room, and yet another small room served as the prison yard.

The 24 volunteers were then randomly assigned to either the prisoner group or the guard group. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24-hours a day for the duration of the study. Guards, on the other hand, were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, guards were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift. Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras and microphones.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

While the Stanford Prison Experiment was originally slated to last 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six days due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety.

While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were generally hostile or even dehumanizing. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners, while the prisoners became passive and depressed. Five of the prisoners began to experience such severe negative emotions, including crying and acute anxiety, that they had to be released from the study early.

Even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, overlooked the abusive behavior of the prison guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment.

"Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class," Zimbardo later wrote in his book The Lucifer Effect.
What Do the Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment Mean?

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not normally act in their everyday lives or in other situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control, became passive and depressed.

Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently cited as an example of unethical research. The experiment could not be replicated by researchers today because it fails to meet the standards established by numerous ethical codes, including the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association. Zimbardo acknowledges the ethical problems with the study, suggesting that "although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough."

Other critics suggest that the study lacks generalizability due to a variety of factors. The unrepresentative sample of participants (mostly white and middle class males) makes it difficult to apply the results to a wider population.

The study is also criticized for its lack of ecological validity. While the researchers did their best to recreate a prison setting, it is simply not possible to perfectly mimic all of the environmental and situational variables of prison life.

Despite some of the criticism, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains an important study in our understanding of how the situation can influence human behavior. The study recently garnered attention after reports of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses in Iraq became known. Many people, including Zimbardo himself, suggest that the abuses at Abu Ghraib might be real-world examples of the same results observed in Zimbardo's experiment.

References

Interview with Philip Zimbardo. The Believer. Found online at http://www.believermag.com/issues/200909/?read=interview_zimbardo

O'Toole, K. (1997, Jan. 8). The Stanford Prison Experiment: Still powerful after all these years. The Stanford News Service. Found online at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/97/970108prisonexp.html

The Stanford Prison Experiment:A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University. Found online at http://www.prisonexp.org/

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1–17. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.

http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm

The Milgram Obedience Experiment

"The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act." –Stanley Milgram, 1974 

If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people would answer this question with an adamant no, but Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments during the 1960s that demonstrated surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.

Introduction to the Milgram Experiment

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"
Method Used in the Milgram Experiment

The participants in the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.

Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX."

Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.

As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.

Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:
"Please continue."
"The experiment requires that you continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice, you must go on."

Results of the Milgram Experiment

The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go? When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.

Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.

Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception. However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.
Discussion of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:
The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent
expert.
The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority" (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is heavily influenced by both external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.
Suggested Reading:
Milgram, S. (1973). The perils of obedience. Harper’s Magazine, 62-77.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harpercollins

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

The Science of Love: Harry Harlow & the Nature of Affection

During the first half of the 20th century, many psychologists believed that showing affection towards children was merely a sentimental gesture that served no real purpose.

Behaviorist John B. Watson once even went so far as to warn parents, "When you are tempted to pet your child, remember that mother love is a dangerous instrument." According to many thinkers of the day, affection would only spread diseases and lead to adult psychological problems.
During this time, psychologists were motivated to prove their field as a rigorous science. The behaviorist movement dominated psychology and urged researchers to study only observable and measurable behaviors. An American psychologist named Harry Harlow, however, became interested in studying a topic that was not so easy to quantify and measure: love.
In a series of controversial experiments conducted in 1960s, Harlow demonstrated the powerful effects of love. By showing the devastating effects of deprivation on young rhesus monkeys, Harlow revealed the importance of a mother's love for healthy childhood development. His experiments were often unethical and shockingly cruel, yet they uncovered fundamental truths that have heavily influenced our understanding of child development.

The Wire Mother Experiment:

Harlow noted that very little attention had been devoted to the experimental research of love. "Because of the dearth of experimentation, theories about the fundamental nature of affection have evolved at the level of observation, intuition, and discerning guesswork, whether these have been proposed by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, physicians, or psychoanalyst," he noted (Harlow, 1958).
Many of the existing theories of love centered on the idea that the earliest attachment between a mother and child was merely a means for the child to obtain food, relieve thirst, and avoid pain. Harlow, however, believed that this behavioral view of mother-child attachment was an inadequate explanation.
Harlow’s most famous experiment involved giving young rhesus monkeys a choice between two different “mothers.” One was made of soft terrycloth, but provided no food. The other was made of wire, but provided food from an attached baby bottle.
Harlow removed young monkeys from their natural mothers a few hours after birth and left them to be "raised" by these mother surrogates. The experiment demonstrated that the baby monkeys spent significantly more time with their cloth mother than with their wire mother. “These data make it obvious that contact comfort is a variable of overwhelming importance in the development of affectional response, whereas lactation is a variable of negligible importance,” Harlow explained (1958).

Fear, Security, and Attachment:

In a later experiment, Harlow demonstrated that young monkeys would also turn to their cloth surrogate mother for comfort and security. Using a strange situation similar to the one created by attachment researcher Mary Ainsworth, Harlow allowed the young monkeys to explore a room either in the presence of their surrogate mother or in her absence. Monkeys in the presence of their mother would use her as a secure base to explore the room.
When the surrogate mothers were removed from the room, the effects were dramatic. The young monkeys no longer had their secure base to explore the room and would often freeze up, crouch, rock, scream, and cry.

The Impact of Harlow’s Research:

While many experts derided the importance of parental love and affection, Harlow’s experiments offered irrefutable proof that love is vital for normal childhood development. Additional experiments by Harlow revealed the long-term devastation caused by deprivation, leading to profound psychological and emotional distress and even death. Harlow’s work, as well as important research by psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, helped influence key changes in how orphanages, adoption agencies, social services groups and child care providers approached the care of children.

While Harry Harlow's work led to acclaim and generated a wealth of research on love, affection, and interpersonal relationships, his own personal life soon began to crumble. After the terminal illness of his wife, he became engulfed by alcoholism and depression, eventually becoming estranged from his own children. Colleagues frequently described him as sarcastic, mean-spirited, misanthropic, chauvinistic, and cruel. Yet Harlow's enduring legacy reinforced the importance of emotional support, affection, and love in the development of children.
Suggested Reading:
Blum, Deborah. (2002) Love at Goon Park. New York: Perseus Publishing.

Harlow, Harry. (1958) The Nature of Love. American Psychologist, 13, 673-685.

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/p/harlow_love.htm

The Asch Conformity Experiments

Do you think of yourself as a conformist or a non-conformist? If you are like most people, you probably believe that you are non-conformist enough to stand up to a group when you know you are right, but conformist enough to blend in with the rest of your peers.

Imagine yourself in this situation: You've signed up to participate in a psychology experiment in which you are asked to complete a vision test. Seated in a room with the other participants, you are shown a line segment and then asked to choose the matching line from a group three segments of different lengths. The experimenter asks each participant individually to select the matching line segment. On some occasions everyone in the group chooses the correct line, but occasionally, the other participants unanimously declare that a different line is actually the correct match.

So what do you do when the experimenter asks you which line is the right match? Do you go with your initial response, or do you choose to conform to the rest of the group?

What Were the Asch Conformity Experiments?

In psychological terms, conformity refers to an individual's tendency to follow the unspoken rules or behaviors of the social group to which he or she belongs. Researchers have long been interested in the degree to which people follow or rebel against social norms. During the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments designed to demonstrate the power of conformity in groups.

In Asch's experiments, students were told that they were participating in a 'vision test.' Unbeknownst to the subject, the other participants in the experiment were all confederates, or assistants of the experimenter. At first, the confederates answered the questions correctly, but eventually began providing incorrect answers.

Results of the Asch Conformity Experiments:

Nearly 75 percent of the participants in the conformity experiments went along with the rest of the group at least one time. After combining the trials, the results indicated that participants conformed to the incorrect group answer approximately one-third of the time. In order to ensure that participants were able to accurately gauge the length of the lines, participants were asked to individually write down the correct match. According to these results, participants were very accurate in their line judgments, choosing the correct answer 98 percent of the time.

The experiments also looked at the effect that the number of people present in the group had on conformity. When just one other confederate was present, there was virtually no impact on participants' answers. The presence of two confederates had only a tiny effect. The level of conformity seen with three or more confederates was far more significant.

Asch also found that having one of the confederates give the correct answer while the rest of the confederates gave the incorrect answer dramatically lowered conformity. In this situation, just five to ten percent of the participants conformed to the rest of the group. Later studies have also supported this finding (Morris & Miller, 1975), suggesting that having social support is an important tool in combating conformity.

What Do the Results of the Asch Conformity Experiments Indicate?

At the conclusion of the experiments, participants were asked why they had gone along with the rest of the group. In most cases, the students stated that while they knew the rest of the group was wrong, they did not want to risk facing ridicule. A few of the participants suggested that they actually believed the other members of the group were correct in their answers.

These results suggest that conformity can be influenced both by a need to fit in and a belief that other people are smarter or better informed. Given the level of conformity seen in Asch's experiments, conformity can be even stronger in real-life situations where stimuli are more ambiguous or more difficult to judge.

Criticisms of the Asch Conformity Experiments

One of the major criticisms of Asch's conformity experiments centers on the reasons why participants choose to conform. According to some critics, individuals may have actually been motivated to avoid conflict, rather than an actual desire to conform to the rest of the group.

Another criticism is that the results of the experiment in the lab may not generalize to real-world situations. However, many social psychology experts believe that while real-world situations may not be as clear cut as they are in the lab, the actual social pressure to conform is probably much greater, which can dramatically increase conformist behaviors.
Contribution to Psychology

The Asch conformity experiments are among the most famous in psychology's history and have inspired a wealth of additional research on conformity and group behavior. This research has provided important insight into how, why and when people conform and the effects of social pressure on behavior.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70.

Morris, W., & Miller, R. (1975). The effects of consensus-breaking and consensus-pre-empting partners of reduction in conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 215-223.

http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm

The Little Albert Experiment

The "Little Albert" experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Raynor. Previously, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had conducted experiments demonstrating the conditioning process in dogs. Watson was interested in taking Pavlov's research further to show that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.

The participant in the experiment was a child that Watson and Raynor called "Albert B.", but is known popularly today as Little Albert. Around the age of nine months, Watson and Raynor exposed the child to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks and burning newspapers and observed the boy's reactions. The boy initially showed no fear of any of the objects he was shown.

The next time Albert was exposed the rat, Watson made a loud noise by hitting a metal pipe with a hammer. Naturally, the child began to cry after hearing the loud noise. After repeatedly pairing the white rat with the loud noise, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.

Watson and Raynor wrote:
"The instant the rat was shown, the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on [his] left side, raised himself on all fours and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table."

Elements of Classical Conditioning in the Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert experiment presents and example of how classical conditioning can be used to condition an emotional response.
Neutral Stimulus: The white rat
Unconditioned Stimulus: The loud noise
Unconditioned Response: Fear
Conditioned Stimulus: The white rat
Conditioned Response: Fear
Stimulus Generalization in the Little Albert Experiment


In addition to demonstrating that emotional responses could be conditioned in humans, Watson and Raynor also observed that stimulus generalization had occurred. After conditioning, Albert feared not just the white rat, but a wide variety of similar white objects as well. His fear included other furry objects including Raynor's fur coat and Watson wearing a Santa Claus beard.
Criticisms of the Little Albert Experiment

While the experiment is one of psychology's most famous and is included in nearly every introductory psychology course, it has also been criticized widely for several reasons. First, the experimental design and process was not carefully constructed. Watson and Raynor did not develop an object means to evaluate Albert's reactions, instead relying on their own subjective interpretations. Secondly, the experiment also raises many ethical concerns. The Little Albert experiment could not be conducted by today's standards because it would be unethical.

What Ever Happened to Little Albert?

The question of what happened to Little Albert has long been one of psychology's mysteries. Watson and Raynor were unable to attempt to eliminate the boy's conditioned fear because he moved with his mother shortly after the experiment ended. Some envisioned the boy growing into a man with a strange phobia of white, furry objects.

Recently, however, the true identity and fate of the boy known as Little Albert was discovered. As reported in American Psychologist, a seven-year search led by psychologist Hall P. Beck led to the discovery. After tracking down the location of the original experiments and the real identity of the boy's mother, it was discovered that Little Albert was actually a boy named Douglas Merritte.

The story does not have a happy ending, however. Douglas died at the age of six on May 10, 1925 of hydrocephalus, a build-up of fluid in his brain. "Our search of seven years was longer than the little boy’s life," Beck wrote of the discovery.

References:

Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, Vol 64(7), 605-614.

Watson, John B. & Rayner, Rosalie. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14.

http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/little-albert-experiment.htm

How Ivan Pavlov Discovered Classical Conditioning

The concept of classical conditioning is studied by every entry-level psychology student, so it may be surprising to learn that the man who first noted this phenomenon was not a psychology at all. Ivan Pavlov was a noted Russian physiologist who went on to win the 1904 Nobel Prize for his work studying digestive processes. It was while studying digestion in dogs that Pavlov noted an interesting occurrence – his canine subjects would begin to salivate whenever an assistant entered the room.

In his digestive research, Pavlov and his assistants would introduce a variety of edible and non-edible items and measure the saliva production that the items produced. Salivation, he noted, is a reflexive process. It occurs automatically in response to a specific stimulus and is not under conscious control. However, Pavlov noted that the dogs would often begin salivating in the absence of food and smell. He quickly realized that this salivary response was not due to an automatic, physiological process.

The Development of Classical Conditioning Theory

Based on his observations, Pavlov suggested that the salivation was a learned response. The dogs were responding to the sight of the research assistants' white lab coats, which the animals had come to associate with the presentation of food. Unlike the salivary response to the presentation of food, which is an unconditioned reflex, salivating to the expectation of food is a conditioned reflex.

Pavlov then focused on investigating exactly how these conditioned responses are learned or acquired. In a series of experiments, Pavlov set out to provoke a conditioned response to a previously neutral stimulus. He opted to use food as the unconditioned stimulus, or the stimulus that evokes a response naturally and automatically. The sound of a metronome was chosen to be the neutral stimulus. The dogs would first be exposed to the sound of the ticking metronome, and then the food was immediately presented.

After several conditioning trials, Pavlov noted that the dogs began to salivate after hearing the metronome. "A stimulus which was neutral in and of itself had been superimposed upon the action of the inborn alimentary reflex," Pavlov wrote of the results. "We observed that, after several repetitions of the combined stimulation, the sounds of the metronome had acquired the property of stimulating salivary secretion" (26). In other words, the previously neutral stimulus (the metronome) had become what is known as a conditioned stimulus that then provoked a conditioned response (salivation).

The Impact of Pavlov's Research

Pavlov's discovery of classical conditioning remains one of the most important in psychology's history. In addition to forming the basis of what would become behavioral psychology, the conditioning process remains important today for numerous applications, including behavioral modification and mental health treatment. Classical conditioning is often used to treat phobias, anxiety and panic disorders.

One interesting example of the practical use of classical conditioning principles is the use of taste aversion to prevent coyotes from preying on domestic livestock (Gustafson et al., 1974). A conditioned taste aversion occurs when a neutral stimulus (eating some type of food) is paired with an unconditioned response (becoming ill after eating the food). Unlike other forms of classical conditioning, this type of conditioning does not require multiple pairings in order for an association to form. In fact, taste aversions generally occur after just a single pairing. Ranchers have found useful ways to put this form of classical conditioning to good use to protect their herds. In one example, mutton was injected with a drug that produces severe nausea. After eating the poisoned meat, coyotes then avoided sheep herds rather than attack them (Gustafson et al., 1976).

While Pavlov's discovery of classical conditioning formed an essential part of psychology's history, his work continues to inspire further research today. Between the years 1997 and 2000, more than 220 articles appearing in scientific journals cited Pavlov's early research on classical conditioning (Hock, 69). While Pavlov may not have been a psychologist, his contributions to psychology have help make the discipline what it is today and will likely continue to shape our understanding of human behavior for years to come.

References

Gustafson, C.R., Garcia, J., Hawkins, W., & Rusiniak, K. (1974). Coyote predation control by aversive conditioning. Science, 184, 581-583.

Gustafson, C.R., Kelly, D.J, Sweeney, M., & Garcia, J. (1976). Prey-lithium aversions: I. Coyotes and wolves. Behavioral Biology, 17, 61-72.

Hock, R.R. (2002). Forty studies that changed psychology: Explorations into the history of psychological research. (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.

http://psychology.about.com/od/classicalconditioning/a/pavlovs-dogs.htm

Dependent Personality Disorder

What is Dependent Personality Disorder?

Dependent personality disorder is an enduring pattern of distorted thought, behavior, and life functioning. Individuals with this type of personality disorder are more prone to experience anxiety disorders and affects a greater number of women than men.

Symptoms of Dependent Personality Disorder

Individuals with dependent personality disorder typically experience:

A chronic and pervasive pattern of dependent, submissive, and needy behavior
Seek out excessive advice, approval, and encouragement
Sensitivity to criticism or rejection
Low self-confidence and self-esteem.
An inability to make decisions without direction from others
Feelings of helplessness when alone
An inability to disagree with others

Extreme devastation when close relationships end and a need to immediately begin a new relationship
A chronic and pervasive pattern of dependent, submissive, and needy behavior
Seek out excessive advice, approval, and encouragement
Sensitivity to criticism or rejection
Low self-confidence and self-esteem.
An inability to make decisions without direction from others
Feelings of helplessness when alone
An inability to disagree with others
Extreme devastation when close relationships end and a need to immediately begin a new relationship

Treatments for Dependent Personality Disorder

Psychotherapy is generally the recommended treatment for dependent personality disorder. In some cases, anti-anxiety drugs or antidepressants are prescribed to help individuals overcome anxious or depressive symptoms and participate fully in therapy. Medication alone is not a recommended treatment for any personality disorder.

Because personality disorders affect thoughts, behaviors, and interpersonal relationships, cognitive-behavioral therapy is often very effective. This type of therapy helps individuals develop new ways of thinking, behaving, and communicating.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/dependent.htm

Compulsive Personality Disorder

What is Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder?

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of distorted thoughts and behaviors. This personality disorder is thought to affect approximately one-percent of adults in the United States. Individuals with this disorder are thought to be at a higher risk of anxiety disorders and stress-related medical illnesses.

Symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

Individuals with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder typically experience:

A significant preoccupation with perfection, control, and order
Rigid behaviors, resistance to change, and inflexibility
Often described as dependable, rigid, stern, and stubborn
Feelings of helplessness in uncontrollable situations
A significant preoccupation with perfection, control, and order
Rigid behaviors, resistance to change, and inflexibility
Often described as dependable, rigid, stern, and stubborn
Feelings of helplessness in uncontrollable situations
Treatments for Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

While there are many treatments available for personality disorders, psychotherapy is generally the recommended course of action. Medications are sometimes used in combination with psychotherapy to help alleviate symptoms and allow the individual to fully participate in the therapy process. Behavioral and cognitive therapies are often highly effective and allow individuals to develop new coping skills, ways of thinking, and healthier behaviors.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/obsessivecomp.htm

Paranoid Personality Disorder

What is Paranoid Personality Disorder?

Paranoid personality disorder is a chronic and pervasive condition characterized by disruptive patterns of thought, behavior, and functioning. This disorder is thought to affect between one to two-percent of U.S. adults. Symptoms may often resemble schizophrenia and some research indicates that there may be a genetic link between the two disorders. Individuals with paranoid personality disorder are at a greater risk for experiencing depression, substance abuse, and agoraphobia. 

Symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder

Individuals with paranoid personality disorder typically experience:

Chronic and pervasive distrust and suspicion of others.
Feelings that they are being lied to, deceived, or exploited by other people.
May believe that friends, family, and romantic partners are untrustworthy and unfaithful.
Outburst of anger in response to perceived deception.
Often described as cold, jealous, secretive, and serious.
Look for hidden meanings in gestures and conversations.
Chronic and pervasive distrust and suspicion of others.
Feelings that they are being lied to, deceived, or exploited by other people.
May believe that friends, family, and romantic partners are untrustworthy and unfaithful.
Outburst of anger in response to perceived deception.
Often described as cold, jealous, secretive, and serious.
Look for hidden meanings in gestures and conversations.
Treatments for Paranoid Personality Disorder
Paranoid personality disorder is generally treated with psychotherapy. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is often effective in helping individuals adjust distorted thought patterns and maladaptive behaviors. Other therapy approaches includes group therapy and psychodynamic therapy.

In some cases, medication is used in combination with psychotherapy. Commonly prescribed drugs included antidepressants, anti-psychotics, and anti-anxiety medications. Medications alone are not a recommended treatment for personality disorders and are best used in combination with psychotherapy.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/paranoid.htm

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

What is Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Narcissistic personality disorder is a pervasive disorder characterized by self-centeredness, lack of empathy, and an exaggerated sense of self-importance. As with other personality disorders, this disorder is an enduring and persistent pattern of behavior that negatively impacts many different life areas including social, family, and work relationships.

Narcissistic personality disorder is thought to be less common than other personality disorders such as borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder. Narcissistic personality disorder is estimated to affect 1-percent of the adult population in the United States and is more common among men than women.

Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissism is a term commonly used to describe those who seemed more concerned with themselves than with others. It is important to distinguish between those who have narcissistic personality traits and those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Those with narcissistic personalities are often seen as arrogant, confident, and self-centered, but they do not have the exaggerated or grandiose view of their own abilities that characterizes narcissistic personality disorder.

The DSM-IV identifies the following symptoms:

An exaggerated sense of one’s own abilities and achievements.
A constant need for attention, affirmation, and praise.
Persistent fantasies about attaining success and power.
Exploiting other people for personal gain.
A sense of entitlement and expectation of special treatment.
A lack of empathy for others.
An exaggerated sense of one’s own abilities and achievements.
A constant need for attention, affirmation, and praise.
Persistent fantasies about attaining success and power.
Exploiting other people for personal gain.
A sense of entitlement and expectation of special treatment.
A lack of empathy for others.

An official diagnosis can be made by a qualified mental health professional, and requires that the individual exhibit 5 of the 9 symptoms identified in the DSM-IV. Practitioners must also rule out other psychiatric disorders in order to make a diagnosis.

People with narcissistic personality disorder are typically described as arrogant, conceited, self-centered, and haughty. Because they imagine themselves as superior to others, they often insist on possessing items that reflect a successful lifestyle. Despite this exaggerated self-image, they are reliant on constant praise and attention to reinforce their self-esteem. As a result, those with narcissistic personality disorder are usually very sensitive to criticism, which is often viewed as a personal attack.

Causes of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

While the exact cause is unknown, researchers have identified some factors that may contribute to the disorder. Childhood experiences such as parental overindulgence, excessive praise, unreliable parenting, and a lack of realistic responses are thought to contribute to narcissistic personality disorder.

Treatments for Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Individual psychotherapy can be effectively used to treat narcissistic personality disorder, although the process can be difficult and time consuming. It is important to note that people with this disorder rarely seek out treatment. Individuals often begin therapy at the urging of family members or to treat symptoms that result from the disorder.

Therapy can be especially difficult because clients are often unwilling to acknowledge the disorder. This difficulty in treatment is often compounded by the fact the insurance companies are focused on short-term treatments that minimize symptoms such as depression and anxiety, but ignore the underlying problems.

Cognitive-behavioral techniques are often effective to help individual’s change destructive thinking and behavior patterns. The goal of treatment is to alter distorted thoughts and create a more realistic self-image. Psychotropic medications are generally ineffective for long-term change, but are sometimes used to treat symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Avoidant Personality Disorder

What is Avoidant Personality Disorder?

Avoidant personality disorder is characterized by a chronic and pervasive pattern of distorted thought, emotion, behavior, and functioning. This type of personality disorder is thought to affect approximately one-percent of adults in the United States. Individuals with this disorder are also more prone to anxiety disorders, including agoraphobia and social phobia.

Symptoms of Avoidant Personality Disorder

Individuals with avoidant personality disorder typically experience:
Extreme shyness
Sensitivity to criticism and rejection
Low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy
A desire for closeness with others but difficulty forming relationships with people outside of immediate family.
Avoidance of social situations, including those related to school or work.

Treatments for Avoidant Personality Disorder

Avoidant personality disorder is most often treated using psychotherapy. Because individuals with avoidant personality disorder are extremely shy and have difficulty with interpersonal communication, group therapy is generally not recommended. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is often very effective in helping individuals overcome shyness and develop new skills and behaviors.

Anti-anxiety medications and antidepressant drugs are often used to help individuals succeed in psychotherapy. While these drugs can help those with avoidant personality disorder succeed in therapy, medication alone is not a recommended treatment for avoidant personality disorder.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/avoidant.htm

Histrionic Personality Disorder

Symptoms of Histrionic Personality Disorder

Individuals with histrionic personality disorder: Display excessive but shallow emotions and attention-seeking behaviors. These individuals are constantly “performing” in order to gain attention.

Experience fleeting moods, opinions, and beliefs. They are also very suggestible and quick to respond to fads.

Generally need others to witness their emotional displays in order to gain validation or attention.

Often display exaggerated symptoms of weakness or illness and may use threats of suicide to manipulate others. Also, many suffering from histrionic personality disorder use sexually provocative behaviors to control others or gain attention.
Display excessive but shallow emotions and attention-seeking behaviors. These individuals are constantly “performing” in order to gain attention.

Experience fleeting moods, opinions, and beliefs. They are also very suggestible and quick to respond to fads.

Generally need others to witness their emotional displays in order to gain validation or attention.

Often display exaggerated symptoms of weakness or illness and may use threats of suicide to manipulate others. Also, many suffering from histrionic personality disorder use sexually provocative behaviors to control others or gain attention.

Treatments for Histrionic Personality Disorder

Individuals suffering from histrionic personality disorder are often difficult to treat. They often seek treatment only when the disorder is causing major problems or stress.

Psychotherapy can be effective. Group therapy is not recommended since the individual tries to seek attention from group members and exaggerates symptoms.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/histrionic.htm

Borderline Personality Disorder

What is Borderline Personality Disorder?

According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), borderline personality disorder is:
"a serious mental illness characterized by pervasive instability in moods, interpersonal relationships, self-image, and behavior. This instability often disrupts family and work life, long-term planning, and the individual's sense of self-identity."
Symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder

Individuals with borderline personality disorder:

Experience a pervasive pattern of unstable interpersonal relationships and have difficulties with moods and self-image. Impulsivity is also extremely common.

Often have intense episodes of anxiety, depression, and irritability lasting from a few hours to several days.

May direct anger outward in the form of physical aggression, but may also engage in self-destructive behaviors such as drug abuse, eating disorders, or suicidal gestures. These behaviors are often intended to manipulate others.

Usually have poor self-identity that leads to overly intense relationships with others. These interactions are generally filled with conflict, and the individual with borderline personality will vacillate between idealizing other people and undervaluing them.

Tend to become angry and frustrated when other people fail to meet unrealistic expectations.
Treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder
Therapy is often effective in many patients, especially treatment that utilizes cognitive-behavioral approaches. The goal of the therapist is to help the client learn to be more aware of other people’s perspectives.

Psychiatric drugs such as antidepressants are often effective, both alone and in combination with psychotherapy. Antipsychotic medications are sometimes used in cases involving distorted thinking patterns.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/borderline.htm

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Definition: According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) (DSM-IV), antisocial personality disorder is a “pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in early childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.”


People with antisocial personality disorder have been described as lacking empathy (or the ability to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes” to understand their feelings), and they may often be deceitful or break the law. Antisocial personality disorder is also associated with impulsive behavior, aggression (such as repeated physical assaults), disregard for their own or other’s safety, irresponsible behavior (such as difficulties sustaining a job), and lack of remorse (such as not feeling bad when they have hurt someone else).

Symptoms of antisocial personality disorder frequently occur alongside symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD).

Source:

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition. American Psychiatric Association: 2000.

http://bpd.about.com/od/glossary/g/antisoc.htm

Overview of Personality Disorders

What are Personality Disorders?

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), a personality disorder is an "enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectation of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment." Because these disorders are chronic and pervasive, they can lead to serious impairments in daily life and functioning.

What Causes Personality Disorders?

The causes of personality disorders are the subject of considerable debate and controversy. Some experts believe that personality disorders are caused by early experiences that prevented the development of normal thought and behavior patterns. Other researchers believe that biological or genetic influences are the root cause of personality disorders. While a definitive cause has not been established, it is likely that a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental variables contribute to the development of personality disorders.

How are Personality Disorders Diagnosed?

In order to be diagnosed with a personality disorder, an individual must exhibit symptoms that meet the diagnostic criteria established in the DSM-IV. These patterns of behavior must be chronic and pervasive, affecting many different aspects of the individual’s life, including social functioning, work, school, and close relationships.
The individual must exhibit symptoms that affect two or more of the following areas: thoughts, emotions, interpersonal functioning, and impulse control.
The pattern of behaviors must be stable across time and have an onset that can be traced back to adolescence or early adulthood.
These behaviors cannot be explained by any other mental disorders, substance abuse, or medical condition.
These patterns of behavior must be chronic and pervasive, affecting many different aspects of the individual’s life, including social functioning, work, school, and close relationships.
The individual must exhibit symptoms that affect two or more of the following areas: thoughts, emotions, interpersonal functioning, and impulse control.
The pattern of behaviors must be stable across time and have an onset that can be traced back to adolescence or early adulthood.
These behaviors cannot be explained by any other mental disorders, substance abuse, or medical condition.

What are the Different Types of Personality Disorders?

Personality disorders are described on Axis II of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The DSM-IV lists a total of ten different personality disorders. These disorders are classified into three separate clusters.

Cluster A - Odd or Eccentric Disorders Paranoid Personality Disorder
Schizoid Personality Disorder
Schizotypal Personality Disorder
Paranoid Personality Disorder
Schizoid Personality Disorder
Schizotypal Personality Disorder
Cluster B - Dramatic, Emotional, or Erratic Disorders Antisocial Personality Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Cluster C – Anxious or Fearful Disorders Avoidant Personality Disorder
Dependent Personality Disorder
Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder
Avoidant Personality Disorder
Dependent Personality Disorder
Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder
Differential Diagnosis
Before a clinician can diagnose a personality disorder, they must rule out other disorders or medical conditions that may be causing the symptoms. The symptoms that characterize personality disorders are often similar to those of other disorders and illnesses. Personality disorders also commonly co-occur with other illnesses.

The following are potential differentials that must be ruled out before diagnosing an individual with a personality disorder:

Substance Abuse
Anxiety Disorders
Depression
Dissociative Disorders
Social Phobia
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Schizophrenia

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/personalitydis.htm

What Is Personality?

Almost everyday we describe and assess the personalities of the people around us. Whether we realize it or not, these daily musings on how and why people behave as they do are similar to what personality psychologists do.

While our informal assessments of personality tend to focus more on individuals, personality psychologists instead use conceptions of personality that can apply to everyone. Personality research has led to the development of a number of theories that help explain how and why certain personality traits develop.

Components of Personality

While there are many different theories of personality, the first step is to understand exactly what is meant by the term personality. A brief definition would be that personality is made up of the characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that make a person unique. In addition to this, personality arises from within the individual and remains fairly consistent throughout life.

Some of the fundamental characteristics of personality include:

Consistency - There is generally a recognizable order and regularity to behaviors. Essentially, people act in the same ways or similar ways in a variety of situations.

Psychological and physiological - Personality is a psychological construct, but research suggests that it is also influenced by biological processes and needs.

Impact behaviors and actions - Personality does not just influence how we move and respond in our environment; it also causes us to act in certain ways.

Multiple expressions - Personality is displayed in more than just behavior. It can also be seen in out thoughts, feelings, close relationships, and other social interactions.

Theories of Personality

There are a number of different theories about how personality develops. Different schools of thought in psychology influence many of these theories. Some of these major perspectives on personality include:
Type theories are the early perspectives on personality. These theories suggested that there are a limited number of "personality types" which are related to biological influences.

Psychodynamic theories of personality are heavily influenced by the work of Sigmund Freud, and emphasize the influence of the unconscious on personality. Psychodynamic theories include Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual stage theory and Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development.

Behavioral theories suggest that personality is a result of interaction between the individual and the environment. Behavioral theorists study observable and measurable behaviors, rejecting theories that take internal thoughts and feelings into account. Behavioral theorists include B. F. Skinner and John Watson.

Humanist theories emphasize the importance of free will and individual experience in the development of personality. Humanist theorists include Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow.

http://psychology.about.com/od/overviewofpersonality/a/persondef.htm

What Is Experimental Psychology?

Experimental psychology is an area of psychology that utilizes scientific methods to research the mind and behavior. While students are often required to take experimental psychology courses during undergraduate and graduate school, you should really think of this subject as a methodology rather than a singular area within psychology. Many of these techniques are also used by other subfields of psychology to conduct research on everything from childhood development to social issues.

What Do Experimental Psychologists Do?

Experimental psychologists work in a wide variety of settings including colleges, universities, research centers, government and private businesses. Some of these professionals may focus on teaching experimental methods to students, while others conduct research on cognitive processes, animal behavior, neuroscience, personality and many other subject areas.

Those who work in academic settings often teach psychology courses in addition to performing research and publishing their findings in professional journals. Other experimental psychologists may work with businesses to discover ways to make employees more productive or to create a safer workplace, a specialty area known as human factors psychology.

The History of Experimental Psychology

1874 - Wilhelm Wundt published the first experimental psychology textbook, Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (Principles of Physiological Psychology).

1875 - William James opened a psychology lab in the United States. The lab was created for the purpose of class demonstrations, rather than to perform original experimental research.

1879 - The first psychology lab was founded in Leipzig, Germany. Modern experimental psychology dates back to the establishment of the very first psychology laboratory by pioneering psychologist Wilhelm Wundt during the late nineteenth century.

1883 - G. Stanley Hall opened the first experimental psychology lab in the United States at John Hopkins University.

1885 - Herman Ebbinghaus published his famous Über das Gedächtnis ("On Memory"), which was later translated to English as Memory. A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. In the work, he described his learning and memory experiments that he conducted on himself.

1887 - George Truball Ladd published his textbook Elements of Physiological Psychology, the first American book to include a significant amount of information on experimental psychology.

1887 - James McKeen Cattell established the world's third experimental psychology lab at University of Pennsylvania.

1890 - William James published his classic textbook, The Principles of Psychology.

1891 - Mary Whiton Calkins established an experimental psychology lab at Wellesley College, becoming the first woman to form a psychology lab.

1893 - G. Stanley Hall established the American Psychological Association, the largest professional and scientific organization of psychologists in the United States.

1920 - John B. Watson and Rosalie Raynor conducted their now famous Little Albert Experiment, in which they demonstrated that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.

1929 - Edwin Boring's book A History of Experimental Psychology was published. Boring was an influential experimental psychologist who was devoted to the use of experimental methods in psychology research.

1955 - Lee Chronbach published Construct Validity in Psychological Tests, which popularized the use of the construct validity in psychological research.

1958 - Harry Harlow published The Nature of Love, which described his experiments with rhesus monkey's on attachment and love.

1961 - Albert Bandura conducted his now-famous Bobo doll experiment, which demonstrated the effects of observation on aggressive behavior.

Methods Used in Experimental Psychology

Experimental psychologists use a variety of different research methods and tools to investigate human behavior. Experimentation remains the basic standard, but other techniques such as case studies, correlational research and naturalistic observation are frequently utilized in psychological research.

The basics of conducting a psychology experiment involve randomly assigning participants to groups, operationally defining variables, developing a hypothesis, manipulating the independent variables and measuring the depending variables.

http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/a/what-is-experimental-psychology.htm