When I began this journey in Forensic Psychology, I did not expect to learn as much as I have. The main tenet of this career consists in understanding psychopathy, and psychopathology.
It does make me question authoritarianism and the ways in which it can manifest. For instance, Milgram and Adorno et al. studied the psychology of obedience under pressure, and how following orders led to the holocaust. An aspect that has been questioned little is how scarcity or the fear of scarcity has led to similar phenomena due to how people have been conditioned to see money as an enabler of everyday behaviour. For instance, when Milgram conducted his obedience experiments during the 60s, he monetarily rewarded his participants for taking part in the studies. Modern psychologists have attempted to re-examine the dynamics at Yale’s laboratory and what might have led the participants to show that they were capable of being sadistic under such conditions. An example is Gibson’s (2013) work which meticulously examines the prods given by the experimenter. In a way, Gibson seeked to understand how the orders and requests given by the authority figure contributed to the decision-making processes of the participants. However, I have not come across much research highlighting the role of the monetary incentive in everyday behaviour; or how being given a monetary incentive places a subconscious obligation on individuals to comply with requests, even if such requests at times make them feel uncomfortable.
The c/s/x movement, also known as ‘the psychiatric survivors movement‘ (Wikipedia, n.d.) explores how a large number of individuals report feeling or having felt dehumanised by the mental health system. For the unstigmatised person, it is often more common to assume that all these people expressing dissatisfaction with the system are crazy, than to understand the nature of what it means to respect a person’s dignity and human rights. It is quite a complex situation, because it is unclear what reinforces and keeps some mental health settings from actively listening to their patients’ concerns.
According to Turner (2015), signal detection theory (SDT) “describes processes whereby information that is important to the perceiver (known as the ‘signal’) is distinguished from other information that is unimportant and potentially distracting (known as the ‘noise’). It is my hypothesis that some of the inherently dehumanising behaviours occurring in the mental health system happen as a result of the hyper-normalisation of object-relations with patients. As I mentioned on my post ‘Investigating the neuropsychopathologyof prejudice‘, people can at times perceive those with stereotyped and stigmatised characteristics as non-human objects. This would of course increase the chance of mental health settings staff processing signals coming from clients as background noise, rather than as worth-listening-to human signals. Such established conscious and unconscious behaviours leading to the dehumanisation of many clients are reinforced through monetary incentives, and through an intragroup, mob-like co-validation of such unconscious biases. Like Eichmann, many live their lives constantly affirming to themselves that they were just following procedures and orders, or just doing their job; and therefore they believe it is not their responsibility to reflect on how clients are impacted by this. But the signals coming from mental health patients often stand in stark contrast to the common belief that these dehumanising, and at times non-empathic methods are appropriate, or even de facto acceptable.
I do think everyone deserves to be paid for their labour, and that having access to a basic form of income is an important foundation in any society; and I also think that mental health settings need to be encouraged or trained appropriately to detect clients’ signals as more than just background noise (i.e. as more than non-human objects signals) in order to reduce risk outcomes. The situation is problematic, persistent, and pervasive with these manifestations of authoritarianism in mental health settings. It would indeed be arrogant to assume that all the patients/clients expressing dissatisfaction with the service are wrong, or to culturally pathologise reasonable dissent. It would also be irresponsible and de jure unacceptable to fail to take steps towards alleviating feelings of ‘being dehumanised’ in civil society, especially if such feelings of dehumanisation have the potential to lead to never events, such as suicide.
Turner, J. (2015) ‘Making sense of the world’, in Turner, J. and Barker, M. J. (eds) Living Psychology: From the Everyday to the Extraordinary, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 7-45.
Lately I have slept better. Taking Zopiclone has helped me sleep through any kind of disturbance. Consequently, my mental health feels more in balance, and I have been able to once again concentrate on my research. I still feel a deep sense of injustice, but the things I research about give me hope for a better future.
As usual, I have been studying a lot. The books I am currently reading are really interesting. One of the chapters I am currently working on (Dixon, 2015) for university speaks about the neuropsychopathology of social cognition, and how prejudice can result from an institutionalised (i.e. culturally conditioned) context, becoming predetermined emotional responses. One of the excerpts that has mostly sounded relevant to my independent research on cultural narcissism is the following:
‘In a series of studies, using similar kinds of photographic stimuli and fMRI technology, Harris and Fiske (e.g. 2006) found that certain social groups do not produce the neurological signature of person perception. Instead, these groups are processed mainly by areas of the brain more associated with the perception of non-human objects; i.e. they are literally treated, neurologically, as though they were not, fully, fellow human beings. This reaction is worrying because the ‘dehumanisation’ of others has been associated with extreme expressions of prejudice (e.g. the willingness to torture, rape or murder other people)’ .
John Dixon (2015, p. 150)
Now, this object-relational evidence of prejudice and how it leads to the neurologically-based, inherent dehumanisation of those who are considered as out-groups (e.g. Here in the UK, those who are protected by the Equality Act 2010) is consistent with the narcissistic approach to relationships. The idea that simply categorising an individual as an outgroup is enough to attribute characteristics to them that are not humane is truly concerning. Now, combining this with the corporate-narcissistic agenda is essential for social change. It links up to the book I am currently reading about corporate psychopathy:
“While individual lapses in judgement may garner attention in many cases, the ability of psychopaths to cover or explain away their individual decisions makes evidence of these lapses difficult to obtain. Rather, it is the long-term impact of their behaviours in a variety of situations and their dealings with a variety of people that shed more light on who they really are”.
Robert Hare and Paul Babiak (2006, p. 248).
Based on the above, I begin wondering just how deep the neuropsychopathology of tyranny is. That is, what are the common excuses the general corporate narcissist uses to justify violations of human rights? Has the corporate narcissist been made through institutionalised behavioural conditioning which is partially reinforced by unconscious dogmatic-authoritarian beliefs? I suppose this is where forensic psychology as a science collaborates with occupational psychology, social psychology, and educational psychology to uncover these answers.
References
Dixon, J. (2015) ‘Why don’t we like one another? The psychology of prejudice and intergroup relations’, in Capdevila, R., Dixon, J., and Briggs, G. (eds) Investigating Psychology 2: From Social to Cognitive, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 133-178.
Hare, D. R. and Babiak, P. (2006) Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, New York, HarperCollins.
Lately I have been focusing my time towards doing some research and I will be publishing the findings on my Youtube channel. In these series of episodes I will be describing the key terminology related to matter, and then I will touch on psychological theory, and neuropsychological research about racism and narcissism. So if you are interested in understanding the psychology of these phenomena, please tune in!
Most available self-help for post-traumatic stress (PTS), or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is based on a general assumption that the problem is cognitive or perceptual, instead of situational or circumstantial (known as a fundamental attribution error). Sadly, prolonged exposure therapy (PE) is sometimes used to treat such symptoms. This document will start by defining some key terms, and then it will proceed to critically evaluate some of Sword and Zimbardo’s (2018) statements about self help and therapy for PTS as cited in The Open University (2019). Finally, it will touch on the topic of suicide in the UK, and how the rates suggest that sometimes a change in the system, rather than in the patient is needed.
According to Ghafoori (2018, p. 124), PE involves ‘sufficient processing of the traumatic event by revisiting, repeating, recounting, and actively engaging with the trauma memory’. In other words, clients are deliberately exposed to the threatening stimuli that trigger their worst fears. This is similar to the definition posited by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2018), which describes torture as happening ‘when someone deliberately causes very serious and cruel suffering (physical or mental) to another person. This might be to punish someone, or to intimidate or obtain information from them’. Such form of therapy can be described as the most barbaric way to treat someone with PTSD. Some might be tempted to counter-argue that PE is not done to intimidate or punish, but rather to help. Nevertheless, the evidence in neuropsychology shows that the mere perception of pain or internal discomfort can damage the nociceptor neurons (those which process pain signals); and can therefore induce, for example, hyperalgesia (an abnormal hypersensitivity to pain, or the perception of pain; Medical News Today, n.d.; Miguez et al., 2014), which is the opposite of analgesia (a reduced sensitivity to pain). It is triggered by associative cues which produce assimilative signals that trigger psychosomatic hypervigilance, and an aversion to such cues therefore. This is why those who suffer from PTS can at times feel as though ‘they were being tortured’, and actively seek to escape or avoid such stressful stimuli. This will be explored further in the following paragraphs, especially when talking about Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), a severe mental health illness manifesting in those who have experienced prolonged and extreme forms of trauma since childhood (NHS.UK, 2019).
Sword and Zimbardo’s (2018) excerpt describes PTS correctly when they say that it is trauma which is carried on after an event happens, and which manifests as flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, and sleep disturbance. Moreover, they also ratify the set of symptoms as categorised by the American Psychiatric Association (2013): ‘depression, anxiety, flashbacks, avoidance, isolation, difficulty falling and/or staying asleep, difficulty concentrating, irritability, an exaggerated startle response and hypervigilance’. However, as a caveat it must be stated that ‘avoidant’ behaviour should at times be categorised as a survival skill, rather than a symptom. For instance, hyperalgesia can be induced by overwhelming the nociceptors in the brain with painful contextual cues which a person already perceives to be unpleasant, as explained by Miguez et al. (2014). This means that avoidance of painful stimuli can at times save someone from an increased sensitivity to painful situations. Moreover, Rotter’s (1966) theory of the locus of control as cited in Cherry and Barker (2015:235) would indicate that avoidance of a destructive stimulus would be in the individual’s locus of control, and this would also be supported by Rogers’ (1975) protection motivation theory as cited in Boer and Seydel (1996) which posits that fear-inducing stimuli are emotionally unpleasant, and it can therefore be expected that people will seek to avoid such stimuli. In addition, another problematic statement made by Sword and Zimbardo (2018) is that people with trauma see the world through a ‘darker lens’. Cherry and Barker’s (2015) work posited how self-help psychology at times fails to understand that it is not always the individual’s cognition that is faulty, but rather the reality around such individual (i.e. scientists can sometimes make fundamental attribution errors). A good example mentioned by Cherry and Barker (2015:244) is that of poverty, which effects on the human psyche include a lack of self-worth, a disruption of normal functioning, and feelings of marginalisation. As this is a circumstantial situation, trying to change a person’s perceptions of such real hardships might only contribute further to their symptoms. This is why it can be said that those who are seeking to profit from their work are avoiding poverty, which again is a protection-motivated behaviour, and not a symptom; therefore, challenging assumptions that avoidance is a mental health problem is crucial to improving mental health systems. Furthermore, Sword and Zimbardo (2018) also describe resentment as being a phenomenon experienced by those with PTS; however, the cluster symptomatology they list- ‘going to work, preparing meals, being interested in what they did that day—become chores’- is more consistent with the construct of anhedonia (losing pleasure in doing things that once brought a sense of comfort and satisfaction; Ritsner, 2014) than that of resentment, and this distinction is very important when trying to understand PTS; because depression-induced, affect-reactive behaviour is often mistaken with and stigmatised as narcissistic rage, or a toxic personality.
Furthermore, not only can PE induce hyperalgesia, but it can also create more repressed forms of trauma, and people can end up getting worse. Since pain-avoidant behaviour is not irrational when thinking about the way in which human neurons’ function and how these react to overwhelming amounts of discomfort, why is such inhumane treatment so often justified? Indeed, exposure to stressor cues which produce psychological discomfort can physically damage nociceptors, and this might explain why BPD with comorbid PTS patients, for example, are seen as ‘difficult to work with’ (Harvard, 2006) due to their exhibited hypersensitivity and hypervigilance (Palmer and Unruh, 2018). This type of systemic prejudice is based on a presumption of cognitive and behavioural guilt; especially if such expectations and attitudes are perceived as torturous by the client. No wonder many BPD clients develop an aversion to health-care, and no wonder Cherry and Barker’s (2015) chapter on self-help highlighted some of the paradoxical reactions that can happen when people are given the wrong type of help, or the wrong set of coping techniques. For example, some expectations when it comes to treating traumatised individuals are unrealistic and can make some individuals feel worse. Some of these errors include expecting someone to only think optimistically, or to ignore the circumstantial stressors they experience. Furthermore, Eysenck (1998) posited that when the nervous system is overwhelmed by external stressors, this causes an increase of the release of corticosteroids (stress hormones) and when too many corticosteroids are released, the immune, endocrine, and circulatory systems can malfunction. So the awareness of the potential repercussions of prolonged psychological torture, or PE is not new, and many of those who engage in such activities know that what they are doing is perceived as harmful by others (actus reus) and if they continue doing it nevertheless, then there might also be a guilty intent behind such decisions (mens rea; Palmer, 2018).
It is dangerously equivocal on one hand to call avoidance of suffering a problem, and on the other hand wonder why people are self-harming. For example, Wager (2015) explained that only 1 in 800 cases of child sexual abuse make it to child protection services, which means that most of the victims of such henious acts grow with the trauma they experienced, and recreating their sexual abuse not only would be illegal, but it would only make things worse for them. This is why PE can have disastrous consequences for those who are severely traumatised. Moreover, expecting someone who has endured sexual abuse to stop avoiding their worst fears would be irrational; and such confusion could potentially lead the individual into further traumatic circumstances and relationships, or to suicide, which is not that uncommon in the UK nowadays. For instance, according to Samaritans (2019) there were 6,859 suicides in the UK in 2018. This was a ‘significant’, and tragic increase in rates from previous years. The cruel nature of everyday mental health misconceptions might have contributed towards such results (Kinderman, 2015). The ambiguous messages sent by certain frameworks can leave people feeling hopeless, confused and neglected, a prerequisite for suicidal ideation. Compassion, however, could save lives (Kinderman, 2015:291). So in the case of BPD with comorbid PTS, a treatment going wrong is often blamed on the patient rather than on the health system. It is a paradox because the mere action of the patient complaining is categorised as a symptom, rather than as a rational response to a painful, unfair, and/or stressful trigger. This is why taking into account socio-environmental stressors should not be an exclusively academic matter, but rather a general rule for the prevention of inhumane and degrading treatment. Nevertheless, it is good that Sword and Zimbardo (2018) display a well-intentioned contribution to the development of more effective mental health apps, a topic that is beyond the scope and capacity of this document.
To summarise, Sword and Zimbardo’s (2018) work as cited in the Open University (2019) mentions PE as one of the traditional forms of therapy used to treat PTS; nevertheless, they seem to attribute most problems to human cognition, rather than to situational factors. Furthermore, they seem to be deleteriously equivocal when they use the criteria for anhedonia to describe resentment, without providing satisfactory evidence to support their claims. Finally, they describe avoidant responses as a symptom, rather than as an everyday behaviour. However, research has shown that avoiding certain situations is rational, and mental health frameworks should take this into consideration when treating severely traumatised individuals, instead of speculating and risking someone’s physical integrity to death.
American Psychiatric Association (2013a) ‘Posttraumatic stress disorder, in Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed, Arlington, pp. 271-280.
Boer, H. and Seydel, E. R. (1996) ‘Protection motivation theory’, Conner, M. and Norman, P. (eds), Predicting Health Behaviour, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 95-120.
Cherry, S. and Barker, M. J. (2015) ‘Self-help: changing people’s understandings to change their experience’, in Turner, J. and Barker, M. J. (eds), Living Psychology: From the Everyday to the Extraordinary, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 227-259.
Eysenck, M. (1998) ‘Biological bases of behaviour’, in Eysenck, M. (ed), Psychology: an integrated approach, Essex, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, pp. 23-67.
Kinderman, P. (2015) ‘Beyond disorder: a psychological model of mental health’, in Crighton D. A. and Towl, G. J. (eds), Forensic Psychology, 2nd edn, West Sussex, John Wiley and Sons, The British Psychological Society, pp. 291-300.
Miguez, G., Laborda, M. A. and Miller, R. R. (2014) ‘Classical conditioning and pain: conditioned analgesia and hyperalgesia’, Acta Psychologica, Elsevier, pp. 10-20.
Palmer, E. J. (2018) ‘Psychological approaches to understanding crime’, in Davies, G. M. and Beech, A. R. (eds), Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions, 3rd ed, West Sussex, The British Psychological Society/John Wiley & Sons, pp. 27-47.
Wager, N. M. (2015) ‘The psychology of extreme circumstances’, in Turner, J. and Barker, M. J. (eds), Living Psychology: From the Everyday to the Extraordinary, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 139-178.
Psychology as a science employs the experimental scientific method when trying to determine the cause and effect of everyday phenomena. It is believed that validity (when a study actually measures what it aims to measure) and reliability (when an experiment can be replicated, and the results corroborated therefore) are essential components of theoretical foundations. Ecological validity is a term used to describe the extent to which laboratory experiments can mimic natural conditions (Turner, 2019).
For instance, if a psychologist is trying to determine the effects of crime on mental health, an experiment would have to be conducted in order to test these variables; nevertheless, some aspects of crime scene and court settings are impossible to test due to the fatal, or extremely damaging nature of such situations. Consequently, many experimental forensic psychological hypotheses cannot be taken outside the laboratory, nor can these be tested in natural conditions; and this is why mock-studies are conducted in order to understand the processes involved in case law, but these are considered to have very low ecological validity. A good example of a mock forensic psychology experiment gone wrong is Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment as cited in Eysenck (2000), which was extremely traumatic for the participants, as severe psychological damage was imposed on them.
Half of the participants took the role of prisoners, and the other half took the job of prison guards. The reason why mock studies are conducted is to make sure that no harm is done to participants; yet, this experiment went beyond the scope of mock studies and some of those playing the prisoners could no longer differentiate whether the experiment was real or not. Nowadays this type of experiment would not be allowed by an ethics committee due to its high level of ecological validity. The way in which guards abused the power and authority given to them was atrocious, and the overall experiment was detrimental to every single participant in each category.
Eysenck (2000, p. 568-569) stated: “Violence and rebellion broke out within two days […] One of the prisoners showed such severe symptoms of emotional disturbance (disorganised thinking, uncontrollable crying, and screaming) that he had to be released after only one day”. Furthermore, Zimbardo was harshly criticised for having failed to protect the physical and mental health of all parties involved. What makes a experiment a mock-study is the fact that prisoners usually know the reason why they are imprisoned; whereas Zimbardo’s study added an extra-factor by misleading them into thinking they were imprisoned for real.
Overall, Zimbardo’s (1973) experiment was very much ecologically valid and consistent with miscarriages of justice, such as when a person is innocent and yet is sent to prison, what can be imagined to be a nightmare of confusion, uncertainty, fear, and injustice.
References
Eysenck, M. W. (2000) Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, East Sussex, Psychology Press Ltd, pp. 568-569, 789.
This is a short video answering some questions in relation to how to cope with the intensity of the coronavirus pandemic by focusing on psychological survival and wellbeing at home.
There is a certain ‘mystery’ with the numbers. For instance, the GOV.UK’s (2020a) dashboard has not been updating the recovery section of its spreadsheet since the 22nd March. This has led to much confusion, and many people are suspicious of the numbers being provided. For instance, the media (Merrick, 2020) announced that health secretary Matt Hancock tested positive for coronavirus on the 27th March, 2020. Then on the 2nd April, 2020 he was back to work (Matt Hancock gives first coronavirus briefing since coming out of isolation, 2020) and was looking healthy. Nevertheless, the historic record spreadsheet did not register his recovery, indicating that maybe only those admitted to hospital are being registered in the records.
Another odd discrepancy is the fact that even though Worldometers (2020) updated for the first time this month the number of recovered patients yesterday to 344, the historic record document mentioned above- which is available on the GOV.UK’s (2020a) dashboard- continues to show 135 as the number of recoveries. This is worrisome as it gives an impression of misinformation and it elicits uncertainty. No wonder many people are having a gut feeling of ‘deception’ at the hands of the GOV.
What is the government’s plan?
As of the date of this writing, the GOV.UK’s (2020b) coronavirus action plan is full of misinformation and inaccuracies. I wrote to the Department of Health & Social Care (GOV.UK, 2020c) on the 1st April in order to communicate my concerns in regards to their published document and to request more frequent reviews of it. Nevertheless, nothing has been done about it, and the file continues to create feelings of confusion and uncertainty. Here you can download the analysis I conducted. You will be able to understand the discrepancies better after reading it.
I attended the World Health Organization’s (2020) press briefing yesterday (10th April). Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General stated: “When health workers are at risk, we are all at risk”. There were many important calls to action, such as ensuring that medical staff are able to have adequate rest periods instead of long, exploitative shifts; the development of an immune response; and the clarification of the severity of the disease. For instance, so far we have heard about patients who are in mild, and critical conditions. It was mentioned in the conference that an explanation of the moderate condition would be helpful, as there are confirmed cases of pneumonia which have not required hospitalization.
Another important point discussed was that the death of health workers has become a ‘tragic’ stimulus to action. The health environment was spoken about as a double-edged sword. It was also raised that personal protective equipment (PPE) is therefore a must have in hospitals in order to reduce the exposure of health workers to infectious hazards. This reminds us of the importance of staying at home and protecting the NHS. Furthermore, it was also suggested that psychosocial support for front-line and health workers should be made readily available, and reasonable adjustments should also be made by administrative staff in order to prevent doctors and nurses from developing fatigue as a result of extremely long shifts.
What can psychologists do to help the coronavirus crisis?
The coronavirus (COVID-2019) impacts on different people in different ways. Psychologically speaking, this requires an ongoing decision-making process based on the likelihood of catching the virus, and the perceived severity of the consequences.
“The barriers component may comprise both physical limitations on performing a behaviour (e.g. expense) and psychological costs associated with its performance (e.g. distress)”.
Abraham and Sheeran (1996, p. 33)
The outbreak is by all means a stress-generative situation. Exploring the psychopathology of the coronavirus pandemic, such as the negative and positive symptoms it causes (e.g. confusion, neurosis, and psychosis) would help both, professionals and students to feel more efficient in their preparedness for what is to come next. For example, the concept of normal distribution and the curve as illustrated by The Visual and Data Journalism Team (2020) would help people understand what is meant by “the peak” of the outbreak that so many sources are expecting and talking about.
Psychologists are also encouraged to help people understand the serious challenge at hand, and the levels of vulnerability in individual differences. Moreover, it would also be helpful to stimulate the GOV so they respond quicker without the need for the tragic stimulus of death explained above. Furthermore, exploring the cycle of panic and neglect that manifests as response to the threat would help soothe emotionally vulnerable human beings. Advice about how to strengthen the system is welcome. When it comes to forensic psychologists, it would be useful to elucidate how data formulates policy, and why it is important to have accurate data in order to prevent confusion at subnational levels, including criminal justice settings.
How can I check the coronavirus numbers for myself?
There are two ways you can check the coronavirus statistics. For global numbers go to Worldometers.info/coronavirus.
Please note that GOV staff have neglected the recovery section in the official spreadsheet since 22nd March, 2020. If you are concerned about the numbers, please contact the Department of Health & Social Care on https://contactus.dhsc.gov.uk/ and explain to them your concerns.
References
Abraham, C. and Sheeran, P. (1996) ‘The health belief model’, in Conner, M. and Norman, P. (eds) Predicting Health Behaviour, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 23-61.
Matt Hancock gives first coronavirus briefing since coming out of isolation (2020), Youtube video, added by The Sun [Online]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrF6Z8s5dmw (Accessed 10 April 2020).
The Visual and Data Journalism Team (2020) ‘Coronavirus pandemic: tracking the global outbreak’, BBC News, 10 April [Online]. Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105 (Accessed 11 April 2020).
