Archive for the ‘Self Presentation’ Category
We posted earlier this week about the new concept of “maladaptive daydreaming” and those researchers published a second article on an actual 14-item scale to assess whether a specific individual is a maladaptive daydreamer. Since it’s a strange area that may end up in the courtroom—we thought we’d share information and some of the items on the scale with you.
As a reminder, maladaptive daydreaming was defined by Eli Somer (in 2002) as “extensive fantasy activity that replaces human interaction and/or interferes with academic, interpersonal or vocational functioning”. While there is a proliferation of self-help information on the internet, this scale has just been published and while not freely available (at this writing) on the internet it is at the journal website (behind a paywall—posted as supplemental material).
The measure was developed and tested on 447 subjects (340 self-identified maladaptive daydreamers and 107 controls who “daydreamed normally”) and was found to have good psychometric properties (highly reliable and valid) and to be an appropriate measure for assessing the presence of maladaptive dreamers in clinical research. The final scale contains 14 items that assess the following elements of maladaptive daydreaming: Quality (usually rich and very detailed), Control (is the person able to control the daydreaming?), Distress (does the daydreaming cause distress?), Benefits (what are the benefits associated with daydreaming?), and Functioning (is the person able to function?).
We know what you really want to see here are some of the questions in the measure, so we will not delay further. Here are 5 sample questions from the measure (with the element of maladaptive daydreaming the question measures identified).
How often are your current daydreams accompanied by physical activity such as pacing, swinging, or shaking your hands? (Element measured: Quality)
When a real world event has interrupted one of your daydreams, how strong was your need or urge to return to that daydream as soon as possible? (Element measured: Control)
If you go through a period of time when you are not able to daydream as much as usual due to real world obligations, how distressed are you by your inability to find time to daydream? (Element measured: Distress)
Some people love to daydream. While you are daydreaming, to what extent do you find it comforting and/or enjoyable? (Element measured: Benefit)
For some people, the experience of daydreaming interferes with their academic/occupational success or personal achievements. How much does your daydreaming interfere with your academic/occupational success? (Element measured: Function)
If you are not experiencing maladaptive daydreaming, it may be difficult to see these questions as documenting a real condition. And if this trait is part of a claimed condition that requires some kind of accommodation (we are talking to you, HR professional or employment litigator), the issue of how “real” it is, will become important to you very quickly. It is certainly something that would interfere with life function, and if it becomes a facet of a diminished capacity claim (falling short of a psychotic episode) it might be used to explain allegedly bad behavior.
Somer E, Lehrfeld J, Bigelsen J, & Jopp DS (2016). Development and validation of the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (MDS). Consciousness and Cognition, 39, 77-91 PMID: 26707384
Sometimes we find articles we want to blog about almost immediately and other times we go through a lot of reading to identify something appropriate for a post. But along the way we almost always have tidbits we thought intriguing, resonant of a past post or series of posts, esoteric, or just plain weird. When we pull together enough of them for a post of assorted “conversation starters”, you know we’ve been reading a lot more than we’re posting!
Calm down, you are not addicted to your smartphone!
You simply have an anxious attachment style. The BPS Research Digest returns to a topic we’ve covered here before called nomophobia—which describes the anxiety experienced when we have no cell phone in our possession. They describe research completed in Hungary which says that everyone would experience anxiety over not having a cell phone—it is just expected in today’s society. The researchers say, that we should think of our relationship with our phones in terms of attachment theory. They suggest that anyone who has a fear of abandonment (an attachment issue) in their human relationships is likely going to be more anxious about being separated from their phone as well—it’s just an anxious attachment style. You were a worrier before, so you also worry about not having your phone. You feel better now, right?
When DNA implicates the innocent & Eye witness identification errors
In the event you missed them, Scientific American has had really good articles on the legal system recently. Don’t miss this article highlighting times when DNA is very, very wrong or this one on how level of certainty in eyewitnesses can improve the efficacy of police lineups. Both are worthy of your time to read.
How to sound charismatic
We’ve written about deep voices and how appealing they can be and now here is an article from the Atlantic dissecting how politicians vary their voice pitch and tone during speaking engagements in order to appeal to the widest audience possible. It’s disturbing.
The phrase “I’m sorry” always reminds me of then 15-year-old Brenda Lee and her hit single. (That is, in psychology circles, called a tangential aside.) We haven’t written about apology here for a while now and a new study has just published that lists six elements to make your apology optimal. This post is to help you stay informed about the latest findings on how to make an apology most effective.
First a bit of background on the apology research. These researchers tell us that apologies typically arise in an effort to repair trust. They identified “six structural components of apologies” from prior research and presented them single and in combination to research participants to see which elements were more effective in restoring trust. Here’s a little of what they found:
Not all apologies were equally effective—those with more components were more effective than those with fewer components and certain components were more effective than others. (In other words, keep talking…and make sure you focus on everything you need to say. )
Apologies after competence-based trust violations were more effective than apologies following integrity-based violations. (One is an issue of disappointment with your actions and the other is an issue of your character.)
The six elements of apology culled from prior research were:
Expression of regret
Explanation of what went wrong
Acknowledgment of responsibility
Declaration of repentance
Offer of repair
Request for forgiveness
The authors say that the best apologies contain all six elements but the most important elements are acknowledging your responsibility and making an offer of repair for harm done. The next three elements are tied (expressing regret, explaining what went wrong, and a declaration of repentance). The least effective element may surprise you. A request for forgiveness is the least effective element of the apology and the researchers say you can leave out the request for forgiveness if you need to do that.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, it seems famous people are apologizing almost all the time (we’ve written about a number of them here) but the quality of those apologies varies dramatically. When your client needs to issue an apology—encourage them to include all these components (although they can skip the last one if it is too awkward or would be seen as insincere).
Lewicki, R., Polin, B., & Lount, R. (2016). An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9 (2), 177-196 DOI: 10.1111/ncmr.12073
Almost five years ago, we wrote about research saying men with deep voices were more persuasive. Science has moved forward though and now, women can also be more persuasive when using a deeper voice. Some call it a “sultry voice”. New work tells us your voice doesn’t have be a deep and resonant baritone to be persuasive—you simply have to lower your speech pitch over the course of your interactions with others to be more persuasive. And—it works for both genders! If you don’t want to read the article itself, Scientific American has a nice summary that you can either listen to as a podcast or just read the full transcript.
Basically what the researchers did is recorded 191 undergraduate students (Canadian subjects, ranging in age from 17 to 52 years, 54% male) who debated in small groups about the equipment most useful after a disaster on the moon. [This is an old team-building exercise found on the internet under many different names but officially called “Lost on the Moon”] You are told you have crash landed on the moon and need to identify what items present in the spaceship will be most useful. The recorded discussions for the first study were held in same sex groups ranging in size from four to seven participants.
Researchers also did a second study online with 274 participants (ranging in age from 15 to 61 years and 60.58% female)—181 were recruited from a “large Canadian university and the remaining 93 participants were recruited from an online database of research volunteers. The reason for the second experiment being online was so they could be sure there were not visual factors interfering with persuasion by lowered voice pitch.
Results from both studies (that is, in person or online where the voice was heard but the person’s appearance was not seen) were consistent. Those participants, both male and female, who lowered their voice pitch during the negotiations required to rank 15 items in order of importance for survival on the moon were seen as more persuasive and given a higher “social ranking” in the group than those who kept their voice pitch the same or raised it.
It is a victory for women. You do not have to have a deep baritone voice in order to be persuasive. It is more a matter of shifting tonal ranges for effect—just go into negotiations or discussion with your ‘regular’ voice and then, over the course of discussion, lower your voice. Of course, it’s hard to recreate this finding in the real world since you are rarely negotiating in single-sex groups. On the other hand, it’s an interesting strategy to try. Does lowering your voice during day-to-day decision-making make you more persuasive? If it does, you might try it in lower stakes situations at work and if it still works try it out in other situations as well!
Note: If at any point during your practice, you are challenged about “faking” a deeper voice—you may need a bit more practice! It can also be thought to connote silly dramatics when overdone.
Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Ho S, & Henrich J (2016). Listen, follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict emergent social rank in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 145 (5), 536-47 PMID: 27019023
It’s tough to see the same old themes come up over and over again but—here we go again… Women who react emotionally are seen as less intelligent, but if they react in a “measured and manly way” they are thought not trustworthy. In other words, you can’t win for losing.
“Men were rated as both more emotionally competent and more intelligent in general when they showed restraint. For women, however, the opposite pattern emerged, in that they were perceived as more emotionally competent and intelligent when they reacted immediately.”
In other words, say the researchers, we expect men and women to act according to gender stereotypes and we are suspicious of those who fail to behave accordingly.
Participants in the first study (59 undergraduates from the University of Haifa in Israel—30 men and 29 women) were shown photos found to elicit both sadness and anger. Then they watched videos featuring different people allegedly reacting to those same images. Half of the actors reacted almost immediately (within 1/2 second) while others did not show an expression change for a second and a half. After viewing the videos of people reacting to the images, the participants rated each character for “emotional competence” and assessed their level of sensitivity, caring, and the appropriateness and authenticity of their reactions.
Men who paused for 1.5 seconds prior to changing their expression were seen as more emotionally competent. Women who paused were seen as less emotionally competent.
The second study (with 58 students) was much the same as the first but the participants also rated the perceived intelligence of the character in the video.
“Men who showed delayed reactions were perceived as significantly more intelligent than those who reacted immediately, whereas for women, delayed reactions resulted in less perceived intelligence.”
The authors say that these results reflect the strength of gender stereotypes about women as “more emotionally volatile but also more emotionally competent” and say that when women delay their reaction to an emotionally charged image they may be seen as “strategic rather than spontaneous”.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this will be important when considering the impact of male and female witnesses, for preparation of parties, and even for attorney behavior in the courtroom. You are always being watched and evaluated. Assumptions are going to be made for better or worse.
Help jurors see your female witness/party/self as thoughtful and competent but as having learned to stop and consider actions and consequences prior to reacting. That is done more by offering jurors some context for respecting the witness or party, rather than trying to train them to significantly change their response style. In other words, this time it has to be about teaching the jurors how to judge quality, rather than teaching the witness how to overcome the gender bias.
Hess, U, David, S, & Hareli S (2016). Emotional restraint is good for men only: The influence of emotional restraint on perceptions of confidence. Emotion