How Social Identity Influences Social and Emotional Loneliness

Dissertation Results on: “How Social Identity Influences Social and Emotional Loneliness”.
In my research, I tested whether or not individuals will evaluate their level of loneliness when thinking about their identity as tied to a group (in this case being a college student) versus thinking about one’s personal qualities, or two other control conditions. I found that when individuals are asked to write five qualities of being a college student their level loneliness is significantly less than the other control conditions and almost half as lonely when compared to writing down five personal qualities.
Why does this matter?
Recently, several experts in the field of psychology and medicine are calling loneliness a modern public health problem that is occurring on a scale that has not been seen since loneliness started being measured in the 1920s. Along with the associated negative outcomes such as mortality rates, increase the risk of cancer and other life-threatening diseases, obesity, diabetes, and of course increased the risk of mental health issues such as depression and suicidal thought. Indeed in my research 53% of participants stated “more or less”, “yes”, or “absolutely yes” to the following statement “I experience a general sense of emptiness”. However, very little research, outside the clinical setting, has looked at how to reduce loneliness within the immediate situational context. This research was one of the first to look at the immediate situational variable (thinking of social identity) to see if the situation can influence one’s level of loneliness. Indeed, this research suggested that by focusing on qualities of a social nature decreases a person’s evaluation of emotional loneliness (the evaluation of not having enough significant emotional connections with others) and social loneliness (the evaluation of not have a sufficient number of social connections).
Another aspect of this research is that it supports the theoretical assumption that emotions are more dependent on the situation the person is in, rather than emotions being something that is transient and is independent of the situation. The last important aspect of this research, which is discipline specific, is that it is the first to experimentally test the relations between a group process and emotional state such as loneliness, to see if group process influences one’s emotional outcome, effectively bridging two fields within psychology – the study of intra/intergroup processes and emotions experimentally. However, because this is novel research and first to experimentally test these variables together, further research and replication are needed, to see if these findings hold to the scrutiny of the scientific process.
For anyone who is interested I have provided a link to the abstract and downloadable copy of the full dissertation: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/5772/
Advertisements

America Needs A Superordinate Goal

By: Curtis Peterson ©

What does it mean to be an ‘American’ (aka United States Citizen)? I think everyone in the United States asks this question at least some time during their lifetime – I know I have. But I would be willing to bet, that the answers while using the same symbolic words – such as freedom and bravery – these words have a completely different meaning for many groups. This can be seen very clearly in the deep divisions between political ideals and between racial groups. I often wonder if there is anything that can actually bring the United States away from division and instead have a shared meaning and life goals? In my reading and contemplation on this matter, I can’t stop thinking about a famous research program – Robber Cave Experiment –  by Muzafer Sherif.

rcsignWhat Sherif wanted to test is a developing theory in the study of group dynamics called Realistic Conflict Theory. By this time, social psychologist had already established that all someone needs to do to create prejudice behaviors between two groups, is to randomly assign them to either a group ‘A’ or group ‘B’. This became known as the minimal group paradigm.The problem was, is that in the real world very seldom are we randomly assigned to a group, we always come from a group or enter a group, that has a history and connection with one another. Realistic Conflict Theory aimed to explain how conflict occurs in the real world where conflict due to competition and resources matter. What Sherif did in his study was to conduct a three-week summer camp where young boys all around the age of 10 to 11, were randomly assigned to one of two camps, for which the two groups had no contact for the first week. Over the following week ,the two groups played competitive games against each other. What Sherif wanted to test, is whether mere contact (aka mere exposure effect) between the two groups in the absence of competition would reduce conflict in the third week. What he found was is that no, in fact, conflict got worse and resulted in violence and vandalism (sound familiar democrats and republicans?).

sherif-image-chapter-sevenHow did Sherif ultimately reduce conflicts between the two groups and increase intergroup liking? What Sherif did, he implemented a set of superordinate goals and task that benefit the entire camp instead of just one group or the other. Examples included having them rope tow a truck to camp and filling a water tank. These superordinate goals had two qualities (1) they benefited both groups, and (2) they forced both groups to work together. After having the boys complete these superordinate goals not only did the vandalism and violence go away but, scores of intergroup liking between the two groups increased significantly.

Now there has been times that the United States that we have seen the Robber Cave effect, two immediate examples included the bombing of Pearl Harbor and 09/11. After both of these events – for a short time anyways – significantly decreased prejudicial behaviors, hate crimes, and violence. Both of these events created a superordinate goal for the American people, in the first, it was to seek revenge on Japan, and the latter was to care for those injured and fallen and to seek out those who caused 09/11. The question that I think that we should pose, is will it take another 09/11 or Pearl Harbor for us as a people to see eye to eye and let go of our divisions and difference and unite as one people?

Responding to Criticism on my notion of loneliness

By: Curtis Peterson ©

img_4243

Recently I have been criticized for my views on loneliness, even though these views are deeply seated in current research on the topic of loneliness. I would like to respond to some of the criticisms I have received. For this blog, I want to take on one of the most salient criticisms I have received

Criticism 1: Loneliness is not a product of an individual’s social world, but rather a disposition of a person and psychological disorders.

This criticism mostly comes from individuals who work in the mental health field, and work with individuals who report being extremely lonely. In this view, many of the individuals who are upset with my notion that loneliness is deeply seated within one’s social experiences, claim that loneliness is part of one’s psychological disorder and therefore should be treated on the individual level.

However, there are fundemental problems with this argument. The first comes from science dating back to the 1940s and is supported by current research, and that is loneliness is not a symptom of psychological disorders, but are a consequence of the social allienation most individuals with psychological disorders experience.

There is only one exception to this rule, and that is for individuals who experience depression. But, loneliness, when someone is in a bout of depression, is qualitatively different than the normative loneliness that everyone experiences. Loneliness during depression drives us away from seeking social and emotional connections, while normative loneliness drives us to seek out a social and emotional connection to alleviate the negative emotional state associated with the experience of loneliness. For me, there is another very important reason to separate loneliness from depression, and that comes from recent research conducted with individuals who have made serious suicide attempts and individuals who display suicidal thoughts. According to this research, individuals who are diagnosed with depression seem to only have suicidal ideation and attempts when they also score high on scales of normative loneliness – such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale. This is important because it provides a window into what drives individuals who are experiencing depression and when they are at risk for suicidal thoughts and attempts.

The second fundamental problem with loneliness only being a feature of psychological disorders that are self-driven is that everyone can experience loneliness regardless of their mental state. In fact, loneliness is a fact of being human. One reason that some individuals may argue that it is not is we all have varying degrees of the need to have social and emotional connections with other individuals. Indeed, most of the individuals that disagree with me have very low needs for social and emotional relationships. Loneliness and social connection as a drive system are very much like our system for hunger and thirst. Some individuals need for more food intake – and make sure they get three meals a day -and some individuals only have the desire to eat maybe once during the day. Loneliness is the same way, some individuals need a constant stream of socialization and emotional connection, whereas others need very little. Unfortunately the high-level person – especially in American culture – are considered needy, dependent, and weak – whereas individuals who have very little need are seen as strong and independent. While I would argue that being at either extreme can lead to dysfunction – just like too much food can lead to obesity, and too little food can lead to anorexia – the assumption that low social need people are stronger than high need individuals is just empirically false. There is no evidence in the empirical literature to suggest that individuals differ on how “strong” and “independent” they are based on their need for social and emotional connections.

My main goal for refuting the claim that loneliness is a feature of one’s disposition is in our modern world individuals are becoming more and more disconnected from each other. Evidence indicates that loneliness and the negative physical and psychological consequences of continued chronic loneliness are on the increase especially among at risk populations such as teens, elderly, and individuals who are members of stigmatized groups. Therefore, loneliness as an increasing epidemic in our society needs to be addressed on the social and cultural level, and we should let go of old unsupported notions that loneliness is a feature of one’s disposition. I make this plea that we should look at loneliness as a disease of society because the only long-term solution and “cure” for loneliness are for one to meet their social and emotional connections with others, through engaging in their social life.