Traditional explanations for anti social behaviours in children consider poverty, low intelligence, dysfunctional families and the availability of guns. However the case of the Eric Harris (18) and Dylan Klebold (17) disproves these explanations. These boys – who killed a total of 13 people, and then themselves, with a homemade bomb and sawn off shot guns – were considered intelligent, and came from stable, affluent backgrounds. This is where psychology comes in, to suggest dispositional and situational explanations for these behaviours, such as social identity, media influence and childhood development.

Media Influence

Bandura’s study told us that children learn behaviour by modelling, but to what extent is modelling coming from the media? It is undeniable that the media influences us, but is it possible for this influence to become malicious? Endless coverage of the Denver school shooting lead to several “copy cat crimes”, such as a 15 year old boy in a Georgia school who started shooting at random, injuring six pupils. Along with this, doctors found that following an episode of Casualty featuring a paracetamol overdose, hospital admissions for similar emergencies rose by 20% (Bulstrode, 1997). Harris and Klebold admitted to giving up sports for computer games such as “doom”, which were graphically violent. Whilst this would have encouraged and potentially even inspired the homicide that occurred later on, there has been no causal relationship found between violent video games and anti social behaviour.

In-groups and Out-groups

The social hierarchy had a large part to play in the boy’s “outcast” image. Their interests in Marilyn Manson (the “antichrist superstar”) and KMFDM (A German rock band) orchestrated their isolation from mainstream culture. A group labelled the “Trench coat mafia” was created in the school, as a sort of counter-cultural group from the jocks. This group had Nazi undertones, obtaining a “uniform” of long black coats, berets and sunglasses. A crucial piece of information is that the boys were in this “uniform” when the homicide took place. Zimbardo identified this uniformity as contributing to a process called “deindividuation”, in which the anonymity of a uniform allows people to behave in ways that would not normally be acceptable.

The Strains of Adolescent Masculinity

Adolescence brings rapid physical change, hormonal surges and a rejection of parental values, all of which can make this a disturbing period of transition. Inter-male competition is most pronounced when sexual interests and testosterone levels are at their peak, along with cultural values which emphasise exaggerated masculinity. All of these influences can result in impulsive and violent activities. The pressures surrounding conformity and fitting into an idyllic social identity is strongly displayed in Harris and Klebold’s case, where they decided aggression with weapons was the only way they could ever acquire the social status they were previously denied. This time of unstable development in boys, accompanied by other environmental factors, is what drives a desire for a sense of meaning, even if this meaning is unacceptable to everyone else.

Conclusion

Psychological evaluation is the only way we will ever be able to establish an understanding of why these boys committed mass murder, given their “normal” background and upbringing. The psychological discoveries and applications that came from this case have provided us with an understanding of how to identify warning signs in individuals. This is a form of intervention that can help prevent anything like the Denver killings from happening again.

The movie, Inside Out, is about an 11-year-old girl, Riley, originally from Minnesota, who moves to San Francisco with her parents. The leading characters of the movie are Riley’s primary emotions, Happiness (Joy), Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust. These emotions demonstrate what it might be like in the mind of an 11-year-old girl who struggles with having to move to a different city, away from her friends, away from her hockey league, and has a hard time pretending to be happy for her parents.

This movie is very accurate as it relates to cognitive, developmental, and clinical psychology. The 5 emotions used in this film are in fact 5 of the 6  universal emotions (the 6th one being surprise). Psychologist, Paul Eckman, is most known for his work with universal emotions as he traveled around the world and found that these were present in every culture and presented in the same way through the same facial expressions around the world.

Other concepts displayed in this movie included the conversion of short to long-term memory. When a memory is seen as relevant to us, or when it has been repeated enough times, the brain messengers, dopamine and glutamate, ensure the long-term encoding of that memory. Other concepts briefly covered in the movie include psychological changes of reaching/approaching puberty, psychological stressors, family psychology, inductive and deductive reasoning, and many others.

In conclusion the movie, Inside Out, is a cute and relevant adaption as it applies to human psychology and how the brain functions.  The information and scenarios in this movie are accurately displayed and well thought out.  It is a valid contribution to psychology and I give it 5 out of 5 stars as a great movie.

John Forbes Nash, born on June 13, 1928 in West Virginia, was a mathematician and Nobel Prize winner for economics.  Nash studied at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, receiving a master’s degree for both chemistry and mathematics.  He completed his Doctorate at age 22 at Princeton University.  Three years later, in 1951, Nash became a part of the faculty at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  It was around this time Nash first began to experience bouts of a mental illness: schizophrenia.  He experienced hallucinations and paranoia, which led to his resigning from MIT.  Nash’s experiences are illustrated in the film “A Beautiful Mind.”

Schizophrenia, which affects approximately one percent of the population worldwide, is a mental illness that involves hallucinations, delusions, and trouble with thinking and concentrating.  A person with schizophrenia often speaks in ways that are not understandable.  A bit like a “word salad,” schizophrenia causes people to be unable to stay on one subject for long.  Their mind quickly switches from one thing to the next, their words unable to keep up with their thoughts.  In turn, the things they say sometimes make no sense.

Schizophrenia also affects the logical thinking of a person.  They often have delusions, and are very paranoid.  People with schizophrenia will worry the government is watching them, or they will believe pigeons are wizards.  Many people with schizophrenia will end up homeless on the street, lost in their own made up world.

There are many different treatments for schizophrenia, but none are a guaranteed fix.  If a patient with schizophrenia receives medication, they will cease to have delusions and hallucinations, but they will also be prevented from having an average life.  The medications sometimes used to treat schizophrenia often cause the patient to be lethargic and slow.  They are tired and unhappy.  The equivalent of a vegetable.  It is a huge drawback to a medication approach, causing people to make the decision of if they want their loved one to be happy but delusional, or unhappy and empty but still a part of their life.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Nash

http://www.livescience.com/51058-schizophrenia-recovery-john-nash.html

These days, there are constant reports in the media of school grades being better than ever before, and of schools being of higher standard every year. Many have suspicions about these results, and these suspicions are generally put down to the exams becoming easier, however until now no one has seriously considered that children’s cognitive abilities have declined, past academic performance.

Michael Shayer of King’s College University of London investigated this issue, and ultimately concluded that in terms of cognitive development, 11 and 12 year olds (in Year 7) are “now on average between two and three years behind where they were 15 years ago”. A key issue Shayer faced in his investigations was being able to define ability. In other words he needed to establish a model which could accurately and scientifically assess children’s cognitive capabilities. From this he identified the Piagetian developmental model as being the most practical, as it had “an underlying, logic-based, theoretical model to differentiate different levels of complexity”.

Piaget identified four stages that a child goes through in development, sensorimotor (infancy), pre-concrete (up to age 5), concrete (5-11) and formal (11-16). Shayer conducted tests with 14,000 school children in order to assess their capability according to the Piagetian scale. Naturally, Shayer put his focus into the concrete and formal stages. Concrete was assessed through a child’s ability to put things in order, use descriptive models and plot simple graphs. The formal stage was assessed using abstract concepts, and the ability to predict.

Shayer’s results showed that Piaget had only described the top 20% of the population. Shayer’s finding contradicted Piaget’s predictions, in that Piaget estimated that the average 11 year old would be firmly in the formal stage of development, whereas Shayer found that the average 11 year old was in the middle of the concrete stage.

Shayer generated a large amount of criticism based on his findings. In the educationalists found it hard to comprehend the idea that children were less able than originally thought, and refused to believe that development was largely affected by a variety of factors, not purely environmental influences. The biggest objection however came from those who argued that Piagetian tests only assessed a child’s ability in terms of those particular functions, not performance in general. However this was disproved by Shayer’s “subsequent work in the 1980s”, said Paul Black, emeritus professor of education at King’s College.

From his research Shayer created two year intervention programmes for children who were identified as below average on the Piagetian scale in Year 7. These intervention programmes were based on science and maths, but were primarily to improve general developmental skills. These interventions were seen to significantly improve children’s Piagetian scores, along with their maths and science GCSEs, which somewhat validated Shayer’s research.

Personality tests have been around for a while.  However, now as we move forward in this modern era of technology, personality tests have maintained a permanent placement on the internet.  It seems as though there are always little quizzes that a person can take that pop up on Facebook saying “Which Harry Potter character are you most like?” or “Which pop star are you most likely to party with?”  Regardless of which type of these personality “tests” that a person prefers, all of them have two things in common: they ask us questions about ourselves, and then they tell us about ourselves.  However, aren’t we the ultimate experts on ourselves?  Why do people feel the need to takes these tests to figure out who they are?  Even though we can figure out who we are by simply doing some soul-searching, here are some reasons why we might be possibly be encouraged to these these tests anyways.

1. We like getting results that support our views of oneself.  The results of personality tests are typically not deep or insightful but that doesn’t stop anyone from taking them.  This is likely due to the fact that we as humans like to receive information about ourselves that we already know.  People prefer to receive information about themselves that confirms their identity than feedback that doesn’t.  Getting positive feedback can make a person feel good and also help re-affirm their identity.
2. They help us form a coherent and consistent identity.  Teenagers and young adults are constantly striving to figure out who they are in life and from a coherent identity.  As human beings, we look for cues from others and ourselves in hopes to create a view of ourselves that seems accurate and stable.  Clear identities help us navigate the world and predict what choices we will make in the future.  Personality tests may give us information we feel is useful or relevant than the knowledge obtained through introspection in forming views about ourselves.
3. They help us justify our behavior.  When we think our behavior is not ideal, it may slightly ease our conscious to think that this might just be because of a certain trait that we possess.  It is very common for individuals to frequently cite their personalities as excuses for certain behaviors.  If we believe personality tests are giving us valid information about ourselves, we may just be gathering more excuses for questionable behaviors that we do not want to control.

These are just a few reasons why I think people take personality tests.  Of course there are other reasons as well such as for entertainment purposes or to feel more similar to celebrities/characters we adore.  We can use these personality tests as a tool to gain insight into a person’s behavior or to simply see how you compare to the personality of Harry Potter.  Though most of these quizzes don’t have specific questions, they can still give someone the general idea of how they go about life and their general attitude towards it as well.

Exam time can be one of the more stressful periods of the school year. Studying can be one of the most stressful aspects of the whole process. Trying to remember and then memorize everything you learned in the class throughout the whole year can be a difficult task, but it can be manageable. The psychology behind studying can be a more intricate process than it might feel like at the time of studying though.

Studying starts with motivation. You have to want to study in order for it to be effective most of the time. For most people, an incentive helps with this process. An incentive, in this case, is the score you want to receive on the exam. That score pushes you to study in order to get the best score you can possibly get. In order to study effectively, you should practice different methods of encoding information. These methods can include visual encoding, acoustic encoding, and semantic encoding. Imagery is also a helpful aid when it comes to studying terms. You can also use mnemonics and the process of chunking to your benefit to make things easier to recover.

The process of studying is the stressor that we appraise as threatening or challenging. This stressor leads to our body’s adaptive response to the stress in three phases. These phases include alarm, resistance, and exhaustion. These phases are what makes it difficult to study for most people. Problems with studying or repetitive bad performance can also lead to learned helplessness, which will make studying seem like a lost cause.

Your memory also plays an important part in taking an exam. Problems with encoding, storage, and retrieval can affect your performance on an exam. Everything you have learned or have been studying continuously should hopefully be stored in your long-term memory. If not, it’ll be a challenge to know that information during the exam. The information you learned last will be the easiest for you to remember due to the serial position effect.

Nature-nurture also plays a part in AP exams. Your genes and your environment can both play a part in your overall performance, which means that the outcome isn’t ultimately your fault. Just remember that AP tests are supposed to measure the content validity of what you have learned all year. They are not a measure of your overall intelligence.

All year our psychology class worked very hard and put in a great amount of effort all leading up to the AP Psychology Exam.  This exam was just a few hours ago this afternoon.  AP stands for Advanced Placement courses, which essentially means that the class is more difficult than a normal, non-AP class, and we have the opportunity to earn college credit for them, if we score well on the exam.  There are two types of people in our class when it comes to learning the material and taking this test: those who are intrinsically motivated and those who are extrinsically motivated.  These are psychology terms as you most likely already know; I thought it would be interesting to apply some of the terms we had to know for the exam to talk about the exam and the preparation leading up to it.

As I previously said, there are two types of people when it came to the AP Psychology Exam and preparation for it. Those who are intrinsically motivated wanted to genuinely learn about psychology and did it because they wanted to have some sort of internal reward, which could be knowledge.  The other group then was those who were extrinsically motivated; they were probably driven by the external reward of getting college credit by doing well on the exam.  This doesn’t just happen for the AP Psychology Exam, it happens for all of the AP Exams and classes, and quite frankly, for any class or test.  Similarly, there are two kinds of people when it comes to the AP Psychology Exam, because some people have an internal locus of control, and others have an external locus of control.  Those who have an internal locus of control usually stay up for countless nights as the test approaches, attempting to study every last bit of information on the amygdala and the phi phenomenon and everything else, because they feel that they control their own fate of the exam.  On the contrary, the individuals with the external locus of control feel that the AP Psychology test is in the hands of the universe; they feel as though they know what they know, and it’s up to outside forces of the world as they sit down to take that test.  There are also two types of people when it comes to who to blame for their AP Psychology test scores: those who blame nature and those who blame nurture.  Our psychology teacher, Mrs. Pluess, always says “Nature or nurture, you can always blame your parents.”

There are also some principles of psychology that can apply to all of us who took the AP Psychology Exam today.  For example, we all had to utilize our selective attention because it was raining outside quite loudly, and we had to ignore it and focus on the test in front of us. We also all had to make sure we didn’t have overconfidence, thinking we knew more than we actually do, because that would keep us from studying as hard for the exam, which could result in a lower score.  Additionally, most, if not all, of our sympathetic nervous systems turned on right before the test, because many of us were in that fight or flight response.  Once the test began and many of us realized we were going to be okay, and that the test wasn’t the most impossible thing in the whole world, our parasympathetic nervous systems kicked in and we felt more calm (I am speaking from personal experience and talking to a few of my friends).  After the test, all of us wanted to discuss what was on the exam, Freud would say our ids were telling us to talk about it, but our superegos were convincing us not to, as the rules of the exam say. Our egos, being the “middle man” of the two, according to Freud, came up with a compromise of the two: only talk about how we felt about the test and how it went, instead of the actual content of the test.  Now we test our patience as we wait to receive our AP scores in July; hopefully our class did well!

I am not one who will hide that I have depression. It is something someone who wants to be in my life should know. For me, telling people I have this problem will warn them. Some days I may block them out, but they can’t take it personally because it has nothing to do with them. It is something I can’t control.

There is one thing, in my opinion, that is unique for people with depression who also have interest in psychology. If they are anything like me, having depression and having interest in psychology, they may be able to help themselves at least a little. For me, when depression gets to suicidal thoughts, my knowledge of depression helps me know that those thoughts are not my own. My brain is telling me something I can’t control. Knowing this, I can slowly come out of the ideas of worthlessness.

Though this happens occasionally, it still will have affects in my life. I help others more than myself which sometimes may make the depression in my life more difficult to handle. If I feel like I can’t help others, I wonder how it is possible for me to help myself. However, people say that to help others, you must help yourself first. In my experiences, helping others helps me.

When I help someone else, it brings me joy. It makes me think of how I am helpful, not worthless. I think of how I can make a different in other people’s lives. Some people have pointed this out to me. One person said it is a great characteristic of me. In relationships, it is very helpful. Even if I am at the point where I think I can’t take on any more, I can’t take more anxiety that adds to the depression. If someone I care about a lot is in a bad mood, or even a little bit upset, I care for them first.

This blog, I just realized has gone from psychology in relationship to someone with depression to my experience through depression. The main point I was trying to make was, having knowledge about depression can help someone a lot. If someone has no idea what causes depression, what happens with depression, it will be harder to deal and get help for it.

It is a good idea to teach those with depression more about their disorder. Rather than only talking about their issues, there could be a small portion taught to them that any suicidal thoughts are not something they can control. Along with that, depression is more common than it was a long time ago. It is easier to have someone to talk to about depression because then, people will know they aren’t alone. Having people to talk to, who will care, will help in the process of getting through tough times and getting out of depression.

Just recently there were four psychological discoveries that can better your life and make 2017 a much better year. The discoveries were reacted to Money, Health, Friends, and Empathy. The studies offer critical evidence to help guide us. Improving on these four categories can help make you happier, healthier, and improve your decision making skills and focus. Money, related to happiness, has always been controversial. However, there is now new information on that relationship. It has been found that money does not directly impact your happiness but people who buy things that fit their personality are happiest. This finding is based on tracking the bank accounts of 625 people for six months. Our emotions have a direct effect on our health. Anger can have damaging affects on both relationships and on your body. Learning to manage your emotions can help keep you healthier. Emotional intelligence is another trait you should improve on in order to be more popular among others and have more friends. To better the components of emotional intelligence you have to recognize your own emotions and the emotions of others, manage them, and improve empathy. Finally developing empathy is key in emotional intelligence. Empathy is in fact a skill that can be developed and will improve the quality of your friendships. This can be developed by imagining how you would feel if you were in another person’s shoes.

If you felt like you struggled in 2016, bring these tips with you into 2017. Improvement in just these four categories can make you physically and mentally stronger. Along with this, it can help with creating stronger relationships and less anger in your life. It all boils down to a person’s emotional well being.

Why are siblings so different?

Two children from the same family can often be very different. If nature fully accounts for our behaviour then siblings should be identical, which can be evidence which contradicts the perception that our genes are what determine who we are. However if nurture fully accounts for our behaviour then siblings should also be identical, given that they are raised in the same environment. It is this debate that creates controversy around this topic.

Studies of twins reared apart

The Minnesota study of monozygotic (genetically identical) twins reared apart has been ongoing for decades, and has now concluded that monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as monozygotic twins reared together. This was based on several personality measures such as temperament, occupation, leisure time interests and social attitudes. These findings give strong support to the nature argument, in that they were the same despite being raised in different environments, meaning there identical genes must determine who they are.

Studies of adopted children

These studies lend more support to the argument that nature is of greater importance than nurture. Adoptive siblings share the same environment but not the same genes. Loehlin et al looked at the IQ of 200 adopted siblings. A correlation of 0.26 was found at 8 years old, but by the time the siblings were 18 there was no correlation. This displays some weak early similarities, but overall supports the nature argument in that the shared environment did not result in a shared IQ, meaning genes must determine our intelligence.

The unshared environment

In this uncertainty, the concept of the unshared environment offers explanation as to why sibling can become so different.

When we refer to environmental factors, we automatically assume that two people in the same home are sharing the same environment, when this is not necessarily true. An example of this is moving house. If one child is 12 at the time of the move, and the other is 5, the experience has different effects on each of them because of their age.

Another example that can be used is peer influences. Each sibling will have a different group of friends, and these friends play an important part in a child’s development. These peers will often determine factors such as music interest or social hobbies, all of which will shape the child as a person. This means it is very easy for siblings who have very different peer groups to become very different.

There are also other cases of unshared environments such as illness, accidents, teachers or hobbies that can make a person who they are. All of this is the force of nurture working, but unshared nurture.