Your Social Life is not Your Social Media

Jessie, a 30-year-old real estate agent, was the last of her friends to join Instagram. The day she signed up, she followed some 60 accounts—friends and acquaintances as well as accounts maintained by clothing brands or celebrities she was interested in. Then she busily set about posting photos.

By the end of the month, she was following more than 200 accounts, most of them people she actually knew, though she had amassed only 15 followers of her own. Of course celebrities wouldn’t follow her back, she reasoned—but she couldn’t help but wonder why some in her circle of friends hadn’t, either. “I took it very personally,” she told me. “Was it that they thought my life was so boring that it wasn’t worth following? Or were we not really friends after all?”

The answer? Well, it could have been both. Or it could have been neither. Perhaps her friends were trying to send her a message. Maybe they didn’t really like her. Perhaps they thought her life was dull beyond belief.

Or maybe it was something far more benign than whatever Jessie could, and did, speculate; something closer to user error or an inadvertent slight. Maybe it was simply that her friends didn’t take social media as seriously as she did, and would have been surprised to learn they’d hurt her. But the intention no longer mattered: Jessie had already begun to question relationships she’d felt fine with just weeks earlier.

Social media-induced angst is happening with increasing frequency. Just as businesses and brands use social media to interact with their target audience and monitor consumer interest, people are using social media to gauge how their friends and acquaintances feel about them. “Likes” may be interpreted as approvals. Not “liking,” not following, or otherwise not engaging might translate into snubs. Since social media etiquette is largely undefined, and there are few universally-understood and followed “rules of engagement,” such interpretation is highly subjective and, in many instances, leans towards the worst-case scenario.

Social media has made many aspects of relationships more accessible: Viewing posts from friends scattered around the world can make you feel more connected to them, while the ubiquity of social media can often make it easier to get in touch with someone than more traditional, “offline” means. But social media also helps fuel feelings of isolation and self-doubt. A 2012 study published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and social Network for example, found that the longer people spent on Facebook each week, the more they agreed that everyone else was happier and had better lives.

For some, that self-doubt can be countered in the same place it originates: through affirming social media interactions. This is part of what keeps users coming back to sites like Instagram and Facebook; favorable attention, when achieved, is an addictive sort of reward. It’s also what makes not receiving those affirmations so dispiriting. Being on the short end of someone’s social media endorsements can create feelings of anxiety, inadequacy, and irritation while being too generous with your own social media praise can feel one-sided when left unreciprocated. So, then, can the friendship.

Such feelings are exacerbated when friends don’t follow you back, in the case of Instagram or Twitter or, worse, quit following or “defriend” you, a circumstance so obsessed-over it has inspired a number of web applications with names like Unfollowgram, Friend or Follow, JustUnfollow, iUnfollow, and Unfriend Finder meant to help users determine who dropped them.

When Ben fulfilled a lifelong dream of opening a bookstore, he created a business page on Facebook. Then he invited all 750 of his friends to “Like” it. Barely a quarter of them did, and every day as he monitored his page waiting for the Likes that didn’t come, he grew more and more offended. Hadn’t he always remembered his friend Lisa’s daughter’s birthday? Wasn’t he a caring friend to Danny? And what about Mike, his best man? Friendship, for Ben, became about score keeping. When those friends who’d let him down on social media called on him in real life, he found himself being frosty.

Sure: It’s normal to feel irritated when a friend responds to another friend’s tweets, but never yours. And it’s understandable to feel a twinge of jealousy when you see two friends having fun together at a concert as you sat home watching Netflix in your PJs, unaware they’d made plans without you. It’s even normal, if a new sort of normal, to upload a retaliatory “good time pic” of your own.

But it’s important to remember that as far as barometers of friendship go, social media is pretty shallow. It’s unrealistic, and dangerous, to presume you know how someone feels about you based on how they react or respond to you, or don’t, through virtual means, whether that presumption is positive or negative. How people use social media is too new, and too varied. Judging how someone feels about you is what in-the-moment conversations and face-to-face encounters are for. It’s called real life—remember that?

Why The Impact of Child Abuse Extends Well Into Adulthood

The words “child abuse” are likely to conjure up horror stories that appear from time to time – physical beatings, a child locked in a closet or tied up for long periods; or the unimaginable – like Ariel Castro’s imprisonment of young girls.  But in fact, abuse takes many forms, beyond the physical. Recent research finds that its impact is long lasting. It extends far into adulthood, where it affects both physical and mental health. As Faulkner wrote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

But this same study, combined with the findings of some other recent research, contains hopeful signs for healing and healthy growth following early abuse.

First, consider some less visible forms of abuse, beyond the physical, that can create lasting consequences. For example, parental neglect; indifference to the child’s needs or temperament; outright humiliation; deliberate denigration. All may be fueled by the parent’s own self-hatred, jealousy, or narcissism. 

Examples range from the parent who leaves a child in the car or home alone for hours. Or the parent who rebuffs the child who excitedly says, “look at my new drawing!” or “see what I wrote for this school project!” and who receives a curt, “Don’t bother me now.  I’ve got to finish up this report.” Or the parent who consistently and vocally praises one child, while ignoring or criticizing the child’s sibling.  And there’s the classic, “You’ll never amount to anything!” Or, why can’t you be more like your sister/brother?”

I’ve heard them all, and more.  All take a toll, and this new research study confirms that abuse has a long shelf life. It takes a continuing toll on both physical and mental health well into adulthood. The study, conducted by researchers at UCLA and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined the effects of abuse and corresponding lack of parental affection across the body’s entire regulatory system. It found strong links between negative early life experiences and health, across the board. The effects permeate one’s entire mind-body system

This study of 756 subjects suggested that “biological embedding” occurs through programming brain circuitry in ways that shape response patterns to subsequent stress. That causes wear and tear extending across multiple mind-body systems, and creates adverse health outcomes decades later.  The researchers suggest that toxic childhood stress alters neural responses to stress, boosting the emotional and physical arousal to threat, and making it more difficult for that reaction to be shut off.

Signs of Hope

And yet, something encouraging emerged from this study, and it joins with findings from two other studies about parents and children.  The UCLA study found that the presence of a loving, parental figure can provide protection to the abused child.  According to the study’s report, “It is well recognized that providing children in adverse circumstances with a nurturing relationship is beneficial for their overall wellbeing. Our findings suggest that a loving relationship may also prevent the rise in biomarkers indicative of disease risk across numerous physiological systems.”

According to Judith E. Carroll, the study’s lead author, “If the child has love from parental figures they may be more protected from the impact of abuse on adult biological risk for health problems than those who don’t have that loving adult in their life.” That is, those who reported higher amounts of parental warmth and affection in their childhood had lower multisystem health risks. Moreover, the researchers found “a significant interaction of abuse and warmth, so that individuals reporting low levels of love and affection and high levels of abuse in childhood had the highest multisystem risk in adulthood.”

Their findings suggest that “parental warmth and affection protect one against the harmful effects of toxic childhood stress.” That’s good news, and it links with another recent finding that touching and stroking contribute to a healthy sense of self.

That is, according to this study, affectionate physical contact, “…characterized by a slow caress or stroke -- often an instinctive gesture from a mother to a child or between partners in romantic relationships -- may increase the brain's ability to construct a sense of body ownership and, in turn, play a part in creating and sustaining a healthy sense of self.”  

Such touching seems to play a role in how the brain learns to construct a mental picture and an understanding of the body, which ultimately helps to create a coherent sense of self, according to a summary of the findings.  On the negative side, the absence of such experiences are linked with various physical and emotional disorders. "As affective touch is typically received from a loved one, these findings further highlight how close relationships…play a crucial role in the construction of a sense of self," said Laura Crucianelli, the lead researcher.

Another illustration of the interconnections between the mind, body, and the network of relationships of which one is a part, is a study finding that a positive, mutually supportive and sensitive love relationship was associated with positive, supportive and nurturing behavior towards one’s children. 

The study’s lead author, Abigail Millings of the University of Bristol, commented in a research summary that researchers sought to examine how caregiving plays out in families: “…how one relationship affects another relationship. We wanted to see how romantic relationships between parents might be associated with what kind of parents they are. Our work is the first to look at romantic caregiving and parenting styles at the same time.” 

The research found – no surprise – that “a common skill set underpins caregiving across different types of relationships, and for both mothers and fathers. If you can do responsive caregiving, it seems that you can do it across different relationships.”

Millings added, ”It might be the case that practicing being sensitive and responsive — for example, by really listening and by really thinking about the other person’s perspective — to our partners will also help us to improve these skills with our kids.”

I think the upshot of this and other findings is that they provide more empirical confirmation that everything is connected in our lives.  How we think, feel, relate, and behave are all part of an interconnected whole. To that point, evidence continues to mount that humans are hardwired for empathy and connection. It’s our natural state, but its expression may become stunted or deformed by our life experiences. One example is a recent University of Virginia study, published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging brain scans (fMRIs), if found that we experience people who we become close to as though they are our own selves. “It’s essentially a breakdown of self and other; our self comes to include the people we become close to,” said lead research James Coan.

The problem is that our life experiences often generate diminished self-worth, fragmentation, isolation, or retreat into ego attachments that disconnect us from ourselves, within; and from others. Despite our surface differences and conflicts we are one, beneath those differences, like organs of the same body. That reality – if we practice it – has the power not only to heal damage to young lives, but also to enhance greater health and wellbeing for all lives, young and old.

Orderly, Disorderly Environments and Creativity

Many of my students, particularly the more friendly ones, express surprise when they see my obviously messy office and offer to help arrange my office, but I have always resisted their help.  Interestingly, whenever I did take steps to organize my mess of mostly papers located on 3 desks, 1 table, and, in and on top of 3 bookcases and 4 filing cabinets, I have had difficulty finding what I looked for.  So, I was happy to come across in this month’s Monitor on Psychology a report on a study by Vohs, Redden, and Rahinel (2013), which found that participants assigned to a disorderly environment produced more creative solutions than those assigned to a neat and tidy environment.  Additionally, they found participants assigned to an orderly environment were more likely to (a) choose healthy snacks, (b) donate more money, and (c) prefer the health-boost option labeled as “classic” as opposed to “new,” but participants in the disorderly environment were more likely to prefer the “new” option.

Vohs et al.’s fascinating findings are consistent with the notion that environmental cues play an important role in determining behavior. They noted the famous broken-windows theory that an unrepaired broken window can lead to a domino effect of negative consequences. Vohs et al.’s findings are remindful of the film “White Lotus Rising”.  This award winning film (2013 American Psychological Association Film Festival Award “Best Documentary Short”) documents the successful efforts of the artist and peace activist Indira Freitas Jhonson’s in curbing violence by placing emerging Buddha sculptures in Chicago’s low-income high crime neighborhoods. 

According to Vohs et al., environmental cues “activate different mind-sets, which in turn benefit different outcomes” (p. 1861). An orderly environment implies conventional or conforming attitudes; whereas a disorderly environment implies “breaking with convention” (p. 1862). Assuming that creativity often requires unconventional thinking, a disorderly environment would work better to promote divergent thinking and greater risk-taking. Citing Abrahamson and Freedman (2007), Vohs et al. noted that many notably creative individuals cultivate messy environments to facilitate their creative efforts. They also noted Einstein’s famous remark: “‘If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what then, is an empty desk a sign?’

The study findings raised several questions in my mind: Are there people in real life who are messy, but not creative? Are there people in real life who are neat and tidy, but highly creative?  Do messy individuals have high tolerance for differences in thinking and are less concerned about whether someone fits into their expectations, possibly giving them the freedom to differ from others and conventionally set ways? Is it possible that habitually messy persons become less creative over time in the same environment and need to move temporarily to a tidy environment to rejuvenate their creativity? Since creativity requires not only the generation of novel ideas (divergent thinking), but bringing ideas into fruition through logical or convergent thinking, is it possible that idea generation is more fruitful in untidy environments, but bringing them to a logical development and conclusion is better accomplished in tidy environments? Or, is it that a mere change from one work environment to another might reboot one’s creativity?

Creativity is an amazing cognitive process that can baffle even the most creative individuals as to how they came up with some of their significant ideas. An acclaimed Indian Poet Mirza Ghalib (1797-1869) noted:

“These ideas come to me from the unknown

O Ghalib, the sound produced by the scratching of my pen

 Is the voice an angel.”

More than likely, there is no one way to be creative and possibly people have to find what works for them to be creative on a regular basis. I suspect that as novelty of ideas is basic to creative process, a change of one’s environment, messy or tidy, might be helpful to get away from habitual ways of thinking.  

In any case, I hope the study findings will help boost my image to visitors to my office as some one who might be sometimes creative. The Einstein poster, with his disheveled hair, on the door of my messy office, hopefully, presents additional cues to activate a strong creative mind-set, especially in my students who come to discuss their research ideas with me. However, I hope that my office messiness does not produce a mind-set to crave unhealthy snacks or to engage in unruly behavior in my visitors or me.  Perhaps I need to place a Buddha’s statue on one of my desks to project peacefulness cues to reduce the likelihood of this latter behavior.

References

Abrahamson, E., & Freedman, D. H. (2007).  A perfect mess: The hidden benefits of disorder. New York, NY: Little Brown.

Dar, B. A.  (2013). Mirza Ghalib’s poetry, art, and philoshopy. Indian Streams Research Journal, 3(4), 1-4.

Vohs, K. D., Redden, J. P. & Rahinel, R. (2013). Physical order produces healthy choices, generosity, conventionality, whereas disorder produces creativity. Psychological Science, 24, 1860-1867, DOI: 10.1177/0956797613480186

 Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. L. & (1992, March). Broken windows. The police and neighborhood safety.  The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 29-36, 38.

Feeling Happy and Being Happy Aren't the Same

Can you be wrong about whether you are happy? This seems a silly question. If you feel happy, you are happy. If you don’t feel happy, you’re not. That’s what happiness means. There is no objective standard by which to measure it.

But perhaps this isn’t the complete picture. While happiness is generally understood as a mood, there are other ways to understand happiness. Let’s look at an analogy, health. We know that it is possible to be wrong about our state of health. You may feel great but be on death’s door. People drop dead of heart attacks without warning. You go for your annual check-up with no complaints only to have blood tests returned with bad news.

So we can be mistaken about whether we are healthy. Being healthy doesn’t turn on my feelings. Tests are often more reliable than self-reports. There is a difference between feeling healthy and being healthy, although they may coincide. Can the same distinction be made between feeling happy and being happy?

The answer depends upon the definition of happiness, just as what being healthy means depends upon how we define health. Before the advent of modern medicine, many disabilities now considered curable were commonplace. What was once healthy for a forty-year-old is the standard of healthy for a sixty-year-old. Public health and modern medicine have led society to redefine what it means to be healthy.

If happiness is defined as a mood, then self-reports are all there is. Feeling happy is what we mean by being happy, so happiness is defined subjectively. This notion of happiness is devoid of content: whatever elevates moods is a source of happiness is. It can be success, physical pleasure, being famous, taking drugs. It doesn’t matter.

But you can’t talk about health without content. Nor should we about happiness without looking at the bigger picture. Consider this: exercise is good for your health but too much can kill you. You need to eat to stay healthy but there are foods that you shouldn’t eat or should eat in moderation.

In the same way, there are things that make you feel happy but may lead to a state of unhappiness. You feel happy in the moment but you mistakenly think this is all there is to happiness. Happiness, like health, needs to be understood in context. Just as you need to take into consideration a person’s age to judge their health, the future needs to be taken into account in order to determine happiness.

So here’s my understandings of the nature of happiness: happiness is subjectively experienced but not everything that causes us to feel happy makes us happy over a lifetime. It is possible to feel happy for the moment but not be happy, as, for example, most alcoholics know. The opposite is also true. We can feel unhappy, at the loss of a loved one, but still be happy as we look on a life that has been filled with love.

While happiness is experienced inwardly, its sources are mainly external and found in relationships that sustain us. These relationships are not confined to family but include how we relate to work, our communities and the environment. When we treat them well, the likelihood that our deep and abiding interest in being loved and cared for is increased.

It is mistaken to think of happiness as subjective or objective, completely inner or totally outer. It is inter-subjective and relational. No one can make you happy without your consent and neither can you be happy in damaged or corrupt relationships.

It is important to feel happy but also to recognize that feelings are fleeting. More important is to think of happiness the way we do health—there is a good reason to eat your spinach today for good health tomorrow, but you can also enjoy sweets in small measure even though they contribute nothing to long-term well being.