Positive psychology is a field that helps to change people's feelings of being neglected by focusing on their strengths, such as resilience, coping, life satisfaction, love, and happiness. Positive psychology is new to this century and changes the views of contemporary psychology, which doesn't encourage people to accomplish things at their fullest potential. It also helps people to find ways of enhancing positive emotions, like happiness and fulfillment, and building psychologically healthy communities. I think that a lot of positive psychology is a very important concept because everyone has a different potential and by setting one goal for everyone, it puts people on different levels, which can lead to people feeling stressed and discouraged. By encouraging everyone to do their very own best, it causes people to feel more satisfied with themselves and makes people happier. As a competitive cheerleader, every person on my team has different capabilities and at different levels of achievement. When I compare myself to someone who has higher skills than I do, it makes me feel lower about myself. When I set goals for just me to accomplish that are to the best of my ability, I get a great satisfaction when I can accomplish them. By realizing that everyone is at different levels, I can strive to achieve my full potential and get a satisfaction from doing so. I do wonder why some critics believe that this is an unrealistic concept. Their argument is that it robs defensive pessimists of their pessimism and doesn't fully prepare people for negative outcomes. Why wouldn't people want everyone to feel satisfaction about themselves?
Recently in Writing 4 Category
This website I found has all the information about the Big Five Personality Traits, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Contentiousness, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness. It explains what they are and how people get assigned to these traits. It also explains the difference between the terms Big Five, Five-Factor Model, and Five-Factor Theory. It explains many other ways on how to find more information about the big five, but i mostly focused on reading about the Big Five and what it was all about. It explains the big five as as ranging of more specific traits. "The Big Five structure was derived from statistical analyses of which traits tend to co-occur in people's descriptions of themselves or other people." It goes on to say how they correlate to everyones personality. It then goes on and gives a few examples. "Talkativeness and assertiveness are both traits associated with Extraversion, you could imagine somebody that is assertive but not talkative (the "strong, silent type")." This was a very useful website and helped me see what my big traits were. It should me where i fit in on the scale and i found many other information through this site.
Over the past half a century, the rate of divorce has been increasing, but what effects does divorce have on children? Some claim that it is traumatic to their development and can hamper their ideas of a functional family, while others hypothesize that it really has minimal effect on children but their ability to cope can make them stronger if the parents still do an adequate job raising them.
Many researchers propose that the effect of divorce on children's development really depends on the father. If the father was originally a figure of authority in the family and is no longer present, children can often run wild per-say. People often say that people with security issues and other social problems have "daddy issues." This claim isn't far from the proof provided by some psychologists. These psychologists claim that the father role model provides a emotionally secure environment which in turn helps make kids into emotionally secure adults.
i dont know how to make the links followable
One of some of the interesting topics in chapter 10 Human Development it's the Social and Moral Development in terms of parenting. Parents (tutors) play a key role in developing personality of their child. That's why parents need to be aware of what is right and what is wrong in parenting styles. I think it's a very interesting topic, almost all of us want to be parents one day and we need to be aware of the style of parenting and its consequences to our child behavior.
The book talks about 4 parenting styles identified by Baumrind: Permissive; lenient with their children, giving freedom inside and outside the house, using discipline sparingly and often show affection to the child. Authoritarian: strict parents giving little opportunity for free play or exploration, punishing when the child doesn't respond and showing little affection to children. Authoritative: combine the best features of both permissive and authoritarian. Giving support to the child but setting limits. The forth one the uninvolved that tend to ignore the child, paying little attention to them.
According to the resulting correlation of Baumrind study in children from middle-class Caucasian American families the best parental style for developing best social and emotional adjustments and lower behavior problems was the authoritative. Children with permissive parents and authoritarian parents far between authoritative and uninvolved, with children with uninvolved parents tend to fare the worst. This study was with only middle-class Caucasian American families but with the study we have an idea of the resulting consequences according to the different parental styles. The balance between permissive and authoritarian styles will be the best option for better emotional and social adjustments.
It's a great topic because beside the importance for psychology students and researchers in development psychology, it is very important and interesting to anyone else who is related to a child and wants to enhance a good behavior.
In honor of the new Call of Duty game coming out on November 8th, I am going to have that be the topic of my blog for this week. This game series has turned into the biggest gaming franchise in the history of video games. This is one of the most anticipated, as well as most pre-ordered video game of all time. This game is very prominent especially in the age group of young teenagers. Needless to say, Call of Duty is a very violent video game. Last game they came out with, had a warning before you play the game that said something to the effect of "This game has some very offensive and graphic material, do you wish to see this content?" They were referring to a level in the game where you are in an airport in Russia and you are told to unleash on innocent civilians. Like I mentioned earlier, young teenagers and children are a very popular audience for this game. Their brains are not fully developed at this age, and they are constantly learning things like a sponge. The question is, does this extreme violence affect what their behaviors are going to be? In my opinion, if young children are exposed to this violence, they begin to develop a resistance to the horrific effects of violence. They see it as something "normal," and tend to not think much of it. I think this may cause children and teenagers to be more likely to act aggressively in certain situations. I am not saying that just by playing violent video games, children will go out and kill people. I am just saying that it will increase the chance that if a child is put in a certain situation, he or she will act more aggressively without thinking anything of it.
In our Lilienfeld text, a topic that was covered was the development of g or general intelligence. This concept was first introduced by Charles Spearman, who believer that the positive correlations among intelligence test items must be related by a single factor. The basic concept that tho book gives of g, is that is has to do with an individuals "mental energy". This brings up a lot of controversy among intelligence researches, because it implies that some people are smarter than others. I agree with this completely, I think everyone has varying levels of intelligence, because if everyone had the same level of intelligence and understanding, then every concept ever thought up by humankind would be universally understood. This is, however, not the case at all. Imagine if everyone had the same amount of ability as everyone else. The world would be a very boring, melancholy place to live, because everyone could do everything that anyone could. I think that Spearman was very on track with his concept of g. He also goes on to discuss the s factor. This is our specific ability to excel in a certain area. For example, some people are very good at math and manipulation of equations, but could be bad at understanding various psychological or philosophical concepts. This entire model that Spearman came up with is a very sound one, in my opinion. It explains how everyone is good at something and lets us celebrate the diversity of abilities that make up humankind.
source: Lilienfeld text
In the article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/does-game-violence-make-teens-aggressive/#.TrdoaXZQqtQ it discusses a recent study done at Kansas State University that finds violent video games to cause less control in adolescents. The article claims that after doing an MRI 30 minutes after a teen was playing "Medal of Honor" (A vicious killing game) that showed a decrease in activity in the brain where the self control and attention part of the brain functions, the cerebrum. The psychology textbook discusses this topic as well and suggests that there are studies that prove both that video games do cause some kids to be more violent but there are some studies that prove it does not play a factor. I lean towards the side believing that violent video games do in fact play a role in a child's behavior. During the ages up until adolescents Piaget theorized that our cognitive development does not think abstractly. Therefore, if kids cannot think beyond the facts of what is violently happening in the video game, who says they won't be stuck in a mind set, and develop thoughts that are like what they are doing. I do not believe that adults 18+ are affected by violent video games because they are not developing still in the cognitive stage, whereas adolescents and younger are. Violent games bring out a defensive, lack of control emotion to the player. The players don't necessarily do the exact same thing as what they are doing in the game, but I myself after playing a shooting game have felt an aggressive superior emotion (Also like what we found after watching aggressive shows in psych discussion class). From the credible article with a replicable study, it provides evidence that in fact violent video games can play a role in behavior of young adults.
The Mozart Effect is a psychological phenomenon that I found especially intriguing. My question is can listening to Mozart really make you smarter? It was found in a study in 1993 that participants who listened to Mozart would have a higher IQ than those who did not. However these increases in intelligence were of short duration. This study has created much controversy about the effect of classical on learning.
Mozart's music helps with spatial-temporal reasoning, so participants in studies would be better at doing things such as mazes with paper and pen. The participants would make fewer errors and would finish them more quickly.
This article talks a lot about how Mozart's music works in the brain and in what way it makes people "smarter". It's not as much in terms of IQ, but has more to do with logical reasoning and problem solving. There are also not many long-term effects that were found. I think that the music makes people more attentive and more able to focus and that's why, when paired with something that requires reasoning, people tend to excel more. The classical music opens the brain and the listener isn't distracted by lyrics so it's easier for them to focus, therefore making them "smarter". However, in terms of IQ, I do not think that listening to Mozart, in the long run, will have a great effect.
The head of the household and arguably the most influential member of the family is, in most cases the father. The relationship between a child and their mother is vital, but in reality, studies have shown that fathers play a unique and crucial role in nurturing and guiding children's development.
First, the role of father's with babies. When fathers spend more time with their babies, they get to know exactly what each of their baby's signals mean. This familiarity allows fathers to respond sensitively, meaning that they know when their baby is hungry rather than when he just wants a change of scenery. Also, fathers tend to provide more verbal and physical stimulation, by patting their babies gently and communicating to them with sharp bursts of sound. As babies grow older, many come to prefer playing with their fathers who provide unpredictable, stimulating, and exciting interaction. In later years, young children look to their parents to learn how to interact with people. This not only means it is crucial for a father to interact appropriately with his child, when interacting with his wife, the mother, he acts as he would like his child to. A child looks to its mother for emotional support, but in many cases a father is more looked to for guidance in life skills and future planning from their father's.
All of these things are thrown off when a father is not relevant in the growing process of a child. Studies have shown that things such as educational achievement, self-esteem, responsible social behavior, and adjustment as adults have all been negatively affected by the lack of a father or father figure in the nurturing and development process of a child. There is no question that the relationship between a mother and a child is crucial to the quality of life of a given child, but, as recent studies have shown, the relationship between a father and a child is equally as important to the development of a given child.
Remember getting lost from your parents when you were little in a enormous store and panicking like hell? well, I do. Now I laugh at it. But back then it was pretty scary. When children are growing up they develop a great bond with their attachment figures, usually our mothers. Where when we get separation anxiety so to speak when we get separated from our mothers. There is a name for this. The Strange Situation is a major procedure in social development in infancy and childhood. The Strange Situation was established by a psychologist named Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues in 1978. They conducted an experiment involving an infant and her mother in a room filled with toys. The child plays with the toys for a certain amount of time until a stranger comes in. This is when the mother leaves and the separation anxiety kicks in. The child becomes uncomfortable and acts in 1 of 4 ways:
Secure attachment: the child becomes upset when it's mother leaves but then greets her with joy upon return.
Insecure-avoidant attachment: The child acts indifferent when it's mother leaves and shows little reaction on her return.
insecure-anxious attachment: The child acts in a panic when its mother leaves but then shows mixed-emotions upon return. Reaching for her yet squirming to get away at the same time.
disorganized attachment: The child acts with inconsistent and confused responses upon her mothers departure and return.
The following is a video showing the Strange Situation procedure in action. The baby portrays a secure attachment reaction when reunited with her mother.