The overarching theme of the readings for this week is the body/mind connection. Eric Kandel discusses how social experiences influence our gene expression and the very concrete biological results of our gene expression dictate our behavior. James Gross describes the way that emotion regulation is not a top down process but rather a bi-directional process where a well-functioning body and mind fine-tune in response to one another, in the service of meeting an individual’s goals.
One issue touched on in a few of the readings that really caught my attention is the idea of “feeling” in control. This is a feeling we haven’t talked about much so far but the Lerner et al reading suggests that it may play a very important role in how we experience stress psychologically and physically. The Adler et. al. reading proposes that it may be a large factor in the SES gradient, influence our health outcomes. James Gross discusses the concept of emotional regulation, a mechanism for maintaining control of one’s organism.
Individual, interpersonal and cultural/societal dimensions of feeling in control are highlighted by three different readings: 1. The internal feeling for an individual of having an experience of a stimuli and a response to it involves processing responses effectively and being able to respond with her goals and intentions in mind rather than being distracted by her physical or emotional state (as discussed in the James Gross reading;) 2. the feeling in a social sense of being in control as in feeling like one is not afraid of someone pressuring them, that one is not at risk and has choices (Lerner et al;) 3. the feeling of control in a meta-social sense, in the sense of social status--being dominant in one’s social group and having all the necessary resources to see out one’s choices (Adler et. al). [I don’t know if these categories really work but certainly there are different aspects of feeling in control.]
Feeling in control may be key in reducing psychological and physiological response to a stressful situation, keeping in check the toll stress takes on an individual’s body and emotional resources. In “Facial Expressions of Emotion Reveal Neuroendocrine and Cardiovascular Stress Responses,” the authors look at differences in stress reactivity and find that stress is a negative experience that elicits different responses in different people, manifesting different physiological responses. They argue that stress may be more specifically characterized by sub-emotions--in this experiment, fear or anger and disgust. Those subjects who responded with fear were experiencing, they say, a sense of greater risk and of low control and showed more physiological signs of stress, higher levels of cortisol, high heart rates and stronger facial expression than those experiencing anger or indignation. As LeDoux points out, during stressful experiences “weak conditioned fear responses” may become stronger. People who have experienced fears in the past may find that, though unrelated to the current situation, these fears resurface when they are in a stressful situation. On the other hand, subjects who expressed anger and indignation assessed the situation as involving less risk, felt more in control, and demonstrated less intense physiological signs of stress. The authors of this study cite other studies where anger and indignation are correlated with appraisals of certainty and control. Feeling certain and in control in response to a stressful stimuli leads subjects to feel like they are experiencing less risk and so they exhibit less intense biological stress responses. For example, in situations where rats can control when a stressor occurs, they exhibit fewer biological stress responses. As LeDoux describes, the problem with experiencing the stronger stress response is that eventually having high levels of cortisol in one’s system takes a toll and lowers one’s threshold for anxiety disorders and perhaps other conditions. This is an example of Kandel’s idea that our experiences ultimately shape us biologically. In conclusion, the authors suggest future study into how an individual’s pessimistic versus optimistic evaluation may influence affective disorders and health outcomes. This ties these findings to the positive psychology idea of trying to identify what is helpful coping and understand how people can cultivate it.
In “Socioeconomic Status and Health,” Adler’s et. al. discuss the factors that may be behind what they call the SES gradient, the way that higher SES status is associated with better health outcomes. After thoroughly discussing the variables that should be considered and ruling out many, they theorize that “a broader underlying dimension of social stratification or social ordering is the potent factor (p. 1095.)” In the section, “Discussing Effects of Social Ordering, ” they discuss studies of animals in which biological factors that correlate to social status have health implications. They cite studies by Sapolsky, 1989 in which subordinate wild baboons were found to have decreased levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which is a protective factor in coronary heart disease. Sapolsky has also found correlations between social rank and cortisol levels, gonadal steroids and immune function and other scientists studying an African fish have found similarly different biological development in submissive males. The authors conjecture that responses to hierarchical position may be genetically encoded and “hierarchical position may also have direct effects on physiological processes and neuroanatomic structures which may in turn influence an individual’s biologic vulnerability to agents of disease (p.1103.)” This fits with Kandel’s point that social interactions shape the brain, as social interactions may well be part of what determines genetic expression of traits associated with dominance/submissiveness.
Social status seems in some ways to be a very primal assessment and it appears that some of us care about it more than others. Is status assessed consciously and/or unconsciously? What are the mechanisms of how we make and weigh these assessments and how do they affect us biologically?
Adler’s et. al end their article by pointing out the complexity of intertwined factors involved but write” The concept of individual control over existing life circumstances, for example, might be a higher order variable that synthesizes or renders coherent a number of the factors reviewed here (p. 1006.)” They then conjecture that individuals higher on the socio-economic scale may have “more opportunity to influence the events that affect their lives’ (p. 1106) compared with people at lower levels.
I wonder about all the internal and external factors that contribute to these feelings of control in human beings. Do we feel in control so long as we can get what we want? Does decreasing our experience of “wanting” correlate at all to feeling “in control” ? This idea of being able to tolerate wanting so that in the end we can get what we want involves self-regulation, the way that kids who are able to regulate better are better able to wait for delayed rewards—two marshmallows tomorrow instead of one right now. Do we need to actually be in control in order to feel less stressed? Maybe we can experience the same benefits from thinking that we are in control? Are there things that we can do to enhance our sense of being in control?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your entry Amy allowed me to wonder how socioeconomic status, control, and stress are linked. I wonder if just knowing that you are in and stuck in a class system provides a level of stress that wouldn’t exist in an ideal society free of class structure. The stress would come from knowing that you do not have control over which class you belong in due to the rules of your society. Would there be any way to test this? Its a factor that should be considered along with health care, education and financial status. I can think of a few novels off the top of my head that cover it.
“Behavior depends on the environmental conditions, the stressor severity and the animal’s coping mechanisms.”
This weeks article’s concerned emotional regulation and overall wellbeing. I’ve always had trouble with the conclusions of various articles on this subject as I have not had much luck with my own “emotional battles.”
Adler et al. state in “Socioeconomic Status and Health: the Challenge of the Gradient” that emotional wellbeing is largely determined by our environment, perception of control, and resources available to us to alleviate our concerns. The first is obviously true. Take the current weather for example. I’m sure everyone has noticed how much more outgoing and friendly people are currently, regardless of the fact that there is only three weeks of school left. People are still stressed, but this place is Jamaica in comparison to conference week in December. I also appreciated this article’s distinction between “perception of control” and ability to control emotions. However, considering that our perception of a stressor has such a huge influence on said stressor’s ultimate effect, and for the large part, we cannot alter this immediate perception, doesn’t that make any conscious attempt to regulate our perception and therefore, our emotions mute?
Adler et al. also stated that wellbeing is heavily shaped by socio-economic factors. Unfortunately, this is not in the least bit shocking. Monetary problems can cause an astounding amount of stress, so it’s only natural that people of lower socioeconomic status face higher rates of “mortality and morbidity.”
Finally, my biggest issue with this week’s reading regarded the article entitled “A New Intellectual Framework for Psychiatry.” To be frank, this was the most absurd article we have read yet (and there’s been some considerable competition). Kandel states that the manner in which our genes manifest themselves is determined, not influenced, but determined primarily by environmental factors. Everything we do, think, say, feel, or become is the inevitable result of neurological developments, so if those are determined by external factors, then our brain activity and even our genes is “learned,” and could therefore be potentially modified by social and behavioral influences. This article seemed like a poor attempt to prove behavioralism with biology.
Post a Comment