Psychology and Stress

Masculinism is an extremist ideology that dates to pre-WWI American society, and declares that males are the dominate human gender. As such, men should dominate society and women should accept their subservient position. Men and women should receive different roles and rights because of important core differences between them. Parents must raise their boys and girls differently, and avoid co-educational schooling, which tells girls that they are equal to boys.  Furthermore, men suffer from discrimination and need to actively recover their rightful status as men. Adherents complain that violence against men is minimized in the media compared to violence against women. They say that sympathy is generally higher for women than men, and that in domestic violence cases, this sympathy imbalance produces lower sentences in the courts for women than for men.

In 1974, psychologist Sandra Bem published the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. The test measures where one’s sex-role trait falls on a scale ranging from “Traditional Male” to “Traditional Female,” with “Psychological Androgyny” falling in the middle of the scale. Traditional Male sex-roles are characteristics like competitiveness, aggressiveness, assertiveness, and domination. Traditional Female sex-roles include traits like sensitivity, emotional, caring, and passive.

The post-WWII childrearing culture of the US, while not committed to the old masculinism ideology, identified good parenting as teaching boys traditional male sex-roles, and teaching girls traditional female sex-roles. Bem’s message was that forcing children into such rigid sex-roles limited their ability to cope well with everyday life. For instance, if a situation requires caring, sympathy, and displays of emotion, the traditional male doesn’t know how to behave without sacrificing his masculinity-dependent self-esteem. Similarly, if a situation requires assertiveness and an aggressively competitive spirit, the traditional female is lost because to act in those ways would be a threat to her femininity. This dilemma is where psychological androgyny comes in. The androgynous woman is caring and sensitive, but if the situation demands it, she can also be aggressive and competitive. By the same token, the androgynous man is dominant, powerful, and tough, but if the situation demands it, he can also be emotional, sympathetic, and soft. And here is the key: Both the androgynous woman and man can show this flexibility without compromising their respective identities and self-esteem as being feminine or masculine.

Masculinism is an extremist, rigid view of how men and women should behave. Bem’s androgynous position is a more moderate position stressing flexibility and variety in how the respective genders should behave. Is one of these models more conducive to effective coping with stress than the other? If you ask that question to individuals, you will find some saying rigidity works for them, and others who say that flexibility works better for them. Psychologists would mostly agree that flexibility is the superior coping strategy.

Brian hates women. He bullies them and seeks to dominate them, whether at home or work. His mom was a prostitute, alcoholic, and left the family when Brian was five. He has unresolved hatred of mom and cannot relate to women in any healthy way. He avoids facing his hatred by bullying women, and accepting conspiracy theories that women are out to get men. Brian has grown to believe that a vengeful God put women on earth to emasculate men. He believes his task is to punish women, intimidate them, and always work to keep them “in their place.” He is in court-ordered therapy for anger management. Unfortunately, his therapist focuses on anger management, and does not encourage him to explore his core issues dealing with mom.

Mary was raised by traditional evangelical parents who believed women’s role in life is to please men; they must be submissive, always obey, and dedicate themselves to the comfort of their mate. Mary hates “liberated” women who practice birth control, have abortions, are sexually promiscuous, and seek to dominate men. When she sees a woman be assertive, strong, and competitive around men, she believes they are motivated by a need to control and govern men. Unconsciously, Mary wants to be such a liberated woman, but allowing that thought to reach her conscious mind would plunge her into severe, self-destructive anxiety. Only by hating “modern” women can she keep her mental balance in place. Mary is in therapy trying to understand why she has frequent one-night stands with men she picks-up in bars, but cannot maintain a productive, committed, romantic relationship with any man who wants to do so with her.

Jacob would qualify as an androgynous male. He spent six years in the Marines, won several combat medals, and was a respected platoon leader. He is now retired from military service. At his civilian job, he is a supervisor with leadership skills, and he runs a tight ship. As a husband and father? Jacob is a sensitive, caring, and sympathetic mate and father. He helps around the house; he is authoritative as a dad, not authoritarian. His activities as a father include Scout leader with both boys and girls, Little League coach, and softball coach. He is liked, admired, and respected by neighbors for his helping attitude. He is flexible, not extreme in his views, moderate, and able to adapt his actions according to the demands of the situation. Jacob has been in therapy since he retired from the Marines, trying to deal with his PTSD connected to his combat experiences.

Three cases: two subscribe to extremist masculinism, one to a moderate position of androgyny. All are in psychotherapy for psychological issues. Who is coping the best? You decide.

If you ae beginning counseling, you should understand how you are likely to evaluate the early stages of therapy. Psychotherapy is highly prone to an expectancy (placebo) effect. That is, once you have decided to take the plunge into therapy, you will look to justify your efforts by finding areas of improvement in your condition. You do not want to see yourself wasting time, effort, and money; you want to convince yourself that you are doing the right things. These tendencies can make you overestimate real improvement in the early stages of treatment. This tendency to overestimate how much better you are in the early stages of therapy has been verified in research studies. Clients’ subjective estimates of improvement after only a few sessions are higher than improvement as measured by formal diagnostic tests. This placebo effect is especially true for those who believe they should and will get better overnight, even though the reality is it took decades to develop their dysfunctions. But that’s OK! Always look for that half-full, not half-empty, glass because if you don’t believe your therapy will work, and is working, it probably won’t.

A gentleman fighting cancer offers some thoughts on coping with stress:

            1. Faith in God. I know not what tomorrow holds, but I know who holds tomorrow. God knows my life and nothing comes to me that does not first go through Him. I’m not seeking a miracle healing, though I desire to be healed in this life, but if healing doesn’t come, God is still God, and I will return to Him.

            2. Connections between people and not possessions are what matters most.

            3. Having an attitude of gratitude, thanksgiving, appreciation and forgiveness.

            4. There is a song by Randy Stonehill. The lyrics state, “I’m gonna celebrate this heartbeat, because it just might be my last. Every day is a gift from the Lord on high, and they all go by so fast.”

            5. The only difference between my life and another is that I may know what I will die from. I say may because not even this is a guarantee.

            6. The only things I have control over are my thoughts – what I believe — and my actions – what I do and how I respond based upon what I believe. Beyond that, things are beyond my control. It is enough.

Philip Zimbardo, Stanford University psychologist, created quite a stir in 1973 when he published his “prison” study. In the basement of the psychology building at Stanford, he constructed mock cells that were intended to simulate a prison atmosphere. Male participants were recruited from the local community through an advertisement in the newspapers. Twenty-four applicants were chosen after assessments of psychological stability and then assigned randomly to the role of prisoners or prison guards. Guards received uniforms and prisoners wore smocks. The study was planned for two weeks and participants were paid a daily stipend (about $120 in 2026 dollars).

After about 36 hours things began to take a dangerous turn as the simulation was becoming too real. Prisoners became subservient. To gain guards’ favor some made up stories that others were plotting against the guards. Some prisoners rebelled with a hunger strike, but they were put down by guards who had become increasingly authoritarian, even brutal at times. One cell was designated for “good” prisoners who hadn’t joined the rebellion. Those in the privileged cell got better meals, restored uniforms, and other small perks. Over time, the guards weakened prisoner group unity by creating fear and mistrust among the inmates. One prisoner began experiencing uncontrollable emotional outbursts and disorganized thinking. Guards labeled him “weak” but offered a path to stay if he became an informant. Instead, he returned to his cell, warning others: “You can’t leave. You can’t quit.” Zimbardo had to intervene and remind this participant that he was in an experiment and was free to leave at any time. He left.

After 6 days Zimbardo became concerned for the psychological welfare of the participants, and he ended the study. One subject said he was glad it was over because he didn’t like the way he was behaving. Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutal ways they had. Many said they hadn’t known this side of them existed or that they were capable of such things. The prisoners, too, couldn’t believe that they had become so submissive, cowering, and dependent.

Whenever I see a news report showing ICE troopers patrolling the streets or accosting a civilian, I think of psychology studies like Zimbardo’s and cringe, knowing the incredibly dangerous psychological environment those in charge are creating. Psychological research—in addition to the work of Philip Zimbardo, we have Leon Festinger (cognitive dissonance), Martin Seligman (learned helplessness), John Darley and Bibb Latane’ (bystander apathy), Stanley Milgram (obedience to authority), and others—has already sailed those waters and shown that the journey is treacherous. American society has been put on a perilous path that will not end well.

A major obstacle to effective coping with stress is being unable to solve problems. Many people end up adding to their stress levels by loading themselves up with problems that flood them with anxiety. They then focus their energies on self, placing their interests above those of others. Their approach to this situation is usually some variation of denial, avoidance, social withdrawal from and rejection of others—any one of which only serves to worsen things through fear of abandonment, despair, frustration, and loneliness.

What is needed are more fundamental and positive problem-solving approaches like the following: (1) Communication with others. Victims need to understand that what seems to be criticism and rejection directed at them does not put the blame for their issues on them; the critics also have issues, and they often project their issues onto the victim. (2) Communication fosters Empathy. There is nothing more uplifting for one suffering from mental health issues than realizing that others have the same problems and need understanding, too. The development of empathy is essential to healthy coping with stress. (3) Empathy encourages Service to Others, which has enormous healing properties for the helper. Few scenes are more tragic than a lonely, confused, dejected person of any age locked onto their computer screen desperately seeking happiness and validity for being, but finding instead “advice” that leads them further into a black hole of despondency, misery, and hopelessness. Service to others allows them to break from this technological spell of deprivation, get “outside” of themselves, and act to help others in need. (4) Service actions encourage the helper to discover value in self-sacrifice, selflessness, and philanthropy. What follows is a discovery of one’s values and purpose in life. Effective coping cannot continue without a set of values to guide one’s actions; values give purpose and meaning to those actions. (5) What follows from values is the emergence of contentment, satisfaction, self-discovery, and happiness at one’s place in life. Happiness cannot be sought; it materializes from values-laden actions.

Imagine—it all starts with communication.

Cognitive-behavioral techniques in psychotherapy are presently popular among therapists. One reason is these approaches have great success in treating clients. Research shows that 80% of anxiety/panic-attack clients treated with cognitive behavioral techniques achieved and maintained panic-free status. One study of behavioral therapy for a variety of behavior problems showed that 96% of patients remained in remission for at least two years, 78% percent for at least five years, and 67% for at least seven. Treatment of phobias stressing development of social skills and cognitive restructuring was successful for about two-thirds of clients.

Despite this demonstrated effectiveness for cognitive/behavioral approaches, many therapists use other techniques, and many use only one theoretical approach in their practice. It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, “Does the theoretical and therapeutic orientation of the therapist make a significant difference in treatment outcome?” Based on research in this area, the best answer at this time is, all therapeutic orientations produce successful outcomes, but it appears that some approaches are best suited for certain types of problems. That being the case, when entering therapy, it can be helpful for you to ask the therapist what approach they prefer. The four main therapeutic models are as follows:

(1) Clients experiencing difficulties with lack of meaning in life, existential anxieties, and lack of insight into the dynamics of their behavior tend to work best with an emotion-based, directive, relationship-oriented counseling style. These approaches generally fall into the category of existential therapy, which can be quite challenging and even confrontational, but very effective with bright and curious people. (2) Clients who do not need much direction in therapy respond well with a non-directive approach. They need to be listened to with empathy and allowed to find themselves. Such non-directive approaches are referred to as humanistic therapy. Relatively decisive, independent, and healthy people respond best to this approach. They do not require interpretation as they tend to find their own answers when given the proper therapeutic environment. (3) Clients who want and need a high degree of guidance in therapy respond best to structured therapeutic styles that are therapist driven, and cognitively and behaviorally based. These therapies include behavioral, and cognitive-behavioral approaches. People with specific behavioral problems like speech anxiety, phobias, lack of assertiveness, poor parenting, weak relationship skills, addictions, poor health habits, or social-skill deficiencies respond best to this type of therapy. (4) Finally, some clients benefit from advanced cognitive behavioral therapy. This relatively new approach blends humanistic and existential orientations with traditional cognitive behavioral therapy. It is particularly useful for people who have suffered from chronic anxiety, depression, and other conditions. Two well-known types of treatment are Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). Advanced cognitive behavioral approaches can be used effectively with clients who need to see that they have been trying to control the uncontrollable, and must accept there is little they can do about it.

Some therapists are eclectic in their therapeutic orientation; that is, they use a wide variety of techniques derived from several theoretical orientations to help clients. Eclectic therapists attempt to match a therapeutic style and orientation to the needs of the client. Many clients prefer the flexibility that eclectic therapists bring to the counseling table.  

In carrying out a coping plan, remember to live in the present, accept the stress in your life, learn from your failures, and keep in fighting shape with exercise and diet. Above all, remember that positive actions are more powerful than positive thoughts, so structure your plan around positive actions.

Here are some examples from Dr. Carlea Dries:

Stop apologizing to yourself or others for being emotional in certain situations.

Channel your stress into productive activities like volunteering, joining a gym, taking a surprise family outing, having lunch with friends, or other enjoyable things.

Keep a record of when you feel stressed and what you are doing at the time. Don’t focus on the stress you feel, but on positive actions you can take to confront your problem.

Schedule stressful events at times when you expect relatively few demands on you.

Devote high-quality time to important aspects of your life, such as marriage, career, friendships, and family.

In confrontational situations, take slow, deep, steady breaths and concentrate on making calm but assertive comments.

Monitor and modify your negative, self-defeating thoughts.

            That last item is important. People often ask, “How do I control my thoughts? How do I stop thinking negative things, self-critical thoughts; how do I handle all those ideas that are downers and torment me?” How about this answer: Perform positive, constructive actions that bring you a sense of satisfaction and empowerment. Then you can think about those actions during the day. Not only will you be teaching yourself to think positively, but you will also get a sense of fulfillment, peace, and competence. You’ll feel good about yourself, with the added benefit of being less stressed out as negative thoughts recede into the background.

The decision to seek psychological therapy has important implications for the progress and long-term management of a disorder. How you view your psychological problems is going to influence how they develop. Most people act like amateur scientists in attempts to understand the causes of their behavior. In making this attempt, they generally tend to put the causes of their behavior into one of three categories: Global or Specific; Internal or External; and Permanent or Temporary. People with issues like chronic anxiety, depression, poor social interactions, low self-esteem, lack of purpose, and anger management difficulties, tend to view the causes of their psychological problems in the following ways:

Global, not Specific. Troubled people say, “I am dysfunctional in most respects. My weaknesses pervade everything I do.” “I’m not good at anything.”

Internal, not External. You might say, “It is my faults and limitations that cause my psychological difficulties. Yes, there are some troublesome people in my life, but the bottom line is that I bring my misery upon myself.”

Permanent, not Temporary. “My dysfunctions are here to stay.” This attribution is especially damaging, and clients who hold this belief strongly are the most difficult to treat. If your therapy is to have a chance of succeeding, you must believe that by working hard on problem areas you can change and improve your condition. If you do not have that basic belief, you are not likely to do well in therapy. Of course, part of the job of the therapist is to help clients believe in themselves.

Psychotherapy involves helping clients move away from extreme thinking involving one or more of these three premises. Clients must see their problems as specific to identifiable situations, external (not due to some inherent deficiency), and temporary in nature.These orientations can motivate them to stay in therapy and attack their problems more effectively.

Dr. Carlea Dries says she often hears people complain, “I just don’t understand why I have such a hard time motivating myself. It’s really hard to get going when your motivation is low.” Dries adds that people often make such comments without realizing it is usually only in a given area that they don’t have sufficient motivation. “I see people all the time who work hard at their job, pay their bills, and take care of their home and kids, but who totally lack the motivation to take on a healthy activity, like exercise routinely, eat healthy, cut down on alcohol consumption, or quit smoking. They don’t see it, but their problem is not a general lack of willpower, but poor motivation only for particular actions in certain situations. Once they accept this fact, they are able to identify specific situations and specific actions they need to take in those situations. Once they do that—and get off the self-critical “I am not able to motivate myself” train—it’s easier to devise a plan of action because they have a target to attack.”

Next, Dries says, “They need to coordinate their actions with their values by confronting thoughts that are inconsistent with their actions: You put off blood work (an action) even though you say, ‘I care about my health’ (your value); you put off buying a treadmill for the basement (an action) even though you say, ‘I want to get in shape’ (your value); you put off spending more time with your kids and spouse (an action), even though you say,  ‘I love and need my family’ (your value).”

Do you have a problem with motivating yourself? To follow Dries’ advice, you need to identify specific situations that bring on your low motivation, and then choose specific actions you can take for those situations. You must choose actions that you can coordinate with your values. Once you engage in those constructive actions, they will become a part of your routine, automatic, and it won’t take much effort to maintain them. Once again, the key is to identify problem situations. Like most people, you probably have no real understanding of the specific situations in your life that tend to elicit your problem actions. List those situations. Then you can deal with them better.

Even an apparently simple therapeutic situation often involves deeper problems. A man came to therapy after sustaining a work-related injury: parts of several fingers were severed from one of his hands. He was having difficulty adjusting to this loss and associated discomforts and limitations. After several sessions, he finally addressed his primary complaint with a blatant statement: he suddenly barked out hostility towards his wife who “forced him to take the job” that led to his industrial accident. Ultimately, in his mind, the reason for his injury was simple: his wife was to blame. This assignment of blame makes it clear that he was not simply upset with his hand injury; there were also many complex structural problems in his personality and marriage.

One of the most common applications of simple solutions to complex problems involves the use of psychiatric medication. Not only is taking pills a simple approach, but it is also convenient. Go to your primary care physician (PCP), or ask a medical specialist or a psychiatrist for assistance. In most cases, a prescription is forthcoming rather quickly, because most psychiatric medication is prescribed by non-psychiatric physicians, often the PCP. Both the PCP and patient accept that medication is the answer to psychological issues. Often, of course, this is not the case, and the result could be the beginning of a long series of multiple-drug treatments, none of which seem to work.

We are not saying that many patients do not benefit from medication, nor are we saying patients are always better served by psychiatrists in dispensing psychiatric medication. We are, however, questioning whether patient needs are being reviewed in a holistic and optimal fashion benefiting their long-term interest. For example, physicians generally do not ask necessary questions like these before writing a prescription for an anti-depressant: Is the patient clinically depressed or simply unhappy? Does the patient really suffer from depression, or are the problems related to anger or anxiety that make them look depressed? Does the patient need referral to a specialist such as a psychiatrist or psychologist? Does the patient really understand all options, including psychological assessment and other specialized treatment tailored for specific difficulties and needs? Is there a thorough and critical evaluation of the diagnosis prior to treatment?

All too often, patients are put on one or more medications after a relatively brief interview. A subjective view of the patient, usually after one session, provides the basis for preliminary diagnosis and treatment. Prescribing psychiatric medication without any objective psychological assessment, however, is analogous to going to the PCP and being prescribed heart medications without the support of appropriate medical tests (lipid panel, EKG, CT scan, MRI, stress test, etc.)  Even worse, are the explanations patients may be given to justify medications prescribed for them. These explanations are typically simplistic explanations for the difficulties the patients are experiencing. Certainly, there are treating physicians who are careful about developing working hypotheses regarding their diagnosis and treatment approaches, but many physicians and their patients believe psychological problems can be treated like some medical difficulties; if patients just take the right pill, they will be okay, just like when treated for bacterial infections. Psychiatric medications, however, treat symptoms; they do not cure. Also, there is a great deal of overlap between many of the diagnostic categories for psychological disorders, and treatment varies considerably based upon the type of diagnosis advanced. Everyone needs to proceed cautiously until diagnoses are made and confirmed. Unfortunately, this caution is frequently not exercised.