Author: thecopingblog

Helicopter parents have produced generations of offspring with a sense of entitlement; who are self-absorbed; who lack self-trust and self-sufficiency; and who are more comfortable relating to others from an emotional platform than from a problem-solving platform. Psychologists regularly point out these and other problems when parents excessively involve themselves in their children’s lives. Many of our posts emphasize how domineering and controlling parents do not allow their children to learn from their mistakes, or develop the independence and autonomy needed to face life’s challenges. Of course, this emphasis on the traits that children develop is only part of the helicopter-parent picture; what about the personality dynamics in parents that dispose them to become overbearing? Should we not also focus on conflicts and insecurities that plague the parents and cause them to be overly controlling?

Consider Rosalie. If ever there was a controlling, domineering, and always-present parent in children’s lives, it was Rosalie. In fact, she basked and thrived in the joy brought her by being the most influential figure in her three children’s lives. Eventually, however, reality caught up with her, and 52-year-old Rosalie decided her life was without purpose. Why? The last of her three children had just graduated from college, and—like his siblings before him—had moved away to pursue a career. Rosalie’s 28-year marriage seemed stable, although she had begun developing “mood” problems, and her husband had become friendly with a woman at work, which bothered Rosalie considerably. Her physician prescribed various anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medications with minimal success. She developed medical problems that were not life threatening, but they added to her general stress. She decided to try counseling.

Rosalie told her counselor that her purpose for living was over because her children were independent and did not need her any longer. The counselor pointed out that their independence was a testament to her excellent childrearing. Rosalie, however, could no longer find life goals consistent with her values, because she defined those values solely by her constant presence in her children’s lives. “My kids are gone. I am not physically watching over them every day. How can I continue to see myself as an effective mother?”  Rosalie always had deep anxiety issues about her ability as a parent; she dealt with that anxiety by defining her effectiveness as a parent simply by her constant presence in her children’s lives, not by how well she was teaching them to cope, or by the emotional support she could provide them when they became adults.

Within a year after her last child’s graduation, Rosalie terminated counseling, and a couple of weeks later she committed suicide at home. Hundreds of people attended her funeral, stunned with questions and disbelief. Rosalie, who had come to believe that her life had been stripped of friends and loved ones, probably would have been surprised to see how loved and appreciated she really was. But Rosalie could only see her self-worth by being always present for her children as they grew toward adulthood.

Rosalie’s final action is not typical, but her case raises the issue of how hard it can be for many parents to find new purpose in life after their kids grow and leave home. Most parents do so successfully, but we must always be alert to signs that, like Rosalie, they might feel they are falling short.

Last week we talked about how some people need to be perfect in everything they do. Unfortunately, this tendency can lead to a lot of stress. We noted what a student, Zhao, does to deal with his perfectionistic needs and, in the process, reduce his stress. Zhao says, “I must be perfect when I have an assignment. I know that, but use it to make me focus on the assignment. I outline the important parts of the assignment and make sure I do not overlook any of them. Every part gets my attention—in time.  If I reach a block, I get information I need to remove the block no matter how long it takes. I must solve the block or I am not moving forward, and if I am not moving forward, I am not going to be perfect.” Zhao’s approach requires a lot of mental discipline, something most of us do not have. In this second discussion, we describe another approach to dealing with perfection, one that requires only that you listen to the advice of another.

Many years ago, I (CB) was one of several doctoral students doing research in the experimental psychology lab at Syracuse University. We also had a post-doctoral student, Anita (not her real name), working with the Director of the lab. Anita had a gift for designing elegant studies; by elegant I mean studies that had several control groups—in addition to the main treatment group—that gave her great confidence in interpreting the results of the study. For instance, one day I was discussing with her the results of one of her studies, and her interpretation of them. I said, “You know, you could interpret your results differently as showing….” “Oh, no,” she replied, “that wouldn’t work. If that interpretation were true, control group B would have behaved differently.” I suddenly realized she was correct, and said, “Amazing! With those three control groups, there’s really no way to interpret the results other than the one you provide, is there?” Smiling, Anita said, “Not that I can see.”

Anita did, however, did have a shortcoming: She was always hesitant to submit her work for publication. She would say, “This study doesn’t give a complete picture. I need to do a follow-up to get it perfect.” In one instance she was designing her third follow-up to two previous incredibly good studies, seeking a higher level of perfection before having the confidence to submit her work for publication. That’s when the Director stepped in. He reminded Anita that an important part of science was communication with other researchers, and sharing data with them. That process allows others to contribute what is often a new perspective and a new way of looking at things. He knew that being excessively perfectionistic was Anita’s problem, and he struck right at it, telling her that failing to publish her work was actually making it less perfect. The next day Anita had a manuscript ready for submission.

The point here should be obvious: If you feel your work must be perfect, and as a result you’re failing to get things done in a timely manner, get a reality check on your work from someone you know, respect, and trust, and someone who is capable of evaluating the work you have already done. In other words, don’t let yourself be the final judge of the quality of your work. In Anita’s case, her quest for perfection was making her excessively harsh and unrealistic about the quality of what she had done; she needed to get another evaluation, by someone she trusted and respected, and who was capable of giving a knowledgeable evaluation.

Do you get mad at yourself when you fall short of perfection? Striving for high quality work is admirable, but criticizing yourself for falling short of perfection is not good coping. Before you know it, you have taught yourself to be self-critical most of the time; that’s a recipe for poor coping because you will never be satisfied with your work, even when it’s good! Also, extreme self-criticism ignores the fact that striving for perfection is usually better than being sloppy and not giving a damn.

            One theme we try and develop in this blog is that your negative emotions and tendencies that you really don’t care for, and that you treat like your enemy, can actually be channeled into working for you. The key is to think about them a little differently. Suppose you see yourself as too much of a perfectionist. You say, “I get so frustrated because I’m just not able to finish a job. I keep looking at parts of the job I’ve already completed, but I’m never satisfied. So, I’m constantly overanalyzing my work and never getting to the end.” Maybe you should talk with Zhao, an international student from China.

            Zhao was a high-achieving perfectionist, but he seemed to know how to use those tendencies in a positive way. Some people want to deny or avoid facing such tendencies inside them. Their dilemma is: “I want to ignore my need to be perfect and move on to complete a task, but I can never quite pull it off.” The reason they can’t is because they’re trying to deny a part of themselves. Always remember: if there’s a trait you don’t like—such as perfectionism—it’s still a part of you, and whenever you work to deny a part of you, you’re heading down a dead-end street.

            Zhao, however, had a different approach: “I must be perfect when I have an assignment. I know that, but use it to make me focus on the assignment. I outline the important parts of the assignment and make sure I do not overlook any of them. Every part gets my attention—in time.  If I reach a block, I get information I need to remove the block no matter how long it takes. I must solve the block or I am not moving forward, and if I am not moving forward, I am not going to be perfect.”

It occurred to me that most students, when confronted with what Zhao called a block, would self-criticize—“Damn, I’m too much of a perfectionist. I’m not getting anywhere and getting all stressed out. I’m my worst enemy.”—and be likely to stop. Not Zhao. He reacts to frustration by channeling his perfectionism at the block, and not worrying about—at least for the time being—the larger assignment at hand. He understands that such a strategy will eventually resolve the block and put him back on track for the larger assignment. He seems to understand that allowing his perfectionism to stop him would compromise his perfectionism; he couldn’t achieve a “perfect” result if he mismanaged his drive to perfectionism; he couldn’t satisfy his perfection needs if he lets those needs stop his path to being perfect.

            Zhao’s attitude about being a perfectionist seems to carry this coping lesson: However you go about it, the key is not to engage in self-critical comments about what a perfectionist you are, but to engage in positive forward-moving actions to resolve bumps in the road along the way. Sure, at some point you must force yourself to accept a finished product as the best you can manage, but shifting from “worrying about perfection” to “focusing on each part of the task,” might help. Let’s face it, though, not many of us have Zhao’s mental discipline. Is there another strategy more of us could use to deal with perfectionist tendencies? Next week we’ll take a look at Anita’s case to answer that question.

Susan just went through a very messy divorce after 12 years of marriage. Deep inside she blames herself for the breakup, and has a lot of self-directed anger pent up. But at some level of consciousness, she just cannot admit these feelings to herself; to do so would create levels of anxiety her mind just is not willing to accept. She is depressed and angry, both at her ex-husband and his family, especially his family. “I hate them all. They always took his side whenever we had a problem, and I figure they’re thrilled that I’m out of their son’s life. They’re all angry at me and blame me for what happened. His mother called me the other day acting like she was concerned for me, but I’m not dumb. They act like they want to help me,” Susan says, “but I can see that they hate me for what happened.”

Susan is using the ego-defense of Projection. She has some unpleasant, anxiety-laden emotions in herself that she just can’t face, so she projects these undesirable qualities onto her ex-husband’s family. Note how the use of projection is a form of anxiety avoidance. Susan doesn’t want to face unwanted traits in herself, so she sees those traits in others. What a great way to avoid the stress of self-examination!

Remember the classic argument on the playground when you were in 3^rd grade? Two 10- year-olds going at it: “Well, you’re dumb!” “No, you’re dumb!.” “Uh, uh, you’re dumb.” “No, you’re the dumb one.” Back and forth, each kid—insecure and not wanting to appear dumb in front of peers—projects dumbness onto the other. This projective interplay becomes a little more sophisticated between adults when they use more complex sentences and words.—“Bill, if you weren’t so stubborn, we could get this project done faster.” “Me? Stubborn? Come on, Kevin, you wrote the book on stubbornness.”—But, however you look at it, it’s projection, and it’s incompatible with effective and healthy coping with stress.

Projection is an ego-defense strategy one uses by switching from self-blame to other-blame. The switch makes projection a first cousin of hypocrisy. Politicians do it all the time. They vote for expensive projects and then criticize their opponent for being a spendthrift, and adding to the deficit. But hypocrisy gets votes in the twisted world of politics. When it comes to coping with stress, however, the switch from self to other is denial, avoidance, and refusal to be personally accountable. The result? Coping failure and increased anxiety. Projection focuses on them, but there is no them. You are the problem, and when you project on them, you do damage to yourself by avoiding facing yourself. Projection occurs because you dislike yourself, and when there is self-hatred there can be no healthy coping.

Like all forms of stress avoidance, projection prevents psychological growth, self-awareness, and development of self-empowerment to face life challenges. It also prevents being vigilant for signs that you are using projection to hide what you can’t face in yourself. Such signs would be failure to hold yourself accountable, being excessive and repetitive in your criticism of others, and disengaging from social interactions. From a coping perspective, it pays to heed comments from friends that you are criticizing others for actions you yourself have taken in the past. For instance, Bruce points out to a co-worker, Adam, that Adam is insensitive to the needs of Sharon, a co-worker who has a disability that confines her to a wheelchair. “Uh, Bruce,” says Adam, “I remember just last week when you told me that Sharon uses her disability to make us feel sorry for her so we’ll do her job for her. Remember how you said, ‘Sharon really plays the disability card’? That was kind of insensitive, don’t you think?” Adam’s comments should be a warning to Bruce that he is projecting his own insensitivity toward Sharon onto Adam.

I remember hearing a guest lecturer during one of my college courses on child psychology. She worked with parents and “troubled” teens at a local child guidance clinic. One of the students in the class asked what advice she generally gave parents about raising children, especially those in junior high. Her answer: “Love them and pray.” We all laughed, of course, but over the years I thought a lot about that answer and eventually decided that, “Present a powerful role model,” needed to be added. So now I had a three-sided answer to the question, and I used this answer in many of my classes as a discussion prompt for childrearing. If we delve beneath the surface of, “Love them,” “Pray,” and, “Be powerful,” what are we really talking about?

Love them. From birth on, children need to sense they are wanted and loved. During the first year of life, this process involves mostly attending to basic needs, plus things like holding, cuddling, smiling, baby talk…all those things that make baby respond positively. These actions help children develop trust in others, and acquire a belief that the world is a trustworthy place. Also, these actions help reduce the primal fear that all children have: abandonment. Development of a trusting parent-child attachment fosters the feeling that, “I am not going to be left alone. My home base will always be there.” These feelings of security have psychological significance well into adulthood, and many adult coping issues have their roots in an unresolved fear of abandonment.

Be powerful. In the context of good childrearing, powerful means effective controller of rewards and punishments, not a dictatorial authoritarian. When power is dispensed in an atmosphere of love, parents are less likely to fall into the “enabling/indulging” trap, where parents believe they must ensure success for children, hover over them to help them avoid failure, and bail them out when they get into trouble. This pattern conveys the message that the kids are weak and dependent, and it can have devasting consequences for the kids: low self-esteem, learned helplessness, depression, a sense of entitlement, just to name a few. The powerful parent role model, on the other hand, working within an atmosphere of love and support, encourages independence, autonomy, assertiveness, and learning how to deal with and profit from failure. The powerful parent can cut the dependency cord without sacrificing love; the indulgent parent displays weakness, insecurity, and fear, traits that are picked up by their kids.

Pray. In the broadest sense, this advice says you should help your kids find a value system, a set of standards and morality that foster a social conscience. This sort of guidance fits perfectly with “loving them,” and helps them develop a spirituality and participate in the fullness of life with others. The dynamics are subtle but powerful, and need not be restricted to a specific religious context. In the wider context of “love” and “power,” values capture the essence of a parent-to-child transfer that produces a productive and purposeful member of society who has learned how to live with honor, civility, and respect for the needs of others.

Feeling stressed this Memorial Day weekend? There are many different exercises that involve relaxation. Breathing exercises and progressive muscle relaxation are two of the most common strategies for reducing tension. Both can be engaged quickly and discreetly, so whether you’re frustrated at work or at dinner, you can reduce tension and stress quickly and quietly. Remember, however, relaxation exercises take practice before they can become your go-to strategies at times of strong emotional arousal.

When some people experience episodes of anger or anxiety, they find that it helps to take a moment and think about what other feelings might be involved. Did someone say something that embarrassed you, or make you sad, and your anger is a reaction to those emotions? Are you angry about being criticized, or having someone disappoint you by not keeping a promise, or canceling plans? Identifying the trigger that brought on your emotional stress can help you avoid denying or suppressing the emotions you’re feeling, and be better able to take appropriate action.

Our Blog Post on 5/27/2022 by Counselor Brian Cook discussed a variety of techniques he uses with clients to help them relax and focus on a task at hand. Here’s a summary of some of those techniques.

One of the most fundamental problems with anxiety and stress is projecting into the future: “I’m going to be so tense next week when I take that driving test, I’ll probably fail.” Have you been guilty of “future thinking”? Why not focus your thinking on the present? Doing so will reduce inner tension and help you take charge of your current reality. Just remember, you may relate better to some methods better than others. That’s OK.

            Deep Breathing. When you’re anxious one of the first things is to get your normal breathing rate back. First, empty your lungs – “blow out the birthday candles,” so to speak. Exhale all the air you can. Then take a deep breath in through your nose for about 5 seconds. Repeat 5 to 10 times but don’t focus on the number.

Next, try to gain a rhythm, such as 3 seconds in through the nose and 3 seconds out through the mouth. No need to focus on timing things; just make each phase last a moderate time. With practice several times each day, you will become quite proficient at loosening yourself up in a stressful situation. Deep breathing should accompany all the remaining relaxation methods.

Using Your Senses. The 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 progression uses your five senses to orient your thinking to the present. First, picture five things you can see around you and describe each using an adjective or two. Ideally find objects that give you a relaxed feeling. For instance: “I see a black chair; I see a table that has a computer monitor on it; the table is on a blue rug; I see a window and bright sunshine outside; near the window is a tree full of green leaves.”

Next, describe four things you can touch, again using an adjective or two. “A part of my chair has a metal frame that is cool to the touch.” Next, describe three things you can hear – “There is a soft hum of the air conditioner.” Then describe two things you can smell – it’s OK to lean over and smell the flowers on the desk. Finally, describe one thing you can taste – take a swig of your water or coffee.  You can do these in any order but typically it works best if you follow this order of the senses as it hard to engage a number of things for each sense. For example. it’s hard to smell 5 things at once.

Serial 7’s. Say the sentence, “I will be a more positive person,” seven times. Then go back and say each word of the sentence seven times: “I, I, I, I, I, I, I, will, will, will, will, will, will, will,” etc. Then go back and say the entire sentence seven more times. You should pace yourself and follow this procedure about one word per second, fast enough so other thoughts can’t come through and distract you. This is a good technique to get your mind off whatever started making you anxious. Once again, combine this method with your breathing exercise. Also, don’t worry about the exact count. The point here is to distract you, redirect your thinking, not make sure you can count to seven!

Detailed Focusing.When you start to feel anxious, this technique involves focusing on one thing and imagining every possible detail. Then take each detail, name it, and focus on various characteristics. If you picture a car, for instance, how many details about a car can you name? There’s the engine, door handles, hood, trunk, steering wheel, etc. Any of these parts can also be broken down into parts. This sort of mental effort can go a long way toward getting your mind off the topic that was making you anxious, and reduce much of your inner tension. If you still feel anxious after you try this once, move on to another object and continue to count the details. As always, pair this process with your breathing exercise.

Taken together, these techniques comprise what some have called a “Calm Down” Kit that you can use to relax. The idea behind the “kit” is to give you a variety of options for engaging all your senses to focus on calming, soothing, comforting, and peaceful states to distract you from emotional triggers that are irritating and upsetting. Give yourself some time and practice, and activating the relaxing states can become almost automatic.

Another lonely night? Eyes fixed on that glowing screen as you dig into the internet looking for someone to relate with, someone who will help you find meaning in your life? Along the cyber highway you read about highly successful, physically beautiful, and exceptionally bright people. You wonder, “Why can’t I be like that? Why am I such a loser? Why can’t I be more successful?”

You’re falling into a very common coping trap when facing loneliness: Judging yourself against others who are shining examples of success or beauty. This is a flawed strategy because there will always be those better than you, and worse than you; why choose the former for comparison? For example, you might believe you have a less active social life than others, but you don’t realize you’re always comparing yourself only to the most sociable people you know. Your comparison may also be based on a faulty assumption. Consider Caitlyn, a college freshman whose self-esteem and confidence were in the toilet. Seems she was convinced that all the other students in her classes—none of whom she knew—were geniuses and she was the one dummy in the class. Her social-comparison assumption was flawed. Comparing yourself to others in this fashion is not the way to counter loneliness.

Logoff the social media, get a pencil and paper, and write down your answers to the following questions: (1) “Do I have to outperform everyone to be a worthwhile person?”  (2) ”Am I focusing on comparing myself mostly to “stars”? (3) “What are some memories I have of good times with my friends? Can I use those memories to find new things to do, things that will bring me interactions that will be enjoyable and give me a sense of purpose?”

Here’s the bottom line: Get involved in an activity that involves serving other people, and that gives you a sense of purpose, satisfaction, and stability. This sort of activity will help you nurture empathy for others; you can then compare yourself to others while being sensitive to their needs, not just yours. When you are bothered by loneliness, frustration, anger, and self-criticism, there is nothing more uplifting than realizing that others have similar problems and need understanding, too. The development of empathy is essential to healthy coping with stress. Focus on the needs of others and reach out to them. You will find you will not only help them, but also help yourself. Finding empathy will allow you to get off your pity train because you will no longer feel lonely.

I was listening to a couple of guys talking about the movie Elvis, and one of them said, “That Col. Parker [Elvis’ manager] was one smart guy. He got rich off Elvis.” The other guy agreed, adding, “I guess that’s why con men suck in so many victims. Like Barnum said, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’ And smart guys like Parker are ready to pounce.”

Are con artists like Parker smart? How about cult leaders—con artists all—like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, Khem Veasna, and others? If by “smart” you mean someone is good at manipulating others and getting their money, then, yes, you can make a case for their “smarts.” By that definition you can also throw in folks like Adolph Hitler, Bernie Madoff, Donald Trump, and Alex Jones.

 Con artists, however, are not “smart” people; they are shrewd, clever, and cunning people who use their skills to enhance themselves while they ruin the lives of others. They are Machiavellian and sociopathic individuals with no sense of ethics or conscience; they harm others with hurtful, negative, and vicious actions; they are narcissists whose goal is praise, admiration, and adoration from others. They destroy what others build, and eventually destroy themselves through self-sabotaging and self-destructive lifestyles—usually taking their believers down with them. Such destructive actions are anything but “smart.”

When it comes to coping with stress, truly “smart” people do not destroy. They do not act to compromise the welfare of self and others, but act instead to enhance, improve, and enrich the lives of self and others. They are efficient at recognizing what is honest and genuine, and what is dishonest and fake; they accept, and are accountable for, their strengths and weaknesses; they are independent, task-oriented, and capable of solving problems without harming the well-being of others. Those who are “smart” in their coping actions are empathetic and socially compassionate, sensitive to the needs of others, and find meaning in their lives through service to others. “Smart” people are guided by core values, principles that exist outside of themselves—such as community, citizenship, sacrifice, justice, respect, and meaningful work.

A “smart” person will watch the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery and be moved by the expression of sacrifice of life for the democratic principles embodied in the American Constitution; a “smart” con artist will watch and wonder, “Why? What was in it for them?”

Coping with adversity in your life? Choose your “smart” coping strategy carefully.

James and Jennifer Crumbley were recently found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in connection with their son’s crime, and they were sentenced to serve 10-15 years. Their son, Ethan, had previously pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life without parole for the school shooting he carried out when he was 15. The shooting resulted in the death of four students, and injuries to six other students and a teacher. Legal experts say the case could set a precedent for holding parents responsible for serious crimes taken by their children.

Generally, most psychologists feel that teenagers Ethan’s age should be expected to take responsibility for their actions. Imagine a 14-year-old beating a classmate to death, and saying, “But Judge, you need to understand, my mother is a prostitute, dad is an alcoholic, I am physically and emotionally abused at home—I really should not be held responsible for taking my anger out on a classmate.” Psychologists would note that many kids have miserable environments, but they don’t go out and kill. Blaming parents for one’s actions just doesn’t measure up. Even a young kid should face the consequences of making poor choices.

Some say, however, that the Crumbley case may be different. At the parents’ trial, prosecutors argued they ignored signs their son was seriously troubled and bought him a powerful Sig Sauer 9mm handgun as an early Christmas present. Prosecutors presented evidence showing that the murder weapon was never properly secured away from their troubled 15-year-old son. In fact, the mother had taken Ethan to a shooting range a few days before the shooting. When the parents were called into the school to meet with counselors about their son’s troublesome behavior at school, the counselors showed them drawings Ethan had made. The images featured a pistol resembling the Sig Sauer gun alongside a figure with bullet wounds and phrases like “blood everywhere,” and “help me, the thoughts won’t stop.” The counselors suggested they take their son and get him professional help. Instead, they left their son at school and returned to work. What’s especially troublesome is that they never told the counselors about the gun they had given their son. A few hours after that meeting of school counselors and the parents, Ethan left a school bathroom with the gun and began firing. Prosecutors told the jury if the parents had taken a “tragically few steps,” four students would likely still be alive.

Judge Cheryl Matthews sentenced the Crumbleys to the stiffest penalty possible, but said that the sentences were not designed to send a message that families are responsible for their children’s crimes. The judge said, “These convictions are not about poor parenting. These convictions confirm repeated acts, or lack of acts, that could have halted an oncoming runaway train. About repeatedly ignoring things that would make a reasonable person feel the hair on the back of their neck stand up.” It’s not clear what the legal consequences of the Crumbley trial will be for parents whose kids commit crimes, but my bet is that in the future, the judge’s sentence will result in a lot of unfortunate and unintended consequences when assessing parental responsibility. “Poor parenting” is a vague phrase, but it may very well become a pathway to jail sentences for parents whose kids break the law.

What level of responsibility should parents be prepared to accept for their kids’ transgressions? Several things for sure: parents must be aware of their unique position as mentors and role models for their kids; they must help their kids understand responsibility for the consequences of their actions; they must be effective controllers of rewards and punishments to guide kids toward socially accountable actions, not indoctrinate them and introduce them to a world of violence, chaos, and self-absorption; finally, they should not encourage their kids to adopt the destructive actions of that brutal and aggressive world. But what if parents fall short of these ideals, and their child commits a serious crime? Should the parents be held legally responsible? Judge Matthews decision greases the slope that leads to an affirmative answer to that question.

The Crumbley case coincides with the current societal trend toward allowing, even encouraging, young people to be sheltered—usually by parents—from the consequences of making poor decisions. The result is that the kids develop expectations of entitlement and freedom from accountability. How ironic it will be if those parents who shelter their kids from responsibility will be held responsible for their kids’ criminal actions.

A couple of weeks ago, we talked about the psychological factors that cause people to accept conspiracy theories. Let’s follow up on that and ask, “Once someone buys into a conspiracy theory, why is it so hard for them to discard their belief in the theory?” Once accepted, the power of beliefs over a person is incredible, even when it becomes obvious to observers that the belief is literally destroying the holder’s psychological stability. The “Jonestown Massacre” occurred on November 18, 1978, when more than 900 members of an American cult called the Peoples Temple died in a mass suicide-murder under the direction of their leader Jim Jones. On March 26, 1997, San Diego County deputies discovered 39 dead bodies, active members of the religious group known as Heaven’s Gate. Their mass suicide coincided with the closest approach of the Hale-Bopp comet. 

These two examples of mass suicides demonstrate the power of a belief, and how even an irrational belief can lead people to the ultimate self-destructive action. On a more everyday level, we can see the same self-sabotaging dynamics at work in those who allow their lives to be disrupted—and their psychological stability all but destroyed—by beliefs that have no basis in fact. Becky is a 36-year-old housewife who is convinced that a local restaurant is the center of a child-trafficking enterprise run by local politicians who are pedophiles. Her belief has brought a lot of stress into her life because her husband and many of her relatives, friends, and neighbors try to convince her that this belief is totally without evidence. Becky, however, supported by her small local group of “cult” adherents and ample online support, cannot be swayed.

Becky’s case sounds extreme, but what about Roger? He’s a 56-year-old construction worker who hates Arabs. He has co-workers whose family roots are from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. He hates every one of them and is convinced they are spies sent to destroy America. Like Becky, Roger tenaciously holds on to his belief even though he has no evidence to substantiate it. Unfortunately, Roger’s belief has put his job in jeopardy; he has been “written up” several times at work for refusing to work closely with the “Arabs,” and his boss has threatened to fire him. Then there’s the largest mass conspiracy belief in the history of the US: literally millions of Americans believe that Trump won the 2020 election—that somehow, Biden and his minions stole it. This belief persists even though—to date—no credible, objective, or corroborative evidence has been presented to support it. This belief has already sowed discord and destruction within the country.

Conspiracy theories disseminate conflict, aggression, and destruction. Why, then, is it so hard to get people to change their belief, even when the belief also defies logic, reality, and plain old common sense? Let’s take Becky’s case, and analyze it from a psychological perspective. She’s under a lot of pressure—psychologists would call it dissonance—because so many of her friends and family criticize her and challenge her belief. How could she reduce that dissonance? The simplest answer is, “Just admit you’re wrong, Becky, and discard your belief.” Bingo! Dissonance problem solved. Note, however, that from a psychological perspective, for Becky to admit she is wrong, she has to admit she has poor judgment; she has to admit she’s gullible and easy to influence; she has to admit she’s incapable of managing her own life and must rely on others to manage it for her; she has to admit the source for her belief is invalid. Folks, those are tough admissions because they are a threat to Becky’s self-esteem, to her confidence, to her very self-identity.

So, what is Becky to do? In her mind, the answer is simple: Take the easy road to reducing her dissonance by deciding, “I’m not the one who’s screwed up. It’s my family and all those other people who are involved in hiding the pedophiles who are behind this evil plot. I’ve got plenty of support from my online groups, and there’s no way all of them are wrong. The evil ones are all the perverts, all those disgusting degenerates my groups are trying to uncover.”

Here is a basic psychological fact for you: When you’re feeling pressure and stress from holding a belief, all things being equal, the last thing you will do to reduce that pressure and stress is change your belief. Doing so will be a huge threat to your self-image, so you hold on to that image by disparaging “the others.” You reduce your dissonance by attacking them, rather than critically analyzing the logic of your belief. Using the language of our coping model central to this blog: You accept only your version of reality; you refuse to be accountable for following that version; you are arrogant and condescending toward those who challenge you; you are insensitive and unempathetic toward all but your support group. This is a self-sabotaging path, and only when the pain and frustration from following it become too intense, might you then, possibly—with appropriate guidance and support—consider discarding your irrational beliefs. Yes, it sounds simple, but it’s not an easy path to take, and most people don’t have the fortitude to take it.