Author: thecopingblog

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a resource for mental health clinicians and researchers, first appeared in 1952, and was first revised in 1968. Both times autism was seen as childhood schizophrenia. In the 1980s, the diagnostic criteria for autism were expanded, resulting in an increase in diagnoses. In 2013, the 5^th revision of DSM combined autism, Asperger’s, and childhood disintegrative disorder into autism spectrum disorder. In 2019, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that about 1 in every 110 children has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. In 2020, The CDC said 1 in 54 children had been identified with an autism spectrum disorder.

In 1963, the measles vaccine was developed, and by the late 1960s, vaccines were also available to protect against mumps (1967) and rubella (1969). These three vaccines were combined into the MMR vaccine in 1971. Twenty-seven years later, Andrew Wakefield, a British physician, claimed that the MMR vaccine caused autism.

Wakefield began his career as a British physician in 1981 when he received his medical degree from St Mary’s Hospital Medical School. In 1998, Wakefield and 12 colleagues published data in the Lancet that suggested the MMR vaccine may cause kids to develop autism. Despite Wakefield’s small sample (n=12)—reputable epidemiological studies involve sample sizes in the thousands—the lack of controls, and the spurious conclusions, the paper received wide publicity, and MMR vaccination rates began to drop. Almost immediately, however, the rules of scientific inquiry took charge. In response to Wakefield’s sloppy work, many researchers conducted better epidemiological studies and found—in study after study—no link between MMR vaccination and autism. Ten of Wakefield’s 12 colleagues also published a retraction of the interpretation of the original data, saying the data did not permit concluding a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism. The Lancet also found that Wakefield had failed to disclose he had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies. The Lancet completely retracted Wakefield’s paper in 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect. Wakefield and his colleagues were held guilty of ethical violations— they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances—and scientific misrepresentation—they did not report that their sample was selective, plus Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories. Wakefield lost his medical license in 2010.

The Wakefield fraud is likely to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history. Here we are in 2025, and the belief that vaccinations are dangerous to children continues to grow, vaccinations rates continue to decline, and diseases like measles—25 years ago thought to be eradicated in the USA—are on the upswing. How are parents and guardians to cope?

The answer to that question is straightforward. After reading the material above, if you still believe vaccines are dangerous for your child, nothing we can say will change your mind. As one West Texas anti-vaccination mother told a reporter in February 2025, “We’re not going to harm our children or risk the potential to harm our children so that we can save yours.” If, on the other hand, you accept the reputable science of epidemiology—and if you understand that personal opinions are subject to ego defenses that distort reality and prevent critical thinking, but the scientific process is subject to objective rules—then you will be willing to protect your family’s health and follow the recommended vaccination regimen for all your family members. From a health standpoint, that’s good coping.

I was chatting with a friend about a newspaper column we both had read. The writer noted statistics showing that American high-school kids score below their peers from other developed countries on math and science skills, and attributed this deficiency to poor policies of the federal government, the Department of Education in particular. I asked my friend, “When your kids were growing up, if one of them brought home lower than normal grades, did you blame the government?” He laughed loudly, “Of course not! And I’m sure you didn’t either. If fact, I remember a time when our son was a junior in high school, and one marking period his grades went down almost 10 points. My wife and I discussed this and it occurred to us that he had been hanging out a lot with a new friend—a friend with a car. ‘We slipped on this one,’ my wife said. We had a sit-down with him and told him we were restricting the amount of time he could spend with this new friend. We were more detailed but you get the idea: If he wanted to spend more time with his buddy, first he had to bring his grades up. We made it clear that two things were responsible for his grade decline: we were not being responsible parents, and he was not being a responsible student.”

In the model of coping developed in this blog, we stress four things: Acceptance, Accountability, Humility, and Empathy. In the case of my friend’s son, accountability is the main culprit. His parents corrected the problem, but too often in our present-day society, young folks are not held accountable. Look at that newspaper column—the federal government is to blame for kids’ poor academic performance relative to those in other countries? Seriously? Could the writer be more enabling and indulgent toward American kids—not to mention their parents?  Here we are in 2025, and both parents and their kids need to be held more accountable. How many kids regularly hear their parents badmouth reputable scientists like Tony Fauci, or feed them false information like vaccines cause autism? We are producing a generation of overindulged, psychologically-damaged kids who are unable to think critically, handle stress, resolve conflicts, and overcome hardship. We better wise up—fast—or we’re going to have a society populated by psychological invalids.

A basic premise in psychology says that if you see yourself voluntarily doing a task—no one is forcing you to do it—you are likely to decide the task is important and worthwhile. After all, isn’t deciding that the task is important more logical than concluding that you are wasting your time on the task? A nice side effect of your decision is that when you see yourself doing a worthwhile task, you are likely to feel productive, satisfied, and empowered. And when you feel empowered you feel competent, confident, energized, and useful—all characteristics of someone who is coping well with everyday stressors.

Many folks approach coping by focusing on their feelings: “I’m so stressed; I’m too anxious and worried; I’m thinking too negatively; I’ve got to think more positively and look on the bright side.” Sadly, this approach is likely to fail because you are focusing on finding elusive states like happiness and serenity by thinking your way through the search. The power of positive thinking may sound great, but that so-called “power” is severely limited. Thinking does not make it so; acting does. We’re not saying that you should never think positively; we’re simply saying that the power of positive thinking is limited, but the power of positive actions is limitless because positive feelings emerge from positive activity. You do not “find” something like happiness; it emerges by seeing yourself doing worthwhile things. Here we see the Golden Rule of coping: It’s not always all about you and how you are entitled to find happiness. To cope with everyday stressors, you must not consider yourself the main ingredient in your life recipe; you must get outside yourself and voluntarily do things for others. You will feel empowered and useful when you focus on others’ needs rather than your emotions. There are, however, limits.

Cindy and Ryan met in college. They were “crazy” about each other. “It was such a fun, carefree time in my life,” Cindy says. “I loved it!” Before too long, though, Ryan’s controlling nature began to rear its ugly head. He got upset when he felt they were not together enough. Even if it was only a few hours separation, Ryan would ask her what she was up to, and why she was not with him. Cindy remembers thinking, “He needs me. But I also felt I was being a little wimpy tending to his every need.”

After graduating, Ryan got a job that put him a four-hour drive from Cindy, who was still in college. The relationship began to deteriorate because now Ryan had less control over Cindy’s activities. He did not have a reliable car, and he was upset when she did not regularly drive four hours to see him. Ryan was insecure, but he blamed his insecurity on Cindy. Then, Cindy studied abroad for a semester. Ryan had an even harder time dealing with this geographical reality. Cindy remembers, “It became harder and harder to keep him happy as well as keep myself sane while I was overseas. Those four months I was away took the biggest toll on both of us. I didn’t allow the constant fighting to ruin my time spent overseas, but it forced me to look at my relationship for what it was and not the fairytale I had come to believe.”

When Cindy returned from her semester abroad, Ryan became almost irrationally controlling; he got upset even if she went to the mall without calling to tell him. They broke up within a month. Cindy later reflected on things: “I don’t want my experience with Ryan to turn me against trying to please my partner in a relationship. He had a lot of issues that he needed to work out that I couldn’t fix, but I still tried too long to be strong and supportive for him. Those actions didn’t work for me because I lost my confidence in making my own decisions, and was worrying about what he thought. I think I’ve learned that it’s important to support others, but not to the extent that I sacrifice my own sense of empowerment.”

Dr. Larry Nassar, physician for United States Olympics and Michigan State University, pleaded guilty in November 2017 to sexual molestation of female gymnasts over more than 10 years, some as young as 13. In the final stages of his trial, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina allowed the victims, numbering well over 150, to give personal impact statements in the courtroom, a process that took over five days as young-women victims came forward.

As each woman spoke, she looked directly at her tormentor and said things like, “You are learning that kids grow up to be strong women who can destroy your world.” “I used to consider myself a victim, but now I am a survivor.” “We are the voice. We have the power now.” “We are a force and you are nothing.” “How dare you ask any of us for forgiveness?”

            From a coping perspective, the victim-impact statements were remarkable examples of l courage, honesty, confidence, channeled anger, and empowerment. The young women proved to be perfect examples of what it means to cope with adversity. Note how they used their anger in socially-acceptable, civilized, self-assured, and forceful ways. They unleashed their anger at Nassar by being assertive, by standing toe-to-toe with him, and demonstrating that they were the better party.

            I like to think that these young women were the products of a society that—beginning in the last 30 years of the 20^th century—modified its view of women as a group largely subservient to the whims of men, to a group with high achievement motivation, and capable of independent action, leadership, military service, rugged athletics, and many more activities previously considered more appropriate for men. Today, however, we find ourselves 25 years into the 21^st century, and in the midst of some men who offer a view of women that reverts to 50 years ago. Fueled by their fragile and insecure ego, these men argue that the appropriate role for women in society should once again stress sensitivity, emotionality, passivity, and dependence—in short, they want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Fortunately, strong, assertive, competitive women models for little girls—like those abused gymnasts—abound in today’s society. I can only hope that parents will encourage their daughters to identify with those models, and not buy into the narrative of yesteryear.

Dependency is one of many enemies of effective coping. Developing a sense of personal empowerment is difficult if you are psychologically dependent on others to fulfill your needs and wants. Does that mean you shouldn’t let your parents, spouse, or friends do anything for you? Of course not! We’re warning against chronic patterns of psychological dependency, not isolated occasions where you receive some assistance. There’s a big difference.

One of the best examples of excessive dependency is membership in a cult, or a group with strong cult-like features. Devotion to such organizations can be extremely hard to break when the group complements adherents’ personalities. They join because the leader compensates for their inner insecurities and weaknesses, often unconscious. If Pete joins an organization because they pay him a high salary, it would be easy to dissolve his loyalty: pay him more than that organization pays him! But if Pete is tormented by fears and helplessness that the organization mitigates with the reassuring message, “Join us and together we will help you resolve your fears,” weakening Pete’s loyalty will be difficult.

Loyalty to a cult and its leader is not based on political, legal, financial, or patriotic enterprises; it is a psychological undertaking based on one’s search for meaning, purpose, truth, and values. The simplicity and definitiveness of cult principles attracts those who are adrift, confused, and bewildered in that search. Unerring loyalty to the cult may fly in the face of logic, rationality, and self-preservation, but convincing believers that their loyalty is illogical, irrational, and self-destructive is futile when that loyalty satisfies psychological needs. Finding ways to help the follower satisfy those psychological needs without the cult and its leader, is the only way to show cult devotees the way out of their commitment. The key is to show them how to re-calibrate the search for values that brought them to the cult in the first place. It’s not an easy process, but few things worthwhile are easy. The point is, appealing to reason, logic, and level-headedness is not the way to go.

In the 1950s a small cult gathered on a hillside on a date specified by their leader as the day the world would end. According to the leader, God would save them and destroy everything else. In preparation for this day, these folks sold all their belongings, their houses, cars, clothes – everything! They made an incredibly strong commitment to their leader. When the world survived and the group experienced cognitive dissonance, they did not turn on their leader as a false prophet. Instead, they joined him in praising God for rewarding them for their great faith by saving the world. They reduced their dissonance by distorting reality, not by changing their beliefs about their prophet. They decided the world continued to exist because of faith in their leader. If you said to one of them, “Your leader was all wrong and caused you to get rid of all your worldly possessions! He’s a fake!” Their reply would be, “You’re wrong. God was so impressed with us and our prophet that He decided to spare the world. We saved you! And it was all because of our prophet!”

Many emotions are a signal that something is bothering you. Whether it’s anger, anxiety, grief, or depression, there is a temptation to focus on the emotions, and that can lead to complications. For instance, you might start blaming yourself, or others, for them. “I shouldn’t feel this anxious.” “Anyone who had to put up with my spouse would walk around angry, too.” When you focus excessively on your emotions, they can take control of you. To prevent that, you need to focus on actions you can take, not on how you feel. When you identify, evaluate, and analyze the events that bring on your emotions, you can practice those actions to channel emotions and give you a sense of personal control over yourself.

           John is a middle-aged man who was a correctional officer in a prison for twenty years. During this time, he suffered from numerous assaults from inmates. This was a much higher frequency than experienced by other officers. When asked why he thought he incurred so many assaults, he acknowledged he was not part of the in-crowd at work. As a matter of fact, he was disliked by most of the prison guards because he was outspoken about his progressive views and political activism, which put him at odds with most of his co-workers. He was the butt of jokes made by his co-workers and his commitment to his job duties did not bring him their respect. There were instances when he heard them talking about him in negative ways, which he found very disappointing, and that made him anxious and suspicious. After suffering a couple of severe assaults during which his peers did not try to help him, he developed PTSD.

           He started seeing a psychologist for counseling. He was already working with a psychiatrist on medication for PTSD and Major Depression. Slowly, they found a medication regimen that reduced his anxiety, flashbacks, and nightmares while not disturbing his sleep and positive mood. He also worked with the psychologist to deal with his emotions—especially his anger at work. He learned to walk away from situations, recognizing that it would be self-defeating to be confrontational. He also slowly accepted that walking away did not mean that he was a coward for doing so. This was an important perspective for him to accept, and more effective than his futile attempts to try and suppress his anger. He learned that managing his emotions did not mean trying to make them go away. He reached a major milestone when he realized his temperament was not suited to working in a prison. He was a sensitive man who cared deeply about social justice and hopes for a better society, and 20 years working in a prison environment did not complement those hopes. He admitted he chose to work in a prison for “pay and benefits.” That was an ill-fated decision and much of his frustration and anger was due to that poor decision. But he was not able to see he projected some of his emotions onto other people and environments.

           Slowly, a new John began to appear: He secured a new job and worked in counseling on when to honestly confront others; he slowly learned to be more tactful, particularly when around strangers, and not people he felt comfortable with and could trust; he found someone to coach him with exercise routines; he began eating healthier. Persistence with these habits facilitated needed weight loss, increases in self-esteem and assertiveness (as opposed to passive-aggressiveness), and reduction in depression, PTSD, and insomnia symptoms. At this writing he is much happier and content with himself and life, though he still checks in with his counselor about once/month to ensure he stays on the straight and narrow.

How do some people manage to “find” each other and think their relationship stands a chance? Imagine, for instance, putting a mean child and a selfish one in the same room day after day. That’s Alexis and Ed, two manipulative, self-centered takers—“I want what you have and will give nothing in return.”—who eventually frustrate and bring out the worst in each other. Each also blames the other for the relationship problems, which eliminates any hope of conflict resolution. They had each been married before they met. Alexis had only been married once, but had three children from this marriage. They had married when young and immature, and the children basically “got in the way” of their development as individuals and as a couple. They argued a lot and grew apart. Ed had two unsuccessful marriages under his belt. He had no children, had been in prison, and had a history of drug use, abusing women, and failed relationships.

            Alexis and Ed came to counseling together. Both were middle age, smart and attractive. Alexis had a histrionic personality—vain, demanding, and attention seeking. Everything about her was dramatic, from her mannerisms, to her style of dress, to her obvious breast enhancement surgery. She drank excessively in public, and was flirtatious toward both acquaintances and strangers. “Hey, what’s wrong with having a good time and showing off your assets,” she said. “Guys like to flash their American Express card. Well, I’ve got some things going for me, too!” Ed complained, “Alex is out of control most of the time. She spends and spends and is always flaunting herself around other men. She should be with me, spending more time with me. She seems to forget that I have needs, and a wife should satisfy her husband’s needs.”

            In counseling it was quickly obvious that there were many sources of conflict. Ed could not see any positive things Alexis brought to their relationship, and he would not acknowledge responsibility for his part in their difficulties. He was preoccupied with money and Alexis’s expensive lifestyle. He showed little commitment to Alexis’s children or a family life in general. He wanted time with his new wife and his hobbies, and only gave lip service to being a stepfather. He wanted Alexis all to himself, and refused to sacrifice or compromise.

            Alexis was slow to recognize that she had brought a psychological monster into her family. He was self-employed because he did not like to work for others or deal with rules and authority figures. Alexis also hated his friends. “They’re crude and disgusting. I can’t stand having them in the house. They’re just pigs!” she declared. Early in the relationship, she let the kids get to know him, but he was a poor role model. Alexis kidded herself and kept hoping he would change so she could monopolize his attention. Her wishes, of course, never came true. Ed’s dysfunctional personality was not going to change—nor was Alexis’s—and because both she and Ed were takers, their pairing would never work.

            In counseling, Ed saw that things were not going his way and he stopped coming. He moved out of the house and took everything that was not nailed down. The honeymoon was over, and now Alexis would not get the attention she craved. For her future, unless she changes her histrionic styles—which is not likely—she will never have anything but superficial relationships. As for Ed, he is unlikely to change and does not really want a good relationship because he is a consumer who takes advantage of others for his own benefit. He only sought counseling to see if he could turn things to his advantage.

            Ed and Alexis’s marriage was based on locked-in personality traits that stressed taking, not giving, and denial of the realities around them. There was little hope of communication, compromise, and empathy, fundamental pillars of any healthy relationship.

            In the 1970s there was a debate in psychology fueled by Mark and Linda Sobell’s position on the question, “Can the alcoholic learn to drink socially?” The Sobells said their research suggested the answer is “Yes.” The other side of the argument was represented by rehabilitation groups like Alcoholics Anonymous. Such programs are based on the view that the alcoholic brain is addicted to alcohol, and moderate consumption is virtually impossible to achieve. Any success will be short-lived, and over time the alcoholic will return to uncontrollable drinking.

            When you think about it, the Sobell’s suggestion is strange. If someone has a problem with alcohol consumption, why would they want to focus their coping efforts on moderating their consumption of what’s causing their problem? Isn’t there always a chance of “slipping” out of the moderation? Why would someone want to take that chance? If Joe’s drinking has caused him to lose his job, self-respect, and family, and he has been arrested for DUI three times, isn’t trying to teach him moderate drinking gambling with disaster? You want Joe to learn moderate drinking and hope that the moderation lasts? You want to gamble that there will be no chance of a “slip” into the former habits? That’s crazy. Wouldn’t a safer approach be for Joe to accept, “I can’t control my drinking. I must take better control of my life by abstaining completely. That’s the only way I’ll stay out of trouble.”

            I see an analogy here with the global warming debate. People ask, “Is global warming real? If so, is it caused by us?” Is that the focus you want, looking for someone to blame for the rise in annual earth temperature? Isn’t that focus irrelevant to the core issue: reducing carbon emissions to give us cleaner air to breathe, and better able to survive natural events like storms, floods, and fires? Shouldn’t we see laws to reduce global warming as showing that we can exercise some control and oversee our environment better? How many people get all stressed out fighting and arguing about whether climate change is real or not, man-made or not, or some dastardly plot by Big Brother to subjugate all of us into mindless slaves? Why do we feel so compelled to take an issue that impacts our physical and psychological well-being, and force it into a political conflict? Shouldn’t the focus be on strategizing with new and emerging industries and technologies to develop an environmental plan for the future? Wouldn’t that be a great example of effective coping by empowering us to exercise some control over our physical and psychological welfare?

Alcoholics can learn to drink socially; the earth isn’t warming. In a coping context, those arguments are examples of losing focus on the core issue. In one case our focus should be on maximizing an alcohol abuser’s prospects for a safe and productive life; in the other case the focus should be on keeping our “home” safe and productive. Here’s our coping lesson: To cope effectively with a problem, you must define the parameters of the problem and focus your coping strategies within those parameters. Don’t let others distract you and lead you into irrelevant areas. Don’t distract yourself with ego-defense mechanisms like denial and rationalization. Accept the reality of your issues; face them, and focus on developing specific actions to empower yourself to meet your challenges.

Do you ever feel you have a lot of positive traits, but you have trouble expressing them in your daily living? Frustrating, isn’t it? This disconnect between who you believe you are and what you exhibit to others is a danger signal that you are not coping very well. Here is a case study that shows the potential serious consequences of this disconnect.

Joe is a young adult who has been in outpatient psychotherapy for a couple of months. In the past he has seen two other counselors and two psychiatrists, and taken numerous prescriptions for antidepressants and mood stabilizers, all without much success. He said the psychiatric medications helped somewhat with his depression, but not his unhappiness. His comment reminds us that depression and unhappiness are relatively independent states, although they overlap; people can be unhappy without being depressed, but clinically depressed people are invariably unhappy. Joe’s statement that separates his depression from his unhappiness is typical of those who are ambivalent about living. Joe, for instance, describes himself as “smart, funny and attractive,” yet says, “I can’t get myself to feel these ways.” This comment is a very telling signal that anyone having coping problems should watch for carefully: you feel you have positive traits, but you don’t experience them in your daily living.

Joe recalls being, in his words, “normal” until reaching the teen years; at this time in his life he remembers becoming unhappy and introverted. “High school was miserable. I’m glad it’s over.” During his teens Joe was unable to assert his individuality and identity. Independence frightened him and he found it increasingly hard to make decisions and take responsibility for his actions. He felt alone, and reacted with self-defeating and self-destructive actions: he withdrew from others, abused alcohol and drugs, and engaged in unprotected sex with multiple partners. He became dissatisfied with himself, and developed very low self-esteem. “I really felt guilty because I wasn’t growing normally.”

Joe was adrift and had no clear purpose in life. He admitted he had no dreams or future goals. He said, “I don’t see myself living a normal life.” During one counseling session he blurted out, “I want to be struck by lightning or have some kind of freak accident.” When asked, “If you didn’t wake up tomorrow would that be okay?” He replied; “Well, yeah, I’d be dead so it wouldn’t matter.” Asked, “At the end of a tough day, who can you relate to and reach out for comfort?” he replied, “My cats.” The thing to note here is that Joe’s drift into a purposeless life began in his teen years. Now in his 30s, he has had nearly two decades of approaching life in this lackadaisical way. A lot of self-sabotaging habits have had a chance to strengthen; as they became more entrenched, they became more difficult to confront and modify.

The hard thing about Joe’s case is that there are no glaring early childhood issues that seem to have set things in motion. Joe himself said that until adolescence, his life was fairly conventional, “normal.” However, during his teen years, a tough period of storm and stress for nearly everyone, he had no guidance from role models to help him develop some achievement motivation, purpose, and social adjustment. His therapist says, however, that there are things to work with, notably Joe’s description of himself as “smart, funny, and attractive.” The counseling plan involved helping him coordinate these beliefs with his actions to become more assertive in confronting his life challenges.

As a general rule, remember that effective coping requires honest self-discovery and awareness of your strengths. Unfortunately, if you don’t work at translating those traits into productive actions, you will have no anchor to reality. This process is crucial: If you cannot “translate yourself” into concrete and positive actions, you will feel you have nowhere to go.

Every January my wife notices that her gym is more crowded than usual with a lot of unfamiliar faces. “Resolutions people,” she tells me, “They’ll be gone by March.” Her prediction generally comes true for nearly all the newcomers. How come? Why don’t New Year’s resolutions last?

“Saturday, January 9^th, I’m joining a gym.” There’s a problem right out of the gate. If you tie your resolution to a specific date, you’re just focusing on a date; you’re not motivated; you’re procrastinating, just kicking the can down the road. Picking a date is artificial. “I’m going to work out more to make me lose weight and get in better shape.” We’ve got two problems here: First, you’re putting the cart before the horse, using the resolution (“work out more”) to motivate you (“make me lose weight.”). Resolutions must be the result of motivation to do something, not the catalyst for generating motivation. “The boss invited me to join in a jog last week and I nearly died of exhaustion. That’s no way to get a promotion. I must get in better shape to keep up with him.” You want to improve your chance of getting a promotion now becomes the motivation for the resolution—running more to get in better shape. It always helps to connect your resolution to a specific motivator: “Warm weather will be here soon and I want to look good at the pool. I’ve got to join a gym”; “I’m in a wedding in three months and I want to fit into a smaller dress. I need to join a gym.” The second problem is that the workout-more resolution is too vague. “I need to be in better shape, so I’m going to work out more.” Work out more? Get specific. Make a specific routine involving repetitions, muscle areas, and specific days. To have any chance of success, a resolution must involve specific doable actions: Lose weight? “I will eat a piece of fruit—an apple or a pear—for lunch instead of a sandwich”; “I will walk my neighborhood for 30 minutes every day.”

Resolutions are often unrealistic. You make grandiose, unattainable resolutions (“Be able to run a marathon by Spring”; “Lose 30 lbs. by February,”) and you also believe that you’re reinventing yourself, creating a new you. That’s unrealistic thinking. “I’m going to run two miles every morning before leaving for work so I can qualify for the local marathon in eight weeks.” That’s crazy. “I’m going to reinvent myself—create a new me. For starters I will lose 30 lbs. by February.” Once again, unrealistic thinking.

A good way to make sure that your resolutions are realistic is to connect them to your values. Specifically, you must engage in values-oriented thinking and make your actions consistent with that thinking. “I love being with my family [your value], but I put off spending more time with my kids and spouse” [an action]. “My job brings me little personal satisfaction [your value], but I put off looking for another one” [an action]. Can you see the disconnect between values and actions? When making a resolution, first identify your values, then devise a plan that will help you coordinate those values with compatible actions. “I value my health and the welfare of my family, my obesity is bad for both, so I must lose weight.” I knew a young man who was morbidly obese at nearly 400lbs. When his widowed mother became sick and had to be briefly hospitalized, he realized that if she became unable to care for herself, he would want to do so. He greatly valued his mother’s welfare “But,” he thought, “how can I care for mom if I can’t even tie my own shoelaces?” Over the next two years, he lost 220lbs.

Aaron is ready. He resolves that this year he is going to find a new job. Sure, it was the same resolution he made a year ago but this time he’s serious. Plus, he says the economy is looking better. Sorry, Aaron, but you are showing us how not to make a resolution, how notto attack a challenge: First, you have an excuse for last year’s failure—you weren’t serious last year, but this year you are; the excuse says you have not accepted the reality of your situation; if you did, you wouldn’t need to say you’re serious. Second, you focus on external factors like the economy, rather than on what you may have done wrong to fail in your job search last year. In other words, you haven’t taken accountability for your actions. You have a lousy strategy based on chance external factors, and you haven’t worked on a plan of action that corrects previous mistakes.

The keys to being successful with New Year’s resolutions are no different than the keys for being successful when dealing with any stress in your life: (1) Accept your current situation and be accountable for evaluating your role in it; (2) make a plan of action that results from your motivation to change, not a plan designed to motivate you; (3) include realistic, attainable, and specific actions and goals in your plan; (4) connect your plan to your values; (5) begin now, not at some future date.