Psychology and Stress

Did you know that, compared to non-churchgoers, people who regularly attend church services, pray, and read scripture are more likely to have low blood pressure and strong immune systems? That they less likely to suffer depression from stressful life events? That if they do get depressed, they are more likely to recover? That they have a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer?

Sounds like religion is a winner, doesn’t it? But, before you head to church and praise the lord, let’s dig into this information a bit. It would appear that religious faith provides health benefits for folks because their faith system, their spirituality if you will, is part of an overall approach to life they have developed. Sincerely and intrinsically spiritual people – we use “spiritual” to emphasize that we don’t mean those who follow a particular church or denomination – tend to have positive thinking styles about life. Events in their lives are not perceived as random and accidental, but as part of an overall pattern or plan. Furthermore, unpleasant circumstances are seen as challenges to be confronted, not as something beyond their control and potentially devastating.

Psychological studies show that spiritual people exhibit many of the traits we talk about in this blog: They tend to accept themselves and others as they are; they accept their responsibilities, and can enjoy themselves and live relatively free of guilt; they function in reality; they see the value of taking care of their bodies by following health-enhancing behaviors. In short, their sincere and intrinsic spirituality encourages them to appreciate and participate in life, following practices that we know assist in effective coping.

There’s no secret to maximizing the probability of being physically and emotionally healthy and feeling good. These states evolve and emerge from focusing on those parts of your life that are under your control: your actions, thoughts, and the perceptions and interpretations you make about events and people around you. A sense of coherence and purpose to life, and the confidence to meet the challenges of life, evolve from these lifestyles. We know of no anti-depressant or anti-anxiety drugs, or any other type of prescription or recreational substance, that has such positive, long-term psychological consequences.

Several times we have used the words “sincere” and “intrinsic” to clarify what we mean by faith and spirituality. Your internal compass, no matter where it comes from, must be genuine. Merely paying lip service to a Supreme Being just won’t cut it. You might go to church so someone will see you there and think more highly of you, but this use of religion to obtain non-spiritual goals will not translate into better physical and psychological health. For a personal faith system to be part of a healthy and productive lifestyle, that faith must be valued for itself, not for the material rewards, status, or power it may bring. Faith that brings good health and a feeling that you can exercise some control and direction in your life is a faith that is genuine and honest. Such faith can be a principal motivating force in your life, and something that influences your everyday behavior and decisions.

Spiritual people show many characteristics of being self-actualized: they have a sense of purpose, usually humanitarian in nature; they feel deeply connected to other people and have empathy for others; they can look at the world with an open mind, eager to find fresh ideas and perspectives; they do not rely on extreme points of view that stifle their flexibility to meet varying challenges; they have a strong sense of personal ethics and responsibility; they enjoy applying their problem-solving skills to real-world situations, avoiding emotion-based reactions when faced with stress.

Spirituality can help many learn to cope with stress, and there is even a form of counseling – pastoral counseling – that focuses on religious belief, but that doesn’t mean a belief in God is absolutely essential for the coping journey for all people. Discovering personal values, a sense of purpose, morality, ethics, civility, and developing a social conscience that focuses on the welfare of others can proceed independently of religious belief.

Greg entered therapy because he felt passive and dependent. “I always seem to be searching for someone to depend on because I have lousy self-esteem and no confidence in my own abilities. I have a good job, a loving family, but something’s missing. I go through the motions every day, but why do I bother? Is this all there is? What if I leave here today and step off the curb outside and get run over and killed by a car? Would it matter in the long run? Am I useful or needed? Sometimes I don’t think so.”

One day a co-worker, Ryan, came to Greg and asked him for help with a project he was working on. “I’m really having trouble with this, Greg, and I wish the boss hadn’t given it to me. I honestly don’t have much confidence in my ability to do it.” Greg was immediately interested because he felt a connection to Ryan. “When he said he didn’t have confidence in himself I related because that was me, too. Over the next couple of weeks, I helped him out and found myself working on his poor self-esteem. I found myself saying things my own counselor had been saying to me over the past three months in my sessions. It was amazing. One day I realized that I was being something of a counselor for Ryan, and at the same time, doing that was therapeutic for me. I began to understand what empathy really was, and how my empathy for Ryan was helping him and helping me! Like I said, it was amazing.”

Spirituality can help in the empathy process but it’s not essential to discovering the meaning of empathy. Empathy is not sympathy, but a level of understanding that benefits both giver and receiver. Empathetic service to others helps eliminate the need for a dominating figure to run your life; it eliminates the need to seek artificial chemical crutches to help you cope by giving you the beauty and grace of other people; it helps you enjoy self-fulfilling discoveries along a meaningful and enjoyable road of life as a part of humanity. If your spirituality helps you on that journey, that’s great. But if you don’t feel you’re a spiritual person, that’s OK; don’t give up. Greg was not a spiritual person, but circumstances helped him discover how service to others benefits both giver and receiver.

Billy is 15 and his father is in jail – again. He’s talking with one of his friends about it, who says, “It must be tough having a dad who’s in jail. Doesn’t it make you feel ashamed?” Billy answers, “My dad has had some tough breaks. But you don’t get it. He’s really a great dad. He’s always asking me about school and how I’m doing in baseball. He cares for me; he gives me advice; he watches out for me.”

Tom is showing a neighbor his new car. The neighbor comments, “I’m surprised you got that model, Tom. Didn’t you read that it gets lousy mileage?” Tom is momentarily stunned because he did not know about the mileage study. He says, “Ah, that study wasn’t a good one. Besides, I got this car because of the incredible braking system and other safety features. They’re the best on the market. Let me show you.”

It’s not a good day for Mabel. After years of appeal of his death sentence for killing 8 people in a mass shooting, Mabel’s son will be executed this day at 6pm. Mabel is being interviewed by the local news, and asked if she’s still hopeful her son will get a reprieve from the Governor or a judge. Mabel says, “He’s a good boy. Always took care of his family and his friends. He was so generous and kind. It’s just too bad he had to kill all those people.”

Jared’s wife asks him how he feels about the politician he voted for being indicted by a grand jury for misuse of campaign funds. “I told you he was a no-good crook,” she says, “but you didn’t believe me.” Jared replies, “Oh, come on, grand juries would indict a ham sandwich if the Attorney General asked them to. Besides, you can’t tell me that my guy has been a poor representative. He’s in town all the time holding town-hall meetings. He works with local charities; he got the legislature to approve money for that bridge project; he’s supported the cops with their crime prevention program. He’s done more for this area than I ever thought he would.”

            These are four examples of the power of the psychological process called cognitive dissonance. When a person holds an attitude or performs an action that is totally inconsistent with an event – the dad I love and respect goes to jail; the car I bought after thorough study is a klunker; my beautiful son is a murderer; the guy I voted for may be a crook – the result is dissonance, a very uncomfortable feeling that you may not be as smart as you think you are. The theory of cognitive dissonance predicts that you will be motivated to get rid of the dissonance.

            The simplest way to reduce dissonance is to change your attitude about your judgment: I was wrong about dad; I have poor judgment when buying a car; I raised a murderer; I let that politician fool me. Simplest? Yes. Most comfortable psychologically? No way! The last thing we frail humans want to do is change our positive attitude about ourselves to a more negative attitude. Oh, sure, when appropriate some folks have the personality strength and self-esteem to do the attitude change, but most people do not. So how do they reduce the dissonance?

            According to the theory of cognitive dissonance developed by Leon Festinger, if you hold an attitude that just isn’t consistent with how things turn out – “I raised my kid to be honest, but he got caught shoplifting” – you can change your attitude about your childrearing ability and admit you did a lousy job; or, you can blame your son for not listening to you; or, you can discount the seriousness of his action; or, you can identify additional positive traits in your son that outweigh his negative behavior. One thing for certain: People are least likely to choose the first alternative and change their attitude about themselves; most people divert blame away from themselves when dissonance occurs. In our original four examples, for instance, each case involves reducing dissonance by finding additional positive features in the person or object: Bill focuses on his jailed dad’s positive parenting traits; Tom diverts attention away from gas mileage to safety features; Mabel says her murdering son is a pillar of generosity and affection; and Jared notes a variety of positive actions shown by his indicted candidate.

            The power of dissonance in the coping process should not be underestimated. How many times have you heard someone say, “How can he continue to support that guy?” Or, “When is that family going to admit that they have a crook on their hands and they need to stop enabling her?” Maybe the answer is, “Because the support and enabling are in the service of dissonance to protect one’s fragile ego-strength.” In other words, the inappropriate actions serve to reduce dissonance and make the person feel good over the short run. The problem, however, is that over the long run, those inappropriate actions interfere with behavior flexibility, which is often what one needs to cope well with stress when attitude change about oneself is necessary. Thus, whenever you are confronted with a situation that poses a direct challenge to your self-esteem, once you decide on an action you need to evaluate if you are under the influence of cognitive dissonance.

            Mark got a call from his son who’s away at college. “Dad, they’re suspending me for a semester. They say I stole money from the cafeteria, but I didn’t.” Mark told his son to make an appointment with the Dean for the next day. “I can get there around 11. We’ll meet with the Dean and appeal the ruling.” They met with the Dean the next day. Mark’s son was on work study and he worked at a cash register in the cafeteria. Mark told the Dean, “I’m sure you’re mistaken. My boy would never steal, and he says he didn’t do it.” The Dean showed them a closed-circuit recording that left no doubt the son took a $20 bill out of the register and put it in his pocket. After about 10 seconds of silence Mark said, “I’m sure he intended to pay it back. He doesn’t deserve suspension.” Mark’s image of himself as a parent who raised a son to be honest, was totally at odds with his son’s dishonesty. Mark was under the influence of cognitive dissonance, and it motivated his inappropriate enabling defense of his son. Rightly so, that defense failed. The Dean upheld the suspension. The son transferred to another college, free to steal again. Mark, succumbing to dissonance, left angry at the Dean, but deep down, angrier – and ashamed – at himself.

In his biography of Ulysses Grant, Ron Chernow describes the surrender discussions between Grant and Lee at Appomattox Court House. At one point, Lee took note of Grant’s aide, a Seneca Indian, Ely Parker. Shaking Parker’s hand, Lee said, “I’m glad to see one real American here.” Parker replied, “We are all Americans.” Parker’s comment is an example of the coping strategy of linkage between people. When people are linked, connected, they are more likely to engage in teamwork, more likely to trust one another, and more likely to put a group goal ahead of individual needs.

Cooper works in the Human Resource Management division of his company. This division consists of 23 employees, and every September the director of the division takes the entire office on a one-day retreat. They assemble at 7am at an isolated recreational and meeting facility in the country. They plan the day’s activities, which consist of both outdoor games and indoor group discussions; all of it is designed to link employees together in a bond of trust, shared identity, and common purpose. They divide into three small groups for the morning activities. After lunch, the entire division assembles for a two-hour discussion of what they discovered in the morning session, and how they could increase productivity on the job by working with each other.

Here are some comments from one retreat:

“Sharing my ideas with others, and hearing their ideas, helped me learn a lot about the company and how each worker could contribute to production.”

“Getting together like that and having others actually listen to my ideas gave me a sense of ownership, that I really was appreciated.”

“I found it was OK to laugh, and talk, and share. The bosses really did want to hear what we had to say. It said a lot about how they valued the workers. It seemed to make most of us more committed to the company.”

“I felt a sense of belonging because there was a bond of trust and respect.”

Always remember that when evaluating your place in a group, you are not the primary factor in the equation; it’s not all about you, and others must be given their place. Equally important, keep in mind that others remember you for how you make them feel. Make them feel worthwhile and important in your life, and they will be there for you. These attitudes foster linkage with others, and it is essential for good coping. When troubled with stress and anxiety, don’t always try and work it through on your own. Sometimes that works, but there’s no doubt that a reliable and trustworthy support group can provide inspiration, confidence, and a sense of purpose.

When we hear the word “vulnerable,” we automatically think of weakness, exposed, at risk, even helpless. Can it also, however, be a source of strength for someone?

Alice is 26. She’s a college graduate and has a good job in sales with a software design company. She’s been in counseling for the last 4 months for, as she put it, “low self-esteem, terrible confidence, and generally feeling like I’m a big loser. It seems I take everything to heart and it makes me so emotionally vulnerable to any guy who comes along. Any guy who says he likes me, enjoys being around me……well, I’m just a puddle of jello in his hands. Forget it. I grow so dependent on him that he finally gets disgusted and drops me. Like I said, I’m the queen of rejects.”

There’s a positive side to Alice, though. She’s a popular employee who is described by her supervisors as “loyal, and someone you can count on to get the job done.” She has a wide circle of friends who are always there for her – as she is for them. She does charity volunteer work, and is extremely well-liked. As one of her close friends puts it, “Alice is a joy to be around. She’s really modest…almost to a fault, and she will walk through fire to help a friend. Alice’s problem is when some guy comes on to her. When that happens, he becomes her world. We warn her how she gets too involved too fast, but she can’t help herself. So, we kind of wait for the rejection and try and be around to help her pick up the pieces. One of these days she’ll meet a real guy who is interested in her, not in what she can do to keep him happy.”

Alice’s counselor points out one thing to her on a regular basis: Her vulnerability gets her into emotional turmoil in her romantic ventures, but in most other aspects of her life that same vulnerability is the source of her empathy toward others, her amazing ability to understand their ups and downs, and how she can be with them in a positive way in both their emotional highs and lows. In short, her vulnerability is one of her strengths because so often it directs her to act in positive, constructive, and socially helpful ways.

Bridget is 29. She’s a college graduate and has a good job with a company that designs websites. All her work is done at home online. That’s probably a good thing because Bridget has poor interpersonal skills. She is harsh, tough, unemotional, guarded, and untrusting. She cuts off relationships – whether they be with a potential friend or a romantic interest – before they get serious. Bridget fears exposing herself to others because she believes they will use her and take advantage of her. Not surprisingly, she has no real close friends

Unlike Alice, Bridget is not at all vulnerable to emotional entanglements. When it comes to emotional expression or involvement, she has the ultimate weapon: Avoid, avoid, avoid. Bridget has never been emotionally scarred because she keeps her emotions hidden away in a psychologically defensive vault.

Alice and Bridget represent to some degree extremes of the emotional spectrum, one at the neurotic end (emotional Alice), the other at the sociopathic end (emotionless Bridget). Everyone occupies a position somewhere between those two extremes. One thing to take away from this example is the fact that being at either extreme end can be fraught with danger because the person is less likely to adopt more moderate actions to satisfy their emotional needs. Alice has successfully done so with her other-directed social activities. Her behavior is fairly flexible – unless men are involved. Then her coping strategy is rigid and unchanging. Bridget’s lack of flexibility, on the other hand, is not limited to a particular type of social interaction; her inflexibility permeates all her social interactions, which makes her coping skills limited and unsuccessful. She has only one strategy in her interpersonal relations – avoidance, a strategy that brings her isolation and few opportunities for psychological growth.

Another lesson in this example is that emotional vulnerability, per se, need not make you weak when it comes to coping with stress. One of Alice’s close friends was killed in a car accident. Alice was grief-stricken. A friend was trying to comfort her and said, “Don’t you wish we could avoid grief.” Through her tears, Alice answered, “No. That would mean I had never loved.” Bridget would probably find that answer difficult to comprehend.

1. Accept who you are, even those traits and emotions you may not like.
2. Keep your perceptions of events around you independent of your wants.
3. Take responsibility for who you are and the actions you take.
4. Communicate with others calmly, coherently and honestly.
5. Be flexible when different situations require different emotions and actions.
6. Develop a core base of values that includes traits like integrity, honor, honesty, morality, and a social conscience.
7. Use your values to cultivate humility, and recognize that life is not always about you.
8. Allow your humility and communication with others to blend into empathy for others.

Donna had an alcoholic, lazy father, and a co-dependent mother who generally lived in denial about problems in the family. The mother was very good at making Donna feel guilty if she did not help out around the house. She also sought sympathy from Donna for being a martyr in putting up with Donna’s no-good father.

Donna remembers her father as an alcoholic since she was twelve years old: “He was a lawyer but was unemployed much of the time. He sat around and watched TV all day. Mom basically enabled this behavior by acting like nothing was wrong or that he just wasn’t even around. It was weird. I’ve often wondered why I felt unemotional during my high school years. I figure it was because we were ‘guilted’ into not expressing ourselves; saying anything about dad’s alcoholism was an unspoken ‘no’ at home. In our house, emotional expression in general seemed to be stifled. I learned to be a self-sacrificer – put my needs below peace and harmony at home.”

Donna met Phil while living at home and enrolled in college. He was a student at a different college, but close to Donna’s. After they had been dating for about a year, Donna began going to counseling sessions because she was having problems in the relationship. Phil came from a family that had a lot of money, and he got pretty much whatever he wanted. His entitlement expectation grew and continued into adulthood, and he developed many narcissistic tendencies. Donna felt Phil was trying to control her life, watching her every move, and making considerable demands on her. For instance, he was calling her on the phone several times a day, asking what she was doing, not in a casual, “How is everything?” tone, but in a confrontational, “Are you behaving?” tone. When asked about the obsessive calling, Phil said he could not stop himself. He said, “I heat up. I can’t control myself. I just have to know what you’re up to.”

Donna stayed with Phil for more than three years. In spite of the rough moments, she found him mostly sweet, fun, and romantic. It took her a long time to realize that his kindness was usually serving a purpose for him: he was simply a very manipulative, controlling, dominating type. For instance, after a big fight he would be sweet to her, crying and saying, “I’m sorry, I love you so much.” At other times he would threaten to end the relationship. He would constantly demand that she prove her feelings for him. Donna says, “He was the best boyfriend, and the worst boyfriend.” The bad times with Phil were really bad, but the occasional good times gave her hope and kept her going, avoiding the reality that she was in a losing battle.

Finally, encouraged by a supportive counselor and group of friends, Donna gave Phil an ultimatum: Change his ways or she was walking. Phil kicked the manipulative moves into high gear, but she stuck to her guns, although only with great effort and help. She eventually had to have her friends next to her to help break up with him over the phone. She said, “I would not have been strong enough to break up with him alone and face-to-face. He was just too strong.” Free from Phil, Donna continued in counseling and gained insight into her own actions, and those of her mother and father, whose influence put her on the road to becoming a self-sacrificer. In the context of our “Gang of Eight,” Donna had to fight multiple attacks on her coping efforts: Her reality was based on submission to her father’s dysfunction, and later to Phil’s, whose domineering personality perfectly fit the father’s model. She could not communicate with Phil in a productive way. Her humility was based on weakness, not empowered ego strength. Her values were submerged in Phil’s dysfunctional control. In the end, however, Donna broke away from Phil’s influence by turning to a support system that could be objective about Phil and his negative effect on her. That support system helped her re-build her Gang of Eight, and begin coping with her stressors in constructive and productive ways.

People generally treat you like you’re a successful person. They compliment you on how much you accomplish, and how you help others. But no matter how much they praise you, you still feel like a failure. And you let yourself know it with ample helpings of self-criticism. If these words describe you, let’s ask that obvious question, “What can I do to give myself some credit and stop being so self-critical?” Our entry of June 25, 2021 described a technique used by therapist Michael Church to help his clients improve their self-esteem. Could you adapt that technique to reducing your self-criticism?

Church’s exercise is pretty simple. He asks clients to draw a circle and divide it into pie-like slices that represent the main areas of their life. He says, “Clients eventually section off spaces relevant to job or school, friendship, family, girlfriend/boyfriend, intelligence, physical attractiveness, morality, and health. I discuss their choices with them to make sure that they are comfortable that all pertinent aspects of self-concept in their life are included. Then, I ask them to shade the areas where they see themselves with at least a modicum of self-esteem. I have never had anyone fail to shade in at least a few areas, even those who claim to have ‘no self-esteem.’ This part of the exercise helps them realize that contrary to what they believe, their low self-esteem does not pervade all aspects of their life. Then, we work on identifying actions they can take within productive and proactive goal-setting guidelines.” Church’s exercise stresses action. As he puts it, “The best way to increase self-esteem is not by positive thinking, but by doing things that bring about positive results.”

Sounds good, but could you adapt this technique to your feelings that you are a failure? Once again, draw a circle and divide it into slices. Now let each slice represent an action you perform on a regular basis – activities might include time with your kids, spouse, or friends; projects at work; home maintenance; hobbies. Next shade those areas in which you feel that you do pretty well. Be objective about it. If you build something as a hobby, do others look at it and say, “That’s pretty nice”? Do your kids seem to enjoy doing things with you? Does the boss compliment you now and then with “Good job”? The point is, you’re likely to discover that everything you do is not a disastrous failure; in fact, many things you do probably bring you satisfaction, and enjoyment to others. In other words, your tendency for excessive self-criticism might not be justified by the “data” right in front of you.

The first step in dealing with a tendency to be overly self-critical is to understand that it’s easy to inadvertently teach yourself to be self-critical. In fact, each time you put yourself down, the tendency to do so gets stronger. John says he’s an angry person, and it’s ruining his marriage. “When I get into a spat with Eva [his wife] I usually storm out of the house and head to the corner bar to have a couple of pops and cool down. I sit there chugging my beers and telling any of my buddies who might be there, or Al [the bartender], what a jerk I am. I have this great wife and all I do is upset her. I’m such a loser.”

Two things are happening here. First, John is teaching himself to drink and put himself down when he’s angry, because those are the actions he practices when he’s angry. Second, John is also teaching himself to be angry and criticize himself when he’s drinking. This is an especially dangerous association when it comes to coping with stress because it creates a self-fulfilling prophesy. Imagine one afternoon when John and Eva have some friends over for a cookout. John is in a jovial mood but when he hits his third beer, he begins to express the emotions he has been inadvertently practicing at the bar – being angry because he’s a lousy husband and doesn’t understand why Eva puts up with him. This pity-parade cookout is not going to end well.

John, of course, is trapped in an emotion-based approach to his self-criticism. Anger, self-blame, and drinking have all become associated in a two-way street where each action and emotion causes, reinforces, and results from the others. What John needs to do is take a more problem-based approach that involves analyzing his actions more objectively: Work with Eva to keep open lines of communication that do not involve alcohol; identify his values and clearly-stated goals that enhance those values; and practice positive behaviors when angry and frustrated that bring him a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment, not self-humiliation.

Remember, coping is all about the actions you perform. To cope well, you need to evaluate objectively how appropriate those actions are, and to focus on the conditions under which you practice – and strengthen – those actions.

Any parent knows that children learn a great deal by observing others, and then they show this learning by imitating what they observed. I (CB) will never forget a time when my daughter was playing with her Barbie Townhouse, and apparently Barbie did something that was against the rules. My daughter began scolding Barbie and I was stunned as I realized, “Good lord, that’s me!” Yep, I heard exactly what I say to my daughter when I’m scolding her. She had me down pat: same voice tone, same words, same articulation, same everything!

            In the 1970s, American society – and Congress – took notice of psychologist Albert Bandura’s research on social learning by observation, and began to question the appropriateness of violence in TV and movies, especially when likely to be viewed by children and teenagers. For instance, Bandura’s work showed that aggressive tendencies in children can increase after watching films of aggressive behavior in an adult.

            The relationship is not simple, however. Additional research showed that we cannot merely place children in front of a TV, let them watch violence, and turn them into bullies or worse. Whether or not a child imitates violent behavior on TV depends on a host of other factors: Did the child see the TV depiction as real, or enacted? (If real, imitation more likely.) Did the child identify with the aggressive characters, and see them as heroes to be admired? (If yes, imitation more likely.) Was the violence rewarded? (If yes, imitation more likely.) Was the child’s current home environment relatively cold, unloving, unsupportive, and rejecting, with harsh physical punishment used by parents? (If yes, imitation more likely). Similar findings occurred with adults. That is, adults were more likely to imitate violent portrayals in realistic settings like news and documentary programs; when the violence was justified; when it was graphic and realistic; and when the viewer closely identified with the perpetrator, and saw them as similar to the viewer.

            There are important lessons in these results that are relevant to coping with stress, and learning how to live a life with purpose and a social conscience. First, it’s clear that we’re not going to show a young person a violent movie, or give them a book about transgenders, or assign homework about racism, and produce a violent adult, or a person who will question their gender identity, or a racist. There are multiple other factors that must be present and, in fact, factors that provide teaching moments for supportive parents, mentors, teachers, coaches, etc. about the value of critical thinking. As we discussed earlier (2.3.2023), many parents bypass the teaching moment and decide to keep controversial material from their kids by banning books and controlling the local school board. Doing so, however, robs those youngsters of the chance to develop flexibility in their perceptions, attitudes, and behavior, flexibility that is essential to coping with the challenges that life inevitably presents. Restricting a child’s learning opportunities also makes it tough for enlightened parents to instill flexibility by grabbing onto those teaching moments provided by controversial material.

            Second, the data on social learning through observation show us the importance of empathy in understanding and interacting with others. If we can’t see things from another’s perspective, how can we hope to communicate with them in positive and productive ways? If a White, male, heterosexual high-school senior has never been exposed to the history of racism and misogyny in the US, or read about the dynamics of fluid sexual identity in a few individuals, or the inner conflicts driving bullies, how can he relate to individuals in those groups? Educational exposure to those other perspectives is not designed to make our senior student want to become a female, or a bully, or a racist, or a homosexual; it’s designed to increase understanding and empathy, so he can realize that those with other perspectives do not pose a threat to him, and may themselves suffer from emotional turmoil.

            The coping lessons here are clear: flexibility in your attitudes and actions is essential to coping successfully with stressors in your life; without that flexibility, you will have a difficult time relating to and interacting with others in productive ways. You will always be confronted with options when you are conflicted. If you are rigid and unbending in your beliefs about what’s going on around you, it will be impossible to choose the options that are best for you in the long run. Also, if you cannot understand others, you will be forced to limit your contacts to those who reinforce your rigid beliefs. Over the long run, that strategy will bring you discomfort, negative emotions, and self-sabotaging actions that can compromise your physical and emotional well-being.

Psychologist Carl Rogers is generally associated with the concept of unconditional positive regard. The concept means acceptance and support of a person even when the person’s actions are inappropriate. You may not approve of someone’s behavior, but you can still approve of them as a human being. Parents often make this distinction to a child: “I will always love you, but I disapprove of this behavior and will not allow it in this house!”

 Rogers believed that success in counseling was more likely if the counselor provided the client with unconditional positive regard. He felt that the “no-strings” acceptance attached to clients would provide them with the confidence and support needed to obtain insight into their problems, and the motivation to pursue personal growth, greater self-understanding, and self-direction.

During my (CB) years as a college professor, I had many occasions when a student came to my office to discuss some “problem.” Sometimes the issue was critical – even emotionally dangerous – for the student, such as a rape, alcohol/drug abuse, concern over suicide, or physical bullying. In those cases, I referred the student to the Counseling Center, and I sometimes immediately accompanied them to make sure they followed through.

 On other occasions, the problem – while quite troubling for the student – was relatively less serious, such as, “How can I tell mom and dad I want to change my major?” “If I drop this course, am I a quitter?” “I got an F on the test and I’m afraid to see the teacher. Can I just email him?” “My boyfriend dumped me. I’m worthless.” In these cases, I learned over the years that the students generally knew what I would say, but they still needed to hear someone tell them it was OK to be feeling like they did. They were looking for some positive regard. Over the years they had heard parents and others tell them, “You shouldn’t feel that way.” In these cases, it was generally pretty easy for me to assure them that, “How you’re feeling is totally normal. In fact, I remember how I felt exactly the same in my freshman year in college when I faced a similar situation.” I could almost hear an audible, “Thank, God, I’m not weird,” from the students when I gave them such reassurance. And, the great thing about this relief was now they had the confidence to attack the problem. We would chat about the importance of meeting the issue head-on (such as, “No, do not email the professor. Go see her about the F and ask her straight up for suggestions on what you need to do differently to improve your performance.”), and in some cases I would point out for them resources the College provided to help them confront problems.

Providing unconditional positive regard definitely has its usefulness. There is, however, a danger in overdoing it. Some parents, for instance, become determined to make sure that their children never experience failure. They keep a close eye on the kids, and structure their environment to build self-esteem and trust by filling their kids’ lives with success. Unfortunately, this childrearing strategy is a corruption of unconditional positive regard because it’s unrealistic, and doesn’t build self-esteem and trust over the long run. Failure experiences are inevitable in life – and that’s a good thing because learning to cope with failure instills the learner with persistence, determination, dedication, and endurance, qualities that help the learner build a life of autonomy, purpose, meaning, humility, and satisfaction. Indulgence, on the other hand, instills one with dependency, passivity, helplessness, and self-loathing. And, these principles apply whether we’re talking about childrearing, friendships and romances, or any situation requiring coping with life’s stressors. Whatever the life challenge facing you, always be aware of the fine line between unconditional positive regard, and indulgence.

One day in July I received a call from a gentleman: “Dr. Brooks. My son ***** is your advisee, and I’m wondering if you could check for me why I haven’t received the tuition bill for the fall semester. I called the Business Office and they told me to check with my son, because he would have received the bill.” While we were talking, I reached into my advisee file and pulled out his son’s folder. I opened it and the first paper – dated one month earlier – was a letter to the student from the Academic Dean’s office advising him that because of low grades, he was suspended from the College for one year. Because of privacy laws, it was standard practice for the College to notify only the student of any matter concerning grades. What the student did with the information was up to the student. I thought, “Good lord, he never told dad he was suspended.” I collected my thoughts and said, “Mr. *****, there is information in your son’s file that I cannot share with you. I’m going to transfer you to the Dean’s office.”

I learned later from the Dean that the father was quite distraught, and very angry that his son did not share the information with him about the suspension. The father also said that he and his wife had always given their son considerable leeway to conduct his own affairs, and support him whenever he asked. The dad said, “I should have been tougher on him instead of always backing him up.”

Receiving positive regard is very comforting and reassuring. In the context of learning how to cope with stress, however, you must remember that such regard must not be used to prevent you from evaluating your actions with respect to accountability. You must accept the responsibility to determine if your actions can be distinguished from your wants. That’s what functioning in reality means.

When politicians start telling us how to raise our kids and what to teach them, we’re in trouble. Case in point: Your county school board comes up with a list of books to be banned from the school libraries. Such a decision is usually made on moral grounds, although recently, political issues also get involved. Let’s ignore both moral and political issues, however, and ask what parallels we can draw between banning books and coping with stress.

Banning a book is analogous to denial. Let’s say there is some issue that you as a parent find disturbing (e.g., Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan in the early 20^th century), and there’s a book about it in your kids’ school library. So, you say, “Let’s just get rid of it. Why burden my kids with the unimportant information that there was a time in this country when the KKK targeted Black people as undeserving of the American dream?”

In 1959 I was 15-years-old and a student in the 10^th grade in a prep school in New Jersey. I had a Black classmate (first Black friend I ever had) and we were talking one night about racism. My position was that he had the same opportunities in America that I had. He showed me a little green book, and I said, “OK, a bunch of restaurants and motels. What about it?” He replied, “When my parents drove me up here from Louisiana, we needed this book to tell us which places would feed us or give us a room for the night. Most places would not welcome Negroes.” I was incredulous and said, “But your dad is a university president!” [Grambling University] My friend laughed and said, “His skin is black; that’s all that mattered.” I spent the next couple of weeks talking with my history teacher and getting some books out of the library on the KKK and Jim Crow laws. I even did a paper on it. The books and teacher support were there, but it’s interesting that up to that point I had had no formal education in these matters. I was naïve, living in a fantasy White boy’s world. The discussion with my classmate began to shake me from that fantasy world. But I always remember a comment the history teacher wrote on my paper: “There are two sides to every story and the answer is usually in the middle. Find the middle ground and you’ll solve more problems.”

The idea of banning books for school libraries is often appropriate. From a neuro-psychological perspective, the college-student brain is probably equipped to handle the complexities of topics like same-sex marriage; the junior high-school brain, probably not. But where we run into problems from a stress and coping point of view is when book banning is designed to serve an educational philosophy that values indoctrination of the young mind. Many parents feel that their kids should not grow up being told they live in a racist society, and that there are moral and ethical positions saying racism is wrong. The parents’ concern, however, is not whether their kids’ brains can comprehend the complexities of racism, but whether they should be exposed to such an idea at all. From a coping perspective, that’s not a healthy childrearing strategy.

Why not? Kirk has a newborn son, Ken. Kirk plans to teach his son how to be a man. “I’m not going to have him showing any of that wimpy girly crap, being sensitive and emotional and all that bs. Not my boy. He’s going to learn to be in charge, to be assertive and aggressive and stand up for himself.” Kirk is “banning” certain types of emotions for his son. He is restricting the emotional options Ken will have for dealing with situations. Thus, if Ken is in a situation – and he will be – that requires sensitivity, empathy, caring, tenderness, and other “wimpy girly crap,” he’s out of luck because he won’t know how to use those behaviors to cope with the situation. Effectively coping with stress requires having behavior options, but Ken’s range of coping options will be restricted. And that will cause him to get frustrated and angry, and he will blame the person who needs what he is unable to give. And Ken will begin a downward spiral of increased stress and aggressive actions directed at those he blames for his discomfort.

Politicians may ban books in school libraries for political reasons. In doing so, however, they also ban emotional growth in young people, and that will seriously compromise the future ability of those youth to cope with conflict. By the same token, if you cope with stress by banning (denying) some of your negative emotions, you will also compromise your ability to cope with challenges in your life. Don’t ban the emotional “books” of your psyche; they are a part of who you are. Banning them is self-denial – which will lead to self-hatred – which will lead to self-sabotage – which will make it difficult for you to lead a satisfying and productive life, and may even make you a danger to yourself and others.

By Therapist Michael Church, PhD

Do you take things personally? If you make a point at a meeting, and someone disagrees with you, do you internalize your dismay and spend the next several hours – and most of the night – ruminating over what that person said at the meeting? The problem with taking things too personally is that you are then confronted with jealousy, anger, suspicion, and other upsetting emotions. For many people, and in certain situations, these emotions can produce arguments like neighbor disputes and conflict with work colleagues, plus more serious consequences like rage, hate crimes, and violent domestic behavior.

It is important to remember that these are largely avoidable emotional outcomes if you work at being more objective, less impulsive, more patient with others, and better able to operate in problem-solving mode rather than emotion-based mode. For instance, if you make a point at a meeting, and someone strongly disagrees with you, if you respond in emotion-based mode – “You know, Joe, if you weren’t always so stubborn and oppositional, we could get a lot more done around here!” – communication will likely deteriorate quickly. If, on the other hand, you respond in problem-solving mode – “I hear your point, Joe, but I think we’re approaching the issue from different perspectives. Let’s see if we can get on the same page.” – you are more likely to stimulate productive cooperation.

Another danger from taking things personally is that you are likely to evaluate your own and others’ feelings and thoughts as good or bad. Thoughts and feelings, however, are not good or bad but, for the most part, are natural reflections of personality, moods, and experiences. They are normal both for you and for the other person. But, as soon as you go into extremist good or bad thinking, you enter a world of zero-sum subjective evaluation. You want to win and the other guy must lose, so the social interaction becomes a personal war from your perspective. That’s not a psychologically healthy way to interact with others because it prevents understanding, cooperation, and empathy.

Another coping danger from taking things personally is that you are more likely to take responsibility for what other people choose to do. This is particularly dangerous for parents. How many parents spend thousands of dollars for lawyers and fines because their adult child broke a law? How many let the kid come back home, and watch them sleep on the couch, doing little to get a job or help with chores? How many parents fall into this enabling trap because they feel guilty that their adult child is making bad choices? How many see their adult kid’s mistakes and – laden with guilt – think, “I should have raised this kid better. I was a poor parent.” This is faulty thinking. No parent does everything right, but the past is gone; your adult child is making their own choices in their present world. As long as you enable their self-sabotaging choices in the present, you are not helping them and you are certainly not helping yourself. Your coping task is not to ruminate over the past, but to decide what options are available to you right now. And in most circumstances like this one, the wisest choice is to force current reality on your “child,” and follow through with firm and even harsh action. You are not responsible for everything others do. Accountability is great, but keep it in perspective. Personal accountability is essential to good coping, but best done when the actions are under your control.

Our coping lesson is simple: Taking what others’ say too personally will throw you into a coping minefield. It will threaten your self-validity, foster self-sabotaging actions and thinking, and bring you all sorts of troublesome encounters.