Psychology and Stress

            Should you admit to a shortcoming? There’s no hard and fast answer to that question but there are definitely situations when honesty can serve you well. We are not advocating that you bare your soul for all to see, but sometimes admitting to a weakness can lead others to evaluate you more favorably. For example, imagine yourself in a job interview that goes like this:

Interviewer: “This job will require you to stand in front an audience from time to time and speak to them for about 30 minutes. Does that present any problems?” Now suppose you really do suffer some anxiety when you are in front of an audience. We don’t mean you faint or tremble uncontrollably and have to run out of the room; we simply mean you get nervous, self-conscious, and would prefer not to speak in front of people unless absolutely necessary. With those conditions in mind, let’s consider two possible replies to the interviewer’s question.

            Reply A: “Funny you should ask that. I have to give presentations for my present job and the truth is, I do get a little nervous and anxious when I’m speaking in front of people. Because of that, I try to do a lot of preparation. I try to practice and rehearse what I’m going to say. When I really prepare, I find I’m less likely to stutter or forget my train of thought. As long as I know in advance about having to give a presentation, I would say public speaking is not a major problem for me, although it wouldn’t be my favorite part of the job.”

            Reply B: “No, that requirement of the job doesn’t present a problem.”

            Are you secure enough to give Reply A, or will you fall back to Reply B and worry about your problem later? You may be torn here because you figure that if you give Reply A you might not get the job; if you give Reply B and get the job, you’re screwed down the road when you have to give speeches.

In many situations, when it comes to divulging a weakness, honesty is probably the best policy, a statement supported by psychological research. For instance, psychologists asked people to evaluate the application of a hypothetical college applicant. For one group of evaluators, the application included statements from both the student and guidance counselor that some of the applicant’s grades should have been better, that in a few courses he simply did not live up to his potential. For a second group of evaluators, no such statements occurred in the application materials. The results showed that evaluators who read that some of the applicant’s grades should have been better actually rated his grades overall more favorably than did evaluators who did not have the negative observation about the grades. In another interesting study, college students had to read a paragraph and rate it for clarity. For one group, the material was precededby a statement that the paragraph was somewhat confusing. For two other groups, an identical statement either came afterthe paragraph or was never given. The results showed that the first group (statement preceding) rated the paragraph as clearer than did the other two groups. One final study: Students listened to a taped lecture by a speaker with a heavy Austrian accent. For half the students, before beginning, the speaker admitted that he had a strong accent and hoped the audience could follow him; no such statement occurred for the other half of the listeners. The results showed that the students who heard the apology rated the speaker as clearer and having more years of speaking English than did the students who did not hear an apology.

            One thing to note in these studies is that admission of a weakness concerning some ability led to more positive evaluations of the individual being described, but the positive evaluation was specific to that ability. For instance, in the college applicant case, grades were judged more favorably when the applicant admitted they weren’t always the best, but SAT scores and other measures of performance were not rated more favorably. Similarly, the apologetic Austrian speaker was judged to have more experience with English, but not someone necessarily fluent in other languages. Thus, admitting a weakness is not automatically going to have someone see you as a better person in general. Therefore, if you’re going to be honest about a weakness, keep it specific to a particular trait or action.

            Last week we introduced the concept of differentiation as providing one answer to the question of why some relationships are long-lasting. Social psychologist David Schnarch says each individual has a level of “differentiation” that influences relationships. Simply put, if you are a differentiated person, you are able to maintain your individuality even when you are emotionally close to someone else; additionally, you allow your partner to do the same—to achieve and maintain their independence and individuality. The result is a relationship where each partner shares, cooperates, and compromises, but maintains their individual identity..

The concept of differentiation does not, however, answer the question, “Why do some people continue in relationships that are at best unsatisfying and, at worst, destructive to their well-being?” Those low in differentiation are narcissistic and demand attention and approval from their partner, forcing the partner to meettheir wants and needs; or they ignore the partner while “doing their own thing” and concentrating on their needs. This pattern of behavior is not typical of partners who are emotionally and/or physically abused. Jane is 30 years old and is physically abused by her husband now and then. She never knows when she will be hit, slapped, pushed to the floor, or thrown against a wall. She would like to end her marriage but says, “I have no job and nowhere go, but even if I did he’d find me and beat me. And I’ll never go to the cops because he said he’d kill me. I’m just totally helpless.” Helplessness can be a factor when a partner persists in a relationship that is damaging to their stability, self-esteem, and identity. Psychologist Martin Seligman developed the concept of Learned Helpless, which explains Jane’s inability to take control of situations. The unpredictability and inescapable circumstances of helpless people has taught them that there is nothing they can do, so why bother to fight it? Low self-esteem is also often involved in a failure to end a stale relationship. Those with low self-esteem may be satisfied with few rewards and large costs in a relationship. If one has low expectations for a relationship based on low self-esteem, it is easy for them to conclude they deserve no better than they are getting from the relationship, so they hang on.

 Another factor that explains why some persist in dangerous relationships is the childhood of the victim. Many married people are quick to view their spouse as adversaries because they  grew up in homes where this type of posture was the order of the day. Thus, this type of orientation is not only expected but tolerated. We see a deeper dynamic from childhood in the case of Maribeth, who was always uncomfortable with partners who were emotionally available and nurturing. She had never found supportive traits in her dad when growing up, so those traits in men were unfamiliar and scary to her. Because of this discomfort, she drifted to men who were distant and emotionally depriving, just like dear old dad!

Ending a relationship can also be hard to do if your friends or relatives tell you that you’re “right” for each other. You need to be careful whom you talk to about your relationship problems. John was 45 years old, but since junior high school he had always confided in his mother about his relationships He believed his wife of 5 years had married him “for my money and financial security,” and he suspected her of infidelity. She was also emotionally abusive and generally made him feel worthless and a failure. Incredibly, his mother convinced him their match was good for the family status, and his best solution was to have a couple of girlfriends on the side. The truth was, mom lived her life through her son, and she relished hearing about his “adventures.” John eventually found his way into psychological counseling and acquired some insight into mom’s own “issues.” He threw his wife out and divorced her, and cleverly handled mom with assurances that she would continue to be his confidante. He was, however, much more circumspect in how much he told her.

Some miserable spouses stay in a damaging marriage for the “sake of the kids.” This reason overlooks the possibility that the children could be spared the tension of living with fighting parents, and also deprives them of the opportunity to see how healthier and more positive relationships work. For example, in an extreme case, a woman in therapy said that when her last child was born she made a promise to herself that she would wait until the child was eighteen before divorcing her husband. This comment is mind-boggling! At the time of the birth of her son, the woman developed a strategic plan to wait 18 years and then end her marriage! Well, 18 years later she followed through with the divorce. Did she do anyone justice by this course of action? Interestingly, all of her children had been in psychiatric or psychological treatment. Of course, it is possible their instability occurred irrespective of mom’s long-range plan, but we can only wonder if staying in an acrimonious and loveless marriage had a negative effect on the kids. One thing for sure—her decision prevented both her and her husband from developing a social and emotional life, or even divorcing and moving on to perhaps a more stable relationship.

People in marital counseling often ask, “How do I know whether I should stay in this relationship?” It really isn’t that difficult to decide. In any relationship—marriage, cohabiting, or dating—if you are attracted to a person who helps you feel stronger, more adequate, productive, creative, better about yourself and closer to your friends and family, then stick with the relationship and nurture it. On the other hand, if your relationship pulls you down in these ways, ending it may be best for all involved.

What causes us to be attracted and attached to certain individuals and not others? With so many potential mates and friends in the world, what leads us to focus our attention and energy on only some people? Psychological research on interpersonal attraction generally shows that we tend to pair up with people we find physically attractive, share physical proximity with, who seem to like us, and who are similar to us in attitudes, beliefs, interests, and values. There are a variety of traits and characteristics that appear to increase the likelihood that two people will form a friendship or a romantic bond. Some popular online dating services use algorithm models to try and match people on trait profiles that might make them compatible. Nevertheless, these kinds of analyses do not give us a full understanding of the mystery and dynamics of relationships. We meet many people we are attracted to and with whom we share some traits, but we only get into a relationship with a tiny fraction of these people, even though the opportunity for greater involvement is often present.

There is a chemistry to relationships that is significant and underlies what we can observe directly. In other words, there appears to be need-driven and largely unconscious aspects of our personalities that pull us toward some people, even when logic and objectivity are inconsistent with the attraction and attachment. We all have observed the union of two people who seem entirely mismatched. We have all also seen some people adamantly refuse to leave a relationship that is obviously unfulfilling and, perhaps, even abusive. How can we explain these relationships that defy sound judgment, reason, and common sense? What do you think makes a good relationship between two people? When a couple celebrates an extremely long marriage, say 50 years or even longer, often the first question posed to them is, “So what’s your secret to staying together for so long?” Poets, novelists, playwrights, song writers, philosophers, psychologists, and the folks down at the local diner have all offered possible answers; our answer involves flexibility, compromise, and independence.

The kids were 15 and 17, and Janice (39) decided she wanted to get a college degree, going part-time at the community college. Her husband, Frank (41), was against it, saying he needed her to handle the domestic chores. He could not find the flexibility needed to make the new situation work. Over the next few years, the marriage slowly fell apart, and when the youngest child went off to college, Janice increased her college course load. Frank sought a divorce. After four years of marriage, Boyd (28) told his wife, Adele (28), he wanted them to begin having children, at least two, just like they had planned to do when they got married. She said, “No, things have changed now that I have a promising career.” Boyd noted they could afford good child care, and he was willing to wait a few more years and have only one child. Adele was not willing to consider a compromise. Sue (28) was the woman Mark (41) had always looked for, someone with no desire to have children, and whose sole ambition in life would be to take care of him. After seven years of marriage, however, Sue decided she wanted to get a job and have some money of her own. She said this new venture would not affect her caretaker responsibilities. Mark, however, was threatened by her desire for more independence, and told her no wife of his was going to get a job. Within the year, Sue left him.

            Every couple’s situation is different, but it seems clear that in a healthy long-lasting relationship, each partner lets the other be themself. Social psychologist David Schnarch says each individual has a level of “differentiation” that influences relationships. Simply put, if you are a differentiated person, you are able to maintain your individuality, your sense of self, even when you are emotionally close to someone else. You can share, cooperate, compromise, and give in, but through it all, you remain an individual. You work with your partner from a context of personal stability and self-assurance, not from a context of weakness, insecurity, and dependency. People high in differentiation communicate effectively with their partners without becoming aggressive or withdrawing; they maintain their individuality by balancing assisting validation for their partner, and validating themselves. Those low in differentiation are narcissistic and demand attention and approval from their partner, forcing the partner to meettheir wants and needs; or they ignore the partner while “doing their own thing” and concentrating on their needs. As a result, the partner will not feel a part of the relationship, married or not! If a valued relationship is suddenly on a rocky road, assess your level of differentiation, and ask yourself if you are encouraging differentiation in your partner.

            A related and even more perplexing question asks, “Why do some people continue in relationships that are at best unsatisfying and, at worst, destructive to their well-being?” Next week we will look at that question in some detail.

Some combinations of personalities don’t have the relationship chemistry needed for long-term intimacy. The only hope in this type of case is if the partners make some fundamental changes in their actions and expectations. The case of Andy and Gloria is a prime example of partners being unwilling to put forth the hard work involved in making such fundamental changes.

            Andy and Gloria met in their late twenties. They were drawn together primarily through shared interests in the theater. Both came from highly dysfunctional families with respect to having close, supportive bonds. Gloria described her father as verbally abusive and selfish. Andy said his dad was very demanding. Both also described their mothers in less than flattering terms. As each moved through their teen years, they both were eager to reach an age when they could leave home and begin independent lives. Andy and Gloria entered counseling complaining of sexual problems, specifically a lack of it! Gloria, in particular, was bothered because she wanted a family and wanted more sex to increase the odds of getting pregnant.

            In counseling, Andy immediately stood out as a dependent individual who also had narcissistic qualities. He lacked empathy, was very possessive, and could not take criticism. Gloria, on the other hand, came across as self-sacrificing, while also showing actress-like traits. That is, she could be very dramatic and attention-seeking in her statements and actions. “It’s hard enough to get pregnant for God’s sake, and it just doesn’t help things if we only have sex once a month or even less,” Gloria complained, all the time waving her arms in the air. Andy just shrugged and said, “Hey, I can’t help it if I’m tired a lot and just don’t feel like it. I’m not a machine.”

When asked if she thought she would be better off out of the marriage, Gloria was reluctant to discuss the issue, although she was clearly unhappy. Whenever she might suggest to Andy that they consider a separation to help them see things in a better perspective, he would become very manipulative, almost childlike. He would beg and implore her not to talk like that, and then quickly shift to trying make her feel guilty for even bringing up the subject, to becoming contrite and asking for forgiveness. Sometimes he would promise that he would change and things would get better; other times he would become angry and break out into an emotional tirade.

            The more serious their marital difficulties became, the more dependent Andy became on Gloria. He never finished college and his income was low. He talked about finishing his college education but never made any real effort in this direction. He promised he would get a better job, but made no real effort to do so. “I’m just going through a tough time, Glo. I promise you I’m going to look harder for a better job, and then we’ll have more money. I just know I can find something.” Gloria’s problem was that she was too focused on her husband’s needs and not enough on her own. She could not assert herself consistently and strongly enough with him. Consequently, her motivation to change her life was decreasing because she just did not see too many options that would let her do something to change her life situation.

            Andy and Gloria stopped going to counseling after several years, even though their goals (at least hers) were never met. They had a friendship that worked to a degree, and apparently they were willing to stay in their no-growth relationship that only minimally met their needs. The alternative would require them to make dramatic changes in their lives that would take them out of their comfort zones and produce a lot of stress, uncertainty, and more independent decisions and lifestyles. The opportunities for a better life associated with these challenges were not enough to motivate them towards significant change, either together or apart. Unfortunately, neither Andy nor Gloria brought out the best in the other. They each lacked both the physical and emotional chemistry needed, and were unwilling to change their relationship. They stayed together for the wrong reasons. He was extremely dependent and attached to her no matter what. She was willing to sacrifice her needs for his, even if that meant she would not be happy. We lost touch with them after they left counseling.

            We have asked hundreds of never married, married, or previously married people a simple question: “How many of your relationships have been worthwhile, and brought you more satisfaction than dissatisfaction?” In answering the question, we asked them to consider only the relationship itself, not any by-products, such as children, that may have come from the relationship. We asked a few young adults in the 20s and 30s, but most of them ranged from the 40s to the 60s. Regardless of age, nearly everyone we asked said they have seldom had a relationship where the positives outweighed the negatives, or that they could only think of one relationship where that statement held true.

            Our respondents were clients in counseling, so the sample was neither random nor representative of a larger population. Nevertheless, we feel three conclusions are valid: (1) A healthy and satisfying relationship can be hard to come by; (2) If we have a decent partner (not perfect), we should think long and hard about ending the relationship when it is not everything we want or hope for; (3) if we have a decent partner worth committing to, working hard to improve the relationship is a better strategy than giving up on it because it does not meet our often over-romanticized, unrealistic ideals. This last statement captures the essence of the task facing those in intimate relationships: “How can I develop a more satisfying and meaningful relationship with someone before problems escalate out of hand and become too ingrained to correct?” Most clients in therapy have been involved in failed relationships. Why did it end? Typical comments are: “I’m sorry to say I cheated on them”; “I just took them for granted”; “I didn’t realize I had something special that you don’t find every day”; “I just let the relationship slip away by not taking care of it.” Almost all of them spoke of loneliness, unhappiness, and even depression over the break-up, and wished they could turn back the hands of time and repair the relationship.

Many psychologists say that the single best predictor of happiness for married people is their satisfaction in the marriage. In general, a positive relationship is one that helps those involved feel better about themselves, more creative, happy, social, and productive. On the other hand, a negative relationship is one that leads them to be self-absorbed, less efficient, unhappy, and lower in self-esteem and self-respect. Much human suffering is caused by relationship problems, and many in outpatient counseling are having significant difficulty accepting and adjusting to problems in relationships, which is the primary reason they entered therapy in the first place. Because the dynamics of relationships appear so fundamental to psychological problems, it is vital to help people minimize their pain and suffering in relationships. It is also essential to help them find and enhance the positive motivation, effort, and happiness that occur when they are in relatively healthier relationships. Let’s face it—no relationship is perfect. A few bumps in the road will occur, but in most cases it is worthwhile to work through them to avoid the more serious pitfalls described in the comments noted earlier. Above all, it’s good to remember: you don’t find a healthy relationship; rather, it’s the product of effort and commitment.

Billionaire Bill Gates is straightforward and clear: He says he will give away virtually all  his wealth for charitable causes over the next 20 years. He says a total of $200 billion will go toward causes that help save and improve lives around the world. “By deciding to spend all this money in the next 20 years, we can get a lot more done and save tens of millions of lives.” He has three main goals: stopping the deaths of mothers and children from preventable causes, eradicating deadly infectious diseases, and putting more countries on a path to prosperity by focusing on improving education. Gates wants to solve problems, what for him are moral problems. He shows empathy because he understands how mothers feel when a child is sick or dying; he understands how education increases self-esteem and achievement motivation. But Gates’ motivation to help goes further because it is based on moral empathetic strength—an understanding that fixing some problems is just the proper, decent, and honorable thing to do.

Billionaire Elon Musk also speaks of empathy, but shows little understanding of what it means. He speaks in convoluted, confusing terms and equates empathy with self-destruction: “I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. I heard a podcaster talk about suicidal empathy. Like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So, we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for, for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy. You need to think it through and not just be programmed like a robot.” Unlike Gates, Musk sees empathy and charity as burdens on society, and efforts to lighten those burdens is akin to self-destruction. This twisted thinking allows his mind to demean and discard compassion and generosity as worthy pursuits.

[NOTE: The descriptions that follow are for dysfunctional extremes. Most people would show milder patterns and cope moderately well.] Relationship issues? Maybe one of the following patterns is the problem. Are you a dysfunctional giver, someone who avoids new challenges and subjugates their wants and needs in relationships, leading to interpersonal conflict? Whether excessively dependent, enabling, passive or cooperative, dysfunctional givers are not really giving. They shrink from responsibilities and run from insecurities, fears, and identity development; they also often inappropriately blame the taker. It is easy to understand why takers are attracted givers. Why, however, would a giver be attracted to a taker? The fact is, dysfunctional givers have a variety of self-interest motives that are served when interacting with takers: Givers have powerful dependency needs because of basic insecurities and related fears, and takers serve these dependency needs; givers become accustomed to having family members sacrifice for them; givers believe their actions are a way to secure and strengthen their relationships; givers have weak self-identity because they have not developed autonomy, individuality, and independence, which allows them to avoid the pain of facing their shortcomings; givers can avoid true intimacy and vulnerability in relationships, factors that can cause stress and anxiety. Givers often play the childlike, helpless role, or act like they are the victim: “You want me to pick you up when it’s sleeting outside? I can’t drive in those conditions. You know how nervous I get if I have to drive in bad weather. Do you want me to get killed? Thanks for caring so much!”

Maybe you’re more of a dysfunctional taker, someone who displays a limited capacity to understand, empathize, and meet their partner’s reasonable wants and needs. This limitation leads them to excessive manipulation, control, neglect, and abuse of others. Essentially, takers consume as much as possible from others without regard for their welfare. They do not consistently reciprocate in relationships, and tend to make others victims of a double standard, treating them in ways they themselves would not tolerate. Takers are psychological vampires. They draw as much “blood” as they can from their partners, friends, or family members, and then they either ignore or toss them aside. Paradoxically, takers become very frustrated and outraged when others are not there to meet their wants and needs. 

Typical actions and emotions that takers show are: displacing aggression on others close to them; fear of being vulnerable and getting hurt; excessive need for control; enhancing personal self-esteem at the expense of others; avoidance of responsibilities; low frustration tolerance; extreme feelings of entitlement. Takers tend to come across to others as very secure and high in self-esteem. However, they are neither. Takers desperately need to be the “top dog,” and seek relationships that allow them to satisfy their deep insecurities.Takers tend to test others early in a relationship in order to discover what they may be able to get away with down the road. For example, to avoid paying for dinner or some other activity, they “forget” their credit card or claim they will not get paid until next week. They may arrive forty-five minutes late for a date without a plausible explanation, and try to excuse their behavior by commenting on some recent stress, problem, lack of sleep, or a similar excuse. These actions are a way of gauging how the other person will respond. A passive or deferential type of response gives a taker a sign that this is the type of person they are likely to be able to manipulate.

Both these patterns are childlike, which prevents both givers and takers from becoming mature, constructive partners. They lose out on a great deal of satisfaction in their marriages, parent-child relations, and friendships.

Throughout this blog, we emphasize psychological principles for coping with stress:

There are only two things you can directly control: yourthoughts and youractions.

You must accept and face your emotions for what they are— – a part of you.

Inappropriate actions, not your emotions, are your coping challenge.

Optimistic, realistic actions are more important than thinking positive thoughts.

Personal happiness emerges from satisfying actions.

Personal pity parties are avoidance actions that disrupt effective coping.

You have no right to have the corners of your world padded for you.

You are not here to live up to others’ expectations.

Your actions must be guided by a social conscience, values, and ethical standards.

Successful coping with stress involves four steps:

Acceptance: You must resist the temptation to engage in denial about situations that bring you uncomfortable emotions. You must accept reality and your emotional reactions to it.

Accountability: Sometimes your actions have a positiveeffect on others, sometimes a negative effect, and sometimes no effect. You are responsible for realistically determining the impact of your actions.

Humility: Self-preoccupation is a barrier to effective coping. You are not the primary ingredient in the recipe.

Empathy: You must listen to and learn from others. You can resolve conflicts better, and feel more independent and empowered, when you act with the needs of others in mind.

Acceptance and Accountability provide you with a solid coping base, and allow you to enter the Humility Circle. Imagine five actions placed around a circle. At the top, the first position, “Humility,” encourages you to admit that you are not the primary ingredient in your life recipe. Moving around the circle, the second position is “Freedom.” Humility releases you from self-preoccupation and gives you a sense of freedom—an optimistic spirit—that is uplifting. Continuing around the circle, the third position is “Sharing.” Strengthened with your new-found positivity, you can now share yourself with others who are also fighting stress in their lives. You move to the fourth position, “Communication.” Sharing your struggles with others not only requires you to talk to them, but also to listen to and learn from them. That brings you to the fifth and final position, “Empathy.” The circle is now complete. You begin with reducing a focus on yourself as the center of it all, and end with an empathetic understanding of others who are wrestling with life challenges just as you are. Released from the prison of self-absorbed ego, you are able reach out to help others because you understand their plight. Purged of considering yourself special and deserving of pity, you cope with your stressors by helping others with their difficulties. Empathy is the gold standard of coping. There is no more effective therapy than empathetic service to others. The absence of empathy is denial; its presence generates acceptance of what is going on, accountability of what you can do about it, and humility in the presence of others’ suffering.

Zach’s father abandoned the family when Zach was just a child, and he grew up with an alcoholic mother who had a gambling problem. These experiences planted the seeds of insecurity and abandonment anxiety in Zach’s mind, but throughout childhood and into his teen years and young adulthood, Zach compensated by being outgoing and socially active. In college he developed a close friendship with a classmate, Kyle, and was pretty much “adopted” by Kyle’s family. He spent a lot of time with them and Kyle’s dad became a surrogate dad to Zach.

            After graduating from college, Zach and Kyle worked at Kyle’s family business. Zach married and they began a family. Zach, however, was chronically plagued by unresolved issues from his childhood and adolescence; he fought fears of being abandoned and alone, clearly the result of his father leaving, and the lack of warmth and nurturance from his mother. Zach spent most of his adulthood avoiding facing these issues and the insecurities they caused him. He neither appreciated nor understood how powerful and stressful these conflicts were; nor was he able to face the reality that they prevented him from ever truly trusting and sharing himself fully with anyone. Psychologically, he was chronically adrift and lonely. 

            Zach’s denial and avoidance of facing his core conflicts became manifest in fanciful “get rich quick schemes,” and he developed a serious gambling problem. He confided to Kyle, “No amount of money will ever be enough for me.” His risky schemes and gambling worsened, and he had to borrow large sums of money, most of which he never paid back. Problems and pressures grew. On more than one occasion Zach quit his job, only to return days later asking to be reinstated. The time came, however, when Kyle’s father said, “No.” Soon, Zach faced bankruptcy, loss of his home, public shame, and embarrassment. During this time, he consulted a priest and psychologist, but he never fully revealed to either the real nature of his psychological problems. He was never sufficiently motivated to confront his fears. Feeling alone and unwanted, he was hell bent on self-destruction, a perfect example of how unchecked self-sabotage actions lead to inescapable blind alleys.

            One day Zach’s wife came home and found him dead by his own hand. There was no note; there were no good-byes. From Zach’s perspective, there was no more pain for him. He no longer needed to avoid unpleasant thoughts and feelings. Memories of his father’s abandonment, and painful comparisons of his life versus Kyle’s did not have to be endured any longer. Zach quit on his wife and kids the way his dad quit on him. Ultimately, he became caught in a vicious cycle of self-destruction that led to his death. He was filled with too much anxiety, depression, guilt, anger, shame, low self-esteem, hopelessness, narcissism, and self-defeating actions to overcome the conflicts and fears that had begun decades earlier.

            [NOTE: We learned the details of Zach’s life from his wife, who came to counseling to deal with his suicide.]

Justin is a first-year college student finding himself confronted with information—mostly out of class—that contradicts some of the “facts” he was raised to accept: Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites, lazy, and lacking in ambition; gays are indecent degenerates, morally corrupt sinners who seek to undermine America’s virtue; women are a threat to men in the workplace, and need to be kept out of positions of authority. As the semester progressed, Justin’s social circle expanded, and he was stressed to discover that many of his beliefs just did not stand up to the reality of his experiences. At first, he discounted his college experiences as exceptions to the real world; his thinking involved denial, selective perception, and distorting the reality around him. But slowly, he began to consider another alternative: “Maybe my beliefs about these groups are wrong.”

It’s interesting to note that when confronted with troublesome contradictions like Justin experienced, the last thing most people do to resolve their mental anguish is to change their beliefs. When you think about it, that makes some sense. When coping requires you to change your beliefs, the first step in the process is looking squarely at those beliefs and asking yourself, “Do I have poor judgment? Am I avoiding something? Am I afraid of something that makes me hold onto these beliefs?” Tackling such questions can be tough.

Rodney was an 18-year-old who believed that all Mormon men had multiple wives, only one of whom they made public. The rest were hidden away. Rodney’s father taught him this “fact,” and Rodney’s self-esteem was based on praise and acceptance from his father. He had a mostly unconscious fear of offending his father and suffering rejection, which would plunge him into anxiety about being abandoned. Psychologically, therefore, he could not reject his father’s beliefs and, to our knowledge, he never did. Allegiance to his father kept him in psychological balance. When anyone challenged Rodney’s belief about Mormons—even a practicing member of the Mormon church—he told them they were wrong. He was not interested in rejecting his father’s beliefs.

Sometimes, however, people do change their beliefs. Rachel, a 35-year-old single woman, avoided romantic commitment. At a deep mental level, Rachel feared she would be sexually promiscuous like her mother, who was a prostitute throughout Rachel’s childhood. Rachel believed and feared that romantic involvement would lead her to promiscuity, and expose to herself and others that she had no moral values. Only complete avoidance of emotional commitment could keep her fears hidden. Rachel required long-term professional counseling to be able to accept the reality of her core fears. Over time she was able to consider alternative beliefs and actions that enabled her to cope with her anxiety in more realistic fashion.

Carol, a 19-year-old college student suffered intense test anxiety. Rather than face this truth realistically, she was able to convince her school’s Learning Skills Center that she needed special arrangements in her courses for taking tests. She was a solid B student, but she was tormented with the belief that she was a “dumb, incompetent, loser” who couldn’t face a challenge without special help. Carol was aware of her core fear, and she was able to work with a college counselor for alternative ways—notably better study practices—to confront the anxiety.

When it comes to dealing with stress, no matter what beliefs we’re talking about, when they are unrealistic, illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory—and your actions perpetuate those beliefs—you should attack those beliefs critically and work at discarding them in favor of alternatives. Discuss your choices with a trusted friend, advisor, or professional counselor. Finally, when you choose new actions consistent with more realistic beliefs, make sure you have a reliable social support network. Coping with stress by changing your beliefs is seldom accomplished alone.