stridementalhealth

The Power of Community: Rethinking Mental Health Through Collective Action

In a world where individualism often takes centre stage, the importance of community can be overlooked, especially when it comes to mental health. However, when we shift our perspective to view mental well-being through the lens of collective action and systemic power, a transformative narrative emerges—one that holds the potential to reshape how we understand and address distress.

Power Within Systems: Where Does It Reside?

Power is not just held by individuals; it resides within the structures, norms, and institutions that shape our daily lives. These systems influence how mental health is perceived, who gets access to support, and what kinds of distress are validated or stigmatised. Historically, mental health has been medicalised, often focusing solely on the individual, framing distress as a personal deficit or disorder. But this narrow view neglects the broader social, economic, and political factors that contribute to mental well-being.

The Role of Community in Challenging Systems

Community has the unique power to disrupt these systemic narratives. When people come together, they create spaces where lived experiences are validated, and collective voices can challenge dominant frameworks. This is where real power lies: in solidarity, mutual support, and collective action.

Consider how grassroots movements have historically shifted societal perceptions, from civil rights to public health initiatives. The same applies to mental health. Peer support networks, community-led mental health programmes, and advocacy groups demonstrate that healing doesn’t happen in isolation. It thrives in connection, shared understanding, and community resilience.

Distress as a Social Signal, Not Just an Individual Problem

When we frame distress as an isolated, internal issue, we miss its role as a social signal. Distress often reflects systemic injustices—poverty, discrimination, inequality, and marginalisation. Addressing mental health, therefore, isn’t just about individual therapy sessions or medication; it’s about creating environments where people feel safe, supported, and seen.

Communities can play a crucial role here. They provide belonging, a buffer against isolation, and a platform to challenge oppressive systems. By normalising conversations about mental health, communities reduce stigma and encourage early intervention. Moreover, they foster environments where people feel empowered to advocate for systemic changes that promote well-being.

Collective Action as a Tool for Healing

Collective action doesn’t just change systems; it heals. Being part of a movement, feeling heard within a group, and contributing to a cause larger than oneself can be profoundly therapeutic. It instills a sense of purpose, agency, and connection—all key components of mental well-being.

We see this in action through mental health collectives, community activism, and even informal support groups. These spaces challenge the notion that healing is a solitary journey. Instead, they highlight that connection is not just beneficial but essential.

Reimagining Mental Health Through Community Power

Imagine a mental health system rooted in community, where support is not a privilege but a shared responsibility. Where distress is met with compassion and systemic understanding, not judgement. Where the power to heal doesn’t rest solely in the hands of professionals but is woven into the fabric of our daily interactions.

This is the power of community within systems. It reminds us that while individual resilience is important, collective resilience is transformative. By recognising and harnessing this power, we can create a world where mental health is not just managed but nurtured through connection, solidarity, and shared humanity.

In the end, community isn’t just part of the solution; it is the solution.

Are Personality Tests Accurate?

Introduction

In psychology personality tests are widely utilised and serve as crucial tools to predict behaviours and gauge individual traits across a variety of contexts. The efficacy and accuracy of personality tests are however frequently contested, despite their widespread usage. These tools range from simple questionnaires to complex clinical instruments and have been praised for their ease of administration and a potential depth of insight into humankind. Alongside criticism for potential biases such as participants responding in socially desirable ways and cultural inapplicability (Wiener & Green, 2017).

Popularity and Challenges of Self-Report Measures

With rich, introspective insights and an ease of administration personality tests, particularly self-report questionnaires have become very popular. However, the way that participants behave during testing can significantly alter and compromise validity. Acquiescence bias, a tendency to agree with questions regardless of the content, and social desirability bias, where participants respond in a manner they perceive as favourable rather than truthfully, are significant challenges (Gudjonsson & Young, 2011; Morales-Vives et al, 2014). These behaviours highlight the issues of validity and reliability in these tests and reflect the complex dynamics between human psychology and test design.

Theoretical Assumptions and Real Concepts

The idea that certain behaviours and traits can be measured quantitatively and predicted over time has become the foundation that many personality tests rest on. However, this is a point of contention, the question is whether these tests measure real, stable constructs or potentially just a snapshot of a person’s situation or mood at that time. This debate focus’ in on the centre of personality psychology; the change versus stability paradigm, which questions whether personality traits are consistent over time or subjective and can change due to personal development or situational factors.

Applicability Beyond WEIRD Contexts

The development of most personality assessments within WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) societies raises concerns about their validity and applicability across diverse cultural settings (Henrich et al, 2010; Muthukrishna et al, 2022).

When so many tests are standardised and normed on populations that do not represent global diversity, this potentially leads to biased conclusions and interpretations when these tools are applied in non-WIERD contexts. This is a crucial factor for consideration, as the cultural limitations they possess affect the global utility of personality tests, which challenges the relevance and universality across different societies and cultures.

Conclusion

Personality tests remain valuable tools for understanding individual traits and behaviours across different settings. However, the challenges of biases, theoretical assumptions about trait stability, and cultural limitations call for a careful and critical approach to their application. Recognising these issues highlights the need for ongoing refinement and diversification in test design, ensuring that these assessments can more accurately reflect the complexities of human psychology. For personality tests to maintain their relevance and validity, they must evolve to address the diverse realities and cultural contexts of the individuals they aim to assess.

References

Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Zheng, A., Hopwood, C. J., Sosa, S. S., Roberts, B. W., & Briley, D. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7-8). https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Young, S. (2011). Personality and deception. Are suggestibility, compliance and acquiescence related to socially desirable responding? Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 192–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.024

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? SSRN Electronic Journal, 33(2-3). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1601785

Morales-Vives, F., Vigil-Colet, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ruiz-Pamies, M. (2014). How social desirability and acquiescence affects the age–personality relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, S16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.370

Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 095679762091678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782

Wiener, I. B., & Greene, R. L. (2017). Handbook of personality assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

A Brief Exploration of Historical and Contemporary Learning Theories

Introduction: Understanding Learning Through Time

Learning theories have shaped and reshaped how we understand knowledge, learning, and human behaviour. Here, we delve into two impactful theories: the historical Behaviourism and the modern Constructivism. These frameworks show us not only how people learn but also how societal changes influence education and knowledge acquisition.

Historical Learning Theory – Behaviourism

Behaviourism emerged in the early 20th century in the United States as a direct response to the demand for a structured educational system in a rapidly changing society. This theory focuses on observable behaviours, suggesting that learning is a result of environmental influences and stimulus-response associations (Moore, 1999).

Key Ideas and Figures in Behaviourism

John B. Watson (1913) was pivotal in defining Behaviourism by focusing on studying behaviours in controlled environments rather than relying on introspection.
Ivan Pavlov introduced classical conditioning, showing how stimuli could lead to predictable responses.
B.F. Skinner expanded on this with operant conditioning, explaining how rewards and punishments shape behaviour.

The Behaviourist approach laid the foundation for later theories, highlighting the influence of structured environments and reinforcement in learning. Even as Behaviourism gave way to other theories, its influence persists in many educational practices today.

Contemporary Learning Theory – Constructivism

In contrast, Constructivism, a modern theory, argues that learners construct knowledge actively, shaped by their experiences and social interactions (Kanselaar, 2002). This theory reflects today’s globally connected, culturally diverse world and resonates with the increased use of technology in education.

Core Principles of Constructivism

Active Learning: Learners engage directly, solving problems and constructing knowledge through hands-on activities.
Social Interaction: Collaboration and interaction are essential as learners share perspectives and build knowledge collectively.
Dynamic Knowledge: Constructivism treats knowledge as fluid and evolving, shaped by cultural and personal experiences.
Scaffolding: Educators provide structured support, gradually encouraging learners to become independent.

Constructivism aligns with today’s need for adaptable learning, supporting critical thinking and collaboration in diverse, tech-driven environments.

Conclusion: A Shift in Learning Paradigms

Both Behaviourism and Constructivism offer valuable insights into how we learn. Where Behaviourism emphasizes observable behaviour and conditioning, Constructivism focuses on active, social learning experiences. Together, they illustrate how learning theories evolve with society’s needs, shaping our educational practices and adapting to the challenges of each new era.

As our understanding of learning continues to grow, these theories remain central, influencing both traditional education methods and innovative, modern practices.

Are people biologically predisposed to be biased thinkers?

The discussion over whether biased thinking is biologically inherent remains an ongoing debate within fields like psychology, genetics and neuroscience, examined through the lenses of nature and nurture (Haselton et al., 2005). Biases are mental heuristics and cognitive shortcuts that influence judgement and decision-making (Dale, 2015). This essay critically explores biological factor’s impact on biased thinking, exploring the interplay between nature and nurture in shaping cognitive processes.

Evolutionary psychology highlights the biological basis of biases, suggesting they evolved as adaptive responses to ancestral challenges (Haselton et al., 2005). Confirmation biases served to reinforce beliefs, facilitating effective decisions in perilous environments. Furthermore, heuristics accommodated for potential survival threats and opportunities (Korteling et al., 2018).

Neuroscientific studies link specific brain regions to biased thinking. The amygdala associates with negativity bias (Yoshida et al., 2021), while the prefrontal cortex relates to the anchoring bias (Li et al., 2017; Mochol et al., 2021). This hints at biological predisposition for certain biases.

Biological factors exert influence, yet social and environmental inputs are vital to biased thinking’s development. Social learning theory highlights the impact of the social environment, via peers, family and cultural norms (Spelke & Kinzler, 2007; Rumjaun & Narod, 2020). Exposure to influential figures values, beliefs and biases happens throughout childhood and adolescence.

Cultural norms are seen to foster group biases, yielding out-group prejudice and in-group favouritism. Media exposure perpetuates selective narratives and stereotypes, intensifying existing biases, interacting with biological tendencies, amplifying and shaping patterns of cognition (KiralyI & Buttelmann, 2017).

Behavioural genetics explores genetic contributions to biases and the ensuing ethical dilemmas (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002). Family and twin studies demonstrate heritable components in certain biases (Virolainen et al., 2022; Hagenbeek et al., 2023). Genetic factors moderate environmental impact on bias development (Eley et al., 2007). However, genes do not act alone, the interplay with the environment is vital.

Neuroplasticity, the brain’s adaptability, enables the modification of cognitive bias through learning, education and diverse perspectives. Despite the genetic and biological factors discussed, there is room for change and adaptation (Mrazek et al., 2013). This can be seen through interventions such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, which dramatically and effectively has reduced biased thinking in certain individuals (Fordham et al., 2018; Mobini et al., 2012)

In conclusion, the question of whether humans are biologically predisposed to be biased thinkers involves a complex interplay between nature and nurture. While cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology highlight the role of biological factors in the origins of biases, environmental and social influences play a crucial role in their development and reinforcement. Further interplay from gene-environment adds to the complexity, emphasing the need to research the interactions between external factors and genetic predispositions in shaping biased thinking.

Finally, the recognition of human cognition plasticity and the interventions in place to reduce biased thinking offers hope for promoting more open minded and objective thinking and decision making for individuals and society as a whole. Replacing antiquated ideas that often have cast humans as making unfounded and illogical errors (Hastleton et al., 2005).

References

Dale, S. (2015). Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making. Business Information Review, 32(2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382115592536

Eley, T. C., Gregory, A. M., Lau, J. Y. F., McGuffin, P., Napolitano, M., Rijsdijk, F. V., & Clark, D. M. (2007). In the Face of Uncertainty: A Twin Study of Ambiguous Information, Anxiety and Depression in Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9159-7

Fordham, B., Sugavanam, T., Hopewell, S., Hemming, K., Howick, J., Kirtley, S., das Nair, R., Hamer-Hunt, J., & Lamb, S. E. (2018). Effectiveness of cognitive–behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ Open, 8(12), e025761. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025761

Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Andrews, P. W. (2005). The Evolution of Cognitive Bias. In The handbook of evolutionary psychology (p. (pp. 724–746)). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hagenbeek, F. A., Hirzinger, J. S., Breunig, S., Bruins, S., Kuznetsov, D. V., Schut, K., Odintsova, V. V., & Boomsma, D. I. (2023). Maximizing the value of twin studies in health and behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01609-6

Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Andrews, P. W. (2005). The Evolution of Cognitive Bias. In The handbook of evolutionary psychology (p. (pp. 724–746)). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Korteling, J. E., Brouwer, A.-M., & Toet, A. (2018). A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01561

KirályI., & Buttelmann, D. (2017). Learning in social context: the nature and profit of living in groups for development. Frontiers Media SA.

Li, J., Yin, X., Li, D., Liu, X., Wang, G., & Qu, L. (2017). Controlling the Anchoring Effect through Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to the Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01079

Mobini, S., Reynolds, S., & Mackintosh, B. (2012). Clinical Implications of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretative Biases in Social Anxiety: An Integrative Literature Review. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9445-8

Mochol, G., Kiani, R., & Moreno-Bote, R. (2021). Prefrontal cortex represents heuristics that shape choice bias and its integration into future behavior. Current Biology: CB, 31(6), 1234-1244.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.068

Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness Training Improves Working Memory Capacity and GRE Performance While Reducing Mind Wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459659

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2002). Genetics and human behaviour : the ethical context. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Rumjaun, A., & Narod, F. (2020). Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura. Springer Texts in Education, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_7

Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x

Virolainen, S. J., VonHandorf, A., Viel, K. C. M. F., Weirauch, M. T., & Kottyan, L. C. (2022). Gene–environment interactions and their impact on human health. Genes & Immunity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41435-022-00192-6

Yoshida, N., Kotani, Y., Ohgami, Y., Kunimatsu, A., Inoue, Y., Kiryu, S., & Okada, Y. (2021). Effects of negativity bias on amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex activity in short and long emotional stimulation paradigms. NeuroReport, 32(6), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1097/wnr.0000000000001624

Can stress can be adaptive as well as maladaptive?

Stress has long been understood as an intricate and prevalent phenomenon with both adverse and constructive consequences, impacting people across diverse domains and life stages. Drawing from established psychological theories, this essay recognises stress as a complex force, delving into the determinants of its manifestation, while exploring its dual nature as both detrimental and beneficial influence.

The contemporary biopsychosocial model of stress (Rith-Najarian et al., 2014) and Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model (1984) highlight stress’s adaptive facet, which is triggered when individuals manage and assess challenges within their coping framework. Neurologically we see the hippocampus, a crucial brain region, discerning stress types (McEwen & Morrison, 2013). Stress can spur individuals to solve problems, act and become motivated, foster personal growth, performance and build resilience. Denoted as ‘eustress’ (Hargrove et al., 2013).

Activation and process of the physiological stress response cultivates effective coping mechanisms and adaptation to changing circumstances, offering invaluable learning opportunities for skill acquisition and personal growth (Laine & Shansky, 2022). This adaptive perspective perceives stress as integral to life, offering ongoing room for human development.

Conversely, stress can also be maladaptive. Persistent overwhelming of an individual’s coping resources leads to chronic stress, with a sustained activation of the stress response adversely affecting physical and mental health. Allostatic load, the stress response’s wear and tear can influence concerns like cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders (McEwen & Gianaros, 2010; McEwen & Stellar, 1993).

As far back as 1908 the Yerkes-Dodson law proposed an inverted u-shape relationship between performance and stress, revealing excessive stress will impair performance and cognitive function (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Subsequent research has outlined the issues of excessive stress in a multifactorial way. Demonstrating the negative consequence on memory capacity, decision-making, problem solving and attentional deficits. Additionally, affecting well-being, mental health and emotional exhaustion (Arnsten, 2009; Dedovic et al., 2009).

Different theories of stress, such as the General Adaptation Syndrome (Cambell et al.,2013), the Allostatic Load Model (McEwen & Stellar, 1993) and Biopsychosocial Model (Rith-Najarian et al., 2014), provide frameworks to understand the nature of stress. These theories acknowledge stress’s outcome depends on individual variances, coping approaches, and socio-environmental contexts.

The Transactional Model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and more recently the underpinnings of cognitive behavioural therapies underline the significance of cognitive appraisal on determining the stress response (Beck, 2005; Nakao et al., 2021). These models recognise the subjectivity of stress and what role our own assumptions, beliefs and associations play on whether stress will be adaptive or maladaptive.

In conclusion, stress is a multifaceted phenomenon exerting maladaptive and adaptive effects on the individual. Understanding this dual nature elucidates stress’s implications for health and wellbeing. As a construct stress serves as a motivating force towards adaptation but can become chronic when overwhelming coping resources yield a variety of negative outcomes. Although no unified theory of psychological stress exists, existing frameworks offer crucial insights into the factors that determine whether stress becomes adaptive or maladaptive. Neuroimaging and epigenic advancements continue our comprehension (Nater, 2021). Stress and its psycho-biological aspects do not operate in isolation and are influenced by contextual factors. By mastering the stress dynamic, we can mitigate maladaptive outcomes and progress towards adaptive states.

References

Arnsten, A. F. T. (2011). Prefrontal cortical network connections: key site of vulnerability in stress and schizophrenia. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 29(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2011.02.006

Beck, A. T. (2005). The Current State of Cognitive Therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(9), 953. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.9.953

Campbell, T.S., Johnson, J.A., Zernicke, K.A. (2013). General Adaptation Syndrome. In: Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_1135)

Dedovic, K., D’Aguiar, C., & Pruessner, J. C. (2009). What Stress Does to Your Brain: A Review of Neuroimaging Studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370905400104

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

Hargrove, M. B., Becker, W. S., & Hargrove, D. F. (2015). The HRD Eustress Model. Human Resource Development Review, 14(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484315598086

Laine, M. A., & Shansky, R. M. (2022). Rodent models of stress and dendritic plasticity – Implications for psychopathology. Neurobiology of Stress, 17, 100438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2022.100438

McEwen, Bruce S., and John H. Morrison. “The Brain on Stress: Vulnerability and Plasticity of the Prefrontal Cortex over the Life Course.” Neuron, vol. 79, no. 1, July 2013, pp. 16–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.028.

McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2010). Central role of the brain in stress and adaptation: Links to socioeconomic status, health, and disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 190–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05331.x

McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual. Mechanisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153(18), 2093–2101. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.153.18.2093

Nakao, M., Shirotsuki, K., & Sugaya, N. (2021). Cognitive–behavioral therapy for management of mental health and stress-related disorders: Recent advances in techniques and technologies. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-021-00219-w

Nater, U. M. (2021). Recent developments in stress and anxiety research. Journal of Neural Transmission, 128(9), 1265–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-021-02410-3

Rith-Najarian, L. R., McLaughlin, K. A., Sheridan, M. A., & Nock, M. K. (2014). The biopsychosocial model of stress in adolescence: self-awareness of performance versus stress reactivity. Stress (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 17(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2014.891102

Yerkes, R.M., & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The Relation of Strength of Stimulus to Rapidity of Habit Formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology & Psychology, 18, 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.920180503