This is the fifth of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
More complicated is the example of the wife who had the affair. She committed a sin of commission. She did something at the same time both reactive and proactive, that on the surface was negative, and it had a bigger impact on hers’ and others’ lives. Was her behavior immoral? From the Christian standpoint, it was. From a psychological perspective, it was understandable. The former judges, the latter evaluates. We understand the pressures the wife must have felt. We know her motives but we also know the mores and can probably guess the transgressed wedding vows. Was her behavior illegal? No, not in the USA (not considering Blue Laws). It is not illegal to have an affair in the United States, even though infidelity is the second most often cited reason for divorce, so it is not a matter of violating law. But the judging side of us thinks this act is personally heinous.
In this case, the third standard would be to identify the dysfunction in the marriage and to assess the dynamics. Preferably this will have occurred before the affair, but this requires that the wife would have had the skills necessary to confront the pain of poor communication with her husband, his drinking, avoiding or worse, ignoring her. Likely, she had little or no skills in these areas, and maybe experienced mood problems and low self-esteem, either before or during the marriage, thus she probably tolerated such a protracted negative union way too long. A review of her personal history probably also would reveal flaws in the development of self-control. Thinking about all these aspects, likely, the wife had considerable ambivalence. Regardless, the third standard is to acknowledge all these possible scenarios and experiences and to act upon what they suggest in other ways. In this case, marriage counseling was indicated, and if that failed, divorce counseling. If the wife made conscious all these experiences, availed herself of the options and then had an affair, we might have had a much greater acceptance of her behavior, even though if she was still married, it would have been the same “immoral” act, viewed judgmentally. But, psychologically, her affair would have made sense and in some circles, would even have been adaptive; that is, it pushed her out of her comfort zone, beyond her limitations and paved the way for psychological growth. This illustrates the principal of re-framing; that is, pulling back and looking at the bigger picture. This is just another way of stating, pay attention to another or third standard, and don’t succumb to the pressure of accepting only one of the two limited viewpoints (sins of omission or sins of commission). In the future, this will help heal the “faulty soul” feeling, which will be invaluable in working with shame and self-forgiveness (the next ebook, which is part three in this series of ambivalences).
In the example of eating a big, calorie-rich meal to celebrate graduating college (despite my doctor’s warning), my re-framing will be to expand the viewpoint, vowing to change something in the future. “My doctor is right, but this is only one meal. I’ll go to the gym and start eating better tomorrow.” This is accepting the sin of eating fatty foods now, and putting off the treatment until later. This is also ambivalence, rationalizing and procrastination through “hyperbolic reasoning” (See the ebook on Procrastination). In this case, procrastination and guilt overlap. I then go on to accept the guilt, but propose a remedy; one that I’ll just not now employ, thus allowing me to enjoy the big meal in the moment with my friends. The third standard is to eat well and exercise later. I have introduced the element of time to reduce the severity of my sin of commission (eating poorly), and later I may or may not carry out my plan (statistics suggest that when it comes to food, the “plan” likely will not be carried out, but again, that is the subject of the Procrastination ebook).
Using this same example, another version of the third standard, is to reject the first two. “I don’t care what the doctor said, what does he know?” “I’m only twenty-two. I can eat anything I want because I’m young.” “My parents eat this way and they are still alive and healthy.” This strategy also works well in the next example, about getting an A- vs. an A. “I’m only in seventh grade. Colleges don’t even start to look at grades until high school (this is not always true, these days…). “I’ve got three more exams to make up that boo-boo, so I don’t have to worry about it.” “I’ve learned the difference between homonyms, so no problems down the road.” Ambivalence succumbs to rationalization, and then suppression, at least for the time being.
--Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/pge202.html
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Examples of Guilt--Part IV
Examples of Guilt--Part IV
This is the fourth of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
Guilt can be appropriate and act to protect us from danger. Using the example of speeding on the freeway; speeding, potentially, was dangerous. I was in the wrong, even though I rationalized my behavior by citing everyone else’s wrong behavior. (“If everyone else is doing it, it must be OK.”) The cop had a different perspective. He was enforcing the law, and that day, I just happened to be the fish in his barrel. In this case, the evaluation (vs. judgment) is not about me personally, but of a motorist going too fast. My personal reaction is another matter, but I probably don’t feel so judged, because my sin was not so much about me, personally, even though it was me behind the wheel. But if the consequence of my acts was major, or the policeman was looking for me specifically, then my sin would have been increasingly judged as such, probably legally, and the evaluation of my driving would have bled over into the judgment arena, and would have resulted in greater punishment. Imagine if my speeding caused an accident and someone was killed.
Regardless, my conversation with the officer, while tense, might have emphasized my need to get home early, that I was late because my son had a baseball game and I was the umpire, etc. I might have manipulatively complimented the officer on his nice shiny badge or how good it is that he was protecting the public. (These ploys don’t work on police.) I am manipulating, but it is in the service of creating that third standard--my need to be somewhere else in a hurry. While not necessarily true, I’m at least rationalizing that my need is greater in importance than the current standard--driving the speed limit. So, in this case, unless I’m rushing my wife to the hospital to deliver a baby, I’m at fault and guilty. So, sometimes, creating a third standard and standing up for it, assertively, doesn’t work very well, especially when the potential consequences are bigger and the standard I’m creating in my own defense is wrong. In less structured or smaller-consequence circumstances, this might work better, especially if the standard is not so clear.
Remember the example of wearing clean underwear? The third standard is, “I already have on clean underwear, so drop it.” The standard is, “Mom, what are the chances of getting into an accident while wearing this pair of underwear?” “Mom, if I’m in the hospital with a concussion, what physician is going to care about my underwear?” Not wearing clean underwear is an example both of sins of omission (I didn’t change before leaving) and commission (I’ve been wearing this underwear only a little while and I’m not going to change them). The “third” standard in this situation is created by being rational, using statistics, i.e., exploring the likelihood of a “bad” experience actually happening while I am wearing this pair of underwear. Because this event is a small one and has very little likely external consequence, and because it is between two individuals, now in a personal relationship, the rules of engagement are broader and more flexible. There is more opportunity to insert another standard or way of thinking and behaving, not having to conform to either of the two manipulative ones. I could even refuse to conform to the guilt-induced manipulations imposed by Mom all together. In this case the ambivalence is also about which path of action to take, not just the result of conflicting values. In this particular example, the dynamic of inducing guilt probably will remain more at the level of evaluation rather than judgment, one, because it is a small event, and two, because it is local, pertaining to intimate, personal information between two parties who more regularly interact personally.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the fourth of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
Guilt can be appropriate and act to protect us from danger. Using the example of speeding on the freeway; speeding, potentially, was dangerous. I was in the wrong, even though I rationalized my behavior by citing everyone else’s wrong behavior. (“If everyone else is doing it, it must be OK.”) The cop had a different perspective. He was enforcing the law, and that day, I just happened to be the fish in his barrel. In this case, the evaluation (vs. judgment) is not about me personally, but of a motorist going too fast. My personal reaction is another matter, but I probably don’t feel so judged, because my sin was not so much about me, personally, even though it was me behind the wheel. But if the consequence of my acts was major, or the policeman was looking for me specifically, then my sin would have been increasingly judged as such, probably legally, and the evaluation of my driving would have bled over into the judgment arena, and would have resulted in greater punishment. Imagine if my speeding caused an accident and someone was killed.
Regardless, my conversation with the officer, while tense, might have emphasized my need to get home early, that I was late because my son had a baseball game and I was the umpire, etc. I might have manipulatively complimented the officer on his nice shiny badge or how good it is that he was protecting the public. (These ploys don’t work on police.) I am manipulating, but it is in the service of creating that third standard--my need to be somewhere else in a hurry. While not necessarily true, I’m at least rationalizing that my need is greater in importance than the current standard--driving the speed limit. So, in this case, unless I’m rushing my wife to the hospital to deliver a baby, I’m at fault and guilty. So, sometimes, creating a third standard and standing up for it, assertively, doesn’t work very well, especially when the potential consequences are bigger and the standard I’m creating in my own defense is wrong. In less structured or smaller-consequence circumstances, this might work better, especially if the standard is not so clear.
Remember the example of wearing clean underwear? The third standard is, “I already have on clean underwear, so drop it.” The standard is, “Mom, what are the chances of getting into an accident while wearing this pair of underwear?” “Mom, if I’m in the hospital with a concussion, what physician is going to care about my underwear?” Not wearing clean underwear is an example both of sins of omission (I didn’t change before leaving) and commission (I’ve been wearing this underwear only a little while and I’m not going to change them). The “third” standard in this situation is created by being rational, using statistics, i.e., exploring the likelihood of a “bad” experience actually happening while I am wearing this pair of underwear. Because this event is a small one and has very little likely external consequence, and because it is between two individuals, now in a personal relationship, the rules of engagement are broader and more flexible. There is more opportunity to insert another standard or way of thinking and behaving, not having to conform to either of the two manipulative ones. I could even refuse to conform to the guilt-induced manipulations imposed by Mom all together. In this case the ambivalence is also about which path of action to take, not just the result of conflicting values. In this particular example, the dynamic of inducing guilt probably will remain more at the level of evaluation rather than judgment, one, because it is a small event, and two, because it is local, pertaining to intimate, personal information between two parties who more regularly interact personally.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Examples of Guilt--Part III
Examples of Guilt--Part III
This is the third of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
The trick was to “unbundle” one or more different dimensions that were embedded in one guilt-inducing level of communication. The principle is to deal with the different dimensions separately. Do so by making them conscious and then describe them out loud, preferably articulating each separately. This excavates the underlying ambivalence, exposes the anger and weakens the foundation of guilt. Unfortunately, still there might be some anxiety, but it will be more conscious. Now we have to speak up, which, for many of us, is another cause of anxiety. While this is still not entirely comfortable, it is a step away from verbal manipulation and towards psychological health.
Another thing I tried to do is in this example was to reduce comparisons to evaluations, not judgments. When we compare two “things” (ideas, beliefs, values, behaviors, etc.), we look at their merits. In my terms, that means looking at whether or not they work, or, whether they are effective; that is, accomplish the intended results. Something is superior or inferior if it does a better or worse job. This is an evaluation. That’s it. In the example, I created an Adult-Adult communication. This is good.
Judgment adds a different dimension, one of right or wrong. It tends to be more personal. Because it is personal, the judgment dynamic wreaks havoc at personal levels. It creates anxiety, depression, lowered self-esteem and is the chief player creating resentment. This would be a Parent-Child communication. This is bad. In the example, I failed to buy milk. That was not personal, but my wife made it so to maneuver me, to change my behavior using guilt. I separated the two dimensions, restoring the failing-to-buy-milk part to being just transactional; that is, a behavior without personal sequelae (referring again to anxiety, depression, etc.). I made it Adult-to-Adult, not Parent-to-Child communication. I challenged the judgment part (“Don’t you love me?”) by eliminating the personal association implied by failing to buy milk. Failing to buy milk had nothing to do with loving my wife. It had to do with my absent-mindedness. I feel the same about my wife, regardless of my memory problem. In real life, sooner or later, judgment is likely to creep into almost any communication. Small and mild judgments will not do serious damage and can be dealt with in the above manner; that is, by separating the dimensions, then using process-level communication to expose the ruse via assertive communication.
A more blunt example is the adult parent being “guilted” into supporting his manipulative progeny. In this case, assertiveness might have taken the form of “tough love.” The parent might have turned the argument around by saying “Was I abandoning you when I was paying your rent all these years?” “Who’s the bad guy when you don’t succeed and I have to bail you out, at my expense?” “How about you get it together and pull your own weight and stop using my support to mask your lack of initiative?” This teases out all the levels and “powers up” this parent. Now, the parent is focused on THE standard—his!
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the third of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
The trick was to “unbundle” one or more different dimensions that were embedded in one guilt-inducing level of communication. The principle is to deal with the different dimensions separately. Do so by making them conscious and then describe them out loud, preferably articulating each separately. This excavates the underlying ambivalence, exposes the anger and weakens the foundation of guilt. Unfortunately, still there might be some anxiety, but it will be more conscious. Now we have to speak up, which, for many of us, is another cause of anxiety. While this is still not entirely comfortable, it is a step away from verbal manipulation and towards psychological health.
Another thing I tried to do is in this example was to reduce comparisons to evaluations, not judgments. When we compare two “things” (ideas, beliefs, values, behaviors, etc.), we look at their merits. In my terms, that means looking at whether or not they work, or, whether they are effective; that is, accomplish the intended results. Something is superior or inferior if it does a better or worse job. This is an evaluation. That’s it. In the example, I created an Adult-Adult communication. This is good.
Judgment adds a different dimension, one of right or wrong. It tends to be more personal. Because it is personal, the judgment dynamic wreaks havoc at personal levels. It creates anxiety, depression, lowered self-esteem and is the chief player creating resentment. This would be a Parent-Child communication. This is bad. In the example, I failed to buy milk. That was not personal, but my wife made it so to maneuver me, to change my behavior using guilt. I separated the two dimensions, restoring the failing-to-buy-milk part to being just transactional; that is, a behavior without personal sequelae (referring again to anxiety, depression, etc.). I made it Adult-to-Adult, not Parent-to-Child communication. I challenged the judgment part (“Don’t you love me?”) by eliminating the personal association implied by failing to buy milk. Failing to buy milk had nothing to do with loving my wife. It had to do with my absent-mindedness. I feel the same about my wife, regardless of my memory problem. In real life, sooner or later, judgment is likely to creep into almost any communication. Small and mild judgments will not do serious damage and can be dealt with in the above manner; that is, by separating the dimensions, then using process-level communication to expose the ruse via assertive communication.
A more blunt example is the adult parent being “guilted” into supporting his manipulative progeny. In this case, assertiveness might have taken the form of “tough love.” The parent might have turned the argument around by saying “Was I abandoning you when I was paying your rent all these years?” “Who’s the bad guy when you don’t succeed and I have to bail you out, at my expense?” “How about you get it together and pull your own weight and stop using my support to mask your lack of initiative?” This teases out all the levels and “powers up” this parent. Now, the parent is focused on THE standard—his!
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Examples of Guilt--Part II
Examples of Guilt--Part II
This is the second of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
In most cases of guilt, the antidote is to create another (meaning, your) standard, other than that implied by committing or omitting something, or by conforming to the speaker’s wishes or arguing on the speaker’s terms only, or by conforming to the expectation (laws, values, norms), or worse, by just holding it all in and saying or doing nothing. We also have to challenge, and then negotiate the “rightness” or “wrongness” of THE standard. To do this, we have to become aware of the underlying forces acting upon us from the outside and our internal reactions. In common language, to reduce the guilt, we have to ask ourselves what it is WE want, not what is being imposed upon us. We have to think independently of the implied or real manipulation of the guilt-inducer. If we are paying attention to guilt-inducing communication, we will immediately “get” that we have been judged and that some set of standards has been or is about to be imposed upon us. If we are in tune, we immediately and consciously feel anxiety because there is conflict, and likely frustration, resentment or anger underneath. Now we know our feeling and if we are assertive, we can put our feelings into words and say something. In addition, when we speak, hopefully there will be something in our communication about the attempt to manipulate us (the cause of the anger); thus, we will defuse the indirect controls inherent in the guilt ploy. This is also articulating some process, not just the underlying feelings. (If you are not skilled at introspecting and then speaking up, see this author’s ebook, The Five Steps of Assertiveness.) The ambivalence is made conscious and we begin to think of “handling” the underlying conflicts and judgments through a different behavioral mechanism, most often employing simple assertiveness.
In the example when I went to the store to buy groceries, I might have interrupted the guilt-inducing comments with my own, more assertive and direct retort. “Yes honey, I see I forgot the milk. I am sorry. By the way, where did you get the idea this means I don’t love you?” I have exposed the manipulation. Then I might have said, “I’m sorry. If you need milk right away, I’ll go back to the store and buy some. If not, I’ll stop by a store later when I go out again. Is that OK?” Now, I have stated what I want, or in this case, what I am willing to do to fix the problem. I am willing to take care of the problem because it was my forgetfulness that led to my wife’s complaint. But, I am also standing up for what I want by suggesting a solution that better fits my needs, and in this case, better fits reality. I am functioning on MY terms. While my wife and I may debate which “plan” is better, at least I was assertive. I created an “alternative” behavior. I created the third standard—mine, which, I believe, is equally right. I teased out the irrationally linked concepts, separated and dealt with them overtly by saying something. In this instance, the transaction was about buying milk, while the interaction and dynamic were about being loved, or not. These are two entirely different dimensions. So, the first thing I try to do, and did in this example, is to separate the two dimensions, which in this case I accomplished by asking my wife how she “figured” I didn’t love her just because I forgot the milk.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the second of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
In most cases of guilt, the antidote is to create another (meaning, your) standard, other than that implied by committing or omitting something, or by conforming to the speaker’s wishes or arguing on the speaker’s terms only, or by conforming to the expectation (laws, values, norms), or worse, by just holding it all in and saying or doing nothing. We also have to challenge, and then negotiate the “rightness” or “wrongness” of THE standard. To do this, we have to become aware of the underlying forces acting upon us from the outside and our internal reactions. In common language, to reduce the guilt, we have to ask ourselves what it is WE want, not what is being imposed upon us. We have to think independently of the implied or real manipulation of the guilt-inducer. If we are paying attention to guilt-inducing communication, we will immediately “get” that we have been judged and that some set of standards has been or is about to be imposed upon us. If we are in tune, we immediately and consciously feel anxiety because there is conflict, and likely frustration, resentment or anger underneath. Now we know our feeling and if we are assertive, we can put our feelings into words and say something. In addition, when we speak, hopefully there will be something in our communication about the attempt to manipulate us (the cause of the anger); thus, we will defuse the indirect controls inherent in the guilt ploy. This is also articulating some process, not just the underlying feelings. (If you are not skilled at introspecting and then speaking up, see this author’s ebook, The Five Steps of Assertiveness.) The ambivalence is made conscious and we begin to think of “handling” the underlying conflicts and judgments through a different behavioral mechanism, most often employing simple assertiveness.
In the example when I went to the store to buy groceries, I might have interrupted the guilt-inducing comments with my own, more assertive and direct retort. “Yes honey, I see I forgot the milk. I am sorry. By the way, where did you get the idea this means I don’t love you?” I have exposed the manipulation. Then I might have said, “I’m sorry. If you need milk right away, I’ll go back to the store and buy some. If not, I’ll stop by a store later when I go out again. Is that OK?” Now, I have stated what I want, or in this case, what I am willing to do to fix the problem. I am willing to take care of the problem because it was my forgetfulness that led to my wife’s complaint. But, I am also standing up for what I want by suggesting a solution that better fits my needs, and in this case, better fits reality. I am functioning on MY terms. While my wife and I may debate which “plan” is better, at least I was assertive. I created an “alternative” behavior. I created the third standard—mine, which, I believe, is equally right. I teased out the irrationally linked concepts, separated and dealt with them overtly by saying something. In this instance, the transaction was about buying milk, while the interaction and dynamic were about being loved, or not. These are two entirely different dimensions. So, the first thing I try to do, and did in this example, is to separate the two dimensions, which in this case I accomplished by asking my wife how she “figured” I didn’t love her just because I forgot the milk.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Examples of Guilt--Part I
Examples of Guilt--Part I
This is the first of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
In its most healthy and appropriate sense, guilt is an emotional warning sign that most people learn through their normal childhood social development. Its purpose is to let us know when we’ve done something wrong, to help us develop a better sense of our behavior by being aware of how our behaviors affect ourselves and others. It prompts us to re-examine our values, principles and ideals so that we don’t end up making the same mistake(s) twice. This thinking, as should be obvious by now, has an upside and a downside. Here’s some every-day, down-to-earth “situations,” and then discussions about how to deal with each by creating a third standard, not necessarily accepting the one mandated by the guilt-perpetrator. The response to some of these examples is in subsequent articles, so be sure to read all six in this series. (Also, see the previous articles on ambivalence and guilt, the psychology of guilt and dealing with guilt by this author.)
We speed on the freeway and rationalize the behavior. We tell ourselves, “I’m just keeping up with traffic.” There is ambivalence because we know we are driving faster than the speed limit, but at the same time everyone else is doing it, so it must be OK. This rationalization works to reduce the anxiety in our own minds, until we look in the rear view mirror and see a flashing red light. The cop shows us the number on his radar gun, and “now” we not only acknowledge guilt but also experience it acutely in the form of an admission of wrong doing, often followed by pleading our case to the policeman. We also experience anxiety. We imagine the price of the traffic ticket, think of the inconvenience of attending traffic school and paying higher insurance premiums. If we are lucky, the officer lets us off with a warning and we go our way, vowing not to speed again, or at least until the cop disappears.
Your mother tells you to always wear clean underwear when leaving the house. Why? “Because if you get into an accident and are taken to the hospital, the doctors will think you are a slob.” Ambivalence occurs because you know the doctor might think this but you also don’t want to give in to your mother’s demand. So, you don’t change your underwear just to spite your mom, but you drive extra carefully that day.
Your husband treated you badly, ignored you and thought only of himself for years. You had an affair because you no longer could stand the neglect and because you were angry to the core. You didn’t tell anyone and never got caught. Yet, you felt guilt, even though at deeper levels you justified your behavior. You had needs and they went unmet way too long, and even though your needs were legitimate, your behavior gave you “pause” (hence the ambivalence).
Your doctor said to stop eating fatty foods and to lose weight. That night, you are out with your best friends, celebrating graduating from college. The menu arrives and there are lots of yummy choices, plus a few calorie-restrictive ones (that taste like cardboard). You may feel guilty tomorrow, but not tonight. Will power is overruled by other powers. You know the correct thing to do (THE standard) because somewhere in the back of your mind are your doctor’s words. Yet, you order steak and lobster, butter, sour cream, chives, and a cheesecake chaser. (There were a few side vegetables somewhere on that plate, weren’t there?) Yum.
You got an “A minus,” not an “A” on your term paper, because you used a few incorrect forms of words. You beat yourself up. “Why didn’t I see that ‘their’ and ‘there’ are not the same? And, I used ‘to’ instead of ‘too.’ I wasn’t perfect and I ‘should’ have known better.” Ambivalence in this case might stem from knowing THE standard but also not caring sufficiently to use the right words at the time because of competing interests, or just laziness.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the first of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
In its most healthy and appropriate sense, guilt is an emotional warning sign that most people learn through their normal childhood social development. Its purpose is to let us know when we’ve done something wrong, to help us develop a better sense of our behavior by being aware of how our behaviors affect ourselves and others. It prompts us to re-examine our values, principles and ideals so that we don’t end up making the same mistake(s) twice. This thinking, as should be obvious by now, has an upside and a downside. Here’s some every-day, down-to-earth “situations,” and then discussions about how to deal with each by creating a third standard, not necessarily accepting the one mandated by the guilt-perpetrator. The response to some of these examples is in subsequent articles, so be sure to read all six in this series. (Also, see the previous articles on ambivalence and guilt, the psychology of guilt and dealing with guilt by this author.)
We speed on the freeway and rationalize the behavior. We tell ourselves, “I’m just keeping up with traffic.” There is ambivalence because we know we are driving faster than the speed limit, but at the same time everyone else is doing it, so it must be OK. This rationalization works to reduce the anxiety in our own minds, until we look in the rear view mirror and see a flashing red light. The cop shows us the number on his radar gun, and “now” we not only acknowledge guilt but also experience it acutely in the form of an admission of wrong doing, often followed by pleading our case to the policeman. We also experience anxiety. We imagine the price of the traffic ticket, think of the inconvenience of attending traffic school and paying higher insurance premiums. If we are lucky, the officer lets us off with a warning and we go our way, vowing not to speed again, or at least until the cop disappears.
Your mother tells you to always wear clean underwear when leaving the house. Why? “Because if you get into an accident and are taken to the hospital, the doctors will think you are a slob.” Ambivalence occurs because you know the doctor might think this but you also don’t want to give in to your mother’s demand. So, you don’t change your underwear just to spite your mom, but you drive extra carefully that day.
Your husband treated you badly, ignored you and thought only of himself for years. You had an affair because you no longer could stand the neglect and because you were angry to the core. You didn’t tell anyone and never got caught. Yet, you felt guilt, even though at deeper levels you justified your behavior. You had needs and they went unmet way too long, and even though your needs were legitimate, your behavior gave you “pause” (hence the ambivalence).
Your doctor said to stop eating fatty foods and to lose weight. That night, you are out with your best friends, celebrating graduating from college. The menu arrives and there are lots of yummy choices, plus a few calorie-restrictive ones (that taste like cardboard). You may feel guilty tomorrow, but not tonight. Will power is overruled by other powers. You know the correct thing to do (THE standard) because somewhere in the back of your mind are your doctor’s words. Yet, you order steak and lobster, butter, sour cream, chives, and a cheesecake chaser. (There were a few side vegetables somewhere on that plate, weren’t there?) Yum.
You got an “A minus,” not an “A” on your term paper, because you used a few incorrect forms of words. You beat yourself up. “Why didn’t I see that ‘their’ and ‘there’ are not the same? And, I used ‘to’ instead of ‘too.’ I wasn’t perfect and I ‘should’ have known better.” Ambivalence in this case might stem from knowing THE standard but also not caring sufficiently to use the right words at the time because of competing interests, or just laziness.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Ambivalence and Guilt--Part I
Ambivalence and Guilt--Part I
This is the first of a two-part series on ambivalence and guilt. Written by a psychologist.
We all suffer from internal conflicts every day; some big, some little. Some conflicts are between ideas, concepts and values, while others are only between feelings. Some are conscious, some unconscious. In all cases, the irresolution of the conflict sponsors indecisiveness. The subjective experience is, “It doesn’t feel good.” It creates a sense of uneasiness. In my trade, it is said, we “compensate” or “defend” against this anxiety; that is, and we try to “deal” with it. Our training and experience determines the style (form and function) of the behaviors that express the conflict, as well as the psychological defenses we employ. These states of affair or subjective experiences of these conflicts are what I call “The Ambivalences.” Ambivalence is very common. It is a subclinical phenomenon; meaning, not a mental illness. I speak of three primary manifestations—procrastination, guilt and forgiveness. We all experience them.
So, I went to Google and typed in, “Ambi.” I found the following:
“…A prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, meaning “both” (ambiguous) and “around”(ambient); used in the formation of compound words.”
And what is valence?
“…The psychological value of an object, event, person, goal, region, etc. in the life space of an individual…negative and positive for the valence of things avoided and sought after, respectively.”
The term “valence” is actually not very good, because it comes from chemistry, which is a hard science; whereas, psychology is not. In chemistry, valence is said to reflect the tendency, strength and/or capability to bond, as in two elements, chemical or molecules. In psychology, valence reflects the attraction or repulsion of feelings and ideas, which determine behavior. Such attractions and repulsions can be weak or strong, conscious or unconscious.
Put “ambi” and “valence” together to get “ambivalence.” One definition is the following:
“The coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.”
A more detailed psychology definition of ambivalence includes the following:
“A tendency to ‘flip-flop’ one’s feelings or attitudes about a person, object or idea…. A state in which one is pulled in two mutually exclusive directions or towards two opposite goals. This meaning …shows up most clearly in the research on behavioral reactions to various forms of conflict.”
Ambivalence is when we want or do not want two things at once. As with all ambivalences, guilt can pop up when there are conflicts over values, ideas or feelings. However, guilt usually involves something more personal about us, what we did that was wrong vs. what we “should” or “should not” have done. We are aware of some aspects of these; that is, we may have a conscious experience of the conflicts. Or, the conflicts may be between what we are aware of and what is out of awareness. Many a thought has come and gone, yet still resides in our unconscious minds. Here, we find values, preferences, hidden motivations, likes and dislikes. As Freud said, here exists a whole pantheon of buried impulses; some good, some not. This mess in the back of our minds makes us both want something and at the same time not want something.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the first of a two-part series on ambivalence and guilt. Written by a psychologist.
We all suffer from internal conflicts every day; some big, some little. Some conflicts are between ideas, concepts and values, while others are only between feelings. Some are conscious, some unconscious. In all cases, the irresolution of the conflict sponsors indecisiveness. The subjective experience is, “It doesn’t feel good.” It creates a sense of uneasiness. In my trade, it is said, we “compensate” or “defend” against this anxiety; that is, and we try to “deal” with it. Our training and experience determines the style (form and function) of the behaviors that express the conflict, as well as the psychological defenses we employ. These states of affair or subjective experiences of these conflicts are what I call “The Ambivalences.” Ambivalence is very common. It is a subclinical phenomenon; meaning, not a mental illness. I speak of three primary manifestations—procrastination, guilt and forgiveness. We all experience them.
So, I went to Google and typed in, “Ambi.” I found the following:
“…A prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, meaning “both” (ambiguous) and “around”(ambient); used in the formation of compound words.”
And what is valence?
“…The psychological value of an object, event, person, goal, region, etc. in the life space of an individual…negative and positive for the valence of things avoided and sought after, respectively.”
The term “valence” is actually not very good, because it comes from chemistry, which is a hard science; whereas, psychology is not. In chemistry, valence is said to reflect the tendency, strength and/or capability to bond, as in two elements, chemical or molecules. In psychology, valence reflects the attraction or repulsion of feelings and ideas, which determine behavior. Such attractions and repulsions can be weak or strong, conscious or unconscious.
Put “ambi” and “valence” together to get “ambivalence.” One definition is the following:
“The coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.”
A more detailed psychology definition of ambivalence includes the following:
“A tendency to ‘flip-flop’ one’s feelings or attitudes about a person, object or idea…. A state in which one is pulled in two mutually exclusive directions or towards two opposite goals. This meaning …shows up most clearly in the research on behavioral reactions to various forms of conflict.”
Ambivalence is when we want or do not want two things at once. As with all ambivalences, guilt can pop up when there are conflicts over values, ideas or feelings. However, guilt usually involves something more personal about us, what we did that was wrong vs. what we “should” or “should not” have done. We are aware of some aspects of these; that is, we may have a conscious experience of the conflicts. Or, the conflicts may be between what we are aware of and what is out of awareness. Many a thought has come and gone, yet still resides in our unconscious minds. Here, we find values, preferences, hidden motivations, likes and dislikes. As Freud said, here exists a whole pantheon of buried impulses; some good, some not. This mess in the back of our minds makes us both want something and at the same time not want something.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Ambivalence and Guilt--Part II
This is the second in a two-part series of articles on ambivalence and guilt. Please read the first article before reading this one. Written by a psychologist.
The Dictionary of Psychology defines an “Approach-Avoidance” situation, as …
“A conflict resulting from being both drawn and repelled by the same goal. This type of conflict is particularly difficult to resolve in that with distance the goal appears more desirable than fearful, whereas with proximity its aversive qualities tend to dominate, causing withdrawal, which, of course leads to an increase in the goal’s perceived positive features relative to the negative ones.”
For example, what happens when we are offered a job with a raise in salary but there are drawbacks, like having to work more hours or to move to another city? It gets more complicated.
The “Double Approach-Avoidance” situation is defined as a:
“…variation on the simple Approach-Avoidance conflict, in which each of two goals has both positive and negative aspects.”
An example (conflict) is when a person is on a diet. After the meal the waiter presents a delicious, calorie-rich chocolate cake on one plate, and a plain, unadorned carrot on another plate. The choice is to enjoy the cake (+) but suffer the consequences later (-), or eat the plain carrot (-), but enjoy the benefits later (+). Each has a plus and a minus, hence the double approach-avoidance.
These are the simplest classifications of ambivalence. There are thousands of potential approach-avoidant, approach-approach, and double approach-avoidant situations. Here’s one I recently heard in the office.
You are the parent of an adult child who is beyond old enough to take care of herself. Yet, she berates you when you fail to pay her rent and other expenses. You feel good about taking care of her but you feel bad about encouraging her dependence. She rewards you with approval when you support her but calls you a quitter and accuses you of abandoning her when you threaten to focus more on your needs. What kind of ambivalence is this? Approach-Avoidant? Approach-Approach? Double Approach-Approach? Double Approach-Avoidant? (Hint--choose the last one…)
In sum, ambivalence is a technical way of describing indecision, which is really central to the three conditions of procrastination, guilt and forgiveness. Indecision creates anxiety, which results from having to choose between usually conflicting alternatives. Indecision and conflicts can be conscious or unconscious. A conscious conflict means you are aware of both sides of the “argument”--good vs. good, bad vs. bad, or both good vs. bad, usually for more than one choice. A partially conscious conflict is when you are not aware of at least one side of things, but still feel some form of indecision, hence anxiety about the choice(s). An unconscious conflict is when there is indecision and you feel anxious but don’t have a clue why. Guilt works with ambivalence combining conflict with a sense of right and wrong in relation to THE standard.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
The Dictionary of Psychology defines an “Approach-Avoidance” situation, as …
“A conflict resulting from being both drawn and repelled by the same goal. This type of conflict is particularly difficult to resolve in that with distance the goal appears more desirable than fearful, whereas with proximity its aversive qualities tend to dominate, causing withdrawal, which, of course leads to an increase in the goal’s perceived positive features relative to the negative ones.”
For example, what happens when we are offered a job with a raise in salary but there are drawbacks, like having to work more hours or to move to another city? It gets more complicated.
The “Double Approach-Avoidance” situation is defined as a:
“…variation on the simple Approach-Avoidance conflict, in which each of two goals has both positive and negative aspects.”
An example (conflict) is when a person is on a diet. After the meal the waiter presents a delicious, calorie-rich chocolate cake on one plate, and a plain, unadorned carrot on another plate. The choice is to enjoy the cake (+) but suffer the consequences later (-), or eat the plain carrot (-), but enjoy the benefits later (+). Each has a plus and a minus, hence the double approach-avoidance.
These are the simplest classifications of ambivalence. There are thousands of potential approach-avoidant, approach-approach, and double approach-avoidant situations. Here’s one I recently heard in the office.
You are the parent of an adult child who is beyond old enough to take care of herself. Yet, she berates you when you fail to pay her rent and other expenses. You feel good about taking care of her but you feel bad about encouraging her dependence. She rewards you with approval when you support her but calls you a quitter and accuses you of abandoning her when you threaten to focus more on your needs. What kind of ambivalence is this? Approach-Avoidant? Approach-Approach? Double Approach-Approach? Double Approach-Avoidant? (Hint--choose the last one…)
In sum, ambivalence is a technical way of describing indecision, which is really central to the three conditions of procrastination, guilt and forgiveness. Indecision creates anxiety, which results from having to choose between usually conflicting alternatives. Indecision and conflicts can be conscious or unconscious. A conscious conflict means you are aware of both sides of the “argument”--good vs. good, bad vs. bad, or both good vs. bad, usually for more than one choice. A partially conscious conflict is when you are not aware of at least one side of things, but still feel some form of indecision, hence anxiety about the choice(s). An unconscious conflict is when there is indecision and you feel anxious but don’t have a clue why. Guilt works with ambivalence combining conflict with a sense of right and wrong in relation to THE standard.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
