It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, December 24, 2021
How much does raising a child impact your career? Men and women disagree on the answer
According to a new poll, 35% of mothers reported taking on more household responsibilities than their partner, compared to just 3% of fathers who reported the same. Credit: Shutterstock
When it comes to raising children, men and women have different perspectives on the division of household labor—from cooking meals to offering emotional support—according to a new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.
The new study also reveals important differences in how men and women perceive the impact of having a child on job security and workplace success. Mothers are more likely to say they perform more of the household responsibilities, while fathers are more likely to say they share the responsibilities equally with their partner.
In fact, 35 percent of mothers reported doing more than their partner for each of the eight household responsibilities asked about on the survey, compared to just 3 percent of fathers who reported the same.
"Although the gap between what mothers and fathers report is significant, it is not what either anticipates before they have children—and that's what is so interesting," said Yana Gallen, an assistant professor at the Harris School of Public Policy who studies the gender pay gap. "Prior to becoming parents, most men and women expect that they will share the division of labor equally across all household activities, but their views on whether that is actually the case diverge after they have a child."
The perceived impacts of having a child are also relevant to the workplace, where half of adults who have been employed say having a child is an obstacle to employee advancement, and about 4 in 10 say the same regarding job security and the opportunity for a raise.
Americans' perspectives on children in the workplace are tied to gender as well, with 47 percent of women saying that having a child is an obstacle for job security compared to 36 percent of men. Similarly, adults making less than $50,000 a year are more likely than higher income adults to say having a child is an obstacle for job security (50 percent vs 35 percent) and job advancement (55 percent vs 46 percent).
"Women and lower-income Americans are especially likely to feel they are paying a penalty at work for becoming a parent," said David Sterrett, senior research scientist with the AP-NORC Center. "Whether it comes in the form of limited job choices because of the need for a schedule that accommodates parenting or having less job security, these groups feel they are missing out on career opportunities compared to their co-workers without children."
The poll also finds that in order to manage their work and personal lives, two-thirds of adults have chosen a job with a schedule that allows them to manage their other responsibilities and 68 percent get support from friends or family.
And when thinking about whether to have a child, more than 8 in 10 Americans say having a stable partner and having a secure job are important factors that they consider.
Among the key findings from the report:
Forty-three percent of adults without a college degree say having a child is an obstacle to getting a raise, while 32 percent of adults with a college degree say the same.
Parents are more likely than non-parents to have chosen a job with a schedule such that they can manage their personal responsibilities, spent less time at their job to focus on friends or family, and to have made sure they had support of friends or family.
Women are more likely than men to have chosen a job with a schedule such that they can manage their personal responsibilities (70 percent vs 61 percent) and made sure they had the support of friends or family (73 percent vs 64 percent).
Nearly three-quarters of Americans without children (74 percent) say having enough savings is an important factor when thinking about their decision whether or not to have children, compared to 59 percent of parents who said it was important.
Women are more likely than men to say flexibility at work is important when thinking about whether or not to have a child (74 percent vs 66 percent).
This study was conducted by the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research with funding from NORC at the University of Chicago.
For more than a decade, women have earned more doctoral degrees than men in the United States. Despite that, women still lag behind men in getting tenure, getting published and reaching leadership positions in academia.
Much of the research into why that might be focuses on structural barriers and explicit prejudice. But a new study by a team of researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) finds a widespread implicit bias against academic work that simply seems feminine—even if it's not about women or gender specifically.
Analyzing nearly 1 million doctoral dissertations from U.S. universities over a recent 40-year period, the researchers found that scholars who wrote about topics associated with women, or used methodologies associated with women, were less likely to go on to get senior faculty positions than those who did not.
The issue wasn't so much a prejudice against feminist studies or gender studies, which have expanded considerably since the 1970s. In fact, people who wrote their dissertations explicitly about women had slightly better career prospects than those who wrote explicitly about men.
The real problem was a more subtle bias against topics and research designs that were "feminized," meaning they were more associated with traditions of women's work. Scholars whose dissertation abstracts had words like parenting, children or relationship, for example, had slimmer career prospects than people who used words like algorithm, efficiency or war.
Even within a particular field, whether sociology or computer science, scholars whose dissertations were associated with women's traditions in research had poorer prospects than those who wrote more "masculinized" dissertations in their respective fields. Despite changes in social norms and a growing number of women scholars over time, the researchers found the devaluation of women's research was more or less consistent throughout the 40-year period.
"Everyone emphasizes that academia is based on meritocracy, that everything is neutral and based on the scientific value of research," said the study's lead author, Lanu Kim, who led the research team as a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford GSE and is now an assistant professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. "It's somewhat fake, and it's somewhat impossible. There can be differences in men's and women's research interests, and some topics are already associated with women rather than men. The process cannot really be neutral."
The study was recently released online in advance of its publication in the January 2022 issue of Research Policy.
Uncovering patterns through AI
The researchers used natural language processing, a type of artificial intelligence used to study patterns in text, to analyze the abstracts of dissertations in every field from universities throughout the United States between 1980 and 2010.
To measure how "feminized" or "masculinized" a dissertation might be, the researchers tallied the concentration of words that had been used disproportionately by male or female doctoral candidates in previous years. This included words explicitly referencing gender, such as woman, man, her or him.
Beyond that, however, the researchers looked for words associated with women's or men's interests, even if the words in themselves had nothing to do with gender.
Among the terms with a strong association to women: School, teacher, child, parent, culture and participation. Terms strongly associated with men, by contrast, ranged from algorithm and efficiency to words connected with energy and electronics.
The researchers then measured academic prospects by looking at which of the scholars went on to hold senior faculty positions. Specifically, they looked at whether a scholar was later named as the primary faculty advisor on someone else's doctoral thesis, which is a strong indicator of an emerging scholar's long-run success as an academic.
Though there are many other measures of success, Kim and her colleagues wanted to know whether academic institutions implicitly penalize scholars for certain types of research.
Overall, only 6.3 percent of those who received Ph.D.s went on to become faculty advisors, but women were about 20 percent less likely than men to reach that mark.
Notably, scholars who wrote dissertations explicitly about women had a slight advantage over those who wrote explicitly about issues for men. That reflected efforts by many universities to make up for lost ground after years of giving short shrift to women's issues.
Scholars who pursued topics and research designs more implicitly associated with women, however, had poorer prospects: Their chances of becoming a faculty advisor were 12 percent lower than average. Perhaps even more startling, the implicit bias was actually greater in fields that had strong traditions of research associated with women's work in academia, such as sociology, than in fields dominated by men, like mechanical engineering.
For scholars working in fields with a preponderance of research traditionally associated with women, female Ph.D.s are more likely to suffer a triple disadvantage on the job market, the authors wrote. "They are penalized for being women, [for] not doing a Ph.D. in a masculinized field and [for] not adopting man-type research practices."
"The troubling inequity we identified is one that women faculty have likely long suspected but continue to experience," said Daniel McFarland, a professor at Stanford GSE and one of the study's co-authors.
Kim and her colleagues confirmed that women are now modestly rewarded for research on women's issues. But that progress, they concluded, is being overwhelmed by implicit biases.
"As a society, we've made outstanding progress over the last century in transforming higher education and science institutions," said Daniel Scott Smith, a doctoral candidate at Stanford GSE and co-author of the study. "But implicit biases against certain kinds of research undermines our current efforts to make the academy more diverse—in terms of who becomes university professors but also in terms of what's considered valuable academic knowledge.Women, minority groups still lagging in clinical faculty positions
More information:Lanu Kim et al, Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers,Research Policy(2021).DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104411
A new study from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison has found children's books may perpetuate gender stereotypes. Such information in early education books could play an integral role in solidifying gendered perceptions in young children. The results are available in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science.
"Some of the stereotypes that have been studied in a social psychology literature are present in these books, like girls being good at reading and boys being good at math," said Molly Lewis, special faculty in the Social and Decision Sciences and Psychology departments at the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences and lead author on the study.
Lewis has found that books with gendered language were centered around the protagonist in the story. Female-associated words focused on affection, school-related words and communication verbs, like 'explained' and 'listened.' Meanwhile, male-associated words focused more on professions, transportation and tools.
"The audiences of these books [are] different," said Lewis. "Girls more often read stereotypically girl books, and boys more often read stereotypically boy books."
Girls are more likely to have books read to them that include female protagonists than boys. Because of these preferences, children are more likely to learn about the gender biases of their own gender than of other genders.
The researchers analyzed 247 books written for children 5 years old and younger from the Wisconsin Children's Book Corpus. The books with female protagonists had more gendered language than the books with male protagonists. The researchers attribute this finding to "male" being historically seen as the default gender. Female-coded words and phrases are more outside of the norm and more notable.
The researchers also compared their findings to adult fiction books and found children's books displayed more gender stereotypes than fictional books read by adults. In particular, the researchers examined how often women were associated with good, family, language and arts, while men were associated with bad, careers and math. Compared to the adult corpus, which was fairly gender neutral when it came to associations between gender, language, arts and math, children's books were far more likely to associate women with language and arts and men with math.
"Our data are only part of the story—so to speak," said Mark Seidenberg, professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and contributing author on the study. "They are based on the words in children's books and say nothing about other characteristics that matter: the story, the emotions they evoke, the ways the books expand children's knowledge of the world. We don't want to ruin anyone's memories of 'Curious George' or 'Amelia Bedelia.' Knowing that stereotypes do creep into many books and that children develop beliefs about gender at a young age, we probably want to consider books with this in mind."
The study did not directly assess how children perceive the messages about gender in these books or examine how the books influence how the readers perceive gender. The study also did not evaluate other sources of gender stereotypes to which children are exposed.
"There is often kind of a cycle of learning about gender stereotypes, with children learning stereotypes at a young age then perpetuating them as they get older," said Lewis. "These books may be a vehicle for communicating information about gender. We may need to pay some attention to what those messages may be and whether they're messages you want to even bring to children."
Individual points reflect proportion estimates for each year. The dotted line at 0.5 denotes parity. The shaded region shows the standard error of the binomial logistic regression model fit. Credit: Casey et al., 2021, PLOS ONE, CC-BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
An analysis of thousands of children's books published in the last 60 years suggests that, while a higher proportion of books now feature female protagonists, male protagonists remain overrepresented. Stella Lourenco of Emory University, U.S., and colleagues present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on December 15, 2021 and explore the factors associated with representation
A large body of evidence points to a bias in male versus female representation among protagonists in children's books published prior to 2000. However, evidence is lacking as to whether that bias has persisted. In addition, it has been unclear which factors, such as author gender, may be associated with male versus female protagonists.
To help clarify whether gender bias still exists in American children's literature, the authors conducted a statistical analysis of the frequency of male versus female protagonists in 3,280 books, aimed for audiences aged 0 to 16 years and published between 1960 and 2020. They selected books that can be purchased online in the United States, either as hard copies or as digital books, and primarily written in English (<1% written in multiple languages). To enable direct comparison of the rates of appearance of male versus female central characters, they focused on books featuring a single central protagonist, and also only included books for which the gender of the book author was identifiable and matched for all authors if there was more than one.
The analysis found that, since 1960, the proportion of female central protagonists has increased—and is still increasing—but books published since 2000 still feature a disproportionate number of male central protagonists.
The researchers also found associations between the ratio of male versus female protagonists and several relevant factors. Specifically, they found that gender bias is higher for fiction featuring non-human characters than for fiction with human characters. Meanwhile, non-fiction books have a greater degree of gender bias than fiction books, especially when the characters are human.
Books by male authors showed a decline in bias since 1960, but only in books written for younger audiences. Books by female authors also declined in bias over time, ultimately with more female than male central protagonists featured in books for older children and in books with human characters.
These findings could help guide efforts toward more equitable gender representation in children's books, which could impact child development and societal attitudes. Future research could build on this work by considering reading rates of specific books, as well as books with non-binary characters.
The authors add: "Although male protagonists remain overrepresented in books written for children (even post-2000), the present study found that the male-to-female ratio of protagonists varied according to author gender, age of the target audience, character type, and book genre. In other words, some authors and types of books were more equitable in the gender representation of protagonists in children's books."
More information:Casey K, Novick K, Lourenco SF (2021) Sixty years of gender representation in children's books: Conditions associated with overrepresentation of male versus female protagonists.PLoS ONE16(12): e0260566.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260566
In the early weeks of their lives and even before birth, babies are skilfully processing important information about the sounds they hear. They are attuning to tones, patterns of language and distinguishing their own familiar adults' voices. Making sense of sounds, patterns, words and sentences are important skills that will help a child as they progress towards reading.
Early reading for under-threes is rooted in their daily lives. It involves lots of listening, communication, speech and language activities—not just sharing books.
As their language and communication skills develop and they build vocabulary, under-threes learn to use pictures, words and sounds, tell and retell familiar stories, and sing songs and rhymes. In turn, these activities help children navigate pictures, words and sentences they encounter on the page.
Here are five tips to support early reading for children aged under three.
1: Create a "chatty" environment
Encourage and support lots of communication. Research shows that talking to babies and toddlers helps them build vocabulary, while conversation a child simply overhears does not always contribute to their vocabulary development.
Take turns in conversations and comment on their activities and the routines of the day. This could be when getting dressed, during play, nappy changing or taking a walk through the park. This will enable under-threes to begin to develop receptive language—the ability to understand others. They will make connections, notice, respond and engage with sounds and images in the environment, all important early reading skills.
2. Have fun with rhythm and music making
Play lots of rhyming games, sing nursery rhymes, comment on rhyming patterns in songs and make lots of music. Repetition and predictable rhyme helps children remember new words.
Alliteration and assonance in poetry and nursery rhymes draws attention to the individual sounds and patterns in words.
3. Share meaningful images
Use images, such as pictures and photographs of familiar places, objects, families and communities, to create meaningful shared experiences for children under three. Make books with photographs or apps to encourage talk and interaction about children's home cultures and families. Encourage children to point out the details they encounter in pictures.
Reading pictures and following images helps children learn to read as they begin to make connections, understand sequences of stories and further develop their comprehension skills. Very young children are adept at interpreting visual texts and noticing details.
4. Draw attention to print in daily life
Use your environment and local community to point out words at home, at nursery or out and about. This could be print on cereal boxes, signs or logos. Encountering print in their environment helps under-threes recognize letters, sounds and images that have meaning.
5. Engage with books frequently
Shared book reading, story time and retelling stories together are valuable points of connection and social interaction for under-threes. When supportive adults encourage the exploration of pictures, draw attention to the text and the conventions of print, and talk about the characters or the sequence of the story, the story comes alive to create awe and wonder for children.
Choose a range of books—cloth, sensory, picture books and story books or online story apps. Ensure that under-threes also have independent access to these, so they are able to choose books or apps themselves, turn pages or handle interactive technology.
Puppets, props and role-play help to make books or stories and rhymes interactive and help children recreate stories through imaginative play. Under-threes need to relate images, sounds and words to their own experiences, so ensure that the props you use link to the child's culture and daily life.
Cognitive training designed to focus on what's important while ignoring distractions can enhance the brain's information processing, enabling the ability to "learn to learn," finds a new study on mice.
Researchers have frequently studied the machinations of memory—specifically, how neurons store the information gained from experience so that the same information can be recalled later. However, less is known about the underlying neurobiology of how we "learn to learn"—the mechanisms our brains use to go beyond drawing from memory to utilize past experiences in meaningful, novel ways.
A greater understanding of this process could point to new methods to enhance learning and to design precision cognitive behavioral therapies for neuropsychiatric disorders like anxiety, schizophrenia, and other forms of mental dysfunction.
To explore this, the researchers conducted a series of experiments using mice, who were assessed for their ability to learn cognitively challenging tasks. Prior to the assessment, some mice received "cognitive control training" (CCT). They were put on a slowly rotating arena and trained to avoid the stationary location of a mild shock using stationary visual cues while ignoring locations of the shock on the rotating floor. CCT mice were compared to control mice. One control group also learned the same place avoidance, but it did not have to ignore the irrelevant rotating locations.
The use of the rotating arena place avoidance methodology was vital to the experiment, the scientists note, because it manipulates spatial information, dissociating the environment into stationary and rotating components. Previously, the lab had shown that learning to avoid shock on the rotating arena requires using the hippocampus, the brain's memory and navigation center, as well as the persistent activity of a molecule (protein kinase M zeta [PKMζ]) that is crucial for maintaining increases in the strength of neuronal connections and for storing long-term memory.
"In short, there were molecular, physiological, and behavioral reasons to examine long-term place avoidance memory in the hippocampus circuit as well as a theory for how the circuit could persistently improve," explains Fenton.
Analysis of neural activity in the hippocampus during CCT confirmed the mice were using relevant information for avoiding shock and ignoring the rotating distractions in the vicinity of the shock. Notably, this process of ignoring distractions was essential for the mice learning to learn as it allowed them to do novel cognitive tasks better than the mice that did not receive CCT. Remarkably, the researchers could measure that CCT also improves how the mice's hippocampal neural circuitry functions to process information. The hippocampus is a crucial part of the brain for forming long-lasting memories as well as for spatial navigation, and CCT improved how it operates for months.
"The study shows that two hours of cognitive control training causes learning to learn in mice and that learning to learn is accompanied by improved tuning of a key brain circuit for memory," observes Fenton. "Consequently, the brain becomes persistently more effective at suppressing noisy inputs and more consistently effective at enhancing the inputs that matter."Trains in the brain: Scientists uncover switching system used in information processing and memory
New research published in Frontiers in Education argues that analyzing the individual components that underlie socioeconomic status, such as parents' occupation or the number of books in a home, is a better predictor of student success across different cultures than the current composite index.
The dominant paradigm for predicting student achievement across cultures is lacking nuance when it comes to accounting for socioeconomic status (SES) in educational assessments. A new paper in Frontiers in Education argues that lumping individual factors together equally under SES omits crucial data for understanding gaps in education. Instead, the researchers contend, future research should approach socioeconomic status as a multidimensional predictor, weighing each variable differently based on individual cultures.
The research team, based in Sweden, analyzed data from almost 600,000 students in 77 countries from the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a worldwide study that measures the performance of 15-year-old school students in mathematics, science and reading.
Like most similar assessments, PISA treats socioeconomic status as a single, composite factor among a number of other variables, such as class size or school policy, when trying to predict student success. But when researchers broke SES down into six component variables, they made some surprising discoveries.
"Our main finding is that relations between student achievement and socioeconomic factors look very different in different countries," said Dr. Kimmo Eriksson, lead author and a professor of mathematics and social psychology at Mälardalen University College. "In many countries, achievement is strongly related to the number of books at home while it is unrelated, or even negatively related, to wealth."
A nuanced approach
Parents' highest occupational status was another key factor that better predicted student success—or lack thereof—compared to the one-dimensional socioeconomic status index employed by PISA that weighed all SES factors equally. In addition, results were almost identical across different academic domains, which implies they may not be important in these sorts of analyses. For example, the effect of books at home was equally significant in science and math as in reading.
However, these two variables—books at home and parents' occupation status—do not necessarily capture the full picture in poorer countries, where wealth is indeed strongly related to better academic results.
"This points to a fundamental problem with the current approach, in which socioeconomic status is measured by some fixed index of socioeconomic factors," Eriksson said. "For example, this practice will inevitably underestimate the socioeconomic achievement gap in countries where the index does not match the actual importance of different socioeconomic factors."
Book versus wealth
It is possible to find an optimal single-dimensional index, but this index may be radically different for different countries, he noted. An index that primarily includes books at home and parents' occupational status may work quite well as a predictor of student achievement in higher-income countries, based on the results of the current study.
While the main goal of the paper was to challenge the current paradigm of how to measure and interpret gaps in student achievement based on socioeconomic status, the researchers did address some of the more 'shocking' discoveries.
In particular, they speculated what could be so beneficial about owning books, especially among a generation reared on smartphones and social media. They argued that this effect may be less about direct causation and more related to what the paper referred to as "trait transfer". In other words, the number of books in a home may indicate the parents' general interest in and enjoyment of reading—traits that may transfer better study habits in a student.
"We believe that the mystery disappears if we instead assume that socioeconomic factors are mainly indicators of individual traits that are useful to achieve in school and that to some extent are transferred from parents to children," Eriksson explained.Behavior in high school predicts income and occupational success later in life
More information:Kimmo Eriksson et al, Socioeconomic Status as a Multidimensional Predictor of Student Achievement in 77 Societies,Frontiers in Education(2021).DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2021.731634
FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE Survey: Half Of Doctors Considering Leaving Medicine — Because Of Health Insurance Headaches Poll of 600 physicians shows frustration over insurer policies and delays that doctors say could be leaving patients in prolonged pain.
WASHINGTON — Are health insurance policies creating nightmares for physicians and hazards for their patients? A new study finds that nearly nine in ten doctors believe barriers set by insurance plans have led to worsened conditions for patients in need of care.
Researchers with Aimed Alliance, a non-profit that seeks to protect and enhance the rights of health care consumers and providers, say that doctors are so fed up with the constant headaches caused by insurers, two-thirds would recommend against pursuing a career in medicine, and nearly half (48%) are considering a career change altogether.
For the study, the organization polled 600 physicians in the U.S. practicing either family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, or obstetrics/gynecology. The group sought to understand the extent to which insurance policies impact primary care physicians, their practices, and their patients on a day-to-day basis. They also wanted to get a better understanding of mental health issues among providers, as well as the causes behind the national provider shortage.
Researchers found that physicians don’t think very highly of health insurance companies, and believe they’re putting patients at risk with policies such as prior authorizations ahead of filling prescriptions. In fact, 87% of doctors say patients’ conditions have grown worse because of such red-tape regulations, and 83% worry the patients will suffer prolonged pain as a result.
Prior authorizations are especially bothersome for doctors. More than nine in ten (91%) of those surveyed think the policy delays necessary care for patients. Similarly, the same number of doctors agree insurers engage in “non-medical switching,” which forces patients to take less costly — but potentially less effective — medicines.
Such policies are stressing many physicians out. Thirty-seven percent say half or more of their daily stress is caused by insurance issues, and 65% feel they’re facing greater legal risks because of decisions made by insurers. The vast majority (85%) are left frustrated by such issues, and many admit to taking their anger and emotions out on their staff and even family members.
“I can understand why many of the respondents reported that they would not recommend this career to anyone else,” Dr. Shannon Ginnan, medical director of Aimed Alliance, tells StudyFinds. “As practitioners, much of our time is spent on burdensome paperwork required from health insurers for our services to be paid for. This prevents us from spending as much time on patient care as we would like, and it doesn’t take much for all this paperwork to interfere with the services that we provide.”
To Ginnan’s point, the survey showed that 77% of doctors have had to hire more staffers to handle the heavier administrative load from insurance work. Ninety-percent say they have less time to spend with patients because of the burden.
As for the aspect of insurers’ policies that doctors would like to see changed most, the majority (55%) agreed on an insurers’ ability to override the professional judgment of physicians. About nine out of ten (87%) respondents felt that insurer personnel interfere with their ability to provide individualized treatments for each patient.
Beyond the harm that doctors say insurance policies cause patients in need of care, they also agree that patients are taking a hit in their bank accounts too. Doctors believe that insurers are contributing to the rising cost of healthcare more than anything else, including pharmaceutical companies, government policies, lawsuits, or hospitals.
The organization hope their study will provide lawmakers solid data when attempting to reform health care laws and regulations related to utilization management and provider shortages.
The survey was conducted on behalf of Aimed Alliance by David Binder Research.
Study: Psychiatric Diagnoses Are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ In Treating Mental Health
LIVERPOOL, England — No two people are exactly alike. Therefore, attempting to classify each unique individual’s mental health issues into neat categories just doesn’t work. That’s the claim coming out of the United Kingdom that is sure to ruffle some psychologists’ feathers.
More people are being diagnosed with mental illnesses than ever before. Multiple factors can be attributed to this rise; many people blame the popularity of social media and increased screen time, but it is also worth considering that in today’s day and age more people may be willing to admit they are having mental health issues in the first place. Whatever the reason, it is generally believed that a psychiatric diagnosis is the first step to recovery.
That’s why a new study conducted at the University of Liverpool has raised eyebrows by concluding that psychiatric diagnoses are “scientifically meaningless,” and worthless as tools to accurately identify and address mental distress at an individual level.
Researchers performed a detailed analysis on five of the most important chapters in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Heath Disorders (DSM). The DSM is considered the definitive guide for mental health professionals, and provides descriptions for all mental health problems and their symptoms. The five chapters analyzed were: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and trauma-related disorders.
Researchers came to a number of troubling conclusions. First, the study’s authors assert that there is a significant amount of overlap in symptoms between disorder diagnoses, despite the fact that each diagnosis utilizes different decision rules. Additionally, these diagnoses completely ignore the role of trauma or other unique adverse events a person may encounter in their life.
Perhaps most concerning of all, researchers say that these diagnoses tell us little to nothing about the individual patient and what type of treatments they will need. The authors ultimately conclude that this diagnostic labeling approach is “a disingenuous categorical system.”
“Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.” Lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp explains in a release.
According to the study’s authors, the traditional diagnostic system being used today wrongly assumes that any and all mental distress is caused by a disorder, and relies far too heavily on subjective ideas about what is considered “normal.”
“Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed.” Professor John Read comments.
R.D. Laing was a controversial figure to the Establishment and a hero to the counter-culture movement of the 1960s which viewed R. D. Laing as a pioneering humanitarian whose works
CINCINNATI, Ohio — If you’ve ever worked in an office, you probably know the occasional interruption from a colleague is unavoidable. Maybe it’s to ask for your opinion, or to simply share an anecdote from the past weekend. Whatever the reason, most have heard “hey, do you have a second?” at least a handful of times while working. These interruptions can be annoying, but a recent study finds these workday occurrences actually offer a significant benefit.
Researchers from the University of Cincinnati report that while these moments may feel like a burden at the time, they also serve to foster a much greater sense of office cohesion and sense of belonging for the person stopping to answers these questions. Study authors even go so far as to say the benefits can outweigh the negatives, such as lost productivity.
Other negatives that come with such interruptions include higher stress and lower energy levels, but eventually the interrupted employees reported feeling like they belonged and an overall higher degree of job satisfaction.
It may be annoying to have to deal with an interruption in the heat of an important project, but if a colleague thinks enough of you to ask your for your opinion, help, or input, researchers say that serves as validation that you’re a valued member of the team.
“If the past year of social distancing and isolation has shown us anything, it is that humans are social beings who have an inherent need for interacting with others,” says lead study author Harshad Puranik, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Managerial Studies at University of Illinois at Chicago, in a release. An interrupted worker is a happy worker?
Study authors surveyed a group of 111 employees twice per day for three full weeks. Each time, employees answered questions about their experiences at the office that day. More specifically, participants recorded if they had endured any interruptions, how mentally tired they felt, their sense of belonging, and their overall job satisfaction.
Those polls led the research team to conclude that while work interruptions in a vacuum can certainly lead to feeling more lethargic and dissatisfied, the social interactions that usually accompany those intrusions produce feelings of belonging and increased job satisfaction.
“Our study revealed that by providing this avenue for social interaction with one’s colleagues, work interruptions led to a greater sense of belonging. This sense of belonging, in turn, led to higher job satisfaction,” Dr. Puranik adds.
“We find that interruptions can actually benefit individuals from an interpersonal perspective — people feel like they belong when others come and talk to them or ask them questions, even while being distracted from their tasks,” comments study co-author Heather Vough. “The sense of belongingness mitigated the negative effect of interruptions on job satisfaction. Thus, interruptions at work may have gotten a bad rap due to a failure to consider their human element.”
Traditionally, managers and CEOs have worked to eliminate office interruptions whenever possible. These findings, however, suggest supervisors worldwide may want to allow a bit more leeway in that regard moving forward.
The study appears in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
PROLETARIAN JUSTICE
4 in 5 U.S. workers say they support their jobs hiring people with criminal records
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Criminal records can become a major barrier for people seeking a job. Even though most U.S. states now have laws that prevent employers from asking about a person’s prior convictions, a new poll finds 82 percent of U.S. workers say their job application included questions about their criminal record. Despite the stigma surrounding going to jail, the survey also finds America’s attitude about this topic is changing. Four in five respondents say they would support their employers hiring people with a criminal history.
The survey of 1,200 U.S. employees and 400 U.S. executives, conducted by HR tech company Checkr, examined both sides of the hiring equation and what factors come into consideration when companies are looking to fill jobs.
When it comes to criminal records, 90 percent of executives admit certain types of offensives automatically disqualify a candidate from consideration. With that in mind, nearly half of employees (45%) say they have or know someone who did not get a job due to a criminal conviction in their past.
One in three U.S. workers add that they support their current company hiring people with previous convictions — regardless of what the conviction is. Another 47 percent say they would be comfortable working alongside these co-workers, just as long as their past arrest was not for a violent crime.
Where do bosses show bias?
The survey also delved into what workers think about their boss’s hiring practices. Researchers found that one in three employees think their company’s hiring practices discriminate against people for a number of reasons.
Out of these workers, 75 percent claim their jobs show bias against people with a criminal record. They also claim their bosses avoid hiring older workers (65%), non-English speaking workers (59%), immigrants (58%), minorities (54%), and women (53%).
Despite this perception among workers, 70 percent of executives say their companies have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies which give people with criminal records a “fair chance” at employment. This includes 81 percent of the technology industry, 69 percent of the finance industry, and two-thirds of the retail, hotel, and transportation industries.
Do second chances work out? For workers who get a second chance after a criminal conviction, the poll finds their bosses often have good things to say about their work.
In fact, 93 percent say fair chance employees have a good relationship with co-workers and managers. Nine in 10 bosses add these employees often work just as hard or go beyond their co-workers while on the clock.
Lastly, once these workers get another shot, executives say they’re there to stay. Eighty-five percent of executives in the poll report that “fair chance” employees usually stay with their company longer than other workers.
