In my November 2011 Psychology Today post “What Maslow Misses,” I argued that Maslow’s popular Hierarchy of Needs pyramid undervalues the role of social connection in human basic survival needs and, therefore, as a driver of behavior. Recently, storytelling and management guru and Forbes contributor Steve Denning picked up this idea in the context of how management can better meet the psychological needs of employees by focusing on social connection in a recent article: “What Maslow Missed.”

Revising Maslow: My model places social connection at the hub, as fundamental to achieving all human needs, from sex and safety to esteem

In response to Denning’s column, Maslow scholar and executive coach Don Blohowiak objected to the simplification and misrepresentation of Maslow’s work. I very much appreciate Mr. Denning’s attention to my revision of Maslow and furthering the discussion I started. And I want to take the responsibility for any misrepresentation of Maslow’s hierarchy in “Maslow Rewired” relative to Maslow’s published works. I was speaking to the common heuristic of Maslow’s work, which, as many may know, doesn’t reflect the depth of thought and understanding of a remarkable thinker and scholar. I have no doubt but that Maslow himself would be somewhere between astonished and appalled at the way his theories have been simplified, recast, reinterpreted and applied over the years. My personal favorite is the Hierarchy of Hats, but I have seen it altered to frame approaches to everything from interaction design to education and management styles.

It is not surprising that powerful ideas go, in contemporary terms, viral. As we often talk about in social technologies, the content producer doesn’t control the message — and this is true whether it’s a brand or a philosophy, Coke or Maslow.

The functional definition of brands and theories comes from the meaning the receivers make of the information they get and the experiences and context surrounding them. This is an additive process, with meaning the product of distinct bits and pieces from different things accumulated over time. There is an increasing amount of interest and attention around the idea of ‘transmedia storytelling’ these days because of our increased awareness of converging and permeable media technology boundaries, but humans have always been transmedia storytellers. Stories are the brain’s native language, giving us the ability to store the things we ‘know’ in ways that make sense by creating multi-sensory connections through our neural networks. A vast array of theorists from Mead and Vygotsky to Beck and Bandura, support what we all intuitively know: experience changes our understanding of the world, which is saying that what we experience changes the stories we tell to others and ourselves.

We get information over time, additively, from multiple sources, what we might now call ‘transmedia’, and process it based on the stories we already hold. As Mr. Denning as so brilliantly shown in his work, stories are fundamental to not just what we do, but who we are as individuals, organizations, and countries. This is a long way of saying that Maslow’s work has become a story, a significant cultural reference for many who have never and will never read his work.

The ability of Maslow’s ideas to by synthesized into a visual representation using the archetypal symbol of a pyramid has also played an important role is their dissemination and adoption because we are contributing our own understanding of symbols and visual and semantic metaphors that amplifies (and possibly distorts) the meaning. We live in a media-rich world where multi-sensory communication is the rule not the exception. It is rare to see an article about Maslow’s theory without a pyramid. The labels and number of levels sometimes vary, but our fundamental and immediate understanding of the pyramid structure is like Maslow on broadband. We get it and immediately look for ways to apply it to our own worldview. If it were not so clear, far fewer people would know of it and employ it, but without that shorthand, more might have actually read his work.

My primary point in “What Maslow Missed,” which Mr. Denning spoke to, is the widespread assumption represented by the pyramid, that human connection is NOT a primary drive and instinct, but one we worry about after we’ve found the cave, slain the wooley mammoth, or paid the heating bill. While this is not something I would attribute to Maslow himself, is it one that can be effectively addressed by tapping a well-known mental model such as the Hierarchy of Needs has become.

People seem to be surprised by the rapidity with which social tools, like Facebook or Pinterest, are adopted and they become preoccupied with and anxious about the tools themselves. In the process, they miss the import of the psychological shifts that come from not just the ability to connect and act effectively on the environment, but in knowing and believing that we can. There are significant implications in this fundamental shift for everything from the obvious, such as marketing and branding, to how we view organizational processes, such as management and education, as Mr. Denning discusses in the context of his concept of Radical Management.

I used Maslow’s hierarchy as a convenient point of reference to argue that the drivers of social connection are intimately interwoven into our basic survival, rather than an upward climb from food and shelter. So while it does a disservice to a scholar’s understanding of Maslow, I hope that it provides a glimpse into a new way of thinking about the ways that our core assumptions — our stories of who we are and how we fit into the world — shift with the empowerment of technology and the implications for communicating, engaging, and individual and society-wide expectations.

—

Cross-posted on Psychology Today

I get lots of questions about media psychology, such as ‘What is media psychology?’ and ‘What does a media psychologist do?’ A big stumbling block is the common understanding of a media psychologist as a psychologist who appears in the media. That’s the wrong answer.

Here is a recent question:

Dear Dr. Rutledge,

I am conducting research in media psychology and stumbled upon this dissertation and I am more confused than anything. A recent dissertation defines a “media psychologist” as a psychologist that conducts a session with a patient on air. She compares what a psychologist does in private with a patient with what Dr. Phil does on air in front of a live TV audience. I conducted a phone survey where I contacted clinical psychologists in NYC randomly and asked how they felt about Dr. Phil and everyone said that they had a low opinion of Dr. Phil. However according to dissertation’s thesis, psychologists rating were supportive of the “media psychologist”… Can you comment?

My response:

As media technologies become more ubiquitous and intertwined with everything we do, the more we need to understand their impact and potential. Without people there is no technology. It is psychology that gives us insight into people, as individuals, groups, cultures and society. Therefore, psychology is also instrumental to understanding media technologies because people are not separable from the media communication eco-system.

The use of the term ‘media psychologist’ is evolving over time. It is confusing because, in fact, its origins did come from clinicians who appeared in the media. This is a bit misleading since a more accurate and informative way to describe a media psychologist who appears in the media is as a media personality or a clinical psychologist who appears in the media. We don’t call Dr. Oz a media cardiologist because his ‘patients’ or the focus of his expertise is the person, not the media technologies. When I use the term media psychologist or refer to the field of media psychology, I am referring to psychologists who apply psychological theory to understanding the development, experience, use and impact of different types of media technologies and how media impacts content perception and messaging. There are psychologists who appear in the media who also know a lot about media technologies and whom I would consider media psychologists. There are also psychologists who appear in the media because that is an effective way to disseminate information, both therapeutic and otherwise. That does not make them a media psychologist as I define it. To do so devalues the expertise of the many psychologists who dedicate their efforts to understanding the interaction of human experience with the use and development of media technologies and the individual, social, and global ramifications.

An additional point of confusion is the fact that there are many kinds of psychologists. Psychologists who do clinical work (clinical psychologists) are only one professional avenue within the broader field. Clinical psychology requires a specific type and focus of training and, in order to practice with patients, licensure in the state where the practice is offered. Not all psychologists are clinicians, in fact, there are as many, if not more, psychologists teaching in academic institutions, performing research or contributing to everything from organizational management and leadership to technology development and user experience. A clinician is no more equipped to do those things without training than an organizational psychologist is to do therapy without training. (It is also illegal and unethical for the any psychologist without licensure to do therapy, even if they have clinical training.)

The field of psychology is rich with theories that are applied in many ways outside of a therapeutic context. Areas in psychology include developmental, positive, cognitive, behavioral, political, social, educational, cultural, neurological, and narrative, to name a few. A field within psychology is a descriptor of the theory and focus of the psychologist’s training and work. A cognitive psychologist will be trained in areas of cognition, meaning, perception, etc., for example. A media psychologist will be trained in applying areas of psychology to media technologies. For a specific example, see the curriculum for the new master’s degree program at the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology which shows how different areas in psychology are applied to media technologies, ranging from educational technology and media literacy to persuasive communications and social marketing.

To make matters more confusing, psychology also has ‘theoretical orientations’ that inform the way a psychologist approaches their work no matter what the venue. A cognitive psychologist, who is also trained as a clinician, may use a predominantly cognitive-based therapeutic approach. This is not just true for clinicians, however. A media psychologist may also be trained as a cognitive psychologist and focus their work with media technologies on the cognitive and perceptual aspects of technology use and development. I consider myself a media psychologist because my background combines academic training in psychology and in the human impact and technological affordances of media and emerging technologies. I draw from cognitive, positive, and narrative psychologies in my consulting, research and analysis. I, however, focus on individual, social and commercial implications and trends and, although I have clinical training, I am not licensed and do not have a clinical practice.

The dissertation you cite tests whether or not a population of 115 randomly selected respondents (psychologists and non-psychologists) had a bias for or against a clinical psychologist who appeared in the media based on the respondents’ reactions to transcript of a fictitious session given by each ‘category’ of psychologist. I am assuming that respondents who were psychologists were, in fact, clinical psychologists, but I have not read the full dissertation. There is a big difference, however, in making a judgment about the quality of a therapy session from a transcript and from what a person might observe of Dr. Phil’s approach. The fact that the dissertation defines ‘media psychologists’ for the purpose of her research as a clinician who appears in the media doesn’t make it a universal definition. It makes it the operational definition of that variable in her research, which is a necessary and important component of her project. Every research project must specifically define terms and variables under analysis as part of the methodology. Understanding research methodology and analytical tools and practices is an important component in any psychology curriculum at multiple levels: designing research, interpreting results, and disseminating the information accurately. Those same skills are used ‘in reverse’ to evaluate the research of others. This is a particularly important skill in media psychology as journalist’s reports of psychological research do not always accurately reflect the findings, especially when the topic lends itself to a provocative headline.

The American Psychological Association (APA) Division 46 (Media Psychology) has been working through this definitional transition as well. As media technologies become more ubiquitous and intertwined with everything we do, the more we need to understand its impact and potential. That is my definition of media psychology and the goals of a media psychologist.

The ethical questions surrounding psychologists who appear in the mass media are emotionally-loaded and subject to much debate.  But we also have to realize that there really is no such thing as just ‘mass’ media anymore in the traditional sense of uni-directional broadcast one-to-many media.  The information flows are much more fluid and networked which has had a profound effect on society as a whole and individual behaviors, beliefs and expectations.  It’s impossible to isolate broadcast media within the broad spectrum of media channels, including Internet and social technologies, because the boundaries are coming down.  New channels have web pages and stories show up on Twitter.  Blogs and social media can fuel news channels as well. Whatever the media channel, bad publicity is pretty clearly bad for all professionals, but no publicity or presence can be bad, too, when people use the Internet to check the legitimacy of services and information and can’t find you.

Here are eight points to consider surrounding the issue of psychology and psychologists in the media:

1. Part of this question is driven by the moral panic surrounding new technologies and the rapidity of change.  Throughout history, new technology has caused a negative reaction from those used to doing things ‘the way things have always been done.’  Our schema, or core beliefs, about how we interact with the world are very powerful.  Changes can cause cognitive dissonance and identity threat.  When threatened, evolutionarily speaking, people go into fight (antagonism toward new media) or flight (denial.)  This goes back to Socrates and writing, Gutenberg and the printing press, the dangers of novels, radio, TV, and now social media.  As Yogi Berra said, “It’s déjà vu al over again.”

2. It’s pretty clear that bad publicity is bad publicity when it comes to professional services.  Especially in a healthcare profession, bound by professional ethics and a moral mandate to ‘do no harm,’ bad publicity is bad.  Bad publicity works for celebrities because it increases their notoriety and, perhaps more importantly, part of the appeal is to see icons as fallen heroes (think mythology), but for caretakers who build relationships based on trust, it obviously undermines not just the primary therapeutic dyad but the profession at large.  That’s why there is so much emotional investment in debates over reality shows that are essentially ‘therapy on TV.’  Some argue that it promotes public awareness of mental health issues and provides a normalizing effect, but others say the important psychological issues are subservient to the sensationalism of public humiliation and exposure.  The truth is it’s probably some of both.

3. Conversely, however, is no publicity bad?  Or perhaps better stated, is no media presence bad?  Technology isn’t going away and it is how we, increasingly, communicate.  There is an entire generation of people growing up who expect to be connected to people and information 24/7.  It is how their world works, the basis of their schema.  This ubiquitous connectivity changes people’s expectations about a lot of things, such as who are experts, how you can get information, response times, validation of information (i.e. the ability to triangulate information), trust, and interactivity.  To ignore this phenomenon in how psychologists communicate with the public and with patients means that you, as a psychologist, are unwilling to ‘live’ in the world everyone else does, so how can you show empathy for your clients if you are close that avenue to connect?

4. There is a difference between distributing general psychological information and giving therapeutic advice.  Both require a moral stance, but the second raises issues of trust, privacy, and the responsibility of the provider to make sure the interaction (of any kind, even face to face) is appropriate and supportive of the client goals.

5. It is, however, important to have a web presence because, after word of mouth or personal referrals, the web is the second most powerful source of information and validating someone’s legitimacy.  The world has changed enough that if you don’t have some kind of web presence, you look like you have something to hide.  There are, obviously, ethical issues here and each person has to make some judgment about their professional profile, but you have to deal with this in any public venue.  I believe a web presence, from LinkedIn to a personal website or blog, should be professional, informational, and not overtly commercial, and should offer the things that someone would want to know: focus of practice, theoretical orientation, background, location, hours, how to find out about fees, insurance reimbursement, a photograph of the therapist, perhaps some articles of general interest or links to scholarly publications and contact information.  Some people also like to include ways to buy their books or clips from media appearances — that is individual judgment of the services they offer and the market they want to serve.

6. Most importantly, there are many ways to use new technologies that make psychological more leveragable.  For example, research suggests that homeless teens use the Internet in libraries and social services to get health information as well as contact family and friends.  It can also be used for less than desirable arrangements, but the larger part of the use is positive.  Mobile devices have been used to support behavioral change, such as dieting and health maintenance (like diabetes).  Because so many young people communicate by texting, it has been an effective way to provide emotional support (touch points perhaps) to check in with teens in treatment to provide a safety net.

Skype with video chat can be used to do therapy when geography makes it untenable in person.  Is it as good as the real thing?  Yes, it can be, but it can also take a bit longer to establish the therapeutic bond.  Starting with face to face and then using Skype, however, overcomes that problem.

There are ways that technology can facilitate the ease of access to psychological care:  ability to make email inquiries, make appointments on line, see examples of types of therapy, as well as emphasizing the value of seeking professional help for psychological problems, such as depression or addiction.

Online support groups have been extraordinarily effective means of creating social support with people who are working through similar issues.  There are, of course, groups that gather to promote their pathologies, such as the ‘pro-ana’ (pro-anorexia) groups or even more dangerous things like child pornography.  But these things will exist with or without the Internet and the benefits of the support to so many far outweigh the downside.  It’s easy to forget, given the spotlight of media coverage, that pathological behaviors are not the majority. If they were, we wouldn’t call them pathologies.

7. The important thing about using media is to be very clear with your audience or client and yourself about the limitations and benefits of technology.  A reporter asked me to give him a diagnosis of an American actor who was having a public meltdown.  I told the reporter that it was unethical to give a diagnosis for someone I hadn’t met, but that if I had, in fact, worked with the actor in a therapeutic situation sufficient to give a diagnosis, it would be unethical for me to comment on that too.  One solution that some psychologists feel is appropriate to say “I haven’t met this person, but the following behaviors are often indicative of this disorder…”   That’s an individual choice but it’s important to be mindful of the slippery slope and the potential for distortion in the media.  You don’t get the final edit.

With clients, it is important to explain things that might not be understood:  for example, email is presumed private and usually is, but can’t be guaranteed to be totally secure, particularly on shared computers, as you do in your disclaimer.

8. One thing marketers know is that familiarity breeds ‘liking.’  Therefore media of all kinds provides an opportunity to spread information and knowledge and helps to re-norm social perceptions of mental health so people feel more comfortable and less stigmatized by seeking help and ways to get help.  That’s another reason why it’s important for good, conscientious practitioners to join the conversation.

This is a new world of communications and many are reticent, but I believe that psychologists must engage early and feel our way conservatively but persistently so that we establish best practices and spread accurate information.  There are an increasing number of sites that strive to do this, for example, John Grohol’s PsychCentral, WebMD, the Media Psychology Blog, and of course, at the top of the list, Psychology Today contributors and bloggers, as well as sites dedicated to specific issues and disorders, from media use to depression.

The danger is that we allow trepidations about ethics and media technologies to bog us down to a snail’s crawl, thus allowing the path to be defined by those less ethically concerned with patient well-being than other more personal or lucrative agendas.  Media is a tool.  Like a hammer, it can be used well and badly.  How well we use it is in part determined by how well we understand its affordances and limitations so we can decide how to use it to support our goal of bettering society, relieving distress and improving people’s sense of well-being.

–

Cross-posted on Psychology Today Positively Media 

As I told Carrie Cummings from OMMA (interview excerpted below),  I so rarely get asked questions about the positive side of social media or the Internet, it was a joy to talk about the benefits of humor.  Even the act of smiling has powerful impact on how you feel and the way you interact with others.  (For a wonderful discussion of this, check out Ron Gutman’s charming ebook from his TED talk Smile: The Astonishing Powers of a Simple Act ).  We often underestimate the importance and power of our ability to self-soothe and the impact of our mood on others.  So getting to talk about happiness, made me happy.  Hopefully that will be contagious and it will make you happy, too.  At the very least, I hope you spend 5 minutes looking at LOLcats on sites like http://icanhascheezburger.com/, wallowing in cuteness at http://cuteoverload.com/ or reading the hilarious things that autocorrect can do to text messages at http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/.  If you have a site you think is a good one, please share!

Awwwstruck: Q+A with Pamela Rutledge, Ph.D.

by Carrie Cummings, Yesterday, 4:53 PM

With Internet use linked to depression, and Facebook to low self-esteem, this expert says it’s no surprise users are scrambling for a daily dose of cute

At OMMA, we sometimes get burned out with the barrage of media and technology news — especially recent research that’s found it might be making us depressed and hurting our self-esteem. Even the most cynical of us find ourselves constantly clicking on reliable digital distractions: baby animals, fluffy cats and goofy dogs. After months of OMMA editors swapping Lolcats over email, we thought it would be a good idea if we could get an expert to validate our burgeoning obsession. We called Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Research Institute, who holds a Ph.D. in media psychology, to see if she could explain our pursuit of pointless happiness.

First, what is a media psychologist?

Media psychology is looking at media and technology through the lens of psychology. We’re really looking at the experience of using and developing media from individual and group experience and behavior.

Why do people seek out pointless happiness on the Internet?

The media get a very bad rap for always looking at the negative side…
It’s delightful to have somebody looking at the upside. To me the upside of all this connectivity outweighs the downside.

So why do people seek out happiness? The ability to make yourself happy and cheer yourself up is a very powerful thing. It’s part of what we try to teach children at a young age: the ability to self-soothe so they aren’t always reliant on other people. So the Internet really provides a lot of ways to give us happy feelings. It’s very important because there are very strong psychological responses to smiling and laughter. They change the way your neurons are firing, your stress level, your blood pressure. It’s a great opportunity for more creative and innovative thinking. It really sets your brain in motion for very positive cognitive functions. People don’t look at Lolcats to be more creative, but it is a result. The act of smiling changes brain chemicals…

If you were running a company, would you encourage your employees to spend some time each day looking at pictures of cute animals or whatever it is that makes them laugh?

I would encourage employees to have opportunities to take a sort of break from intense hard thinking and do something that is humorous and fun. Recognizing that a short break is really positive for productivity is a very important thing. If I were a boss, I would be looking for ways to share a little humor.

There was research done by college professors who had students who said they were bored. So they had different ways to introduce humor to [a] lecture. Turns out the kids didn’t care how humor got introduced, they just cared that there was emotional engagement. And anytime there is emotional engagement people learn better…

I am General Tso

Is this a new phenomenon? People seeking out happiness perhaps because they feel things are so awful in society?

Things aren’t so awful, but I think people are very stressed right now because times are different in some kinds of ways. So focusing on small, cute things reduces the sort of uncertainty in the world and flips it into a child-like state. I’m not implying that it’s regressing in any way, but it takes you back to a safe place and allows you to experience some of that childish joy that we lose track of when we are slogging around in a hard world.