a) What is stigma?
Stigma is treating someone differently because of something you have perceived about them; it is looking at someone, and creating an opinion about them based on different factors. This could be the way they look, the way they act, the way they sound. Essentially, it is a discrimination or judgment based on perception. b) We have stated that stigma surrounding mental health is “socially constructed”. What does that mean, and why is it significant? Social construction is the term used to describe an idea that has been generally accepted by society by which people don’t think to view it a different way. In other words, it is a social understanding that is simply accepted by the public. For the stigma surrounding mental health to be labeled as a social construction it means that there is a perceived idea surrounding mental health (and mental illness) in which society has accepted, and doesn’t think of differently. This has been created due to a lack of understanding. In the case of mental illness, this social construct is incredibly negative, and the thoughts that surround it deeply affect those dealing with it. For the stigma surrounding mental health to be labeled as “socially constructed” it is significant because as a society, we don’t fully understand mental health ,and therefore do not know how to properly treat and support those who suffer from mental illness. c) In what ways are mental illnesses stigmatized? Provide specific examples. Society has stereotyped views around mental illness and how it affects people. This is mainly due to the public's lack of understanding and fear of it. Many people believe that people with mental illness are violent, or dangerous. Or they believe the opposite; that those who “claim” to have a mental illness are simply looking for attention, or have less intelligence. The stigmatization of mental illness has led people to be afraid of dealing with anything related to it. Due to these surrounding perceptions of mental health, many chose not to admit, speak out or seek treatment for the mental illness they suffer from, and in turn carry it with them throughout their life. d) What are the consequences of stigmatizing mental illness? The consequences of stigmatizing mental illness is the fear that it brings. If something is labeled as negative, dangerous or weird, chances are the people who think they have that “something” aren’t going to want to admit it. Therefore it would be safe to assume that people suffering from mental illness (which is negatively looked upon) will go unhelped and unnoticed and untreated. The stigma that surrounds mental illness created fear and denial of one’s condition which can lead to a very isolated and painful life. e) What can you as a high school student do to reduce stigma in mental illness? I believe simply talking about mental illness can be an important way of reducing its stigma. The main reason for its discrimination if because of the lack of understanding, so sharing with family member, friend and peers different things about mental health could help lessen to harsh perceptions that surround it. If talking isn’t enough, I think educating yourself would be the next step. Taking it that much further to understand mental health can be a good way to prepare yourself if any arguments or questions arise regarding it. (Unrelated Note:) I actually really enjoy this question (and think it is quite fitting for the last question of my last Psych 12 assignment) because one of the reasons I am wanting to pursue psychology in university is to learn and be a part of helping reducing the stigma that surrounds mental health on a professional level; I even wrote about it in my UBC application! It made me smile :)
0 Comments
(Back up link for PDF document) ![]()
Write a reflective paragraph about who treats you with unconditional positive regard, whether you treat yourself with unconditional positive regard and whether or not you have conditions of worth, and if you do, what those conditions are (Carl Rogers).
Carl Rogers followed the main theories of Maslow (developed the hierarchy of needs in which the goal at the top was self-actualization). However Rogers added that in order to achieve self-actualization, one needed the proper environment of genuineness, acceptance and empathy. He believed that self-actualization could only occur when a person’s self-image is congruent with their actual behaviour. He defined this as being a fully functioning person; this is someone in touch with the present, their personal feelings and experiences and is continuously growing and changing. Rogers theorized that this sense of self is composed of three main components: self worth (what one thinks about themselves), self-image (how one sees themselves) and ideal-self (what one would like to be). He explained that this sense is influenced by two primary sources: childhood experience, and the evaluation by others. This brings in the concept of positive regard (how others evaluate and judge someone in social interaction). Rogers believed that achieving self-actualization was more likely to occur with the support of unconditional positive regard. This is where a person is accepted and loved for who they truly are, regardless of mistakes. This is as opposed to the support of conditional positive regard, which is where praise and approval are dependent on the behaviour of the person, and whether this behaviour is thought to be “correct” or not. I believe that the person who treats me with unconditional regard is my mum. All throughout my childhood she would constantly remind my sister and I that she had our backs. She would always say that no matter what, she would be there in support of us, and if something bad were to ever happen she would be there to help make it right. Carl Rogers theorized that one is more likely to self-actualize if unconditional positive regard is received. This is because there is unwavering support for one to try new things and not be afraid of failure. Having (in my opinion) experienced unconditional positive regard, completely agree with Rogers’ claims. In contrast, I don’t believe that I treat myself in unconditional positive regard. I am extremely critical with myself, and I think that is what prevents this. Unconditional positive regard is something that regardless one's actions, they are accepted and supported. I would like to think that I am this way to the people I care about, but I don’t think I am this way to myself. I believe that it is human nature to criticize one’s self; I think to a certain extent this could bring about a greater reach for achievement. However, I don’t think goals and ambitions can be easily met when you aren’t supporting yourself, and putting down your attempts and failures. One can only succeed if they accept their failures and forgive themselves for not meeting their expectations. However, speaking from experience, this is way easier said than done. Conditions of worth are defined by Rogers as conditions we think we must meet in order to receive the validity and acceptance of others, and to be “worthy” of their positive regard. From my perspective, everyone has at least a small amount of conditions, alike or different, that they strive towards. I believe the majority of people in this world work towards being accepted by at least one other individual. As I said earlier, I am very critical of myself, therefore I believe that I have quite a lot of conditions that I strive to meet. Examples like looking a certain way or acting a certain way are, getting high grades or getting into a top university are all things that are strived towards in order to prove something. However, I believe that conditions like these will never be satisfied in the way one thinks they will be. I think there is always something better--a shiner thing. Even once you achieve what you think your conditions are, there is a high chance that you still will not be satisfied with the outcome. I think that if one wants to “prove themselves” to the people they want to receive positive regard from, they simply have to learn to be happy with their own accomplishments. Having goals and ambitions to strive towards inorder to feel worth it is completely acceptable, but only to a certain extent. 1) What issues are at the heart of intelligence testing? Name at least 3.
Three main issues when testing intelligence include: environment, cultural bias and genetics. Firstly, environmental contributions such as personal history, living conditions (wealthy vs poverty), access to education, stress and nutrition affect the outcomes of tests. Someone from a home that encourages learning will most likely have differing test scores to someone from a place where it isn’t. There is also the issue of bias. Because of different cultural, spiritual and ethnic backgrounds, people will test differently to different topics; knowledge that is easily understood by one group of people could be completely new information to another. For example, a person who is considered to have high intelligence from Asia would most likely test poorly on a test that is American based (asking questions specifically to do with American things). Lastly studies have shown high levels of heritability (“the degree in which a characteristic is related to inherited genetic factors”) in regards to intelligence. 2) What did studies of twins show about genes and intelligence? The question of “nature vs nurture” arose when researching what makes up a person’s intelligence. Scientists wanted to determine how much one’s intelligence is affected by genetic factors, vs external factors. When looking into this degree, researchers found it was best to study identical twins. They looked into twins that had been separated at birth and raised in different environments. The results showed that identical twins that grew up in different environments still have a very similar level of intelligence as if they were to have grown up together. Results regarding similarity differed with fraternal twins and normal siblings. It was concluded that human intelligence is affected by genetic factors, however there is still prominent environmental impact. 3) What might cause cultural bias on an intelligence test? In regards to intelligence testing, cultural bias refers to the aspect of intelligence in which certain ideas or knowledge can be more familiar to people of one social group but not to another. Think about this: a test is given out with questions that are specifically dependent on a specific environment and the opportunities given within that environment. This test is given to both individuals that live in the environment, and individuals that live outside the environment. It is obvious that those who live in the environment on the test will score drastically better to those that don’t; this causes cultural bias. 4) In your opinion, what are indicators of intelligence? Explain. We know intelligence is near impossible to accurately measure. Someone can be incredibly good at writing novels but be horrible at solving basic math problems. This doesn’t mean that they are less intelligent than someone is good at math. The term has been dubbed as the “ability to acquire new ideas, new behaviour and adapt to new situations”. In my opinion, indicators for intelligence are interest, and consistency. If one has no interest in something then there is little chance that they will acquire anything new from it, nor will they have any motivation to consistently learn more about it. a) How did the authors apply the scientific method to their inquiry?
The authors of this paper applied the scientific method by neatly organizing their information (prior, during and after the experiment) and presenting their collected data in a clear readable way. Variables of the experiment were acknowledged and explained in a way that, as a reader, was understandable and straightforward. b) What do you think about the process of this study? In all honesty, the process of the study surprised me. After seeing that what was being studied was context-dependent, I would have assumed that the experiments that were being conducted would simply have two slightly different environments; obviously that was not the case. Overall I complement the authors for taking a more literal and logical approach to testing context-dependent memory. I also thought that the inclusion of a second experiment modified to take disruption into account was a smart move. c) What did you take away from this article? Does the article match with your idea of how science and psychology are studied? I find whenever I read a scientific study/experiment I am always surprised as to what the researchers come up with in terms of testing their hypotheses. After reading this article, I have learned that there is no limit to what one is able to do to test a theory (obviously within ethical reason of course). I would agree that this paper matches my idea of how both science in general, and psychology is studied--it has also made me excited for the opportunities I have the chance to have studying psychology post-secondary. d) What was the hardest part about reading the article? I found the hardest part about reading this article was getting used to the language being used. I found at the beginning it was hard to understand what was going on in the article because I wasn’t used to the language the procedure was being explained in; of course by the end I was able to fully understand what was being talked about.
While being at Whistler Secondary I have never personally been subject to any extreme bullying or humiliation; however I know this doesn’t mean that these things aren’t present within our school. Kids can be cruel, and putting hundreds into a building for 6+ hours a day can definitely have its effects. I did have to laugh a little bit with the mention of pressure. Within this principles list, it states, “the adolescent brain doesn’t work well in an environment where [...] pressure can occur”. Personally, I can’t think of anything more pressuring than high-school. There are assignments, tests, and social aspects that every teenager has to deal with on a daily basis, not to mention the amount of important, life changing decisions that adolescents have to decide upon within a very short amount of time with limited information and experience on the subjects those decisions are based. Unfortunately, with all of the environments and factors mentioned that the teenage brain doesn’t work well in, I can’t seem to think of a different way to execute the education system in a way that could avoid this.
From my experience at Whistler Secondary, I feel that the social aspect of the brain-friendly principles is pretty well met. I would assume it would depend on what type of learner you talk to, but in my opinion, most schools now-a-days (depending on where you are) are aware of the brain’s need to collaborate and communicate with others, and integrate the right learning opportunities into the school’s curriculum. I can’t think of a class that I have had that hasn’t had any type of collaborative project or discussion session.
I believe that this principle really depends on the subject being learnt and the teacher teaching it. For example, the belief that teenagers “relate to”, and are “more enthusiastic when presented with material that has emotion attached to it” is a little difficult to apply if you are learning trigonometry in Math (sorry Mrs. Colpitts), opposed to a lesson on human rights in Social Justice. However, I have noticed that I am more—or less—engaged, and eager—or not wanting—to be in a class depending on the teacher, and how they teach (i.e. an expressive teacher that presents material in varying ways vs a teacher who presents in a monotone voice, and gives out similar material each lesson). However, I believe WSS teachers do a pretty good job at applying this principle.
In regards to this principle, I don’t think I have ever experienced lessons in a classroom that haven’t been broken up or at least made easier to understand by the teacher. I am the type of learner that doesn’t have huge difficulty multitasking so I may have just not noticed if certain lessons at Whistler Secondary don’t take a students attention into perspective.
Generally schools have students sit and learn at a desk for the majority of the day—I feel like it would be pretty difficult to teach kids any other way. For this reason, I was a little surprised to read that it is proven and accepted that sitting in one place for a longer period of time “isn’t good for anyone”. As a student, I have personally witnessed (on multiple occasions) that most students (whatever the age) don’t fare well with being stuck sitting inside listening to someone talk for an hour straight. I have even boon in classrooms where the teacher has mentioned this. Again, I believe it really depends on the type of learner you are dealing with, whether that specific student can focus for a certain amount of time. But, as I mentioned on an earlier point, I don’t see any obvious way of changing this. However, in terms of actual nourishment, like water, movement breaks, and snacks, I believe most (hopefully all) schools (obviously including WSS) make sure to provide this to its students.
At school, the brain is constantly being stimulated; that is the reason for school isn’t it? I believe, depending on the learner, such stimuli can be considered good/bad, or interesting/boring. For the most part, with what I have been taught in various classrooms said stimuli has improved attention and the retention of information—but again I think this would depend on the learner. For example, I have noticed I need visual stimuli (like reading information, or watching a documentary) to better retain information as opposed to verbal stimuli.
I believe, when considering the studies done on adolescent brain development, certain imposed benchmarks are completely valid and appropriate. Laws against things like alcohol and drug-use are completely rational as such substances can be extremely damaging to a brain still developing and can have lasting, if not life long, effects. Studies have proven that parts of the brain that produce rational thought and deal with the consideration of consequences are still underdeveloped throughout teenage years, so laws on the age of consent and being tried as a minor in court make sense. If a teen doesn’t have the full ability to make decisions and act upon them while acknowledging all the possible outcomes (good or bad) it is completely reasonable to put certain rules in place that understand this. However, I believe that subjects like voting are subjective, and truly depend on the teenager. I would personally want to vote at my age right now, (and am really excited to when I get the chance to). In my opinion, regardless of brain development, certain issues (climate change, discrimination, sexism etc.) directly affect teenage generations. I think in theory, the voting age could be lower to give teens a voice in our society. With that being said however, I know quite a lot of people who would either strongly disagree with me, or (as a teenager) be too immature to make the right decision in voting; this is why I would say it definitely depends on the teen.
For the most part, I agree with this analogy. (As stated earlier) it has been scientifically proven that the parts of the brain that deal with rationality and consequence are underdeveloped until closer to the age of twenty-five. As evidence, I have found that people around me—and occasionally myself—make spontaneous decisions without any thought to an outcome. Though not all of these are bad decisions, I understand the skepticism around the choices teenagers make. However, what has me struggling to wrap my head around is the fact that teenagers are required to make quite a few life changing decisions before the age of twenty-five; I personally think this is an interesting thing to consider when thinking of this analogy. A) Explain self-regulation in the context of learning
Self regulation describes the process of taking control and evaluating one’s learning; it includes the process of using mental abilities and converting them into academic skill. It is a self-directive progress where thoughts, emotions and behaviours are directed to achieving specific goals of an individual (Zimmerman 2002). Self-regulation comes from the comprehension of both strengths and weaknesses, as well as self-set strategies and goals. Learners who use this method are proactive in their efforts to learn; because of this, they monitor their goals and reflect on their actions in regards to effectiveness—this process builds self-motivation and satisfaction towards achieving one’s goals. Students who utilize this strategy tend to be more likely to succeed academically, and view their futures optimistically (Zimmerman 2002). B) Describe the difference between the Forethought, Performance, and Self-Reflection phases discussed in the article. Give an example of what each might look like in practice to help complete your description. The structure of self-regulation has been divided into phases that reoccur in a cycle: 1. Forethought Phase: This phase is the process and beliefs that occur before any academic efforts. Forethought includes task analysis (like goal setting and strategic planning), and self-motivation beliefs (like efficacy, outcome expectations, natural interest/value of a subject and learning goal orientation) (Zimmerman 2002). Within this process one simply sets their goals, plans ahead for how they will achieve said goal, and keeps possible outcomes of what they are focusing on in mind. An example of forethought could be having a big assignment due in two weeks; one will set a goal of completing a certain portion of the assignment in the first week, then completing it the second—they may also use a specific strategy in order to complete their goals in regards to planning. 2. Performance Phase: This phase is the process that occurs during the “behavioural implementation”. The performance phase includes self-control (imagery, self-instruction, attention focus and task strategies) which refers to the initiation of specific methods of the task that were selected in the forethought phase, and self-observation (self-recording and self experimentation) which refers to being attentive to one’s decisions and actions (Zimmerman 2002). The performance phase is essentially the process in which you undergo in order to complete your goal. An example of this is sticking to a previously decided schedule for completing something like a project, or reaching for help/guidance if you are struggling with anything. 3. Self-Reflection Phase: This phase is the process that occurs after the learning has been done. The self-reflection phase includes self-judgement (self-evaluation and causal attribution), which refers to the recognition and reaction to the successes and failures of the specific task and self-reaction (self-satisfaction, positive affect and adaptive/defensive responses) which refers to the encouragement or underminement of efforts and the responses to these efforts (Zimmerman 2002). An example of this phase could be doing poorly on an assignment, but using the feedback to improve for the next project. C) Consider something that you are learning how to do (drive, run a marathon, write a poem, etc.) Set out a plan on how you are going to self-regulate your learning using the 3 phases illustrated in the article. Be specific. Something that I am working towards and can integrate self-regulation beliefs into is balancing the time I spend doing school work, and doing things I enjoy (like creating art, reading etc). For this goal, I can organize my intentions in the 3 phases. First, the forethought phase, I need to decide what I want to achieve, and set a specific attainable goal that I can work towards. I want to be able to be caught up and confident in my ongoing school work and have enough time at the end of the day to do the things that make me happy. My goal is to manage my time more efficiently as well as make time for doing my various hobbies. Secondly, the performance phase, I will try various strategies to help me achieve this goal; this includes methods such as starting my homework right after school, setting aside designated time for my hobbies, or cutting down on things like watching tv/being on a device. Lastly, for the self-reflection phase I will be self-evaluating which strategy(s) worked the best for me and test them out over a longer period of time to see their efficacy. Additionally I would want to see if there was any need to modify those strategies. Works Cited: Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming A Self-Regulated Learner. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. |
|