Select Page
Human attachment: The ‘why’ of connection.

Human attachment: The ‘why’ of connection.

Attachment and Cooperation

When we want to improve upon our ability to reach any mutual goal that involves more than one person- businesses, sports teams, government, and even 1 on 1 personal relationships- attachment theory can be particularly helpful in improving human cooperation.

Attachment Theory is more complicated than any one article, but when we focus on the process of building human relationships and day to day interacting, it becomes clear that this process is largely responsible for how we feel about ourselves, which then influences how we interact with others. That is to say: Self-image = how we feel others perceive us.

Our gift as human beings is our ability to fit into and contribute to social groups effectively, without rocking the preverbal boat by interacting in ways that are not conducive to the interaction ‘style’ of the group. If we imagine our brains as computers that need to be programmed so that we can have a final ‘version’ of ourselves by adulthood, it would then be obvious that our childhood, adolescent, and early adulthood experiences have much to do with developing our social style, via developing our self-image.

While genetics do predict certain predispositions to certain ways of behaving, let me dispel the myth that genetic traits predict who we are all the way throughout adulthood and drive humans to become ‘fixed’ beings. This is nonsense, and backed by what we call ‘neuroplasticity’: the ability of the brain to adapt to the input that it is receiving at every moment throughout our lives. If we change our environment, the people we interact with, or if bad things happen to us, our brain literally creates NEW neural pathways to adapt to new circumstances. Why does it seem like we can become ‘fixed’? Well, the more we continue on in our current circumstances, these neural pathways become stronger, which causes whatever behavior we are doing to become more of habit and way easier to do- rather than change.

One thing, however, is fixed. We all have the same capabilities for honest, compassion-driven communication, but unfortunately evolution does not care about our abilities to be compassionate, rather, our continuing to breathe, eat, sleep, and reproduce. This does not necessarily require compassionate interaction. Thankfully, the world of psychology is a developing field that can provide us various loopholes to develop a more compassionate style of interaction, and this starts with understanding various “styles” of interacting, how they came to develop, and what this means for our interactions with others as adults.

Want to learn more about behavior and management?

But Broderick- one theory or train of thought cannot possibly capture all of the intricacies of human interaction. While this may be true in other fields, in the psychology business it is literally our job to research the most economical ways to understand human behavior across many individual research participators- which means broadly-based theories that capture most of the complexities of the human psyche. The best way to go about this is to develop theories which allow us to understand human behavior under an umbrella.

For the purposes of this article, “Attachment Theory” is one (very well-researched) theory that captures one of the most seemingly complex facets of human life: Social interaction. Your brain has created neural pathways based on a “social learning history”, that biases your behavior, and types of people you interact best with, based on these pathways. Our self-image is largely the result of interactions with caregivers, which then predicts how we interact with other humans, which then obviously influences the peer groups we are likely to seek out in adolescence/early adulthood, which then predicts the types of interpersonal relationships and communication styles we have as adults.

I’m sure you can see how these events snowball on each other- and the brain literally creates and strengthens neural pathways that it uses the most. So, it is likely that your caregivers had similar styles of relating to each other, which was the result of THEIR caregivers interacting with them in a particular way, and so on and so forth. Then, you likely lived with and interacted with your caregivers throughout childhood and teen years (maybe along with similarly behaving siblings) – literally shaping the way your “social brain” views other people, as well as how you view yourself in relation to others.

Let us get more specific with different “Attachment Styles”, how they tend to develop, and what implications they have for you NOW. You know, practical stuff. Now, most people will say (and correctly so) “I’m already good enough at listening to others and expressing myself.” While we are all “good enough” and special snowflakes, we are all nothing more than a tightly-packed bundle of lazy neurons that have been coded to respond to certain types of people in very fast, yet predictable ways.

Let us run through each style and its learning roots, while keeping in mind that 1) problematic “styles” do not necessarily translate into a psychological disorder, and 2) these are a best ‘fit’ of styles, and people may even demonstrate a mix of these:

Want to learn more about systems of behavior?

1) Secure:
Speaks for itself. In interpersonal interactions, people with a secure attachment style are likely perceptive, open, emotionally available, and effective at sharing thoughts and feelings with others. When these individuals are asked about their childhood, they have a detailed, balanced memory. This is likely due to their caregivers’ willingness to ask about their thoughts and feelings while growing up. The message communicated from age 0-18? You matter. In infancy (and adulthood) these individuals seek closeness with others, and is easily soothed when emotionally upset. They likely have a positive view of themselves.

2) Avoidant:
In interpersonal interactions, people with an avoidant attachment style are likely distant and rejecting of others. When asked about their childhood, these individuals likely have poor recall, are rejecting, dismissive, and either minimize or idealize their childhood experiences. This is likely due to their caregivers’ rejecting of their child’s thoughts and emotions, likely because the caregivers also had their thoughts or feelings rejected during childhood. Without this space to safely express their thoughts and feelings from age 0-18, these individuals perceive that others do not care about their thoughts or feelings, and may take this to mean that sharing such information is not important. As adults, these individuals may not seek closeness with others, and may try to hide interpersonal dissatisfaction from others, because: my thoughts and feelings weren’t an important thing when I was being programmed by caregivers, so I have underdeveloped neural pathways to allow me to do this. These individuals likely deny emotional experiences, and appear to be “logical”-which allows them to fool themselves into believing that their feelings truly do not matter, because they literally lack a neurological capacity.

3) Anxious-Ambivalent:
In interpersonal interaction, people with an anxious-ambivalent attachment style likely ebb and flow between secure and avoidant attachment styles, which can be very confusing for the anxious-ambivalent person as well as those they interact with. When asked about their childhood, they either idealize or are enraged about their experiences, have pressured speech with a lot of verbal output, and seem preoccupied- this sounds confusing, and this is because they themselves are confused as to how they feel about their caregivers, because their caregivers sent messages to them that were inconsistent regarding their child’s worth. Specifically, their caregivers were inconsistently available when the child was emotionally upset, or when they wanted to express their own thoughts and needs. These individuals likely seek proximity and closeness to others, but are not easily calmed down when upset. From age 0-18, these children are sent the message: you can never know for sure whether or not others will accept or reject you. This develops interpersonal insecurity and hypervigilance of rejection cues- via biological pathways that are strengthened over time. They may even seek a lot of reassurance that others do indeed like them.

4) Disorganized:
In interpersonal interactions, people with a disorganized attachment style are likely disorienting and frightening to others. Now, disorganized attachment styles are typically due to traumatic childhoods, so if this sounds like you, I would highly recommend seeking clinical services- even just as a consultation (besides, we could all use therapy). Throughout childhood interactions, these individuals were often driven toward seeking proximity to their caregivers, but their caregivers’ emotional or physical abuse likely caused much conflict for our evolutionary drive toward seeking out our caregivers (e.g., I want safety and love from the people who hurt me). As you can imagine, memories of childhood interactions are likely disoriented, maybe involving poor memory due to intense traumatic interactions and conflictive behavior. The message from caregivers which translate into day to day interactions? I cannot seek closeness to others or they will definitely hurt me. I’ll let you fill in the blanks regarding how this type of person might view themselves as an adult.

Now that we understand attachment theory, using it to improve our relationships involves your favorite thing: pain-staking effort! Kidding. But seriously, altering your long-standing neural pathways is as difficult as it sounds. Fortunately there’s this thing called neuroplasticity, which allows us humans to alter our neural pathways by making conscious decisions related to social interactions, responding, rather than reacting.

In the next article, I will discuss ways to improve our interaction ‘styles’ to improve our ability to authentically communicate with others we need to cooperate effectively with. This will focus on creating neural pathways to:

1) truthfully express one’s thoughts and feelings to others,
2) listen with the intention of clearly understanding the thoughts
     and feelings of others,
3) develop a willingness to be changed by what we hear when listening to the thoughts and
     feelings of others.

Broderick Sawyer, MA

Broderick Sawyer, MA

Guest Author

Broderick Sawyer, M.A., is a fourth year doctoral candidate in the clinical psychology PhD program at the University of Louisville, currently completing his predoctoral internship at SUNY Stony Brook University. Broderick’s main interests are the psychological effects of interpersonal and systemic oppression on historically oppressed groups (e.g., racial/ethnic minority, LGBTQ, women). Further, he is interested in the use of mindfulness meditation and compassionate communication to improve working relationships, job satisfaction, and productivity within systems and organizations.
Broderick has published several book chapters and peer-reviewed articles surrounding differential symptom expression in ethnic minority clients, and provided clinical lectures for mental health and medical professionals on racism-related stress and trauma, and connecting with minority clients. In his work with psychotherapy patients Broderick is integrative, blending mindfulness and acceptance, functional analytic, compassion-based, psychoanalytic, attachment, Buddhist, developmental, systems-based, neuroscientific, and Afrocentric theories. In addition to research, clinical, and lecturing activities, Broderick has made several radio appearances to discuss minority mental health, and enjoys writing blogs which address common behavioral problems faced by individuals and organizations through the lens of different psychological theories.

References

Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing                      social brain (Norton series on interpersonal neurobiology). WW Norton & Company.

A behavioral scientist’s take on providing effective instructions for optimal learning.

A behavioral scientist’s take on providing effective instructions for optimal learning.

Teaching is a large part of any leader’s position. Whether academic or business, most leader’s are promoted due to others’ perceptions that they have mastered a domain of knowledge. Unfortunately, most leaders are simply assumed to then know how to impart this knowledge on their supervisees/mentees.

Effective teaching is an art and science. Here we’ll discuss guidelines for understanding, breaking, up and imparting your knowledge of complasks for others.

The first step is to understand the task:

Task analysis (TA) is a method for identifying and documenting the process of task completion. Many different methods exist for documenting and analyzing task completion (Tofel-Grehl & Feldon, 2012).

Minimalist Instruction
In its most fundamental form, TA instruction is merely a list of steps.

    1. Read task analysis (TA) article
    2. Do your own task analysis (TA) of a complex task
    3. Present simple step-by-step instructions for task to learnerSimple is important because new learners to a complex task will tend to become frustrated and give up.In addition to helping you impart skills to learners, task analysis (TA) can be a way of discovering how to optimize the efficiency, productivity, or safety of a task

Interested in learning more about Behavioral Science?

Task Analysis for Instruction Optimization

Instruction optimization involves a data-based assessment of instructional effectiveness. Any material or stimulus intended to prompt, guide, or teach a response can potentially be improved if you take the time to identify what components promote the effective behavior.

 

 

From an operations perspective, optimally effective instructions have many benefits such as:

  • Saving time during onboarding and training
  • Reducing the frequency of errors
  • Maintaining knowledge retention over time

Best Practices in Task Analysis Instruction
Learning outcomes and performance can generally be enhanced for most learners by:

  • Presenting steps in smaller pieces (Crist, Walls, & Haught, 1984)
  • Limiting jargon, presenting images, and providing examples (Graff & Karsten, 2012)
  • Presenting images of and describing stimuli that should trigger the response and the expected outcome(s) of a correct response (Tyner & Fienup, 2015)
  • Updating instructions frequently to match task changes (Dixon et al., 2007)

Though these general guidelines should improve the effectiveness of your instructions, optimizing ultimately requires measuring and adapting to what creates the best outcome for your learners.

Build a stronger business with Behavioral Science?

Remember, though examining the effectiveness of your instruction formally may initially require some time investment this cost should be offset by improvements in efficiency and reduction of errors.

Other considerations may also inform whether the expected ROI justifies the cost, including the risk or danger of the task, the criticality of accuracy, the acceptable threshold for errors, the cost and time required to correct errors, and the qualitative experience of those who are performing the task.

Summary

Task analysis is a method for investigating and documenting the process of completing a task that is prevalent across diverse industries. TA instruction is robust for training and guiding task performance, and many best practices have been published to improve its effectiveness. Robust methods from behavioral science are also available to further enhance instructional effectiveness and efficiency.

Bryan Tyner, PhD

Bryan Tyner, PhD

Optimized Behavior Technology

Bryan Tyner is a behavioral scientist and research-strategy consultant. He has a PhD in behavioral psychology from The Graduate Center at the City University of New York (CUNY). His research on instructional design, assessment, and optimization has been published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and the Journal of Behavioral Education. Bryan is the founder of Optimized Behavior Technology, an independent research agency that consults on the use of research methodology and data analytics to inform business operations, strategy, and product development. More information about his services is available at www.optimizedbehavior.technology 

References

Crist, K., Walls, R. T., & Haught, P. A. (1984). Degrees of specificity in task analysis. American Journal of Mental Deficiencies, 89, 67-74.

Dixon, M. R., Jackson, J. W., Small, S. L., Honer-King, M. J., Mui Ker Lik, N., Garcia, Y., & Rosales, R. (2009). Creating single-subject design graphs in Microsoft Excel 2007. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 277-293.

Gero, J. S. & Mc Neill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19, 21-61.

Graff, R. B. & Karsten, A. M. (2012). Evaluation of a self-instruction package for conducting stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 69-82.

IBM SPSS. (2016). Multivariate linear regression in SPSS. IBM Support. Accessed April 19, 2017 from http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21476743

May, J. & Barnard, P. J. (2004). Cognitive task analysis in interacting cognitive subsystems. In Diaper, D. & Stanton, N. A. (eds.) The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 295-325). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Tofel-Grehl, C. & Feldon, D. F. (2012). Cognitive task analysis-based training: A meta-analysis of studies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7, 293-304.

Tyner, B. C. & Fienup, D. M. (2015). The effects of describing antecedent stimuli and performance criteria in task analysis instruction for graphing. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 379-392.

Yu, R., Gero, J., & Gu, N. (2015). Achitects’ cognitive behavior in parametric design. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 1, 83-101.

UX Basics: Color, familiarity, and simplicity

UX Basics: Color, familiarity, and simplicity

Article by Lisa Truong

User Experience (UX) Basics: Color, Simplicity, and Familiarity

Today we scroll and click through a technological world consisting millions of websites and apps where information is at the end of our fingertips. The daily ins and outs of our lives have been integrated with the quick and easy access of information. How these webpages are designed and how the information is presented can impact how a user feels about what they’re looking at and even how they feel throughout the rest of their day when they’re off their devices.

There are three qualities of a webpage that can be used to create a certain feeling and a seamless experience when navigating the web.

  1. Color
  2. Simplicity
  3. Familiarity

Color

The colors being used are an important factor when trying to convey a feeling, reach a certain goal, or cater to a certain audience. Colors can provoke certain emotions and expectations in the viewer. For example, the color blue is associated with trust and reliability. Many travel companies, such as Delta and Amtrak, use blue in their websites to convey the idea that they provide timely services to their customers.

 

Complementary color schemes create a feeling of excitement and can bring the users’ attention to a certain section of the app; such as a button or link you want them to click. An example of this would be a test performed by the website, HubSpot, in 2011 that presented two similar webpages with green color schemes. The only difference was the color of the buttons; one was green and the other was red. They hypothesized that the green button would get more clicks since it fit with the color scheme, but the results showed that the red button received 21% more clicks than the green one. The contrast of the red button against the green color scheme drew the attention of the users. Analogous colors create a sense of harmony and continuity. This would be useful for a meditation app that would want to give off a calm and relaxed vibe.

Simplicity

Quick and easy are what many of us look for in the applications and products we use on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not. Compare a cluttered website to one with less text, images, and links. It would take us less time to navigate the simple webpage and less time to figure out what we’re looking at. The more steps we need to take, the more work our brains need to do and the more

likely we’ll lose interest in what we’re doing.

Novemsky (2007) presented products in easy or difficult-to-read fonts. People were twice as likely to purchase the product with the simple font than the complicated one. Humans find pleasure in easy to process things and the familiar, which goes into our next topic.

Familiarity

Our brains gravitate towards things that carry familiar characteristics. It’s easy to follow along with a layout that we’ve seen before, so it takes less work to soak in the information. A 2013 study by Jiaying Zhao, Naseem Al-Aidroos, and Nicholas Turk-Browne showed how regularity in a sequence attracts more attention. Participants were presented with a sequence of shapes appearing on four different locations on a computer screen. One of the sequences was predictable, the rest were random. After the sequences were presented, they were asked to identify letters that appeared at the four same locations where the sequences were. They identified the letter located where the predictable shape sequence were with the least time-delay.

So, when designing a webpage, having the login section at the usual top right corner and navigation buttons on either the top or left-hand side are methods to create an easy-to-follow webpage.

Outside the Screen

There’s more beneath the surface of what looks and feels good.  With all of these components working together to create a seamless experience, the goal is to have users spend less time and expend less cognitive energy, so they can use that energy on things when they’re offline.

A study from 1999 by Baba Shiv and Alex Fedorikhin put 165 participants into two groups. One group had to memorize two numbers; the other had to memorize seven. After reciting the digits, they were offered a choice between a bowl of fruit or chocolate cake. Participants who had to memorize seven numbers were nearly 50% more likely than the other group to choose the cake. This shows that cognitive processing drains our brains the way self-control and willpower does.

Based off of this, the amount of work your brain puts into navigating and digesting a website could effect how the rest of your day goes, whether it’d be staying on task to study for a test or sticking with a diet. So, it’s not just about taking up a user’s time while on the web, it’s about creating certain emotions and a pleasurable experience that can make life offline a little easier

Lisa Truong

Lisa Truong

Contributing Writer

Lisa Truong graduated from the University of Texas of Austin with degrees in Psychology and Human Development and Family Sciences, with a concentration in personal relationships. She has over a year of experience in the applied behavioral analysis field and currently works as a behavior therapist at The Behavior Exchange. She has experience working with children from 2 to 16 years of age in both clinical and in-home settings. She also has an interest in tech, visual design, and art since she was young. Since graduating, she has been trying to find opportunities to bridge behavioral sciences, technology, and visual aesthetics to create beautiful and easy-to-follow experiences.

Pin It on Pinterest