Yet, isn’t there also something to be said for not wanting to know it all right away?

Is social media eliminating elements of intrigue and mystery? And what if we see particular photos, status updates, tweets, or blog posts that negatively affect our view of the individual? Are we judging their online activity too quickly?

“I’ve been surprised at what a real impact Facebook has on romantic relationships,” Galena Rhoades, clinical psychologist at the University of Denver, said in Allison McCann’s BuzzFeed article, How Facebook Ruined Dating (And Breaking Up Too). “And I do think Facebook is playing a bigger role in relationship formation and relationship disillusions.”

McCann’s post highlights the little phenomenon people like to call “Facebook stalking,” when it comes to possible dates. While earlier research pinpointed this behavior as obstructive or possibly problematic, studies have now illustrated that the ‘Facebook stalking’ approach is used “to reduce some of the uncertainty in relationships.”

However, don’t we also thrive on uncertainty as an enjoyable part of talking to someone new? The process of discovering more about the other person, as you continue to spend additional time with him or her, is what propels the relationship forward, right?

“One of the more interesting things that I find is how social media might help you to discover things about another person that perhaps you would have found out later in time if the interactions were purely in person,” Ashley Knox, MSW, said.

“Some people are more comfortable revealing things about themselves online, because it may be easier, and also, it has become the thing to do online these days. Online, you get frequent updates on what people are doing, thinking, and feeling, whereas in person people tend to divulge more about themselves once knowing a person better and after having built up trust.”

To embellish that thought, let’s even say that there are ‘red flags’ on social media networks, discouraging you from the desire to become involved. Those same signs that you’re wondering about will surface in person as he or she opens up, lets you in, and shares. Plus, you’ll be able to receive a much more accurate reading of the person, way beyond various postings on Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr.

This issue isn’t exactly black or white — it incorporates shades of grey. I may regard glimpses of online insight as beneficial, and I may be cautious if I see something posted that’s unsettling. Nevertheless, I’d hope that social media wouldn’t prevent me from exploring (in non-digital life) for further understanding.

I know technology is rapidly advancing, becoming a prominent tool in our day-to-day lives, but maybe these sites don’t have to have that power over us just yet.

Some people are really excited by this new technology device. It is one step closer to interacting with a computer inside your brain rather than through our organic input devices (in this case, our eyeballs and voice).

But it begs the question — who is having difficulty using existing devices where wearing your computer on your head is less obtrusive (or obnoxious) than wearing it in your pocket or purse?

Robert Scoble, one technologist, listed three cool things about Google Glass from his personal experience after wearing it for 2 weeks:

1. They are much more social than looking at a cell phone. Why? I don’t need to look away from you to use Google, or get directions, or do other things.

2. The voice works and works with nearly every one and in every situation. It’s the first product that literally everyone could use it with voice. It’s actually quite amazing, even though I know that the magic is that it expects to hear only a small number of things. “OK Glass, Take a Picture” works. “OK Glass, Take a Photo” doesn’t. The Glass is forcing your voice commands to be a certain set of commands and no others will be considered. This makes accuracy crazy high, even if you have an accent.

[3.] I continue to be amazed with the camera. It totally changes photography and video. Why? I can capture moments.

Let’s go through these, shall we?

1. How is pretending to look and pay attention to someone — simply because the screen is in front of you as one eye is looking at them — any different than looking away to check a screen on a handheld device? At least with a handheld device, the other person knows when you are no longer paying attention to them. With Google Glass, you might seem to be looking at me, but you could just as well be buying a pair of shoes on Amazon.com.

From a human interaction perspective, this is maddening. Google Glass is going to once again blur the lines between real social interaction — being “in the moment” with another human being — and just being physically present. Being present is what a lot of people do at their full-time jobs (e.g., people who aren’t doing what they love for a living). You clock in, put together the widgets, then clock out.

When I’m engaged in a social interaction with another human being, I want them to be not just physically there with me — but also emotionally and intellectually engaged with me. If they are only “half there” while checking stock quotes and their Facebook page on Google Glass, honestly, that’s not a quality human interaction any longer (nor one worth my time).

Because we have a mountain of research that demonstrates — without a doubt — that people are generally poor multi-taskers. So while you think you won’t be noticed checking Facebook on Google Glass, guess what — you will be. And it’ll be a huge turn-off.

2. My five year old car has voice commands. I never use them because it takes more brain processing power to speak something than to push a button on the dash.

I think some technologists in our society became enamored of voice commands through science fiction like Star Trek, e.g., “Computer, tell me what’s our current speed.” Wow, that’s great, the computer responds with your current speed, “Warp 5.4.” Looking at an intelligently designed dashboard could’ve gotten you the same information with just a glance — and again, expending zero brain cycles in having to formulate a command — and in Google Glass’s apparent case, the correct command — and then speak it.

My iPhone also has extensive voice commands, and while I use them to compose text sometimes, I’m not really clear on how doing it through thin air (e.g., Google Glass) is somehow “better” than doing it to a handheld device I have to pull out of my pocket first. More convenient? Perhaps,¹ but it’s offset by the lesser convenience of having to wear (and constantly recharge) a somewhat heavy (as far as glasses go) and unconventional pair of glasses.

3. People seem obsessed with “capturing moments” in their lives. Each and every one of us already does this every day — they’re called memories. Memories are wonderfully artistic, colorful and vibrant things. But we actually have to fully experience the event we’re trying to capture in a memory in order to recall it later.

Today, we’re losing that ability to a pale imitation of memory — photographs and videos. A photograph or video can never replay the actual emotional and intellectual experience of being at an event or living in a moment of time in your life.

In the movie, Strange Days, people could experience other people’s recorded experiences through a neural interface — but it was the full experience: emotions, smells, sights, sounds, you name it. Short of that, even a video taken today is equivalent to a Civil War photograph in terms of being as immersive and fully-experienced compared to actual memory.

Now don’t get me wrong — it’s great to capture a moment in photographs or video from time to time in your life. But not every moment. And not to the point where capturing the moment is more important than living in the moment.

Someone wearing Google Glass might claim, “Well, that’s the beauty of Glass — I can capture it without interruption.” Umm, sure ya can. Until you hit that memory limit, or need to try and do a real-time upload of video on a sketchy wifi or 3G connection. Or find your battery is running low (again). Or any of a number of other technological things that can and do happen when you have an always-on connection to unlimited distractions.

Every time a Google Glass wearer starts talking to me, my first thought is always going to be, “Are they really listening to me or updating their Facebook status? Are they really here with me, or are they out there somewhere online?” When I see that person not really following what I’m saying, I’ll have my answer.

Google Glass could be a game changer for some. For instance, I think that for some people who have certain handicaps, it could really help improve their lives.

But for most of the rest of the world, Google Glass is going to be an interrupter — not disrupter — of social interactions.

It is one of those technologies answering a question — much like the Segway — that nobody asked.

For further reading: The one big factor Google Glass is missing

1. Really, is reaching into your pocket that big a deal??

With social media a major part of teens’ lives, it’s important they have a healthy relationship with the Internet. What does this look like?

According to Udall-Weiner, it resembles any healthy relationship: It has boundaries.

It also shouldn’t have to meet all their needs, including emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual, she said. For instance, sites like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest should never replace face-to-face interactions, she said. Instead, they should supplement them. That’s because online interactions lack the emotional depth and support of real-time relationships. “…[I]t’s hard to know whether someone is trustworthy, loyal, and invested in your well-being.”

The Internet also lets people keep a comfortable distance from others. Udall-Weiner cited MIT professor Sherry Turkle, who believes the Internet provides “the illusion of companionship, without the demands of friendship,” and “people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people, whom they also keep at bay.”

Fortunately, parents can teach their kids to use the Internet in healthy ways. Below, Udall-Weiner shared five strategies.

What Parents Can Do

In Udall-Weiner’s experience, parents approach Internet use with extremes: “they either prohibit it, or they pretend it doesn’t exist, since they’re quite terrified to find out what their child is really doing online.” Instead, she suggested communicating with your kids and teaching them to be more aware of how they use the Internet.

1. Talk to your teen about their time online.

Talking to your kids about how they use social media and technology helps them break out of autopilot and become more mindful of their actions and reactions, Udall-Weiner said. “[This] is an important skill when it comes to developing emotional competence.” It’s important for teens to understand how being online affects them (such as their mood).

She suggested asking your kids these questions: “Which websites do you often visit?  How do you feel emotionally, both during and after using these sites? Have you ever had any uncomfortable experiences online, or seen anything upsetting? Do you believe that there are any downsides to viewing the sites you regularly visit, or to using the Internet in general?”

2. Teach your teen to be media literate.

A mistake parents often make, according to Udall-Weiner, is that they don’t teach their kids about media literacy. But it’s vital for kids to understand that what they see isn’t what they get online. For instance, “Parents need to actively remind their children that images are not reality—that no one is as thin, perfectly-muscled, unwrinkled, or flawless as that person in the ad.” She suggested visiting Media Smarts for more information.

3. Set time limits on Internet use.

Teens are still developing their executive functions, which include monitoring behavior, organizing information and setting goals, she said. Plus, spending too much time on sites like Facebook can make teens feel worse. “My clients regularly tell me that they become very upset after looking at Facebook, since everyone looks happier, thinner, or more popular than they feel.” So parents might need to set restrictions on Internet use.

4. Surrender all phones before bedtime.

“This is a way to ensure that kids aren’t up late texting or surfing the web, rather than getting precious sleep,” Udall-Weiner said. This rule also applies to parents’ phones, “since kids emulate what they see.”

5. Know the research about Internet use.

Research has suggested that looking at images of thin models — which are splashed all over the Internet — may be associated with various negative consequences. “After seeing these images, people report things like decreased self-esteem, poor body image, depression, guilt, shame, stress, and an urge to engage in eating-disordered behavior, such as restricting food intake,” said Udall-Weiner. She also specializes in body image and eating disorders and founded ED Educate, a website with resources for parents.

Research also has suggested that the Internet makes us feel more disconnected from others, she said. “It’s important for teens to know the research on Internet use.” Talk to your kids about these findings.

Udall-Weiner shares more information and tips on supervising your child’s Internet use in this video.

Dr. M. had previously helped me understand that worry is an addiction — it hits the same pleasure center of the brain that other addictions, such as alcohol, do.

The more I worry, the more it reinforces me to worry. Ever the pleasure-seeker, I worry more and perpetuate the cycle. Yet, once I understood the worry addiction, I worried less.

While I am inclined toward overindulging in pleasurable activities (In my mother’s words. “Susan, you’re an extremist!”), I am also driven to avoid the consequences in the quest for maximum pleasure.

It took only one hangover to make me decide never to experience that feeling again. My attraction to pleasure also includes never wanting to feel full or be overweight or slowed down by the effects of smoking.

So, I feel pretty bad at the end of a day spent, not on writing, but on addictive flitting back and forth between Facebook and Twitter, seeking that serotonin surge I get from seeing that someone commented on my fan page or RT’ed my tweet.

Here’s what Dr. M. advised:

1. Give yourself a daily limit for checking Twitter. You can have a chart next to the computer in order to track the frequency. You can also print the word STOPin bold red at the bottom of the chart to serve as a reminder to stop.
2. Track what increases this particular checking behavior. Like any other habit-related or addictive behavior, it is important to understand what brings it on. What emotions, thoughts, or behaviors activate your desire to check Twitter? For instance:
   • Do you begin to feel anxious and then check?
   • Do you begin to feel bored and then check?
   • Do you begin surfing the Net and then find yourself having an increased urge to check?

   Find out what elicits the behavior and begin to modify them to decrease the likelihood of the behavior occurring.

3. Give yourself a reward for not engaging in the behavior. Remember that checking Twitter may be intrinsically rewarding; therefore, every time you check, you reinforce the behavior. Replace the reward of checking with another reward.

Thanks, Dr. M. Knowing that I’m feeding an addiction every time I look for a retweet helps me rethink doing it so often.

While researchers and psychologists have found many answers — to socialize with others (e.g., form relationships, provide and receive social support, and build collaborations), to gain a sense of achievement (e.g., acquire status, power, or domination over others), or to immerse themselves into a world outside the ordinary — there’s not a lot of consistency in how motives are measured in gaming research.

This means it’s really hard for researchers to compare their data with other scientists’ data in the same field, making broad generalizations about video games and gaming difficult to come by.

Enter a new exploratory study by Graham & Gosling (2013) to help shed some light on the problem.

Given researchers’ past inconsistency, this new study “sought to build on previous research by examining the degree to which game-playing motivations (e.g., socialization, achievement, and immersion) are associated with personality traits in the most popular MMORPG, [World of Warcraft, also known as WoW].”

Not surprising, the study’s subjects were mostly young adult men. About 1,413 (166 women) WoW players participated in this study (mean age=26.04, SD=7.50). On average, participants played WoW nearly 24 hours per week and had played for nearly 20 months at the time of sampling.

Subjects in the study completed two psychological measures — a personality assessment, the 44-item Big Five Inventory, and a 20-item Motivations for Play in Online Games scale developed by previous researcher Yee.

So what did they find?

People high in different personality traits tended to play for different reasons.

As expected, individuals motivated to play WoW for the purpose of socialization tended to be high on extraversion. Additionally, individual’s playing WoW to socialize were relatively high on agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness, but low in conscientiousness. Approximately 10% of the variance in social motivations was accounted for by the Big Five.

Contrary to our hypothesis, achievement motivation was negatively related to conscientiousness. Achievement motivation of WoW players was also negatively related to agreeableness and openness, but positively to extraversion and neuroticism. Approximately 5% of the variance in achievement motivation was accounted for by the Big Five traits.

As expected, individuals playing WoW for immersive motives were relatively high in openness. Those motivated to immerse themselves in the game were also relatively high on neuroticism and agreeableness, but lower on extraversion and conscientiousness. Approximately 10% of the variance in immersion motives was accounted for by Big Five traits.

WoW gamers motivated to play for leadership purposes tended to be extraverted, conscientious, and open, and lower in agreeableness and neuroticism. Approximately 15% of the variance in leadership motivation was accounted for by the Big Five.

Individuals with motives of independence tended to be low in extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, but high in openness. Approximately 3% of the variance in independence motivation was accounted for by the Big Five.

What’s this mean? The researchers explain:

As increasing numbers of people engage in virtual environments on a daily basis, it becomes more important to understand who is spending time in these spaces and why. Individuals select and manipulate their daily environments in the offline world to suit their needs, so it is reasonable to assume that they also do so in the online world.

There are numerous kinds of virtual environments (e.g., social networking sites, blogs, and games) in which individuals spend large amounts of time, each with its own set of goals, possibilities, and norms. Therefore, it is important to examine patterns of findings at a domain-specific level. We focused on WoW because of the high number of individuals interacting in the game.

The present findings demonstrate that individuals not only have different motivations for interacting in WoW, but that their personality traits are associated with those motivations.

Surprised? I’m not really… it seems logical that we’re motivated to engage in the online world in different environments — and use different forms of entertainment, even — based upon our personality, our social skills, and our interpersonal needs. But this research demonstrates this relationship, and that the relationship is based at least in part on our personality.

Reference

Graham, L.T. & Gosling, S.D. (2013). Personality Profiles Associated with Different Motivations for Playing World of Warcraft. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 189-193. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0090.

The latest issue of Pediatrics has two studies — and a bonus editorial! — that suggests television viewing by children is associated with greater criminality and antisocial personality, and that a child’s behavior can be modified by simply changing what they’re watching.

Pediatrics is the mouthpiece for the American Academy of Pediatrics. And while it’s ostensibly an objective, scientific journal, it continually publishes weak research — especially on the effects of TV and children.

Let’s check out the latest…

The first study (Robertson, et al., 2013) followed 1,037 New Zealand children over the course of their early lives, from ages 5 to 26. Parents were asked how much time their children spent watching TV, until age 13, when the children themselves were asked directly. Then they looked at some other factors — like criminal convictions, antisocial personality disorder, IQ, and the socio-economic status of the families. Parental control was also measured twice — at ages 7 and 9 — by asking the mom about what kinds of rules and procedures were used to run family life.

From this data, the researchers found that those with more criminal convictions or with antisocial personality traits watched significantly more TV as children.

But here’s all the things the researchers did not measure:

• Social peer network and social support

• Relationships and quality of relationships with friends
• Existence of other mental disorders (because the researchers only focused on antisocial personality disorder)
• Parental marital status
• Parental relationship quality
• Parental role modeling behavior
• History of criminal convictions within the immediate family
• Limited understanding of family dynamics from just two data points, and just from the perspective of the mother
• Religion and moral upbringing
• Amount of time spent in creative play
• Amount of time attending or participating in sports
• And so on…

As you can see, the list of alternative explanations for this correlational relationship is voluminous. Without controlling for as many variables as possible in a child’s environment, there is no reasonable way you can isolate a single variable. And without measuring the kinds of things in the list above (among others), you’d have no way to determine if one of those might provide a more reasonable — or at least alternative — explanation.

While two variables can often be associated with one another, an association rarely tells you much. Especially in this case, where the researchers never bothered to ask or measure what type of TV programs the children actually watched. For all we know, they could’ve all been heavier viewers of The Waltons. It seems incomprehensible that a study that purports to study the importance of TV watching’s effects on children that such an oversight could’ve been made.¹

Only buried at the end of the study do you find this acknowledgment:

As with any observational research, we cannot prove that television viewing causes antisocial behavior, but the study has a number of features that enable us to make causal inferences. [...]

[It] is also possible that other unmeasured factors associated with the milieu in which television viewing occurs may explain the observed relationship.

Yes, of course it may. Which means you can’t say anything about causation. So why do they then contradict themselves in the abstract of the study?

The findings are consistent with a causal association and support the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that children should watch no more than 1 to 2 hours of television each day.

And people wonder why social scientists often get a bad name in science?

That’s Okay, You Can Watch This on TV Instead

But hey, maybe it does matter what your child actually watches on TV. Let’s look at study 2 (Christakis, et al., 2013):

We devised a media diet intervention wherein parents were assisted in substituting high quality prosocial and educational programming for aggression-laden programming without trying to reduce total screen time. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 565 parents of preschool-aged children ages 3 to 5 years recruited from community pediatric practices. Outcomes were derived from the Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation at 6 and 12 months.

The researchers found about a 2 point difference in the Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation (SCBE) scale between the two groups. This was a statistically significant difference (in their regression analysis), according to the researchers.

However, it was a meaningless difference in the real world. The SCBE is a scale scored from 1 to 6 on 30 questions, resulting in a possible overall score of 180.

After 6 months, the control group scored a 106.38 versus a 108.36 of the intervention group. That’s an average change of just two of the 30 questions changing just one point in the positive direction. (A similar point difference was seen at the 1 year followup mark.)²

Their original hypothesis was to find a significant change in all the subscales and the overall score of the SCBE — that’s four scales:

We hypothesized that the intervention would increase the overall score and each of the 3 subscale scores.

After one year, all they found was a statistically significant change in one subscale score and the overall score. So were the researchers cautiously optimistic in their findings’ discussion, considering the tiny increases they found in the intervention group?

We demonstrated that an intervention to modify the viewing habits of preschool-aged children can significantly enhance their overall social and emotional competence and that low-income boys may derive the greatest benefit. [Emphasis added.]

Not, “we found support for…” or “on one single measure of social and emotional competence…”

The apparently lack of objectivity displayed here is, in my opinion, simply astounding.

Should your child spend 5 hours a day in front of the TV? In general, probably not. Nor should they spend 5 hours a day playing sports, a video game, or eating bananas. This is called “common sense,” and no amount of psychological research — good or bad — can infuse it into parents who don’t care how they raise their children. Why researchers insist on pursuing this questionable line of inquiry is beyond me.³

References

Christaskis, D.A., et al. (2013). Modifying Media Content for Preschool Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatrics. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1493

Robertson, L.A., McAnally, H.M. & Hancox, R.J. (2013). Childhood and Adolescent Television Viewing and Antisocial Behavior in
Early Adulthood. Pediatrics. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-158

1. Worse yet, how does a study like this get accepted for publication in a journal such as Pediatrics when it has so many obvious methodological flaws?
2. And for reasons that aren’t clear, the researchers failed to report the actual mean subscale scores on this measure — something commonplace when reporting on the SCBE in the research.
3. It’s only a matter of time before we see similar studies published about the Internet.

Now they’ve moved on to something that, in my opinion, looks a lot like deception.

In today’s email box, we found an email from “Jeffrey Redd, Project Outreach Director” with an email address of jeff@va.gov.samhsa.net sharing with us “a guide about finding treatment, free of cost.” Wow, really? A new fantastic resource from the folks over at SAMHSA?

But wait, hold on a minute. That email address doesn’t look quite right…

Here’s the, in my opinion, seemingly deceptive email:¹

SAMHSA stands for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — an arm of the U.S. federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services. The official SAMHSA website is at: www.samhsa.gov

SAMHSA.net, on the other hand, is a domain owned by a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) firm, Website Consultants Inc. of North Fort Myers, Florida:

[Click for larger image]

The email address “Jeff” sent from — jeff@va.gov.samhsa.net — is meant to invoke a government association with these three words: SAMHSA, “gov” (which is where all the government domains reside), and “va” which might stand for Veterans Administration (or Virginia). After I spoke with Beachway representatives on Wednesday — but before I spoke to the SEO firm — this domain’s ownership was hidden behind a proxy service.

SEO firms work to improve the search engine rankings of their clients’ websites. SAMHSA.net had a single page of content (since removed, but here’s copy of it) that had been rewritten from SAMHSA.gov’s legitimate content. The title of the deceptive page was “The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration” and there were no disclaimers to suggest that it was not an official federal government resource.

In this case, the client was a firm called Beachway Therapy Center, located in Delray Beach, Florida. I first spoke with the COO of Beachway, to understand who Jeffrey Redd was, and why he was telling me — unsolicited — about a “white paper” (about how to receive “free” treatment) that resided on Beachway Therapy Center’s domain.

The COO didn’t know anything about it and referred me instead to Stephen Howley, the admissions director of Beachway. During a brief telephone conversation, he also said he didn’t know any Jeffrey Redd, and at first suggested that this was a work of a competitor trying to steal or infringe upon Beachway’s branding.² He also suggested perhaps it was something sent out by his SEO firm, but he thought it unlikely.

Then I asked Mr. Howley for the name of his SEO firm. “Website Consultants Inc.,” he replied.

I pointed out that the exact same firm is responsible for registering the domain name, samhsa.net, and so it was unlikely this email was sent out by a competitor. “I’ll have to have a talk with them,” said Mr. Howley.

When asked if he knew of this apparently deceptive email being sent, Mr. Howley replied, “I can assure you 100% that we had no prior knowledge of this sort of thing.”

We contacted the SEO firm and spoke via phone and emails with Sean Callahan, the president and co-founder of Website Consultants. He also didn’t know who Jeffrey Redd was, so he asked for a copy of the email. After reviewing the email, he pegged the errant email on a link-building firm that he said had leased the domain SAMHSA.net: “They are obviously abusing the domain we leased to them, so we have terminated the agreement effective today.” Mr. Callahan refused to name the link-building firm, citing a non-disclosure agreement.

I understand it’s hard to get your name out there if you’re a treatment or rehab center. It’s even more difficult to appear higher up in search results. But good content gets indexed by Google and Bing, plain and simple — there are no tricks you need to employ in order to get it indexed. Yes, it takes time, and yes, it takes even more time to build up an online reputation for your domain. Seeking ways to circumvent the system or hurry up the process may work (at least temporarily, until the algorithm changes yet again) — but also may bring you unwanted publicity.

Sometimes rehab centers get a bad name because of their aggressive strategies for trying to attract new patients. It’s no wonder.

1. I left off the legally-meaningless confidentiality notice that nobody reads — including me — from this email copy. But the SEO guy pointed out that buried in the middle of it was this sentence, “We are in no way related, or representing any government agency.”
2. Which can be a legitimate concern in this cut-throat industry.

For some, the solution may lie in the new wave of exercise trackers. Wristbands and other gadgets rely on operant conditioning — the potential for feedback from the environment to affect desired (or undesired) behavior.

Depending on the gadget, trackers provide can provide personalized information about information including: the number of steps taken per day (which is then converted into miles traversed or calories burned); total calories consumed; and the length and depth of nightly sleep. Some of these trackers also will provide daily, weekly, or monthly trends.

The idea is that making people aware of their daily activity and caloric intake will motivate them to make better choices and achieve health-related goals.

This premise is nothing new: The old-school, low-tech versions of these trackers are the pencil and paper food diaries and exercise logs. For some people, writing down their eating and exercise behaviors can be the key to making healthy changes. One of the challenges inherent in the diary approach, however, is getting people actually to write things down. Unfortunately, most techies — and pretty much everyone under 40 — are unlikely to carry around small pocket notebooks. And no “feedback” from the diary means no reinforcement for positive behaviors. It also means one can remain blissfully unaware of one’s degree of sloth or gluttony.

Ideally, I would like to exercise on five or more days per week. Like most, however, life has frequently gotten in the way, and most weeks I am lucky to engage in “formal” exercise two to three times per week at most. Yet, I thought there were several reasons for me not to try one of these toys.

First, I am no techie. I had never even sent a text before 2005. Second (and this may surprise some…), I worked as a personal trainer during college, and later to supplement my income while at my first research job. I also have a degree in public health. So I have a good idea of what I should be doing, even when I am not doing it. Third, I am a health psychologist, and know a thing or two about barriers to and motivators of behavior change.

Yet, despite better-than-average health habits, I’m not immune to second helpings, giant lattes, or wanting to sleep in. So when two of my tech-savvy friends raved about the power of the bands, I was intrigued.

“This thing is fantastic!” my friend Dave enthused. “You know my brother – the one who’s been kind of blobby since he got married – like 15 years ago? Well, we were sitting around after Christmas dinner, and he logged his meals for the day. The thing told him he needed to burn 300 more calories to make his goal.”

“And?” I waited expectantly.

“He actually got off the couch and played one of those fitness video games with my niece for about 45 minutes. I nearly fell over. He’s been walking every day for the past week. Alan and I are going to the mall today to get these for ourselves.”

With that, I was sold. I bummed a ride with them to the mall and bought a band that tracks exercise, caloric intake, and sleep, comforted by the store’s 10-day return policy.

It’s been three-and-a-half weeks now since I got the band, and by some miracle (otherwise known as operant conditioning), I have worn it daily, including during sleep. At the end of each day I check to see how many steps I’ve taken. My daily goal has been to achieve the 10,000 steps recommended by the World Health Organization.

Each evening, I sync the band with my phone and an app tells me how I’ve done. I am excited to say that I have met or exceeded my activity goal on all but two days, which represents a marked increase for me. Admittedly, I have been inconsistent with regard to logging my sleep, but am more aware of aiming for (if not always meeting) the recommended 8 hours. I have only logged my meals once, but I wasn’t really aiming to make huge changes on this front anyway.

The bottom line is that the activity trackers utilize a time-tested psychological approach for enhancing motivation and increasing the likelihood of behavior change in a way that will especially appeal to gadget freaks, those unlikely to carry around a notepad, and those who enjoy the ability to see their progress over time. It’s operant conditioning with a tech-savvy twist.

I’ve always loved the scavenger hunt research requires. Every clue leads to another. Every clue uncovered is a prize in itself: learning something new and interesting and getting one step closer to the carrot (such as the answer to your original question).

But there’s always one more thing to look up, learn and digest.

Whether your livelihood lives online — like mine — or not, you probably use the Web quite a bit. The Internet makes research a breeze. Want to know what triggered the World Wars or how the states got their shapes? Want to know how to bake a tasty tilapia or buy a reliable used car?

Information is merely a click — or, more accurately, a Google search — away. Depending on your query, there’s likely at least a dozen, if not hundreds, of blogs on the topic, a similar number of books and many more articles.

This is a good thing, but it also can overburden our brains.

According to Lucy Jo Palladino, Ph.D, a psychologist and author of Find Your Focus Zone: An Effective New Plan to Defeat Distraction and Overload, “Information overload occurs when a person is exposed to more information than the brain can process at one time.”

Alvin Toffler actually coined the term in 1970 in his book Future Shock. As more and more people started using the Web, “information overload” became a popular phrase to describe how we felt about going online, Palladino said.

According to neuroscientists, the more accurate term is “cognitive overload,” she said. That’s “because the brain can process vast amounts of information depending on the form in which it’s presented,” she said.

For instance, taking a walk exposes us to a slew of complex data, but as Palladino said, our brains are able to process this information, and our nervous system gets soothed. Contrast that with standing on the corner of Times Square in New York City. Our brain struggles to organize all the sensory data barreling its way, and our nervous system becomes overstimulated, she said. (If you’re a highly sensitive person, like I am, overstimulated is an understatement.)

Information or cognitive overload can lead to indecisiveness, bad decisions and stress, Palladino said. Indecisiveness or analysis paralysis occurs when you’re “overwhelmed by too many choices, your brain mildly freezes and by default, [and] you passively wait and see.” Or you make a hasty decision because vital facts get wedged between trivial ones, and you consider credible and non-credible sources equally, she said.

When you can’t tolerate the overwhelm any longer, you just go for it (and likely go with the wrong choice), she said. “When overload is chronic, you live in a state of unresolved stress and anxiety that you can’t meet ongoing demands to process more information,” she said.

Overcoming Information or Cognitive Overload

In Find Your Focus Zone, Palladino suggests readers view incoming information as bringing bags of groceries into your home. “To put them away, you need time, an amount that’s limited to what fits on the counter, and an already clean fridge and organized pantry.” These are her tips:

1. Schedule breaks. Take a break away from the computer. This gives your brain a breather, and helps you regain perspective, she said. Plus, the quiet time can help you zero in on making a good decision.

2. Set limits. Because the Internet is available 24/7, you can consume information for hours. Limit how long you scan for information. Filter your sources, focusing only on the high-quality ones, she said.

3. Keep your virtual and physical spaces clutter-free. Make sure your computer files and desk are “clear, well-organized and ready to handle overflow,” she said.

Dealing with Analysis Paralysis

As Palladino noted, when you’re bombarded with too much information, you might experience analysis paralysis. You get so overwhelmed and fed up that you simply stop. On his website, business consultant and coach Chris Garrett suggests asking these valuable questions if you’re struggling with analysis paralysis on a project:

• What do you absolutely have to do for the project to be a success?
• What tasks can absolutely not be put off until later?
• What are the most painful items to change post-launch?
• What could realistically go wrong?

The Conundrum of Control

What might be most disconcerting to individuals isn’t the abundance of information, but the feeling of not having any control, speculates Guardian reporter Oliver Burkeman. In his column on information overload, he suggests focusing on finding ways to minimize the stress of overload.

Ironically, it’s often technology that helps me feel in charge of information, instead of feeling pushed and pulled by it. My go-to programs are Freedom, which blocks the Internet, and OmmWriter, which provides a distraction-free writing space. This helps me to focus on one task at a time. (Deadlines also don’t hurt.)

Consciously consuming information is another strategy. Figure out what you need to find, and be ruthless about sticking to your parameters. Save anything that’s interesting but unrelated for another time.

Regardless of how you decide to approach information overload, don’t dismiss the importance of regularly disconnecting.

What helps you
overcome information overload?

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) — also known as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy — is a chronic neurological syndrome characterized by: severe burning pain, pathological changes in bone and skin, excessive sweating, tissue swelling, and extreme sensitivity to touch.

Recently the RSDSA featured one of our NeuroTalk communities in its quarterly newsletter, the RSDSA Review, “NeuroTalk’s RSD and CRPS Forum: An Online Community with Valuable Resources” by Franklin Michaels, Jr.

Here’s what they had to say about the NeuroTalk community…

NeuroTalk is our sister neurological community to our main Psych Central forums. We began it in 2006, when another neurological community went offline without notice, and its members were not told if it would ever return.

One of our more active groups at NeuroTalk is the one dedicated to Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. With over 5,500 threads, it has helped thousands of people over the years — both those with the syndrome, and those who know someone with it.

Here’s some of what Franklin Michaels Jr. wrote in the article describing this strong online community:

They will find remarkable individuals, as well as new and provocative information and, if need be, critical exchanges. It is not to be overlooked that in repeatedly having to grapple with challenging arguments in writing that our views become more malleable. For example, I would have never made the leap into tDCS therapy but for being repeatedly challenged and encouraged to do so online. [...]

But most important, anyone engaging in the forum on a regular basis will find a large group of people with surprising similarities, and among them a few people with whom they will have mutual recognition of points going well beyond illness, background and lifestyle.

Anyone is welcomed to participate in NeuroTalk and membership is always free. I encourage you to check out this robust set of neurological support groups — which offer a wealth of information and emotional support to anyone grappling with these kinds of issues.

Read the full article here: NeuroTalk’s RSD and CRPS Forum: An Online Community with Valuable Resources (PDF)

Whether in the center of a city or deep in a forest, the cacophony of sounds around us makes it apparent that true silence is impossible. Composer John Cage wrote music that included long periods of silence. When the musicians stopped playing, concertgoers were quickly confronted with the shuffling, shifting, and coughing sounds in the concert hall.

So what is silence?

Silence is the absence of intentional sound. Intentional sounds are the things we turn on, such as TVs and iPods; words spoken or heard in a conversation; music such as humming or tapping; and the noise of tools, keyboards, or other objects. Sounds that remain are unavoidable. So silence is purposeful quiet. Some find it unsettling.

A study of 580 undergraduate students undertaken over six years, reported by Bruce Fell on The Conversation, shows that the constant accessibility and exposure to background media has created a mass of people who fear silence.

This study, along with research by Drs. Michael Bittman of the University of New England and Mark Sipthorp of the Australian Institute of Family Studies argues that “their need for noise and their struggle with silence is a learnt behavior.”

This cannot be blamed on the relatively recent rise of social media and 24-hour availability. For many of these students’ lives the TV was always on, even when no one was watching. That often was the case throughout their parents’ childhoods as well. If background noise has always been with us, it’s no wonder we can become so uncomfortable when it’s taken away.

Lest I try to pass myself off as a contemplative or a meditation master, I confess that I have my own difficulty with silence.

My wife and I, city dwellers, were staying in a house far from the city. It was rustic, with no TV, radio, or Internet. When we went to bed it was so dark and quiet it was unsettling. We couldn’t sleep! If I miss a few days meditating in a row, as I did in the busyness of the recent holidays, I find it very challenging to break away and begin my practice again. And when I am in a difficult episode, riddled with self-doubt, nervousness or anxiety, the last thing I want to do is turn off all of the media that distracts me from my insecurity. But I soon realize that distractions can exacerbate the difficulty. I get back to fixed periods of silence, return to the discipline of my practice, and heal.

If the fear of silence is a learned behavior, it can be unlearned. This can be undertaken through mindfulness meditation and focused attention.

To develop focused attention, you may want to begin by confronting the experience of silence. Turn everything off, go to as quiet a place as you can find, and sit for a few minutes. Take in the environment. Just experience the present moment and allow what is around you to exert itself.

If you find yourself agitated or ill at ease, start with very short periods of quiet. Turn off the TV when washing the dishes. Drive without the radio on. Walk the dog without the iPod or phone. You will reap benefits. And slowly, as silence is embraced, you will find comfort there.

Silent man photo available from Shutterstock

With so many apps on the market, it’s hard to know which are useful.

Many are designed by software developers instead of psychologists, without scientific testing. They range from beneficial, to harmless but useless, to bordering on fraudulent.

The apps selected for this list make no hucksterish claims and are based on established treatments. Progressive Muscle Relaxation, for example, has been used for a century and is likely just as effective in this new medium. Knowledge from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Dialectical Behavior Therapy enrich two apps on this list. Others mix solid information with ingenuity.

Don’t forget to download the free PsychCentral app to keep up with the latest mental health information.

1. BellyBio

Free app that teaches a deep breathing technique useful in fighting anxiety and stress. A simple interface uses biofeedback to monitor your breathing. Sounds cascade with the movements of your belly, in rhythms reminiscent of waves on a beach. Charts also let you know how you’re doing. A great tool when you need to slow down and breathe.

2. Operation Reach Out

Literally a lifesaving app, this free intervention tool helps people who are having suicidal thoughts to reassess their thinking and get help. Recommended by followers of @unsuicide, who report that this app has helped in suicidal crises. Developed by the military, but useful to all. Worth a download even if you’re not suicidal. You never know if you might need it.

3. eCBT Calm

Provides a set of tools to help you evaluate personal stress and anxiety, challenge distorted thoughts, and learn relaxation skills that have been scientifically validated in research on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Lots of background and useful information along with step-by-step guides.

4. Deep Sleep with Andrew Johnson

Getting enough sleep is one of the foundations of mental health. A personal favorite I listen to all the time, this straightforward app features a warm, gentle voice guiding listeners through a Progressive Muscle Relaxation (PMR) session and into sleep. Features long or short induction options, and an alarm.

5. WhatsMyM3

A three minute depression and anxiety screen. Validated questionnaires assess symptoms of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and PTSD, and combine into a score that indicates whether or not your life is impacted significantly by a mood disorder, recommending a course of action. The app keeps a history of test results, to help you track your progress.

6. DBT Diary Card and Skills Coach

Based on Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) developed by psychologist Marsha Linehan, this app is a rich resource of self-help skills, reminders of the therapy principles, and coaching tools for coping. Created by a therapist with years of experience in the practice, this app is not intended to replace a professional but helps people reinforce their treatment.

7. Optimism

Track your moods, keep a journal, and chart your recovery progress with this comprehensive tool for depression, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders. One of the most popular mood tracking apps available, with plenty of features. Free.

8. iSleepEasy

A calm female voice helps you quell anxieties and take the time to relax and sleep, in an array of guided meditations. Separately controlled voice and music tracks, flexible lengths, and an alarm. Includes a special wee hours rescue track, and tips for falling asleep. Developed by Meditation Oasis, who offer an great line of relaxation apps.

9. Magic Window – Living Pictures

Not technically a mental health app, it makes no miraculous claims about curbing anxiety. However, there is independent research indicating that taking breaks and getting exposure to nature, even in videos, can reduce stress. This app offers an assortment of peaceful, ambient nature scenes from beautiful spots around the world.

10. Relax Melodies

A popular free relaxation sound and music app. Mix and match nature sounds with new age music; it’s lovely to listen to birds in the rain while a piano softly plays.

Do you have a favorite app not on the list?
Please share links in the comments.

You’re not alone, according to the Health Online 2013 report out from Pew Internet & American Life Project today. According to their most recent survey of Americans, 35 percent of us have gone online to figure out a medical or health condition.

And, perhaps surprising to no one, 72 percent of Internet users have looking for health information online and most people — 77 percent — start their inquiry at a search engine, like Google or Bing.

Now of those 35 percent who try to figure out a medical condition — online diagnosers, Pew calls them — more than half then take their concern to a health care professional to discuss. In most cases — 59 percent of the time — they turn out to be wrong.

But in 41 percent of cases, the clinician confirms the diagnosis the person had done online. That may seem like an inconsequential number, but it’s not.

You see, one of the big problems we face — especially for mental health concerns — is to get people even to consider talking to a professional about their problem.

What the Internet appears to be doing is helping to jump-start that conversation. Because if people aren’t comfortable enough to consider having the conversation, they may wait until it’s too late (e.g., with things like glaucoma or cancer).

Nobody’s Doing Much Reviewing

Online reviews of doctors, treatments and drugs has been around for nearly a decade now. And despite all that time — and the popularity of general review websites such as Yelp — most people just don’t care about contributing a review that’s health-related.

The Pew Internet report, authored by my colleague Susannah Fox and Maeve Duggan, found that only 3-4 percent of Internet users are likely to post a review of a treatment, hospital or clinician. Compare that to 37 percent who’ve done so for reviews of general products or services (like restaurants or hotels).

And the trend suggests it’s actually getting worse, as fewer people consult such reviews for specific treatments or drugs:

The upshot of the report is an important snapshot of what people are doing when they search for online health information. The full report is worth checking out here.

I recall the first time I encountered a computer — it really was an encounter as the machine looked rather frightening to my 10-year-old eyes. It was grey and weighed at least 25 pounds. It took what felt like forever (minutes — in its later years, hours) to load.

And it made a strange ticking noise, a repetitive sound not unlike the clock that hung in our living room, or the motion of my foot hitting the side of the metal desk as I waited for the noise the machine made once the screen finally appeared. I loved that noise. If the computer could talk I was certain it was telling me, whispering among the ticking, Welcome Home, Natalie! Enjoy your stay!

It was 1995. My two siblings and I fought over that large machine, forcing my parents to give us each an allotted amount of time. We cried and we kicked once 30 minutes had passed, 45 minutes if the gods were smiling down on us or my mother was taking a nap.

When I was 14 years old I found immense pleasure in setting up an alias online, entering a chat room, and pretending I was psychic. I predicted, tapping away at the keyboard, great fame and fortune for dozens of anonymous people… Even if it wasn’t completely honest, it was fun.

This was before technology captured and completely enraptured my teenage years. This was before cell phones and iPads and everything made by Apple, Inc. Technology was still a fantastic novelty.

Reality television had yet to dominate the time many people had previously spent reading (actual paper books!) and eating family dinner at a table, the children arguing and squirming as children do. Maybe those were the good old days, before writing became my sole vocation and left me staring at my laptop screen eight hours each day.¹

In contrast to my experience, growing up alongside Bill Gates and wireless Internet, my father recalls a much different time. And when he does, his eyes glass over, he smiles slightly, and he tells me about a simpler time. My father grew up on a farm in Edmonton, Alberta, where he was taught how to kill his own dinner and catch the mice that populated the stacks of hay. I cringe when he tells me this — but he remembers this time fondly.

He tells me, while I am checking listings on eBay, that the best years in his life occurred sitting in front of a radio. Yes, a radio. He has a picture of it and I can only describe this single photograph as ancient-looking: black and white, the edges curled and yellowed. The radio itself looks archaic; the antenna nearly reaching the ceiling.

The entire family, once per week, huddled together near the fireplace and listened eagerly to the infamous Hockey Night in Canada. Sure, they had television — a few channels — and watched scratchy black and white cartoons, but it was the radio that mattered. The simplicity of it and what it represented: time spent with family and with friends.

Having heard this story once again, I wondered if perhaps a life defined by technology, social networking and television was lacking in something. Lacking in life.

I briefly considered writing an article focused on the impact of social networking and then realized that in order to do this it would require a large amount of social networking. Much too ironic, I concluded.

So I made things simple: I closed my laptop, unplugged the television, placed my iPad in my nightstand drawer and waited. I lasted exactly thirty-four hours and immediately realized that technology — for better or for worse — has a large place in our lives. But listening to my father talk about life before my wireless keyboard, well, that must have been pretty nice.

Old radio photo available from Shutterstock

1. I am certain there will be a massive class-action lawsuit based on strange eye afflictions directly caused by computers.

Students want to study when they want and how they want.  Distance learning makes education available to those who wouldn’t otherwise be able to get off of work, travel to class or spend hours in lectures.  

That same increase in convenience and availability could have a real impact for people seeking psychological treatment. Is distance treatment ready to take off?

People who must maintain jobs, care for children or aging parents, don’t have cars or access to public transportation or want to learn material that is not offered where they live can all benefit from distance learning. These are often the same reasons people struggle to access mental health services.

And there is a large body of research that suggests distance learning and traditional classroom learning provide the same quality of education. Distance learning is no longer considered a sub-standard educational option.

So, how can these benefits apply to receiving psychological treatment?

Treatment available online or at a distance could certainly help people with difficulties in getting to therapy sessions and incorporating treatment into a busy lifestyle. It would also enable people to access specific treatment modalities not otherwise available to them.

And, according to the American Psychological Association, psychologists have begun using electronic communication such as email, Skype and various forms of videoconferencing to augment treatment. But, while technology surges ahead, licensing laws and guidelines for providing safe and ethical distance treatment are still catching up.

A recent article reporting on the use of phone therapy in Monitor on Psychology suggests that talking on the phone with a therapist can provide the same, or even better, results for some.

In this study, conducted by University of Cambridge researchers, British adults with mild and moderate depression and anxiety disorders who received cognitive behavioral-based therapy via the phone benefited as much, if not more, than those who received face-to-face therapy. Those with severe symptoms did not see the same results.

This study also found that telephone therapy was less expensive than traditional therapy and was conducted as part of a national initiative in Britain aimed at increasing people’s access to therapy.

The telephone is only one of many options for providing distance treatment. The number of mental health tools available is rapidly increasing. And many in the field agree that it’s time for practitioners to embrace technology and what it has to offer in delivering interventions.

One-on-one treatment cannot be replaced.  Nor should it.  However, the need for treatment providers to meet the changing and growing mental health needs of the population has caused the ΑΡΑ Insurance Trust and the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards to launch a task force to develop guidelines for tele-psychology practice.

So what are some of the alternatives to one-on-one therapy?  According to a cover story in the APA Monitor they include the following:

• Behavioral intervention technologies, such as those that deliver care via the Internet or mobile phones
• Computer programs for depression and other disorders, which typically teach principles of cognitιve-behavioral therapy or some other evidence-based treatment

Although these treatment options are appealing and there is a growing body of research to suggest that many are effective, it is important to proceed with caution.  It is essential to ensure that individuals get the right treatment and that treatments offered have been studied and found effective.