The Psychologist June 2017 by The Psychologist

the

psychologist june 2017

Democracy in danger A special feature

www.thepsychologist.org.uk

the

psychologist june 2017

contact The British Psychological Society 48 Princess Road East Leicester LE1 7DR 0116 254 9568 mail@bps.org.uk www.bps.org.uk the psychologist and research digest www.thepsychologist.org.uk www.bps.org.uk/digest www.jobsinpsychology.co.uk psychologist@bps.org.uk Twitter: @psychmag Download our iOS/Android apps: complete access for Society members advertising Reach 50,000+ psychologists at very reasonable rates. CPL, 1 Cambridge Technopark Newmarket Road Cambridge CB5 8PB recruitment Kai Theriault 01223 378051 kai.theriault@cpl.co.uk display Michael Niskin 01223 378 045 michael.niskin@cpl.co.uk may 2017 issue 48,227 dispatched design concept Darren Westlake www.TUink.co.uk printed by Warners Midlands plc on 100 per cent recycled paper issn 0952-8229 (print) 2398-1598 (online) © Copyright for all published material is held by the British Psychological Society unless speciﬁcally stated otherwise. As the Society is a party to the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) agreement, articles in The Psychologist may be copied by libraries and other organisations under the terms of their own CLA licences (www.cla.co.uk). Permission must be obtained for any other use beyond fair dealing authorised by copyright legislation. For further information about copyright and obtaining permissions, e-mail permissions@bps.org.uk.

Democracy in danger A special feature

www.thepsychologist.org.uk

The Psychologist is the magazine of The British Psychological Society It provides a forum for communication, discussion and controversy among all members of the Society, and aims to fulﬁl the main object of the Royal Charter, ‘to promote the advancement and diffusion of a knowledge of psychology pure and applied’

The Psychologist needs you! We rely on your submissions throughout the publication, and in return we help you to get your message across to a large and diverse audience. For details of all the available options, plus our policies and what to do if you feel these have not been followed, see www.thepsychologist.org.uk/contribute The main message, though, is simply to engage with us. Contact the editor Dr Jon Sutton on jon.sutton@bps.org.uk, tweet us on @psychmag or call / write to us at the Society’s Leicester ofﬁce.

Managing Editor Jon Sutton Assistant Editor Peter Dillon-Hooper Production Mike Thompson Journalist Ella Rhodes Editorial Assistant Debbie Gordon Research Digest Christian Jarrett (editor), Alex Fradera

Associate Editors Articles Michael Burnett, Paul Curran, Harriet Gross, Rebecca Knibb, Adrian Needs, Paul Redford, Sophie Scott, Mark Wetherell, Jill Wilkinson Conferences Alana James History of Psychology Alison Torn Interviews Gail Kinman Culture Kate Johnstone, Sally Marlow Books Emily Hutchinson, Rebecca Stack International panel Vaughan Bell, Uta Frith, Alex Haslam, Elizabeth Loftus, Asifa Majid The Psychologist and Digest Editorial Advisory Committee Catherine Loveday (Chair), Emma Beard, Phil Banyard, Helen Galliard, Harriet Gross, Rowena Hill, Stephen McGlynn, Peter Olusoga, Richard Stephens

the

psychologist june 2017

‘There are some things in our society, some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted.’ Martin Luther King

‘Our expertise brings with it an ethical duty to follow the lead of Camus and King and speak out about those issues that demand a voice.’ Peter Kinderman

‘Psychology is action, not thinking about oneself’ Albert Camus

Letters Drone warfare; running; and more

Democracy in danger How can psychology help? asks Roger Paxton

Building democracy Ashley Weinberg on how psychology can inform the design and restoration of physical spaces

News Replication; Brexit; bias; and more 36

Reclaiming the truth Karen Douglas, Chee Siang Ang and Farzin Deravi on conspiracy theories and fake news Interview Michal Kosinski on information bubbles and more

Presidential Address Peter Kinderman’s speech from the Annual Conference

Beyond borders Alastair Nightingale, Simon Goodman and Sam Parker on the refugee crisis

Careers Patric Esters on ‘expat psychology’; we meet Nicki Morley; and the latest vacancies

One on one Joanna Grifﬁn

Culture Max Richter’s Sleep; The Curious Incident…; and more

A to Z

Announcing the UK General Election, Prime Minister Theresa May accused her opponents of ‘political gameplaying’ and said that she was ‘reluctantly’ calling the vote in an attempt to ‘guarantee certainty and stability for the years ahead’. For some, this didn’t sound like the language of democratic debate: under the headline ‘This is no general election, it’s a coup’, one journalist wrote ‘Theresa May has turned democracy against itself.’ Our collection of articles and cover, planned before the announcement, perhaps remains apt. The pieces deal with democracy, how we assess information and argument, and the need for psychologists to take social or political action. You can ﬁnd exclusive online extras on our website, as well as revisiting our 2015 special via www.thepsychologist. org.uk/political-animal. I know not all of you agree with Albert Camus’ view that ‘Psychology is action’ (see p.50), but if there was ever a time to engage – on both the national and the international stages – that time is surely now. Dr Jon Sutton Managing Editor @psychmag

Drone crews and moral engagement Tim Sanders/www.timonline.info

Professor Albert Bandura (‘Disengaging morality from robotic war’, February 2017) offers crucial and provocative insights into the mechanisms of moral disengagement, most notably the psychology of euphemistic language, advantageous comparison, and displacement and diffusion of responsibility. However, he assumes a narrow and illegitimate application of lethal force by American Reaper and Predator drones. There are drone crews in other countries who operate in recognised areas of armed conflict under international humanitarian law, using the same conventional rules of engagement as piloted aircraft, and for whom the high-definition video images involved increase rather than decrease their mental and emotional immersion in events. I have conducted field research with British Reaper drone crews during ongoing operations against ISIS over the past eight months, observing lethal missile strikes first-hand and in real time, and interviewing 72 members of that community. Initial observations have identified layers of moral and psychological complexity that have yet to be analysed and understood. UK Reaper pilots, sensor operators and mission intelligence coordinators (the three-person crew) have operated within a ‘zero civcas’ (zero civilian casualties) imperative for several years. This is morally, physically and psychologically significant. Positively, crews can – and regularly have – refused shots where civilian deaths could occur. Negatively, in so doing they have sometimes had to leave ‘friendly’ soldiers on the ground under sniper or other attack while they keep watching, powerless to intervene. In situations like this, deleterious mental, emotional and moral effects come not from moral disengagement, but from ongoing and active moral engagement. Furthermore, some advantageous moral comparisons can be entirely legitimate. One Reaper sensor operator (who guides the missile onto the target) describes Islamic State jihadists as ‘the easiest enemy I will ever fight against’ because actions like executing gay men for being gay and the raping and enslavement of Yazidi women and girls are so heinous. Operational and legal authorisation must be granted before every Reaper drone missile or bomb strike. But

the pilot is ultimately responsible for the ﬁnal decision to shoot and kill. The words of one British pilot capture the moral complexity and emotional engagement involved: ‘We may watch “target A” for weeks, building up a pattern of life for the individual, know exactly what time he eats his meals, drives to the Mosque, uses the ablutions (outdoor of course!). What we also see is the individual interacting with his family – playing with his kids and helping his wife around the compound. When a strike goes in we stay on station and see the reactions of the wife and kids when the body is brought to them. You see someone fall to the ﬂoor and sob so hard their body is convulsing.’ The emergence of mental trauma, including PTSD, among drone operators suggests moral and psychological engagement, rather than disengagement. The next challenge is to engage with different types of lethal military drone operations, going beyond the ‘dehumanisation’ paradigm set out by Professor Bandura to appreciate the moral and psychological implications of highly personalised, mentally engaged and emotionally immersive remote warfare. Dr Peter Lee Reader in Politics and Ethics, University of Portsmouth

the psychologist june 2017 letters

Evidence and learning styles In her response to our letter to The Guardian Professor Jordan (‘Why don’t educators listen to us?’, Letters, May 2017) has taken issue with our concerns related to the widespread practice of ‘learning styles’ in our schools. Professor Jordan accepts our assertion that there is no scientific evidence to support the efficacy of meshing as advocated by the learning-styles approach but, nevertheless, advocates its continued use by drawing attention to the problem of establishing reliable interventions and outcome measures in a heterogeneous group of atypical children with autism spectrum disorder using randomised controlled trials (RCTs). While we welcome a debate over this issue, we believe that our position is misrepresented on a number of critical points. First, we are criticising a specific set of practices that are supposedly supported by neuroscience when they are not, and hence we regard learning styles as a ‘neuromyth’. We are not criticising individually tailored learning in atypical populations that require special needs. Second, our

concerns were based on a lack of evidence to support learning styles as a general educational approach following numerous studies, and not the problems of RCTs with atypical populations. These are separate issues. In ‘unpicking’ our claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the use of learning styles in education, Professor Jordan questions what evidence is, and how one should go about assessing it. It is noteworthy that both the terms scientific and evidence are printed with quotation marks as if they are questionable. She points out that most educators and therapists are interested in individuals and that individual design research is more useful. Crucially, Professor Jordan acknowledges that educators should pay attention to evidence-based practices that ‘might give an idea of what is worth trying’. We would argue that you cannot have it both ways in practice. Whatever works might be fine for individual interventions, but with approximately 8.5m schoolchildren in the UK, it is simply not practical to provide tailored education for

Whilst I agree with Professor Jordan that most educators are concerned with ‘What is the best approach for this individual, at this time, in this context for this purpose?’, I am sceptical about the value of psychologists helping educators to learn how to conduct and publish the high-quality individual designs that are needed to conduct more effective individual approaches. Putting it this way still seems to suggest a shift away from the educator’s prime preoccupation. In the background here is a larger question about the role of psychological research in teaching and learning processes in schools. Producing what psychologists would regard as high-quality research designs is not something teachers would ﬁnd very helpful when trying to improve their day-to-day practice. This is not to say that reﬂective teachers are not interested in evidence-based practice or in carrying out research, but their idea of research is different. It is less concerned with design and control and more about trial and error, seeing what works and what doesn’t, and with the best that can be done in a particular context. In short, they use an ongoing action research model rather than the traditional experimental model employed by psychologists. This is not to say that well controlled studies have no place but they can only ever be a small part of what teachers do when they make action research integral to their teaching. John Quicke retired Professor of Education, Hull

every child. We need evidencebased studies derived from group data to provide the most effective interventions for this large population; and when there are claims that have neither scientific support nor scientific validity as in neuromyths, it is right to draw attention to them as many perceive them as scientifically credible. Professor Jordan writes that we should ‘save [our] “lectures” for the educational administrators’ rather than telling teachers ‘how, and what to think’. The speakezee. org network, which I lead, organises talks for schools to inspire students and teachers about neuroscience and explain what scientific evidence is, and why learning styles failed to meet the criterion. If spreading critical thinking is lecturing to teachers to provide them with the skills to recognise why certain claims and interventions are deemed pseudoscience, then so be it. It is something we can all benefit from. Professor Bruce Hood University of Bristol (on behalf of the original co-signatories)

Rita Jordan comments on how oversimplifying issues of concern is common in psychology. Indeed, careers and industries have been built on maintaining naive dichotomies. For instance, in his 2012 book, Debunking Myths in Education, Frank Cofﬁeld listed 29 such dichotomies in his survey of contrasting teaching styles. There are dichotomies that ignore the middle ground in other areas, for example: Passive/Aggressive in personality measures; Expert/Facilitator in teaching styles; Fast/Slow in ways of thinking; and many more. Such dichotomies may well exist – but the labels oversimplify the case. I don’t want to imply that the most accurate position is always somewhere in the middle. But I do wish psychologists would stop oversimplifying things – as I have done! James Hartley School of Psychology, Keele University

what to seek out on the

psychologist website this month

From the archive Revisit our 2015 General Election special at https://thepsychologist. bps.org.uk/political-animal Five years after Maurice Sendak died, search ‘Where the Wild Things Are’

Exclusive content Our turbulent minds Professor Peter Kinderman’s public lecture A lens onto fake news Simon Knight considers epistemic cognition

For Dying Matters Awareness Week, search ‘A matter of life and death’ Competition Our annual poetry competition – closing date 5 June More Talking failure in therapy and beyond A conversation across the Atlantic, between Dr Tony Rousmaniere and Professor Miranda Wolpert

Find all this and so much more via

http://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk 10

SET IN HENHAM PARK SUFFOLK

GENTLEMEN OF THE ROAD TAKEOVER

FRIDAY 14TH JULY

SATURDAY 15TH JULY

WITH SPECIAL GUEST

GOLDFRAPP

SUNDAY 16TH JULY

BAABA MAAL

LEON BRIDGES

JOHN CALE

SATURDAY SPECIAL GUEST

ALSO APPEARING ACROSS THE FESTIVAL

PLACEBO

JACK GARRATT VERY SPECIAL SUNDAY LAKESIDE PERFORMANCE:

FATBOY SLIM

KATHERINE JENKINS

IMELDA MAY / WILL YOUNG’S SUMMER JAZZ SESSIONS / KURUPT FM / JAGUAR SKILLS

DARA Ó BRIAIN / KATHERINE RYAN / REG D HUNTER / SIMON AMSTELL SADLER’S WELLS / MATTHEW BOURNE’S NEW ADVENTURES / BALLETBOYZ HOT BROWN HONEY / NOTES OF A NATIVE SONG / CIRK LA PUTYKA THE OLD VIC LONDON

PRESENTS

CHARLIE FINK / TRAVERSE

PRESENTS

GARY McNAIR

COLM TÓIBÍN / SARAH WINMAN / SIMON ARMITAGE / GEOFF DYER / LINTON KWESI JOHNSON DR BEN FINCHAM / DINAH BORNAT / PROF SANDY GRANT/ WILL STORR DR JACK LEWIS / PROF DANIEL DAVIS / DR NATALIE RIDDELL / ADAM FEINSTEIN

Plus THE PSYCHOLOGIST PRESENTS PROF STEVE REICHER ICW DR JON SUTTON PROF PETER KINDERMAN ICW DR HENRIETTA BOWDEN-JONES

Plus many more! Get tickets now!

LATITUDEFESTIVAL.COM

A ‘double whammy’ of concern Ella Rhodes on EU funding and the importance of science

rexit is coming, and with it comes much uncertainty in countless areas of life. There are particular fears for science funding in the aftermath of the exit, with many institutions relying on large EU grants and international collaboration. Psychology may be one of the more vulnerable subject areas. Between 2007 and 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion from the EU, and contributed €5.4 billion, for research, development and innovation, making it one of the largest recipients of research funding in the union. While the government has announced that EU-funded Horizon 2020 projects that were applied for before the referendum would be underwritten, and budgeted an extra £4.7 billion for science, research and development over four years, many at higher education institutes are concerned for their future. The uncertainty doesn’t just lie in funding: indeed the House of Commons Education Committee in its recent report on Brexit and higher education said the uncertainty surrounding EU staff and students, regarding issues such as residence and tuition fees, needed to be reduced immediately. Similarly, many have been advocating to remove overseas students from net migration targets to ensure our universities will continue to attract EU students and those outside the continent. We spoke to Patrick Leman, interim Executive Dean at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN – King’s College London) about the future, the state of science, and how we can make the public at large believe in the importance of research. The IoPPN is Europe’s largest research centre for mental health research. Professor Leman, who said there is still uncertainty over funding post-Brexit, said: ‘It seems increasingly likely, if we get a hard Brexit, that we won’t remain automatically connected to the raft of EU

funding streams that the UK has benefited from. Then, of course, the funding for science inevitably becomes more a matter of parochial UK concerns, which arguably offers less protection to innovation and independence than it had as part of a larger EU budget with 27 nations lobbying for a broader range of scientific and social agendas.’ Around £36 million of the IoPPN’s research funding came from the EU over the past five years, which is close to 10 per cent of its overall research income in the same period. However, some other institutions receive as much as 91 per cent of research income from EU funding schemes. So while the IoPPN is less dependent on EU funding than others, thanks partly to large-scale funding from UK bodies such as the Medical Research Council, NIHR and UKRI, Leman said there was ‘a general sadness’ due to possible implications for the international diversity of UK science, the sharing of expertise, and our reputation overseas. Leman said any loss in funding means that impactful and important research doesn’t happen. He said: ‘The percentage figure for IoPPN rather understates the loss to the country because that’s science that’s being done on things like psychosis, depression and dementia. You can do a lot with £36 million of research to solve problems in those areas, and it is the medium- and long-term societal benefit of that research that’s vulnerable after Brexit. Those institutions which have been heavily dependent on EU funding, and that includes many psychology departments, may struggle.’ Psychology received almost 26 per cent of its research income from competitive EU grants between 2006 and 2015. Leman explained that the proportion of EU grants going towards the cognitive- and social-sciencefocused studies in psychology was much higher in the UK compared with the other big European research nations,

the psychologist june 2017 news

Left and right equally blinkered and biased

vlasque/Getty Images

combating our political prejudices, the paper on SSRN concludes, is ‘to recognize our collective vulnerability to perceiving the world in ways that validate our political beliefs’. That paper is a meta-analysis that combined the results of 41 previous experimental studies into partisan bias, collectively involving over 12,000 participants selfcategorised as either liberal or conservative. Each of the included studies followed a similar format: participants rated the credibility of evidence, such as a survey, experiment or op-ed, that either supported or contradicted their existing beliefs, such as on gun John van Hasselt/Corbis/Getty Images

France and Germany. ‘British institutions have done particularly well in terms of gaining EU funding for the social sciences and humanities. The knock-on effect we may see depends on what flavour of government we get and what they will prioritise. The mood music so far, as I read it, is they will prioritise health, physical and life sciences, because those are the areas where, arguably, they believe research can make greatest impact. Whether a future government reproduces that proportionately high-level investment in UK social sciences and humanities is questionable.’ The US faces its own science crisis, with Trump proposing cuts to a number of institutes and agencies. Leman said that there was a ‘double whammy’ of concern for academics and scientists in the UK and USA: ‘Like any business you want stability in funding in order to plan and develop, and at present we have uncertainty. But there’s also the undermining of the very basis and legitimacy of a lot of scientific thought. It’s difficult to know how to take on, as an individual, a political context that appears to be moving towards devaluation of the importance of science. This is not a matter of the science community engaging with itself, “virtue signalling” on the benefits of science to likeminded followers on Twitter, but about getting the message across to society through properly impactful research, and communicating and disseminating the importance of science.’ By demonstrating the usefulness of our research, and understanding governments, Leman said we can have impact: ‘Governments want to solve important problems, and all areas of psychology can do so much for that. But we need to convince governments, as well as the people voting for them, that science is important and that psychology, as a science, is important too.’

Officially at least, the global March for Science on 22 April [see tinyurl. com/n3dbcp8] was politically neutral. However, there’s a massive overrepresentation of people with liberal, left-leaning views in science, and much of the science community is unhappy, to put it mildly, with the way politics is going, such as the Trump administration’s proposed deep cuts to science funding, and here in the UK the impact of Brexit on British science. Against the backdrop of these anxieties, many of the banners on display – such as ‘Alternative hypotheses, not alternative facts’ and ‘Science reveals the truth – conveyed a barely concealed message: if only right-wing conservatives could be a little more objective, less biased, more open-minded (you might say a little more ‘scientific’), then the world would be a better place. Plenty of past psychology research lends some credence to this perspective: for instance conservatives tend to score lower on the trait of open-mindedness than liberals, and of course conservatives, more often than liberals, are sceptical toward the scientific consensus that human activity has had a significant impact on climate change. But it’s also easy to find psychological evidence of liberals’ bias, and liberals too are often in denial of unwelcome scientific theory, such as evolutionary accounts of sex differences in behaviour. Now two new articles, published on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, provide further compelling evidence that liberals, as much as conservatives, are prone to partisan bias – that is, showing rapid, easy acceptance of evidence that supports their existing beliefs – and that they are just as motivated to avoid hearing viewpoints that differ from their own. Whether we’re liberal or conservative, a first step toward

ownership or afﬁrmative action. By holding the quality of the evidence and methods the same, but altering whether it supposedly came up with data supporting or contradicting participants’ viewpoints, this kind of research is able to reveal partisan bias – that is, whether participants’ are less sceptical and discerning when confronted with evidence that backs their own views. Looking at the combined data from all these studies, Peter Ditto at University of California, Irvine, and his colleagues, found that liberals were as prone to partisan bias as conservatives. What’s more, partisan bias on all sides was especially on display when participants were presented with scientiﬁc data, perhaps undermining the chants of the science march: that it might be easier to reach political consensus if we could all agree to just stick to

the facts. As Ditto and his team put it, ‘the prognosis for eradicating partisan bias with harder data and better education does not seem particularly rosy’. The other new paper, led by Jeremy Frimer at the University of Winnipeg, used ﬁve studies to test American and Canadian participants’ motivation to encounter viewpoints different from their own. For instance, the ﬁrst study offered participants more money to read an essay that contradicted their own views on same-sex marriage. The researchers found that equally among liberals and conservatives, a majority of participants preferred to forgo cash if that meant avoiding opposing views. Other studies involving other topics, such as gun control, abortion and climate change, led to similar results: liberals as much as

conservatives were disinclined to hear the perspective of the other side. And the reasons they gave were similar: they thought hearing opposing views would make them feel uncomfortable or angry and harm their relationship with the source of the opposing views. ‘The result of this desire to avoid ideological incongruous views is that liberals and conservatives live in ideological information bubbles, and what could ultimately be a contest of ideas is being replaced by two, noninteracting monopolies,’ Frimer and his colleagues concluded. This new research has some shortcomings and shouldn’t be seen as the last word. It’s obviously North American centric, and it’s not clear how much the results would apply in other parts of the world. It’s also extremely difﬁcult to separate the moral dimension from psychology

Longer at Latitude The Psychologist will be returning to Latitude Festival for the third year running this July, with an expanded programme. After hugely successful appearances in 2015 and 2016 with Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore and Professor Elizabeth Stokoe (full transcripts can be found on our website), we have organised two spots at the weekend of music and the arts, which takes place in Suffolk from 13 to 16 July. Both sessions are scheduled to take place in the Wellcome Trust Arena. First, Professor Steve Reicher (University of St Andrews) will be in discussion with our editor Dr Jon Sutton on the festival theme of ‘revolution’, and speciﬁcally crowd action for social change. Later, Society Vice President Professor Peter Kinderman (University of Liverpool) will be in conversation with consultant psychiatrist Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones on ‘a manifesto for psychological health and wellbeing’. Dr Sutton said: ‘We are delighted to be back at Latitude. It’s a fantastic, family-friendly festival which attracts up to 40,000 people for the three days. I think our content has been really top class, and it’s been very successful on social media and in podcast form. So it’s wonderful to have even more of a presence, and as ever the organisers, Festival Republic, have been a pleasure to work with. There’s sure to be plenty of other psychological content across the programme too, in addition to so much music, comedy, theatre and more.’ For more information, see www.latitudefestival.com 14

research into politics: for instance, how to deal with the potential argument that avoiding exposure to some opinions actually is more justiﬁed than avoiding exposure to others? So of course more careful research is required, into ways that liberals and conservatives are similar and different. But if these new studies help us recognise that we all, no matter what our political colours, could work harder to be more openminded towards opposing viewpoints, then this is surely constructive. As Sean Blanda put it in a Medium essay last year ‘The other side is not dumb’; well, probably no more than your side anyway. Dr Christian Jarrett for the Research Digest www.bps.org.uk/digest For links to the studies, see tinyurl.com/m4dmmft

Commissioned by Art & Engagement. Image by Lee Allen

the psychologist june 2017 news

Research digest

Inspiring young minds

Doctors who promote their own fitness may scare away overweight patients who are most in need of help. Researchers presented overweight participants concerned about their weight with real doctor profiles taken from an American medical group. The participants said they thought the doctors who made a show of their own fitness would be more judgemental, and that they were less willing to have them as their own physician. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Stacey Bedwell (Lecturer in Psychology at Birmingham City University) and Isabelle Butcher (Doctoral Researcher in Psychology at the University of Manchester) recently ran an interactive workshop for children and their parents at The Library of Birmingham as a satellite event to the biennial British Neuroscience Association Festival of Neuroscience. We spoke to them about the experience.

Is your work ethic rooted in the quality of the relationship you had with your parents? A survey of thousands of people in the Netherlands found a small correlation between their ratings of the quality of the teenage relationship they had with their parents and their own current positive attitudes to work. For some measures, it was only the teen relationship with one’s father that seemed relevant. Journal of General Psychology

How did this opportunity come about? Stacey: I had written a children’s book, How Does My Brain Work?, exploring the human brain from a variety of perspectives in an accessible and engaging format. So BNA organising committee member Daniel Fulton approached me, saying he envisaged an event that would enable a wider audience, particularly children, to become involved in the festival. Isabelle: As a psychology researcher, I hoped to provide an ideal complementary example to Stacey’s biological background, covering the wide range of applications in brain science and different ways in which children can aspire to careers involving the human brain. How did you engage young children in such a complex topic? Stacey: With over 100 audience members of varied ages and backgrounds, it was a challenge! Our workshop included topics such as what the brain looks like, what different brain regions are involved in and how neurons are connected. Isabelle: We felt it was important to have multiple interactive elements, including a popular demonstration of

a neural network akin to the playground game Chinese whispers. I think we managed to convey complex ideas in a way that the children could relate to and could take away and think about further. Stacey: Once the workshop had formally finished, most children and their parents/ guardians stayed behind and asked us additional questions relating to their brain, and other children simply wanted to share with us the information about the brain that they already knew! It was exciting to talk to the audience on an individual basis and to see their interest at such a young age. Why are these events important? Isabelle: By presenting seemingly complex topics in fun and exciting ways it encourages children as well as adults to understand more of science and what it entails! It is far too easy to conduct the research in the laboratory or other research environment and write it up in journals, without disseminating the research to members of the public – whether that it is through workshops to children or through engagement events for older members of the public. Stacey: It’s vital that researchers engage with the public at every stage of their career. And there’s something in it for the researcher too: having the rare opportunity to engage with a young audience in a less formal setting than most academic meetings or conferences gave us a unique insight into the importance and excitement of inspiring young minds. It has encouraged us to get involved with scientific outreach projects with school aged children on a larger scale. I’d go as far as to say it’s renewed enthusiasm for our own research projects, and reminded us why we do scientific research.

The ways that student samples differ from the public vary around the world. For example, in New Zealand students showed heightened respect for the elderly compared with the public, but in Australia the opposite was found. In China, students showed more confidence in political institutions than the public, while in Germany, students showed less confidence. Researchers analysed data collected from over 86,000 people (including 6352 students) in 59 countries and said their findings show how generalising from students to the general public can be problematic. PLoS One More highly educated people are usually less into conspiracy theories, but why? A survey of thousands of readers of a popular science magazine in the Netherlands suggested that education reduces belief in conspiracy theories at least partly because it increases feelings of control, boosts sense of social status, and increases scepticism toward simple solutions. Applied Cognitive Psychology By Dr Christian Jarrett. These studies were covered, along with many more, by him, Dr Alex Fradera and Emma Young at www.bps.org.uk/digest

A legacy making a difference Inventive and important research projects aimed at making a difference to society, and funded by the Richard Benjamin Trust, will be celebrated in a new book to mark the closing of the organisation. We spoke to one of the grantees, Dr Karen Niven, who went on to become a trustee and an editor of the book. Richard Benjamin was born in Germany in 1921 and after the deaths of his parents in a Nazi concentration camp, and living in a Swiss refugee camp, he was left with a desire to help vulnerable people. After an uncle left him a considerable amount of money he chose to bequeath this to projects that would have important social impacts. Between 2010 and 2015 The Richard Benjamin Trust funded 50 innovative and impactful research projects in social and organisational psychology. The Trust is now drawing to a close, and in keeping with Benjamin’s drive to make a difference, more than half of the projects have been summarised in a book that will be freely available to all. Karen Niven (Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester), now a Senior Lecturer in Organisational Psychology, was helped by the Trust in the early stages of her career, with funding to research the effects of different types of hold music on aggression towards call centre employees. Soon after completing the project Niven and the other Trust grantees were contacted to apply to become a trustee by Chair of the Trust Suzan Lewis and trustee Carolyn Kagan. They wanted to invite a researcher who

had beneﬁted from the Trust to bring an early-career perspective into the organisation’s work. Niven told us: ‘I loved the whole idea of the Trust, it’s all about making a difference and it sits so well with what I wanted to do. I was keen to be involved and was fortunate enough to be accepted and I’ve been a trustee ever since.’ Niven said her work since then has involved evaluating, and helping to fund, scores of worthy and novel research ideas. She said: ‘Richard Benjamin really believed that through psychology we could make a positive difference to society and that’s something I believe, along with the other trustees and grantees. While we could have just brought the Trust to a close, we realised a better way to celebrate our work, and make a further difference, would be to summarise some of the projects we’ve funded in a book called Making a Difference with Psychology.’ The book, which will be out this summer, also features forewords from Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes and Ralph Benjamin, Richard Benjamin’s brother. It features 28 summaries of research, including how to promote acceptance of vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ people and refugees, how to tackle the early signs of compulsive internet use, and how zero-hours contracts can affect workers’ health. Niven added: ‘In keeping with the ethos of the Trust we’re creating an e-book and PDF version which will be available to freely download from www. richardbenjamintrust.co.uk.’ ER

The calming power of reminiscence

You’ve just had a ﬁght with your partner or a confrontation with a colleague. Now your heart’s racing, and you’re struggling to think straight. What should you do? Psychologists may advise ‘cognitive reappraisal’ – alter your view of what just happened from ‘Disaster!’ to ‘Not really so bad’ – but that can be difﬁcult in the immediate aftermath of a stressful event. Your brain needs help if it’s to quickly regain control. And, according to a new study in Nature Human Behaviour, you can provide it by thinking back over good times. Mauricio Delgado and Megan Speer at Rutgers University, US, made 134 volunteers feel stressed by videoing them while they plunged their hands into icy water. Some then spent 14 seconds reminiscing about a positive experience (like visiting

Disneyland) while others reﬂected on an emotionally neutral event (such as getting luggage ready for the trip). Afterwards, the group who’d recalled happy memories felt better, but not only that: the expected rise in their levels of the stress hormone cortisol was only 15 per cent, on average, of the surge observed in the neutral memory group. Thinking about happy memories, then, went right to the heart of the physiological stress response. Indeed, using the same technique on volunteers in the fMRI scanner, the researchers found that recollecting good, but not neutral, memories was associated with increased activity in prefrontal brain regions associated with emotion regulation and cognitive control – the same regions suppressed by acute stress – as well as in corticostriatal regions

associated with the processing of reward. Showing that simply recalling happy memories can combat acute stress at a physical level is important, since there’s plenty of research ﬁnding that people who tend to calm down physiologically soon after stressful events are generally healthier, both physically and psychologically, over the long term. There are a few caveats: for example, it’s not clear yet whether any technique that makes you feel positive emotions would be effective or if there’s something special about reminiscing. But this is at least a simple method many people can try. Emma Young for the Research Digest www.bps.org.uk/digest Read the full journal article: tinyurl.com/m9x9fdr

the psychologist june 2017 news

Making the cut – solidarity and the stars Shilpa Flovia Lobo/Getty Images

Wouldn’t it be nice to work in an environment focused on cooperation and solidarity, one that put the needs of the many above those of the few? Sounds great… but collectivism has some surprising downsides, especially if you’re a star performer. New research in the Journal of Applied Psychology looks at workplace reactions to high performers and their polarising effect on those around them, and shows that in more cooperative climates, hotshots are actually more likely to get a raw deal. Elizabeth Campbell and her colleagues surveyed 350 hair stylists, mainly women, working within a chain of Taiwanese salons. The researchers were interested in how the most successful stylists were treated by their peers: they identified hotshots by asking managers for performance ratings, and then they surveyed all the staff to find out the benefits and threats they saw in each other, and how much criticism and support they received. They also asked stylists about their salon’s working climate by asking them how much they agreed with statements like ‘there is a high level of cooperation between stylists’. You can consider a fellow hotshot a benefit: an inspiration, a source of advice and expertise, and a way to attract prestige. Or you can see them as a threat: they’re likely to take the best duties and customers, and garner the greatest favour from leadership. The researchers found that hotshots experienced more negative treatment in the form of belittling and criticism when they were surrounded by co-workers who felt threatened. In contrast, hotshots received more help and support if their colleagues saw them as a benefit. The typical high performer had a mixed bag: compared with the typical stylist, they were criticised more, but also received more support. But that support was lacking within salons with more cooperative climates. This might seem puzzling until you understand a cooperative climate isn’t about sweetness and biscuits, but rather a culture where group solidarity is paramount. Under these conditions, a stand-out performer is simply a nail that needs to be hammered down, like the 1940s factories whose unionised workers gave a hard time to ‘rate-busters’ whose performance made the rest look bad. To investigate this systematically, the researchers ran an experiment with 284 US undergraduates, divided into collaborative teams who were told in an introduction either to approach their problem-solving tasks with a highly cooperative focus (e.g. interaction was described as a ‘collaborative discussion’, and rewards were split equally) or a with a more competitive focus (interaction would be ‘spirited debate’, and there were more individualised rewards, but still collaborating toward a common goal). Participants were then isolated in separate cubicles and after each round of problemsolving, they received information about the performance of each team member and had the chance to exchange messages with each other (actually the information and

messages were made up by the researchers, but the participants didn’t know this). After a few rounds, participants were asked how they felt about some of the other specific team members, including those made to seem like hotshots. Participants who perceived a star performer as a threat tended to join in with backbiting when receiving bitchy chat-messages about the hotshot from another member, but crucially this only happened in the cooperative condition. In the lowcooperative one, there was no heightened denigration of hotshots. So whereas the earlier survey evidence suggested that helping of strong performers was impaired by a more cooperative culture, this experiment showed a cooperative culture was associated with more belittling of strong performers. It’s notoriously hard for organisations to hang on to high performers who are often courted by rival organisations with better financial packages or positions. But money can’t buy working with people who really know, value and respect you. So overly solidarity-focused organisations – the kind that may resent their outstanding performers – risk eroding their edge in holding on to their talent. Maybe that’s just fine for some of the rank and file, but not for those who want their organisations to excel. Dr Alex Fradera for the Research Digest www.bps.org.uk/digest Read the article: tinyurl.com/kdexzwu

News online: Find more news at www.thepsychologist.org.uk/reports, including: Madeleine Pownall’s report from the Edinburgh Science Festival; and Sophie Ellis on the March for Science and a new brieﬁng paper from Psychologists for Social Change. Reports from the Society’s Annual Conference will appear on the site and in our July edition. For much more of the latest peer-reviewed research, digested, see www.bps.org.uk/digest Do you have a potential news story? Email us on psychologist@bps.org.uk or tweet @psychmag.

From crisis to cornerstones of culture

Marcus Munafò

In August 2005 a paper by John Ioannidis, ‘Why most published research findings are false’, ignited a new debate across psychology and the biomedical sciences about the reliability and robustness of many published journal articles. This reproducibility ‘crisis’, while at first troubling for researchers in many areas of science, has taken a more positive turn in recent years: with psychology leading the way. Many concerns emerged: the validity of antiquated methods of publishing; peer review; and the biases that occur in journals favouring the publication of novel, positive findings over null results or replication attempts. Within psychology specifically many classic findings failed to replicate, and concerns were raised around widespread research practices such as ‘p-hacking’ (trawling datasets for significance). We spoke to some of the psychologists working to change the culture of academia. Professor of Biological Psychology Marcus Munafò (University of Bristol) emphasised that psychologists are uniquely placed to study the inherent cognitive biases and many other issues prevalent in all areas of academic publishing. ‘I think any focus on research integrity and fraud is missing the point,’ he said. ‘The vast majority of scientists are motivated to do good work, but however hard we train to be objective scientists, we’re still human. The reason psychologists have been at the forefront of the debate is not because psychology has a particular problem as a science but because many of the issues are issues of human behaviour.’ Psychologists, and psychology journals, have been instrumental in coming up with innovative ways to change publishing; the ‘Registered Reports’ model of publishing, where a research question and study protocols are pre-registered prior to data collection, has flourished in psychology (see www. thepsychologist.org.uk/vaccine-against-bias) and has now been taken up by 50 journals. Psychological Science has introduced open science badges for articles whose authors have shared data, materials and/or pre-registered their studies, and even some undergraduate psychology courses ask students to pre-register dissertation projects. Munafò pointed out that since this debate came to the fore we’ve moved from a more negative stance into a phase of thinking about how to improve the way we do science. He said: ‘It feels like we’re in the middle of a rapidly evolving natural experiment where people are trying lots of different things with much of Katherine Button

the focus on improving the quality of how we do science, and hopefully some of that will stick and some of that will make a difference.’ In fact, some of the results can already be seen: before Psychological Science introduced its badge for open data, rates of data sharing were below 5 per cent, just a few months after its introduction this shot up to more than 40 per cent. As Editor-in-Chief of Nicotine and Tobacco Research, and thanks to a partnership with Cancer Research UK, Munafò is piloting a scheme to bring funding and Registered Reports together. The Registered Reports format allows journals to accept a study’s research question and methodology for publication in principle, before any data has been collected, and funding panels work in a very similar way. Munafò explained: ‘Logically it makes sense to say once you’re committed to funding research on the basis of a good research question and methodology, that we’ll also guarantee publication. If applicants opt in to the pilot and they’re successful in their application to funding, the journal will take over and go through a second phase of peer review, but as part of the same process, try and ﬁne tune the protocol and the methods, and offer in-principle acceptance of that protocol. Then the applicants have the funding to do the work, and guaranteed publication at the end of that process. Whatever their results they will be published almost immediately after their work is complete.’ Lecturer Katherine Button (University of Bath) instils good research practices in her students at all stages of teaching, and worked with colleagues from Cardiff and Exeter to allow a group of students to collaborate on, and pre-register, a third-year project. Eight students across the three universities pre-registered with the Open Science Framework before data collection began. Dr Button explained: ‘They each collected data following standardised procedures, and we held a mini-conference to discuss results and mutually agree the conclusions for the paper in preparation, on which all students will be co-authors. By working together, the students and we academics were able to conduct a rigorous piece of research that hopefully stands a good chance of being published regardless of the results, thus mutually satisfying both the need for increased methodological rigour and the career pressure to publish.’ How might these messages of doing better, more robust science, ﬁlter throughout the academic community? As well as teaching this approach at undergraduate level we need to have higher expectations of ourselves and others, Button said: ‘Expect to see that a study has been pre-registered, and if not there should be a reasonable explanation as to why not. Give more weight to results from studies which have followed best-practices – i.e. sample size calculation, protocol and analysis plan pre-registered, data and

the psychologist june 2017 news

‘A year later I snapped…’ material made open-access – and be more cautious of results from studies which have not. Be more aware of the role of chance in statistical analysis, with enough flexibility in analysis and reporting it is easy to find a “statistically significant” result. Be cautious.’ Similarly, Dr Pete Etchells, Senior Lecturer in Biological Psychology, has made changes at Bath Spa University, where students will soon pre-register their final-year projects. He said: ‘There’s been lots of discussion of how we can change things from the point of view of journals or grants or general culture in already established researchers, but there’s a lot we can do at the ground level. From the very first day undergraduate psychology students come in we can start teaching these things, as they should be, as normal standard practice.’ More broadly, is the culture among academics changing? In an exclusive extract from his new book The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology on our website Chris Chambers (Cardiff University) recalls that his proposals for Registered Reports were met with accusations ‘of being “self-righteous,” “sanctimonious,” “fascists,” “a head prefect movement,” “Nazis,” “Stasi,” “crusaders” on a “witch hunt,” and worse.’ Etchells said he hoped we were moving away from the vitriol and anger thrown around at the start of the replication crisis. However, he admitted: ‘I find it constantly fascinating that psychologists seem to be so thinskinned about some of this stuff, when replications and good methodology are the cornerstones of science. For some reason people take these discussions about replication very personally. I don’t know why that’s the case, it certainly doesn’t need to be, and I think people trying to promote open science practices and replication are doing it for the good of science, not to get at anybody.’ Many of these methodological debates take place on blogs and social media, with some of those whose work has been questioned accusing others of bullying. Etchells said having people with opposing opinions put in a room together to speak as adults may be a better approach (with a workshop at the Society’s Annual Conference perhaps a good example: see tinyurl.com/ repwork). He added: ‘People can get pretty snarky online, and that’s unhelpful. If you just talk to people in a sensible way, that’ll go a long way to helping allay people’s fears rather than firing off a snarky line on social media – with a caveat that I don’t think that that happens very often. A lot of people talk about online bullies, I see very little evidence of that in this debate. I think we need to talk to each other more.’ ER For further reading on Registered Reports and more, search ‘replication’ on our website.

An extract from a new book by Chris Chambers (University of Cardiff): The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice. In 2006 I was awarded a fellowship that allowed me to move to the UK and establish my own research team at a major London university. Initially I practiced the same tried-and-true formula, one that my new institute already embraced: novel experiment + great results + great storytelling = publication in a prestigious journal. To succeed you needed every element in place; if even one was missing or below par then your study would end up in a lower-ranking specialist journal or the file drawer. By now, however, this style of science was starting to grate on me. I had always found the publish-or-perish culture unappealing, and the pressure at my new institute was higher than ever. As scientists, the one part of an experiment we were supposed (in theory) to relinquish control over was the results. To teach this but to nevertheless pin success on ‘good results’ was a devil’s temptation toward bias, questionable research practices, and fraud. I was tired of watching colleagues analyzing their data a hundred different ways, praying like gamblers at a roulette wheel for signs of statistical significance. I was fed up with the inexorable analysis and reanalysis of brain imaging data until a publishable story emerged from an underpowered design. I also became dubious about the robustness of my own work. As a friend dryly observed, ‘You guys do high-impact work, but you’re like magpies. You do one study and move on to something else without ever following it up.’ He was right, of course. ‘That’s the game,’ I admitted. ‘Why would anyone waste time doing the same experiment twice when no funder will pay for it and no top journal will publish it? And why would you take the risk of failing to replicate yourself?’ Talk

about shooting yourself in the foot. As my doubts grew, the idealism of my younger self began to reassert itself. My institute was packed to the rafters with brilliant people, but it felt like the scientific equivalent of an elite telemarketing company. Walking in the front door each morning you would face off against a wall-mounted screen listing this week’s ‘top sellers’ – the roll call of who published what in which prestigious journal. The last-author credit would always belong to one of the professors, with the first-author slot filled by a tireless protégé who barely left the building. If your name wasn’t on that list (and mine usually wasn’t) you felt small, inadequate, an imposter. You pushed yourself harder. You pushed your staff and students harder. As the director of the institute at the time – and a valued mentor – once told me: ‘This place is powered by appetite. You keep the young researchers hungry. You keep them on fixed-term contracts with uncertain futures, and you place them in competition with the world and each other. The result is highoctane science.’ After two years in London I left for a more stable academic career, and admittedly a more relaxed professional lifestyle. For several years I continued cranking the handle before a series of events reawakened my idealism with a jolt. In 2011 we had a paper rejected by the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience for the main reason that because one of the experiments was a close replication of the other, the study and results weren’t considered sufficiently novel or important to be publishable. One of the reviewers even told the editor in a private comment (obtained by us only after we had unsuccessfully appealed the rejection): ‘The methods are strong, but the outcome produced results that aren’t particularly groundbreaking.’ A year later I snapped… Read what happened next at www.thepsychologist.org.uk/ vaccine-against-bias

Democracy in danger How can psychology help? asks Roger Paxton

Democracy (rule by the people), and speciﬁcally liberal democracy (democracy with individual rights and freedoms protected), is a central and precious part of our heritage. But now, in Britain and around the world, it is in danger. Political philosophers, social scientists and psychologists are considering how and why, and whether they can and should do more.

he ﬁrst danger to democracy, evident for decades, is that it is at risk of withering as voter turnout at general elections in many countries declines, from 84 per cent in Britain in 1950 to 66 per cent in 2015. Secondly, and probably partly responsible for this, there has been a 30-year decline in trust in government (Jennings et al., 2016). An Ipsos MORI poll published in January 2016 found that only 21 per cent of Britons trust politicians to tell the truth, far behind doctors (89 per cent) and teachers (86 per cent). A recent European survey, reported in David van Reybrouck’s Against Elections: The Case for Democracy found similar results. A third threat is growing political ignorance. Effective democracy requires that people know what they are voting for, but increasingly news is obtained from social media, where personalised newsfeeds reinforce the reader’s worldview. Extensive (American) survey data (Achen & Bartels, 2016) show that political ignorance is widespread, and voters are generally swayed by the last six months, typically rewarding or punishing politicians for events over which they have probably had little or no control. The quality of political discourse is increasingly detached from both reason (logical coherence) and reasonableness (avoiding accusations, tolerating irreconcilable differences and crediting opponents with good faith (Rawls, 2005). Around the world reasonable discussion is being replaced by post-truth politics and populism, where truth and consistency are unimportant, debate is increasingly personal, and a simpliﬁed world is portrayed, with a virtuous and homogeneous ‘us’ against an elite or alien ‘other’ (see Julian Baggini’s The Edge of Reason). Pluralism – accepting and respecting other perspectives – is a casualty. Other kinds of behaviour, especially, but not only, in America, are breaking ‘the guardrails of democracy’ (Frum, 2016). These are conventions previously accepted by politicians of all parties but now increasingly abandoned: the pursuit of some vision of a common good, trustworthiness, knowledge of public affairs, adherence to some principles, accepting the primacy of national security, tolerance, and respect for political opponents. In Britain and America the

Mary Turner - WPA Pool/Getty Images

the psychologist june 2017 democracy

Michael Gove announced that ‘people in this country have had enough of experts’. Photo at post-referendum press conference by Vote Leave campaign with Michael Gove and Boris Johnson

independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the democratic process have recently been directly challenged by news media and senior politicians. And there are widening political divisions: in Britain during the Brexit debate, and even more so in America where the breadth of the cross-party divisions has in recent years led to repeated government paralysis. The final threat is external: growing global insecurity. Political sluggishness and sometimes paralysis through widening divisions in parliaments means that democratic governments lose both popular legitimacy and efficiency. While Western democracies disagree within and between their parliaments, Russia and China are efficiently decisive, claiming new status and territory, and challenging the current world order. Alongside this there are external and internal threats posed by radical Islamist groups and the rise of the far right in many countries. In summary, democracy faces dangers that are passive and active, internal and external, and together they place its future in danger. How has this situation arisen?

Explanations To begin with detachment from politics, surveys (Jennings et al., 2016) show that the strongest underlying factor is the perceived flawed character of politicians, and in particular their fixation with headlines and protecting their own interests and those of the rich and powerful. Detachment in turn is a likely main cause of voter ignorance. Changes in the style of political behaviour – the rise of post-truth politics and populism – seem part of a wider retreat from reason, illustrated during the Brexit campaign by Michael Gove announcing that ‘people in this country have had enough of experts’. The changes in political discourse also reveal the weakening of a shared moral basis for politics. This is surely the significance of the breaking of the guardrails of democracy, and reflects what American political philosopher Michael Sandel calls ‘the moral vacancy of contemporary politics’. Sandel links this to ‘market triumphalism’; the extension of the market mechanism and market values into more and more spheres – moving from having a market economy to being a market society. Everything must be

of political discontent in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs, 69(4), 876–900. Miller, P.R. (2011). The emotional citizen: Emotion as a function of political sophistication. Political Psychology, 32(4), 575–600. Nesbitt-Larking, P. (2016). ‘We got to live together’: The psychology of encounter and the politics of engagement. Political Psychology, 37(1), 5–16. Reybrouck, D. Van. (2016). Against elections: The case for democracy. London: The Bodley Head. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65. Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. Schwartz, S.H., Caprara, G.V. & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values and voting: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31, 421–452.

Full list available in online/app version.

Can psychology explain more? Several psychological mechanisms have been proposed. Wilkinson and Pickett, having demonstrated rising levels of anxiety and depression, argue that, since the 1980s, these have led to increased ‘evaluation anxieties’. They propose that this is because greater inequality increases the perceived importance of social status, which then damages social cohesion, leading on to the various social ill-effects that they clearly document. Although these authors present rather little evidence for ‘evaluation anxieties’ as a causal mechanism it is a plausible explanation, supported indirectly by Arlie Hochschild’s interviews with people in ‘rust belt America’, from which social comparisons emerge as prominent. As industrial decline and cuts in government services cause economic hardship, Hochschild’s

participants see ‘big government’ appearing to support minority groups. They feel abandoned and resentful, and existing emotional and political divisions are widened. This explanation is supported by Gallup Poll data summarised in The Economist last year showing the perception by Trump supporters of being bypassed and neglected economically, and resenting cultural changes. Populist and post-truth politics appear designed to exploit these resentments as well as existing prejudices. This process of evaluation and consequent resentment makes understandable the apparent paradox that many of the constituencies that voted most strongly for Brexit in Britain and Trump in America stood to lose most from their victories. Voting in these cases appears economically irrational. Surprisingly perhaps, voting is frequently guided by emotion rather than reason, and this is not a function of political ignorance, as it appears most prevalent in the case of more sophisticated voters (Miller, 2011). But these psychological accounts largely address Getty Images

marketable, and the only vision of a good life is one of increased prosperity for one group or another. Widening political divisions have frequently been linked to growing economic inequality. In Capital in the Twenty First Century, Thomas Piketty presents a vast amount of evidence in support of his account of the economic processes fuelling inequality, and argues that social and economic instability is likely to worsen further, eventually threatening the democratic order. Internationally, as austerity remains the chief remedy for government budget deﬁcits, the poorest are most affected, so inequality increases further. Piketty’s warnings are supported by extensive international data presented in books such as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s The Spirit Level and Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality, showing a strong relationship between inequality and various measures of mental and physical Key sources health, personal and social wellbeing, and (most relevant here) trust, social cohesion and political Achen, C. & Bartels, L.M. (2016). stability. More widely, economic Democracy for realists: Why elections hardship has historically been do not produce responsive government. Woodstock: Princeton University Press. thought to prompt the rise of the far Barnea, M.F. & Schwartz, S.H. (1998). right; and the effective humiliation Values and voting. Political Psychology, of Russia after the demise of the 19, 17–40. Soviet Union in 1991 is surely a Caprara, G.V., Schwartz, S.H., Capanna, major reason for the actions and C. et al. (2006). Personality and politics: popularity of a nationalist president Values, traits and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28. now bestriding the world and Frum, D. (2016, 31 May). The seven claiming inﬂuence and territory. broken guardrails of democracy. The We turn next to the mechanisms Atlantic. through which these social changes Jennings, W., Stoker, G. & Twyman, result in dangers to democracy. J. (2016). The dimensions and impact

Trump’s victory seems to reveal a lack of concern about morality in public life

the psychologist june 2017 democracy

However, these findings do the reasons why people who not explain the wide acceptance feel economically and culturally ‘I have a of the dishonesty of post-truth alienated might withdraw from longstanding politics. During his presidential political participation or make interest in campaign Trump made false protest votes. What about the philosophy, allegations, repeated racist and disaffected or angry people who are especially misogynist statements, and refused not economically disadvantaged? ethics and to release his tax records. Although Another likely relevant factor is political Hillary Clinton was an unpopular political and social values, which philosophy. I wrote this article and flawed opponent, Trump’s account for a substantial portion because, like many other victory seems to reveal a lack of of the variance in voter choice. people, I’m very concerned concern about morality in public Prominent amongst several recent about the troubles currently life. Perhaps the detachment models of the values underpinning facing the world, and I believe and resentment discussed earlier political attitudes, Shalom Schwartz ideas from these disciplines contributed to a rejection of describes ten fundamental value together with evidence moral values associated with the types or goals. He shows that they from psychology can aid sneered-at establishment. An are organised as a two-dimensional our understanding of them. added factor may be a modelling array linked to political ideologies. Most importantly, I believe or habituation process, with moral One dimension is self-direction psychology can do more to standards seeming less important, and stimulation versus security, tackle them.’ as some politicians and affluent conformity and tradition. The other and prominent people display is universalism and benevolence dishonesty, tax avoidance and versus achievement and power. Roger Paxton is a retired clinical evasion, and are not punished or Barnea and Schwartz (1998) found psychologist (was Psychological even consistently condemned by that liberal voters in Israel gave Services Lead and R&D Director their peers. highest priority to self-direction at Northumberland, Tyne and and universalism whereas those Wear NHS Foundation Trust). on the right most valued security rspaxton@gmail.com What can be done? and maintenance of the status quo. There is a broad consensus that Similarly, in Italy, Caprara and inequality is a central cause of colleagues (2006) showed that centrepolitical detachment and resentment, and therefore left voters most valued universalism and benevolence economics a main part of the solution. Economic while the centre-right valued power, achievement, remedies focus on investment, stimulation, economic security and conformity. But although these typologies growth and more progressive tax structures in place of can account for the familiar left–right dimension, they austerity. Stiglitz, Piketty and others have summarised are less clear on the question why so many people them and the evidence base for them. Likewise, opted for Brexit and Trump, as both represented political solutions are not a main concern here, but radical rather than conservative choices. As several commentators have noted, these choices appear driven could include first replacing the current majority election system with proportional representation: by earlier rather than current visions of security, strengthening the relationship between voting tradition and conservatism. behaviour and outcomes could increase motivation to Rather similar to Schwartz’s model is Jonathan vote. Democratic participation could also become a Haidt’s moral foundations theory. From international questionnaire studies Haidt shows that six foundations more thoughtful and engaging process through the use of deliberative democracy or sortition. These have been underlie moral judgements: care/harm, liberty/ lively topics in political philosophy in recent decades, oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Haidt’s in the work of James Fishkin, Joshua Cohen, Amartya Sen and others. In Against Elections, David Van data show that the more liberal (American left wing) Reybrouck gives examples of sortition – selection by a person’s political views the more likely they are random sample, almost like for jury service – operating to value the foundations of care/harm and fairness/ successfully in a number of countries. cheating and to have little concern with the others. More relevant to us is the conclusion of Jennings et The more conservative the person’s politics the more al. (2016) that the challenge in countering detachment the others are salient. The first implication here, as is to get politicians to behave differently. This should with the other typologies, is that the main political probably involve not just reducing their perceived division is not economic but value-based. Haidt’s data show secondly why citizens and politicians on different concern with publicity and self-interest but also changing the current style of political argument, to sides are likely not just to disagree but to have trouble display and model rational and reasonable discussion. understanding and respecting their opponents’ views: The main point of Julian Baggini’s book is to argue for what is fair or right has different meanings for people a less restrictive, and therefore more widely acceptable, with these different value sets.

Marcelina Amelia http://marcelinaamelia.com

concept of reason. He suggests ways in which the adoption of this could make arguments more productive. Similarly, the moral vacuum could begin to be filled if politicians spoke more about elements of a worthwhile life other than increasing material prosperity, and more often sought to justify policies on moral rather than economic or electoral grounds. Most of the dangers discussed here – detachment, distrust, political ignorance, social divisions, unreason and the moral vacancy – are psychological in nature. The psychological health of democracy in Britain and elsewhere is at risk. How could psychology help more? First, politics should be more strongly identified as a concern for psychological research and action. The recent proposal for a Political Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society is timely and should be supported. However, we already have relevant psychological evidence that could be acted upon, participants. Values, and the extent to which particular right now. Research on values would be a useful values are shared across the political spectrum in starting point, and indeed, Jonathan Haidt has called Britain need to be explored. Other psychologists for psychologists to work with political scientists to involved early on would no doubt identify changes towards ‘more identify other research needs. civil politics’. This is a feasible “How robust are the Among other things, the results goal because Haidt found common should inform the promotion of moral ground across the political explanations linking (as advocated by both divisions. Despite the different detachment, resentment engagement Nesbitt-Larking and Haidt) in place priorities attached to different and protest votes to of dismissal or avoidance, which values, and probably differences are increasingly consequences in the meanings attached to them, inequality and cultural of the growing divisions, and value sets overlap. Understanding changes?” should help to revitalise interest these differences would be a basis and involvement in politics. for respectful and constructive Achieving these aims would require dialogue. The purpose could be the evidence on underlying political values to be to build what Haidt calls moral capital; interlocking communicated to politicians and widely disseminated. but not necessarily identical sets of values and As Haidt argues, politicians need to take more account norms. These values would essentially be the moral of the range of sincerely held but different moral ingredients of citizenship in any liberal democracy. A developing psychology strategy could also be informed standpoints to communicate beyond their existing supporters and thus narrow the divisions. by Paul Nesbitt-Larking’s 2016 Presidential Address Other work for psychologists, in collaboration to the International Society of Political Psychology with other groups and professions, could concern the in which he argues for an unashamedly normative perspective: shouldering our responsibilities as citizens promotion of more reasonable and morally justifiable public discussions, and contributing to strengthening and psychologists to engage socially, employing both citizenship education as suggested above. Similarly, our systematic knowledge and our values. psychological evidence could support the case for the Beyond these possible starting points there are development of new deliberative democracy systems psychological research needs. How robust are the and assist in planning their implementation. explanations linking detachment, resentment and Despite still widening divisions there is room for protest votes to inequality and cultural changes? optimism as more voices are raised warning of the If further research confirms them, what are the current dangers to democracy. Psychology should psychological mechanisms through which they be one of the voices, both warning and contributing operate? Linked to this, research on political values to solutions. needs to be replicated and extended with British

Nottingham – 21 November Phil Banyard, Nottingham Trent University; Stephan Gibson, York St John University; Thomas Muskett, Leeds Beckett University; Alison Torn, Leeds Trinity University.

London – 5 December Gustav Kuhn, Goldsmiths University of London Catherine Loveday, University of Westminster Stephen David Reicher, University of St Andrews Elizabeth Stokoe, Loughborough University Ashley Weinberg, University of Salford. For full details and book your tickets see: www.bps.org.uk/p4s2017

#psy4stu

London – 6 December Sophie Carrigill, Paralympian Paul Dawson, Mayor’s Ofﬁce for Policing & Crime Vincent Deary, Northumbria University Ella Rhodes, BPS – The Psychologist. For full details and book your tickets see: www.bps.org.uk/p4g2017

#psy4grads

Building democracy Ashley Weinberg considers how psychology can inform the design and restoration of the physical spaces in which our political processes take place

The Palace of Westminster, is crumbling. Psychologists can play a part in rebuilding it, and other similar spaces, as physical embodiments of democratic ideals.

emocracy needs people. Democracy also needs space. It can seem that everywhere we turn we bump into images and sounds of characters playing out their political lives on a stage, yet that stage belongs to all of us. We elect politicians to do the job on our behalf, yet there has been a growing sense of detachment from them. Our understanding of the issues that matter is ﬁltered through broadcast, print and online media which most of us do not own. The democracy we have begins to feel a lot like democracy at a distance. What kind of space does democracy need to help us feel it’s close, that it belongs to us, its rightful owners? This is where buildings can play their part. Whenever there are political events, debates, votes, Prime Minister’s or First Minister’s Questions, we are encouraged to think of the Houses of Parliament, Holyrood, the Senedd, Stormont or the Tynwald. These are the buildings where our elected representatives meet to serve us. Yet democracy is also about representation at a local level, and this is where constituency meeting places, including city, town and parish halls, are important too.

the psychologist june 2017 building democracy

Each of these locations is an embodiment of our democratic process. This is where political action happens and where those who aspire to bring about change will head as elected representatives, constituents, advisers and lobbyists. In a world where everyone is psychologically unique, the places where national and local government is enacted can come to symbolise a common bond. Ideally this is felt by all and it promotes a system (in Abraham Lincoln’s words) ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’. An attack on such democratic institutions represents a personal attack against citizens: on 22 March in Westminster, literally and tragically. Given the symbolic and practical importance of these democratic spaces, how fit for purpose are they in physical terms? Could they be better suited to all our needs? You may have heard that the institution to which the whole of UK elects its Members of Parliament is in crisis – it is literally falling apart. Roofs leak, stone crumbles, antiquated heating fails, and information technology means cables are in danger from running water. No wonder both the House of Commons and the Lords are considering relocation (see tinyurl.com/khh2tqx). Coinciding with a time of ongoing political uncertainty, the physical structures on which we have come to rely are set to change. Are we being asked to move into a ‘house’ without seeing it first? Perhaps psychology can play its role in designing for democracy? Political spaces The Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics at the University of Sheffield has been spearheading debate and research into the processes surrounding the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, and invites participation from a range of disciplines, including psychology. [For those interested in writing a piece or getting involved in the project more widely, email L.Cotter@sheffield.ac.uk]. The importance of a multidisciplinary approach, not only to the functioning of our democratic institutions but also workplaces more generally, was shown in recent research led by one of my Salford colleagues, Peter Barrett, on classroom design. This demonstrated the measurable impact of buildings on human performance and wellbeing. So is it realistic to think that places can embody our individual hopes and aspirations, and act as reassuring presences in the face of our fears and anxieties? Can a building symbolise the heart of a democracy? For a start, to be fit for purpose there are clear considerations for structure and function. In (re)building a modern democratic institution we must consider several types of space: • Formal: The place will need debating chambers, where views can be shared, and argument or persuasion thrive, so that the views of MPs and the electorate are represented. Offices should provide private space for MPs and parliamentary

staff, allowing the planning, communication and management of individual workloads. Security and health units should protect the democratic system by maintaining the health and safety of staff and visitors. • Informal: Lobby areas, alcoves, corridors, cafes and restaurants allow people to meet, hold discussions, build alliances and persuade colleagues. • Virtual: An online voting platform and public website should allow legislative decisions, keep the electorate informed about citizenship and parliamentary activities, and foster public engagement. Within each space, communication of ideas is a priority for the effective functioning of a democracy. Communication between politicians, and between MPs and their electors, is surely at the heart of our system. Naturally, social media can be used for both purposes, but face-to-face interactions remain effective for the purposes of persuasion, negotiating, deal-making and deal–breaking (as emphasised in Owen Hargie’s 2006 Handbook of Communication Skills). In a political workplace, it makes sense to design spaces for these interactions. The lobby areas close to the entrances to debating chambers, including the places designated for voting, facilitate a vital function. For example, large circular physical areas, which at once support the intimacy of individual conversations in alcoves, can also create wider space for groups to meet and bring into discussion those who are passing. The linking corridors also make it possible to ‘bump into’ others a politician needs on their side so they can have ‘that’ conversation. For many workers, this is not dissimilar to the ‘watercooler’ chats: chances to get to know colleagues and have informal conversations about a range of matters relatively free of the usual office formalities and group constraints. This apparent unstructured and ‘accidental’ nature of meeting colleagues is of course political by design. Alliances are built on such opportunities. The deliberate design of spaces that permit this is important and needs to feature in any workplace renovation. As for the individual, each of us needs a private space that we can control: who enters, when this happens, etc. Jungsoo Kim and Richard de Dear have highlighted that this is a feature neglected by the modern impetus for large open-plan offices. Deals are hard to make in public spaces where it may be important to keep confidential the identity of one’s allies and even foes. Glass walls let in light, but do you always want to illuminate what you may be planning? In fact, the Houses of Parliament are perhaps unique in their history of exemption from UK health and safety regulations, as well as features workplaces should consider as standard: psychologically and physically safe and adequate working conditions, induction procedures, etc. One MP recalled sharing

a corridor with 14 other MPs, and another was told, ‘Here’s a desk and a phone, now it’s up to you’. Most MPs work very long hours (70-hour weeks are not uncommon), have surprisingly low levels of control over political events and often considerable tensions between work and home lives. In the 2012 book The Psychology of Politicians – featuring contributions from European (including UK) psychologists – I explored how negative aspects of working can lead to deteriorations in politicians’ mental health, as they do for other occupational groups. Four years later in a symposium at the British Psychological Society’s Annual Conference, we showed how these factors remain key issues, although nearby ofﬁce accommodation for political staff has helped tackle such overcrowding and psychological support via counselling services for MPs is now available. The Palace of Westminster is also replete with other designed but less formal meeting places, such as cafes, restaurants and bars. The terrace and tea rooms are well known and serve a range of political functions. They extend the traditional forms of discussion into a social setting, ensuring that people Getty Images

Chambers and connections Should we have two sides of the House facing each other, thus encouraging an adversarial approach to debating and deciding our political matters? In the Crick Centre’s Designing for Democracy, the Speaker of the House of Commons suggests this is something that should continue (www.crickcentre.org/projects/ designingfordemocracy). However, in other UK political institutions, such as Holyrood, The Senedd and Stormont, the seating areas are semicircular or horseshoe in their conﬁguration. Are these structures more suited to collaborative working, or do they impede the possibilities for working compromise? Whatever the reality, the oppositional nature of parliamentary behaviour seems to disenchant members of the public and some MPs, and the adversarial layout of the debating chamber is sometimes blamed for this. It is hard to know whether the debating chambers in the devolved political institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have by their design – or their location – ensured a greater sense of collaboration and fostered an improved sense of connection between electors and government. Writing in the New York Times last year, Allison Arieff considered whether a modern design could more closely mirror how we conduct our own daily business, rather than the designs reminiscent of medieval or neo-Classical periods (see tinyurl. com/n8am9ta). Granting more self-governing powers to UK cities will elevate the importance of such questions. 32

can be seen to be talking with others. The choice of who to sit with and who to meet there becomes significant. Such relationships are public matters and not only in the political workplace, as key messages are conveyed about one’s sphere of influence and closeness to colleagues and those in powerful roles (a point Richard Kwiatkowski considered in The Psychology of Politicians). Fixing Westminster’s buildings for a sustainable and cost-effective future carries with it the need to consider psychological factors in avoiding the pitfalls of the (re)design process (Clegg, 2000; Swan & Brown, 2013). In building a democracy in this way, we cannot afford to ignore the lessons of a socio-technical systems approach. As Chris Clegg configured, this means recognising psychological processes in the design stage – not simply trying to make sense of the finished product – by ‘identifying what makes for well-designed jobs’ (p.464) and acknowledging that ‘design is an extended social process’ (p.465). Design should be a much more democratic process. Public spaces The enactment of democratic process within a palace is a potential paradox. Historically such places carry connotations of power, vested in the hands of the few rather than the many. MPs newly elected to the House of Commons talk of feelings of awe and sometimes intimidation of working in such physically grand surroundings. These are not easy emotions for oiling the wheels of democratic involvement, but do serve to convey the power of the institution. The Palace of Westminster is a World Heritage Site, and renovations must abide by rules for conservation. But somehow we need to ensure the public can feel it is their Palace. It may be helpful for members of the electorate to see their MPs debate in a way that limited access to the public gallery does not permit. A glass wall (security remaining a consideration) would increase a sense of openness and connectivity that restricted space in the gallery overlooking the debating chamber currently prevents. The renovation of the House may need to take into account ways of maximising public attendance at committee hearings, where the giving of evidence is often televised. This is political in two ways: firstly in MPs being able to hold public figures to account, and secondly, showing the electorate that their concerns are being followed up by their representatives. From London to virtual spaces The temporary relocation of Parliament is also under consideration. Should this be in London, or elsewhere? In its infancy the UK Parliament was mobile, not static, and fitted the need for speedy consideration of pressing issues where it mattered most. When Simon de Montfort convened parliaments in the 13th century, both Westminster and Rhuddlan in North Wales

the psychologist june 2017 building democracy

side is increasing disquiet about provided this kind of immediacy. the use and definition of the The latter was located outside the ‘I was brought ‘truth’ – in The Guardian last year, castle walls and close to the people, up near Katharine Viner wrote that ‘In the adjoining the main thoroughfare Rhuddlan in digital age, it is easier than ever to along which merchants, families North Wales, publish false information, which and the military would have where one of is quickly shared and taken to be made their way to and from the the earliest true’. Virtual space represents an influential River Clwyd and to parliaments added dimension to the physical the open sea. To the sounds of was located spaces where politics ‘happen’, everyday life outside, the less than – as a toddler, my playgroup but the information that supports democratic barons made decisions was actually round the corner public political debate needs to be that affected the population, yet from Parliament Street and useful and responsibly sourced (e.g. the immediacy of the connection the castle. Perhaps it was Curran et al., 2012). The use of between the governors and the no surprise I was fascinated online communication by some to governed is clear. In a democracy by politics and people, so threaten their representatives is an the people and their representatives visiting Westminster as a obvious area for concern. should continue to feel this strong school student and now connection. reminds me of our shared The permanent siting of sense of history, as well as our Parliament at Westminster Conclusions struggle for democratic rights showed the importance of a range It may be hard for Westminster throughout the UK. It is sad of practical factors. Proximity to begin afresh, and so structural to see the ravages of time on to the Thames was once vital change is likely to have its limits. the buildings, but this natural for travel (and again proved an Yet bold moves are required in process is also a reminder of important feature when used by order to preserve its function from our need to nurture, maintain campaigning flotillas during the harm, as well as to elevate in the and develop democracy too. Brexit referendum campaign). eyes of an often sceptical public the However, civil contact between status of the democratic processes ‘Please support the proposal citizens and their representatives that take place there (Flinders, for a BPS Political Psychology is vital to ensure effective two-way 2012). Mending an apparent Section: tinyurl.com/mmcjjwy.’ communication, and these days disconnect between the electorate MPs’ constituency surgeries and the politicians who serve and thousands of daily visits to them is paramount. In nurturing Ashley Weinberg is a Senior Westminster by politicians and and galvanising engagement in Lecturer in Psychology at the private citizens – young and democratic proceedings, there University of Salford old – mean that parliamentary appears to be no substitute a.weinberg@salford.ac.uk democracy is not simply about for ensuring the people have adults marking a ballot paper every government five years. This kind of casework is a key aspect of the that is accessible and accountable MPs’ work, yet it often goes unseen and can make a and that reflects public concerns. Key sources huge difference to the lives of constituents. The murder Public expectations of of MP Jo Cox at her constituency office only galvanised democracy also demand a Clegg, C.W. (2000). Sociotechnical the determination of MPs to maintain this vital aspect necessary level of transparency principles for system design. Applied of their elected office. Physical security is likely to be a and acceptability, and so this Ergonomics, 31(5), 463–477. paramount consideration in renovation, but we must should be with the renovation Crick Centre (2016). Designing for hope it does not detract from the very purpose of an of the Westminster Parliament. Democracy. www.crickcentre.org/ open and democratically elected parliament. Involvement of the electorate in the projects/designingfordemocracy So what of online space, the relatively new (re)design makes eminent sense, as Curran, J., Coen, S., Aalberg, T. & Iyengar, S. (2012). News content, media territory for political debate and apparent ‘free’ speech? does meaningful input by the users use, and current affairs knowledge. Perceptions of a ‘guaranteed’ internet audience and of the building, who include elected In J. Curran & T. Aalberg (Eds.) How relative lack of regulation attracts many, but has the representatives and parliamentary media inform democracy: A comparative virtual world overtaken formal ‘physical’ spaces in our staff. This would not only foster approach (pp.81–97). London: Routledge. democracy? On the positive side, Parliament engages the connectivity desirable from a Flinders, M. (2012). Defending politics: with social media to inform the electorate about its socio-technical systems perspective, Why democracy matters in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. functions and ongoing developments, while debates but also help in the rebuilding Swan, W. & Brown, P. (2013). Retrofitting can be triggered by obtaining sufficient signatures. process of a strong and long-lasting the built environment. Chichester: Wiley. The introduction of online voting in Parliament would relationship between those who Weinberg, A. (Ed.) (2012). The psychology also have the potential to save considerable time, serve as representatives and us, the of politicians. Cambridge: Cambridge although this could reduce opportunities for MPs people, who are legally entitled to University Press. to persuade colleagues face-to-face. On the negative elect them.

Reclaiming the truth Karen M. Douglas, Chee Siang Ang and Farzin Deravi on conspiracy theories and fake news on social media ‘Fake news’ – the deliberate publication of ﬁctitious information, hoaxes and propaganda on social media – has become one way so-called conspiracy theories are spread. Could psychology hold the key to moving beyond a ‘post-truth’ world?

n March 2016 former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account was compromised; many of his emails were later released by WikiLeaks. One of Podesta’s contacts – a Washington pizza restaurant called Comet Ping Pong owned by Democratic Party supporter James Alefantis – caught the attention of an anonymous online message board user. Other users then began trawling Alefantis’ Instagram account and swiftly concocted a bogus story about a paedophile ring led by Hillary Clinton and other powerful Democrats. By the time of the November 2016 presidential election, over 1,000,000 tweets had been sent using the hashtag #pizzagate. The same month, marketing company owner Eric Tucker (a man with only 40 Twitter followers) posted a tweet about people being bussed into Austin, Texas and paid to protest against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. By the time Mr Tucker admitted that the information was false, the post had already been shared 16,000 times on Twitter and more than 35,000 times on Facebook. Even Trump himself promoted the tweet. These are just two examples of how ‘fake news’ is plaguing modern political communication. Fake news involves the deliberate publication of ﬁctitious information, hoaxes and propaganda on social media. It uses the

the psychologist june 2017 conspiracy and fake news www.michellekondrich.com

elements within the British establishment. Another alleges that the 9/11 terrorist strikes were a false-flag attack orchestrated by the American government to justify the war on terror. Yet another supposes that the American government is hiding evidence of the existence of aliens. Conspiracy theories are typically – although not exclusively – associated with events of significant social or political importance. They weave complex narratives of mystery and intrigue, in contrast to the typically straightforward and linear narratives promoted by officialdom. Of course conspiracies do happen, but most conspiracy theories have no evidence to support them, and are often unfalsifiable. They are, therefore, the perfect material for fake news stories that are designed to manipulate people and stir up social or political unrest. Understanding why conspiracy theories resonate with so many people is a growing area of academic research. Psychologists in particular have made significant progress in understanding the factors that predict belief in conspiracy theories. For example, a 2012 paper led by Michael Wood titled ‘Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories’ showed that people are likely to believe in one conspiracy theory if they also believe in others, even if the conspiracy theories contradict each other. Other studies led by this article’s first author, along with Robbie Sutton, have demonstrated that people also believe conspiracy theories to the extent reach and speed of social media to spread information that they feel they would also conspire themselves; designed to mislead people for financial, political or and that cognitive biases, such as the tendency to other gain. We are said to be living in an age of postperceive intentionality and agency everywhere in the truth politics, where facts are less important than environment and belief in the emotions and personal beliefs. paranormal, are also associated Indeed, due to a massive spike “We are said to be with conspiracy belief. in the use of the term post-truth A range of personality in 2016 in the context of the EU living in an age of postand social factors such as referendum in the UK and the truth politics, where powerlessness, authoritarianism, presidential election in the US, the facts are less important uncertainty, political cynicism Oxford Dictionaries named it as the and distrust predict the extent to international word of the year. than emotions and which people entertain a variety In the nebulous world of personal beliefs” of conspiracy theories (Abalakinaunregulated websites, blogs and Paap et al., 1999). Also, people are social media, people cannot easily generally uncomfortable feeling separate fact from fiction, and that they are ‘sheep’, dutifully following the orders of credible from non-credible sources. Perhaps for this officialdom, and like to feel that they can uncover the reason, fake news has become one way in which truth about events that affect their lives. Conspiracy conspiracy theories are shared and spread through theories provide interesting explanations for these digital channels. In this article, we consider the impact important events, which are proportional to the events of conspiracy theories propagated in fake news stories themselves. on what people might think and do, and consider So although there is much still to learn, how modern technology could actually be able to help psychologists have made good ground in people reclaim the truth. understanding why conspiracy theories are appealing to so many people. Understanding why people are motivated to communicate about conspiracy theories Conspiracy theories and the people who is now also a growing area of academic interest. For believe them example, scholars such as Steve Clarke have argued Conspiracy theories are defined as proposed plots that people communicate conspiracy theories to by powerful groups, hatched in secret to achieve open up debate about political controversies in an some sinister objective. For example, one conspiracy attempt to make governments more transparent in theory supposes that Princess Diana was murdered by

their future. Psychologists have found that people also communicate about conspiracy theories as a result of their own personal needs and concerns, such as the desire to make sense of events that challenge their worldviews, or to make sure that their personal values are known to others (Franks et al., 2013; Raab et al., 2013). Other research, for example Benjamin Lee’s recent study, suggests that people sometimes communicate conspiracy theories for more politically motivated reasons, such as to incite fear and distrust of other social groups. Lee considered conspiracy theories in the counter jihad movement, an international network combining cultural nationalism with xenophobia towards Muslims. He concluded that conspiracy theory was seen as justiﬁcation for existing prejudices, rather than being used openly as a call to action. ‘In the case of the counter jihad movement, as well as potentially other far-right movements, conspiracy theory may be taking a back seat to a more sophisticated public relations approach.’

www.michellekondrich.com

Are conspiracy theories harmful? Many conspiracy theories are relatively trivial and harmless. After all, what impact on society would there be if a small handful of people believed that Elvis was helped to fake his own death so he could live a quiet life? People also often poke fun at conspiracy theories and ‘conspiracy theorists’, dismissing conspiracy claims and ridiculing believers’ opinions. However, conspiracy belief is much more widespread than is often assumed. A 2014 survey by J. Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood showed that approximately half of the American population believes at least one conspiracy theory. Once it has taken root, misinformation also appears difﬁcult to correct (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Therefore, if conspiracy theories are mainstream, ‘sticky’, and readily available to people reading fake news stories online, we argue that it is important to think about what their consequences could be. Conspiracy theories could have some positive consequences, such as providing people with the opportunity to question dominance hierarchies and making governments and powerful others more accountable for their actions. They might allow people to regain a sense of power because they feel that they are in possession of the ‘truth’. Recently, however,

psychologists have begun to consider some of the negative consequences of conspiracy theorising. Not only could conspiracy theories help people to justify their radical and exclusionary political views, other recent research led by Daniel Jolley has suggested that conspiracy theories about politics discourage people from voting or even participating in politics altogether. Further studies have linked climate change conspiracy theories with reduced intentions to engage in climatefriendly behaviour, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories with reduced vaccination intentions, and conspiracy theories in the workplace with reduced intentions to stay in one’s job. Research led by Jan-Willem van Prooijen has also suggested that conspiracy theories could be a catalyst for radicalised and extremist behaviour, encouraging people to act against a system that they perceive to be conspiring against them. Indeed, investigating ‘pizzagate’ was given as the motive by a man who attacked the Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant with an assault riﬂe in December 2016. Based on these recent ﬁndings, we argue that conspiracy theories should be taken seriously and never more so than in this digital age.

the psychologist june 2017 conspiracy and fake news

Why are conspiracy theories a problem now? The pervasiveness of social media has brought unprecedented ease of access to a wide range of information, from world politics to personal stories, creating a direct pathway from producers to consumers of content. The mediators of traditional media, such as journalists and editors, have been largely eliminated in this new era of direct sharing of information. This has not only changed the way people communicate with each other, but also has a signiﬁcant impact on how people are informed and hence form their opinions and direct their actions. These novel forms and channels of communication can sometimes lead to confusion about causation, and thus encourage speculation, conspiracy theories, and other types of fake news. The technological ease with which the information can be shared on a large scale makes the unintentional as well as intentional spreading of false information possible, and potentially very harmful to individual and societal wellbeing. Also, while social media contains a great diversity of views by its nature as a decentralised medium, it is unclear to what degree people generally take advantage of this diversity as opposed to simply ﬁnding likeminded others with whom to communicate. In this respect, social media can be an especially problematic venue for communication and discussion, given the tendency for like-minded people to agree on a particular point and polarise to a more extreme position after discussing it with one another. Benjamin Warner and Ryan Neville-Shepard have written on how such ‘echo chambers’, facilitated by new modes of online communication and social networking, could intensify group polarisation effects through an enforced homogeneity of opinion. In addition, social media can also be taken over by ‘bots’, which are pieces of code that can automatically post and spread news items in the online social networks. Twitter, for instance, explicitly encourages developers to create bots that can automatically reply to other tweets, as a way of improving the user experience. For example, a company can use a bot to automatically reply to their customers’ questions. Although Twitter has terms and conditions on the use of bots to prevent abuse, the technology that allows for user-experience-enhancing bots can also be used to spread fake news items in the social network. Currently, major technology companies rely on user reports to combat fake news and conspiracy theories. Facebook, Twitter and Google each have

Karen M. Douglas is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Kent k.douglas@ kent.ac.uk Chee Siang Ang is Senior Lecturer in Multimedia/ Digital Systems at the University of Kent C.S.Ang@ kent.ac.uk Farzin Deravi is Reader in Information Engineering at the University of Kent F.Deravi@ kent.ac.uk

a feature allowing users to report offensive or inappropriate posts/tweets/websites. Similar technologies for detecting unwanted messages currently exist in form of spam filters. However, detecting problematic Facebook messages in a culturally diverse environment will require in-depth understanding of cultural nuances that are beyond the reach of current artificial intelligence technology. Also, current technology may not be able to deal with the complexities of the psychological and political contexts in which (and beyond which) people communicate. Furthermore, it might not even be culturally accepted to have artificial intelligence filtering posts, as Facebook is keen to stress that all user reports are acted upon by a human being, instead of an algorithm.

Technology to the rescue Although psychologists understand some of the factors that draw people toward conspiracy theories, why they communicate them, and what some of their consequences are, they know less about what, if anything, can be done about them. Online fake news as a way of proliferating conspiracy theories is almost completely new. However, there are some options for psychologists and information technology experts to attempt to address conspiracy theories and fake news. First, encouraging analytic thinking can be effective in reducing people’s reliance on false information, arming people with the cognitive tools to think critically about the information they receive. Counter-arguments offering alternative perspectives could be effective in reducing reliance on conspiracy theories, and this is a technique that has been used successfully in social influence research for many years. Alternatively, some people argue that conspiracy theories are best fought from within – by infiltrating conspiracy groups with people who argue against conspiracy claims. But this latter approach may be unethical and arguably with so much of the conspiracy communication occurring in unregulated digital channels, any such approach would be difficult to execute on a large scale. Teaching analytical or critical thinking, for example, will take time and detailed tests before large-scale interventions can be rolled out. Presenting people with counter-arguments to influence their attitudes could mean that the conspiracy information needs to be addressed at the time people encounter it. We argue instead that although technology may be part of the problem, it could also be part of the

solution. Facebook and Twitter have been called upon recently to combat the spread of conspiracy Detection and notification of false content on theories and fake news, and CEO of Facebook Mark social media is necessary but not always sufficient. It Zuckerberg has recently promised that his company is also important to educate users to make use of such will soon roll out mechanisms to fight misinformation notifications and detect the ‘smell’ of falsehood so online. What might some of these mechanisms be? that they do not further propagate it through careless One way forward could be to reclaim the power ‘sharing’. Here, education could play an important of social media in detecting and warning against false role. Serious (computer) games and misleading information and have emerged in recent years as their sources. People from all “An alternative approach an important technology for social political persuasions, cultures, ages, would be to use influence. Such games could be education levels and religions use developed to help train users of social media to share information, automated techniques social networks and other channels and a wealth of feedback on this using machine learning of news and information sharing information is therefore available. and artificial intelligence to develop a sense for truth and a Harnessing this ‘people power’ suspicion of possible falsehoods may be one solution to dealing to spot tell-tale patterns posing as tantalising morsels ripe with fake news and conspiracy of misinformation and for sharing. Again, such education theories. For example, technology conspiracy theories in and training interventions take a has been used effectively in crowd-sourced projects such as people’s communications” great deal of time and energy. This would be a longer-term solution to Wikipedia to ensure trustworthy conspiracy theories and fake news and high-quality accumulation of more generally, rather than an immediate ‘fix’ for a knowledge. A similar approach could be effective if particular conspiracy theory or fake news story that is the truth and reliability of items of currently in circulation. information could be moderated It is also important to consider that while such by anyone who would care to Key sources technological approaches have the potential to reduce do so. The ‘crowd’ will then be the impact of misinformation on social networks they able to amplify any signals that Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W.G., could also have some adverse effects in suffocating the indicate traces of falsehood and Craig, T. & Gregory, W L. (1999). Beliefs legitimate communication of interesting and important the post-ranking algorithm will in conspiracies. Political Psychology, 20, but nevertheless unlikely and improbable events. then take into account such 637–647. There may be benefits to conspiracy theorising for information to eventually reduce Bilewicz, M., Cichocka, A. & Soral, individuals, groups and society, and interventions will the presence of fake news items in V. (Eds), (2015). The psychology of conspiracy. Hove: Routledge. hinder these positive effects. A careful balance needs users’ pages. Such a communityDel Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F. et al. to be struck in the design of such systems, and in the driven approach is currently being (2016). The spreading of misinformation way people are trained to use them, to avoid throwing investigated by Facebook, where online. Proceedings of the National out the ‘baby’ of truth with the ‘bathwater’ of all that users can flag false content to Academy of Sciences, 113, 554–559. is dubious, not to mention restraining people from correct the newsfeed algorithm Douglas, K.M. & Sutton, R.M. (2011). exercising their right to free speech. (Del Vicario et al., 2016). Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories An alternative approach would is influenced by personal willingness be to use automated techniques to conspire. British Journal of Social Conclusions using machine learning and Psychology, 50, 544–552. Conspiracy theories are rife in social media and artificial intelligence to spot tellJolley, D. & Douglas, K.M. (2014). The prominently feature in what has become known as tale patterns of misinformation social consequences of conspiracism: and conspiracy theories in people’s fake news. Recent psychological research suggests Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in that conspiracy theories are persuasive and sometimes communications, an approach politics and to reduce one’s carbon harmful. A challenge for psychologists is to understand proposed by Google (Dong et footprint. British Journal of Psychology, more about why conspiracy theories are so popular and al., 2015). Such a system would 105, 35–56. persuasive and how they are used in social media to need to be trained using data Oliver, J.E. & Wood, T.J. (2014). influence social and political outcomes. A challenge for from previous examples and Conspiracy theories and the paranoid information technology professionals is to understand cases of conspiracy theories and style(s) of mass opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 952–966. how – if and when appropriate – the spreading of misinformation, and the patterns Van Prooijen, J-W., Krouwel, A.P.M. & conspiracy theories and fake news can be curtailed. of their genesis and distribution Pollet, T. (2015). Political extremism online. A way forward would predicts belief in conspiracy theories. be to design hybrid systems Social Psychological and Personality where machine learning can help Further reading Science, 6, 570–578. suggest suspect material for closer For ‘A lens onto fake news’, read Simon Knight’s Full list available in online / app version. examination by humans in the online-only article at www.thepsychologist.org.uk/ loop. lens-fake-news

Research. Digested. Free.

Now including PODCAST and APP

www.bps.org.uk/digest ‘Easy to access and free, and a mine of useful information for my work: what more could I want? I only wish I’d found this years ago!’ Dr Jennifer Wild, Consultant Clinical Psychologist & Senior Lecturer, Institute of Psychiatry ‘The selection of papers suits my eclectic mind perfectly, and the quality and clarity of the synopses is uniformly excellent.’ Professor Guy Claxton, University of Bristol 42

Michal Kosinski ‘The fact that we have access to so many different opinions is driving us to believe that we’re in information bubbles’ Poppy Noor meets Michal Kosinski, psychologist, data scientist and Professor at Stanford University

In Barack Obama’s speech on leaving the White House, he named online echo chambers as one of the big threats to democracy. Across the pond, the same phenomenon – where people are said to be locked in to social media universes that only confirm rather than counter their own opinions – was widely thought to have played a role in ‘Brexit’. But when I speak to Dr Michal Kosinski, one of the most influential ‘Big Data’ psychologists in the world, his thoughts on the issue perhaps go against the grain. Responding to findings from a recent study by the Pew Research Centre, which suggests that 62 per cent of US adults get news on social media (see tinyurl.com/ hcwhqsv), he ponders ‘Would those people get any news from anywhere other than Facebook? Perhaps they are not interested in news. People who are generally interested in politics would read up on other parties.’ Dr Kosinski is far from the typical university professor. He has written two of the most influential articles ever published by PNAS, ranking in at 4th and 12th. TED talks have covered his research; a character in a play has been based on him; and yearon-year his papers are tabled as the most interesting, imaginative and influential. If you’ve ever been to one of his lectures, you’ll see the queue of students waiting outside afterwards begging to work on his projects.

Perhaps it’s the content. His research covers everything from accurately predicting people’s personalities based on their Facebook likes, to using huge data sets to show that people are most likely to be friends with people who have similar personalities to them. He’s relatable, persuasive and hard to disagree with, but, having worked with him in the past, I am sceptical that you can predict so much from Facebook data. I’m also worried about the unprecedented power that such research provides to manipulate people. He picks up on this point. ‘Have you listened to Obama’s speech? He spent 10 minutes talking about the information bubble. He calls it one of the three largest threats to democracy. I love Obama, but I very much disagree with him on this one.’ For Kosinski, the only new thing about the online echo chamber is that it’s happening on our Facebook and Twitter feeds rather than in the comfort of our homes across the dinner table. ‘Closing ourselves in information bubbles is natural. One of the most basic theories, conﬁrmation bias, is just that. We like the kind of information which conﬁrms our current beliefs more. We remember it better, we are in fact less likely to hear information that contradicts our biases.’

the psychologist june 2017 interview

I ask him whether calling it an inevitable phenomenon does anything other than conﬁrm that Facebook is, indeed, an echo chamber. ‘I would argue that we in fact are exposed to more diverse information than ever. It seems paradoxical, but the fact that we have access to so many different opinions is driving us to believe that we’re in information bubbles. There is evidence to show that people are discovering more than they ever would. Just in the last year, the diversity of the artists that people listened to on Spotify increased by around 20 per cent.’ Spotify does this through a system that makes educated guesses at what users will like based on the music taste of similar users, as well as their own listening history and habits. In other words, what they do is similar to Dr Kosinski’s own research. It is also a technique used by Facebook’s own algorithm, EdgeRank, which learns intently from Facebook users’ behaviour, such as who they interact with most frequently and whether they respond to a certain type of post more – for example a photograph instead of a status update; and it even learns from posts that users write and never use. This information helps to decide what comes up on our Facebook feeds and encourages us to engage more. Using this type of information for research is not without criticism. In 2014 researchers at Facebook manipulated the posts on some newsfeeds to make them either overwhelmingly positive or negative. They observed the behaviour from users and concluded that

online moods were contagious. It was a study that caused controversy. Many called it unethical, whilst others were suspicious that the study would be used to ensure less ‘neutral’ posts appeared on users’ feeds, to encourage their engagement with Facebook. Kosinski calls this type of research ‘tailoring’. ‘In the past, if you were not interested in what the message was – say you went to school and you were given novels that you weren’t interested in – you would basically just disengage. The hope behind tailoring is that those who were previously excluded will now stay in. They will read, they will become involved in political processes, and so on.’ Surely, I ask him, it is one thing if people choose to conﬁrm their own biases, and another if organisations use vast data subsets about users’ tastes – possibly without their knowing – to manipulate them, sometimes with the particular aim of making their own organisation more proﬁtable or relevant. ‘I think people misunderstand what recommendation is. The fact that you read a novel about dogs doesn’t mean you’ll get recommendations about that and nothing else. They will realise that you’re in a cluster of tastes and therefore recommend to you, perhaps, something about engineering. Because it’s not just that the dogs form the core of your interest, perhaps it’s the style of writing. Our interests are multidimensional… tailoring means more information for you and less indoctrination, which is amazing.’ But what if the algorithm decides that this person

would be interested in reading mainly news that’s false, or news that is extremist, or news that confirms their own view? The Wall Street Journal’s ‘Blue Feed, people and no one would know. If Facebook decided to Red Feed’ study took this to its logical extreme by be liberal-leaning, nobody would even know because showing us a simulation of a ‘very liberal’ and a everyone sees a different thing. It’s creating different ‘very conservative’ Facebook newsfeed side by side. results for billions of people so it’s sort of difficult to Although they were clear that Facebook feeds may in measure, even for the owner of Facebook. No single fact include a more diverse range of sources, the study person can claim to know how it works.’ is uncomfortable viewing in terms of how polarised Eerily reminiscent of the commander-type (and even contrary) news from opposing sides of the characters in those dystopian novels I read as a child same debate can be. of robot systems that took over the world by accident, ‘Look, first of all, fake news is not new. It’s always Kosinski adds: ‘The machine could develop leanings been possible that your parents could have been and we wouldn’t know. Those big [social media] interested, for example, in an ideology that was platforms should embrace the solution to manage this based on a lot of untrue things, or that was extremist. risk. Firstly, it’s an insurance problem for them that You could have lived under a regime that fed you their computer systems or employees could be doing propaganda and controlled the information that you things beyond their control or without them knowing. received. At least now we have access to multiple They should be mindful, too, of their users becoming independent news sources. Our parents may feed us suspicious of that likelihood and no longer using their extreme views, but an algorithm can see that we have platform.’ looked at, let’s say, something less Is he suggesting that, extreme than what our parents hypothetically, a social media show us, and suggest some things organisation could manipulate an “By tweaking their to us based on our decision to look election? And does he think that software just a little bit at something different that day.’ such a thing would be wrong if they could affect the But if the world of information so? ‘Absolutely yes and absolutely now available at the tip of our yes. By tweaking their software outcome of an election, fingers makes us more aware that just a little bit they could affect no doubt about it” opposing opinions exist, surely the outcome of an election, no the mirage on social media that doubt about it. Obviously that’s our own view is the predominant, wrong – Facebook is not controlled sponsored and, by extension, correct view only serves by society and is in no way democratically elected. to make us even more self-assuredly ignorant? It’s controlled by one individual. There is something Kosinski points out that he has been to lectures wrong about a single person being able to exert such with a number of professors who have been hardan influence over the public.’ pressed to prove, despite running studies for years, that Kosinski says he is in favour of private institutions people’s consumption of news has become increasingly like Facebook, but ‘also in favour of their public polarised (although a 2016 study led by Michela Del oversight. They have basically become media Vicario, ‘The spreading of misinformation online’, companies that aggregate news for people, so I don’t makes an interesting read). He asks me whether the see why they should not be controlled in exactly the same way as we control traditional media. Civilisation sources I’m getting information from are broader, and has evolved public oversight over media – and for after careful deliberation I conclude that they are, but that the content is narrower. I, like two thirds of people good reason. The new media of the 21st century should be subject to the same oversight for the sake who go on Facebook, get news on it. That’s nearly half of everyone’s safety.’ of the general population. And it is clear that the way Will he be advising Facebook and the American that people are consuming news is changing: only 20 government anytime soon? ‘I will stick to teaching and per cent of people get news from print newspapers researching at Stanford – consultancy doesn’t interest now, and whilst TV remains the predominant source me much.’ for news for most, it might not be for long. A paltry On the question of what we should expect to 27 per cent of millennials switch on the TV for their news. Recently Mark Zuckerburg himself, the owner of see from him next, he says: ‘I am currently trying to understand the links between facial features and Facebook and Instagram, reluctantly accepted the role psychological traits.’ It feels eerily futuristic. But like of such platforms in the dissemination of news (see most of his work, it also sounds very, very interesting. tinyurl.com/za2zfry). It is on this point that Kosinski becomes more sombre. ‘The big problem is that in the past, editorial Further reading: Find out more about Michal at policy was obvious. You could see if you were looking www.michalkosinski.com. at a left-leaning or right-leaning paper… Now, a guy Poppy Noor is a freelance journalist. She writes regularly in the back-room, an engineer, can tweak a tiny thing for The Guardian: see www.theguardian.com/profile/poppythat will affect the online environment for 1.6 billion noor. Follow her on Twitter @PoppyNoor

NOTTINGHAM 2018

The British Psychological Society’s Annual Conference East Midlands Conference Centre, Nottingham 2–4 May Conﬁrmed Keynotes Professor John Antonakis, University of Lausanne Professor Brian Nosek, Centre for Open Science Professor Cathy Creswell, University of Reading Visit our website now to register your interest for exciting conference updates. Follow us @BPSConferences using #bpsconf.

Credit: John Wright, johnwrightart.blogspot.co.uk

www.bps.org.uk/ac2018

‘Psychology is action, not thinking about oneself’ At the British Psychological Society’s Annual Conference in Brighton in May, Peter Kinderman delivered his Presidential Address

Fifty years ago, on 1 September 1967, the Nobel Prize-winning civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr delivered a speech entitled ‘The role of the behavioral scientist in the civil rights movement’ to the American Psychological Association. Speaking at the height of the civil rights struggle, King stressed how behavioural scientists could and should support those citizens ﬁghting for their fundamental rights. King’s speech is still relevant today – a call to arms.

n 1967 Martin Luther King Jr spoke to the American Psychological Association about links between racism, unemployment and living conditions. Now, in 2017, we can see continuing economic crisis and the impact of policies of austerity, right-wing populism and – most likely as a consequence – Brexit. And these are not just economic or political matters; they are crucial psychological issues too. Quite literally, these are matters of life and death. Between 2008 and 2010, immediately following the most recent economic crisis – not yet the self-inﬂicted economic wounds of Brexit – there were 1000 more suicides in England and Wales than would be expected on purely historical trends, and many of those deaths can be attributed to rising unemployment. Psychologists, whose professional role is the promotion of wellbeing and the prevention of distress, have a duty to speak out about those social, economic and political circumstances that impact on our clients and the general public, and to bring such evidence to politicians and policy makers. For example, it’s clear that unemployment and exploitative employment practices – zero-hours contracts, insecure jobs, the ‘gig economy’ – are damaging to our wellbeing regardless of our age, gender, level of education, ethnicity or the part of the country in which we live. The longer someone remains unemployed, the worse the effect, and people do not adapt to unemployment. Their wellbeing is permanently reduced. In contrast, re-employment – ﬁnding a decent job if you are unemployed – leads to higher wellbeing. Martin Luther King said: ‘There are some things in our society, some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted.’ Another Nobel Prize winner, Albert Camus (distinctive in that he occupied himself during the Nazi occupation of France editing the clandestine newspaper of the Resistance) wrote in his private notebook in May 1937: ‘Psychology is action, not thinking about oneself.’ Psychologists study why people behave as they do.

the psychologist june 2017 Presidential Address

Our turbulent minds We need radical change in how we think about mental health and psychological wellbeing. The idea that our more distressing emotions are nothing more than the symptoms of physical illnesses – which can then be treated like any other medical disease – is pervasive and seductive. But it is also profoundly ﬂawed, and our present approach to helping people in acute emotional distress is severely hampered by old-fashioned and incorrect ideas about the nature and origins of mental health problems. We must move away from the ‘disease model’, which assumes that emotional distress is merely a symptom of biological illness, and instead embrace a psychological and social approach to mental health and wellbeing. At a public lecture before the Society’s Annual Conference in Brighton, I argued that mental health problems are fundamentally social and psychological issues. We should therefore replace ‘diagnoses’ with straightforward descriptions of our problems, radically reduce use of medication, and use it pragmatically rather than presenting it as a ‘cure’. Because this approach celebrates our shared humanity and psychology rather than relying on expert treatment of illnesses, I think that the best chance for real change lies in members of the public joining my professional psychology colleagues in actively campaigning for better services to promote psychological wellbeing, for choice and for a choice which reﬂects a more appropriate understanding of our problems and, most importantly, demanding our rights. You can read more on The Psychologist website: search ‘our turbulent minds’.

Professor Kinderman will also appear as part of ‘The Psychologist presents…’ at Latitude Festival

We are therefore uniquely placed to help understand and address some of the most pressing problems facing humankind. Our expertise brings with it an ethical duty to follow the lead of Camus and King and speak out about those issues that demand a voice. We should be clear that human beings are products of our society. We should explore and explain, using our distinctive science, the mechanisms by which the events and circumstances of people’s lives can lead to psychological problems. And we should offer solutions. Psychology is a discipline and profession that spans the whole range of human experience. We, members of the British Psychological Society, are experts in things that really matter to people: relationships, education and learning, health, mental health, politics, sport, crime, work, how organisations function, prejudice and intercultural understanding, and more. Our obligation is, therefore, to keep psychology always relevant to our fellow citizens and to the real world. Over the past 12 months, we have seen tumultuous political events. In the fallout from the Brexit vote, the resignation of the Prime Minister was only the second item on the BBC news. We’ve seen the release of the Chilcot Inquiry report into the Gulf War, and the catalogue of misinformation, hubris and spin surrounding that depressing but deﬁning debacle.

Growth and a vision of psychology Perhaps precisely because we are living through such interesting times, perhaps because our skills are needed more than ever, and perhaps because many of us have decided to embrace these responsibilities, the British Psychological Society continues to grow, both in membership and in relevance. Together we have a strong and effective voice. We now have over 70,000 members – compared with just over 60,000 a year ago. That represents a 16 per cent increase and over £1 million in additional subscriptions… not that we should pay too much attention to that, but it does mean that we have more resources to do the things we believe in. But this highlights that our Society is a large organisation: we have a £14m turnover, and employ 100 staff. Last year a surplus of over £820,000 was put to reserves for the undoubtedly stormy days ahead. We also take corporate and social responsibility seriously; we are a values-based organisation, with an ethical investment portfolio reviewed regularly by the Board of Trustees. We have made appointments of highly skilled, senior, new colleagues to take forward our Strategic Aims, for example our Director of Policy and Communications, Kathryn Scott, and our Director of Qualifications and Standards, Andrea Finkel-Gates. We have, perhaps most visibly, implemented a new website – our front window to the world. We have made good progress on structural reform of the Society itself. There are significant challenges, most notably finding new ways of resourcing certain activities in the wake of recent legal changes, which have led to disruption and frustration, and about which I’ll say more in a minute.

Gustavo Vargas Tataje

There has been an attempted military coup in Turkey, continuing military conﬂicts against ISIS, an unfolding migrant crisis in the Mediterranean and, to round off the year, the election of President Donald Trump. With that in mind, and despite the campaign rhetoric of some politicians, our objective expertise is needed now more than ever. We in the British Psychological Society, along with our colleagues in the Academy of Social Sciences, the medical Royal Colleges, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Royal Institution, the British Academy and all our other partners, have a responsibility to offer our scientiﬁc expertise, professional perspective and values-based commentary to these vital public debates. As academics, we are required to speak truth to power, to use – and defend – our academic freedom to give voice to sometimes unpalatable truths. As professionals, we have a duty to act in the best interests of our clients and to protect and promote their fundamental rights. Perhaps most importantly – speaking as President and as Chair of the Board of Trustees – the British Psychological Society is a charity, and therefore it does not primarily exist to serve itself or even its members, but the public.

People learn to make sense of the world because of what happens to us

But I am hopeful that we can rise to these challenges and agree a way forward. Today, unlike 50 years ago, psychologists regularly feature on flagship media outlets, and broadcasters no longer need to explain our profession to the listeners. The public are accessing our own media outlets (The Psychologist, the Research Digest, our website and our Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts) in very large numbers. Over the past year, we have received 1321 calls from the media (that’s 25 a week), and 2384 media articles have mentioned the British Psychological Society (that’s 46 a week). The fact that the second figure is larger than the first means that our proactive work – actively using press releases etc. – is effective. Our website – now re-designed – had 9.6 million website page views in 2016, with 64 per cent of them from new users. We have 250,000 Facebook ‘friends’ and 45,000 Twitter followers. And, importantly, we have over 43,000 subscribers to our free, weekly, Research Digest email, with 4.3 million page views for the Research Digest blog. We have forged new collaborative arrangements, not only with psychology associations in other nations, but also with organisations such as the Mental Health Foundation and the Faculty of Public Health. We have maintained and reinvigorated our relationships with organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal Society, British Academy and Royal Institution. We have new relationships with Parliament, through All Party Parliamentary Groups and via our professional partners, contracted to work for the Society in Whitehall. During this presidential year we have assertively promoted the Society’s charitable obligation to make psychology relevant to citizens and the real world. We have led on a long list of what might be

the psychologist june 2017 Presidential Address

called campaigning issues – too long for this brief presentation. From repudiation of ‘gay conversion’ therapies, support for people struggling to withdraw from powerfully addictive psychiatric medication, and a moratorium on the use of psychiatric drugs for exploitation and the denial of our rights, we will grow people with intellectual disabilities, to – of course up devoid of that sense of meaning and purpose, – lobbying for greater investment in preventative that sense of agency and optimism that is so vital to healthcare and mental health and social care, the psychological wellbeing. Society has promoted the psychological perspective. That’s why we need to keep talking to our political We’ve continued to press the Department of Health leaders about the psychology of mental health and and Department of Work and Pensions on the failings wellbeing. It’s also why it’s vital to remember that the of the Work Capability Assessment and the injustice fundamental building blocks of society are indeed, and harmful impact of benefits conditionality. We’ve fundamental. All human beings need our fundamental spoken out on issues as broad as human rights, child rights, we need a sound economy and an equitable abuse, funding of health and social care, social justice economy. We need protection and a secure start in and Brexit. life. We need education and decent employment, and On which point, we should be very concerned that one of the legislative consequences of Brexit is likely to we need protection and care when things are difficult and when we grow old. These fundamentals aren’t be the repeal of the Human Rights Act (a consequence additional to or alternative to psychology – they shape of the political fallout of Brexit as a phenomenon, not our psychology [see box]. a technical necessity). There will be much to be done A very personal example. When my brother over the next few years. Our vision of psychology emphasises the existential received a letter from Job Centre Plus telling him that he was to lose £120 a month in benefits, he was value and agency of human beings, individually understandably very worried. His anxiety meant and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve his sleep suffered, and he began to experience more their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity. distressing paranoia and hallucinations. Those are Running through our work has been an unwavering quintessentially psychological issues, but triggered by commitment to the scientific method and evidencethe impact of political decisions on vulnerable people. based policies. But we also have a responsibility to Psychology is action. And as Martin Luther King apply what we know; to use those insights and our said: ‘…there are some things in our society, some ingenuity to improve the lives of our fellow human things in our world, to which we… beings. must always be maladjusted if we Psychology is fundamentally “These fundamentals are to be people of good will. We about the things that really matter must never adjust ourselves to – relationships, optimism, a sense aren’t additional to or of meaning and purpose, personal alternative to psychology racial discrimination and racial segregation. We must never adjust agency. These are of course the – they shape our ourselves to religious bigotry. We core of what is now thought of must never adjust ourselves to as wellbeing: a key element of psychology” economic conditions that take government policy. Similarly, necessities from the many to give philosophical concepts – fairness, luxuries to the few. We must never adjust ourselves to respect, identity, equity, dignity and autonomy – the madness of militarism, and the self-defeating effects underpin our fundamental human rights and have of physical violence. … There comes a time when one clear links to psychology. must take a stand that is neither safe, nor politic, nor Indeed, we have to avoid the trap of popular. But one must take it because it is right.’ ‘psychologising’ issues – focusing all our attention on individual psychology, on what happens inside, rather than outside, people’s heads. I am and remain a proud Pride and frustration clinical psychologist. I am very proud of the work that The role of President of the British Psychological my colleagues – including nurses, psychiatrists and Society is explicitly a position of leadership. Not a others – do to address the psychological wellbeing of personal platform, but a responsibility to promote individuals. And I know, partly from my own work, psychology ‘pure and applied’. that how people learn to make sense of the world Members of the Society are well placed to help is vitally important – and something that we can protect the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens – influence. children; migrants; survivors of hate crimes, abuse But people learn to make sense of the world because of what happens to us. We grow up influenced and bullying; people with disabilities and people in receipt of state benefits; people living with dementia by our social circumstances, our peers at school, our and people experiencing challenges to their mental position in the world. If we grow up in circumstances health and psychological wellbeing. And, yes, this of abuse, poverty, racism, discrimination, neo-liberal

means going beyond the comfort zone of individual psychology and embracing the political agenda. I am proud of the campaigning work that British Psychological Society has undertaken on these issues so close to my heart. But it’s also been frustrating. Society, and the employment of skilled psychological To be entirely candid, the past year has been professionals. I am disappointed that I have been characterised by a shattering workload – leading unable to advance this approach as assertively as I a major professional body and holding down a would have wished, and I apologise to the members for twin career as a working university academic and a that failure. practising clinical psychologist is a difficult juggling act. It can become almost impossible when, as in my case, the Society is unable to offer employers any A discipline whose time has come recompense for the time dedicated to BPS activities. I But these are internal issues of ‘office politics’. We need am lucky that my employer has been understanding. to sort them out, but we also need to focus on the Sadly not all employers are able to be so generous, wider perspective. And in that respect, my principal and a number of my colleagues have unfortunately regret is that I should have been had to step down from significant bolder. I look to my colleagues in BPS roles where recompense “we need to move ‘Psychologists for Social Change’ as arrangements had been in place a model for what I (and the BPS) but were changed following much faster and more have been. I – we – should recent changes to charity law. I confidently towards a 21st- could have done more to condemn have to say, also, that I am left century approach” xenophobia and falsehoods, with profound emotions of anger, hate-filled political rhetoric, disappointment and frustration. increasing inequality, threats to I, like many colleagues, have been angered and infuriated by the apparent ineptitude social inclusion and humanitarian principles. We should have done more to encourage the engagement of the British Psychological Society. Some of this of scientists, social scientists and psychologists with frustration is technical. The Society is bound, not only political discussions, we should have engaged more by charity law, but also by its Rules, some of which assertively with threats to welfare and public services, date from 1901. We also need to remember our policy the Prevent agenda, with austerity politics, and with stance towards the ‘gig economy’, as well the fact that the every-day violation of fundamental human rights legal rulings on zero-hours contracts, for organisations in mental health care… such as Uber and JDSports – rightly – mean that, if And there is a huge hunger in the public for new we pay people in return for the services that they offer approaches – in my own area of mental health and the Society, especially if they are also members and psychological wellbeing, but also in the arenas of subscribers, we must follow the proper – and, in physical health, work and unemployment, in our fact, desirable – requirements of employment and benefits system, austerity policies – even Universal charity law. Basic Income – and how we approach crime and The inevitable tensions that have followed justice. I am frustrated that the British Psychological these developments have been distressing. I dislike Society so seldom seems able to take the initiative. conflict and this year has been a very painful one for All too often, I am afraid, we have been hamstrung me personally. However, I remain hopeful that we by diffidence… until after the event, and by a riskcan overcome the current problems and find a way averse approach to our work… forgetting, in my forward. opinion that our primary obligation as a charity is to In my opinion, the Society will need to make some serve the public. significant changes, not only procedurally but in our To return to where I started: psychology is a whole approach to undertaking activities. I think we discipline whose time has come. Not only as an still rely too much on an amateur ethos best suited academic subject, but also as a force for social change. to 1901 (the date of the Society’s foundation) than to The world needs psychology more than ever, to help 2017. With over 70,000 members and a significant understand our current political developments and public interest mandate, we need a professional and social challenges. And to offer practical, useful, tested, modern approach. That doesn’t mean forgetting that solutions. People want to hear what we have to say, we are an academic learned society, but it means and the British Psychological Society is – or should leaving behind the idea that our work can best be be – an organisation through which people can join conducted on a voluntary basis by semi-retired university professors on weekends and evenings. In my together, capitalising on our passion and sense of vocation, to harness the huge reserves of passion, opinion – and I have argued for this within the Society energy, knowledge, skill and commitment among – we need to move much faster and more confidently members in order to do good in the world, and towards a 21st-century approach to resourcing the vital activities undertaken by members on behalf of the make a difference.

BPS Textbooks in Psychology

The only series to be approved by the BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY

No other series bears the BPS seal of approval Refreshingly written to consider more than Northern American UHVHDUFK WKLV VHULHV LV WKH Â¾UVW WR JLYH D WUXO\ LQWHUQDWLRQDO SHUVSHFWLYH (YHU\ WLWOH IXOO\ FRPSOLHV ZLWK WKH %36 V\OODEXV LQ WKH WRSLF %HORZ LV D VHOHFWLRQ RI WLWOHV RQ RIIHU )RU WKH IXOO OLVW SOHDVH JR WR http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-324340.html

New

New Edition

Special discounts available for BPS members*

)RU IXUWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ JR WR www.psychsource.bps.org.uk

A lullaby for a frenetic world Pamela Jacobsen emerges well rested from sleeping with the ﬁshes

music Sleep Old Billingsgate, London

he most extraordinary thing was the waking. It happened all at once; sudden, yet somehow not jarring. I was instantly immersed in a wall of sound that vibrated through my body. The grey dawn had broken. All around me my fellow ‘sleepers’ had begun to stir. There was a sense of coming back together; a re-gathering after the night’s dreaming has scattered us far and wide. People ruffled their sleep-tousled hair; stretched, yawned, and began to sit up in bed. A sense of anticipation was building. I checked my watch – 6.58am. In two minutes’ time, the musicians on stage, the Max Richter ensemble, would have been playing us a lullaby for eight hours straight. You are not ordinarily actively encouraged to fall asleep during a concert. You are also not ordinarily encouraged to come ready-dressed in pyjamas, toting sleeping-bag and pillow. But then Max Richter’s Sleep is no ordinary composition. An overnight performance from the Wellcome Collection in 2015 broke records as the longest single continuous piece of music ever broadcast live on the BBC. Richter, a prolific and award-winning contemporary composer, described Sleep as a ‘lullaby for a frenetic world’. He consulted with neuroscientist David Eagleman in its conception; Richter was fascinated in what we know about sleep, its processes, purpose and structure. Sleep is perhaps the ultimate enigma – we know we have to sleep, but we still don’t really know why. Richter’s piece feels timely. There seem to be more threats than ever to a good night’s sleep in the modern world. Concerns about the impact of the use of electronic devices on our sleep are prevalent, in particular for children and adolescents. A large cross-sectional study in Germany, led by Karoline Lange, recently reported that adolescent boys who reported more than eight hours screen time a day were also more likely to report sleep difficulties. Causation is difficult to disentangle of course; it may be that poor sleepers use electronic devices more because they can’t sleep, rather than the other way round. As a mental health professional, I’m also aware of the high prevalence of sleep difficulties in people who use psychiatric services, and how these are sometimes overshadowed by a focus on other symptoms. There are signs of increased attention to the importance of sleep, however, even when insomnia is not the primary complaint that brings people into services. For example, Daniel Freeman and colleagues have shown in a 2015 Lancet Psychiatry paper that eight sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy for sleep improvement is effective in people with a schizophrenia-spectrum diagnosis. The Barbican were in charge of the production for Sleep, and had found a wonderful venue in the grand hall

of the former fish market at Old Billingsgate by the River Thames. I arrived excited but oddly apprehensive. I consider myself lucky in that I’m generally a good sleeper. However, like most people’s, my sleep is very sensitive to my emotional state, and I often don’t sleep well if I’m stressed or upset about something. What if I didn’t manage to sleep at all? What if a miserable night of self-inflicted insomnia might follow? As so often is the case, my night-time fears were unfounded. The production team had obviously put a great deal of thought into the arrangement of the camp beds, the temperature of the large hall, the soft purple lighting. I settled down comfortably with sleeping bag and pillow. I did wake several times in the night; but only briefly, gently drifting up and down through layers of consciousness. I woke in the morning with a sense of ease, as if the music had cocooned me safely all night. I was left thinking that Richter’s masterpiece is more than a lullaby; it’s also a love song, to that most soothing of all balms – a good night’s sleep. Reviewed by Dr Pamela Jacobsen, an NIHR Clinical Doctoral Fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London

the psychologist june 2017 culture

Understanding, not pathologising Pierre Teilhard de Chardin once said ‘We are spiritual beings having a human experience’, and this quote has always resonated with me. It prompted me to visit the Hearing Voices exhibition in Durham, where academics from history, anthropology, English literature, psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience have joined forces to understand the multiple facets of voice hearing. They also work with a movement formed by voice hearers that promote an awareness and understanding of voice hearing, moving beyond the psychiatric diagnosis. The exhibition included many works of art that showed the narrative of voice hearers. They were positive and negative; at times the voices were shown to act as a guide like an archangel on one’s shoulders. At other times they could be demonic, overwhelming and chaotic. The exhibition was accompanied by lectures and panel discussions, and I attended the talk titled ‘Voices, visions and divine inspiration’. I was particularly interested in this as someone of faith and from an African background; I have grown up in an environment where the belief in the supernatural is very strong. It isn’t uncommon to hear stories of people having audio-visual hallucinations, and they aren’t necessarily seen as psychotic in the same way it may be seen in a Western society. English professor Corinne Saunders spoke about medieval English women such as Margery Kempe and Julian of Norwich [see also ‘The medieval mind’, November 2016]. These women all had multisensory experiences hearing internal and external voices, the feeling of bodily invasion and seeing Jesus in human form. This suggests there has long been a link between hearing voices and a gaining a deep spiritual connection to the unseen world. I’m reminded of the masquerades that are present in most African traditional religions, with the worshipper’s soul moving out of this world and connecting with their ancestors. Rather than these voices being a hindrance they are described

as providing knowledge; even, at times, political advice and salvation (consider Joan of Arc, and Mother Teresa). The talk by clinical psychologist Isabel Clarke explained that it’s the dominant culture that determines what reality is. Voice hearing was accepted in Europe before the rise of secular thought, but as religion declined so did the acceptance of voices. Instead of having one rigid sense of self, Clarke proposed that it is fluid: some people float in and out of boundaries of self that most of us wouldn’t understand. However, voices can also be triggered by traumatic experiences that break the boundaries of self. One of the speakers, Satyin Taylor, had an episode of psychosis in his twenties and now co-facilitates the Spiritual Crisis Network. It was inspirational to see someone who made the transition from patient to professional using their inside knowledge to make a difference to people’s lives. When I asked him what to do when I come across someone that is hearing voices, his advice was to simply listen without judgement. He explained that at times a crisis can be a gateway for renewal or awakening that allows a person to examine their purpose in life and where they would like to be. This event was an enlightening experience for me; it went outside the box of the typical diagnosis and labelling protocol. Instead of pathologising voice hearing its aim was to understand it. I left with more questions than I had coming in, but that simply reflects the vastness of the human experience. Find out more at the exhibition website: http://hearingvoicesdu.org Reviewed by Kawthar Alli, a research assistant at NAViGO Health and Social Care

exhibition Hearing Voices: Suffering, Inspiration and the Everyday Palace Green Library, Durham

An immersive insight into autism spectrum disorder play The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time Theatre Royal, Nottingham (Director: Marianne Elliott)

Having read the original awardwinning novel by Mark Haddon several years ago as a psychology undergraduate, I was eager to see the stage adaptation as a more mature and experienced neuropsychologist. I attended the show at Theatre Royal in Nottingham in April with a friend of mine, Francesca Williams, a clinical psychologist in training at the University of Nottingham. Neither I nor Francesca knew what to expect and entered the theatre with open minds. From the very outset the play surprised me on multiple levels. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time is a mystery story with a twist, it follows a teenage boy with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as he struggles to deal with changes in his home life whilst simultaneously dealing with difﬁcult social interactions. The aspect of the play I was most impressed with was how immersive the cast made the experience. It is a great challenge to convey on stage

how certain social situations may be experienced by a character living with social-cognitive deﬁcits. Adapted for stage by Simon Stephens and directed by Marianne Elliott, both have done a remarkable job at expressing the distress the main character, Christopher, was experiencing throughout different scenes. The additional and impressive uses of physical theatre really added to the portrayal of feelings and the immersive nature of the performance. There was an equally impressive use of the quite simple set to create extremely effective scenes. (This did involve a large amount of loud noises and ﬂashing lights, which we don’t recall being warned about prior to the play beginning.) From the perspective of a psychologist, I feel that the stage adaptation of Haddon’s bestselling novel gives a general audience a rare chance to be immersed into the world of someone living with ASD, without being at all clinical

or academic in content. As with portrayals of any neurological deﬁcit or psychological disorder, it would have been easy to make the audience feel sorry for the main character or

It’s S-Town hands down podcast S-Town Serial Productions

The release of Serial in 2014 was a watershed event that brought podcasting to the attention of many, and proved that this young digital medium can deliver old-fashioned storytelling. After a hugely disappointing follow-up by the same team at This American Life, it seemed it would remain a one-off success. But their third outing, S-Town, is more than just a return to form. Whereas Serial took true crime and investigative journalism as its template, S-Town is inspired by literature. Like a novel, all seven ‘chapters’ were made available simultaneously. The listener is free to consume it in one sitting: I eked it out over days, not wanting it to end. S-Town is Shit Town, the name given to his hometown by the podcast’s protagonist, John B. McLemore. Shit Town is what he calls Woodstock, Alabama. John has been calling reporter Brian Reed in New York, telling him about a local murder that no one wants to investigate. There’s something about John’s passion and eloquence that snags Brian’s attention, and eventually he ﬁnds himself travelling to Alabama to investigate. That makes S-Town sound like another true crime series, but it most deﬁnitely is not. Instead, like a novel, we start to understand the motivations and beliefs of different characters, and what their behaviour says about them. S-Town also uses metaphors, which I’ve never heard before in a podcast. For example, John has built a maze

on his property, he restores antique clocks and he hates tattoos. It is startling how these facts from his life become metaphors for finding your way, the passing of time and the appearance of things. It’s difficult for me to say much more about S-Town, faced with editorial advice to ‘make it psychological’ and ‘no spoilers’. There’s a shocking revelation, knowledge of which must be avoided at all costs, as otherwise you will not experience its full emotional impact. Yet without knowing what that is, it’s impossible to say why S-Town is so interesting for psychologists and counsellors. At a more general level, S-Town is fascinating because it is set squarely in Trumpland – sheer coincidence, bearing in mind it took three years to put together. Reed and the production team never patronise any of the people they speak to, and it is not overtly political; but listening to their lives did help me understand why Trump ’won bigly’ in Southern states. Suffice to say, S-Town is hands-down the best podcast currently out there, and I can’t recommend it highly enough. For more details and to download go to https://stownpodcast.org Reviewed by Kate Johnstone, who is Associate Editor for Culture

the psychologist june 2017 culture

A powerful message

his on-stage family. However, the cast and crew manage to tell the story in such a light-hearted, but still emotional, way that the audience are left both educated and entertained. With the inclusion of several incidents of ‘breaking the fourth wall’, whereby the cast members engaged directly with the audience, there were plenty of opportunities for laughter in what could easily have been presented as a much more serious story. Overall, I found the stage experience of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time a totally different one to reading the novel. Perhaps due to narrative differences between print and live acting, I felt that the dialogue came across as much more angry in the play, which resulted in a more tense story and possibly a different outlook as to how the different characters experienced living with ASD. The play is on tour around Britain until mid-September – see www. curiousonstage.com/global. Also see www.thepsychologist.org.uk/ volume-27/edition-10/eye-ﬁctiongeneric-images-autism Reviewed by Stacey A. Bedwell, Lecturer in Psychology, Birmingham City University

Mental health and the LGBT+ community is the subject of a half-hour documentary made by a collaborative team based at King’s College London and produced by Sally Marlow (one of the associate editors for this section). Through a series of interviews, the ﬁlm explores a range of topics related to the mental health of a stigmatised community. Its great strength is the range of contributors: drawn from both KCL staff and students, the participants come from a range of sexualities, gender, race and generations. The latter can be overlooked: some of the experiences of student-aged LGBT+ people are inevitably different from those of the older participants, but it’s clear that prejudice is universal. Topics covered include issues around coming out, especially if growing up in a religious culture; bullying, internalised homophobia, structural stigma, microaggressions and unconscious biases. There’s recognition of the increased risk factors relating to mental health experienced by the LGBT+ community: for example, the dominance of the alcohol and drug culture for gay men. Participants talk candidly and often emotionally about their experiences. One man discusses seeking out violent partners and his subsequent failed suicide attempt; another, of the effect of the Orlando nightclub shooting in June 2016. There’s also discussion of the issue that, having struggled to come out, some people then feel reluctant to ask for support when faced with a mental health problem. Intersectionality is also touched upon, with white gay men in a privileged position compared with others in the community. This is a powerful and wide-ranging ﬁlm and essential viewing for anyone in the LGBT+ community, their families, friends and allies, and those who work in mental health. The team at King’s College London are to be thanked for creating this freely available, but invaluable resource.

ﬁlm Through the Rainbow Lens King’s College London

The ﬁlm is available at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=RVbx1O8bi8c Reviewed by Kate Johnstone, Associate Editor for Culture

Seeking refuge Home, which was first broadcast on BBC Three in April and then repeated on BBC One in May, offers a powerful, intriguing and unusual take on the ‘refugee crisis’. It differs from most representations of refugees because the aim of this short film is to challenge one of the main ideas about refugees, which is that they are somehow different from you and me. The film follows a very ordinary British family, with two small children, undergoing the perilous journey similar to that which many of the 65 million refugees in the world, and the millions that have recently fled Syria for the relative safety of Europe, have to undertake. While this family’s journey is in reverse (leaving the

tv Home BBC TV

UK for Kosovo), it is impossible not to feel for this family as they are forced to hand over their children to be hidden in the boot of people smugglers’ cars and later cross countryside with gunshots all around them. The empathy that this film generates for the family, which is no doubt the film-maker’s aim, is important because empathy for refugees has been shown to be so lacking in most representations of refugees. Home shows that anyone – terrifyingly including us – can become a refugee, and the refugees whose struggles we can see on the news are the struggles of ordinary people forced into extraordinary situations, simply doing their best to survive. What makes this film so powerful is the subverting of the standard ‘us and them’ distinction that is so often applied to refugees, showing that ‘they’ could easily be ‘us’ showing us, as Steve Reicher has argued elsewhere in The Psychologist, that refugees are simply people and that the category refugee itself can be problematic. This, in combination with the empathy for the family that their

terrible situation generates, serves as a reminder that the current ‘refugee crisis’ is not a European crisis, but it is a humanitarian crisis. Reviewed by Simon Goodman, who is at Coventry University

Left feeling empty ﬁlm Certain Women Kelly Reichardt (Writer and Director)

Find more ‘Culture’ online, including 13 Reasons Why; Who Cares? What’s the Point? podcast; BBC Horizon ‘Why Did I Go Mad?’; and more

Certain Women, written and directed by Kelly Reichardt, follows the stories of three women in provincial Montana, USA. Reichardt progresses each story at a measured pace, with a notable absence of dialogical drama, instead this is purposefully woven into lush backdrops and long shots of dramatic landscapes. The women in the film struggle to make themselves heard in their environments, and throughout the film there is reference to its Native American past. The film’s protagonists are all women. Laura Dern’s character, the lawyer Laura Wells, is introduced to us first, and as a workplace psychologist I found her struggles with her client and the portrayal of his micro-aggressions towards her absolutely fascinating. The client demands a second opinion from Laura’s male colleague, who gives the exact same information. As the client unquestioningly accepts it we see a classic scenario of ‘mansplaining’. There is poetic justice when later the client holds a security guard hostage, and the police contact Laura, not her colleague, to help negotiate. The power has shifted – the imprisoned client is now a source of pity for Laura, who takes him a McDonald’s meal. In the second story we are introduced to Gina, played by Michelle Williams, a wife and mother planning to build a new rural home. Her obsession with using only native materials for the build is symbolic of the lack of security in her marriage – her husband is having an affair with Laura – and undermines Gina by overindulging their teenage daughter. Powerless in her own family, she becomes determined to acquire sandstone from

the remains of an old Native American home, which is owned by an old family acquaintance, Albert, who appears to have dementia. She convinces him to sell her the sandstone, having it collected almost instantly. Gina has exploited someone more vulnerable in an attempt to escape her own feelings of exploitation by her husband, and this makes for uncomfortable viewing, plus Gina herself is left feeling empty. In the final story we meet Kristen Stewart’s character, Beth, a law graduate with a punishing commute to teach an adult continuation course on Educational Law. Life improves when she meets a nameless Native American ranch hand, and they develop seemingly the only pure and connected relationship in the film, based on a mutual recognition of loneliness. The nameless ranch hand tends to livestock over the winter months while pining for human interaction and connection. Power is at play again here – Beth abruptly resigns from her post, but does not say goodbye to her new friend, who seeks her out. The isolated nameless rancher is the one we are left thinking of as the film closes, with her craving for human interaction in some ways a distillation of the isolation felt by the other women in the film. There are many elements to this film, from being a female in a male-dominated environment, to references to the Native American history, to the basic need for human interaction. It was a shame that the film portrayed only two roles for women in America – lawyers or homemakers. More importantly, by focusing on the stories of the three white women, the opportunity to explore intersectionality was lost. Perhaps by leaving the ranch hand nameless Reichardt was trying to address the invisibility of women of colour, but if so, it got lost in the rest of the narrative. Reviewed by Sabina Khanom, who is a Workplace Psychologist, King’s College London

To check the latest jobs please go to www.jobsinpsychology.co.uk To discuss the opportunities for advertising and promotion in The Psychologist, www.jobsinpsychology.co.uk and Research Digest, please contact Kai Theriault on 01223 378 051 or email kai.theriault@cpl.co.uk.

the

psychologist

AZ to

...is for Fear

Karla Novak

Suggested by Cassie Graves, who is studying psychology at the University of East London. Twitter: @MsCGraves ‘I chose fear because I love how varied our reactions can be; how our bodies react chemically and ultimately physically, how those reactions can differ from person to person, is a marvel to me.’

At a British Psychological Society supported event at last year’s Cheltenham Literature Festival, explorer Ranulph Fiennes discussed his book Fear: Our Ultimate Challenge. He claimed to see fear as a useful emotion, but panic as very much the enemy – this is when we make mistakes. In his fascinating July 2009 ‘Looking back’ article, John Waller described how fear and anguish were the common denominators of dancing plagues and possession crises of the 14th century.

Psychologist Daniel Freeman has described paranoia – fuelled by

coming soon… faces in the wild; slowness; chairwork; and much more...

disproportionate media coverage of the dangers we face from others – as ‘the 21st-century fear’. A 2016 study led by Ai Koizumi and reported on our Research Digest blog suggested that neurofeedback can be used to unlearn a fear by pairing relevant non-conscious neural activity with a reward, such as money. Fear affects our vision: a 2015 study led by Maria Lojowska and reported on the Research Digest found that when we’re afraid, we perceive some aspects of the world more clearly, but at the cost of ignoring much of the detail.

A to Z Tweet your suggestions for any letter to @psychmag using the hashtag #PsychAtoZ or email the editor on jon.sutton@ bps.org.uk

contribute... reach 50,000 colleagues, with something to suit all. See www.thepsychologist.org.uk/ contribute or talk to the editor, Dr Jon Sutton, jon.sutton@bps.org.uk, +44 116 252 9573 comment... email the editor, the Leicester ofﬁce, or tweet @psychmag to advertise... reach a large and professional audience at bargain rates: see details on inside front cover

Search for more on this topic and any other via www.bps.org.uk/thepsychologist and www.bps.org.uk/digest

Find out more online at www.bps.org.uk

President Nicola Gale President Elect Professor Kate Bullen Vice President Professor Peter Kinderman Honorary General Secretary Dr Carole Allan Honorary Treasurer Professor Ray Miller Chair, Membership and Standards Board Dr Mark Forshaw Chair, Education and Public Engagement Board Vacant Chair, Research Board Professor Daryl O’Connor Chair, Professional Practice Board Alison Clarke

society notices

society vacancies

London & Home Counties Branch Symposium on Identity, London, 29 June 2016 See p.20 Psychology4Students and Psychology4Graduates events See p.28 Psychology in the Pub (South West of England Branch) Exeter, 28 June 2017 See p.34 BPS Annual Conference Nottingham, 2–4 May 2017 See p.35 Division of Occupational Psychology Annual Conference Stratford-upon-Avon, 10–12 January 2018 See p.41 Community Psychology Festival Bristol, 15–16 September See p.43 BPS conferences and events See p.49 BPS/POST Postgraduate Awards See p.55 CPD workshops 2017 See p.77

Chair of the Education and Public Engagement Board See p.55 Autism Task & Finish Group – Chair and Members See p.87

The Society has offices in Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow and London, as well as the main office in Leicester. All enquiries should be addressed to the Leicester office (see inside front cover for address).

The British Psychological Society was founded in 1901, and incorporated by Royal Charter in 1965. Its object is ‘to promote the advancement and diffusion of a knowledge of psychology pure and applied and especially to promote the efﬁciency and usefulness of Members of the Society by setting up a high standard of professional education and knowledge’. Extract from The Charter