Intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs in a large percentage of young adult relationships. Several factors increase the likelihood of IPV, including low socioeconomic status, living in urban communities, drug and alcohol use, witnessing or experiencing familial or domestic violence, and younger age. It has also been theorized that many relationships that experience IPV also have a component of reciprocity. In other words, many victims of IPV may also perpetrate violence against their partners. And although it has been shown that more women are victims of IPV resulting in physical injury than men, it is unclear whether or not women perpetrate a large portion of retaliatory or reciprocal aggression in violent relationships.

To get a better idea of the rates of bidirectional IPV, Niki Palmetto of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York recently conducted a study based on self-reports from 618 young adult women in committed relationships. She looked at history of violence, victimization, and perpetration. Over one third of the women reported having experienced at least one episode of IPV, with 12% reporting only perpetrator violence, 3% reporting being the victim only, and 19% reporting bidirectional violence. This means that nearly one in five women in this study report being both the victim and perpetrator of violence in their relationships. Factors that increased risk for bidirectional status included history of childhood sexual abuse, exposure to family IPV, younger age, and longer relationship duration.

Palmetto also found that African-American women and those who had more than two previous pregnancies were most likely to report bidirectional violence. She believes that pregnancies can present a threat to both partners, thus increasing the risk for violence. Also, Palmetto theorizes that African-American women who contribute to the financial well-being of their families may have less tolerance for victimization and may be more prone to retaliating with aggression when they are victimized. This dynamic would directly increase the rate of bidirectionality among this segment of women. Palmetto also points out that this study was based on self-reports from a nondiverse sample of women. She hopes future research extends these findings by studying women of varying ages, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Until then, Palmetto feels her findings contribute significantly to this area of research. She said, “We believe this study to be a critical step in the examination of bidirectional violence within adolescent and young adult dating relationships.”

Reference:
Palmetto, Niki, et al. (2013). Predictors of physical intimate partner violence in the lives of young women: Victimization, perpetration, and bidirectional violence. Violence and Victims 28.1 (2013): 103-21. ProQuest. Web.

Several years ago, sex advice columnist Dan Savage coined the term “monogamish” to refer to long-term committed relationships that bend the rules of monogamy with the consent of both parties. Since that time, he has published thousands of letters from people in monogamish relationships, thanking him for giving them permission to try an arrangement that works better for them.

Last year, Showtime began airing a reality show called Polyamory: Married and Dating, which takes a close look at the lives of polyamorous people. Polyamory is the practice of loving more than one person at a time. The show stars a polyamorous triad—three people in a committed, long-term relationship—and a polyamorous married couple who have serious committed relationships with people outside of their marriage.

Both Savage and the participants in the Showtime series have experienced some backlash for their advocacy of nontraditional relationships. But when nonmonogamous relationships are loving and consensual, participants in them believe they can strengthen marriages, serve individual needs, and increase intimacy. Unfortunately, people in these relationships often face immense stigma and even legal problems propelled by myths about nontraditional relationships.

Myth 1: Nonmonogamous relationships are a free-for-all.

People who cheat on their spouse are, technically speaking, not in a monogamous relationship. But when nonmonogamy is entered into openly and on a long-term basis, all partners typically obey a variety of rules. In Showtime’s show, the polyamorous triad navigates the consequences of one member breaking the rules, and the result is increased communication. Nonmonogamous relationships don’t work without rules, and often the discussion and renegotiation of these rules can contribute to deeper intimacy.

Myth 2: Nonmonogamy is an excuse to cheat.

By definition, nonmonogamy means that people don’t have sex with only one other partner. But this does not necessarily mean they can have sex with anyone. Successful nonmonogamous couples establish strong rules about what is and is not cheating, and frequently have veto power over who their partners sleep with. While it’s certainly possible for one partner to be pressured into nonmonogamy, these relationships generally don’t work unless both partners enter into the relationship willingly and lovingly.

Myth 3: Nonmonogamy is bad for children.

With the divorce rate in the United States hovering around 50% and the number of single parents rapidly increasing, most children see their parents involved in multiple romantic relationships over a lifetime. So long as children have consistency in their caregivers and are not subjected to an endless parade of people to whom they become attached and who then leave, nonmonogamy is not harmful. Nonmonogamy, after all, does not mean an abandonment of all social mores and norms, and nonmonogamous parents are just as capable of keeping their sex lives private as monogamous parents.

Myth 4: Nonmonogamy harms women.

Well-publicized cases of polygamy abuse are often the first things people think of when they consider nonmonogamous relationships. But modern nonmonogamous relationships are consensual for all parties. In these arrangements, it’s not just men who get to sleep with other people. Given that more women than men report being bisexual, nonmonogamy can provide a healthy sexual outlet for bisexual women who might not otherwise have such an outlet.

Myth 5: Nonmonogamy harms marriages.

Many people involved in monogamish relationships have been married for decades. When one partner’s desire wanes, nonmonogamy can provide a sexual outlet that sustains the marriage. Because nonmonogamy must be carefully negotiated and constantly reevaluated, these arrangements can bring married couples closer together and encourage open, honest dialogue. Sleeping with other people also does not have to compromise the marital bond. Married couples sometimes have sex with friends periodically while still sustaining their primary commitment to their spouses.

References:

1. Polyamory. (n.d.). Alternatives to Marriage Project. Retrieved from http://www.unmarried.org/polyamory.html
2. Savage, D. (n.d.). Monogamish couples share their stories. Washington City Paper. Retrieved from http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/42014/savage-love-monogamish-couples-share-their-stories/

Ask any armchair psychologist whether men or women are more sexual, and you’ll likely get an absolute proclamation that men are more visual, think about sex more often, and have more partners. These “facts” play into cultural mythology, that ties manhood to sexuality, and treats women as the fairer, less sexual sex. But research is increasingly showing that the things we all think we know about men and sex just aren’t true.

[fat_widget_right]

Thinking About Sex

Many of us have heard the claim that men think about sex every seven seconds or every 15 seconds. But this statistic may be little more than a myth. A 2011 study found that men think about sex, on average, only 18 times a day—several thousand times less frequently than popular statistics claim. In fact, men think about sex only slightly more than they think about sleep, which crosses their mind 11 times a day, and as frequently as food, which also makes an appearance in their thoughts 18 times a day. But, according to the study, men still tend to think about sex more frequently than women. The women in the study thought about sex about 10 times a day, with individual numbers ranging from zero to 140 times daily. Individual men, by contrast, thought about sex between zero and 388 times each day.

Number of Sexual Partners

Men tend to claim more sexual partners than women, but upon careful examination, statistics on the lifetime average number of partners fall apart. Unless more men than women are gay or are having sex with a few of the same very sexually active women who aren’t represented in surveys, the averages for men and women can’t differ so dramatically. Several studies have shown that men are more likely to inflate their number of partners, while women are more likely to shave a few off the top.

Desire for Adventure

One famous study asked men and women if they’d be willing to sleep with an attractive stranger. A large portion of men said yes, while few of the women did. This study is often used to support the idea that men crave multiple sexual partners or new sexual experiences. But studies that ask men their desires don’t measure actual behavior. Men may say that they’re willing to sleep with an attractive stranger simply because this is the cultural expectation. Women may be hesitant to say that they’d have sex with a stranger because they don’t want to be perceived as promiscuous.

Are Men More Visual?

We’ve all heard that men are more visual than women, and this is used as justification for everything from looking at porn to ogling strangers. While most research does show that men are more visually stimulated than women, the interpretation of this data is much more complicated than it seems. One 2008 study, for example, emphasizes that sociological factors play a strong role in men’s visual stimulation. Men are taught from an early age to emphasize physical appearance, and the same study found that men tend to be more aroused by contexts in which they can objectify another person—a tendency that is probably learned.

Sex and Masculinity

Myths about men’s sexuality tend to stick around because they make sense in light of social roles and gender ideology. Although women are becoming increasingly sexually assertive, sexuality in women is still less acceptable than men, and women are often taught to feel some shame about sex; this can affect what they report to researchers and whether they share sexual thoughts. Sex-based myths can make women feel that sexual feelings are deviant and abnormal, and can support puritanical ideas about women and sex. But men are also harmed. Men who don’t meet masculine ideals by being hypersexual or craving multiple partners can feel less manly, while men who want a healthy sexual relationship with a single partner may feel pressure to engage in promiscuous or objectifying behavior.

References:

1. Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Kolata, G. (2007, August 12). The myth, the math, the sex. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html
3. Men more willing to have sex with stranger than females: Study. (2011, September 04). Indian Express. Retrieved from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/men-more-willing-to-have-sex-with-stranger-than-females-study/841459
4. Men think about sex just 19 times a day – nearly as much as food. (2011, November 29). The Telegraph. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8924988/Men-think-about-sex-just-19-times-a-day-nearly-as-much-as-food.html
5. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex Differences in Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli: A Review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 206-218. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9217-9

In a highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey, famed cyclist Lance Armstrong has finally come clean about the allegations of doping that have haunted him for much of his unparalleled career. Armstrong, who in August 2012 was stripped of his record seven Tour de France victories and banned from competitive cycling due to mounting evidence of performance-enhancing drug use, is just one in a long line of athletes—most notably baseball players—who have either confessed to using performance enhancers or whose images have been tarnished by credible allegations of doping.

It’s no secret that many athletes will go to any length for a competitive edge, but performance-enhancing drugs carry numerous health risks, including baldness, impotence, infertility, addiction, psychiatric issues, hypertension, liver problems, and numerous other issues.

In a world where athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs always seem to get caught, often with disastrous consequences for their careers, what would compel an athlete to risk not only his or her health but livelihood as well?

Perfectionism and Pressure to Perform
Competitive sports can be cutthroat. Fans, coaches, and sponsors have high expectations for athletes, and hold in high regard records and never-been-done-before, seemingly superhuman feats. These expectations are frequently unrealistic, but can place considerable pressure on athletes. People in the upper echelons of athletics are often perfectionists to begin with; after all, it’s not easy to make it to the top. These perfectionist tendencies can make performance-enhancing drugs seem not only justified, but necessary.

Particularly when the competition uses performance-enhancing drugs, a dedicated athlete might feel like he or she has no choice. If the competition has an unfair advantage, taking drugs may seem less like cheating and more like leveling the playing field.

Peer Pressure
Particularly as more and more athletes admit to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, it can seem like sport is full of doping. Athletes may experience peer pressure from friends, teammates, and coaches, who may suggest that they can’t keep up with their competitors if they don’t use drugs. Peer pressure can also come in indirect ways. When athletes are criticized by peers, they might feel like their only hope for improvement can come in a vial or pill. Coaches, teammates, and even physicians or trainers may be complicit in doping.

Financial Issues
Not all athletes are wealthy. Particularly among Olympic athletes, financial gain often comes in the form of sponsorships, not from the sport or league. Many athletes spend years paying coaches, trainers, and gyms, and may get deep in debt covering the costs of developing into one of the best at what they do. Athletes are much more likely to get cushy sponsorship deals and contracts when they break records or win competitions. Particularly when an athlete knows or believes that other successful people in his or her field are using performance-enhancing drugs, they might seem like the most attractive or likely way to get out of debt and into financial security.

Secrecy
Although many athletes are regularly drug-tested, dopers try to stay one step ahead of the science. Many athletes have devised novel ways to avoid being caught, and in a high-stakes world, it’s easy to believe you can outsmart the testing mechanisms. Indeed, many athletes have managed to do just that for years, so the risk might seem worth it to an athlete under immense pressure.

References:

1. Oprah: Lance Armstrong confesses. (2013, January 16). ESPN. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8845599/oprah-winfrey-confirms-lance-armstrong-admitted-doping
2. Performance-enhancing drugs: Know the risks. (2012, December 12). Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/performance-enhancing-drugs/HQ01105
3. Shermer, M. (2008, March 31). The doping dilemma. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma
4. Shermer, M. (2009, September 07). Why athletes dope. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/why-athletes-dope_b_278861.html

It is not unusual for people to come to therapy with feelings of confusion about what they want, think, and/or feel. I find that many grew up in families in which one or both parents involved themselves in their children’s lives in ways that interfered with the development of separate, individual thoughts and feelings. Most of these parents were well-intentioned. Their intrusion into their child’s life typically came from a need to protect the child from painful feelings or to assure that the child’s behavior and choices were the “right” ones. As a consequence, these children grew up relying on their parents to define not only what they should feel or how they should behave, but ultimately their identity: who they are as individuals. As adults, these children spend a lot of time in their heads worrying about the choices they make, how they are seen in the world, if they upset their parents by having separate ideas, if they did the right thing, etc. They become confused when the thoughts they have about themselves are different from what they know their parents believe. “What is true and real about me?” becomes the question that these patients bring to therapy.

“Sam” came to see me filled with anxiety. He didn’t know if he should continue in a relationship that was becoming serious. “I think I’m in love with Kara,” he said. “We have a really good time together, and she is very good to me. But then I get confused: Do I really want to spend my life with her? My father thinks she isn’t a good match for me. She’s Italian, and I’m German. I never really thought about things like that, but my father thinks that the cultural differences are too much. He also thinks that Kara’s family is very different than ours and that will be a problem when we have a family.” Sam continued to describe his uncertainty about how he felt and what he should do. I asked him if he thought he would be less unclear about Kara if his father approved. It was striking to me that this question seemed to startle Sam. It hadn’t occurred to him that his father’s opinion about what was good for him had such a profound influence.

Sam agreed to begin therapy, and we began to explore how he thought about himself and how he determined what he wanted and needed. It soon became apparent to both of us that Sam’s father had always played a big role in characterizing who Sam was. Sam recalled that he wanted to take guitar lessons when he was about 10. His parents bought him a guitar, and he liked strumming it and learning to play, but he had trouble with dexterity and was not developing into a very good player. After about six months, his father told him, “You’re not very musical. You should find a different hobby. You should try chess; you would be good at that.” Sam recalled: “Even though I enjoyed playing and fooling around on the guitar, I stopped the lessons. My father started to teach me chess. I did get pretty good at it and joined a chess club in middle school. My father always says with great pride how he knew I would love it because I’m such a rational and logical person, that chess is perfect for me.” Sam paused and thought a minute and said, “It’s funny, I never thought about this before. I think of myself as a logical guy, but then I never know what to make of all the feelings that seem to boil up in me. My parents don’t see me as emotional.” Sam paused again, seemed deep in thought, and then sadly said, “Wow, I guess I hide that part of myself from them. They don’t really like emotions.”

As Sam and I continued to talk, he became increasingly upset as he began to discover that much of what he thought about the kind of person he was mirrored his father’s view of him. He also began to realize that there was a judgmental attitude when his father told him what he thought. For example, his father still believed that Kara was not for him. His father had explained, “You’re not someone who can deal with opinionated people. She is too aggressive for you.” Instead of becoming confused and wondering if his father’s idea was true, Sam began to consider his own experience. He was learning to ask himself what was happening in his internal life and to study what went on externally. He thought about Kara and her opinions and realized that many of her ideas were different from those of his parents. But he also saw that she was flexible and, in fact, he often agreed with her. As he was more able to focus on himself and create some space apart from his father’s influence, he could consider how he felt. He didn’t feel conflict with an opinionated Kara. Rather, he was becoming aware that he disagreed with his father. This was not an awareness that he allowed himself to experience very often. It made him anxious, but now he second-guessed his experience less, and he was beginning to make space for his separate feelings and ideas to emerge.

Sam and I still have work to do. He is working on his relationship with Kara. As he develops the ability to know what he wants and feels, he is more able to express himself to Kara and that relationship is getting stronger. Sam continues to work on individuating from his father. After 30 years of relying on him to define and characterize who Sam is, it takes time to develop confidence in his own thoughts and feelings. There is still anxiety for Sam when he asserts his newly found voice with his father. Sam has recognized that his father’s judgmental tone has made it difficult for him to feel that his own perspectives are valid. His memory of his father telling him, “I’m your father and I know what you like and what is best for you” no longer feels just about his father’s love and concern. Sam is beginning to understand that his father is anxious, too, and that it is his anxiety that drives him to try to control Sam and to believe that he knows what’s right. Hopefully, as Sam’s sense of identity becomes more solid, he will be able to negotiate the relationship with his father so there will be room for multiple thoughts, feelings, and perspectives.

Well-intentioned parents who are critical and controlling may promote their child’s reliance on them to determine and define what is good and acceptable about the child. When a loving parent is so certain that he or she knows what is right for the child and does not consider that the child may have valid, different ideas about what he or she wants, needs, and feels, there is no space and no invitation for the child to develop the ability to express his or her own self with separate ideas, feelings, and needs. Over time, as the child grows to adulthood and is exposed to more ways of thinking about things, there is typically a good deal of confusion about identity, thoughts, and feelings. Unless there is an opportunity to develop a separate sense of self, there will likely be a lot of anxious thinking about what is real but little ability to think for oneself in a self-reflective way.

According to a recent study led by Tara M. Chaplin of the Department of Psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine, boys and girls have very different emotional tendencies, but these fluctuate depending on age and context. In her study, Chaplin reviewed data from over 21,000 participants from over 160 separate studies focusing on emotional expression from birth to adolescence. Chaplin looked at internalizing and externalizing emotions as well as positive and negative expressions. The study revealed some interesting and novel results. Chaplin said, “Our findings suggest that there are small but significant gender differences in emotion expressions, with larger gender differences emerging at certain ages and in certain contexts.” She found that in infancy, the boys and girls exhibited similar emotional displays. However, as the children aged, significant differences emerged.

Specifically, Chaplin found that the girls internalized their emotions more than the boys, but they also displayed more positive emotions. For instance, the girls had higher rates of anxiety and sadness than the boys, but outwardly expressed more cheerfulness and joy. The boys, on the other hand, were more likely to exhibit anger and aggression than the girls. But these variances were only evident when the children were in the presence of strangers. When they were with their parents, the children expressed a wide range of emotions, making the gender differences virtually non-existent. Chaplin believes that children may feel more comfortable with parents and may feel free to express all of their emotions. In social settings, children may feel the need to conform and therefore may not freely express their true emotions, leading to internalizing behaviors.

Although these emotional differences were very noticeable during the toddler and elementary school ages, they were less apparent as the children matured. For instance, externalizing behaviors diminished in the boys and increased in the girls, almost to the point of being equal. Two other findings revealed concerning patterns. The adolescent girls had higher levels of shame than the boys. Because shame and guilt have been shown to be a factor in several psychological problems, including depression, self-harm, and disordered eating, this should be a key point of focus for educators and clinicians working with teen girls. Also, boys felt more joy than girls when they were provided the opportunity to taunt or tease another individual. This is disturbing too because this could increase the risk for these boys to engage in bullying and aggressive behavior. Because the trajectory of emotional expression changes as children mature, and because it is heavily influenced by family environment, social factors, and other external conditions, children will display a wide range of emotions as they develop. However, Chaplin believes it is also important to be able to identify which expressions are normal and which are signs of concern.

Reference:
Chaplin, T. M., and Aldao, A. (2012). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0030737

Women have many roles. They are sisters, friends, daughters, mothers, and wives. And most women are employed in some capacity, with or without pay. Whether they work at home—raising children and running the house—or they enter the workforce as an employee, most women work. For young women, the transition from student to worker can be challenging. Equally difficult can be the reentry into the workforce for women who return to a job after having stayed home to raise children. How a woman approaches these transitions can affect not only her success in this pursuit, but also her self-esteem and well-being.

David Weiss of the Department of Psychology at the University of Zurich in Switzerland looked at two specific factors in women’s work-related aspirations. First, he looked at how openness influenced the experience. Second, he gauged how women’s gender ideology affected outcome. Weiss conducted a study that followed 61 young women as they left high school and began careers. He then looked at more than 800 women’s transitions from school or parenthood to work. Weiss found that the women who were lower in openness embraced traditional female gender roles, while those with more openness embraced nontraditional gender roles.

Those women who were more open demonstrated high levels of self-efficacy and well-being. Women who were less open fared poorly when they tried to step out into nontraditional female roles. “Taken together, the present research suggests that endorsing an ideology that provides strong behavioral guidelines can help women low in openness to master the challenges of a developmental transition,” Weiss said. He added that for women who approach career choices with an open mind, working within the confines of traditional gender expectations can have negative effects on self-esteem, well-being, and overall work-related success.

Reference:
Weiss, David, Alexandra M. Freund, and Bettina S. Wiese. Mastering developmental transitions in young and middle adulthood: The interplay of openness to experience and traditional gender ideology on women’s self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Developmental Psychology 48.6 (2012): 1774-784. Print.

Some people become emotionally overwhelmed when they see or hold a small baby. They develop a longing to have a baby, even when they may already have children. In popular culture, this phenomenon is known as “baby fever.” This type of event can happen to virtually anyone. However, it seems to affect only certain people, while others appear to be immune. The curious nature of “baby fever” was of interest to Gary L. Brase at the Department of Psychology at Kansas State University, so he decided to conduct a series of studies to determine if there were biological causes for the phenomenon and why it occurs.

Brase recruited 853 nonstudent young adults and 337 college students and measured their desire for a baby, if this desire differed by gender, and how it related to sexual desire, emotions, and experience with other children. After an exhaustive examination, Brase found evidence for the existence of “baby fever.” “Three factors strongly and consistently underlie desire for a baby: Positive Exposure, Negative Exposure, and Tradeoffs,” Brase wrote. One contributing factor that led to “baby fever” was positive experience with children. Individuals who had bad experiences with children were less likely to develop “baby fever” than those who had only good experiences. Trade-offs also played a major role. Participants who were comfortable with trading time, intimacy, financial resources, and energy for a baby were at increased risk of “baby fever” when compared to those who were less willing to trade those commodities.

Although Brase discovered that the desire for a baby was present in men and women alike, it was more evident in the women. He also noted that desire for sex was quite different than the desire for a baby for both sexes. Despite the fact sex leads to babies, the reproductive/sexual desire is independent from the desire to nurture and parent. The results of this study clearly show that “baby fever” is a unique occurrence unrelated to sexual motivation and cultural expectations, but future research should look further at the psychological origins.

Reference:
Brase, Gary L., and Sandra L. Brase. Emotional regulation of fertility decision making: What is the nature and structure of “baby fever”? Emotion 12.5 (2012): 1141-154. Print.

The average age of sexual initiation is roughly between 16 and 19. Although some teens wait until much later, many begin engaging in sexual behavior before the age of 15. Numerous studies have looked at the negative consequences associated with early sexual initiation, such as emotional problems, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy, and intimate partner violence. But recently, researchers at the University of Texas looked at how sexual-initiation age could benefit people later in life. In a study led by Paige Harden, 1,659 sibling pairs were evaluated from middle adolescence through young adulthood. They were asked when they began having sexual intercourse, how many partners they had, and, if they were in current relationships, how happy they were.

Harden found that the participants who were in satisfying, committed relationships in adulthood were those that started having sex in their late teens or early twenties. These individuals reported less relationship conflict and more respect, affection, and love for their partners than the participants who had earlier sexual-initiation ages. Harden tested this outcome further by including factors such as physical appearance, body mass index, and education and came up with the same results. She believes that people who begin sexual activity after they have reached physical and cognitive maturity may make better partner decisions and be more discriminating in their choices. They may also have stronger communication skills that can benefit their overall relationship.

The results of this study don’t suggest that earlier sexual initiation can increase negative outcomes. Rather, these findings demonstrate that being a late bloomer can act as a protective factor. “We still don’t understand precisely why delaying sexual intercourse is correlated with more satisfied adult relationships,” Harden said. She hopes that future research will look at the flip side of her study, and in particular if early sexual activity among teens decreases their chances of having satisfying, positive relationships in adulthood.

Reference:
Ochsner, David. Does true love wait? Age of first sexual experience predicts romantic outcomes in adulthood. (n.d.): n. pag. The University of Texas at Austin. 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/10/18/does-true-love-wait-age-of-first-sexual-experience-predicts-romantic-outcomes-in-adulthood/

People who are discriminated against cope with that discrimination in various ways. Although some cope adaptively and use strategies that are constructive and empowering when they are faced with adversity, others turn to maladaptive coping mechanisms. One such mechanism is the use and abuse of alcohol and drugs. Racial discrimination has been shown to be related to increased drug and alcohol use, but has not been proven to be the cause of the increase. So why is it that some people use alcohol and drugs to cope while others do not? Meg Gerrard of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire wanted to explore this question further. In a recent study, Gerrard looked at whether people used drugs/alcohol as a method of coping consistent with their habitual coping strategies, or if they believed that substance use would decrease their feelings of stress and negativity stemming from the discrimination.

Gerrard conducted three separate studies designed to elicit feelings of discrimination among a sample of African-American adolescents. In her third study, she followed the level of substance use for eight years to determine the long-term influence of the discrimination-use relationship. She found that the participants who felt that substance use was an acceptable way to cope with problems were more likely to use drugs/alcohol when they felt discriminated against than those who did not endorse substance use. Over time, the results revealed that those who did support substance use as a method of coping continued to use drugs/alcohol throughout adolescence and into early adulthood, while those who never supported this belief did not. These findings suggest that adopting substance-use behaviors early on can lead to long-term maladaptive coping strategies for some individuals.

The findings from this study were gathered only from African-American participants. Future work should look at the coping-discrimination dynamic among other minority individuals, as evidence exists that prejudice and discrimination increases stress across all ethnicities. Gerrard noted that one domain that was not examined in her study was the effect of parental support. When parents teach their children how to handle stressful situations prior to their occurrence, children have a better chance of dealing with challenges such as discrimination in productive and adaptive ways rather than trying to relieve the stress with drugs or alcohol. Research should explore the buffering effects that family and parental support can have on this segment of the population. Until then, these studies demonstrate that acceptance of maladaptive coping strategies can increase negative behavior in people facing discrimination. “The current studies also provide evidence that use-as-coping is not caused by discrimination—instead, it increases the relation between discrimination and subsequent substance use,” Gerrard said.

Reference:
Gerrard, Meg, Michelle L. Stock, Megan E. Roberts, Frederick X. Gibbons, Ross E. O’Hara, Chih-Yuan Weng, and Thomas A. Wills. Coping with racial discrimination: The role of substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 26.3 (2012): 550-60. Print.

Marriages aren’t like fine wines. They are not harvested in vineyards and they do not always get better with age. However, many marriages far exceed any expiration date. According to a recent article by Matt Richtel, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and columnist, modern marriages—which divorce at rates upward of 50%—may benefit from an exit strategy after, say, five, 10, or 20 years. Richtel said that many marriage contracts already exist. Prenuptial agreements are rampant among the wealthy, some couples who live together make paperless commitments to each other, and many celebrities and politicians have legalized business/marriage agreements. In fact, the idea of contractual marriage has been picked up in Mexico, where lawmakers recently introduced the idea of renewable marriages. Good idea or bad, the law didn’t pass.

But should it have? Should the institution of marriage be updated to keep pace with other cultural advances in areas such as medicine and technology? This was the question that Richtel asked several marriage therapists, psychologists, and divorce attorneys. The responses were varied. Author and professor Pepper Schwartz commented that marriage has been getting picked apart for decades and needs to be fully examined. Today’s marriages have less connection to religion and family, which creates a weaker support system, and modern technology encourages people to expect instant gratification from marriage. Schwartz said something like a 20-year marriage contract is an option, and that nuptial contracts including dowries and financial arrangements are not new.

Dr. Robert E. Emery, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, says the problem with marriage is the expectation of longevity that it comes with. Children of divorced parents bear the immediate emotional devastation of losing one parent, or having their family rhythm disrupted. If the possibility of divorce was anticipated, and marriages were not supposed to last past a certain point, it would be more culturally acceptable and emotionally tolerable. Emery says the best way to approach marriage is to understand that it is not a union filled with unlimited sex with someone who is beyond perfect, but rather an investment of every available resource that can reap emotional, sexual, and physical rewards. “There are good reasons to be romantic about marriage,” Emery said. “The big benefit of marriage is precisely the commitment over the long term.”

Reference:
Richtel, Matt. Till death, or 20 years, do us part. (n.d.): n. pag. The New York Times. 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/fashion/marriage-seen-through-a-contract-lens.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Sports generally are viewed as harmless pursuits, a source of social interaction and bonding, exercise, and stress relief. But in recent years, highly publicized incidents of fan violence have raised concerns about the culture surrounding sports. The vicious 2011 beating attack on Bryan Stow at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles is just one such example. Alcohol-fueled fights and skirmishes are increasingly common at all levels of competition, from playgrounds to professional leagues. Most people who have attended a sporting event have witnessed at least one example of an out-of-control fan.

What’s behind this surge in violence? The problem may not be the nature of sports themselves, but rather the way society treats sports in conjunction with personal factors. A closer look at some factors that may contribute to fan violence:

Overidentification

For many sports fans, their teams of choice become a proxy for their own identities. Overidentifying personally with a favorite team may be a contributing factor to sports violence. A person who watches a favorite team lose, or witnesses an unfavorable referee call, may behave as if he or she has personally suffered. The advent of Facebook and other social media, as well as message boards and other gathering places for fans, may make it difficult to disengage from favorite teams or let go of bad memories. These platforms also provide more access to inflammatory views from rival teams’ fans, fueling deep feelings of loyalty, protectiveness, and anger that boil to the surface amid the emotional current of a live game.

Alcohol

Alcohol plays a significant role in many fan altercations. At National Football League games in 2011, more than 7,000 fans were ejected for inappropriate or violent behavior. Some fans spend all morning and afternoon tailgating and drinking with friends before watching the event and then celebrating—or grieving—afterward. People often are intoxicated before even entering a venue. The feelings of deep loyalty and anger that many fans feel can be exacerbated by alcohol consumption.

Hypermasculine Culture

Despite years of progress toward gender equality, many men feel pressured to meet expectations of traditionally masculine behavior. Sports can be a significant platform for masculine identity, and people who identify with hypermasculine culture may be more likely to attend sports events. Combined with adrenaline, overidentification, and ready access to fans with opposing allegiances, some men may be inclined to be violent when exposed to triggers. Likewise, women in hypermasculine environments that promote disrespectful or violent behavior may also be more inclined to engage in it.

Sociological Factors

Certain people are at a greater risk of engaging in violent behavior. People who have experienced a recent stress such as job loss, the death of a loved one, or a perceived humiliation are already on edge and more likely to react emotionally. Many people attend sporting events to alleviate stress. However, when a favored team loses, a person is heckled, or a person loses a significant bet associated with a game’s outcome, stress may explode into rage.

Group Dynamics

Millions of people attend sporting events every year, and the vast majority never commit a violent act. When 100,000 people pack a stadium, though, the odds are high that a number of them are under the influence of alcohol. Combine this with an emotional, hypermasculine environment and exposure to opposing sentiment, and you’ve created a recipe for fan violence. Proactive measures such as reporting inappropriate behavior immediately, limiting alcohol intake, and actively encouraging sportsmanship among peer groups, can help address an increasingly challenging threat to our enjoyment of sporting events.

References:

1. Aguirre, B. E. (2008). Sports fan violence in North America. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 37(2), 157-158. doi: 10.1177/009430610803700235
2. Associated Press. (2012, May 31). Witnesses describe violent scene. ESPN. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7991565/witnesses-depict-violent-scene-bryan-stow-beating
3. Handwerk, B. (n.d.). Sports riots: The psychology of fan mayhem. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0620_050620_sportsriots.html