Pathology of Motivation and Genetic Hopefulness - Assignment Example

Biоlоgiсаl Рsyсhоlоgy Еssаy Name Institutional affiliation Date Biоlоgiсаl Рsyсhоlоgy Introduction The biological perspective on human behavior focuses on whether behaviors are influenced by genetic and physiological factors. Investigations in this field of psychology emphasize possible links between DNA, behavior and mental processes. So far, much of the evidence linking genetics to behavioral traits is from twin studies because twins have similar DNA. Available results from these studies suggest that certain behavioral traits and disorders have genetic components, implying that there are aspects of human behavior that are influenced by genetics. Although most of these findings are published in scientific journals, they also appear in the mainstream media. This paper will describe and explain how biological determinants of human behavior are represented in the popular pres. Presentation of the Biological Determinants of Behavior in the Popular Press Numerous scientific studies have been conducted to determine the representation of scientific findings in the popular press. According to Kaplan (2013), the media is an important facilitator of public discourses about scientific discoveries and findings. It is through the media that the public gets to know about old, new and pending scientific discoveries (Dougherty, 2009). Across the world, the media is an important stakeholder in the dissemination of scientific knowledge. It provides an interface for dialogue between the research community and the outside world. One of the most important roles that the media plays in dissemination of scientific findings is the framing of information. This refers to the process of culling major elements of scientific finding and developing a narrative to advance a particular interpretation of the reality (Shostak et al, 2009). Often, this framing includes journalistic conventions, by which the media presents any scientific issue as having two. Thus, the issue of the biological determinants of behavior is often depicted as a two sided issue in the media. For example, in the article below, the author has given the two-dimensional to analyze the relationship between and criminal behaviors. Figure 1 Source: New York Times According to Conrad (2011), the media has a tendency to oversimplify scientific findings. When covering the topic of generic research, the media commonly adopts an optimistic stance as shown in the article below from the New York Times. In this stance, the media reports as if any breakthrough in genetic research will be of some immediate benefit to the human race and that these findings were long overdue. This is to be expected because it is common for the media to use language that resonates with the expectations of the public. Hence, the media considers cultural themes to represent scientific findings in a manner that is in accordance with the expectations of the audience. In this case, the optimistic stance resonates with the audience’s expectation of faith in scientific research (Flint, Greenspan & Kendler, 2010). Figure 2 Source: New York Times A study by Kaplan (2013) showed that no matter how the media depicts scientific findings, it will certainly influence the public’s perception of responses to the findings, and in the case of behavioral issues, therapies. Indeed, the media has made numerous attempts to raise hopes that understanding the link between biology and behavioral traits will lead to improved practices in the management of personality disorders and related behavioral problems. Thus, more and advanced researches in the field of behavioral genetics are welcomed by the public because the media has made it clear that these findings can be beneficial. Dougherty (2009) found that although the media plays an important role in informing the public about latest developments in psychobiological sciences, it (the media) creates unwarranted sensationalism, which can cause unnecessary panic or excitement among the public. Sensationalism in reporting of scientific findings occurs when the media makes extravagant interpretations about the findings. For example, the first article below causes sensationalism by speculating that genes linked to Alzheimer may affect the mental development of children. Figure 3 Source: Los Angeles Times The problem of sensationalism, according to Dougherty (2009) results from differences in the styles of communication in journalism and in science. Regardless of the exact cause of sensationalism in the media reporting of scientific findings, this manner of reporting can hinder the public from being adequately informed about the significance of the scientific findings. For example, distorted reporting of the relationship between genetics and addictive behaviors may lead drug addicts into making wrong inferences about their problems (Kaplan, 2013). A similar study by Condit (2007) found that contents of news articles about behavioral genetics can be interpreted as having a valuable basis for investigating the influence of genetic knowledge on human beings. It has been established that the media attributes certain behaviors to genetic causes, which creates an impression among the public that biological factors play a major role in influencing behaviors. Conversely, where the media does not draw any links between genetics and behavioral traits, the public rarely thinks of genetics as the cause of the behavior (Chalaby, 1996). Moreover, most people tend to be confident about their understanding of the relationship between genetics and behaviors if that relationship is covered extensively in the media. Brechman, Chui-joo and Joseph (2009) found that in most cases, the public draws incorrect and baseless inferences from new media articles about behavioral generics. This tendency can go against the objective of publishing scientific findings, which is to educate the public and improve understanding of biological concepts. Despite the media raising hopes of establishing the biological basis of behaviors, research has shown that media articles covering biological cause of behaviors are more likely to propose pharmaceutical interventions than behavioral therapies. For example, Bize et al (2009), found that media presentation of addictive behaviors as the cause of behavioral diseases such as diabetes and high cholesterol lead patients to focusing on pharmaceutical treatments instead of managing the underlying behaviors. This shows that the discourses and epistemological devices employed by the media in reporting about the subject of psychobiology ultimately and implicitly shape the solutions adopted in addressing the behaviors (Barrett & Turner, 2006). Studies have also shown that most reports on biological determinants of behavior capture the public’s attention because they are overpromising. This means that they attempt to explain complicated research findings and, in the case of behavioral genetics, end up speculating without any meaningful explanation as to whether the findings will result in new ways to deal with the behaviors. Thus, the media can have a tremendous influence on people’s understanding of behaviors and the therapeutic choices they make (Goldman, Gabor & Francesca, 2005). Is reductionism alive and well in the description of biological determinants of behavior? I agree with the statement that reductionism is alive and well when it comes to describing biological determinants of behavior. In psychology, reductionism is the practice of condensing a set of complex ideas into their basic components (Powell & Dupré, 2009). Majority of reductionist theories are based on the assumption that new knowledge in any discipline can be broken down into its basic constituent parts. A review of the manner in which media articles depict the biological link as a possible explanation of behavioral traits indicates that rationalism is alive in the media. According to Morange (2006), the popular press employs the tactic of reductionism when describing complex psychological phenomenon because of the conception that these phenomenon can be explained in simplistic terms. Although not necessarily harmful, reductionism can be problematic if it ignores important variables in the theorized subject. However, it can be useful if it can help the public to understand sophisticated subjects in simple terms (Mazzocchi, 2010). There are several examples that illustrate the use of reductionism by the media when describing the relationship between behavior and biology. The most common example of this relates to physiological reductionism, in which the media attempts to explain psychological behaviors in terms of simple physiological factors and processes. Here, the media may state that certain behavioral disorders are caused by excessive secretion of hormones. Although this assertion may bear some truth, it ignores the fact that personality disorders are a complex phenomenon and can possibly have a multitude of causal factors (Traill, 2015). Another example of reductionism in the media is when the press uses the evolutionary approach to explain psychological processes such as behaviors. For instance, the media may use evolutionary reductionism to explain aggressive behaviors, arguing that this increases chances of survival. The media may also use evolutionary reductionism to explain phobic behaviors in individuals (Tygart, 2000). In the article below, the media used used evolutionary reductionism to refute claims that transgender behaviors are not a mental illness. Figure 4 Source: Los Angeles Times Similarly, the article below also uses evolutionary reductionism to explain behavioral differences between men and women. Figure 5 Source: Los Angeles Times In cognitive reductionism, the media tries to compare the human mind with machines and computer. The implication here is that behaviors are a result of information processing in the brain. As an example, the media can use cognitive reductionism to explain the causes of anorexia in terms of thought about the physical environment and food. Studies have shown that anorexic people exhibit strange behaviors by overestimating their body sizes. This clearly shows that they irrationally process information, which leads to incorrect inferences (Malley & Dupré, 2005). A major shortcoming of the reductionist approach in describing biological determinants of behavior is that the contraction creates indifference towards uncovering complex explanations (Bauchau, 2006). Therefore, when the media describes a psychological phenomenon in terms of reductionism, the public is denied an opportunity to appreciate sophisticated explanations of behavior. Often, this leads to the dangerous skewing of public discourses towards what the media depicts as basic truths, and the neglect of explanations that are most likely to help people understand behavioral processes (Furnham & Boo, 2011). According to Parrott, Silk and Condit (2003), most reductionist approaches of explaining human behavior are flawed because psychological processes can rarely be explained in terms of simple factors. Essentially, several factors including environmental and social modeling converge to influence the development of behavioral traits. Thus, it can be said that reductionism does not have any major appeal with regard to the explanation of human behaviors because it does not consider all aspects of a subject matter based on underlying scientific theorems. As Flint, Greenspan & Kendler (2010) explain, human beings exhibit extreme levels of complexity that cannot be explained adequately in terms of behavior. The media fails to consider this complexity when using the reductionist approach to describe human behaviors (Schaffner, 2002). Would people live more fulfilling lives if they knew about the psychobiological underpinnings of behavior? Behavior-related disorders are one of the most important public health issues in the world today. According to Gelder and Geddes (2005), people with behavioral disorders seek the services of psychologists. These include adults and children with mental health problems and children experiencing problems at school. Some of these people have particular mental or emotional health problems such as schizophrenia and depression. These problems cause them to exhibit strange behaviors like social withdrawal and cognitive distress. For these people, researches about psychobiological basis of behavior can enable psychologists to give proper treatment, which will make the patient’s lives better. It is likely that with scientific evidence, a psychologist will consider what research says about the causes and what should be done to help. This means that with advanced knowledge in psychobiological sciences, there will be great improvements in the treatment of behavior related disorders (Guttmacher & Francis, 2005). According to Smerecnik (2010), knowing more about the psychobiological underpinnings of behavior can help people lead happier lives because they get to understand how the mind and body work in harmony. This knowledge can be crucial when making decisions about behavior management and in avoiding stressful situations in life. It can also help in setting and achieving life goals, time management and living comfortably, all of which enhance the likelihood of positive behaviors. A study by Teo (2005) found that major breakthroughs in psychobiological sciences not only allow people to live more fulfilling lives but can also impact people’s health by aiding in drug development and diagnosis of diseases. This is especially important in the field of mental health research. Psychobiological findings can also help people develop good behaviors that can enhance social relationships. By exploring possibility of biological factors as causes of behaviors, psychobiological studies help people to live with others who suffer from mental disorders and extreme behaviors (Kalivas & Nora, 2005). It also helps people to improve communication through enhanced understanding of how the mind processes thoughts. For those not suffering from any behavioral disorders, psychobiology can help in understanding more about one-self and variations in individual personalities. This way, people can appreciate their own behavioral weaknesses and build on them to lead more meaningful lives (Forgas, Kipling & Simon, 2005). According to Panofsky (2014), psychobiological knowledge can help people to understand and appreciate basic scientific and psychological principles in life. This can in turn lead to improved critical thinking and interpersonal relationships. In the workplace, for instance, psychobiological principles focus on understanding various aspects of mental and human dynamics that influence job performance, teamwork and interpersonal skills (Carlsten & Wylie, 2006). This means that understanding psychobiological principles can help in creating an efficient workplace. In general, psychobiology is an important discipline because it helps people to understand and predict mental processes, behaviors and emotions. Therefore, people would live more fulfilling and happier lives if they knew more about the psychobiological cause of behavior (Johnson, Penke & Spinath, 2011). Conclusion Findings from the field of psychobiological researches often appear and are discussed widely in the press. Although scientific journals present reliable narrations of these findings, the press interprets this information in ways that might not necessarily be accurate. As explained above, the media uses reductionist theories to break down complex scientific findings into their basic constituent parts so as to resonate well with the public expectations in scientific discoveries. This misrepresentation of scientific findings may go against the purpose of science, which is to educate and inform the public in a more systematic manner. To ensure that psychobiological findings are understood correctly by the public, it is necessary to focus on other avenues for public education apart from the media. This way, people will make more informed choices and lead happier lives. References Barrett, A. & Turner, J. (2006). Family Structure and Substance Use Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Examining Explanations for the Relationship. Addiction, 101 (1), 109-20. Bauchau, V. (2006). Emergence and reductionism: from the game of life to science of life. London, UK: Springer. Bize, R., Bernard, B., Yolanda, M., Myriam, R. & Jaques, C. (2009). Biomedical Risk Assessment as an Aid for Smoking Cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, 1-29. Brechman, J., Chui-joo, L. & Joseph, N. C. (2009). ‘Lost in Translation? A Comparison of Cancer-genetics Reporting in the Press Release and its Subsequent Coverage in the Press. Science Communication, 30 (4): 453-74. Carey, P. (2012). Thinking Clearly About Personality Disorders. New York Times. Accessed 9 September, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/health/clearing-the-fog-around-personality-disorders.html?_r=0 Carlsten, C., & Wylie, B. (2006). Potential for Genetics to Promote Public Health: Genetics Research on Smoking Suggests Caution about Expectations. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296 (20), 2480-82. Chalaby, J. (1996). Beyond the Prison-house of Language: Discourse as a Sociological Concept. British Journal of Sociology, 47 (4): 684-98. Cohen, P. (2009). Genetic Basis for Crime: A New Look. New York Times. Accessed 9 September, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/arts/genetics-and-crime-at-institute-of-justice-conference.html Condit, C. M. (2007). How Geneticists Can Help Reporters Get their Story Right. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8 (10): 815-20. Conrad, P. (2001). Genetic Optimism: Framing Genes and Mental Illness in the News. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25 (2), 225-247. Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85: 6–12. Flint, J., Greenspan, R. J. & Kendler, K. S. (2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forgas, J., Kipling, D. & Simon, M. L. (2005). Social Motivation: Conscious and Unconscious Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Furnham, A. & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40: 35–42. Gelder, M. & Geddes, N. (2005). Psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Goldman, D., Gabor, O. & Francesca, D. (2005). The Genetics of Addictions: Uncovering the Genes. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6 (7): 521-32. Guttmacher, A. & Francis, S. C. (2005). Realizing the Promise of Genomics in Biomedical Research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 (11), 1399-402. Johnson, W., Penke, L. & Spinath, F. (2011). Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not. European Journal of Personality, 25 (4): 287–294. Kalivas, P., & Nora, D. V. (2005). The Neural Basis of Addiction: A Pathology of Motivation and Choice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162 (8), 1403-13. Kaplan, J. M. (2013). The Limits and Lies of Human Genetic Research: Dangers for Social Policy. London: Routledge Karen, K. (2016). Brain changes wrought by gene linked to Alzheimer’s may begin in childhood, scientists say. Los Angeles Times. Accessed 9 September, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-alzheimers-gene-children-20160713-snap-story.html Lang, N. (2016). Being transgender isn’t a mental illness. What’s sick is a society that treats it that way. Los Angeles Times. Accessed 9 September, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-transgender-mental-illness-20160628-snap-story.html Malley, M. A. & Dupré, J. (2005). Fundamental issues in systems biology, Bioessays 27, 1270–1276. Mazzocchi, F. (2010). Complementarity in biology. A reassessment in relation to molecular-reductionist and systemic approaches. EMBO reports 11, 339–44. Mohan, G. (2013). Brains of women and men show strong hard-wired differences. Los Angeles Times. Accessed 9 September, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-brain-gender-divide-20131202-story.html Morange, M. (2006). Post-genomics, between reduction and emergence. Synthese, 151, 355-360. Panofsky, A. (2014). Misbehaving Science. Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parrott, R. L., Silk, K. J. & Condit, C. (2003). Diversity in lay perceptions of the sources of human traits: Genes, environments, and personal behaviors. Social Science and Medicine 56, 1099–1109. Powell, A. & Dupré, J. (2009). From molecules to systems: the importance of looking both ways. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40: 55–64. Schaffner, K. F. (2002). Reductionism, complexity and molecular medicine: genetic chips and the ‗globalization‘ of the genome. Chichester: Wiley. Shostak, S., Freese, J., Link, B. G. & Phelan, J. C. (2009). The politics of the gene: Social status and beliefs about genetics for individual outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72: 77–93. Smerecnik, C. M. (2010). Lay responses to health messages about the genetic risk factors for salt sensitivity: Do mass media genetic health messages result in genetic determinism? Psychology, Health and Medicine 15, 386–393. Teo, T. (2005). The Critique of Psychology: From Kant to Postcolonial Theory. New York: Springer. Traill, R. R. (2015). Reductionist Models of Mind and Matter: But how valid is reductionism anyhow? Melbourne: Ondwelle. Tygart, C. (2000). Genetic causation attribution and public support of gay rights. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 259–275. Read More

Dougherty (2009) found that although the media plays an important role in informing the public about latest developments in psychobiological sciences, it (the media) creates unwarranted sensationalism, which can cause unnecessary panic or excitement among the public. Sensationalism in reporting of scientific findings occurs when the media makes extravagant interpretations about the findings. For example, the first article below causes sensationalism by speculating that genes linked to Alzheimer may affect the mental development of children.

Figure 3 Source: Los Angeles Times The problem of sensationalism, according to Dougherty (2009) results from differences in the styles of communication in journalism and in science. Regardless of the exact cause of sensationalism in the media reporting of scientific findings, this manner of reporting can hinder the public from being adequately informed about the significance of the scientific findings. For example, distorted reporting of the relationship between genetics and addictive behaviors may lead drug addicts into making wrong inferences about their problems (Kaplan, 2013).

A similar study by Condit (2007) found that contents of news articles about behavioral genetics can be interpreted as having a valuable basis for investigating the influence of genetic knowledge on human beings. It has been established that the media attributes certain behaviors to genetic causes, which creates an impression among the public that biological factors play a major role in influencing behaviors. Conversely, where the media does not draw any links between genetics and behavioral traits, the public rarely thinks of genetics as the cause of the behavior (Chalaby, 1996).

Moreover, most people tend to be confident about their understanding of the relationship between genetics and behaviors if that relationship is covered extensively in the media. Brechman, Chui-joo and Joseph (2009) found that in most cases, the public draws incorrect and baseless inferences from new media articles about behavioral generics. This tendency can go against the objective of publishing scientific findings, which is to educate the public and improve understanding of biological concepts.

Despite the media raising hopes of establishing the biological basis of behaviors, research has shown that media articles covering biological cause of behaviors are more likely to propose pharmaceutical interventions than behavioral therapies. For example, Bize et al (2009), found that media presentation of addictive behaviors as the cause of behavioral diseases such as diabetes and high cholesterol lead patients to focusing on pharmaceutical treatments instead of managing the underlying behaviors.

This shows that the discourses and epistemological devices employed by the media in reporting about the subject of psychobiology ultimately and implicitly shape the solutions adopted in addressing the behaviors (Barrett & Turner, 2006). Studies have also shown that most reports on biological determinants of behavior capture the public’s attention because they are overpromising. This means that they attempt to explain complicated research findings and, in the case of behavioral genetics, end up speculating without any meaningful explanation as to whether the findings will result in new ways to deal with the behaviors.

Thus, the media can have a tremendous influence on people’s understanding of behaviors and the therapeutic choices they make (Goldman, Gabor & Francesca, 2005). Is reductionism alive and well in the description of biological determinants of behavior? I agree with the statement that reductionism is alive and well when it comes to describing biological determinants of behavior. In psychology, reductionism is the practice of condensing a set of complex ideas into their basic components (Powell & Dupré, 2009).

Majority of reductionist theories are based on the assumption that new knowledge in any discipline can be broken down into its basic constituent parts.

Read More