A New Book with a New Approach to the Investigation of the Paranormal

[An ESP experiment] “immediately appeals to his [or her] unconscious readiness to witness a miracle, and to the hope, latent in all [people], that such a thing may yet be possible. Primitive superstition lies just below the surface of even the most tough-minded individuals, and it is precisely those who most fight…”

C.G. Jung, 1952.

It is of natural science to investigate nature, impartially and without prejudice.

J.R. Smythies, 1967.

Anomaly

something that defies explanation – adds spice. Beyond spice, anomaly offers hope, the hope that something – whatever it may be – exists beyond the everyday. We humans live in hope eternally. But what exactly is an ‘anomaly’? I do not mean the kind of oddness or peculiarity in human behaviour that is everywhere to be seen. I am referring to things that really should not be so, the weird, the spooky, the face in the mirror that isn’t you. Anomalistic experiences are curious, strange, ‘funny peculiar’. As we engage with the experience itself, we freely ruminate and craving to understand, we dig to discover something new. The goal here is to do precisely that, to dig below the surface of anomalistic experience, to take a close look at the psychology of the paranormal, to put psi ‘under the microscope’. One should not be surprised if all is not as it seems and we can expect surprises aplenty here.

I approached the writing of this book with anticipation

wondering where the adventure might lead. I hoped it would lead towards new insights, explanatory theory and nuggets of new knowledge.

In the end, I reached an altogether unexpected conclusion…

How, you may well ask, can that be? Surely, an ‘expert’ about psychology and the paranormal should already have reached an opinion one way or the other, a strong point of view?

Not so.

I genuinely have no idea where this new investigation will lead.I write as a zetetic.[1] I have a map and a set of place names[2], but what exists at each place is uncertain. I last visited this field 20 years ago. Now, with ‘new eyes’ and new evidence, one’s understanding could be significantly different compared to 20 years ago. Unlike previous visits, I am giving the psi hypothesis an initial probability of being a real, authentic and valid experience of 50%.

Please take a minute to consider your own current degree of belief in ESP. Indicate your current belief with an arrow on the Belief Barometer below.[3]

My objective

is to cut a path through the vast, tangled jungle of publications with a machete that is sharp and decisive. With each new claim, one must reads, reflect, question, reflect some more, and ultimately decide at one particular moment the degree of plausibility that each specific claim possesses. Belief Barometers will be used to mark your and my degree of belief for each individual claim. The amount of variation in one’s degree of belief indicates a sensitivity to evidence. If somebody simply says ‘0%’’ or ‘100%’ to absolutely everything, that surely indicates intransigence and intolerance of ambiguity.

One cannot profess definite explanations in advance because that would be blinkered. If we already KNEW the answers, we would cease to investigate, I would not be writing, and you would not be reading. The truth would already be out and we would be picking at the flesh of dead learning like vultures at a dead elephant.

No true zetetic starts from a fixed position. She/he suspends judgement while seeking and exploring with an open mind. In any science, all ideas are provisional, pending further investigation. Those who assert a fixed point of view before looking at the evidence break the ‘Golden Rule of Science’, which is to let conclusions follow the evidence.

Anomalistic psychology

includes the entire spectrum of conscious experience in all of its glorious splendour. By examining in-depth the evidence both pro and con any particular claim, one gains an entitlement to offer conclusions. Even then, the conclusions are tentative, pending further investigation by independent investigators. I am also minded to recall Heraclitus’ well-known dictum, “You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on.” Having stepped into the paranormal river on a few occasions, it was each time a different river.

It is impossible here to include everything in Anomalistic Psychology. The selected exemplify phenomena that have received significant attention from researchers over the last 50 years. Fun though they may be: Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Clever Hans, mediums, Ouija boards, and stage mentalists didn’t make the cut. See them in the ‘red tops’ and on YouTube.

Returning to the world of psi

after a 20-year respite, I am curious to see what has changed. Anomalistic Psychology is now the battle-ground of psi (Luke, 2011) and there is a growing stockpile of sophisticated methods and findings that can be considered to be supportive of paranormal interpretation.

My return to the field is not without some amount of trepidation, for now I risk being the target for pot-shots from both sides!

However, a strongly partisan view is unhelpful to making any progress in this, or any other part, of science. Progress requires a dialogue between advocates of differing positions. I wish to put down a marker that says: “Peace. Nobody won. Stop fighting.” That’s not to say there won’t be criticism; there must be, otherwise there can never be progress.

To establish a dialogue, ***I invited seven stars of the field to respond to my criticisms and questions: Daryl Bem, Susan Blackmore, Stanley Krippner, Dean Radin, Hal Puthoff, Rupert Sheldrake, and Adrian Parker. Warm thanks to one and all***.

Evidence, critique, new theories

In this book, I present evidence, critique, and new theories. Whenever possible, I use verbatim quotations of advocates concerning specific claims. Nobody can ever legitimately say that a claim has been ‘disproved’; if the truth of a claim is undecided, it is only possible to say that it is neither confirmed nor disconfirmed.

Whatever one thinks, the world is always independent of how we might wish it to be. There is nothing wrong about believing in psi if one chooses to, and scientists have no place disparaging such beliefs. Belief in the paranormal is normal.

Sociologist Andrew Greeley (1991) put it this way:

“The paranormal is normal. Psychic and mystic experiences are frequent even in modern urban industrial society. The majority of the population has had some such experience, a substantial minority has had more than just an occasional experience, and a respectable proportion of the population has such experiences frequently. Any phenomenon with incidence as widespread as the paranormal deserves more careful and intensive research than it has received up to now….People who have paranormal experiences, even frequent such experiences, are not kooks. They are not sick, they are not deviants, they are not social misfits, they are not schizophrenics. In fact, they may be more emotionally healthy than those who do not have such experiences.” (Greeley 1975: 7)

Scientists should be agnostic about the ontological status of paranormal experience and examine the circumstances that constrain or facilitate exceptional experiences. In approaching each claim, I maintain a zetetic viewpoint, neither believing nor disbelieving, attending to the evidence. Only after one has completed a thorough survey of evidence is one entitled to an informed opinion. A zetetic must not be naïve, however.

Master zetetic, Marcello Truzzi (1987):

“The ground rules of science are conservative, and in so far as these place the burden of proof on the claimants and require stronger evidence the more extraordinary the claim, they are not neutral. But, we also need to remember, evidence always varies by degree, and inadequate evidence requires a tolerant reply which requests better evidence, not a dogmatic denial that behaves as though inadequate evidence were no evidence” (p. 73).

Astronomer, Carl Sagan (1995) also offers wise advice:

“It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble.If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” (Sagan, 1995, p 25).

The first 20 years of the 21^st century

brought many astonishing scientific discoveries: the first draft of the Human Genome, graphene, grid cells in the brain, the first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cells, the Higgs boson, liquid water on Mars and gravitational waves. Not bad going in such a short time! During this same period, Anomalistic Psychology has grown at an enormous pace with increased numbers of investigators and publications (Figure P2). Disappointingly, however, new discoveries or theories are few and far between. If there has been one discovery, it might be stated thus: The science of anomalistic experience is more complex and obscure then most psychologists ever imagined. When we are at the beginning of new venture like this, we must not be deterred by having no real answer to two of the hardest questions in science: What is consciousness and what is it for? [5]

One of the greatest scientific minds of the last century, Stephen Hawking, stated:

“Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations” (Sample, 2011).

It has also been said that advances in science come not from empiricism but from new theories.

Parapsychology, like its ‘big sister’ Psychology, has always been heavily empirical and short on theory. The rapid growth is indexed by multitudes of empirical studies in the absence of notable theoretical developments.

By becoming more theory-driven, the field of ‘Psychology + Parapsychology’ as an integrated whole seems likely to make faster progress.

It seems counterproductive to treat Parapsychology and Psychology as separate fields.

Bringing the ‘Para’ part back into mainstream Psychology helps to integrate the discipline. This book takes a step in that direction. Parapsychology and Psychology contain myriads of variables, A,B,C…N…X,Y,Z. An established strategy for developing new research in Psychology and Parapsychology is for the investigator to identity ‘gaps’ in the field and to set about filling those gaps with correlational and experimental studies with almost every possible permutation and combination of variables. The gap filling approach is one strategy for keeping productivity high but, often, it is at the expense of developing new theories. As already noted, the academic world is based on quantitative measures of performance[6] and the number of publications a researcher can claim matters. This drive towards publications leads to what I call ‘Polyfilla Science’.

Polyfilla Science

For every ‘hole’ investigators can fill, they are almost guaranteed a peer-reviewed publication. ‘Polyfilla Science’ exists on an industrial scale, keeping hundreds of thousands of scientists busily occupied in hot competition. The ‘winners’ of the Polyfilla competition are the ones who tick the highest number of boxes and harvest the most citations.[7]

‘Polyfilla Science’ can be represented as a multidimensional matrix of cells where the task of science is viewed as filling every last cell in the matrix (Figure P3). This method of doing science is more akin to a fairground shooting gallery than to theory-driven science. In the absence of theory, many researchers use a Polyfilla ‘shotgun’ by testing a dozen or more “hypotheses” in one shot. Popular though it is, ‘Polyfilla Science’ isn’t the only game in town, and a theory-driven approach is also available. Theory is used to identify the principles behind questions that need answering in a process of confirmation and disconfirmation of predictions. When one considers the fact that there are one hundred thousand psychology majors in the US alone, all needing a research project, it is no wonder the Polyfilla approach is so popular.[8]

The book is geared towards the needs of teachers, researchers and students interested in Anomalistic Experience, Parapsychology and Consciousness Studies.

In comparison to the scientific discoveries in other fields, Psychology or Parapsychology have made no world-changing discoveries in the last 50 years. By this, I mean discoveries that are worth telling your grandchildren. In my opinion, the lack of significant theoretical developments, and the Polyfilla Approach, are two of the main reasons for this lack of progress. All this needs to change.

Avoiding the drunkard’s search

One must beware – and avoid – the drunkard’s search principle – searching only where it is easiest to look. You probably already know the parable:

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his wallet and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost it here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost it in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is”.

We must look wherever psi could be found, not only where it is easiest to look.

The search for psi is a complex, winding trail of traps and pitfalls. When we observe evidence, we must not, a priori, rule it out as subjective validation or confirmation bias. An openness to being wrong may cause uncomfortable feelings, but knowledge and truth are never givens. When we are lucky enough to discover something new, this is hard-won treasure.

I present here new theories in the spirit of open inquiry. There’s a saying that ‘today’s theories make tomorrow’s fish-n-chip paper’. Possibly, probably, these theories are wrong. So be it. If possible, falsify my theories, throw them out, and develop better ones. By testing and falsifying existing theories, newer, better theories can be obtained and so on indefinitely. As I share thoughts and conclusions, the reader will be able to contest and challenge and contrary evidence.

We’ve walked on the Moon and are heading to Mars, but we still don’t yet know the function of consciousness. One of the starting points must be to separate fact from fiction in anomalistic psychology.

Notes

[1] Zetetic from the Greek zçtçtikos, from zçteô [ζητέω (zéteó) — to seek] “to seek to proceed by inquiry”.

[2] [2] Tópos, the Greek name for “place” (τόπος); ‘topic’ in English.

[3] Belief Barometers appear throughout this book.

[4] The majority of so-called ‘skeptics’ are disbelievers and/or deniers who have adopted the label ‘skeptic’ for its more temperate connotations. The late Marcello Truzzi was one of two co-founding chairman of the leading US skeptical organisation CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). Truzzi became disillusioned with the organization, saying they “tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion… Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them.” Using the title of ‘skeptic’, Truzzi claimed that this association of debunkers could claim an authority to which they were not entitled: “critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves ‘skeptics’ are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.” Genuine or ‘classical’ skepticism is the zetetic view to suspend judgement and enter into a genuine inquiry that assumes any claim requires justification. Maintaining a zetetic position of open inquiry requires a steady hand and a critical mind. There is no room for naivety but a touch of Socratic irony may at times be helpful. A protracted correspondence between Martin Gardner and Marcello Truzzi , indicating their two contrasting viewpoints, has been published by Richards (2017).

[5] Nagel (2013) and Strawson (2006), among others, argue for the ancient philosophy of pan-psychism, in which all physical objects from atoms to the cosmos all have conscious experience. Elsewhere, I have described Consciousness as “a direct emergent property of cerebral activity” (Marks, 2019)..

[6] Numbers of publications, citations, grant monies, prizes, promotions and awards.

[7] One of the world’s most published and ambitious ‘Polyfilla’ psychologists told me a self-effacing story about the occasion he went for an interview at the University of Oxford. A member of the panel asked: “Dr X, you have a huge number of publications. But what does it all mean?” He didn’t know the answer and got rejected for the post.

[8] Polycell Multi-Purpose Polyfilla Ready Mixed, 1 Kg, i#1 best seller on Amazon.co.uk, 16 May 2019.

[9] The history of the field is adequately reviewed by others e.g. John Beloff (1993) or Caroline Watt (2017).

Human Needs in COVID-19 Isolation

Featured

A Perfect Storm

These are extraordinary times. Throughout history there have been plenty of pandemics but the human response to COVID-19 is unprecedented. The world will never be the same again. It is estimated that close to four billion people are living in social isolation during this mother of all pandemics (Sandford, 2020). Unless there is a revolt, policies of social isolation in one form or another are expected to continue until a vaccine is available 6, 12 or 24 months from now. The cumulative impacts of social distancing will be truly profound.

COVID-19 lockdown has created a perfect storm’ of vulnerabilities that huge numbers of people, and services, are ill-prepared to manage. This post reviews the science of human needs as they are expected to play out over a prolonged period of domestic confinement.

The COVID-19 pandemic involves a novel coronavirus characterized by a respiratory illness that results from a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). The disease was first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and symptomatic patients frequently present with a dry cough, fever and shortness of breath within 2 to 14 days after exposure. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is receiving intensive interest at all levels: political, economic, social, scientific and in health care. The epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak moved from China to Europe and a few weeks later to the US. As of 22 April 2020, there were 2,564,038 confirmed cases and 177,424 deaths reported worldwide, affecting at least 201 countries, areas or territories (Johns Hopkins University, 2020). Most cases are in the USA (823,786 cases), followed by Spain (204,178) and Italy (183,957) (Johns Hopkins University, 2020).

Isolation

Owing to the absence of a vaccine, official control measures have been implemented to reduce the spread of COVID-19, such as restrictions on people’s movements, including social distancing, closing of gyms and parks, travel restrictions, quarantines and stay–at–home guidance. The policy of confinement has significant health, economic, environmental and social consequences. In the psychological sphere, recent evidence shows that similar pandemics increased the prevalence of symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as confusion, feeling of loneliness, boredom and anger during and after quarantine (Brooks, Webster, Smith, Woodland, Wessely, Greenberg, et al. 2020).

Stressors during this critical period include fear of infection, fear of death, uncertainty, loss of social contacts, confinement, inadequate information, conflicting advice, loss of outdoor activities, disconnection from nature, loneliness, depression, helplessness, anger, low self-esteem, financial loss and obstacles to supplies of food and water (Brooks et al., 2020; Jiménez-Pavón, Carbonell-Baeza & Lavie, et al., 2020; Xiang, Yang, Li, Zhang, Zhang, Cheung, et al., 2020). A survey in China during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 found that 54% of respondents rated the psychological impact of the outbreak as moderate or severe; 17% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms; 29% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms, and 8% reported moderate to severe stress levels (Wang, Pan, Wan, Tan, Xu, Ho et al., 2020). Given that a significant proportion of the population live alone or are vulnerable to mental health problems, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental wellbeing are only now just beginning to be felt.

In light of these issues, systematic psychological self-care must be given a high priority in coping with the detrimental impacts of COVID-19 and social distancing. Here we discuss one of the most fundamental tools of self-care for health enhancement: increased physical activity. Governmental recognition of the benefits of exercise is evidenced by permitting exercise outdoors during social isolation for indefinite periods of weeks or months. Yet rarely is the issue adequately addressed; an International Task Force of experts to review and advise on psychological and physical self-care would be a welcome initiative.

During the COVID-19 pandemic special attention to systematic psychological health care is required (Zaka, Shamloo, Fiorente & Tafuri, 2020; Zandifar and Badrfam, 2020). Interventions to deal with the pressing psychological needs of individuals during the pandemic are being investigated but in most parts of the world seriously lacking (Xiang et al., 2020; Wang, Zhao, Fen, Liu, Yao, & Shi, et al., 2020).

One example is physical exercise, which is one of the most important tools to prevent mental illness and improve well-being (Mandolesi, Polverino, Montuori, Foti, Ferraioli, Sorrentino et al., 2018). However, few public health guidelines include daily physical exercise routines for people living in varying degrees of isolation during the pandemic (Chen et al., 2020; Jiménez-Pavón et al., 2020). The role of physical exercise in psychological wellbeing during the pandemic is discussed in a later post.

Here I introduce concepts that help to enable effective self-care measures for COVID-19 isolation. These concepts are part of A General Theory of Behaviour.

Psychological Homeostasis

At every level of existence, from the cell to the organism, from the individual to the population, and from the local ecosystem to the entire planet, homeostasis is a drive towards stability, security and adaptation to change. In a general theory of behaviour claims that striving for balance and equilibrium is a primary guiding force in all that we do, think and feel. A behavioural type of homeostasis has been given the descriptive term: “Reset Equilibrium Function” (or ‘REF’; Marks, 2018). The REF is thought to be omnipresent, whatever we are doing and wherever we are doing it, which includes the monotony of COVID-19 isolation. When we are in isolation, the REF stays with us, considers how to restore equilibrium and reduce feelings of unrest. The REF’s monitoring is not normally attended to, but the REF’s products are: feelings of distress, boredom, loneliness and instability can all be a focus for concern. Competing drives, conflicts, and inconsistencies all pull the flow of thought and feeling ‘off balance’, triggering an innate striving to restore equilibrium. Individuals resort to a variety of methods to restore a sense of balance and equilibrium.

Body and mind continuously regulate and control many domains and levels simultaneously, with multiple adjustments to voluntary and involuntary behaviour guided by two types of homeostasis: Type I – inwardly striving or physiological homeostasis, H[Φ], and Type II – outwardly striving or psychological homeostasis, H[Ψ]. Physiological regulation involves drives such as hunger, thirst, sex, elimination and sleep. The ‘Reset Equilibrium Function’ (REF) operates across all behavioural systems that are investigated by psychological science.

The Reset Equilibrium Function is a general control function that automatically restores psychological processes to equilibrium and stability. The REF is triggered when any processes within a system strays outside of its set range. The REF is innate and exists in conscious organisms, which all have Type I and II homeostasis. The two types of homeostasis work in synergy. Psychological and physiological processes operate in tandem to maximize equilibrium for each particular set of functions.

These include cognition, affect, chronic stress, and subjective well-being, and also out-of-control conditions such as isolation, boredom, addiction or insomnia that are in need of self-care. When there is goal to make a behavior change, conscious awareness of the goal and full engagement of one’s personal resources are necessary preconditions for purposeful striving, e.g. the need to reduce boredom and instability in COVID-19 isolation.

The Needs Hierarchy

Human experience is controlled by needs and behaviours to satisfy needs. A general theory of behaviour includes Maslow’s (1943) influential statement about human needs(with a few minor modifications). It is assumed that needs occupy a hierarchy of seven overlapping levels (Figure 1). Like any hierarchical structure, the stability of the system relies on the strength of its foundation level. The first level – Immediate Physiological Needs – incorporates physiological homeostasis (Type I) and the sustenance of all physiological needs. Higher level needs from level 2 upwards are served by psychological homeostasis (Type II). There is a progression in developmental priority as the individual matures. The motivational hierarchy reflects evolutionary function, developmental sequencing, and current cognitive priority. Individuals who are unable to meet their immediate physiological needs at level 1 are at a disadvantage in meeting higher-level needs. Think of a building with seven storeys. If level 1 of the building is not strong, then the higher levels will be vulnerable to collapse.

Figure 1. The Hierarchy of Human Needs. Homeostasis operates at all seven levels. Physiological, or Type I homeostasis operates at level 1. Psychological, Type II, homeostasis operates at level 2 (Self-protection) and above. Reproductive goals are in the order they are likely to appear developmentally. Later developing needs are overlapping with earlier developing needs. Once a need develops, its activation is triggered whenever relevant environmental cues are salient. Adapted from Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg and Schaller (2010) with permission.

I consider next the likely impact of COVID-19 social distancing in light of the needs hierarchy. Four needs most directly impacted by social distancing at levels 1 to 4 are discussed in turn.

Immediate Physiological Needs (Level 1)

Physiological regulation involves the drives of hunger, thirst, sex, elimination and sleep. Level 1 is a bedrock for all higher levels. We consider first food, drink and other necessary products, which have been an issue from the very start of the pandemic with ‘panic buying’ and stockpiling reported everywhere causing supermarkets and stores to run out of supplies. In the UK, in packaged food and beverages, the highest growth has been evident in cereals (38%), vegetables (37%), cocoa (25%), rice (22%) and pasta (19%). There has also been an increase in bottled water and indulgence foods, such as chocolate (23%), olives (68%) and beer (20%) (Kantar, 2020).Comfort eating and drinking is a common strategy of individuals seeking ways to ameliorate anxiety and distress associated with lockdown. Comfort eating and drinking is associated with weight gain and the development of obesity and eating disorders, especially in conditions of isolation and boredom (Crockett, Myhre & Rokke, 2015; Marks, 2015; Figure 2). Sadly, there is likely to be an acceleration in the already high prevalence of obesity over the lockdown period. As the lockdown period is indefinitely extended, with increasing joblessness and poverty, food insecurity is likely to become a major concern for many people.

Figure 2. Panel A shows the homeostasis system linking low self-esteem with negative affect, comfort eating and overweight. Intervention to alter the dynamics of the system towards that shown in Panel B replaces comfort eating with exercise designed to increase self-esteem and control weight gain (Marks, 2015).

A well-known and, to many, surprising COVID-19 phenomenon has been the prevalence of toilet-tissue stockpiling (TTS). In the UK, for the week ending 8 March 2020 the sales of toilet tissues rose by 60% year-on-year (Kantar, 2020). Why should this be? In fact, this behaviour is perfectly logical and in line with the needs hierarchy where utmost priority is given to needs at level 1. TTS provides long-term hygienic support to the necessary act of elimination, which, during isolation, is more frequent at home because people are unable to do itat the workplace. Thus, TTS is consistent with level 1 of the hierarchy of needs.

Level 1 needs are automatically more complex in cases of addiction to drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other substances. If any of these addictions are present, the entire needs structure can be placed in jeopardy. In any case, disruption of sleep patterns is one prevalent consequence of pandemic distress. A European task force concluded: “In the current global home confinement situation due to the COVID-19 outbreak, most individuals are exposed to an unprecedented stressful situation of unknown duration. This may not only increase daytime stress, anxiety and depression levels but also disrupt sleep. Importantly, because of the fundamental role that sleep plays in emotion regulation, sleep disturbance can have direct consequences upon next day emotional functioning… Managing sleep problems as best as possible during home confinement can limit stress and possibly prevent disruptions of social relationships” (Altena, Baglioni, Espie, Ellis, Gavriloff, Holzinger, et al., 2020, p. 1). It has been established that physical exercise improves sleep for people of all ages (Flausino, Da Silva Prado, de Queiroz, Tufik, & de Mello, 2012; Reid, Baron, Lu, Naylor, Wolfe & Zee, 2010; Yang, Ho, Chen, & Chien, 2012). We return to this later.

Need for Self-Protection (Level 2)

Self-protection needs during the COVID-19 pandemic are paramount. The World Health Organisation (WHO, 2020) and national governments have required a lockdown of the population with “social distancing” and ‘stay-at-home’ isolation. These policies have stoked fear of death and infection while incentivizing individuals to carry out frequent handwashing, wearing masks along with social isolation. The advice to stay at home has been the main topic of messaging from health authorities during the pandemic.

An individual’s responses to COVID-19 lockdown is shown in Figure 3. In lockdown, unmet self-protection needs become ‘normal’ and individuals experience systematic frustration of a deep-seated need to ensure protection of self and their family. This high level of frustration causes fear, anxiety and distress as individuals feel incompetent to guarantee the safety and protection of loved ones, family and self. Fear, anxiety and distress are also associated with insomnia, irritability and aggression. Especially if an individual uses alcohol or drugs to assuage their fears, aggression may turn into physical violence to family members, women, children and pets(Peterman, Potts, O’Donnell, Thompson, Shah, Oertelt-Prigione, et al., 2020). There are increases in the incidence of homicides and suicides (e.g. Campbell, 2020).

Figure 3. Behavioural systems at level 2 of the needs hierarchy in COVID-19 lockdown. In panel A, fear and frustration are accompanied by heightened surveillance of the external environment via TV news channels and social media. In panel B, fear and frustration are replaced by self-compassion and empathy and surveillance is replaced by reaching out to others.

Need for Affiliation (Level 3)

The almost total cessation of full frontal face-to-face affiliation outside of one’s domestic ‘bubble’ is mandated by policies of home confinement and “social distancing”. Connecting with others normally helps individuals to regulate their emotions, cope with stress, and remain resilient (Williams, Morelli, Ong & Zaki, 2018). Loneliness and social isolation, on the other hand, worsen the burden of stress, and often produce deleterious effects on mental, cardiovascular, and immune health (Haslam, Jetten, Cruwys, Dingle, & Haslam, 2018). Older adults, at the greatest risk of severe symptoms from COVID-19, are also most susceptible to isolation (Luo, Hawkley, Waite, & Cacioppo, 2012). Intergenerational social support, self-esteem, and loneliness are all strongly associated with subjective well-being (Tian, 2016).

These effects are not peculiar to older people. Even among adolescents, loneliness is associated with physical inactivity (Pinto, Oppong Asante, Puga Barbosa, Nahas, Dias and Pelegrini, 2019). Thus distancing threatens to aggravate feelings of loneliness that likely will produce negative long-term health consequences in many vulnerable people. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the population of people at risk is enormous. After the lockdown period ceases, sadly mental health services are expected to be overwhelmed.

People with unmet needs for affiliation at level 3 are also at risk of failing to meet needs for status and self-esteem at level 4.

Need for Status/Self-esteem (Level 4)

As noted, status and self-esteem needs are vulnerable if needs at levels 1 – 3 are unmet. Failure at levels 1-3 accumulates with larger knock-on effects as cumulative failure develops. Furthermore, the pandemic is producing huge increases in unemployment and poverty, vulnerability factors for lowered self-esteem and social status (e.g. Goldsmith, Veum & Darity, 1997). Self‐esteem is associated with responses to success and failure (Baumeister & Tice, 1985). Low self-esteem also creates a vulnerability to depression (Sowislo & Orth, 2013) and to drinking alcohol (Hull & Young, 1983) – if affordable. Self-esteem moderates the associations between body-related self-esteem, conscious emotions and depressive symptoms (Brunet, Pila, Solomon-Krakus, Sabiston & O’Loughlin, 2019). Self-esteem also appears to be an important antecedent of the development of self-compassion (Dona, Parker, Sahdra, Marshall, & Guo, 2018).

Conclusion

COVID-19 lockdown has created a perfect storm’ of vulnerabilities that huge numbers of people, and services, are ill-prepared to manage. The success of social isolation policies will depend on minimizing long term depreciation of mental health.

References

Altena, E., Baglioni, C., Espie, C. A., Ellis, J., Gavriloff, D., Holzinger, B., … & Riemann, D. (2020). Dealing with sleep problems during home confinement due to the COVID‐19 outbreak: practical recommendations from a task force of the European CBT‐I Academy. Journal of Sleep Research.

Awick, E. A., Ehlers, D., Fanning, J., Phillips, S. M., Wójcicki, T., Mackenzie, M. J., … & McAuley, E. (2017). Effects of a home-based DVD-delivered physical activity program on self-esteem in older adults: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Psychosomatic medicine, 79(1), 71.

Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Self‐esteem and responses to success and failure: Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality, 53(3), 450-467.

Brooks, S.K., Webster, R.K., Smith, L.E., Woodland, L, Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., et al. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet 395:912–20.

Brunet, J., Pila, E., Solomon-Krakus, S., Sabiston, C. M., & O’Loughlin, J. (2019). Self-esteem moderates the associations between body-related self-conscious emotions and depressive symptoms. Journal of health psychology, 24(6), 833-843.

Campbell, A. M. (2020). An Increasing Risk of Family Violence during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Strengthening Community Collaborations to Save Lives. Forensic Science International: Reports, 100089.

Campbell, J.P., & Turner, J.E. (2018). Debunking the myth of exercise-induced immune suppression: redefining the impact of exercise on immunological health across the lifespan. Frontiers in immunology 9:648.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health Psychology. Psychological bulletin, 92(1), 111.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html

Chekroud, S. R., Gueorguieva, R., Zheutlin, A. B., Paulus, M., Krumholz, H. M., Krystal, J. H., & Chekroud, A. M. (2018). Association between physical exercise and mental health in 1· 2 million individuals in the USA between 2011 and 2015: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(9), 739-746.

Chelsey, L., Holden, P., Rollins, M., Gonzalez, M. (2020). Does how you treat yourself affect your health? The relationship between health-promoting behaviors and self-compassion among a community sample. Journal of health psychology, 359105320912448.

Chen, P., Mao, L., Nassis, G.P., Harmer, P., Ainsworth, B.E., & Li, F. (2020). Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV): The need to maintain regular physical activity while taking precautions. Journal of sport and health Science 9:103.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (2020). Available at: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Crockett, A. C., Myhre, S. K., & Rokke, P. D. (2015). Boredom proneness and emotion regulation predict emotional eating. Journal of health psychology, 20(5), 670-680.

Deci, E.L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. GP Putnam’s Sons.

Donald, J. N., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P. D., Sahdra, B. K., Marshall, S. L., & Guo, J. (2018). A worthy self is a caring self: Examining the developmental relations between self‐esteem and self‐compassion in adolescents. Journal of personality, 86(4), 619-630.

Eyre, H., & Baune, B.T. (2012). Neuroimmunological effects of physical exercise in depression. Brain, behavior, and immunity 26:251-66.

Flausino, N. H., Da Silva Prado, J. M., de Queiroz, S. S., Tufik, S., & de Mello, M. T. (2012). Physical exercise performed before bedtime improves the sleep pattern of healthy young good sleepers. Psychophysiology, 49(2), 186-192.

Geraghty, K., Hann, M., & Kurtev, S. (2019). Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients’ reports of symptom changes following cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and pacing treatments: Analysis of a primary survey compared with secondary surveys. Journal of health psychology, 24(10), 1318-1333.

Goldsmith, A. H., Veum, J. R., & Darity Jr, W. (1997). Unemployment, joblessness, psychological well-being and self-esteem: Theory and evidence. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 26(2), 133-158.

Goldstein, E., Topitzes, J., Brown, R.L., & Barrett, B (2018). Mediational pathways of meditation and exercise on mental health and perceived stress: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of health psychology, 1359105318772608.

HAN University of Applied Sciences (2020). Quarantrain. Stay fit during COVID-19 Available at: https://quarantrain.org/

Haslam, C., Jetten, J., Cruwys, T., Dingle, G., & Haslam, S. A. (2018). The new psychology of health: Unlocking the social cure. Routledge.

Holden, C. L., Rollins, P., & Gonzalez, M. (2020). Does how you treat yourself affect your health? The relationship between health-promoting behaviors and self-compassion among a community sample. Journal of Health Psychology, 1359105320912448.

Hull, J. G., & Young, R. D. (1983). Self-consciousness, self-esteem, and success–failure as determinants of alcohol consumption in male social drinkers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1097.

Jiménez-Pavón, D., Carbonell-Baeza, A., & Lavie, C.J. (2020). Physical exercise as therapy to fight against the mental and physical consequences of COVID-19 quarantine: Special focus in older people. Progress in cardiovascular diseases. In press.

Joseph, R.P., Royse, K.E., Benitez, T.J., & Pekmezi, D.W. (2014). Physical activity and quality of life among university students: exploring self-efficacy, self-esteem, and affect as potential mediators. Quality of life research, 23(2), 659-667.

Kantar (2020). Accidental stockpilers driving shelf shortages.24/03/2020. Available at: https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News

Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on psychological science, 5(3), 292-314.

Keteyian, S. J., Patel, M., Kraus, W. E., Brawner, C. A., McConnell, T. R., Piña, I. L., … & Chase, P. J. (2016). Variables measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing as predictors of mortality in chronic systolic heart failure. Journal of the american college of cardiology, 67(7), 780-789.

Kraemer, M.U., Yang, C-H., Gutierrez, B., Wu, C-H., Klein, B., Pigott, D.M., et al. (2020). The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. medRxiv.

Kwasnicka, D., Dombrowski, S.U., White, M., Sniehotta, F. (2016). Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: A systematic review of behaviour theories. Health psychology review, 10(3), 277–296.

Lin, T-W., & Kuo, Y-M. (2013). Exercise benefits brain function: the monoamine connection. Brain sciences 3:39-53.

Lopresti, A.L., Hood, S.D., & Drummond, P.D. (2013). A review of lifestyle factors that contribute to important pathways associated with major depression: diet, sleep and exercise. Journal of affective disorders 148:12-27.

Lubans, D.R., Lonsdale, C., Cohen, K., & Eather, N. (2017). Framework for the design and delivery of organized physical activity sessions for children and adolescents: Rationale and description of the ‘SAAFE’ teaching principles. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14.

Luo, Y., Hawkley, L. C., Waite, L. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: A national longitudinal study. Social science & medicine, 74(6), 907-914.

Mandolesi, L., Polverino, A., Montuori, S., Foti, F., Ferraioli, G., Sorrentino, P., et al (2018). Effects of physical exercise on cognitive functioning and wellbeing: biological and psychological benefits. Frontiers in psychology 9:509.

Marks, D. F. (2015). Homeostatic theory of obesity. Health psychology open, 2(1), 2055102915590692.

Marks, D. F. (2018). A general theory of behaviour. London: SAGE Publications.

Mikkelsen, K., Stojanovska, L., Polenakovic, M., Bosevski, M., & Apostolopoulos, V. (2017). Exercise and mental health. Maturitas, 106, 48-56.

Mandolesi, L., Polverino, A., Montuori, S., Foti, F., Ferraioli, G., Sorrentino, P., & Sorrentino, G. (2018). Effects of physical exercise on cognitive functioning and wellbeing: biological and psychological benefits. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 509.

Peterman, A., Potts, A., O’Donnell, M., Thompson, K., Shah, N., Oertelt-Prigione, S., & van Gelder, N. (2020). Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children. Center for Global Development Working Paper (in press).

Pinto, A. D. A., Oppong Asante, K., Puga Barbosa, R. M. D. S., Nahas, M. V., Dias, D. T., & Pelegrini, A. (2019). Association between loneliness, physical activity, and participation in physical education among adolescents in Amazonas, Brazil. Journal of health psychology, 1359105319833741.

Reid, K. J., Baron, K. G., Lu, B., Naylor, E., Wolfe, L., & Zee, P. C. (2010). Aerobic exercise improves self-reported sleep and quality of life in older adults with insomnia. Sleep medicine, 11(9), 934-940.

Rodrigues, F., Teixeira, D. S., Cid, L., & Monteiro, D. (2019). Have you been exercising lately? Testing the role of past behavior on exercise adherence. Journal of health psychology, 1359105319878243.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and well-ness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Sandford, A. (2020). Coronavirus: Half of humanity now on lockdown as 90 countries call for confinement. Accessed on 14/04/20 at:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-in-europe-spain-s-death-toll-hits-10-000-after-record-950-new-deaths-in-24-hou

Semenchuk, B.N., Strachan, S.M., & Fortier, M. (2018). Self-compassion and the self-regulation of exercise: Reactions to recalled exercise setbacks. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 40(1), 31-39.

Simpson, R.J., Campbell, J.P., Gleeson, M., Krüger, K., Nieman, D.C., Pyne, D.B., et al. (2020). Can exercise affect immune function to increase susceptibility to infection?. Exercise Immunology Review, 26, 8-22.

Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological bulletin, 139(1), 213.

Sperandei, S., Vieira, M.C., & Reis, A.C. (2016) Adherence to physical activity in an unsupervised setting: Explanatory variables for high attrition rates among fitness center members. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 19(11), 916-920.

Standage, M., & Ryan, R.M. (2012). Self-determination theory and exercise motivation: Facilitating self-regulatory processes to support and maintain health and well-being. In G. C. Roberts & D. C. Treasure (Eds.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise. (pp. 233-270) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of personality & social psychology, 101(2), 354.

Tian, Q. (2016). Intergeneration social support affects the subjective well-being of the elderly: Mediator roles of self-esteem and loneliness. Journal of health psychology, 21(6), 1137-1144.

Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2018). ‘Strong is the new skinny’: A content analysis of# fitspiration images on Instagram. Journal of health psychology, 23(8), 1003-1011.

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): situation summary (2020). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/summary.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fsummary.html

Yang, P. Y., Ho, K. H., Chen, H. C., & Chien, M. Y. (2012). Exercise training improves sleep quality in middle-aged and older adults with sleep problems: a systematic review. Journal of physiotherapy, 58(3), 157-163.

Wang, C., Pan, R., Wan, X., Tan, Y., Xu, L., Ho C.S., et al. (2020). Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17:1729.

Wang, Y., Zhao, X., Fen, Q., Liu, L., Yao, Y., & Shi, J. (2020). Psychological assistance during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in China. Journal of health psychology.

White, K., Kendrick, T., & Yardley, L. (2009). Change in self-esteem, self-efficacy and the mood dimensions of depression as potential mediators of the physical activity and depression relationship: Exploring the temporal relation of change. Mental Health and Physical Activity 2:44-52.

Williams, D.M. (2008). Exercise, affect, and adherence: an integrated model and a case for self-paced exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 30: 471-96.

Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C. & Zaki, J. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and wellbeing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 224–254.

World Health Organisation (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public

Xiang, Y-T., Yang, Y., Li W., Zhang, L., Zhang, Q., Cheung, T., et al. (2020). Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. The Lancet Psychiatry 7:228-9.

Zaka, A., Shamloo, S.E., Fiorente, P., & Tafuri, A. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic as a watershed in health care: A call for systematic psychological health care for frontline medical staff. Journal of Health Psychology (in press).

Zandifar, A., & Badrfam, R. (2020). Iranian mental health during the COVID-19 epidemic. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 51:101990.

A New General Theory of Behaviour III: Homeostasis, Balance and Stability

Featured

This post describes homeostasis as a fundamental principle in behaviour and motivation.

The fixity of the milieu supposes a perfection of the organism such that the external variations are at each instant compensated for and equilibrated…. All of the vital mechanisms, however varied they may be, have always one goal, to maintain the uniformity of the conditions of life in the internal environment…. The stability of the internal environment is the condition for the free and independent life.

Claude Bernard (1813-1878)

What is homeostasis?

Sixty-one years after Bernard (1865) wrote about the ‘internal milieu’, Walter B. Cannon (1926) coined the term ‘homeostasis’.[1] Then, 16 years later, psychobiologist Curt Richter (1942) expanded the homeostasis idea to include behavioural or ‘ total organism regulators’ in the context of feeding.[2] From this viewpoint, ‘external’ behaviours that are responses to environmental stimuli lie on a continuum with ‘internal’ physiological events. For Richter, behaviour includes all aspects of feeding necessary to maintain the internal environment. Bernard, Cannon and Richter all focused on a purely physiological form of homeostasis, ‘H[Φ]’. I wish to convince the reader that the idea of the ‘external milieu’, the proximal world of socio-physical action, is equally important.

A General Theory of Behaviour (AGTB) extends homeostasis to all forms of behaviour. Psychological homeostasis can be explained in two stages, starting with the classic version of homeostasis in Physiology, H[Φ], followed by the operating features of its psychological sister, H[Ψ]. The essential features are illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Upper panel: A representation of Physiological (Type I) Homeostasis (H[Φ]). Adapted from Modell et al. (2015). Lower panel: A representation of Psychological (Type II) Homeostasis (H[Ψ]).

To be counted as homeostasis, H[Φ], a system is required to have five features:

It must contain a sensor that measures the value of the regulated variable.
It must contain a mechanism for establishing the “normal range” of values for the regulated variable. In the model shown in Figure 2.1, this mechanism is represented by the “Set point Y”.[3]
It must contain an “error detector” that compares the signal being transmitted by the sensor (representing the actual value of the regulated variable) with the set range. The result of this comparison is an error signal that is interpreted by the controller.
The controller interprets the error signal and determines the value of the outputs of the effectors.

The effectors are those elements that determine the value of the regulated variable. The effectors may not be the same for upward and downward changes in the regulated variable.

Identical principles apply to Psychological (Type II) Homeostasis (H[Ψ] with two notable differences (Figure 2.1, lower panel). In Psychological Homeostasis, there are two sets of effectors, inward and outward, and the conceptual boundary between the internal and external environments lies between the controller and the outward effectors of the somatic nervous system, i.e. the muscles that control speech and action. Furthermore, Psychological Homeostasis operates with intention, purpose, and desire.

The individual organism extends its ability to thrive in nature with Type II homeostasis. Self-extension by niche construction creates zones of safety, one of the primary goals of Type II homeostasis. Niche construction amplifies the organism’s ability to occupy and control the environment proximally and distally. The use of tools for hunting, weapons for aggression, fire for cooking, domestication of animals, the use of language, money, goods for trade and commodification, agriculture, science, technology, engineering, medicine, culture, music literature and social media are all methods of expanding and projecting niches of safety, well-being and control. Individual ownership of assets such as land, buildings, companies, stocks and shares reflect a universal need to extend occupation, power and control but these possessions do not necessarily increase the subjective well-being of the owner [AP 007].

Initiated by the brain and other organs, homeostasis of either type can often act in anticipatory or predictive mode. One principal function of any conscious system is prediction of rewards and dangers. A simple example is the pre-prandial secretion of insulin, ghrelin and other hormones that enable the consumption of a larger nutrient load with minimal postprandial homeostatic consequences. When a meal containing carbohydrates is to be consumed, a variety of hormones is secreted by the gut that elicit the secretion of insulin from the pancreas before the blood sugar level has actually started to rise. The blood sugar level starts lowering in anticipation of the influx of glucose from the gut into the blood. This has the effect of blunting the blood glucose concentration spike that would otherwise occur. Daily variations in dietary potassium intake are compensated by anticipative adjustments of renal potassium excretion capacity. That urinary potassium excretion is rhythmic and largely independent on feeding and activity patterns indicates that this homeostatic mechanism behaves predictively.[4]

Similar principles operate in Type II homeostasis acting together with the brain as a “prediction machine”. When we anticipate a pleasant event such as a birthday party, there is a preparatory ‘glow’ which can change one’s mood in a positive direction, or thinking about an impending visit to the dentist may be likely to produce feelings of anxiety, or the receipt of a prescription of medicines from one’s physician may lead to improvements in symptoms, even before the medicines are taken.

At societal level, anticipation enables rational mitigation, e.g. anticipation of demographic changes influences policy, threat from hostile countries influences expenditure on defence, and the threat of a new epidemic influences programmes of prevention. [AP 008].

Homeostasis involves several interacting processes in a causal network. A homeostatic adjustment in one process necessitates a compensatory adjustment in one or more of the other interacting processes. To illustrate this situation, consider what happens in phosphate homeostasis (Figure 2.2). Many REF-behaviours that we shall refer to are isomorphic with the 4-process structure in Figure 2.2.[5] However, in nature there is no restriction on the number of interconnected processes and any process can belong to multiple homeostatic networks.

Figure 2.2 Phosphate homeostasis. A decrease in the serum phosphorus level causes a decrease in FGF23 and parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels. Increase in serum phosphorus leads to opposite changes. Calcitriol increases serum phosphorus and FGF23, while it decreases PTH. Increase in FGF23 leads to decrease in PTH and calcitriol levels. PTH increases calcitriol and FGF23 levels. Reproduced from Jagtap et al. (2012)[6] with permission.

Processes in Type II homeostasis may vary along quantitative axes or they can have discrete categorical values. For example, values, beliefs, preferences and goals can have discrete values, as does the state of sleep or waking.

Any change in a categorical process involves change throughout the network to which is belongs. [AP 009].

Such changes may be rapid, in the millisecond range, e.g. a changed preference from chocolate chip cookie flavoured ice cream to Madagascar vanilla that may occurs an instant after arriving at the ice-cream kiosk. At the other end of the spectrum of importance, in buying a new apartment, the final choice might also occur in the instant the preferred option is first sighted. Or the decision could take months or years even though it is of precious little consequence, e.g. deciding that one is a republican rather than a monarchist, or it may never occur because we simply do not care one way or the other. These considerations lead to a surprising proposition that:

The speed of a decision is independent of its subjective utility [AP 010].

One objective of A General Theory of Behaviour is to explain the relevance of the REF system to Psychology. We know already that the regulation of action is guided by three fundamental systems: (i) the brain and central nervous system (CNS), (ii) the endocrine system (ES) and (iii) the immune system (IS). It is proposed in A General Theory that, as a ‘meta-system’ of homeostatic control, these systems collectively govern both physiology and behaviour using the two types of homeostasis, H[Φ] and H[Ψ], respectively. We can understand how this might be possible in light of a recently discovered ‘central homeostatic network’.

THE CENTRAL HOMEOSTATIC NETWORK

Recent analyses of the CNS have explored new methods for discovering cortical and subcortical networks in the brain’s anatomical connectivity termed the ‘connectome’. These studies of the connectome are revolutionary in showing that the CNS is at once both more complex and more simple that previously assumed. Let me explain why.

Regions of interest (ROI) are observed as coherent fluctuations in neural activity at rest as well as distributed patterns of activation or ‘networks’. A network is any set of pairwise relationships between the elements of a system—formally represented in graph theory as ‘edges’ linking ‘nodes’. Neurobiological networks occur at different organizational levels from cell-specific regulatory pathways inside neurones to interactions between systems of cortical areas and subcortical nuclei. Architectures which support cognition, affect and action are normally found at the highest level of analysis.[8] In a landmark study, Brian Edlow and his colleagues investigated the limbic and forebrain structures that form the ‘Central Homeostatic Network’.[9] The Central Homeostatic Network (CHN) plays a major role in autonomic, respiratory, neuroendocrine, emotional, immune, and cognitive adaptations to stress. Collectively, these forebrain structures include the limbic system close to the hypothalamus with strong mono- and/or oligo-synaptic connectivity to one another, and shared participation in homeostasis. Homeostatic forebrain nodes receive sensory information concerning extrinsic threats and interoceptive information from the brainstem, resulting in arousal, attention and vigilance during waking, and visceral and somatic motor defences.

There is complexity here but a well-organized complexity. CHN connectogram shows all six brainstem seed nuclei are interconnected with all seven limbic forebrain target sites, but with markedly different streamline probabilities (SPs) (Figure 2.3). The SP measures the probability of a streamline connecting a seed ROI and target ROI, but does not reflect the strength of the neuroanatomic connection. To ensure that the target ROI size was not the only factor contributing to the SP, Edlow and colleagues verified that the SP measurements were derived from anatomically plausible pathways from animal or other studies of subcortical pathways in the human brain.

Figure 2.3. The connectogram of the human Central Homeostatic Network (CHN). Brainstem seed nodes are displayed on the outside of the connectogram and limbic forebrain target nodes at its center. Connectivity is represented quantitatively, with line thickness being proportional to the streamline probabilities for each dyad. Brainstem seed nodes consist of 7 structures as follows: the hippocampus (Hypo); amygdala (Amg); subiculum (Sub); entorhinal cortex (Ent); superior temporal gyrus (anterior) (STGa); superior temporal gyrus (posterior) (STGp); and insula (Ins). Connectogram lines go to the brainstem nucleus of origin: dorsal raphe DR; median raphe MR; locus coeruleus, LC; paragigantocellularis lateralis, PGCL; caudal raphe, CR; vagal complex, VC. Reproduced in slightly adapted form by permission from Edlow, McNab, Witzel & Kinney (2016).

Brian Edlow’s group study findings suggest that H[Φ] is mediated by ascending and descending interconnections between brainstem nuclei and forebrain regions, which together regulate autonomic, respiratory, and arousal responses to stress. The limbic system has been regarded as the neuroanatomic substrate of ‘emotion’, but its role in the regulation of homeostasis is also now being recognized, and the limbic system has been added to the central autonomic network of “flight, fight or freeze”. Edlow et al. concluded as follows: “connectivity between forebrain and caudal brainstem regions that participate in the regulation of homeostasis in the human brain. These nodes and connections form, we propose, a CHN because its nodes not only regulate autonomic functions such as ‘‘fight or flight’’ and arousal (e.g., median and dorsal raphe, and locus coeruleus) but also non-autonomic homeostatic functions such as respiration (i.e., PGCL) and regulation of emotion/affect (e.g. amygdala)” (Edlow et al., op cit., p. 196). This study supports the idea that interconnected brainstem and forebrain nodes form an integrated Central Homeostatic Network in the human brain. To put this in the simplest terms, the forebrain is involved in homeostatic regulation of both autonomic (Type I) and non-autonomic (Type II) human responses to disturbances of equilibrium. These observations demonstrate that the forebrain provides a common central mechanism for both types of homeostasis, H[Φ] and H[Ψ].

Principle III (Communality): Homeostasis of Types I and II are controlled by a single executive controller in the forebrain.

That the forebrain evolved to control both types of homeostasis, inside the body and in outwardly directed behaviour, supports our contention that homeostasis is a unifying concept across Biology and Psychology. Everything we know about the executive role of the forebrain in action planning and decision-making suggests that this must indeed be the case. Why have two control systems when only one is necessary? The simplicity is beautiful.

HOMEOSTASIS A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE

In the Epilogue to ‘The Wisdom of the Body’, Walter Cannon inquired whether there are any general principles of homeostasis acting across industrial, domestic and social forms of organization? He suggested that the homeostasis of individual humans is dependent on ‘social homoeostasis’ via cooperation within communities. He talks analogously of the system of distribution of goods in society as a stream: “Thus the products of farm and factory, of mine and forest, are borne to and fro. But it is permissible to take goods out of the stream only if goods of equivalent value are put back in…Money and credit, therefore, become integral parts of the fluid matrix of society” (p. 314). He believed that “steady states in society as a whole and steady states in its members are closely linked.” (p. 324).[10]

Compared to more economically stable societies, societies in steep economic growth or decline are expected to have a relatively high prevalence of mental illness [AP 011].

Compared to more egalitarian societies, societies with high levels of inequality are expected to have a relatively high prevalence of mental illness [AP 012].

Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968)[11] was critical of these externally directed, social forms of homeostasis (Type II). He did not support the idea that homeostasis could be applied to spontaneous activities, processes whose goal is not reduction but building up of tensions, growth, development, creation, and in human activities which are non-utilitarian. There are good reasons to think that von Bertalanffy was wrong. The reach of homeostasis extends well beyond Physiology into many realms of Psychology and even into Society as a whole. H[Φ] and H[Ψ] serve identical stabilizing functions internally in the body and externally in socio-physical interactions of behaviour respectively. With Cannon, we accept that “steady states in society as a whole and steady states in its members are closely linked.” H[Φ] and H[Ψ] exist in a complementary relationship of mutual support. It could not be otherwise.

Principle IV (Steady Stable State): Homeostasis Type II serves the same function for Behaviour as Homeostasis Type I serves for Physiology: the production of a stable and steady state.

According to this principle, behaviour produced by most people most of the time is intended to generally calm ‘waves of unrest’ rather than to make the waves larger, to reduce conflict and to produce cooperation, safety and stability. People with high levels of self-control tend to create social stability and have more, and longer-lasting, friendships than people with relatively low levels of self-control. [AP 013].

Individual set ranges for any particular process vary across people and are not the same for all individuals. Individual set ranges are based on unique interactions of genetics, epigenetics and early infant experience. Set ranges may be changed in a few specific disorders and individual differences exist in the rate and extent of the reset following perturbations to equilibrium. The General Theory carries the expectation of wide individual differences across time and space in set ranges, rates of reset, and adaptations over time.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) All behaviour involves Type II homeostasis, which strives for a stable and steady state

in the socio-physical world.

2) A single executive controller in the forebrain regulates both type of homeostasis.

3) Individual set ranges are based on genetics, epigenetics and early infant experience. They are normally fixed, changing only with major disorders of function.

REFERENCES:

[1] Cannon, W.B. (1926). Physiological regulation of normal states: some tentative postulates concerning biological homeostatics. In A. Pettit. A Charles Richet : ses amis, ses collègues, ses élèves. Paris: Les Éditions Médicales. p. 91.

[2] Richter, C. P. (1942). Increased dextrose appetite of normal rats treated with insulin. American Journal of Physiology-Legacy Content, 135(3), 781-787.

[3] It is accepted that so-called ‘set points’ are really ‘set ranges’, e.g. the “normal” human body temperature is a range from 97°F (36.1°C) to 99°F (37.2°C). We use the terms ‘set point’ and ‘set range’ interchangeably.

[4] Moore-Ede, M. C., & Herd, J. A. (1977). Renal electrolyte circadian rhythms: independence from feeding and activity patterns. American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, 232(2), F128-F135.

[5] Unless stated otherwise, an arrow in any diagram in this book represents a causal effect.

[6] Jagtap, V. S., Sarathi, V., Lila, A. R., Bandgar, T., Menon, P., & Shah, N. S. (2012). Hypophosphatemic rickets. Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 16(2), 177.

[7] The term ‘homeorhesis’, meaning a stabilized flow, has also been proposed because reference sets are liable to change. The terms “allostasis” and “heterostasis,” are overlapping with “homeostasis” but are not generally adopted. See: Day, TA (2005). Defining Stress as a Prelude to Mapping Its Neurocircuitry: No Help from Allostasis, Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 29, 1195–1200.

[8] Petersen, S.E. & Sporns, O. (2015) Brain networks and cognitive architectures. Neuron 88, 207 – 219.

[9] Edlow, B. L., McNab, J. A., Witzel, T., & Kinney, H. C. (2016). The structural connectome of the human central homeostatic network. Brain connectivity, 6(3), 187-200.

[10] Evidently this is the opinion of one of Bill Gates who holds that foreign aid helps to stabilize the developing world and thereby the security and stability of the USA. See: http://time.com/4704550/bill-gates-cutting-foreign-aid-makes-america-less-safe/

[11] Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York. See p. 210.

A New General Theory of Behaviour II: Restructured Hierarchy of Needs

Featured

This second post on A General Theory of Behaviour (AGTB) incorporates an amended form of Abraham Maslow’s (1943) motivational needs hierarchy described by Douglas T. Kenrick and colleagues to which AGTB has added the process of Type II homeostasis.

Modifying Maslow

Abraham Harold Maslow (April 1, 1908 – June 8, 1970) was best known for the foundation of humanistic psychology and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

A brief introduction to Maslow’s needs hierarchy is here.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was a landmark publication for its ability to account for so many aspects of behaviour. The first level of the original Maslow hierarchy – Immediate Physiological Needs – already incorporates homeostasis (Type I).

AGTB inserts Psychological Homeostasis (homeostasis Type II) to give the hierarchy more explanatory power.

In discussing the second level for “Safety Needs”, Maslow states:

“The safety needs.—If the physiological needs are relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety needs. All that has been said of the physiological needs is equally true, although in lesser degree, of these desires. The organism may equally well be wholly dominated by them. They may serve as the almost exclusive organizers of behaviour, recruiting all the capacities of the organism in their service, and we may then fairly describe the whole organism as a safety-seeking mechanism.” (p.376).

In describing this in detail, Maslow turned to the needs of children for a predictable, orderly world, a world which is reliable, safe and predictable:

“Another indication of the child’s need for safety is his preference for some kind of undisrupted routine or rhythm. He seems to want a predictable, orderly world. For instance, injustice, unfairness, or inconsistency in the parents seems to make a child feel anxious and unsafe. This attitude may be not so much because of the injustice per se or any particular pains involved, but rather because this treatment threatens to make the world look unreliable, or unsafe, or unpredictable. Young children seem to thrive better under a system which has at least a skeletal outline of rigidity, in which there is a schedule of a kind, some sort of routine, something that can be counted upon, not only for the present but also far into the future. Perhaps one could express this more accurately by saying that the child needs an organized world rather than an unorganized or unstructured one.” (p. 377)

Maslow specifically links safety with ‘stability’:

“we can perceive the expressions of safety needs only in such phenomena as, for instance, the common preference for a job with tenure and protection, the desire for a savings account, and for insurance of various kinds (medical, dental, unemployment, disability, old age). Other broader aspects of the attempt to seek safety and stability in the world are seen in the very common preference for familiar rather than unfamiliar things, or for the known rather than the unknown.”(p. 379).

Maslow’s bracketing of safety with stability connects the needs pyramid with Type II homeostasis. It is noted that, in the amended pyramid, “Safety Needs” has been relabelled as “Self-Protection”. Thus all motives above level I are part and parcel of the striving for stability and equilibrium that is the function of homeostasis Type II. (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Hierarchy of Fundamental Human Needs. This figure integrates ideas from life-history development with Maslow’s needs hierarchy. This scheme adds reproductive goals, in the order they are likely to first appear developmentally. The model also depicts the later developing goal systems as overlapping with, rather than completely replacing, earlier developing systems. Once a goal system has developed, its activation is triggered whenever relevant environmental cues are salient. Type I homeostasis operates at level 1. All motives from self-protection at level 2 and above engage Type II homeostasis. This figure is from Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg and Schaller (2010).

Principle II (Needs Hierarchy)

The newly amended Hierarchy leads to Principle II (Needs Hierarchy) of AGTB, which states:

AGTB Principle II (Needs Hierarchy): In the hierarchy of needs, Physiological Homeostasis Type I is active at level I (Immediate Physiological Needs) and Psychological Homeostasis Type II is active at all higher levels from II (Self-Protection) to level VI (Parenting).

As priorities shift from lower to higher in the hierarchy we see a progression in developmental priority as each individual matures. In fact, it is possible to apply the motivational hierarchy at three different levels of analysis: evolutionary function, developmental sequencing, and current cognitive priority (the proximate level). In agreement with Douglas T. Kenrick et al. (2010), the basic foundational structure of Maslow’s pyramid, buttressed with a few architectural extensions, remains perfectly valid. Need satisfaction is allowed to be a goal at more than one level simultaneously. In light of the amended pyramid, three auxiliary propositions are stated as follows:

Individuals unable to meet their immediate physiological needs at level I of the hierarchy are at a disadvantage in meeting needs at higher levels in the hierarchy. [Auxiliary Proposition, AP, 004].

People with unmet needs for self-protection (level 2) are at a disadvantage in meeting their needs for affiliation (level 3). [AP 005].

In general, people with higher than average unmet needs at any level (n) are at a disadvantage in meeting higher level needs at levels n+m. [AP 006].

The universality of Abraham Maslow’s original needs hierarchy is supported by a survey of well-being across 123 countries. Louis Tay and Ed Diener (2011) examined the fulfilment of needs and subjective well-being (SWB), including life evaluation, positive feelings, and negative feelings.[2] Need fulfilment was consistently associated with SWB across all world regions. Type II homeostasis defined within the General Theory provides a close fit to the natural striving of conscious organisms for security, stability and well-being, described in later chapters. The needs hierarchy amended by Douglas T. Kenrick et al. (2010) is expected to be a close fit to nature.

CONCLUSIONS:

Behaviour is at root an expression of Type II homeostasis. The ‘Reset Equilibrium Function’ (REF) operates in all conscious organisms with purpose, desire and intentionality.
When equilibrium is disturbed, the REF strives to reset psychological processes to equilibrium.
In the hierarchy of needs, Type I Homeostasis strives to satisfy Physiological Needs at level 1. Type II Homeostasis strives to satisfy all remaining developmental needs.

Reference

Stopping the Obesity Crisis

Health is regulated by homeostasis, a property of all living things. Homeostasis maintains equilibrium at set-points using feedback loops for optimum functioning of the organism. Long-term disruptions of homeostasis or ‘dyshomeostasis’ arise through genetic, environmental and biopsychosocial mechanisms causing illness and loss of well-being including obesity, the addictions, and chronic conditions. These and many other phenomena of Psychological Homeostasis are explained in A General Theory of Behaviour.

Obesity dyshomeostasis is associated with a self-reinforcing activity of a vicious Circle of Discontent in which hedonic reward overrides weight homeostasis in an obesogenic and chronically stressful environment. Over-consumption of processed, high-caloric, low-nutrient foods, combined with stressful living and working conditions, have caused loss of equilibrium, overweight and obesity in more than two billion people.

The prevalence of obesity is higher in women and low-income groups who are more exposed to chronic stress and low purchasing power including some ethnic minority groups.

Research on different diets suggests that a plant-based diet containing low amounts of sugar, little or no red meat and the minimum of fats promotes weight-loss and prevents obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, coronary heart disease, and cancer. A vegan diet with no meat, fish or dairy is especially anti-obesogenic.

The ‘thin ideal’ pervades popular culture with narratives and images of thinness which has an entirely negative effect on youth the world over. Legislation should be enacted to ban the use of artificially enhanced images of ultra-thin models in magazines and media.

Discrimination against people who are overweight or obese causes stress and socio-economic disadvantage. Approaches to the epidemic that invoke a narrative of ‘blame-and-shame’ exacerbate the problem. There are very few people who deliberately become obese through conscious effort or who would not like to avoid it if they possibly could.

Homeostatic imbalance in obesity includes a ‘Circle of Discontent’ (COD) a system of feedback loops linking weight gain, body dissatisfaction, negative affect and over-consumption. This homeostatic COD theory is consistent with a large evidence-base of cross-sectional and prospective studies.

A preliminary model suggests that obesity dyshomeostasis is mediated by the prefrontal cortex, amygdala and HPA axis with signalling by the peptide hormone ghrelin, which simultaneously controls feeding, affect and hedonic reward.

The totality of evidence within current knowledge suggests that obesity is a persistent, intractable condition. Prevention and treatment efforts targeting sources of dyshomeostasis provide ways of reducing adiposity, ameliorating addiction, and raising the quality of life in people suffering chronic stress.

Vigorous and uncompromising Governmental actions are required, independent of corporate interests, at all levels of society to reduce the prevalence of obesity and related conditions. A four-armed strategy to halt the obesity epidemic is necessary.

There is an immediate need to enact anti-discrimination legislation to protect people with obesity and improve their quality of life. Anti-discrimination laws are necessary to eliminate one of the primary causes of obesity which fuels the Circle of Discontent. PLWO need legal protection from discrimination which has been shown to be detrimental to the mental health of the victims of obesity.

Legislation to enforce a mandatory code of practice is needed to resist and devalorize the thin-ideal. Precedents have been set in Israel and France to ban models with extremely low BMI, examples which should be followed in all countries. The retouching of pictures in fashion magazines to make the human subjects appear slimmer or more attractive should be controlled. Consumers should be informed when images of people have been manipulated.

Generic legislation is necessary to curb the widespread consumption of energy-dense, low nutrient foods and drinks. Mexico, France, Finland and Hungary and, most recently, the UK have set charges for a levy on sugary drinks, a step in the right direction. More generic taxation is necessary to incentivize producers and retailers to reformulate products. An ‘Unhealthy Commodities Tax’ which would yield revenue and improve the diet of a large segment of the at-risk population.

Improving the access to plant-based diets is an effective strategy for producing weight loss. The example of the WIC in the US indicates that increasing access to fruit and vegetables has a positive effect on food consumption towards a healthier diet. Following the WIC model, legislation should be considered in every state and country to improve F/V intake. Proceeds from a UCT could be used to subsidise the organic production of F/V with payments to growers and sellers to enable lower retail prices of organic F/V. Interventions to increase access and affordability of F/V would help to slow the obesity epidemic.

Huge resources have been invested on the monitoring of the epidemic and on the treatment of PLWO. The major part of future investment should be re-directed towards containment and control by legislating strategies for obesity prevention as was previously the case in tobacco control. No more kowtowing to industry. Let’s cease the “shock-horror” narrative of obesity at all levels of society and replace it by concrete actions.

We know what is required. Can our national governments show the necessary leadership and do what is necessary? The survival of the planet and the human race requires nothing less.

Stop Smoking Now

If you’re a smoker and want to give up the habit, then Stop Smoking Now is designed for you. The approach involves restoration of homeostasis without nicotine in the body or nicotine replacement, e-cigarettes or any other kind of crutch in the form of medication.

The truth is Stop Smoking Now could not only save your life, it offers you a healthier and longer life as well. It also could save you a shed-load of money. A new car every year, fabulous holidays, and a much higher quality of life are all yours if you really want them. But it isn’t really about the money. It’s about your health and well-being.

To gain these benefits, all you need to do for the next 7-10 days is to follow the process. Yes, that’s right, it really is that simple. Hard to believe, right?

Well consider this. I have spent the last forty years fine-tuning the best possible ways for smokers to overcome the habit. My role as a Health Psychologist has brought me into contact with people from all backgrounds and cultures who have been at all the different stages of stopping smoking. In many cases, the smokers started out as desperate and hopeless cases, feeling that nothing could work for them. They had tried almost everything to stop smoking, but nothing had succeeded. Instead of blaming the faulty and futile systems they had been using to stop smoking, including most of all, their own willpower, they typically blamed themselves. They blamed themselves for being “weak”. Sounds familiar?

All a person needs to stop smoking is a system that actually works. A week or two weeks of serious application and, bingo, you will hit the jackpot, stop smoking, and remain a smoker for the rest of your life. Like many ex-smokers, you will experience feelings of joy and empowerment, hugely increased self-control and life satisfaction by achieving what previously seemed impossible – to stop smoking. Nothing can offer you a greater boost to your self-esteem than to stop smoking, absolutely nothing. It’s better than winning the lottery. Because it’s not just about the money you’ll save, it’s about a Whole New You.

Stop Smoking Now gives you the most effective method of stopping smoking. The processes described here will enable you to bring about the change.

I know – I have been there!

In my twenties virtually everybody was smoking. Smoking was the natural and normal thing to do. You could smoke almost anywhere. In shops, cafes, pubs, clubs, cinemas, theatres, absolutely everywhere. It seems crazy now, but that’s how it was. I was a pack-a-day smoker and guess what, I actually thought I was enjoying it. Sound familiar?

Cigarette advertising was everywhere. In newspapers, magazines, on TV, at the movies and on huge billboards all over the place. People would literally drive along motorways and freeways smoking cigarettes and crash their cars gawping at the billboards. It seems a different reality now, but that’s exactly how it was. All kinds of subtle and clever messages designed to get everybody to smoke a particular brand. Brands for ladies, brands for teens, brands for minorities, brands for everyone.

My brand was XXXXX. I don’t really know why. I can’t explain it. As far as I was aware, it had nothing to do with the evocative brand imagery. But at a pre-conscious level, it almost certainly had a lot to do with it. Of course, I tried other brands too, but I usually drifted back to XXXXX. I had probably been smoking for about 10-11 years when something happened that stopped me in my tracks and got me thinking. I switched to the low tar version of XXXXX, called XXXXX Ultra Lites.

I was living in the US when I switched to this ‘sleek’ low-tar brand, a supposedly ‘safer’ method of smoking – ‘safer’ according to the the big tobacco companies, that is. My grey-and-white pack of XXXXX looked smooth and on-trend, the perfect thing for a ‘Man-about-Town’. Like millions of others all over the world, I was one ‘cool dude’ making the switch to ‘low tar’. Until I discovered the truth, that is…

Little did I realize at first what a complete sham these ‘lights’ really were. The tobacco companies had discovered the sneaky idea of making tiny holes in the sides of the filters so when you inhaled you got extra air mixed in with the smoke. This fooled the machines used for measuring cigarette tar levels into assigning lower tar levels inside the cigarettes. Millions of ‘cool dudes’ all over the world were being taken for a ride because the cigarettes contained the exact same chemical concoction of tobacco as the regular, high tar brands. And you paid extra for the privilege! When the government scientists finally figured out what was going on, the terms “light,” “low,” and “mild” in product labeling and advertisements were banned in the USA.

A week or two after I had made the switch I woke up one morning with an unexplained headache and began to notice I was having to inhale ever more deeply to get any real ‘satisfaction’ from my Ultra Lites. This was in 1976 when I was working at the University of Oregon with Professor Ray Hyman. Ray Hyman remains one of the tiny number of people to have one of Psychology’s few real ‘laws’ named after him: the ‘Hick-Hyman Law’.

One evening over dinner Ray gave me a penetrating stare and said: Given all you know about the ill-effects of smoking, why the heck are you still smoking? He stopped me dead, so to speak. I really couldn’t give a rational answer. It was at that very moment that I decided to give up smoking. Within a few days of preparation, I did it. I destroyed my remaining cigarettes and never smoked again.

As I sit at my laptop, forty years later, I can honestly say that I gave up smoking thanks to the headaches from my XXXXX Ultra Lites and the pep talk from my friend. My thanks go out to them both. This was the best health-related decision that I took in the whole of my life. Thanks Ray! Thanks XXXXX Ultra Lites! It’s now forty short years since I quit smoking.

Once I took the decision to quit smoking, however, it was far from plain sailing. I discovered how very difficult it can be. I was crotchety with the whole world. I couldn’t sleep properly. I was sharing my woes with the inside of a beer bottle. There was an inexplicable gap in my life. A vacuum of nothingness that was difficult to fill.

This was how it all started, the main reason I decided to write books and run programmes and campaigns to help other people to stop smoking. After I returned from my visit to the US, a very smart PhD student called Paul Sulzberger came to me with the idea. He and I started running Stop Smoking courses. We put together a course of five sessions that groups of people attended over a period of eight days. The sessions started on a Tuesday and finished the following Wednesday. It was highly successful. Eighty-five percent of smokers had given up by the end of the eight days. The remaining 15 percent had all reduced their consumption significantly.

News of our Stop Smoking programme spread like wildfire and we took the programme all over New Zealand and into Australia. We must have helped 20,000-plus smokers give up the habit. Our research and an independent research organisation told us that we were producing some very exciting results, the highest cessation rates ever recorded. We did ads on TV and in the major papers and franchised the system internationally and it is still running under various umbrellas to this day.

In the mid-80s I returned to London as Head and the first Professor of Psychology at the School of Psychology at Middlesex Polytechnic. The busy London lifestyle felt a bit different to more laid-back New Zealand. In my efforts to continue the march against smoking, I needed a more efficient approach so I converted the method into a self-help pack I called the QUIT FOR LIFE Programme, which was published by the British Psychological Society.

In 2005, the first edition of the version you are now reading was published. In its current edition, Stop Smoking Now has proved to be the most successful stop smoking method ever invented. Yes, that’s right, ever invented.

I have the results of scientific trials prove this. One of my most memorable moments was when I returned on a visit to the beautiful South Island of New Zealand on holiday with my son, Michael. While in Dunedin we visited a friend who lived in the suburb of St Clair. It was a warm and sunny afternoon. A person who, at first I did not remember, had taken my smoking cessation programme many years before came over, looked me straight in the eye, and said: “You saved my life. You helped me stop smoking 25 years ago. Now I’m 75 and fit as a fiddle, thanks to you, I wouldn’t still be here if you hadn’t helped me stop smoking.” This is not the only time I have received the heart-warming announcement: “You saved my life”. Many others have said exactly the same thing.

I too probably wouldn’t still be alive today if I hadn’t stopped smoking. I know from bitter experience. I watched my one-and-only brother Jon die from throat cancer caused by smoking. Jon had only just reached his sixtieth birthday.

But that’s all history now. Let’s return to the present…You are on a different path, a path that can lead to health, increased quality of life, and happiness.

What You Need To Stop Smoking Now
You have taken the first precious step on the path to changing your smoking habit. You have within your hands a powerful and unique system designed to enable you to reach this important goal to stop smoking. You have the desire. You have the motivation. You have the ability. In this book, you have the strategies, the know-how you need to do it, to Stop Smoking Now. Follow the guidance in this book, and you will stop smoking in just a few days, and, think about it, you will never need to smoke again!

This will be the most important step to improve your health that you can take in the whole of your life. Experiencing the process from beginning to end is something you will never forget. You will be a changed person, a New You.

You already realize that smoking is the most stupid, addictive and harmful habit known to humankind. It is predicted that one billion people will die in the 21st Century as a consequence of smoking. One way of solving the world’s population explosion, I suppose… But a smoking-related death it’s not normally a quick death. Smoking-related illnesses are nasty, protracted and painful and require thousands of health care dollars. Having watched my brother slowly die in great pain, it’s something I wouldn’t wish on anybody.

Stop Smoking Now offers you the best chance to overcome your smoking habit without any help from Big Pharma. It offers you a way to extinguish the habit, once and for all. And that’s without taking a shed load of gut-busting drugs. The methods in this book have been evaluated with hundreds of smokers in randomized controlled trials. Tens of thousands of people like you have successfully overcome their smoking habit using these methods.

If you use all of the procedures with commitment and perseverance, you will overcome your smoking habit for ever. You twill be a Calm and Confident Non-Smoker.

Stop Smoking Now is in three stages.

Part One is all about Theory. I discuss the psychology of smoking and quitting. I introduce Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) and its cousin, ‘Mindfulness’, explain how they work, and how they can help you to give up smoking once and for all. It will help you to think about and become acutely aware of what you do when you smoke, why you do it, and what smoking really means to you.

If you’re not much interested in Theory and want to cut straight to the nitty-gritty, you can skip Part One and move directly to Part Two. Part Two is the Practical stuff, the guts of the whole system. It guides you, step by step, from the addicted smoker you are now to a new healthful life as a non-smoker. The process takes 7 to 10 days. This will be your new beginning, a brand new life, the most dramatic way to improve your quality of life, extend your lifespan and make you better off financially in one smart move.

Part Three is also Practical. It’s about Regaining your Life as a Non-smoker. It guides you over the pitfalls of being a recent quitter and helps you to prevent relapse and maintain your non-smoking permanently.

Why You Should Stop Smoking Now
Stopping smoking is, without any doubt, the most important thing you can do to improve your health. If you stop smoking:

• You will live longer and live a healthier life.
• You will significantly reduce your chance of having a heart attack, stroke, or cancer.
• Your skin, hair, body and clothes will no longer reek of tobacco.
• Your fingers will stop turning yellow.
• Your sex life will show a significant improvement.
• If you are pregnant, you will improve your chances of having a healthy baby.
• The people you live with, your loved ones and your children, will have a healthier, less polluted environment.
• You will save a lot of extra money to spend on luxuries and holidays.

How This Method Can Help You
There are thirty different procedures that have helped thousands of smokers give up the habit. Nobody can predict which particular procedures will work best for you – everybody is different. However, by trying this wide range of different procedures, you are giving yourself your best chance of success. Please try them all.

Believe it or not, you can possibly enjoy certain aspects of the process of stopping smoking. It is part of the design to make this method as an enjoyable and fun experience as possible. You will learn a lot about yourself and the potential you have to change yourself for the better. Yes, to actually make yourself a better and more aware and fully functioning person. But I would not be telling you the whole truth, if I didn’t tell you that it can be very, very difficult. You already know that.

An addicted smoker is always, to a degree, dysfunctional. The changes that make you will make will help you to be a fully functional human being again. Like you used to be before you took up the habit, or rather, before the habit took over you.

Drinking, eating, Internet surfing, shopping, chilling, watching TV, gaming, gambling – anything to excess can quickly turn into an addiction. Smoking is a habit which seems extremely difficult to change. As an ex-smoker I know. But smoking can be brought under control easily and permanently by applying this systematic programme.

The book can be used as a stand-alone, self-help, how-to method of quitting or it can be combined with the treatment offered by your local health service providers. Two or more smokers can also Stop Smoking Now together to generate an element of cooperation, or even competition. Who gets there first, is always an interesting challenge, as is Who stays there the longest?

I wish you absolute and complete success in becoming a happy and successful non-smoker.

Homeostasis, Balance, Stability

Featured

Claude Bernard

The central principle of the General Theory in the construct of ‘Psychological Homeostasis’. Sixty-one years after Bernard (1865) wrote about the ‘internal milieu’, Walter B. Cannon (1926) coined the term ‘homeostasis’. Then, 16 years later, psychobiologist Curt Richter (1942) expanded homeostasis to include behavioural or ‘ total organism regulators’ in the context of feeding. From this viewpoint, ‘external’ behaviours that are responses to environmental stimuli lie on a continuum with ‘internal’ physiological events. For Richter, behaviour includes all aspects of feeding necessary to maintain the internal environment. Bernard, Cannon and Richter all focused on a purely physiological form of homeostasis, ‘H[Φ]’. I wish to convince the reader that the hypothesis of the ‘external milieu’, the proximal world of socio-physical action, is equally important.

The General Theory extends homeostasis to all forms of behaviour. Psychological homeostasis can be explained in two stages, starting with the classic version of homeostasis in Physiology, H[Φ], followed by the operating features of its psychological sister, H[Ψ]. The essential features are illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Upper panel: A representation of Physiological (Type I) Homeostasis (H[Φ]). Adapted from Modell et al. (2015). Lower panel: A representation of Psychological (Type II) Homeostasis (H[Ψ]).

To be counted as homeostasis, H[Φ], a system is required to have five features:
1. It must contain a sensor that measures the value of the regulated variable.
2. It must contain a mechanism for establishing the “normal range” of values for the regulated variable. In the model shown in Figure 2.1, this mechanism is represented by the “Set point Y”.
3. It must contain an “error detector” that compares the signal being transmitted by the sensor (representing the actual value of the regulated variable) with the set range. The result of this comparison is an error signal that is interpreted by the controller.
4. The controller interprets the error signal and determines the value of the outputs of the effectors.
5. The effectors are those elements that determine the value of the regulated variable. The effectors may not be the same for upward and downward changes in the regulated variable.

Initiated by the brain and other organs, homeostasis of either type can often act in anticipatory or predictive mode. One principal function of any conscious system is prediction of rewards and dangers. A simple example is the pre-prandial secretion of insulin, ghrelin and other hormones that enable the consumption of a larger nutrient load with minimal postprandial homeostatic consequences. When a meal containing carbohydrates is to be consumed, a variety of hormones is secreted by the gut that elicit the secretion of insulin from the pancreas before the blood sugar level has actually started to rise. The blood sugar level starts lowering in anticipation of the influx of glucose from the gut into the blood. This has the effect of blunting the blood glucose concentration spike that would otherwise occur. Daily variations in dietary potassium intake are compensated by anticipative adjustments of renal potassium excretion capacity. That urinary potassium excretion is rhythmic and largely independent on feeding and activity patterns indicates that this homeostatic mechanism behaves predictively.

Homeostasis involves several interacting processes in a causal network. A homeostatic adjustment in one process necessitates a compensatory adjustment in one or more of the other interacting processes. To illustrate this situation, consider what happens in phosphate homeostasis (Figure 2.3). Many REF-behaviours that we shall refer to are isomorphic with the 4-process structure in Figure 2.2. However, in nature there is no restriction on the number of interconnected processes and any process can belong to multiple homeostatic networks.

Homeostasis never rests. It is continuous, comprehensive and thorough. With each round of the REF, all of the major processes in a network are reset to maintain stability of the whole system. The REF process goes through a continuous series of ‘reset’ cycles each of which stabilizes the system until the next occasion one of the processes falls outside its set range and another reset is required.
Processes in Type II homeostasis may vary along quantitative axes or they can have discrete categorical values. For example, values, beliefs, preferences and goals can have discrete values, as does the state of sleep or waking.

Any change in a categorical process involves change throughout the network to which is belongs. [AP 009].

The speed of a decision is independent of its subjective utility [AP 010].

One objective of A General Theory of Behaviour is to explain the relevance of the REF system to Psychology. We know already that the regulation of action is guided by three fundamental systems: (i) the brain and central nervous system (CNS), (ii) the endocrine system (ES) and (iii) the immune system (IS). It is proposed that, as a ‘meta-system’ of homeostatic control, these systems collectively govern both physiology and behaviour using two types of homeostasis, H[Φ] and H[Ψ], respectively. We can understand how this might be possible in light of a recently discovered ‘central homeostatic network’.

An extract from: A General Theory of Behaviour.

Enjoying the Heat

My new book, A General Theory of Behaviour, begins with a story…

It is a hot summer’s day. A couple are on holiday at a hotel with an outdoor swimming pool. After breakfast, the couple decide to spend a lazy morning beside the pool sunning themselves, reading and swimming. They go to the far end of the pool, where they spot a quiet area about five metres from the only other couple by the pool. They align two recliners a few inches apart and place a small table on either side to mark ‘their’ area of occupation. They carve a niche for themselves by distributing towels and personal objects such as magazines, books, mobile phones, tablets, sun-cream, insecticide lotion, and bags on the tables. They discretely change into swimming costumes and place their clothes on the tables to avoid the ants that quickly gather around objects on the boardwalk. They apply sun-cream, helping each other at the more difficult-to-reach bodily regions. They apply an insecticide to deter any passing mosquitos. They wear sunglasses and sun hats. A large parasol is adjusted by a pool attendant to provide shade from the penetrating sun. As the angle of the sun changes, one of them rises to adjust the parasol so that their recliners remain in the shade.

The couple converse sparingly and rarely speak to the other couple. A ‘Good morning’ here and ‘The water’s nice’ there, but nothing else. They do not wish to invade the other couple’s ‘space’, nor do they wish ‘their’ space to be invaded. After half-an-hour acclimatizing, they take a leisurely 10-minute dip in the pool to ‘cool off’. They swim slowly and quietly, avoiding vigorous movements. After returning to their parasol, drying themselves off, re-applying the sun-cream and insecticide, they order iced cola drinks using a buzzer on one of the tables.

After a few minutes, they take another dip, splash around, tease and joke. They make a little more noise and splashing than on the first occasion, but remain within appropriate limits. They terminate this visit to the pool when the other couple enters the pool because the pool is not large and they wish to avoid ‘over-crowding’. After a few polite comments about the water temperature, they swim to the steps and climb out, walk back to ‘their’ parasol in a gingerly fashion, because the board walk has by then grown so hot that they must step only where there can find shadows or expose their feet to burningly hot boards.

Standing in the shade, they dry themselves, re-apply the sun-cream and insecticide, put on their sunglasses and hats, lie down on their recliners and, flicking away an occasional fly, push the buzzer to order another iced drink, this time two gins and tonic. As the hour turns towards midday, the ambient temperature is become too hot to bear even in the shade and, after finishing their drinks, they pack their things and return to the tranquillity of their air-conditioned, freshly cleaned hotel room. Thirty degrees outside – but not a single droplet of sweat the whole morning.

Exactly what is going on in this story? How can Enjoying the Heat help us to understand universal principles of behaviour? Let’s consider these issues:

We know a lot of intimate detail about the couple’s behaviour. The couple are close. They mark out a niche of territory using the tables and their belongings. They lie out in the sun to be tanned but not burned, to be warm, but not too warm, to be out in the open air and close to nature, but not to be bitten by insects or run over by ants, to be as peacefully relaxed as possible but not wishing to fall asleep, to be stimulated but not taxed, to exercise their bodies but gently and not strenuously, to be refreshed by a drink or two but not to be intoxicated by alcohol, to be polite to neighbours but not overly familiar, and so on and so forth – you are getting the drift. The couple are striving for a state of equilibrium, a state of ‘moderation in all things’, a ‘tiny piece of paradise’, as it says in the hotel brochure. The couple’s every action and reaction as individuals and as a couple are governed by one universal principle that guides all of behaviour. Their behaviour illustrates the power and truth of a single idea, the hypothesis that, at root, all behaviour is an expression of homeostasis. The couple have never been aware of the idea, never even heard of it, yet it is a process that affects every single thing that they, you and I say, think, feel and do.

How can this possibly be so? A joke? A feat of magic? Or, worse yet, the author, publisher and reviewers are all living in la-la land?

None, some or even all of these ideas may be incorrect, but please bear with me and hear me out. This is the story of one particular hypothesis, a dangerous idea –a story with a plot, characters and an unexpected twist. I build the case as we go along, all I ask of you is that you ‘hang in there’…

An extract from: A General Theory of Behaviour

To be continued…

I approached the writing of this book with anticipation

My objective

Anomalistic psychology

Returning to the world of psi

To establish a dialogue, I invited seven *stars* of the field to respond to my criticisms and questions: Daryl Bem, Susan Blackmore, Stanley Krippner, Dean Radin, Hal Puthoff, Rupert Sheldrake, and Adrian Parker. Warm thanks to one and all.

Evidence, critique, new theories

Master zetetic, Marcello Truzzi (1987):

Astronomer, Carl Sagan (1995) also offers wise advice:

The first 20 years of the 21st century

It seems counterproductive to treat Parapsychology and Psychology as separate fields.

The book is geared towards the needs of teachers, researchers and students interested in Anomalistic Experience, Parapsychology and Consciousness Studies.

We must look wherever psi could be found, not only where it is easiest to look.

We’ve walked on the Moon and are heading to Mars, but we still don’t yet know the function of consciousness. One of the starting points must be to separate fact from fiction in anomalistic psychology.

Notes

Share this:

A Perfect Storm

Isolation

Psychological Homeostasis

The Needs Hierarchy

Immediate Physiological Needs (Level 1)

Need for Self-Protection (Level 2)

Need for Affiliation (Level 3)

Need for Status/Self-esteem (Level 4)

Conclusion

References

Share this:

What is homeostasis?

Principle III (Communality): Homeostasis of Types I and II are controlled by a single executive controller in the forebrain.

Principle IV (Steady Stable State): Homeostasis Type II serves the same function for Behaviour as Homeostasis Type I serves for Physiology: the production of a stable and steady state.

Share this:

Modifying Maslow

Principle II (Needs Hierarchy)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

To establish a dialogue, ***I invited seven stars of the field to respond to my criticisms and questions: Daryl Bem, Susan Blackmore, Stanley Krippner, Dean Radin, Hal Puthoff, Rupert Sheldrake, and Adrian Parker. Warm thanks to one and all***.

The first 20 years of the 21^st century