But the progress is threatened by global warming.

Here are the predicted consequences of a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures, as enumerated by the National Academy of Sciences.

• 5-10% changes in precipitation across many regions
• 3-10% increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest
precipitation events
• 5-10% changes in streamflow across many river basins
• 15% decreases in the annually averaged extent of sea ice across the Arctic Ocean, with 25% decreases in the yearly minimum extent in September
• 5-15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown
• 200-400% increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the
western United States

I don’t know if achieving the nurturing environments I envision will contribute to humans working together to prevent the two degree increase that is likely over the next 90 years, but there is some evidence that suggests that nurturing environments could contribute to preventing global warming.

Tim Kasser has done a number of studies of materialistic values and their impact on wellbeing. People who are strongly motivated to be rich and/or famous tend to have greater emotional problems two years later. Some of the studies Tim has done show that threat increases people’s endorsement of material values. Think of it from an evolutionary perspective. In a dangerous world, the first thing to do to survive is make sure you have the material possessions to do so. It seems likely therefore that increasing nurturance will decrease the number of people who pursue materialistic values.

And guess what? Materialism is driving global warming as more and more people aspire to have all the things that can be produced.

There is an interesting piece by Graham Hill in the New York times today. He suggests that we might be happier with less stuff. recommend it.

The Inter-Relationships Among Problems

One major reason why we should be targeting the entire range of problems simultaneously is that they are highly inter-related. The fact that the psychological and behavioral problems of children and adolescents co-occur is well-established (Biglan et al., 2004). What is equally well-established, but not as widely recognized is that major chronic health conditions, such as CVD, diabetes, and obesity are inter-related (Stecker, Fortney, Steffick, & Prajapati, 2006) and are influenced by psychological and behavioral problems and disorders including depression, cigarette smoking, physical inactivity, and unhealthful eating habits (Bot, Pouwer, Zuidersma, Van Melle, & De Jonge, 2012). Co-morbidity elevates patient risk. For example, co-morbid diabetes and depression dramatically increase the likelihood of having a myocardial infarction (Scherrer et al., 2011), diabetes complications (Lloyd-Jones et al., 2009), and cardiovascular disease (Hunt et al., 2002; Sarkisian, Brown, Norris, Wintz, & Mangione, 2003; Slater et al., 2003). The contribution of these disorders to each other is well established (Bodenheimer, & Berry-Millet, 2009; Ku, Fox, Chen, & Chou, 2012; Pan et al., 2010; Schneider, O’Donnell, & Dean, 2009; Stecker et al., 2006; Wulsin, & Singal, 2003) and evidence indicates that effectively treating problems such as physical inactivity can have multiple benefits, such as a reduction in depression (Blumenthal et al., 1999; Dunn, Trivedi, Kampert, Clark, & Chambliss, 2005) and cardiovascular risk (Pischke, Scherwitz, Weidner, & Ornish, 2008; Toobert, Glasgow, Nettekoven, & Brown, 1998; Toobert, Strycker, Glasgow, Barrera, & Angell, 2005).

Common Proximal Influences on Multiple Problems

These problems stem largely from the same non-nurturing environments (Biglan, Flay, Embry, & Sandler, 2012). Problems as seemingly diverse as depression, antisocial behavior, academic failure, and drug abuse become more likely amid family and school environments that are high in socially stressful conditions, including abuse (e.g., Trickett & Bride-Chang, 1995), criticism, teasing, insults, exposure to parental conflict (Davies, Sturge-Apple, Cicchetti, & Cummings, 2007; Wolchik et al., 2009), and coercive interactions (Biglan, Hops, & Sherman, 1988; Dishion, Patterson, & Kavanagh, 1992; Forgatch, Patterson, DeGarmo, & Beldavs, 2009). Such social conditions are also implicated in the development of cardiovascular disease (Dong et al., 2004). There are also toxic biological conditions that are implicated in multiple problems. For example, high levels of omega 6 appear to contribute to depression, aggression, and cardiovascular disease (Hibbeln, 1998; 2001; (Hibbeln, Ferguson, & Blasbalg, 2006).

Numerous experimental evaluations of family and school interventions also show that the prevention of these problems and the development of prosocial behavior is nurtured by environments that teach, promote, and richly reinforce prosocial behavior and monitor and set limits on opportunities to engage in problem behavior (Biglan et al., 2012).

Finally, extensive recent research in clinical psychology shows that environments that encourage psychologically flexible behavior are beneficial for ameliorating a wide variety of psychological, behavioral, and health problems including diabetes (Gregg, Callaghan, Hayes, & Glenn-Lawson, 2007), obesity (Forman, Butryn, Hoffman, & Herbert, 2009; Lillis, Hayes, Bunting, & Masuda, 2009; Niemeier, Leahey, Palm Reed, Brown, & Wing, 2012), cigarette smoking (Bricker, Mann, Marek, Liu, & Peterson, 2010; Gifford et al., 2004, 2011; Hernandez-Lopez, Luciano, Bricker, Roales-Nieto, & Montesinos, 2009), depression (Bohlmeijer, Fledderus, Rokx, & Pieterse, 2011; Folke & Parling, 2004; Hayes, Boyd, & Sewell, 2011; Zettle & Rains, 1989), and other problems (Biglan, Hayes, & Pistorello (2008). Psychological flexibility involves the mindful pursuit of valued action while taking an accepting, nonjudgmental stance toward thoughts and feelings.

Common Distal Influences On Multiple Problems

Perhaps the majority of research at ORI focuses on the proximal influences on one or a few of the problems discussed here. However, achieving a society in which all of these problems become much less common will require that we attend to the larger social context (Biglan, Glasgow, & Singer, 1990).

Reducing poverty and economic inequality are essential for achieving large increases in the prevalence of wellbeing. Yoshikawa, Aber, and Beardslee (2012) review the evidence that poverty is a major risk factor for most of the problems discussed here. Wilkinson and Pickett (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009) show that countries with greater economic inequality have higher rates of social, behavioral, and health problems, even among those who are more affluent. Unfortunately, the U.S. has the highest rate of child poverty of any developed nation (Bradshaw et al., 2012). It also has the highest level of economic inequality (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Although evidence-based family interventions can have beneficial effects for poorer families, poverty is nonetheless a predictor of poor treatment outcomes.

There is growing recognition of the impact of certain corporate practices on human health. The impact of tobacco, alcohol, and food marketing are particularly clear (Biglan, 2009, 2011). Here too it is unlikely that we can significantly reduce these problems without modifying deleterious corporate practices. The success of the tobacco control movement (Biglan & Taylor, 2000), which has addressed tobacco marketing, and the general failure of efforts to reduce obesity, which has done little to affect corporate practices, both point to this conclusion.

Corporate practices have also played a major role in increasing poverty and economic inequality through their advocacy for policies that limited increases in the minimum wage, restricted bankruptcies, deregulated banking, and reduced public expenditure for schools (Biglan & Cody, in press; Hacker & Pierson, 2010).

These facts have a number of implications for our efforts at ORI. First, we should be studying the role of poverty in the problems we work on so that we can further develop empirical support for doing something about this important risk factor. Second, we should study how poverty can be reduced. For example, many poor people fail to take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit. United Way of Lane County has been trying to increase its use. We could conduct research that would help to improve their success. Third, research is needed on the policies that influence corporate and nonprofit organizations’ practices that affect poverty and inequality (Biglan, 2009; Biglan & Cody, in press).

Global warming is occurring at a much faster rate than was predicted even 10 years ago (Hertsgaard, 2011). Within the lifetime of our children it is likely to produce very serious harm, including reduced food production, increased disease, the extinction of many species, and more severe storms, droughts, and heat waves. The generic problem is that humans have great difficulty taking action in light of likely future dangers (Biglan & Barnes-Holmes, in preparation). This is a problem that behavioral scientists must address. Yet very little research is underway that would accelerate the societal changes that are needed to act more effectively in light of the future. It would be possible for ORI to survey what research is happening and develop a program of research. It may seem difficult to get such work funded at the present time, but we are soon going to reach a tipping point in which the magnitude and seriousness of the problem will produce a huge increase in research on it. We might be able to find some scientists who are working on it who could be induced to move their work to ORI. Failing that, we should get clear on the problem and educate others about it. Such an effort would be in keeping with Ed Lichtenstein’s view that ORI should speak for the behavioral sciences, not just the behavioral scientists at ORI.

The Task of the CCOs

Governor Kitzhaber’s goal for healthcare reform is truly audacious. Oregon is attempting to create Coordinated Care Organizations that will reduce the incidence and prevalence of all of the most common and costly problems of human behavior through both prevention and treatment. They are beginning with a focus on the most prevalent and costly problems. These include depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, tobacco use, and drug addiction. As noted above, these problems are inter-related; all involve behavior; and all are influenced by stressful social conditions, which, as documented above, the larger social system influences.

The CCOs may not fully understand the inter-connections among these problems and the importance of more distal influences. This is one of the things that behavioral scientists can contribute to figuring out how to achieve the goals of the CCOs.

Implications for Oregon Research Institute

Continuing to focus on individual problems will unnecessarily limit our impact on human wellbeing. Programs and policies targeting individual problems such as smoking and depression have proven benefit. In trying to reduce the prevalence of these problems it is essential to target risk factors that are unique to each problem. Examples include marketing of cigarettes and having a parent who is depressed. However, because research on the risk factors and interventions has typically focused on individual problems, we have tended to pay less attention to risk factors that have a substantial impact on wellbeing because they affect a wide variety of problems. Examples include experiential avoidance (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006), family conflict (Forgatch et al., 2009), and stress (Sapolsky, 1994). They also include more proximal influences such as poverty and economic inequality (Biglan & Cody, in press; Biglan & Embry, in preparation).
This analysis has implications for both the research that we do and the work that we do trying to help organizations and communities. With respect to our research, it makes sense to develop more comprehensive interventions that, in addition to having specific programs for specific problems, address multiple problems by targeting influences that affect all of these problems. There is no doubt that getting such research funded will have challenges. But we have reached the point of diminishing returns on interventions that are more narrowly focused.

With respect to our assistance to organizations such as Trillium and United Way, we can, as Ed Lichtenstein has suggested, help them understand and target all of the influences that affect wellbeing. We can provide the CCO and other health care organizations with existing interventions such as Deborah Toobert’s MyPath and John Seeley’s depression intervention. We can develop research to implement and test comprehensive interventions, such as the proposal that Julie Rusby, Beth Stormshak, Tom Dishion, and I have submitted to NICHD, which would provide family and preschool supports to successful development of young children in the two high-poverty neighborhoods (one in Springfield and one in Bethel) that United Way has designated “Promise Neighborhoods.”

In short, our perspective should be informed by a thoroughgoing understanding of the proximal and distal influences on human behavior that produce multiple problems/ We have the potential to nurture the development of prosocial people who are caring and productive members of the community. If this seems like a stretch, which takes us beyond the current tracks within which we are working, we might consider that the same is true for the CCOs. They are seeking to change their practices in massive ways. And even if a major experiment in the transformation of health care were not underway, the state of knowledge about the origins and interventions relevant to the most common and costly problems of human behavior shows the need for this broader and more ambitious perspective.

ORI has a long history of leadership in the behavioral sciences. We have the potential to play a pivotal role in what could be the most significant transformation of society in our lifetime. If we can bring to bear all of the knowledge that we have about the causes and the prevention and treatment of the most common and costly problems of human behavior, we can contribute to unprecedented improvements in the wellbeing of Oregonians. Behavioral sciences are uniquely suited to this task. The plan for CCOs reflects an understanding that the traditional, existing medical care system is organized to treat the physical conditions that result from the unhealthful behaviors that our existing social environments are producing. Major improvements in wellbeing will continue to be limited unless we transform those environments into ones that nurture all facets of prosocial behavior (Biglan et al., 2012).

Possible Actions

1. Create a Center for the Support of Healthcare Reform and Comprehensive Prevention. Carol Metzler and I suggested something of this sort several years ago, but it was never pursued. Such a center would provide: (a) information to the public and policymakers about the evidence relevant to improving the health and wellbeing of the population; (b) consultation and training to states, communities, and organizations that are working on any of the areas of public health described above; (c) programs, policies, and practices that could assist in achieving the client’s goals; (d) develop research to support the efforts of the client; and (e) form coalitions with other behavioral science organizations and advocacy organizations to further the goals of ORI and public health. The center would broker assistance from other people and organizations when we could not, ourselves, provide the assistance.
2. Hire an climate scientist
3. Seek foundation funding
4. Develop proposals for testing more comprehensive interventions
5. Work with the University on the creation of the comprehensive center on prevention they are starting to plan.

Some Questions for Strategic Planning
1. If 10 years from now, ORI had greatly extended its impact on human wellbeing (or specific problems you study) what would be happening…
a. In the world?
b. At ORI?
2. What major outcomes does your group hope to achieve in the next five years?
3. Are there ways in which you think that research at ORI could be more broadly organized or coordinated? That is, are the center-like initiatives that might be developed that coordinate a broad program of research in which individual projects contribute to a larger and more effective whole?
4. If over the next five years, the research that we do as an institute became more broadly coordinated…
a. What would that look like?
b. What positive consequences, if any, can you anticipate?
c. What negative consequences?

Reference List

Biglan, A. (2009). The role of advocacy organizations in reducing negative externalities. Journal of Organizational Behavioral Management, 29, 1-16.

Biglan, A. (2011). Corporate externalities: A challenge to the further success of prevention science. Prevention Science, 12, 1-11.

Biglan, A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (In preparation). Acting in light of the future: how do future-oriented cultural practices evolve and how can we accelerate their evolution?

Biglan, A., Brennan, P. A., Foster, S. L., Holder, H. D., Miller, T. L., Cunningham, P. B. et al. (2004). Helping adolescents at risk: Prevention of multiple problem behaviors. New York: Guilford.

Biglan, A. & Cody, C. (In press). Integrating the human sciences to evolve effective policies. Journal of Organizational Behavioral Management.

Biglan, A., Flay, B. R., Embry, D. D., & Sandler, I. (2012). Nurturing environments and the next generation of prevention research and practice. American Psychologist, 67, 257-271.

Biglan, A., Glasgow, R. E., & Singer, G. H. (1990). The need for a science of larger social units: A contextual approach. Behavior Therapy, 21, 195-215.

Biglan, A., Hops, H., & Sherman, L. (1988). Coercive family processes and maternal depression. In R.D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and the family (pp. 72-103). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Biglan, A. & Taylor, T. K. (2000). Why have we been more successful in reducing tobacco use than violent crime? American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 269-302.

Blumenthal, J. A., Babyak, M. A., Moore, K. A., Craighead, W. E., Herman, S., Khatri, S. P., . . . Krishnan, K. R. (1999). Effects of exercise training on older patients with major depression. Archives of Internal Medicine, 19, 2349-2356. doi:10-1001/pubs.Arch Intern Med.-ISSN-0003-9926-159-19-ioi81361.

Bodenheimer, T., & Berry-Millet, R. (2009). Care management of patients with complex health care needs: research syntheses report. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Bohlmeijer, E. T., Fledderus, M., Rokx, T. A. & Pieterse, M. E. (2011). Efficacy of an early intervention based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for adults with depressive symptomatology: evaluation in a randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49, 62-67.

Bot, M., Pouwer, F., Zuidersma, M., Van Melle, J., & De Jonge, P. (2012). Association of coexisting diabetes and depression with mortality after myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care, 35, 503-509.

Bradshaw, J., Chzhen, Y. de Neubourg, C., Main, G., Martorano, B., & Menchini, L. (2012), Relative income poverty among children in rich countries, Innocenti Working Paper 2012-01. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Available online at www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2012_01.pdf.

Bricker, J. B., Mann, S. L., Marek, P. M., Liu, J. M., & Peterson, A. V. (2010). Telephone-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy for adult smoking cessation: A feasibility study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12, 454-458.

Davies, P. T., Sturge-Apple, M. L., Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, E. M. (2007). The role of child adrenocortical functioning in pathways between interparental conflict and child maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 43, 918-930.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Kavanagh, K. A. (1992). An experimental test of the coercion model: Linking theory, measurement, and intervention. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence (pp. 253-282). New York: Guilford Press.

Dong, M., Giles, W. H., Felitti, V. J., Dube, S. R., Williams, J. E., Chapman, D. P. et al. (2004). Insights into causal pathways for ischemic heart disease: Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. Circulation, 110, 1761-1766.

Dunn, A. L., Trivedi, M. H., Kampert, J. B., Clark, C. G., & Chambliss, H. O. (2005). Exercise treatment for depression: efficacy and dose response. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 1-8.

Folke, F., & Parling, T. (2004). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in group format for individuals who are unemployed and on sick leave suffering from depression: A randomized controlled trial. Unpublished Paper. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.

Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. G. (2009). Testing the Oregon delinquency model with nine-year follow-up of the Oregon divorce study. Development & Psychopathology, 21, 637-660.

Forman, E. M., Butryn, M., Hoffman, K. L., & Herbert, J. D. (2009). An open trial of an acceptance-based behavioral treatment for weight loss. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 16, 223-235.

Gifford, E. V., Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., Antonuccio, D. O., Piasecki, M. M., Rasmussen-Hall, M. L. et al. (2004). Acceptance based treatment for smoking cessation. Behavior Therapy, 35, 689-705.

Gifford, E. V., Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., Pierson, H. M., Piasecki, M. P., Antonuccio, D. O. et al. (2011). Does acceptance and relationship focused behavior therapy contribute to bupropion outcomes? A randomized controlled trial of functional analytic psychotherapy and acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation. Behavior Therapy, 42, 700-715.

Gregg, J. A., Callaghan, G. M., Hayes, S. C., & Glenn-Lawson, J. L. (2007). Improving diabetes self-management through acceptance, mindfulness, and values: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 336-343.

Hacker, J. S. & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: Public policy, political organization, and the precipitous rise of top incomes in the United States. Politics & Society, 38, 152-204.

Hayes, L., Boyd, C. P., & Sewell, J. (2011). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for the treatment of adolescent depression: a pilot study in a psychiatric outpatient setting. Mindfulness. doi: 10.1007/s12671-011-0046-5.

Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1-25.

Hernandez-Lopez, M., Luciano, M. C., Bricker, J. B., Roales-Nieto, J. G., & Montesinos, F. (2009). Acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation: A preliminary study of its effectiveness in comparison with cognitive behavioral therapy. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 723-730.

Hertsgaard, M. (2011). Hot: living through the next fifty years on earth. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hibbeln, J. R. (1998). Fish consumption and major depression [Comment]. Lancet, 351, 1213.

Hibbeln, J. R. (2001). Seafood consumption and homicide mortality. A cross-national ecological analysis. World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics, 88, 41-46.

Hibbeln, J. R., Ferguson, T. A., & Blasbalg, T. L. (2006). Omega-3 fatty acid deficiencies in neurodevelopment, aggression and autonomic dysregulation: opportunities for intervention. International Review of Psychiatry, 18, 107-118.

Hunt, K. J., Williams, K., Resendez, R. G., Hazuda, H. P., Haffner, S. M., Stern, M. P. (2002). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality among diabetic participants in the San Antonio Heart Study: Evidence against the “Hispanic Paradox.” Diabetes Care, 25, 1557-1563.

Ku, P., Fox, K. R., Chen, L., & Chou, P. (2012). Physical activity and depressive symptoms in older adults 11-year follow-up. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42, 355–362

Lillis, J., Hayes, S. C., Bunting, K., & Masuda, A. (2009). Teaching acceptance and mindfulness to improve the lives of the obese: A preliminary test of a theoretical model. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 58-69.

Lloyd-Jones, D., Adams, R., Carnethon, M., De Simone, G., Ferguson, T. B., Flegal, K., . . . Hong, Y. (2009). Heart disease and stroke statistics—2009 update. Circulation, 119, 480-486.

Niemeier, H. M., Leahey, T., Palm Reed, K., Brown, R. A., & Wing, R. R. (2012). An acceptance-based behavioral intervention for weight loss: a pilot study. Behavior Therapy, 43, 427-435.

Pan, A., Lucas, M., Sun, Q., van Dam, R. M., Franco, O. H., Manson, J.E., . . . Hu, F. B. (2010). Bidirectional association between depression and type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170, 1884-1891.

Pischke, C. R., Scherwitz, L., Weidner, G., Ornish, D. (2008). Long-term effects of lifestyle changes on well-being and cardiac variables among coronary heart disease patients. Health Psychology, 27, 584–592.
Sapolsky, R. M. (1994). Why zebras don’t get ulcers. New York: Freeman.

Sarkisian, C. A., Brown, A. F., Norris, K. C., Wintz, R. L., & Mangione, C. M. (2003). A systematic review of diabetes self-care interventions for older, African American, or Latino adults. Diabetes Education, 29, 467-479.

Scherrer, J.F., Garfield, L. D., Chrusciel, T., Hauptman, P. J., Carney, R. M., Freedland, K. E., … Lustman, P. J. (2011). Increased risk of myocardial infarction in depressed patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 34,1729-1734.

Schneider, K.M., O’Donnell, B.E., Dean, D. (2009). Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions in the United States’ Medicare population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 82.

Slater, J., Selzer, F., Dorbala, S., Tormey, D., Vlachos, H. A., Wilensky, R. L., . . . Kelsey, S. F. (2003). Ethnic differences in the presentation, treatment strategy, and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (a report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry). The American Journal of Cardiology, 92, 773-778.

Stecker, T., Fortney, J. C., Steffick, D. E., Prajapati, S. (2006). The triple threat for chronic disease: obesity, race, and depression. Psychosomatics, 47, 513–518

Toobert, D. J., Glasgow, R. E., Nettekoven, L. A., & Brown, J.E. (1998). Behavioral and psychosocial effects of intensive lifestyle management for women with coronary heart disease. Patient Education & Counseling, 35, 177-188.

Toobert, D. J., Strycker, L. A., Glasgow, R. E., Barrera, M., Jr., & Angell, K. (2005). Effects of the Mediterranean Lifestyle Program on multiple risk behaviors and psychosocial outcomes among women at risk for heart disease. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 128–137. PMCID: PMC 1557654.

Trickett, P. K. & Bride-Chang, C. (1995). The developmental impact of different forms of child abuse and neglect. Developmental Review, 15, 311-337.

Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger. London: Bloomsbury Press.

Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Jones, S., Gonzales, N., Doyle, K., Winslow, E. et al. (2009). The new beginnings program for divorcing and separating families: Moving from efficacy to effectiveness. Family Court Review, 47, 416-435.

Wulsin, L. R., & Singal, B. M. (2003). Do depressive symptoms increase the risk for the onset of coronary disease? A systematic quantitative review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 201–210.

Yoshikawa, H., Aber, J. L., & Beardslee, W. R. (2012). The effects of poverty on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth: Implications for prevention. American Psychologist, 67, 272-284.

Zettle, R. D. & Rains, J. C. (1989). Group cognitive and contextual therapies in treatment of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 436-445.

He gave a simple example. A mother asks her young son Timmy to get up from the TV and get ready for bed. Timmy whines and says he is wants to watch the show he is watching. His mother does not insist that he get up. Timmy stops whining.

In this simple interaction, Timmy learns that if he whines he will not have to go to bed. His mom learns that if she backs off from her requests, Timmy will stop whining. Both of these events are examples of negative reinforcement: when an aversive event is removed it tends to reinforce the behavior that preceded its removal. Jerry and his colleagues observed hundreds of hours of these types of interactions and found that such sequences of negative reinforcement were much more likely in the homes of aggressive children.

This work showed that seemingly innocuous interactions can lead to the development of quite complex and extensive repertories of coercive behavior. A child who has the misfortune to be in a family that relies on coercive processes to control each other’s behavior becomes quite adept at using whining, anger, and even physical aggression to get what she or (more likely) he wants and to get others to stop doing things that are aversive.

Jerry and colleagues went on to show that such aggressive children brought their aggressive repertories to school. If the school does not get such behavior under control, these children are highly likely to be rejected by peers and fail to learn. A child who is aggressive tends to turn off other kids. And, if a child is used to not complying with adult requests, they will be unlikely to do the things a teacher needs them to do for learning to proceed.

Although most of Jerry’s work focused on aggressive children, he, Bob Weiss, and Hy Hops wrote a seminal paper on how this same process is relevant to marital discord. Subsequent research has shown that married couples who are not getting along use more aversive behavior with each other. There may be repeated exchanges of unpleasant words, looks, and actions, which end when one partner gets so angry that the exchange ends. No one is having fun, but each has learned to end these exchanges by escalating their aggression.

In the 1980’s I was fortunate to team up with Hy Hops and Linda Sherman to do a study of whether coercion is happening in families of depressed mothers. It is. When a depressed mother acted sad or complained about herself, it made it a little less likely that other family members would be unkind or critical. Her depressive behavior was buying her brief respites from others’ unpleasant behavior.

I have come to believe that coercion is the most important social processes challenging human wellbeing. That may seem an outrageous claim, especially if you have not even heard of coercion. However, Jerry’s work has shown rather clearly that the roots of much human misery are in the moment to moment interactions that happen in families, schools, and workplaces.

The good news is that we know how to end these cycles of coercion. If you look inside most effective parenting interventions, marital interventions, or school-based programs, you will find that they focus on reducing coercion. Behavioral parenting skills programs help parents replace harsh and inconsistent discipline with lots of positive reinforcement of prosocial behavior and much more gentle and consistent ways of dealing with misbehavior. Marital programs that work, help couples reduce arguments, be more accepting of each other’s foibles and minor annoying behavior, and increase positive interactions. School-based programs increase prosocial behavior by reducing the use of punishment and criticism of students and greatly increasing the amount of recognition and reward that students get for prosocial behavior.

Jerry and I both feel that coercion has not gotten enough attention. Fortunately, Tom Dishion has taken the lead in organizing an edited book that will bring together all of the evidence on coercion. Hopefully, that will encourage behavioral scientists, policymakers, educators, parents, and organizational and civic leaders to make the reduction of coercion a major goal for our families, schools, workplaces, and communities.

Ah but in this internet era, we can’t rely solely on traditional scientific communications. We can reach people through blogs and social media. Indeed, the success of Tom’s book will depend to some extent on how well we can build a social network of people who are following its development and will read it and recommend it to others.

So, I am happy to say that Jerry has agreed to help me write some blog posts about coercion. Here are some of the topics we talked about:

How do we reduce coercion?
There is a literature that suggests that simply positively reinforcing non-aversive does not work. It seems unlikely extinction is a viable alternative either.

Coercion: When Love is Dying
There seems to be a very strong negative tie between coercion and prosocial behavior.
Even small changes in coerciveness are accompanied by massive decreases in prosocial behavior. The negative correlation is so strong that Jerry suspects it may be non-linear.

What are the Limits on Our Ability to Reduce Coercion
The work with prevention samples suggests long term gains in prosocial interactions. A process that unfolds so beautifully in Marion’s ODS sample. However, recent studies with clinical samples show that changes in coercion that are significant but not nearly as strong as the changes we’re getting using prevention samples. What is the nature of this limitation in change for the clinical samples?

Why Punishing Coercive Behavior is Probably Not Going to Work

Coercion Works, But You Don’t Want to Use It

The Value of Limit Setting

What Happens If You Spend a week or Two Using Massive Amounts of Nonsocial Reinforcers

If You Do Something Negative, You Had Better Follow It with Five Positives

Why Are We Warehousing Antisocial Kids

War Is About Love
In World War II, the general’s couldn’t figure out why only about 20% (despite the best training) of them would not shoot. They interviewed them and said why don’t you get the hell out of there. They said because of their buddies. So war is about love.

We would love to get your comments about what kinds of posts you think would be helpful in spreading the word about the importance of reducing coercion in our society. And, we would welcome contributions to this discussion.

Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word by Elton John
Your Song by Elton John
Can You Feel the Love Tonight

Of course musical tastes vary. Your reaction to these examples may be, “Yuck”

That’s fine. What are some songs that you think encourage nurturance?

The book tells the story of my own journey as a behavioral scientist. I have been fortunate to come of age during what I believe is the most important scientific revolution in human history. I get to tell the story of the enormous progress science has made in understanding—and doing something about–human behavior. I believe this is the most significant development in science ever. If that claim seems outrageous, hear me out.

Thomas Kuhn coined the term paradigmatic revolution in a book he wrote at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences back in the 50’s. The book was titled, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In it, he showed that major advances in science typically occur when a new and more productive paradigm for studying a problem is proposed. Copernicus argued that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the sun revolving around the earth. This made better sense of some of the observations of planetary motion and completely changed the way that astronomers studied the heavens. The modern field of chemistry emerged when alchemist’s focus on the qualities of substances gave way to studying the role of weights of each substance in understanding chemical combinations. Our understanding of the nature of change in biology was revolutionized by Darwin’s insights about the selection of species by their environments.

Science has revolutionized our world. Each of these revolutions led to enormous changes in the ability of humans to manipulate the world. Dynamite, nuclear weapons, penicillin, supersonic travel, and oh so many other things have changed human existence over the last two hundred years far more significantly than it had changed in the previous 10,000 years.

But until recently, we have made very little progress in understanding or dealing with human behavior. As a result, we have a world in which many of the products of science endanger us: Nuclear weapons and global warming are two prominent examples. As David Sloan Wilson has put it, it is like a wish in a fairy tale that turns out badly. Science has given us enormous powers to transform our world, but it has, so far, done little to ensure that humans use the products of the physical and biological sciences in ways that ensure human wellbeing.

My book tells the story of the behavioral science revolution, which has developed effective ways to prevent or ameliorate all of the most common and costly problems of human behavior. For virtually every problem, there are studies showing how to treat or prevent the problem. That is not to say that everyone who has the problem is cured or that every person at risk to develop the problem is prevented from having it. But all of the studies show that the interventions make things better. And as we begin to use the principles that underlie these intervention to make human environments more nurturing, we can greatly reduce the prevalence of all of these problems.

Here is a list of some of those problems: Anxiety, depression, marital discord, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cigarette smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism, academic failure, obesity, violence, crime, stuttering, trichotillomania (compulsive pulling out of one’s hair), bullying, racial prejudice, job burnout, epilepsy, diabetes control, pain, and autism. If you can think of other problems, challenge me!

The exciting thing about the New Harbinger reaction to my book was that they got it that I am telling the story of how all that we have learned can be used to truly change society. We have learned more than simply how to deal with individuals and their problems. We have learned how to create environments that make all of these problems less likely. If we use what we have learned to make more and more families, schools, and communities more nurturing, we will have a world with many fewer traumatized people and many more kind, caring, flexible, and creative people. And, as the composition of our communities and nations change, we will have societies that are better able to solve major problems such as climate change by banding together to take effective action.

Now all I have to do is figure out how to spread the word about this book. I am hopeful that it will contribute to a further revolution in the way that we use behavioral science knowledge to transform society.

Abernethy Elementary School has a wonderful School Kitchen Garden, with a garden tended by the kids and a cafeteria staffed by a real chef. The garden and the cafeteria are really just part of an overall health and wellness curriculum that encompasses science, math and physical education. Garden Tom, an Americorps volunteer, teaches the garden classes, then sends the produce to Chef Nicole. She tries to buy everything locally and cooks it all from scratch. The kids love it and they actually eat the kale.

Over the summer, the USDA changed its school lunch regulations to ensure better meals for the kids of our country. Portland Public Schools had to reevaluate the nutritional content of the meals it serves. And guess what? It didn’t have time to evaluate Abernethy’s superior program and decided to have the school serve the same old heat and serve chicken nuggets as everyone else. (Which, by the way, have their nutritional content packaged by the big food packagers.)

The community of Abernethy rallied together. Congressman Earl Blumenauer called the district. And we got 200 people together on two days notice to talk with state and district officials. And the good news is: Abernethy will raise the money to have a dietician look at the nutritional content of the meals, which satisfies state and district officials.

But it isn’t enough to have one school with a School Kitchen Garden. All schools need them. And the Abernethy community has committed to helping other schools design their own health and wellness programs, and will share recipes and tips on how to keep this movement going.

Dr. Gutting is woefully uninformed about the effectiveness of the behavioral sciences. His view are at least thirty years out of date. He is clearly unaware of the Institute of Medicine report on prevention, which describes the results of numerous randomized trials showing the benefits of many family and school interventions for preventing virtually the entire range of psychological and behavioral problems of human beings.

First, with respect to the assertion that randomized controlled trials “are seldom possible when human beings are involved,” the IOM report on prevention indicates that there were more than 290 randomized trials evaluating preventive interventions between 1999 and 2007. Clearly he is mistaken about the possibility of doing randomized trials.

He is also mistaken about the ability of the behavioral sciences to specify policies and practices that can enhance human wellbeing. The IOM report describes many experimental evaluations of family interventions that routinely show that parents’ skills can be enhanced, children’s positive social development improved, and that problems as diverse as antisocial behavior, drug abuse, depression, and risky sexual behavior cen be prevented. There are family interventions for every stage of development, from the prenatal period through adolescence. At every age, we have solid experimental evidence that the social behaviors that lead children to fail in school and develop multiple problems can be prevented.

Then there are school-based interventions. Here too we have solid experimental evidence that preschools and public schools can be transformed to nurture children’s’ academic and social development. To take just one example, the Psychiatrist, Sheppard Kellam did a randomized trial of the Good Behavior Game, which rewards children for working cooperatively in small groups. He found that when children played the game in first grade, they developed the self-regulatory skills that enhanced their development. Children whose classrooms were randomly assigned to play the game in first grade, were less likely to have problems with suicidality, antisocial behavior, or drug abuse as young adults! I am confident that any physicist who was aware of this research would prefer to have their children in a classroom that played the Good Behavior Game.

Dr. Gutting should also be aware the clinical psychology has made enormous progress in the past thirty years thanks, in part, to its relentless use of randomized trials. I have just reviewed more than fifty randomized trials of an approach to treatment called, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). ACT helps people become more willing to have unpleasant thoughts and feelings in the service of their pursuing valued directions. There are randomized trials showing the benefit of ACT for: anxiety, depression, job burnout, drug abuse, cigarette smoking, schizophrenia, epilepsy, , diabetes, physical activity, prejudice, willingness to innovate, and willingness of drug abuse counselors to try new practices.

Canards about the inferior nature of the behavioral sciences have been a staple of public discussion in some intellectual circles for many years. But times have changed. Like other areas of science there has been a steady accumulation of knowledge. It is time for academics who have an influence on public discussion to become better informed about the very valuable tools that are already available to society to prevent virtually all of the psychological and behavioral problems that plague society. Hopefully people like Dr. Gutting will learn about the tremendous progress that has been made in behavioral science research. Perhaps then he will be writing opinion pieces demanding that society inform its policy-making with all of the evidence that can guide us to achieve communities where many fewer young people develop problems and many more succeed.

Read this piece at the Times website

See yesterday’s column by Charles Blow

The Occupy movement has change our public conversation. There is much more coverage of inequality and the need for regulation of banks, more, not less, government.

Support your local Occupy!

Thus begins the BBC News website’s article, entitled “America’s Child Death Shame” Here are a few of the salient facts:

Over the past 10 years, more than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members…. nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The child maltreatment death rate in the US is triple Canada’s and 11 times that of Italy. Millions of children are reported as abused and neglected every year.
One reason is that teen pregnancy, high-school dropout, violent crime, imprisonment, and poverty – factors associated with abuse and neglect – are generally much higher in the US.
Further, other rich nations have social policies that provide child care, universal health insurance, pre-school, parental leave and visiting nurses to virtually all in need.
In the US, when children are born into young families not prepared to receive them, local social safety nets may be frayed, or non-existent. As a result, they are unable to compensate for the household stress the child must endure.
In the most severe situations, there is a predictable downward spiral and a child dies. Some 75% of these children are under four, while nearly half are under one.”
The entire article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15193530