Insight Magazine Summer 2012

SUMMER 2012

V OLUME 5

ISSUE 1

THE MAGAZINE FOR ALUMNI AND FRIENDS OF THE CHICAGO SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Gut Feelings Hard Facts the battle at the ballot booth

D o e s M u d s l i n g i n g W o r k ? I n s i d e a P o l i t i c i a n ’ s M i n d C h a i r m a n G r u n s t e n R e t i r e s

“

SUMMER 2012 VOLUME 5 ISSUE 1

political brain is an emotional brain. It is not a A dispassionate calculating machine, objectively searching for the right facts, figures, and policies to make a reasoned decision.

”

Drew Westen, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation

editorial staff: Sara Schapmann-Mount Design: Bates Creative Group Contributing Photographers: Judy Beaupre John LaVere Charlotte Shuber Contributing WRITers: Judy Beaupre Adam Smit

President Michele Nealon-Woods, Psy.D. ’01 President Washington, D.C. Campus Orlando Taylor, Ph.D. Interim President Chicago Campus Patricia Breen, Ph.D. INSIGHT is published by the Department of Marketing at TCS Education System. It is mailed to alumni, faculty, staff, and friends of The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

Address changes and correspondence should be sent to: insight@thechicagoschool.edu Visit INSIGHT online at: insight-magazine.org

SUMMER 2012 V OLUME 5 ISSUE 1 T HE M A G A Z INE FOR A L UMNI A ND F R IEND S OF T HE CHIC A G O S CHO OL OF PROFE S SION A L P S YCHOL O G Y

04 04

26 departments 3 President’s Letter 4 On Campus International Psychology students spread their wings; D.C. Campus welcomes the “Godfather of Black Psychology” and, in L.A., students reach out to homeless women.

8 Faculty Faculty share their views on the Latino voter, the spiritual voter, and our brains at work as we make election decisions.

14 28 Giving back Retiring Board Chair Ricardo Grunsten reflects on his two-decade commitment to The Chicago School.

29 Last page A rite of passage: graduates at the Los Angeles and Chicago campuses begin their new roles as Chicago School alumni.

FEATURES 14 Gut Feelings vs Hard Facts: The Battle at the Ballot booth We may believe that our election day decisions are rational and deliberate, but are they really?

26 ALUMNI

20 Political Mudslinging: Does It Work?

Meet two alumni and one alumnus-to-be who are putting their Chicago School education to work with aging populations, political strategists, and the legal profession.

Pundits are calling this the most negative campaign in history, but political psychologists claim that attack ads have their place.

24 Politicians: What Makes Them Tick?

One researcher looks at pragmatism and rigidity as key factors in the willingness to compromise.

We’re still here for you.

Your Chicago School diploma came with a lifetime of career services—whatever your age, time since graduation, or level of professional development.

Career Services for Alumni Meet with a career advisor Schedule an in-person, phone, email, or Skype meeting with a career advisor for assistance with: • CV/resume and cover letter preparation • Career advancement and transition strategies •P rofessional development workshops

and events

Access the online job board •E mployers: Create an employer account to post jobs, search resumes, and hire TCSPP talent •J ob Seekers: Explore current employers

and hiring opportunities, search for post-doctoral internships, and develop professional resumes and cover letters

Stay connected through alumni networking The LINK Mentoring Program connects students and alumni to build meaningful mentoring and networking relationships via LinkedIn.

Contact Career Services at (312) 467-2309 or email careerservices@thechicagoschool.edu.

For more information, visit our website at ego.thechicagoschool.edu/careerservices.

{president’s letter} INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 3

T

oday, the stigma of mental illness continues to be pervasive in many communities, preventing individuals and families from seeking timely and adequate mental health treatment. The statistics are alarming: one in four adults and one in 10 children—or 60 million Americans—suffers from a mental health disorder, but less than one-third seek treatment. Our returning war veterans have also found ways to hide their illness, keeping many troubled soldiers from taking advantage of help that is readily available.

In this issue of INSIGHT, you will discover how and why we vote, the psychology behind our choices on election day, what makes politicians tick, and why we are influenced by negative campaign ads.

But given all that we know, an understanding of the changes in public perceptions and attitudes about mental illness still eludes us. Is there a role for politics in bringing the illness out of the shadows?

Former Representative Patrick J. Kennedy was a tireless advocate for eliminating this stigma.

He fought for the passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, signed into law in 2008. The law provides access to mental health treatment for tens of millions of Americans who were previously denied care. But although this was an important first step toward equity in care, the real challenge for those of us in the profession and politicians alike is breaking down the barriers

Politics and Psychology: Strange Bedfellows and misinformation that prevent individuals and families from seeking treatment.

The Chicago School has tackled this challenge on several fronts. Recognizing that cultural competency and diversity among providers play critical roles in helping families be less fearful, we’re training culturally competent providers, connecting victims to resources, and improving treatment options. Several years ago, The Chicago School created the Naomi Ruth Cohen Institute for Mental Health Education, which has reached out and given voice to individuals and families who have experienced mental illness in isolation. The establishment of our Center for Latino Mental Health also serves as a national model to increase mental health services for all diverse populations.

Politics and psychology make strange bedfellows, but only when we work hand-in-hand with decision­-makers to effect policy change, and also engage them as champions to speak out on this issue with their constituents. Only then can we hope to reduce the stigma of mental illness during this decade.

Michele Nealon-Woods, Psy.D. President

on campus

T he Chicago S chool Here and Now

D.C. Campus International Psychology students at the “Toward a Global Psychology” conference in New York. From left: students Gerson Morales, Shirley Carroll, and Anjhula M. Bais; Dr. Judy Kuriansky, APA representative to the United Nations; Dr. Uwe Gielen, conference speaker; and students Stephanie Beck and Nickesha Riggins.

International Psychology Students Make Rapid Impact T

he inaugural cohort of International Psychology students at The Chicago School’s D.C. Campus have wasted no time making their mark in a fledgling field. The seven students, who range in age from 25 to 53 and come from backgrounds as diverse as the populations they seek to serve, have already earned recognition for their research. They have also received multiple invitations to present their work—and have even begun forging worldwide connections among psychologists.

The first program of its kind in North America, TCSPP’s doctorate in International Psychology challenges students to examine and break down cultural barriers.

According to Dr. Janet de Merode, an IP professor at the D.C. Campus, the students are doing just that—and blazing a new trail in the process. “They’re really just throwing themselves into this, and I love it,” she says.

“They’re very exciting as a group of students because they’re creating the field as they go.”

The cohort’s first accomplishment, the establishment of their Psychologists Without Borders Club, came only weeks after the program began in August 2011. Students, like club president Nickesha Riggins, saw a problem that they could start addressing right away: lack of interconnectedness among psychologists of different cultures.

She says that in addition to hosting renowned speakers and organizing public events, the club plans to help connect psychologists around the world with each other and make pertinent research available to those who might not otherwise have access to it. “It’s really about the connections and working to broaden your personal horizons and your personal treatment plan for your clients,” she

‘Godfather of Black Psychology’ Addresses Chicago School Students Nationwide

D

r. Joseph White, pioneer of the Black Psychology movement, delivered a multicampus lecture to Chicago School students on Feb. 17 in Washington, D.C. His address, “Black Psychology: A Historical Review and Outline of Today’s Challenges,” was streamed live via the Internet, allowing students in Chicago and Los Angeles to watch, listen, and participate interactively.

conference of Psychologists for Social Responsibility.

The research project was first conceived when students witnessed the eviction of Occupy D.C. protesters from their encampments in McPherson Square outside of their class. Sensing an opportunity to chronicle the unique motivations and sentiments of people at the core of a relevant social movement, they interviewed protesters, students, local business owners, and faculty, distilling their findings into a research paper.

What does a movement ostensibly aimed at curbing Wall Street excesses have to do with international psychology? Everything,

according to student Shirley Carroll. “I believe that as professional psychologists we have a social responsibility,” she says. “The Occupy movement is a great opportunity to give a voice to people who have something to say that have not had the opportunity to do so. One of our roles is to do that—to offer an opportunity for a platform.”

Dr. de Merode agrees, adding that in an increasingly borderless world, work like that being undertaken by her intrepid cohort is becoming more and more crucial.

“Training people to understand cultural heritage and how much it affects people’s well-being will go a long way toward easing tension in the world,” she says.

“He is the personification of something we value as a core value at TCSPP. He is truly an agent of change,” said D.C. Campus President Orlando Taylor in his opening remarks.

Held in recognition of Black History Month, the lecture focused on the national policy implications of addressing mental health issues within the increasingly diverse communities of American society.

Dr. White also highlighted seven psychological strengths of African-Americans: improvisation, resilience, connectedness to others, spirituality, emotional vitality, gallows humor, and healthy suspicion of “you know who.” Each strength, he maintained, is born out of the unique and sometimes challenging cultural experience of being African-American.

The address was followed by formal responses, presented by one student from each of the three campuses, and a Q&A session.

Ameera Bella, a doctoral student and the respondent for the L.A. Campus, said she appreciated Dr. White’s relatable, down-to-earth speaking style. “What struck a chord for me the most was when he spoke about being burnt out during a time in his career,” she said.

“He realized that he needed to go within, work on himself, and discover new and different ways to be an agent of change.”

Dr. White first rose to prominence at the 1968 convention of the American Psychological Association, where he founded the Association of Black Psychologists. “He argued that you have to look at the mental health issues in the African-American community through the lens of black culture,” said Dr. Taylor after the event. Though the idea was controversial at the time, “40 years later, everybody recognizes it to be a truism,” he added.

Known as the “Godfather of Black Psychology,” Dr. White, professor emeritus of psychology and psychiatry at the University of California-Irvine, received a Citation of Achievement in Psychology and Community Service from President Clinton in 1994. His work also helped other contemporary movements such as civil rights and gender equality to gain traction.

Dr. White received an honorary doctorate from The Chicago School in 2010 and delivered the 2012 commencement address at the Chicago Campus in June. He joined the school’s board of trustees in May.

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 5

says. “Even if you don’t leave the country, you need to know how to relate to people from different countries who come into your office.”

In addition to the work they are doing with the club, the students have been invited to present their research and share their expertise at various events, including the “Toward a Global Psychology” conference at New York’s St. Francis College in April.

Most recently, the students presented findings from research they conducted on the Occupy movement at “Psychology and the Occupy Movement: Synergies for Social Change,” the 30th anniversary

on campus

Erasing the Distance Executive Artistic Director Brighid O’Shaughnessy (left) speaks to Chicago School students.

RIGHT: Actor Jason Economus performs as Matthew, a college student born with cerebral palsy who shared his story for Finding Peace in This House.

T he Chicago S chool Here and Now

Students Team Up with Theater Company to Give a Voice to Mental Illness

A

new partnership has Chicago School students taking on an unexpected task: playwriting. Thanks to a collaboration with local theater company Erasing the Distance (ETD), dozens of students have been crafting dramatic monologues based on in-depth interviews with people with mental disorders—and many of them have found their way to the stage.

The creative alliance began with a conversation between TCSPP’s Dr. Katia Mitova, director of The Center for Academic Excellence, and ETD Executive Artistic Director Brighid O’Shaughnessy.

“A lot of times there’s this disconnect between community service, or community partnerships, and the actual community,” says O’Shaughnessy. Together, she and Dr. Mitova devised a plan to help bridge the divide. Through a series of workshops offered at The Chicago School, students learned active listening skills and put them to work interviewing local community members, friends, or family with mental disorders. The students then transcribed the interviews and trimmed them down to

poignant performance-length monologues for an ETD production.

The first round of story-collecting culminated in Finding Peace in This House, a play consisting entirely of the student-written pieces, which opened to a packed house at the Chicago Cultural Center in June 2011. After visiting TCSPP later in the year to participate in mental health training that was conducted by students and designed to help inform the actors’ performances, the company remounted the play in January as the first show of its inaugural season.

The monologues feature firsthand accounts given by people who have faced problems like depression, homelessness, and abuse. One such contributor, Ramona, reflected on the time she spent struggling with the aftermath of homelessness. “It was very lonely to be a survivor of something like that,” she said in her monologue, which was performed by ETD actress Desla Epison. “I used to ask myself, ‘Am I the only one?’”

Actors took great pains to craft accurate, honest portrayals of their subjects without altering the content or editorializing.

Several students reported that the way they interact with clients changed dramatically through the interviewing and writing

LA Partnership Pairs TCSPP Students With Homeless Women

T

hrough a new community partnership with the Los Angeles Mission, L.A. Campus students will soon begin providing mental health services to homeless women enrolled in a unique program designed to help them make critical life changes and regain their confidence and dignity.

Between 10 and 12 students in the Clinical Psychology, Forensic Psychology, and Marital and Family Therapy programs will make up the initial practicum cohort, each working under the supervision of a licensed psychologist to assess and participate in treatment plans for clients of the Anne Douglas Center for Women.

“Women who have been on the streets have a trauma component to their service needs,” says Terry Masi, interim senior director of training for

“It’s a wonderful opportunity for our students, who will have the opportunity to put a wide variety of skills into practice,” Masi says. “They will perform holistic assessments to determine clients’ cognitive and work abilities, as well as their psychological and criminogenic needs. They will then be able to make recommendations about interventions and will participate directly in their treatment plans.”

The Los Angeles Mission is a 75-yearold faith-based organization dedicated to addressing the needs of men and women living on the streets of Skid Row. Currently 120 clients are served through the Jump Start and Fresh Start programs, and through the Douglas Center—named for the wife of actor Kirk Douglas—which tailors services to the unique needs of women who have been on the street.

As a Christian-based organization, the Mission has historically worked with clients on a spiritual and religious basis, Masi explained, but administrators have

“ Women who have been on the streets have a trauma component to their service needs.

The sheer nature of their situation has made them vulnerable.” the campus. “The sheer nature of their situation has made them vulnerable; their need to secure food and shelter has opened them up to sexual and physical abuse. They have so much to deal with, including a lot of guilt and shame.”

TCSPP students will work with women on an individual and group basis, using a variety of tools to assess their abilities and needs, and then to develop appropriate treatment plans. As a first step, students will be assigned in pairs to shadow chaplains during the Jump Start program—a one-month introductory phase during which clients receive preliminary services and decide whether to commit to a more comprehensive two-year Fresh Start program.

more recently come to realize that many women had mental health needs that needed to be addressed as well. Thus, a partnership with The Chicago School’s L.A. Campus was forged.

“The Mission bases its services on relationships, and the relationships that clients develop with our students will be an important part of that,” Masi says. “If they can learn to trust one person, it will be critical in helping them move forward and trust others. It will be a wonderful learning experience for our students as well; when you walk through the center, you can’t help but see the hope and the dignity associated with recovery. These are things that our students don’t see in their everyday lives.”

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 7

process. “Ramona has altered the way I perceive others,” says Sarah Silva of her interviewee. “She inspires me to see mental illness not as something that is all-encompassing, but as something that is a part of you. In my current training to become a mental health counselor, I have noticed that people enjoy telling their stories. It tells me more about who they are—nothing even close to what any label or diagnosis could ever attain.”

Dr. Mitova says the ability to think beyond theories and formulas is an essential facet of a Chicago School education. “The experience we offer through this and other events is another way of teaching them to deal with uncertainties rather than problem-solve immediately,” she says. “We thought of this as possible training for our students to start listening differently, to start empathizing differently.”

Now in its second year, the partnership between The Chicago School and Erasing the Distance Theater Company has been incorporated into the coursework of several TCSPP classes, such as Dr. Bianka Hardin’s Diversity in Clinical Psychology class and Dr. Sandra Siegel’s Professional Development class. In addition to collecting stories for possible performances, students create informational handouts and provide support for audience members eager to learn more or to share their own accounts of mental illness.

“And this is only the beginning,” says O’Shaughnessy. From story collection to follow-up research projects and dissertations about the project, many students have been drawn to the new initiative and its potential. “Clearly there are a lot of students who have a passion for both psychology and the arts,” she says. “And I think we’re offering a really cool opportunity for them to explore it through a lot of different channels.”

faculty

BE YOND THE CL A S SROOM

Presentations, Publications, and Praise Breaking New Ground in Hispanic Neuropsychology

D

r. Tulio Otero, associate professor of school psychology, is taking strides to advance the field of Hispanic neuropsychology in the United States and beyond.

Owing in large part to his efforts to break down the language barrier that often prevent Hispanics in the United States from benefiting from advances in contemporary brain science, Dr. Otero was recently chosen by members of the

Hispanic Neuropsychological Society (HNS) to serve as the organization’s next president. In 2011 he and HNS colleague Mary Annette Moreno developed a Spanish-language version of the DasNaglieri Cognitive Assessment System, a test of cognitive functioning that provides a baseline for psychologists and educators to use when evaluating, diagnosing, and planning interventions for children and adolescents.

Dr. Otero plans to administer the test internationally with the help of colleagues in the United States, Puerto Rico, and various locations throughout Central America. At present, versions of the test are available in a number of languages, including Italian, Japanese, and Korean.

“What this will do is serve as an instrument to use with the very population that we want to serve,” says

Dr. Otero. “It will be a current test like no other that is available; we will have normative data for both the mainland U.S. population who are not Hispanic and for Spanish-speaking populations.”

Research is only one of the goals of the Hispanic Neuropsychological Society. “There is a paucity of neuropsychologists that are Hispanic bilingual that can adequately serve children and adolescents, not only throughout the nation but abroad as well,” Dr. Otero says. To counter this, the HNS works to identify, support, and connect bilingual practitioners, as well as develop standards and models for training physicians, attorneys, and psychologists who are not bilingual.

Dr. Otero will assume the presidency of the HNS at the November 2012 meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology.

PRESENTATIONS Dr. Todd DuBose, associate professor, Clinical Psychology, Chicago, presented “Being-With as Fated Hope: Existentialphenomenological ‘Being-With’ and Implications for Multi-discipline Professionals Facing ‘Fated’ Situations” at the Society for Humanistic Psychology Annual Conference in Pittsburgh in April.

Dr. Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, professor, School Psychology, Chicago, delivered a keynote address to the November 2011 assembly of the Houston Area Diagnosticians Association titled “Neuropsychological Sequelae of LowBirth Weight and Prematurity.”

Dr. James F. Iaccino, associate professor, Forensic Psychology, Chicago, and Jenna Dondero, adjunct professor, Forensic Psychology, Chicago, presented “It’s A Bird, It’s A Plane, The Superman Mythos Revisited” at TCSPP’s Cultural Impact Conference in January.

They also provided commentary for the short documentary “The Son Becomes the Father,” included with the 2011 DVD box set of the TV show “Smallville.”

Dr. Aaron Mishara, professor, Clinical Psychology, Chicago, gave a number of co-presentations with students, including: “PTSD Flashbacks and Memories for Psychosis: Disruption of ‘User’s Illusion’ in Episodic Memory?” at a meeting of

the Society of Biological Psychiatry in Philadelphia in May; “How Do the Arts Model Empathy in Clinical Interactions?” and “Depersonalization in Mental Disorders and Personality Misidentification Syndromes” at the Division 32 Humanistic Psychology meeting of the APA in Pittsburgh in April; “Neurobiology of PTSD Flashbacks: Disruption of ‘User’s Illusion?’” at the Washington, D.C.-based Society for Neuroscience in November 2011; and “ACT and Existential Approaches to Self” and “How the Arts Model Empathy for Professional Students in Training” at the Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration (SEPI) in Evanston, Ill., in May.

Dr. Tulio M. Otero, associate professor, School Psychology and Clinical Psychology, Chicago, delivered “Interventions for Learning and Developmental Disorders: A Neurocognitive Approach” to the Missouri Association of School Psychologists in October 2011. He presented “Towards a Model of Neurocognitive Assessment of Hispanic Students” to the National Association of School Psychologists in Philadelphia in February.

Drs. Tulio M. Otero, Eleazar Cruz Eusebio, and William Turton, Chicago, presented “Different Neuropsychological Perspectives Utilizing Data-Based Decision Making” at the annual National Association of School Psychologists conference in Philadelphia in February.

R

esearch co-supervised by Dr. Claude Barbre has joined a growing body of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of play therapy for children.

During his tenure as executive director of the Harlem Family Institute, Dr. Barbre, with HFI Research Coordinator Jill Barbre, helped launch a study in 2003 in which therapists incorporated play therapy in sessions with children from Harlem-area schools. Employing psychodynamic techniques that utilized toys, drawings, and role enactments to help children work through feelings of anxiety and distress, Dr. Barbre and fellow researchers saw significant improvements in the children’s classroom functioning. Through the use of the Child Play Therapy Instrument—a

Dr. Richard S. Sinacola, associate professor, Clinical Psychology and MFT, Los Angeles, gave a training at The Betty Ford Center on Ethics and the Law in April, educating staff about currently pertinent matters of ethical thinking and legal trends that affect mental health and substance abuse professionals.

Dr. Nancy Zarse, associate professor, Forensic Psychology, Chicago, presented a three-part series, “Stress Management for Legal Aid Attorneys,” for the Chicago Bar Foundation in summer 2011; “Managing Time, Managing Stress” for Illinois Legal Aid attorneys in October 2011; and “Risk Factors for Violence”

at McHenry Community College, also in October 2011.

Visit insight-magazine.org for a complete listing of recent TCSPP faculty accomplishments.

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 9

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Play Therapy

rubric developed by psychologists for using video recordings to measure observable behaviors in children’s play therapy sessions—they also found data to suggest substantial improvement over time.

“Psychotherapists who work with children have always known the centrality of play,” said Dr. Barbre.

“However, it was gratifying to see through the HFI outcome study and results how the importance of play can also be clearly measured and validated beyond anecdotal reports of success and clinical observation.”

The results of the study were published in the September 2011 issue of the Journal of Child Psychotherapy as part of a critical review of the body of evidence regarding psychodynamic psychotherapy as an effective treatment for children and adolescents.

Jill Barbre, who currently serves as a program supervisor at the Erikson Institute—a Chicago-based graduate school in child development—noted that “although the effectiveness and benefit of psychodynamic play therapy is too often considered beyond empirical study, this small project demonstrated clearly that play therapy can be measured in a way that contributes to a growing evidence base.”

PUBLICATIONS Dr. Claude Barbre, associate professor, Clinical Psychology, Chicago, authored the review essay “The Fundamentalist Mindset” for the fall 2011 issue of the Journal of Religion and Health.

Dr. Todd DuBose, associate professor, Clinical Psychology, Chicago, published “On Not Knowing What to Say in the Tragic Face of the Other: Radical Phenomenology in as Abysmal Consolation” in the July 2011 issue of Philosophy Study.

Dr. Connie S. Fuller, associate professor and associate chair, Business Psychology, Chicago, contributed to Productive Workplaces: Dignity, Meaning, and Community in the 21st Century, a book published in January.

Dr. James F. Iaccino, associate professor, Forensic Psychology, Chicago, published a film review on the Australian film “Animal Kingdom” titled “The Family That Slays Together, Stays Together” in the August 2011 issue of the APA journal PsycCRITIQUES. Dr. Kelly McGraw, assistant professor, School Psychology, Chicago, co-authored “Role of the School Psychologist: Orchestrating the Continuum of School-wide Positive Behavior Support” in the June 2011 issue of NASP Communique.

Dr. Aaron Mishara, professor, Clinical Psychology, Chicago, authored chapters in Founding Psychoanalysis Phenomenogically (2011), The Cognition of Literature (2012) and The Maudsley Reader in Phenomenological Psychiatry, and co-authored a chapter in Altering Consciousness: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. He also co-published articles in Schizophrenia Bulletin (2012); The Six Most Essential Questions in Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Pluralogue (2012); Existenz, An International Journal in Philosophy, Religion, Politics, and the Arts (2012) and Biological Psychiatry (2012).

Dr. Tulio M. Otero, associate professor, School Psychology and Clinical Psychology, Chicago, co-authored “Cognitive Assessment System: Redefining Intelligence from a Neuropsychological Perspective” and “Assessing Diverse Populations With Nonverbal Measures of Ability in a Neuropsychological Context” for a 2011 edition of the Handbook of Pediatric Neuropsychology. He also co-authored “Assessing Diverse Populations with the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability” and “The Cognitive Assessment System: From Theory to Practice” for the 3rd edition of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment.”

Dr. Adam Yerke, adjunct professor, Forensic Psychology, Los Angeles, published “Am I Man Enough Yet? A Comparison of the Body Transition, Self-Labeling, and Sexual Orientation of Two Cohorts of Female-to-Male Transsexuals” in the December 2011 issue of the International Journal of Transgenderism.

PRAISE Dr. Lejla Delic-Ovcina, assistant professor, International Psychology, Chicago, received the College of Applied Health Sciences Online and Distance Teaching Award at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in December 2011.

Dr. Todd DuBose, associate professor, Clinical Psychology, Chicago, was awarded the American Psychological Association Division 32 Early Career Award.

faculty

BE YOND THE CL A S SROOM

Q&A T

o many of us in professional psychology, politics—and the endless implications it holds for our chosen field—is an area of ultimate intrigue. In this—another

presidential election year, when so much of our future rides on the decisions that we make individually and collectively—we at INSIGHT wanted to explore the issues and the interconnections as thoroughly as possible. We knew that our faculty—with their diversity of expertise and background—would have fascinating perspectives to share. We chose three areas to explore through Q&A interviews: the impact of spirituality, the role of neuropsychology, and the voting challenges facing the fastest-growing

D r . E usebio

dr . D ubose

D r . R i v era

segment of the United States electorate: Latinos.

Azara Santiago Rivera Lead Faculty, Counseling Psychology Washington, D.C. Campus In 2010, Latinos accounted for 16.3 percent of the United States population, but only 6.9 percent of voters who turned out for the midterm elections. Of the 21.3 million Latinos eligible to cast a ballot, less than a third—only 6.6 million—went to the polls. INSIGHT asked Dr. Rivera to discuss issues that impact voter turnout in the Latino population.

INSIGHT: Are there issues that divide Latino voters?

Rivera: A Pew Hispanic Center report raises the question: is the Obama administration deporting more illegal immigrants than the Bush administration did? We could safely say that 41 percent of all Latinos polled for this say that Obama is in fact deporting more... while 10 percent say Obama is deporting fewer. But if you look at native-born Latinos—those born in this country— and compare their responses to those born in countries of origin, it’s even more different. For example, 55 percent believe Obama is in fact deporting more immigrants, whereas only 25 percent of those born in the U.S. believe that he is.

And that’s reflected in voting behavior.

INSIGHT: What issues motivate Latinos to vote?

Rivera: In my experience, it isn’t immigration that motivates people to go out to the polls. It’s things like education, jobs, health care—those are the issues that are essential for Latinos.

People think, oh it’s immigration that’s the big thing, but it’s not, it’s really not.

Right now with this economy, it’s jobs, it’s also health care. And it’s no different from the rest of the population. But there is also something interesting going on—it is the history of the population and the fact that it is so diverse. If political campaigns focused on those differences,

or at least showed an understanding that there are differences, I think more Latinos would vote because it would seem that their voices are heard. I’ll give you an example. If you were to ask a group of Hispanics, “How do you identify?,” 90 percent would say they identify with whatever their country of origin is.

They would say “I’m Cuban,” “I’m from Guatemala,” “I’m from Honduras.” What does that tell us? It tells us the population is not homogenous. I often think the campaigns dismiss that heterogeneity and that I think is harmful. It affects the motivation to vote, because no politician is identifying with the history of each of those individuals. And if you were to look at who goes out to vote, the Cubans are at the top of the list.

barrier. There is a growing population of bilingual individuals and a larger growing population of monolingual English speakers, but by and large they tend to be Spanish dominant. I don’t think they feel their voices are being heard.

INSIGHT: The Obama campaign is starting to run more Spanishlanguage ads, especially in states with large Latino populations. Do you think that will make a difference?

Rivera: I think it will. But sometimes the issues aren’t very clearly presented.

They have to be at a level that is understandable and that reaches home. I’ll give you an example. One of the major concerns is the discrimination that the population faces, especially now with

“ It’s more about daily hassles,

needing to work to support a family.”

INSIGHT: Why is that?

Rivera: The voter turnout is very high—almost 50 percent of Cubans will vote. If you look at their profile, they come from a higher socioeconomic background, higher education, and that very much reflects the overall population [of voters]. One of the most important characteristics of Latinos who vote is that they tend to be college educated; they tend to be older, they arrived in this country before 1990. So what’s all that about? If you’re going to target any voter in a campaign, it should be targeted at college-educated individuals. How do you then court other Latinos from other countries of origin to go and vote? I think that’s missing in most political campaigns.

INSIGHT: So what can we do to get more Latinos out to vote?

Rivera: We know that the majority of Latinos are not college educated, and what they’re concerned about is working—there’s a strong work ethic—and taking care of their family. The other demographic variable that often interferes with all this is the language

Arizona passing this immigration law.

The level of discrimination happens on a daily basis. It doesn’t have to be blatant, but it happens every day. And what campaign is addressing that, or even acknowledging that it is happening? I don’t think any campaign is.

Think about this: it’s more about daily hassles, needing to work to support a family. Those are the issues that are important. Finding quality education for my children. There needs to be a concerted effort to address those things.

Like the DREAM Act—that’s a classic example. Politicians, the powers that be, are on the fence about the DREAM Act. My goodness, that’s central, that’s access to education. Now there’s so much push-back on that. Do you think I would be motivated to go out and vote for someone who doesn’t support that?

LISTEN TO THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS ONLINE. insight-magazine.org/ QA-Rivera

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 11

The Latino Vote

faculty

BE YOND THE CL A S SROOM

The spiritual voter Todd DuBose Associate Professor, Clinical Psychology Chicago Campus Is there a connection between our spiritual side and how—or even if—we vote?

INSIGHT asked Dr. DuBose to draw on his extensive work in spirituality and its interconnection with psychology to discuss political activity from this point of view.

INSIGHT: What is the connection between spirituality and an individual’s degree of political or civic engagement?

Dubose: That depends on what’s meant by spirituality and political engagement.

People have tried to make the distinction between religion being a set of practices and beliefs based on an institutional alignment and spirituality being more the lived experience. The way I go at it is with the Latin phrase homoreligiosis—meaning we’re inherently religious. And by that I mean we’re all meaning-making, transcendence-seeking, freedom-loving, creative creatures. Just because we’re human, that’s what we do. So in that sense there’s very much an alignment between what’s spiritual for someone and what they do in their own patterns of political engagement.

Traditionally that sense of community, which is what politics is trying

diversity as a threat and a contamination of what is familiar. And those who are seeking diversity will see the yearn for sameness as a threat of fascism of some sort.

INSIGHT: When I hear those terms—sameness and diversity—I can’t help thinking in terms of conservatives and liberals.

Dubose: I think that’s a fair assessment.

There’s a tendency to point to conservatives as those who are voting off their spirituality, but liberals do the same thing. Values like fair distribution of resources, a value of inclusivity and egalitarian principles—all are based on spiritual values. The Occupy movement is an example of political involvement based on spiritual values. Now some of the more liberal circles will say those are humanistic values, but if you begin where I do—that we’re inherently transcendent, meaning-making people and that those values are what makes the experience spiritual—then there’s not a dualism. Then there’s the group in between that want to keep the peace—the moderates—and that’s a spiritual value too. I think both extremes see the peacemakers as mediocre and uncommitted. So each one of those groups points fingers at the other groups.

INSIGHT: Is a candidate’s spirituality a factor in whether he or she appeals to voters?

Dubose: That’s a great, complex question.

One of the variables to be considered is whether one’s authentic spirituality is what’s described publicly. I’m a little jaded with

“ I think for many candidates, their personal

spirituality may or may not be aligned with what they’re publicly touting.”

to address—who gets to have what and when and where—all of those are predicated on values of what it means to be a human being. For some that means we have to be aligned with the same values, for others it means we must insist on diversity. The former folks will be threatened by the latter folks and vice versa. Those who need sameness will see the spiritual value of an affirmation of

that these days. I think for many candidates, their personal spirituality may or may not be aligned with what they’re publicly touting and often I think candidates will try to sense the vulnerabilities of the populace’s spirituality to try to capitalize on it. I don’t think it’s possible to keep your spiritual values from your political engagement. The question is how authentic and congruent those two are for any candidate.

INSIGHT: Do you think that the act of voting is a spiritual act?

Dubose: I do. From a conservative perspective, the act of voting almost is—and I’ve seen this on the liberal side too—an act of aggression, an act of war. It may be the only thing that a lot of folks in the populace feel they have some control over. For me, the act of voting is spiritual in that it is a committed, decisive moment. It is an investment at being all in. It requires one to step out and commit.

INSIGHT: Does that mean that people who don’t vote aren’t spiritual?

Dubose: I think they’re not voting for spiritual reasons. I think they’re probably saying that what I see isn’t spiritual, according to how they would define it, and therefore I’m not voting as a spiritual protest.

INSIGHT: As opposed to being lazy?

Dubose: Yes. Remember, I don’t think there is a moment or a situation when a person isn’t spiritual. It just depends on what they live out in terms of what is of ultimate meaning and purpose. The laziness is a type of despair, a sense of jadedness that their vote will not make a difference. I see not voting for many people is an act of dissent. Jean-Paul Sartre said even not to decide is to decide. So not voting is voting for wherever you are, including forfeiting any hope of making a difference.

INSIGHT: Do you think elections today are impacted more or less by spirituality, or is there a difference?

Dubose: If I had to guess, I’d say that spirituality is more used as a tool of manipulation these days. What’s very fascinating is where the Tea Party is in relation to this. Just watching the fervent energy, I think they’re very integrated with what they’re trying to do. I think the Tea Party is the most authentic kind of exercise of spirituality in politics that I’ve seen, but it depends on what you mean. And I think that Obama being voted in as president is evidence of a strong movement for other kinds of spiritual values.

LISTEN TO THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS ONLINE. insight-magazine.org/ QA-Dubose

Eleazar Eusebio Assistant Professor, School Psychology Chicago Campus Whether emotionally or rationally driven, voting decisions—like all decisions we make—take place in the brain. Dr. Eusebio draws on his doctoral work in school neuropsychology and his current research into the neuropsychological aspects of consciousness and mindfulness to discuss what is happening as we prepare to cast ballots in the upcoming election.

INSIGHT: What parts of the brain are responsible for decision-making—about voting or anything else?

Eusebio: A lot of people in the past have been looking at hemispheric models—left-brain thinking, right-brain thinking. The left brain is responsible for logical thinking, sequential, rational, analytical. The right brain is looking at randomness, intuitiveness, synthesizing information, looking at the whole. What I think is important when looking at political preference is seeing what it looks like to be a liberal and to be a conservative. The left hemisphere is more closely associated with the conservative values, and the cognitive style of a conservative person is going to be more leftist.

You’re looking at logical thinking, analytical thinking; some people would say that’s the math or reading brain. And the right brain is a little more random, a little more liberal. It’s the exact opposite of what you would think.

INSIGHT: So liberals tend to use their right brain more?

Eusebio: Yes. The liberals are going to look at the whole picture. The conservatives are going to look at the details because they know what has worked in the past. Amodio and Jost [New York University] also found that greater liberalism was associated with the stronger conflict-related anterior part of the brain, the anterior cingulate, which is important for cognitively demanding tasks. The question is whether voting is a cognitively demanding task. So in some ways this anterior cingulate has been identified as critical in finding out more about the voting process.

INSIGHT: Do you agree with researchers who assert that voting is largely an emotional action rather than an analytical action?

Eusebio: We know that the anterior cingulate will help in the conflict-relating or decisionmaking, but I honestly feel that when you’re watching these politicians, you’re making a decision in a split second on whether their appearance is something you like, whether they give you an emotional charge. And that would involve the amygdala, this area of the brain is very specific to your emotions. MRI studies show that area of the brain does light up if there’s an emotional charge. But all that means is there is more blood flow to that part of the brain. It could mean that the candidate may scare them or it could mean that they’re excited. What we find with the scans is that they don’t necessarily tell you one thing or another. They just say they give you a reaction.

INSIGHT: What happens as the campaign progresses, and we see good and bad about a candidate that we’ve already made a decision about? What is our brain doing during that?

Eusebio: If you’re looking at good and bad, strong and weak, the conservative brain would try to rationalize or analyze and objectify what it sees, whereas the liberal brain would try to synthesize and become a little more intuitive, try to make those connections, look into this person’s history.

The end result is that two hemispheres communicate on these emotional issues through the corpus callosum. This is why it just can’t be a left-brain or right-brain decision. Each hemisphere is going to pull an intentional resource from a common pool of history and feelings and thoughts about a candidate or the political process.

“I honestly feel that when you’re watching

these politicians, you’re making a decision in a split second on whether their appearance is something you like.”

There are so many factors in deciding who you’re for or against, but I do believe we have our first responses about people in milliseconds. And I believe that even those who do research sometimes go back to that first thought. A lot of times we look at appearance or body language of an individual and whether they can fit the image of what we expect them to do. You look at someone like Ron Paul, he’s highly charged, highly active, highly intelligent, has a medical degree, and yet he doesn’t quite look like a president or talk like a president.

INSIGHT: If our brains react initially emotionally, at what point does the analytical part of our brain get involved?

Eusebio: Almost immediately. Your brain is so quick to respond emotionally that I think it would kick into analytical almost immediately. It would almost make more sense for the conservative brain to go to the analytical; the liberal brain might try to synthesize and get more information. The conservative brain may go straight to “I’m going to make a decision about that, looking at the details.”

INSIGHT: Do you think our tendency to analyze or synthesize is inborn or does it evolve as we grow?

Eusebio: It’s a wonderful question. It goes back to nature versus nurture question.

What we have found is that there are things called mirror neurons that allow us at a very young age to observe our parents and how they observe the world around them. I don’t think you’re born preferring one brain or the other, but I do think that could be modeled for you at a very young age when you begin to make decisions whether you’re more analytical or more synthesizing. There are too many factors to say who becomes what, but it begins to vary very early, almost as soon as you’re able to observe the world around you and you’re able to utilize these mirror neurons as you get responses from your mom and dad. It will start to drive how you view your world.

LISTEN TO THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS ONLINE. insight-magazine.org/ QA-Eusebio

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 13

The voting brain

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 15

{By Judy Beaupre}

The battle at the ballot booth

Election Year 2012—as contentious a chapter in American politics as we have seen in recent history. It is now—in the months leading up to our November trek to the polls—that the typical voter is analyzing the candidates, weighing their stands on issues that run the gamut from a struggling economy to a raft of sticky social issues, and deciding who is best qualified to occupy the Oval Office, the governor’s mansion, or a coveted congressional seat.

But is it really about pros and cons, political platforms, and promised solutions? Is it even about issues at all?

Drew Westen doesn’t think so.

A clinical and political psychologist at Emory University and the author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, Dr. Westen contends that it is our gut—rather than any measure of thoughtful analysis—that determines how we vote.

“A political brain is an emotional brain,” Westen says in the introduction to his book. “It is not a dispassionate calculating machine, objectively searching for the right facts, figures, and policies to make a reasoned decision.” He contends that while the “marketplace of ideas” is a great place to shop for policies, it is the “marketplace of emotions” that matters most in American politics.

While many of us may think that our balloting behavior is reasoned and rational, Dr. Westen’s research provides overwhelming evidence that our decisions are based almost exclusively on feelings: feelings toward political parties, feelings toward the candidates, and finally—and only if we’re still undecided—feelings about the candidates’ policies.

At a time when so much is at stake, and rivaling political stances promise to dictate how we live—how much we pay in taxes, what access we have to health care, what role the government plays in our daily lives—how can this be so? How can we allow feelings to trump rational decision-making?

Richard Ackley, a behavioral economist and professor of business psychology at The Chicago School, recently explained it in biological terms. “Emotion is an automatic process, which begins to operate before awareness does,” he says. “As a result, emotion is prepotent to logic.” In other words, by the time we recognize that a decision is needed, we have already unconsciously begun to make it.

But minds can be changed, can’t they? Consider the stump speeches, the town halls, the carefully orchestrated candidate debates, and the millions of dollars spent on political advertising. Why put in the time, money, and effort if voters’ emotions have already dictated their decisions? Many political psychologists and campaign strategists agree that those tactics are best aimed at the undecided voter rather than at die-hard supporters of the opposing party. Dr. Westen’s research shows that political feelings, once strongly held, are resistant to facts. He points to opinions voiced in 2008 by “Birthers,” a faction of avowed conservatives who contended that then-presidential-hopeful Barack Obama had been born in Kenya and therefore was constitutionally ineligible to run for office. Despite evidence that categorically disproved these allegations, many ardent critics were unswayed.

“Once people have made up their minds, they look for consistency in the facts that they believe support their needs,” said Lukasz Konopka, professor of clinical psychology at The Chicago School. “Our brains are lazy, making it difficult to unwind the belief systems that are already in place. Contradictory information has far less impact than information that can solidify decisions we’ve already made.”

Much of our resistance to new and conflicting information can be tied to primitive brain circuitry that guards self-preservation, Dr. Konopka explained. We are hard-wired to detect potential threats and to make decisions to protect us from those threats. Because the resulting attitudes are rooted in our instinctual need for selfpreservation, they have priority. Conflicting information just doesn’t get as much attention.

Connecting With Voters While many political strategists have embraced the growing body of research that zeroes in on feelings—rather than logic—as a target for voter persuasion, some have made far better use of this knowledge than others. It is the Republican Party, Dr. Westen says, that has claimed “a near-monopoly on the marketplace of emotions,” while Democrats have failed to move beyond the marketplace of ideas, thereby missing opportunity after opportunity to acknowledge and address what voters feel.

He emphasizes the lone status of Bill Clinton—who is widely recognized for his innate ability to connect with his constituents—as the only Democratic president to have won re-election since FDR. Other Democratic candidates—Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Al Gore—were qualified, accomplished candidates who relied solely and unsuccessfully on dispassionate policy statements and statistics to convince voters of their worthiness to lead the nation.

“Conservatives have always understood human nature better than liberals,” said Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor and the author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, published earlier this year. “They know what buttons to push to get support for their ideas and how to appeal to feelings as a way of creating effective campaigns.” The example he offers is a powerful one: “[Republicans’] slogans, political commercials, and speeches go straight for the gut, as in the infamous 1988 ad showing a mug shot of a black man, Willie Horton, who committed a brutal murder after being released from prison on a weekend furlough by the ‘soft-on-crime’ Democratic candidate, Governor Michael Dukakis.” Democrats, he added, steer away from emotionally evocative ads, appealing instead to the thoughtful, rational side of the voter, emphasizing specific policies and the benefits they promise. This, in fact, was exactly what Gov. Dukakis did when asked in a presidential debate how he would react if his wife were raped and murdered by a furloughed prisoner. Rather than conveying any degree of emotion, he reiterated his much-rehearsed

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 17

policy stance on capital punishment. Political analysts have long pinned a decline in Dukakis support to that debate.

Many psychologists including Dr. Westen and Dr. Haidt agree that Republicans, in general, have done a more effective job of persuasion. GOP strategies have been built on heart-tugging claims, such as those at the center of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign—keeping the country safe after September 11, ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, ensuring that no child is left behind, putting money back into taxpayers’ wallets—while Democrats have relied repeatedly on facts, figures, projections, and charts. Important information, to be sure, but aimed squarely at the brain, missing the decision-making gut by a mile.

GOP strategies have been built on hearttugging claims... while Democrats have relied on facts, figures, and charts.

November will tell whether Barack Obama can reverse the track record of many Democratic predecessors and win re-election to the White House. His successful 2008 campaign reflected what researchers Michelle Bligh and Jeffrey Kohles term a personal appeal that “aligned perfectly with the psychological needs of a frightened electorate.” They credit his history-making win to outstanding oratorical skills and the ability to distill complex ideas into simple messages with direct emotional appeal, together with the timing of an election that came on the heels of a near economic collapse. Bligh, a psychologist at the School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences at Claremont Graduate University, and Kohles, who teaches at the College of Business Administration at California State University-San Marcos, used charismatic leadership theory to examine Obama’s appeal, which they liken to the charisma Franklin Roosevelt conveyed during times of similar economic crisis and psychological distress.

Left or Right?

Our election-year obsession with political rallies and electoral math may seem suffocating, but it is nothing new. Aristotle’s observation that man, by nature, is a political animal, has proven itself true time and again, century after century. Deeply embedded in our psychological makeup are tendencies that determine our foothold left, right, or center, that prompt us to align with a political party, and that even motivate us to get out and vote.

Research from the University of Toronto ties our political leanings to personality. According to a study that appeared in the June 2010 issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, conservatives tend to have a strong concern for preserving social norms, while a liberal mindset is more strongly associated with a concern for the well-being of fellow citizens.

“Conservatives tend to be higher in a personality trait called orderliness and lower in openness. This means that they’re more concerned about a sense of tradition, expressing a deep psychological motive to preserve the current social structure,” explained Jacob Hirsh, a post-doctoral psychology student who served as the lead author of the study. “Our data shows that liberalism is more often associated with the underlying motives for compassion, empathy, and equality.”

Dr. Haidt, the University of Virginia psychologist mentioned earlier, has put his own unique spin on understanding the psychological basis for political bias. A specialist in moral psychology, he has developed a framework for illustrating how our most fundamental instincts contribute to the decisions we make in the voting booth. People differ dramatically in the value they place on each of six areas of innate moral intuition, he contends, and those values are instrumental in determining our political leanings. In numerous surveys, self-avowed liberals have scored highest in

the areas of fairness and caring, while conservatives have placed more value on the areas of group loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity. A sixth area, liberty or freedom from oppression or domination, gets high scores across the board.

“Both groups value liberty, but they define it differently,” Dr. Haidt says. “Conservatives define liberty in economic and property terms, whereas liberals define it as what we do in the bedroom, as well as in how vulnerable populations can be protected.” Haidt attributes many political causes to these moral intuitions and to the groups that rally around them. Both the Tea Party and Occupy movements that have dominated headlines in recent months are based on fairness, he says, but reflect divergent definitions of what “fairness” is really about.

“Both are populist movements, and both take stands against aggression. But liberals see fairness as equality, while conservatives define fairness in terms of proportionality—in other words, not subsidizing bad behavior through bailouts and welfare, and not using

their tax dollars to support those who don’t share their work ethic.

The two sides have just sacralized different issues,” he says.

With views and personalities as divergent as those separating conservatives and liberals, it is not difficult to understand our growing tendency toward partisanship.

“Parties are an important part of our social identity,” says Dr. Ackley. “When we introduce ourselves, we don’t mention our personal characteristics; we list the groups we’re in.” Once we belong to the group, he adds, we have to prove our membership by making sure our actions match those of other members and perhaps by buying in to the good and bad stereotyping that emerges. But Dr. Ackley also points out that aligning with a political party simplifies our choices.

“It’s hard to follow all the issues that are out there, and most of us focus on just one or two. With too many choices, we’re under stress and we want to remove the stress rather than solve the problem,” he says. “Once we’re in a group, we don’t have to worry about

The Power of Moral Intuition CARE According to Jonathan Haidt, liberals and conservatives differ in their moral intuitions—six areas of innate concern that drive their beliefs and actions.

Care/Harm: Compassion for the weak, protecting vulnerable populations; alleviating suffering and need. High on the liberal agenda.

Fairness/Cheating: Concern for justice, rights, autonomy. A concern shared by liberals and conservatives, but with different definitions.

Loyalty/Betrayal: One for all and all for one mentality. A fundamental conservative value.

Authority/Subversion: Respect for hierarchies, rank or status, and traditions. A characteristic associated more closely with conservatives than with liberals.

Sanctity/Degradation: Avoiding behavior that is “degrading.” A defining value for many social conservatives.

Liberty/Oppression: Ability to make one’s own decisions without government interference. A concern shared by both ends of the political spectrum, but with different interpretations.

FAIRNESS LOYALT Y AUTHORIT SANCTIT

Y

Y

“Without conceptual diversity, people are dumber.” intellectual arguments. Emotion gets put at the forefront of the conversation—not logic.”

While party affiliation may be helpful to the individual voter, political observers debate the challenges facing a nation that is seen by many to be increasingly partisan, more contentious, and less open to compromise. Can it be good for any of us? Polling data shows that two-thirds of Americans believe the United States is becoming more politically polarized, while pundits and politicians alike have labeled this the most acrimonious campaign season in years, if not decades. A raft of highly charged issues—headed by unemployment, the national debt, universal health care, and a roster of social controversies previously viewed as secondary to the economy—have driven some partisans farther into their ideological corners while giving rise to a handful of vocal fringe factions.

“Parties are becoming more dysfunctional,” Dr. Ackley says, explaining that their continued retreat to the left or right leaves little room for new and different points of view within party ranks.

“Without conceptual diversity, people are dumber. As problems become more complex, they need creative and diverse ideas as well as independent experiences. Homogeneity destroys the group decision-making process.”

Despite the widening divide between partisan politicians and the vitriol that so profusely peppers their campaign rhetoric, a study presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology shows that voters themselves are no more polarized than they were 40 years ago. A research team led by John Chambers, a University of Florida psychology professor, examined data collected from 43,000 individuals who completed the American National Election Survey between 1970 and 2004. Respondents were asked to share their views on a variety of issues, and also to report how they thought the “typical” Republican or Democrat felt about the same issues. Researchers found that polarization had remained steady since 1970.

A bipartisan system does have its benefits though. In addition to providing voters with clear choices and accountability, it may contribute to voter turnout. Unlike countries like Australia,

here’s what matte

rs

Education

The likelihood to vote increases with level of education: 46% of college graduates; 28% of those with a high school diploma or less.

Race

Whites (37% of those eligible) ) are more likely than either African-Americans (31%) or Latinos (24%) to be regular voters.

Income

The likelihood to vote regularly increases with income: 44% making over $75,000; 26% making less than $20,000.

Age

Highest participation between ages 40-70; lowest. participation between 18-25.

Gender

Men (36%) and women (34%) are roughly equal in their likelihood to vote.

Marital Status

40% of eligible married voters vote regularly; 29% of those not married do.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

where citizens are required by law to vote, Americans view it as a privilege and an option. Who we are, who our friends are, and what happened in the last election are all powerful factors in determining whether we actually get ourselves to the polls on election day. Habit, peer pressure, and party affiliation, along with several demographic variables, are all determinants in voter turnout. Satoshi Kanazawa, a psychologist from the London School of Economics, examined data from the American National Election Survey to find support for his theory that Americans are backward adaptive learners in their voting behavior. Results bore his hypothesis out by showing that voters are more likely to go to the polls if the candidate they voted for in a previous election won (“We did it!”), and less likely if their candidate lost (“Why bother?”). Non-voters, on the other hand, will more often cast a ballot if the candidate they favored—but didn’t vote for—in the last election lost (“If only I had voted...”), and less likely to vote if their candidate of choice won without their vote (“They didn’t need me anyway”).

With more than 131 million ballots cast in 2008—and another 15 million registered voters who did not go to the polls—we can only wonder whether this tendency to second-guess ourselves will once again play a role in Election 2012. Meanwhile, we can busy ourselves following campaign news, watching Sunday morning talk shows, and studying the issues, but for most of us, it will all come down to how we feel on November 6.

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 19

Who Votes, Who Doesn’t And Why

DOES IT WORK?

By

Judy Beaupre

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 21

t’s an image that, once seen, is hard to forget. A small, freckle-faced girl—the very embodiment of innocence—counting each petal that she removes from a daisy...her careful recitation soon drowned out by an ominous male voice counting backward to zero, her determined expression dissolving into a mushroom cloud that fills the screen.

Run by the LBJ re-election campaign in 1964, it is often cited as the most famous attack ad in political history. Its intent: to play on voters’ fear of nuclear war through an implicit suggestion that the hawkish stance of Johnson’s Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, would lead the country down a path of no return.

“The daisy ad was the first in the style of fear ad—it was an ad that was ahead of its time,” says Ted Brader, associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan and the author of Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. “Campaign ads in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s tended to rely more on jingles; they were not as hard-hitting as they are today.”

Fast forward almost half a century, and negative advertising seems to be anything but the exception. Unlike the Johnson ad, which didn’t mention Goldwater by name, today’s campaign messaging is often explicit, calling out candidates on their views, their records, and even their character. John G. Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, has tracked political advertising since 1960, and has found a consistent upward trajectory in negativity. His most recent research shows that the proportion of

negative political ads has increased from less than 10 percent in 1960 to more than 60 percent in 2008. It would seem that 2012 will top all previous records.

“In this year’s Republican primary alone, we saw an unprecedented number of negative ads,” said Dr. Geer. Three quarters of those run by Gingrich and Romney could be viewed as attack ads, in contrast to 1980, when Ronald Reagan didn’t run a single negative ad in his bid for the Republican nomination, he said.

Despite these ebbs and swells—which largely reflect the evolution of political advertising since television became the medium of choice—the inflammatory tone of electoral confrontation is nothing new. Thomas Jefferson was derided as the anti-Christ, and Abraham Lincoln was lambasted as an idiot and a buffoon, allegations that make charges of flip-flopping and using a Swiss bank account for personal savings pale in comparison.

In recent decades, electronic and social media have drastically changed the channels through which voters gather information; media moguls have replaced the legions of local party workers once charged with informing and cajoling voters. During the past half century, as the first televised presidential debate captured our attention in 1960 and politicians began to feel their way through the boundless opportunities that television and, more recently, the Internet had to offer, the electoral tug-of-war has experienced a gradual but seismic shift in tone. What is it about the past few decades that has put candidates so firmly on the offensive, replacing reasoned debate with hostility, accusations, and occasional innuendos? Dr. Geer points to

Fear ads get a bad rap but . . they break people out of their political habits and make them pay attention to what’s going on around them.”

a widening ideological divide and what he calls “the Karl Rove hypothesis” that are to blame for candidates’ incessant lashing out at one another.

“There are those who say that the ads themselves generate negativity, but I think that’s borderline crazy,” he says. “Instead I believe that it’s our increased polarization that drives negativity. And consultants like Karl Rove and Mark Hanna have learned how to be more effective in their messaging.” But Dr. Geer also points a finger at the media, charging that journalists share the blame, and that ads brimming with juicy accusations are more likely to find their way onto the evening news than a candidate’s campaign promises.

Dr. Brader, whose 2006 book explored the use of emotion and the impact of music and visual imagery in political advertising, believes that negative ads have an important role to play in contemporary campaigns.

“Fear ads get a bad rap. They’re seen by many as sinister, but in fact fear ads are not unsavory,” he says. “They break people out of their political habits and make them pay attention to what’s going on around them.” He explains that when attention is focused on a potential danger—as in the daisy ad—voters engage in a more effortful process of gathering information that can inform their choices in the polls. “When there’s nothing to fear, there’s no reason to weigh the costs and benefits of a particular decision. It’s easier to stick to the habits you already have,” he says.

Although the daisy television ad aired only once, it cemented its place in political advertising history.

In his “Attack Ad Hall of Fame,” which grew from the research he did for his book In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns, Dr. Geer identifies it as the best-known attack ad of all time. Its use of grainy black and white imagery and the unsettling contrast of background sounds—the child’s voice amid chirping birds, abruptly overtaken by an earsplitting explosion and a booming male voice—put it at the forefront of fear-inducing, emotionally wrenching ads.

Targeting emotions The use of sound and imagery to shape voters’ feelings—and ultimately the choices they make on election day—has been the focus of much of Dr. Brader’s research. He has found that the influence of such auditory and visual impressions is often more important than the actual message itself.

“Emotions are ingrained at a biological level, and the use of imagery and music are a source of emotional power,” he says. “Unlike words, which are used to inform or explain, images are purely for emotional impact. They are conduits to emotional reaction. We tend to react quickly to them.”

The images and audio chosen to support a candidate’s message can dramatically change the way in which it is received, Dr. Brader says.

Repetitive noises, such as a ticking clock or beating heart, produce anxiety and tension, whereas images of a happy family or a waving flag can produce very different kinds of emotion.

Voters have long bemoaned the use of political tactics that they view as manipulative, unethical, dishonest, or sometimes salacious, but campaign strategists and psychologists agree that, despite the distaste they cause, these ads often work.

Although the earliest empirical research into the impact of attack ads—undertaken by UCLA’s Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar in the mid-1990s—suggested that such negativity depressed voter turnout, instilling paralyzing apathy and keeping people home from the polls, recent studies have shown voters to be more resilient to negative messaging than originally thought. Attack ads tend to contain more substantive information than their positive counterparts, riveting the attention of voters and drawing clearer distinctions between candidates.

“To be fully informed, a voter needs to know the good and the bad,” Dr. Geer says. “Candidates are good at telling you why you should vote for them, but not so good at telling you why you might not want to.”

But unlike positive ads, which can create a “feel-good” tenor without much attention to specifics, he cautions that the demands of negativity are great. “You need to document what you’re saying. You just can’t make that stuff up. You’re not going to accuse Mitt Romney of being stupid, for example, but you could say that about Sarah Palin since she let us know that she didn’t know the difference between North and South Korea.”

Campaign strategists understand this demand; Dr. Geer’s research shows that 80 percent of negative ads include documentation, while only 20 percent of positive ads do.

Some attack ads take an entirely different approach, however. One particularly insidious type of messaging—sometimes referred to as stealth

Anger as a motivator Like fear, anger can be a powerful motivator in political messaging.

“Anger energizes us to do something,” says Dr. Brader. “When we’re angry, we’re not particularly open-minded. What we experience is an unpleasant emotion that comes in response to obstacles we encounter—usually something that we perceive as undeserved or unjust.” But anger can be a tricky emotion to evoke, because it works two ways. While a carefully orchestrated message may be successful in enraging and further galvanizing a candidate’s supporters, it is likely to produce similar fury—but for different reasons—in the opponent’s camp.

“ Candidates are good at telling you why you should vote for them, but not so good at telling you why you might not want to.”

He offers as evidence a 30-second commercial that Republican Jesse Helms ran against his Democratic opponent Harvey Gantt in a 1990 North Carolina Senate race. The brief video clip showed a pair of Caucasian hands opening and then crumpling an employment rejection letter while the voiceover lambasted Gantt’s support of an affirmative action quota system that set aside jobs for “less qualified” minority job seekers.

“It was classic in its effectiveness in producing anger for both sides,” Dr. Brader says. “For Helms, it was about blaming someone else for what happened to you. But Democrats were angry at the cynical implication of race as the problem.”

The real question though—for both politicians and psychologists—is the effect that such negativity has on voter behavior and, ultimately, on election outcomes. Dr. Geer suggests that, while such ads can get voters to the polls and help clarify their balloting decisions, it’s often a toss-up as to whether they are actually more effective in achieving their purpose than positive ads. His research shows that messages aimed at building enthusiasm for a candidate—typically the incumbent—can generate a small bump in voter turnout and support, while negative ads are typically credited with a greater effect.

“There’s always a risk with negative advertising, though,” he says. “If you don’t have the evidence to back up your claim, it can come back to haunt you. So the range of effect in negative advertising is broader; it can result in a big positive bump or a big negative effect.”

In 2008, John McCain ran a commercial charging Barack Obama with planning to teach sex education to kindergartners. “It wasn’t true and got him immediate pushback,” Dr. Geer says.

The ad was pulled, and McCain’s popularity took a hit as a result.

Dr. Brader has also noted the effectiveness of negative ads. For his book, Dr. Brader

tracked short-term reactions of viewers, who were questioned—shortly after seeing political ads—about how their attitudes toward candidates were affected, who they thought they would vote for, and how willing they were to show up to vote. Generally speaking, negative ads did seem to work, and there was evidence that they were particularly effective in increasing the attention that voters paid to specific issues. Timing and placement of the ads proved critical; Dr. Brader’s team reported that when political commercials were aired during a news program, viewers expressed more interest in news segments about the same issue.

For voters still trying to make or clarify their balloting decisions, this year is likely to be the most challenging of all. There is a new and powerful player in the 2012 round of electoral wrangling, a wild card that may do more than shatter all previous campaign advertising records—both in terms of dollars spent and vitriol levied: the SuperPAC. These independently financed political action committees—blessed by the Supreme Court and accountable to no one—have the virtually unlimited ability to launch undocumented attacks against the opposition. According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, some $41 million was spent

by SuperPACs during the Republican primary contest alone, and more than half of that—a total of $23.3 million—went toward “ads that included deceptive or misleading claims.” Only time will tell what the final price tag or the eventual outcome of the Obama-Romney contest will be.

“I think it’s safe to say that most SuperPAC ads will be negative,” says Dr. Geer. “It will be interesting to watch—the candidates may decide to run only positive ads and let the SuperPACs do the dirty work. We’ll have to wait and see, but it could change the tone of much of the official campaign messaging.”

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 23

advertising—purports to convey one message while subtly sending a second, more-negative, and usually more-controversial message.

In 1988, an independent political action committee supporting George H.W. Bush ran a television spot criticizing Bush’s Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis, for being “soft on crime.” Well known in political circles as the infamous Willie Horton ad, the message focused on the story of convicted killer William Horton who—during Dukakis’ term as Massachusetts governor—had been released on an unsupervised weekend pass, only to rape and kill again. While Bush’s stand in favor of capital punishment came through loud and clear in the ad, so too did the less-than-subtle race card that the ad’s creators deftly played. Using what looked like a prison mug shot that showed a dark-skinned AfricanAmerican, they racialized his name (there is no record of Horton ever having been called Willie) and used stark colors and imagery to create frightening emotional overtones.

“The Willie Horton ad was well attuned to the primate brain, and particularly to the amygdala, which is highly responsive to both facial expressions and fear-evoking stimuli,” says Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen in his book, The Political Brain. “The ad was packed with both. The mug shot of Horton...[played] on every white person’s fears of the dangerous, lawless, violent, dark black male. Research shows that even subliminal presentation of black faces activates the amygdala in whites, and implicit racial appeals are more effective than explicit ones because they don’t raise people’s conscious attitudes toward racism.”

POLITICIANS WHAT MAKES THEM TICK?

BY JUDY BEAUPRE

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, represents Dr. Keller’s definition of an externally validated leader, one whose decision-making strategies involve listening to divergent voices and fashioning policies that attract and maintain the support of others. But President Clinton could also be unbending when events called for it.

“Clinton demonstrated rigidity in an externally validated way, which differs from the way it is expressed by those who depend on internal validation,” Dr. Keller says.

“When dealing with Kosovo, he was committed to using only airstrikes and avoiding the casualties that using ground troops would cause.” It was his understanding of the political and human costs inherent in those casualties that kept him rigid.

Although there is little evidence of a direct association between political preferences and validation types, the tendency toward cognitive complexity—which researchers have frequently correlated with liberals—is more often seen in externally validated leaders, Dr. Keller says. Cognitive simplicity is associated with seeing things in black and white and either-or scenarios, while those who tend toward cognitive complexity are more comfortable with ambiguity and with shades of grey. These are the leaders who spend a great deal of time evaluating all the options before making a decision. But both types have strengths and weaknesses, he says.

He places President Obama somewhere in the middle of the internal-external continuum––the same spot in which he places President Kennedy.

“Like JFK, Obama has been criticized for taking a long time to make decisions, considering all available options, and then coming down

somewhere in the middle, splitting the difference,” Dr. Keller says. As an example, he points to President Obama’s handling of Afghanistan.

“After long deliberations, he decided to increase troops but also to set a firm deadline for withdrawal. He kept to his core values but also showed concern for political support.”

Presidents aren’t the only leaders who seek self-validation. Congress members also exhibit varying degrees of rigidity, which can be seen in the gridlock that has hampered much legislative decision-making—including the lengthy summer 2011 debate over whether to raise the debt ceiling.

Many Washington newcomers who identify with the Tea Party are examples of lawmakers who need both internal and external validation, Dr. Keller says. Although they ran for office because of internally held beliefs in the “small government” philosophy, they also are well aware of the constituent mandates they need to uphold.

“Their very identity and sense of self-worth as political leaders is tied to their mission of keeping taxes down,” Dr. Keller says. “That kind of emotional investment is a powerful force for rigidity.” In the end, he adds, an important pathway to consensus is convincing internally validated politicians that, by finding a way to align a compromise with their core principles, they will actually achieve larger goals.

“For example, if Republicans in Congress are to eventually agree to a tax increase as a way of balancing the budget, they will need to convince themselves that this action will support their mission of achieving spending cuts. When we come to that, both sides will take credit for the compromise and both will believe that it was their doing.”

More than a decade ago, researchers Robert Hill and Gregory Yousey dug into the public perception that associates politicians with narcissism by administering the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) to almost 500 professionals, including clergy, university professors, librarians and, of course, politicians. The study produced statistically significant findings, showing that politicians did indeed rack up higher NPI scores than colleagues in other fields.

In conducting their research, they used four subscales that had been defined by researcher Robert Emmons in 1984: leadership/authority; exploitativeness/entitlement; superiority/ arrogance, and self-absorption/self-admiration. Politicians easily outscored the other three groups on the leadership/authority subscale, which Hill and Yousey reported was largely responsible for their overall high NPI rankings. They also garnered higher–yet not statistically significant–scores on the exploitativeness/entitlement and superiority/arrogance subscales. Interestingly, the highest scores on the self-absorption/self-admiration scale were captured by university professors. Because these scores also were not statistically significant, however, these final differences could have been due to chance.

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 25

sk a dozen people to describe the typical politician and you’ll get a dozen answers. An outgoing glad-hander quick to grab the spotlight? A dedicated public servant who devotes every waking minute to improving the lives of constituents. A dogmatic policy wonk— or a slippery orator whose views shift with each change in audience or circumstance.

Like most professions, there is no one-sizefits-all persona for those who seek our votes and promise to represent our best interests. Empirical data on the personality traits of politicians is scarce, but a handful of psychologists have tried to shed light on what makes our elected officials tick. While some studies have associated them with characteristics that include narcissism, extroversion, and a propensity for risk-taking, a James Madison University professor has explored the psychology of political stubbornness, focusing his research on the traits of rigidity and pragmatism in political leaders.

“What I’ve found is that an individual’s leadership style and willingness to compromise depend on where he draws his sense of self-validation,” says Jonathan Keller, associate professor of political science, who has published his research in the journal Political Psychology. He explains that, generally speaking, internally validated politicians tend to hold fast to their own ideology, while those who receive their validation from external sources are open to other viewpoints and more apt to compromise.

He cites President George W. Bush as an example of internal validation, particularly in his handling of events immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“Bush was the prototypical crusader with a mission of ending tyranny. He saw everything as black and white,” Dr. Keller says. “His sense of self-worth was reflected in the book he wrote while governor of Texas, A Charge to Keep, which describes the family obligation to uphold honor regardless of political considerations. He felt his foremost role as president was to protect the country—a perfect position for a crusader to be in. He didn’t feel he had to listen to other opinions or to interact with the opposition.”

alumni news

S TAY CONNECTED, GE T IN VOLV ED

2012 Distinguished Alumna Sister Margaret Johnson (Psy.D. ’85)

A Lifetime of Service

A

fter a prolific career comprising more than five decades spent helping those in need, Sister Margaret Johnson says it’s often the smallest things that make the biggest difference.

“When people are going through a hard time, I think they just want to be listened to—to share their story. It’s as simple as that,” says Sister Johnson, who is the Life Care Coordinator for the Sisters of Mercy (West/Midwest Community), where she cares for Chicago seniors in need of day-to-day assistance.

Selected as The Chicago School’s 2012 Distinguished Alumna, she spoke at the Chicago Campus June commencement ceremony and accepted the award recognizing her dedication both to service and to the advancement of the practice of clinical psychology. An original participant in the discussions that led to the creation of The Chicago School in 1979 and a member of its second graduating class, she recalled attending college at the Fine Arts Building on Michigan Avenue, where professors at times had to strain to be heard over the likes of opera singers and trumpeting elephants. “Here we are 28 graduations later,” she said. “How times have changed.”

After joining the Sisters of Mercy as a young woman, Sister Johnson served as an elementary school teacher and high school counselor for 10 years before deciding to pursue her doctorate in clinical psychology at The Chicago School, which she earned in 1985. Five years later, she accepted an invitation from the executive director of St. Catherine’s Residence in Milwaukee to serve women in difficult circumstances. Sister

Johnson’s accomplishments from her time there include establishing the organization’s McAuley Center and Right Start program for first-time pregnant women, as well as serving a five-year stint as a first responder for the American Red Cross.

Returning to Chicago in 2001, she set up a private counseling practice. Four years later, she accepted her current position with the Sisters of Mercy and soon began serving on the boards of Mercy Housing Lakefront, Mercy Network on Aging, and the Intercongregational Network on Aging.

“I think it’s impacted my life that we brush people off like aging is a disease,” she says.

“Right now I’m looking at a group of people who still have so much life and so much to give that I don’t want to see them ignored.”

Now a mid-septuagenarian herself, she sees a pronounced shortage of skilled individuals devoting their lives to the study and care of the elderly. She encourages students—especially those whose future careers will involve prescribing pharmaceuticals—to consider the vital field of gerontology with the same sense of purpose that many already consider pediatrics.

“I think we’re very careful with children in terms of medication, but I don’t see that care given to the elderly,” she says.

The variety afforded by her numerous career transitions has helped her keep a mental edge, Sister Johnson attests. New challenges, balanced with a strong support system of family, friends, and community members, have kept her fresh—as well as intellectually and spiritually charged—for her lifework.

Inspiration came not only from serving others but from exploring new ideas with colleagues and professors in the early days at The Chicago School. “I was taught by great, great teachers,” she says, adding, “Those were wonderful years.”

These days, much of her work entails helping elderly clients through difficult life transitions—a task that often provides a different kind of inspiration.

“I have been amazed at people,” she says. “Just yesterday I had to take car

keys away from two people and say, ‘You really should not be driving.’” Despite being forced to give up a dearly held vestige of their freedom and autonomy, the clients consented with graciousness that Sister Johnson says is characteristic.

“I got a note last night saying, ‘If I had to experience what I did today with anybody else, you would be my choice.’ I was really touched by that.”

Joe Caccitolo (Psy.D. ’13)

Supporting Change at the Local Level

T

he eyes of the nation may be trained on the Obama-Romney contest, but it’s the less publicized local races—those that land squarely in the voter’s backyard—that political consultant Joe Caccitolo believes make the biggest difference in how we live our lives. Those municipal, county, and state elections are the ones that he plans to spend his career shaping, with the help of the in-depth understanding of psychology that he’s receiving as a Chicago School doctoral student.

“It’s the decisions about where to put the stop signs or the red-light cameras—or the referendum for a new firehouse—that have the most impact on our daily lives, and often it’s those politicians who need the most help in getting problems solved,” Caccitolo says.

“Especially at the municipal level, people often decide to get involved because they have identified a problem that needs fixing. They may know the issue up and down, but they have no idea how to sell it.”

That’s where political savvy and an understanding of human emotion come in. In the Business Psychology program, which he is pursuing as an online student, Caccitolo has learned how to “take the background temperature” behind an issue, gather information

pro-choice, for example,” he says. “It’s a much more nuanced subject that requires in-depth, data-driven strategy creation.”

It’s the integration of the two levels that Caccitolo sees as his ultimate career goal.

Upon completing his Psy.D. in June 2013, he will pour his full energies into a career that he has pursued in bits and pieces since his boyhood days. Whether he lands as a campaign manager or a public policy advisor, he knows that psychology—and an ability to understand and articulate what the electorate is feeling—will provide the foundation of his work.

LARRY Scanlon (M.A. ‘10)

The Advocates’ Advocate

T

he American Bar Association estimates that 15 to 20 percent of lawyers suffer from either alcoholism or chemical substance abuse and dependency—double the national average, according to some studies. While the average person may not realize it, the legal profession has an unmistakable need for mental health counselors, according to Chicago School alumnus Larry Scanlon (M.A. ’10).

“I think that the general consensus is that lawyers solve other people’s problems and they don’t have problems of their own,” he says. “But just like every other part of the population, lawyers experience problems.”

Scanlon knows firsthand how challenging the profession can be; he’s been a lawyer for 15 years, working for both small and large firms on the defense and plaintiff sides. Unlike most of his colleagues, however, he also pulls double duty as a counselor to other lawyers.

After graduating from college in 1991 and spending two years teaching history, English, and other subjects in Samoa, he turned his attention to law and earned his

J.D. from Loyola Law School in 1997. Though he flourished and felt happy over the next 10 years in his work as a litigating attorney, following some reflection and soul-searching he realized he didn’t yet feel as though he had quite found his niche.

“I experienced an epiphany that what I loved most about my legal career was counseling the clients,” he says. “From the defendant police officer who was involved in an accident that resulted in a lawsuit to the plaintiff who had a workplace injury and had relationship issues with his wife as a result of that.” That epiphany led Scanlon to The Chicago School, where he earned a master’s degree in clinical psychology with a counseling specialization in 2010.

Now the clinical case manager at the Lawyer’s Assistance Program of Illinois, Scanlon provides counseling services to lawyers struggling with substance and chemical abuse, mental health problems, and career and disciplinary issues.

“Having worked as a lawyer and having the clinical training of being a master’s-level psychotherapist is such a benefit to the clients that come through these doors,” he says. “I understand where lawyers are coming from. It allows me to empathize with my clients when they complain of things that maybe people who have never worked with lawyers might not understand.”

In addition to his work at the Lawyer’s Assistance Program, he presently teaches psychotherapy, group therapy, and professional ethics classes as a TCSPP adjunct; maintains a legal practice of his own; and provides individual and couples counseling to clients at The New Center/The Carl Rogers Institute for Client-Centered Therapy in Chicago.

Through the various turns his life and career have taken, Scanlon recalls that the common denominator has always been a desire to serve. “I gained a lot of satisfaction out of helping others. That is fulfilling,” he says.

Thanks to that drive, the Chicago legal community now has within its ranks a seasoned mental health advocate with firsthand knowledge of the challenges they face.

INSIGHT MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 27

on why people feel the way they do, and use that information to hone a message that will resonate with voters.

While an incumbent may have the easier task of reinforcing positive feelings about the status quo, Caccitolo points out that it is the challenger’s job to raise anxiety, and especially to show voters what they stand to lose if things remain unchanged.

“Loss framing is a far better motivator than just showing what the benefits will be,” he says. He adds that knowing the right tools to use—carefully chosen words and compelling imagery—are key to getting a message across.

“Typically, you have someone’s attention for 15-30 seconds and you need to understand psychology to make the best use of that time. Nobody’s going to read a five-page flyer filled with logical arguments.

The Chicago School has given me the tools to make voters sit up and take notice.”

Although Caccitolo’s first taste of politics came at age 10 when he worked as a gofer for an Illinois campaign that his father managed, he never planned it—or studied for it—as a career. Two decades later, with college and an MBA under his belt, an expertise in database programming led him back into the political sphere, where he created a new statewide legislative map based on 2000 census statistics and became involved in policy analysis.

Today he views politics at two inter-related levels: the creation and fine-tuning of public policy, and development of the effective messaging needed to bring those policy efforts to fruition. Neither level, he says, works well in isolation.

“People often work hard to craft a policy that they believe will solve a problem, but if they lack the knowledge of how to sell it—or even how to explain why it is needed—they’re unlikely to succeed,” he explains.

On the other hand, someone who is interested in political messaging but who has no interest in the intricacies of public policy isn’t going to succeed, he adds. The successful campaigner needs to understand what the data behind the policy has to say.

“It’s not enough to be pro-life or

GIVING BACK

TH A NK S & RECOGNITION, OPP ORTUNITIES TO GI V E

“ It’s easy in this country to assume an arrogance of ‘we know best,’ but it has been humbling and eye-opening for our students to become involved with the rest of the world.”

THE GRUNSTEN LEGACY

For The Chicago School, it’s the end of an era.

A

fter more than two decades on the Board of Trustees, Ricardo Grunsten is stepping down as its longest-serving member and relinquishing the chairman’s gavel he has so adeptly wielded for 13 years. He leaves behind a markedly different institution than the one he joined as a novice trustee in 1990—one that will long bear the evidence of his insight and business savvy.

“During Ricardo’s tenure, The Chicago School has grown from a small regional graduate school with a single campus and fewer than 100 students to a nationally recognized institution of higher learning with campuses in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., a robust online-blended learning community, more than 4,100 students, and 16 master’s and doctoral degree programs,” President Michele NealonWoods said in announcing his retirement.

But it’s about more than numbers. What Mr. Grunsten hopes will define his legacy is a focus on innovation and internationalization, and an evolution from a fiscally tenuous operation to a financially and academically vigorous institution that would significantly broaden the reach of psychology education. His expertise in marketing didn’t hurt either.

“I could see that there would always be a need for more therapists, but psychology is so much more than that,” he says. “We needed to consider broadening the appeal of the field, and we did. Marketing was a big part of that.

Instead of focusing on what we wanted to sell, we needed to look at what the market wants to buy. An understanding of psychology is critical in knowing how to run a business and knowing how to change minds, for example.”

A major turning point in The Chicago School’s evolution came with the hiring of Dr. Michael Horowitz as its seventh president in 2000, a step that Mr. Grunsten identifies as his proudest accomplishment. Together, they met weekly and forged a path to the future—a

trajectory that would result in a coast-to-coast presence, academic and service partnerships throughout the community and world, an astute business-minded board, and the creation of international opportunities on five continents.

An Argentinian by birth, he pushed TCSPP particularly hard to extend its reach beyond the United States borders.

“It’s easy in this country to assume an arrogance of ‘we know best,’ but it has been humbling and eye-opening for our students to become involved with the rest of the world,” he says. “We’re doing great things in countries like Rwanda, but those activities also give us greater stature and sophistication, as well as more market appeal.”

Mr. Grunsten’s contributions were formally recognized at the May 18 Board of Trustees meeting, held for the first time at the school’s two-year-old Washington, D.C. Campus, where Dr. Nealon-Woods announced the creation of the Ricardo Grunsten Award for Excellence in Scholarship and Community Service. The prize will be given annually to students who exemplify the mission, vision, and core values of The Chicago School in their academic and professional endeavors.

Although his days of active involvement have drawn to a close, Mr. Grunsten says he will continue to follow the school’s progress, especially as “psychology continues to evolve along with the rapid changes in our culture.”

“There was a time when someone would go to a psychologist because something was wrong. I never liked that model,” he says, adding that The Chicago School’s approach has advanced far beyond those early days. “I’d rather see people use psychologists the way they use personal trainers—to make sure they stay psychologically fit. That’s the direction I see The Chicago School continuing to go.”

ALUMNI UPDATE We need to hear from you! You can help us develop alumni services best targeted to your needs and keep our records up to date for critically important accreditation purposes. Please take a few minutes to respond to the alumni survey you will receive— or may have already received–this summer. If you haven’t received the survey or cannot find the copy you received, please contact us at OIR@thechicagoschool.edu or go online at ego.thechicagoschool.edu/alumniupdate to update your contact information.

last page

Principal Ross greets children and parents as GPPA opened its doors.

1

2

3 4 Moments of tradition

5

Steeped in the pomp and circumstance that Commencement brings, The Chicago School’s latest contingent of graduates have left their student days behind, joining not only the ranks of TCSPP alumni but the professional psychology community. At the Los Angeles Campus, Dr. Al Edwards led the academic procession (2), graduates took the traditional Oath of Affirmation (4), and President Michele Nealon-Woods and D.C. President Orlando Taylor welcomed new trustee Jose Antonio Tijerino, president and CEO of the Hispanic Heritage Foundation (5) to the stage. In Chicago, Interim President Pat Breen delivered diplomas (1) and faculty marshal Earl Ruhnke (3) carried the Chicago School mace—a gift from the Class of 2007— while leading faculty and graduates to their seats.

325 North Wells Street Chicago, IL 60654

Join Us!

Upcoming Alumni Events

UNLOCK HUMAN POTENTIAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY IS THE KEY. HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE IS WHAT TURNS IT.

September 12 – Psychology Careers in the Military (Chicago andprograms Webinar) • Flexible and accelerated doctoral • Counselor Education Business Psychology, Septemberand 16 – Supervision, Annual Softball/Volleyball Picnic (Chicago) Applied Behavior Analysis, and beyond September 17 – Cultivating Wellness: Helping You Help Your Children • Unrivaled range of career-enhancing training experiences sponsored by The Naomi Ruth Cohen Institute (Chicago) September 24 – Doctor of Clinical Psychology Reunion (Chicago) September 27 – Networking Breakfast (Chicago)

October 4 – Army Internships and International Careers (Chicago and Webinar)

October 12 – Alumni Reception (New York City) October 13 – Alumni Reception (Boston) Scan here to request more information.

October 15 – Graduation Celebration & Alumni Reception (Los Angeles)

A student participates in The Chicago School's Global Hope Initiative.

Call 800.721.8072 or visit thechicagoschool.edu for more information.

November TBA– CEU Opportunity (Chicago) Chicago, IL | Los Angeles, CA | Irvine, CA more|information and to register,DC visit thechicagoschool.edu/alumnievents.

Westwood,ForCA Washington, | Online-Blended