PSYCHE University of Bristol | Psychology Magazine
1
Editor-in-Chief
A note from the Editor:
Jasmine Norden
Content Editor Henry Eaton
Marketing Editor Jade Taktak
Creative Editor Hendrike Rahtz
Assistant Editor Zephyr Percy
Cover Artist Miranda Butler
I am pleased to present this new 2019 issue of Psyche, to kickstart Psychology students having their own news source once again. A lot of hard work has gone into this—I owe a huge acknowledgement to all who contributed to the realisation of this magazine. Particularly, I must thank Dr Susanne Quadflieg, without whom, none of this would have happened. This issue of Psyche explores some of the largest misconceptions in the field of psychology, alongside some of the most exciting news in the department, including an interview with Professor Bruce Hood about his new course ‘The Science of Happiness’. These articles are accessible to Psychology students and non-Psychology students alike—don’t be deterred! Going forward, Psyche will hopefully continue to expand. To propose articles, respond to content, or for general enquiries, contact us via email or our Facebook page. Happy reading!
- JN Content Artist Marita Kimo
Photographer Emma Pirozzi
For more news and updates, visit our Facebook page: @psychemagazinebristol
2
Contents 4
Using psychology to explore the sexual objectification of women
7
The myth of genetic determinism
8 9 11
12 15 18
Review of Crazy Like Us: The globalisation of the American psyche The errors in eyewitness testimony The Myer-Briggs Type Indicator: What it really says about you
Is psychology a real science? ‘The Science of Happiness’: An exclusive interview with Professor Bruce Hood Psychology students start new wellbeing society: ‘Student Body in Mind’ 3
Using psychology to explore and reduce the sexual objectification of women Helena Davies
O
bjectification is the identification and perception of a person as a thing, without intrinsic value but instead having a worth that is directly related to the needs of others. Sexual objectification then, occurs when the needs of others constitute sexual gratification and desire. For years, women have been the main target of such sexual objectification, and this is particularly evident in the media representation of the female form. With the rise of social media and children being exposed to content online at an increasingly young age, these issues may never have been as important as they are right now.
Using Psychology, we can examine the ways in which women’s bodies are objectified. One of the ways we can do this is by looking at how men’s and women’s bodies may be perceived differently. Some things are recognised by their constituent parts and others are recognised as a whole. People, their bodies and their faces are recognised as a whole - this is why we struggle to identify a face (even a friend’s) if it is presented upside down – this is called the ‘inversion effect’. Interestingly, when shown sexualised images of men upside down, it is harder to recognise them - we see them as a whole. However, for sexualised images of women, no such effect occurs. This suggests that sexu-
alised images of women are processed as a collection of parts rather than a unified whole.
‘we must develop judgments of value independent of women’s physical appearance’ This is a pervasive finding: it is easier to recognise sexual body parts of a woman when they are displayed in isolation compared to when they are displayed in the context of the whole body. In the minds of both male and female perceivers, women’s bodies are reduced to their sexual body parts in a way that simply does not happen when observing the bodies of men. The consequences of such sexual objectification of women are widespread, including increased concern over body image, and judgements of women as being less competent. In addition, experimental studies have found that individuals were more willing to give hypothetical pain-inducing medication to sexualised male and female targets than to non-sexualised targets. Perhaps most alarmingly, the sexual objectification of women has even been linked to the decreased blame of rapists. Given these hugely damaging consequences, as well as the pervasiveness of sexualised images, it is
4
essential to identify methods of reducing sexual objectification. This is not to justify or excuse those who engage in such behaviour, but may provide an antidote to an increasingly potent issue.
‘images of women are processed as a collection of parts’ A widely studied method to reduce sexual objectification is the provision of ‘humanising’ information. For example, depicting women with clear indicators of competence (i.e. awards or trophies) has been found to make people less likely to focus on their sexual body parts. Similarly, an emphasis on women’s warmth and competence has been found to counteract the propensity to recognise women using the same mechanisms that are used in object recognition. All of this suggests that we must direct attention to the capabilities of women and develop judgments of value independent of women’s physical appearance.
This provides solid evidence for the elimination of sexualised images of women in the media and a greater focus on the promotion of more human views of women. In more general terms, we must emphasise and celebrate the non-physical attributes of women and continue the upward trend of women’s status and power in society.
Equality within society is clearly for the benefit of all genders. The promotion of this equality can only benefit from taking note of these findings in psychology. 2018 was a significant year for women’s equality, marking the 100th anniversary of women receiving the right to vote, the laying bare of the gender pay gap within large organisations, and the wide recognition of movements against sexual violence such as #MeToo. Equality remains a difficult struggle, but Psychology may play a small part in helping us to understand and begin to rectify the issues surrounding the sexual objectification of women.
5
6
The myth of genetic determinism Frankie Langeland
T
reveal their supposed ‘genetic gifts’. Thousands of parents have already tested their children to see if they should be pushing a future in mathematics or music. These companies claim to profile characteristics such as IQ, emotional understanding, and extroversion.
The media constantly reports the myth that single genes determine behaviour, but the relationship between genetics and behaviour is complex and mediated by many different genes.
Despite the claims of these companies, it is not possible to test for specific genes that cause mathematical genius or musical talent, nor can we test for intelligence or personality. Associations chalked up to parents as having a deterministic influence, like the misleading stories presented in the press, when in reality these measures are crude. Controversially, researchers at Chinese universities are benefiting from these companies as they buy the data extracted for their research. It’s ironic that the data used by researchers trying to increase knowledge comes from companies whose profit relies on that knowledge being suppressed.
here is a pervasive belief that individual genes can determine complex behavioural traits such as intelligence, aggression, and susceptibility to mental illness. This is not supported by evidence and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how genetics work. Many findings in science will never make the pages of the British tabloids but genetic behavioural studies are different. These results are about who we are and what makes us act the way we do – a big draw for readers and a sure sell for the press.
‘despite claims, it is not possible to test for specific genes’ A quick google search before I begin to write reveals several articles which this falsehood. One headline, ‘Scientists Find Suicide Gene’ forgets to mention that the study in question actually found hundreds of potential genes for future suicide investigations. Current studies do not look at genes in isolation, but scan whole sets of DNA to look for potential genetic influences on behaviour. This requires an extremely large sample size, sometimes using over a million participants. Even then only common genetic variants are detected and these tend to show very weak effects. A study may find that ‘gene X influences trait Z’ but this influence is small and there are other factors which impact our behaviour, including our environment.
Yet the press maintains a stance of genetic determinism and this has an impact outside of public awareness. In China whole industries have emerged that exploit these misconceptions. Hundreds of ‘genetic talent detecting agencies’ offer to screen a child’s DNA to
‘there are few traits that have binary genetic influence’ Perhaps more importantly, the genetic determinism myth has infiltrated our criminal justice systems. In 2006, Bradley Waldroup violently murdered his wife’s friend, Leslie Bradshaw and repeatedly attacked his wife. His wife survived but Leslie did not. Waldroup admitted to both murder and attempted murder - the prosecution were confident of a guilty verdict. Yet, after 11 hours of deliberation the jury came back with a unanimous ‘not guilty’ verdict. During the trial defence lawyers had ordered a test showing Waldrop had a genetic variant which produces the enzyme Monoamine Oxidase A (MAO-A) known as the ‘warrior gene’. Individuals with this variant have been shown to exhibit antisocial impulses and extreme violence. Waldrop’s lawyers were able to convince the jury that it had been the warrior gene’s influence which caused the murder with one juror stating “a diagnosis is a
7
diagnosis, it’s there. A bad gene is a bad gene.”
There was some truth in the defence’s case; MAO-A has been associated with antisocial behaviours but only in individuals of European descent who were also abused in childhood. The gene does not cause violent behaviour without an environmental influence. Many individuals in the criminal justice system have had abusive childhoods and have still been found guilty for their crimes. MAO-A has also been linked to gambling, depression and irritability. Whilst the warrior gene sounds more dramatic than the irritable gene when reported in the press, the name is glamorised and unhelpful in elucidating the public. Most importantly, 34% of Europeans have the warrior gene yet we do not see 34% of individuals committing murder – genes alone do not drive behaviour.
‘whole industries have emerged that exploit these misconceptions’
The prevalence of this myth is having real impacts. Whilst the media maintains public misconceptions of genes it may not be the root of the problem. The education system also teaches children about genetic determinism. Up and down the UK pupils learn about Mendel and his peas; a simplistic introduction to inheritance that suggests genetic influences are all or nothing. There are few traits which have a binary genetic influence (eye colour being one of the exceptions). Most genetic effects are much more complex, and a failure to appreciate this complexity that may lead us astray.
The public are being misled because the truth about genetic behavioural studies is deemed either too boring or too difficult. However, many exciting and relevant studies are taking place all the time - including here at the University of Bristol where links between genetics and online behaviour are being investigated. Behavioural genetics has the potential to be misapplied, but it is also a tremendously exciting avenue of research. We should not let the complexity allow us to be inappropriately reductionist in reporting these findings.
Crazy Like Us: the globalisation of the American psyche Layla Amawi reviews Ethan Watters’ exploration of the flaws in Western ideas about mental illness
I
n Crazy Like Us, American journalist Ethan Watters recounts case studies from his journeys throughout Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Zanzibar and Japan. At face value, the stories he tells of mental health in these countries are fascinating, but beneath the surface lurks a serious warning.
Americans are flattening the landscape of the human psyche itself.” Essentially, that categorizing mental illnesses in the way that has become standard for experts in the west, prioritizing certain symptoms, and laying out a particular prognosis can negatively influence the course of illnesses.
Watters argues that Americans have been mass producing and exporting ideas about how mental illnesses exist and how they should be healed. “The golden arches do not represent the most troubling impact on other cultures; rather, it is how the
‘he asks readers to challenge their own core beliefs’ 8
To what extent is mental illness a cultural, intimate phenomenon? Should we be making universal assumptions about how the mind works and how best to fix it? And how do we tackle cultural diversity in experiencing mental illness? The book is divided into four main chapters, each tackling a mental health epidemic in a different country. The first looks at the dramatic rise of eating disorders, namely anorexia, in Hong Kong in the 1990s, a place where previously self-starvation existed as a rare and separate phenomenon. The second chapter discusses the 2004 tsunami that swept through Sri Lanka, bringing the notion of PTSD to the country. Its third sees the changing view of schizophrenia in Zanzibar, a country where schizophrenia is seen as a form of possession by djinn, whilst the fourth chapter presents the commercialisation of depression in Japan where pharmaceutical giant Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK) pushed Japanese psychiatrists to change the Japanese word describing depression from melancholy to ‘cold of the soul’, proposing the idea that depression is like a cold; common and curable.
‘Americans have been mass producing ideas about how mental illnesses exist’ Armed with evidence from the literature and conversations with mental health experts, anthropologists and patients, Watters offers a panoramic view of the nature of the mental health issues in these countries and presents a refreshingly curious way of thinking about fundamental ideas. He does not tell these stories as simple tales, but asks readers to challenge their own core beliefs through them. Crazy Like Us is a clever, fresh take on old assumptions. Watters does not just explain concepts of cultural diversity, but embodies them by completely engrossing himself, and the reader with him, in intimate local experiences of mental health. Most notably, he reminds the reader that ideas get outdated, but constructive criticism never gets old.
A flaw in the system: The errors in eyewitness testimony Damyana Raykova
W
hen asked to rate the accuracy of our own memories, the majority of us are confident that what we remember is a true picture of what happened. Contrary to popular belief, we are actually not good at retrieving accurate details from memory and memory distortions are much more common than we think. This misplaced trust in memory usually doesn’t pose a problem in life, but can prove hugely important in court cases, where eyewitness testimony can swing a jury and determine a defendant’s future. Eyewitness testimony is often given substantial consideration when coming to a verdict because we all believe that our memories are accurate. This means that both witnesses and juries have a lot of confidence in these accounts. But when testimony is conflicting, a case may
depend on almost arbitrary factors such as how believable each witness seems.
‘the eyewitness testimony of just one man was enough for a false conviction’ Studies dating back to as early as the 1930s indicate that memory retrieval is an easily distorted process. Circumstance, cultural norms, and prior beliefs can drastically change what individuals think they’ve seen. Even once a memory is formed it can be distorted during retrieval, with the way a question is worded having an influence on what is remembered.
9
Elizabeth Loftus was the pioneer of this work and her research in the 70s showed the susceptibility of memory to distortion. Her most famous experiment involved asking individuals how fast vehicles in a car crash video were going when they “hit” or “crashed” into each other. The changing of just one word was able to produce a difference in the speed participants reported cars were going. Whilst this is a harmless example, it is worrying that individuals’ own memories could be distorted by the questions asked during a police interview or at trial.
‘memory retrieval is an easily distorted process’ Memories, instead of being an exact recording of events, are reconstructed every time we remember them. This means that our current state and everything that has happened since the memory can potentially affect what we remember. When we first witness something, it is impossible to pay attention to every detail. Gaps in our memories may become filled with our best guess of what was likely to have occurred, or information about the event we are given afterwards. We may even fuse two completely different events into a single memory. Despite the knowledge of the problems with eyewitness testimony, it is still incredibly persuasive in the judicial system. One of the many examples of over-
reliance on memory is the case of John Bunn who spent 17 years in prison, convicted at only 14. Correction officers Rolando Neischer and Robert Crosson were sat in their car in Brooklyn when they were shot by two men attempting to steal the car. The encounter resulted in Neischer being shot 5 times and later dying from his wounds. After police received an anonymous tip, they apprehended Bunn and a 17-year-old co-defendant of his. The surviving officer, Crosson, identified the culprits from a line-up. Robert was the only eyewitness called in. His statement and eyewitness account were deemed as sufficient evidence for a trial. It lasted just a day and resulted in nearly two decades in prison for Bunn. Even after he was released on parole, it took another 10 years for a new trial to be held and for him to be exonerated by a judge. The eyewitness testimony of just one man was enough for a conviction that wasn’t overturned for almost thirty years. Now 41 and a free man, Bunn has spent nearly 2/3 of his life fighting to clear his name because of the misconceptions held about the accuracy of memory. There is no doubt that changes need to be made to the weight given to eyewitness testimony. One of the first and most important steps would be to spread awareness and educate people on issues regarding the fallibility of human memory. There’s still a long way to go, but decreasing the blind trust we put in our memory will start us on a path towards a fairer, less biased judicial system.
10
The Myer-Briggs Type Indicator: What it really says about you Jasmine Norden
T
he integration of personality quizzes into online habits has been rapid, particularly evident in the relatively recent inescapability of the Buzzfeed quiz. Driving the popularity of personality quizzes, and therefore to blame for me spending valuable minutes of my time to find out which type of cheese I am, is likely a desire to have our beliefs about ourselves validated. Vague, but largely optimistic personality profiles ensure that virtually anyone can see aspects of themselves in their results. This is called ‘the Barnum effect’, first studied in the forties in an experiment that found Psychology students who were all given the same personality profile mostly all rated it as accurate. One of the most popular ways to classify personality is the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), proposed by Myer and Briggs in the 1940s, based on Jungian theo-
ries of cognitive functions. At the surface level, it seems more rooted in Psychology than other popular tests. The MBTI classifies people dichotomously on four dimensions, which together make up your personality ‘type’. These are:
• • • •
Extroversion (E) versus Introversion (I) Intuition (N) versus Sensing (S) Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F) Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P)
‘psychologists are largely banded together in their hatred of the MBTI’
11
The MBTI reigns as the most commonly found personality classification in popular culture; one glance on twitter will leave you berated with self-proclaimed INFJ’s reminding everyone they’re the ‘rarest personality type’. The biggest clients of the MBTI though, perhaps surprisingly, are large-scale businesses. Particularly in America, the MBTI is widely used to screen prospective employees. Reportedly, around 70-80% of Fortune 500 companies use the MBTI. A brief Google search will return with hundreds of articles telling you which type earns the most on average, which types suit which careers.
‘in reality, it’s not a particularly valid or reliable measure of personality’ Psychologists, on the other hand, are largely banded together in their hatred of the MBTI. In reality, it’s not a particularly valid or reliable measure of personality; people often get different results at different times (which explains why last year I was an INFP and this year I’m an ENTP). Statistical methods for uncovering the core dimensions of personality, provide little support for the four dimensions of the MBTI. Furthermore, dichotomously characterising people on each dimension is likely unrepresentative of how personality actually works. In a normally distributed population, most people fall around the middle of each dimension in a pattern that resembles more of a continuous curve than two distinct ‘types’. And yet, large companies continue to use the MBTI, so we remain stuck with continuing research that means little more than astrology.
ty, restrictive by nature in how it insists on categorising people. Better liked by Psychologists are trait theories, which instead describe personality by the extent to which people possess certain core traits. The most popular one of these is ‘The Big Five’. The five core traits in the Big Five are:
• • • • •
Extroversion Openness Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness
The Big Five has emerged as much more reliable than the MBTI so far. It is supported by biological evidence to some extent, and reasonably well by statistical analysis. It also has some predictive validity for behaviour and life outcomes. For example, conscientiousness has been found to correlate positively with later career success. The Big Five, however, has not managed to receive the same following in popular culture as the MBTI. This is probably due to it not having the support of hundreds of businesses, and the ability to describe yourself quite as succinctly in terms of traits as you can in four letters. The Big Five is not entirely infallible; some of the dimensions are less well supported than others. Some researchers argue that Openness should not be a part of the Big Five, others that there should be a sixth dimension. Other cross-cultural research has previously indicated that three factors would be a better universal model. Personality is such a hard construct to quantify, and almost certainly dependent on situational factors that models struggle to account for. What we can draw from the field so far though, is that the MBTI ought to be left in the past where it belongs.
The MBTI is an example of a type theory of personali-
Is psychology a real science? Layla Amawi
I
f you are in any way involved in the field of psychology, you’ve probably had someone make snarky jokes about it not being a “real” science. I’ve had well-intentioned friends and family ask me if I’m sure my degree is a Bachelor of Science (yes,
it is). “Real” scientists indignantly describe how psychology differs from their own very real, very hard sciences, and acquaintances half-jokingly nod and remark, “sure, but it’s not a science science, is it?”.
12
13
To argue that psychology is a “real” science, the first step would be to define science. In the simplest definition of the term, science is a systematic study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. Science has colloquially been turned into a continuum, with hard sciences like physics and chemistry on one end and soft sciences like psychology and sociology on the other end. Hard sciences are said to have more controlled experiments, clearly defined terminology, and replicability. How exactly does psychology fit into this continuum?
‘you can’t apply universal formulas to humans’ When I started thinking about how to go about writing this article, I put my experimental psychology degree to good use and started the first step of my research: I asked 25 of my psychologist and nonpsychologist friends whether they thought psychology was a real science. I specifically asked them to be brutally honest and not to think too hard about it. Answers ranged from “it’s a real science because it uses the scientific method” to “psychology is a young science, it’s still finding its feet”. Most of them also agreed that the issues psychology covers are inherently variable, but that shouldn’t lead to discounting the field as mere speculation. One explained that it’s “not not a science”, and one simply told me to “blame Freud”. They weren’t far off. The most basic argument for psychology being a real science is the use of the scientific method: systematic observation, data collection, hypothesizing, testing hypotheses, conducting controlled experiments, analysing results and constructing theories. The issue with psychology is not the method, it’s the subject matter. Psychology does not just look at the brain as an organ, it studies the mind and cognition as well. Part of the issue with the mind is that it’s the source of creativity, imagination and abstractions; it’s quite literally a grey area. Investigating people’s thoughts and thought processes is an extremely difficult pursuit, and organising this research into a scientific system is even more difficult. The number of variables that go into this research is immense, but psychology is developing and sorting through all of these messy variables in order to create a more concrete system of knowledge. More importantly, like other sciences, psychology seeks not only to observe, but to also understand the mechanisms behind what is observed. The human mind and consciousness are complex and current research
is only starting to understand how they work. That being considered, psychology has made huge leaps in uncovering truths about consciousness and cognition and is moving towards an even more elaborate understanding of these areas. Most people would also disregard psychology as a science because of issues with testability and quantifiability. There’s a lot of room for error when collecting data from humans, but that doesn’t make the endeavour less scientific; it just makes it harder, and academics have moved towards using more robust methods and powerful statistics to find answers in humans’ very noisy data. Quantifying and testing subjective experiences is arguably more difficult than testing concrete matters, but as is the case with other sciences, technology has helped the field with quantifying variables. Academics have been using every tool at their disposal, from fMRIs to EEGs to eye tracking, to quantify and test variables. For variables that can’t be quantified even with technology, there’s operationalisation: the creation, validation, and testing of an operational definition that will act as the substitute for an abstract concept.
Additionally, science attempts to find general rules to apply; universal equations to fit all scenarios. But you can’t apply universal formulas to humans, there are complicated cultural and individual interactions that make it that much harder to find a universal formula if one does exist. And once we acknowledge the difficulty of identifying these local conditions, the problem ceases to be with quantifying and gathering data; it becomes an issue of organising this information into a coherent, universally established system of knowledge for other psychologists to build on.
‘psychological research informs clinical knowledge’ So why should we care if psychology is considered a science? Two important reasons: funding and being taken seriously. In 2012, when the U.S. House of Representatives cut funding for political science research, a Washington Post article went a step further and asked to “cut the NSF’s entire social science budget. Use half the savings for hard science and the rest to reduce the deficit.”. To cut the social science budget in the U.S.A or anywhere else would be to tell any individuals who have benefited from research in psychology that helping them is not a valid use of effort or money.
14
Psychology traverses into other disciplines including but not limited to epidemiology, biology, neurology, and philosophy. Disregarding psychology as a science would reduce its contributions to these fields and to our understanding of mental illness, learning disorders, and general human behaviour. This directly ties into being taken seriously as well; smirks and snide
comments aren’t just irritating, they’re a direct claim of psychology’s inferiority. Research informs clinical knowledge and has applications that even the most sceptical “hard” scientists benefit from. Science is not limited to neat formulas and equations; psychology is messy, but so is the subject matter.
‘The Science of Happiness’: An exclusive interview with Professor Bruce Hood Damyana Raykova and Zosia Gontar
N
ewly launched this year is the course the ‘Science of Happiness’, an optional course that aims to teach ways to live a more fulfilling life. It takes its ideals from the positive psychology movement, a discipline which focuses on how psychology research can improve our lives. The course arrived in the context of increasing concern for mental health of students at Bristol, part of the ongoing attempt to increase student wellbeing. We sat down with Professor Bruce Hood, who developed and is running the course, to find out more about the inspiration behind it and its place in the wider field of psychology.
often they’re actually quite different. It’s unfortunate that Psychology doesn’t have the degree of prestige that other sciences have. But actually, the sort of questions that we’re tackling are very complicated, because humans are so complex.
“there are many paths to happiness. Just make sure you choose the right one”
How do you think psychology is portrayed in research and in the general public?
Do you think we have a tendency to focus more on the ‘negative’ side of psychology such as mental health issues?
B: Everyone is a psychologist to some extent. We all walk around with intuitive theories about what makes us who we are. The big difference is that research psychologists don’t rely on intuitions and common wisdom - they test these things out and sometimes they do resonate with what people think, but very
B: I do think there is a focus at the moment on mental health and wellbeing for obvious good reasons. It’s become the number one issue in the west, which is great because it’s becoming much more acceptable to talk about these things.
15
Why do you think nowadays it’s so hard to be happy and what are the main obstacles? B: There is a greater awareness regarding unhappiness. I think there are systematic problems in our society at the moment which are making us concerned about the future. Humans have this phenomenon called ‘declinism’ which makes us think things are getting worse. We have a real distortion of memories; we tend to see things as being much better in the past - that’s just part of our mental machinery to always be on the lookout for potential problems. It often seems things are getting much worse when in fact they’re not.
“you should pursue the good life – a meaningful life” What was your inspiration for this course? B: The inspiration really came from my former graduate student, Laurie Santos, who is now a professor at Yale University. She took over as a head of the residential college in Yale, and she had to mentor students who had emotional problems and she noticed that so
many students were unhappy. She felt that she needed to do something about it, so she immersed herself in the literature of positive psychology and created a course called The Good Life. And the reason it’s called The Good Life comes from Greek philosophies. Rather than pursuing happiness, you should pursue the good life – a meaningful life. So, she started this course which became a phenomenon – the most successful course in Yale’s history. I read about it earlier this year and I was very aware of the problems at Bristol and the fact that some students were unhappy here, and the university was trying to do things. I thought that as well as trying to intervene after the problem has started, it might be good to give students a protective strategy through teaching them positive psychology activities to see if they make a difference. That’s why we started this course!
“it’s just part of our mental machinery to always be on the lookout for potential problems” 16
So, prevention rather than cure? B: Prevention rather than cure, yeah. Because truthfully, most students don’t go and see a counsellor until it’s too late. I’m not criticising the university, I think we need more of a coordinated strategy to deal with the acute situation but also to try and create a culture that is better geared towards us living happier lives – that’s the message I’m attempting to get across on the course. I know some of it is very familiar, but when you look at it all together, I think it’s a very strong message to re-evaluate how we spend our lives.
strong indicator that this is well-appreciated and wellneeded. And there are plans to make it part of a credit -bearing unit next year as an open unit.
What do you want your students to take away from your course? B: Very important question. I wish I thought about that, then I would say something witty. I think… ‘There are many paths to happiness. Just make sure you choose the right one.’
The fact that the students have got behind it is a very
17
Psychology students start new wellbeing society: ‘Student Body in Mind’ Jasmine Norden & Henry Eaton
S
prawled out in a corner of the student living room are several board games, accompanied by a varying degree of nostalgia (whatever happened to Operation?), and enough snacks to interest passers-by. Everyone dotted around the tables seems relaxed, removed from the stress of work. They’re here for a lunchtime board games event, organised by the newest wellbeing society on campus ‘Student Body in Mind’ (often abbreviated to
SBM). Run by Psychology students, it aims to provide a community within which students can get together to chat and chill out through group activities, whilst feeling safe to discuss anything weighing on their minds. Sessions include activities like origami and stress ball making every Thursday 12-2 in the living room, as well as ‘Mindfulness Mondays’ in the SU, 1-3.
18
We talked to founding committee members Tzea Goddard and Ella Mather to get a better idea of what SBM is all about. They hope that the open approach SBM has to mental health will encourage students to come and build a network who they can talk to if they need support. All the mentors present are wearing name badges to increase their approachability, interacting with ease with all those who have showed up to today’s session.
“Our ethos is ‘by students, for students’” - Ella Mather, Committee Member Ella and Tzea are most keen to tell us about SBM’s ‘Mindfulness Mondays’. These sessions give students
the chance to engage in short meditation practices designed to destress. Mindfulness meditation has been shown to have a positive psychological impact, perhaps even reducing anxiety. And a bonus: the first session is completely free. With the rise in reports of mental health problems at Bristol, societies like this are sorely needed. SBM’s open approach to wellbeing feels refreshing, and could help students build networks of support. Even a small increase in people to turn to in times of need could be vital. Membership for the whole year is only £1, and they don’t even limit how many of the snacks you take advantage of. For more information, check out their Facebook or Instagram pages (@studentbodyinmind), or just show up to one of their sessions - they’re very keen to meet you.
Mental health services Student health service 01173302720 ● Student wellbeing service 01174284300 ● Bristol mental health crisis service 03005550334 ● Bristol sanctuary 01179542952 ● Bristol Samaritans 116123 ● Bristol mind 08088080330 ● SaneLine 03003047000 ● Off the record 08088089120 ● Bristol Nightline 01179266266 19
uob.psyche@gmail.com Facebook: @psychemagazinebristol
20
