Category: Human behavior

According to Arthur Brief, (2002) Organizations in which people work have an effect on their emotions, perceptions, feelings, and actions both at work and outside of work. Likewise, people’s thoughts, emotions, and behavior of individuals influence the organizations in which they operate. Organizational behavior is a field of inquiry that focuses on both forms of impact: work organizations on people and the impact people have on the organization.

Human behavior can be obtained either by learning them throughout your life such as attitude or unconsciously inherited since your born like the shape of your body. There are a lot of theories trying to explain the root of human behavior such as (classical conditioning, cognition, and operant conditioning) but the classical condition gives a better understanding of why individuals behave in a certain way.

This kind of conditioning mostly encourages individuals to act in ways that will bring them pleasure and happiness, even if it means breaking some rules to find that joy. With this type of condition, we can see that the individual that follow this path will behave according to their instinct and not the rules. In a workplace setting is not about what makes you happy is about to follow policies and regulations so if an employee cannot follow the rule because they do well by following their instincts instead then their behavior will impact the outcome of the organization where they work.

Another important cause of human behavior that has an impact on organizational behavior is dissatisfaction with the job. If an individual doesn’t feel comfortable in a job there a hight change of bad performance and turn down the job, now this will highly affect the job because the manager will be forced to find a replacement and pay for training this and more behavior as absenteeism at the workplace can be highly cost for jobs and can have an impact on the success of the company or how long will take the company to reach that goal. In my opinion, if people feel happy then their actions and perception be good, which in turn leads to a higher quality of their work. Discipline, loyalty, and respect between a company and its workers on the basis of transparent and equitable agreements are also utterly necessary to the operation of every organization.

In today’s society, many human behavior theories are commonly used and accepted and It makes a difference to consider these ideas, but so does understanding the kinds of human actions and the variables that influence them. As different individuals collectively and independently, human beings can break into separate or even several categories.

According to Francisco Javier Alonso,(2016) personality plays an important role in how people behave in different settings since some people are more easy-going and other inpatients even tho you cant read people personality by the look on their face can impact their behave according to of how are they feeling angry, depressed or sad. He also mentions interest since a person’s interest-based can impact their attitude toward what they working on because they will be more motivate and dedicate more time to pursues the goal, therefore It can be a really useful way to calculate a person’s human behavior. Self-control is significant because having self -control means managing the feelings before they control you.

Managers also can influence employee performance through behavior modeling and constructive feedback. A good boss will still track what his employees are doing, but will not interfere with the micro-management or coaching of his employees unless under unique situations. Managers can “control human behavior at work” by making rules and policies that need to be followed in order to work, listening to the employee in conformity, and Set consequences if things don’t change.

In conclusion, The human actions of others can not be regulated, whether in the office or outside. However, it may be regulated through the implementation of policies and regulations. Humans are individualized, and in terms of actions, each is distinctive. But they do make certain uncontrollable habits work together and fit together to create unity in the workplace.

In 1687 Isaac Newton presented the three laws of motion. These laws created a massive advancement into the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The laws were taken very seriously and not many questioned them, since it was science. Fast forward to the modern day, behavioural laws have been introduced and people question and go up against every aspect of it. Like Isaac Newton’s laws, there are also three laws of human behaviour. These laws, although quite similar, have different intentions since they are different aspects of the world. By relating physics to behaviour, it solidifies and provides an example on the effects of actions toward behaviour.

The first behavioural law states, “behaviour tends to follow the status quo unless it is acted upon by a decrease in friction or increase in fuel” (The Three Laws of Human Behaviour, 2020). This law is similar to Newton’s first law: “force is necessary for a change in motion to occur” (Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, 2020). The status quo (as mentioned before in the law of behaviour) has shaped our society from the very beginning, as time has passed the values and morals of society have changed and therefore changes the status quo and the behaviour of human beings. From a very young age the status quo has been placed onto many human beings, differing per culture, creating boundaries and ideals for the person to follow. The decrease in friction can be related to an obstacle people face in life, by having this obstacle in a person’s life (i.e. a loved one dies) the person’s behaviour greatly changes. Whether it’s visible to another person or not, the behaviour still changes and affects others. The friction may slow down a person’s activity rate and can lead to a decrease in motivation and in extreme cases depression. The increase in fuel is another type of force, this fuel increases the attractiveness of a behaviour, this leads to creating rewards for completing a ‘boring’ or tough task and excites the person once it is over. This ideal can create a positive and negative habit if it isn’t manipulated. This also changes behaviour; a person may become more motivated or persistent in order to complete the task to the highest of their ability. The fuel motivates people, it gets things done. While many seek a way to ‘activate’ the fuel, it can be just as simple as a change in behaviour or mindset.

The second behavioural law states, “behaviour is a function of the person and their environment, B=f(P,E)” (The Three Laws of Human Behaviour, 2020). The equation can be simplified down to this: the behaviour (B) of a person, is the product of the function (f) of a person’s personality (P) including the environment (E). Another thing to weigh into the equation is a person’s knowledge, beliefs, history and motivation. All these things make an impact on a person’s behaviour. Newton’s second law states that “force equals mass times acceleration (f=ma)” (Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, 2020). While this is another equation and is intended for science, behaviour does link to physical laws. The two equations prove that an environment impacts the force or behaviour. This can link to the psychological argument of nature vs nurture. The equations prove evidence that the nature and the nurture aspects of a person’s life are highly important in one’s self growth. Both equations feature a force and an environment, in a real-world situation the force may be a boss pushing their worker to meet the deadline. If the rest of the workplace (the environment) put this person down, depending on how they react to negative words (friction or fuel) it may make or break this person, changing their behaviour. Actions and environments play a key role in a person’s behaviour and how it is managed.

The third behavioural law is “for every decision made, there are trade-offs and the potential for unintended consequences” (The Three Laws of Human Behaviour, 2020). The trade-offs and unintended consequences affect behaviour greatly as abrupt changes in a person’s life will activate the fight or flight response. This response in relation to behaviour challenges the person on their reaction to the life situation thrown at them. Depending the response their natural instinct chooses their behaviour will vary as these responses may vary per person. Newton’s third law states: “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, 2020). Once again, the laws that are intended for physics correlate with an everyday person’s behaviour. People may not actively think about physics every day, but a person’s behaviour is a daily occurrence. Both third laws are about action and reaction/consequence, these actions can be consciously made by the person or another person creates the action to occur (consciously or subconsciously). The reaction and consequence can affect more than just one person, as for physics it can affect more than one object. Science continues to study the fight or flight response from both a behavioural and physiological point of view. Since both laws mirror one another they strengthen the validity.

The laws, even though they are very different aspects of life and with hundreds of years of discovery, are held with just as high esteem as how they are viewed in correlation between physics and human behaviour. Although human behaviour can not be measured the same way as physics, the laws aim to provide an idea for how human beings behave. Since human behaviour has been more investigated and ways to improve is being applied to everyday lives, these behavioural laws can create a blueprint for how we should react and behave when life’s situations occur.

Ultimately, physics and behaviour can relate to one another. The action and reaction, whether it is in physics or human behaviour, do change and manipulate the results (or behaviour). Each of these laws are used in everyday life and affect each person, by connecting them it can change people’s ideas and views on human behaviour and create a better understanding. Therefore, behaviour is in fact subject to physical laws.

On the off chance that one is a science or even has a passing enthusiasm for the field, one has likely experienced the inquiry regarding whether psychology is really a science or not. The discussion has been noticeable since psychology’s origins in the second half of the nineteenth century, and is apparent in statements like that by William James who alluded to it as ‘that terrible minimal subject’. Researchers in the field realize this discussion has progressed forward hastily, straight through to the present day (Mukunda, 1997). The discussion flourished in the science world some two or three years prior, after opinion pieces by microbiologists who proclaimed completely that psychology was not a science, followed by a few pieces in academic journal articles pronouncing authoritatively that psychology is, truth be told, a science. Simply a month ago, a researcher in the field composed the paper, Why Psychology Cannot Be an Empirical Science, and by and by the science world has been discussing the concept.

So what is the correct answer? Is psychology a science or not? The appropriate response is that it is entangled and the reason is that both science and psychology are mind-boggling multifaceted concepts. In this case, the typical “no” or “yes” answer ends up being complicated. The appropriate response this paper offers is that indeed, it is to a great extent a science, yet there are imperative ways that it neglects to satisfy this ideology (McLeod, 2008). To understand why this is the correct answer, how about we begin with the concept of science, in such a case that we are going to discuss the manners by which psychology is or is not a science, we would do well to have a thought of what we mean by both of these confounding terms.

For clearness of correspondence, usually, a smart thought to begin with is an essential definition/s, so how about we begin with some commonly trusted concepts of science from trustworthy associations (Silverman, 2011). Science refers to the intrigue and utilization of knowledge, including comprehension of certain characteristics and the social world after a methodical approach has been conducted, dependent on proof. Science alludes to an arrangement of securing learning [based on] perception and experimentation to portray and clarify characteristic marvels.

These are strong definitions; however, we have to substance them out a bit. This paper believes science to be comprised of four components: 1) logical mentality; 2) logical strategy; 3) studying arrangement of sciences and 4) science as an explanatory name (Watts, 2009). The initial three are genuinely clear and the fourth is especially significant for this discussion and discussions like it (i.e., including what does or does not get delegated as part of science). These components are vital to understanding existing manners by which psychology is and is not a science.

The main point to make is that the logical outlook includes a lot of suppositions about causality and unpredictability and how an onlooker can know things about the way the world works (in fact, this is known as a logical epistemology). When one is thinking deductively, one expects that the common world is a shut framework that pursues cause-impact forms that are legal and discoverable (i.e., that there is no extraordinary obstruction) (National Conference on Psychology, 1997). The logical mentality additionally incorporates the accompanying qualities: accentuation on observational proof (i.e., information accumulation) to create clarifications; frames of mind of receptiveness to conceivable (regular) clarifications and suspicion about the convention, disclosure, and expert; an accentuation on objectivity (i.e., autonomous from the predisposition of the onlooker); an accentuation on intelligent lucidness; and the conviction that people can assemble frameworks of learning that do, truth be told, compare to the manner in which the world really works.

Another characteristic plume of science is its dependence on orderly techniques for information accumulation and basic examinations of philosophy (Lutus, 2013). These are the techniques that scholars find out about when they are acquainted with ‘doing science’, and incorporate components, for example; precise perception, estimation and measurement, information gathering, speculation testing, controlled experimentation (where conceivable), and hypothesis development.

Despite the fact that the logical technique is frequently touted as the sine qua non of science, it is not. Without a doubt, on the off chance that science was exclusively a technique, at that point it would not be more profitable, a point that is at times lost on empiricists captivated with the logical strategy. Along these lines, it is essential to remember that the logical strategy is not an end unto itself, but instead is an unfortunate obligation (Ferguson, 2015). A definitive wanted result of the technique is an aggregate assortment of learning that offers an estimated portrayal of how the world functions. In solid terms, this alludes to assortments of academic journal articles, reading material, and scholastic courses and areas of inquiry. In a perfect world, the assortment of learning materials will have a middle that is consensually settled upon (e.g., the Periodic Table in science) and fringe areas that speak to the edges of science-based inquiries and where one will discover much discussion, development, and contrasts of the assessment.

The last component that is especially important in this setting is that the term science has much logical incentive in our way of life. On the off chance that something falls under the heading ‘science’ at that point, it is defended in accepting admiration for the information that it offers. To be sure, it is the ‘reasonability’ contention that is at play in a significant number of discussions about whether psychology warrants the title (Koch, 1974). For instance, Alex Bezerow’s opinion piece Why Psychology Isn’t a Science unequivocally hits on this issue that the pompous frame of mind researchers have toward scientists is not established in snootiness; it is established in scholarly dissatisfaction. It is established in the disappointment of psychologists recognizing that they do not have a similar case on mainstream truth that the hard sciences do. It is established in the tiresome exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists attempt to imagine that they are scientists.

In this manner for Berezow (2015), researchers expel scientists since they are legitimately shielding their turf. Conversely, safeguards of the theory as a science have advised naysayers to ‘shut up effectively’ about the topic not being science on grounds that, albeit muddled, the concept obviously has ‘cleaves” warranting the term.

We should consider defining, including explaining, psychology to a greater extent. In what pursues, this paper will allude to the theory in the way it is exhibited in the institutes, for example; in Psych 101-course books (Mueller, 1979). This is being mentioned due to the concept that it is not similar to the psychology that numerous individuals have topping their priority lists when they hear the term, which is the expert they may run to see, to chat with, about their own issues (note, these callings and routines with regards to psychology are an entirely separate issue).

There is little uncertainty that scholastic psychology esteems, tries to be viewed as a science, sees itself as a science, and, from various perspectives, looks and acts like a science. First off, for all intents and purposes, each meaning of psychology from each significant gathering of scientists characterizes the field as a science. What is more, scholastic scientists have since a long time ago embraced the logical attitude with regard to their topic and have since quite a while ago utilized logical strategies. Realistically, the official birth of psychology (Wundt, 2006) was portrayed by prudence of the way it utilized strategies for science (i.e., precise perception, estimation, speculation testing, and so on) to understand the human cognizant experience. Furthermore, right up until today, preparing in scholarly psychology is to a large extent characterized by preparing in the logical strategy, estimation and information gathering, examination plans, and progressed measurable systems, for example; auxiliary condition displaying meta-examinations, and various leveled straight relapses. People get their Ph.D. in scholarly psychology by directing efficient research and, on the off chance that they need a profession in the foundation, they have to distribute in friended surveyed diaries and regularly need a program of (fundable) inquiry. To perceive how much the character of a researcher is underlined, think that a noteworthy mental association (APS) profiles its individuals, finishing with a catchphrase ‘and I am a mental researcher!’ Indeed, typical scholastic psychologists have so centered around experimental information accumulation and research techniques that this paper blames them for being ‘methodological fundamentalists’, implying that they frequently go about as though the main inquiries that are deserving of consideration in the field are reducible to observational strategies.

In aggregation, scholarly psychology resembles a logical control and it has a home in the foundation to a great extent as a science, and scientists particularly carry on like researchers and utilize the logical technique to respond to their inquiries. Along these lines, at this dimension, it appears to be an entirely shut case. In the event that something resembles a science and acts like a science, at that point, it likely ought to be viewed as a science (Lilienfeld, 2009). However, we are not exactly finished with the discussion in light of the fact that the inquiry remains; if every one of these aspects is valid, at that point what is the issue? For what reason are there still such a significant number of cynics? Furthermore, why has psychology had such an extensive stretch of faultfinders both inside and outside the order guaranteeing that there is an ’emergency’ at the center of our field?

From this paper’s perspective, the purposes behind the concept are extremely clear. Also, it is not found in the strategies nor the outlooks of scientists, the two of which are ‘logical’. Nor is the essential issue found in the way that what psychologists study can be hard to quantify, nor is it since individuals are excessively convoluted, nor in light of the fact that people settle on decisions, nor in light of the fact that it includes cognizance (Feist, 2006). Nor is it since psychology is a youthful science (note this is a fantasy—there are some ‘genuine’ sciences that are a lot more youthful than psychology). These are for the most part red herrings to the ‘Is psychology a science?’ banter.

The reason many are legitimately incredulous in regards to its status is found assortments relating to logical information — psychology has neglected to deliver an aggregate group of learning that has an unmistakable calculated center that is consensually settled upon by mental specialists. An incredible researcher in the field, Paul Meehl (1989), caught this superbly when he declared that the dismal certainty in psychology hypotheses rise and decay, go back and forth, more as an element of bewildered fatigue than all else; and the endeavor demonstrates an aggravating nonattendance of the total character that is so amazing in terms of aspects such as stargazing, sub-atomic science, and hereditary qualities.

Another extraordinary scholar of psychology, Kenneth Gergen (1996), compared procuring mental learning to building manors in the sand; the data picked up from our techniques may be amazing, however, it is transitory, relevant, and socially needy, and will be washed away when new social tides come in. Indeed, even science icons, similar to Daniel Gilbert, promptly recognize total learning issues. In regards to psychology, he remarks that one of the field’s enormous issues is that new standards basically ‘toss the infants out with the bathwater and he ponders whether psychology, as we probably are aware, will even be around in ten or fifteen years.

In specialized terms, this paper is asserting that the central issue with the field is that it is ‘pre-paradigmatic’, which implies that psychology totally needs understanding from the specialists about what it is and what it is about, what its primary hypotheses or even structures are, what its key discoveries are, and how it fits with the remainder of the assemblage of logical information (Karam, 2014). The way that psychology has been around now for just about one hundred and fifty years and remains pre-paradigmatic is evidently an intense danger to the field’s status as a genuine science.

Behavioral public policies, often known as nudges, are policies developed using behavioral economics and social psychology research, aiming to shape our psychological and behavioral tendencies to benefit individuals’ long-term interests, while preserving freedom of choice (Pykett et al., 2015). Thaler and Sunstein’s research (2008) exploring behavioral economics and nudges was pioneering in shaping public and private policy and administration, this was adopted by the behavioral insight team (BIT) in the UK, introduced under David Cameron’s leadership in 2010. The seven-member department, nicknamed ‘nudge unit’ set about having a positive social input with robust and well-examined interventions with a focus on money-saving projects for the UK government. Their success and relatively low-cost approach, especially in times of financial hardship post the financial crisis arguably fast-tracked the spread of behavioral public policies. Leading to such policies being adopted worldwide by governments, international bodies, corporations, and think tanks, including the US federal government, the United Nations, Unilever and the World Bank (Sanders et al., 2018), as well as academic centers globally which facilitate experimental partnerships between said bodies. As of 2014, 51 countries had central state-led behavioral policy initiatives used to tweak environments in order to help improve “decisions about health, wealth and happiness” (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008); with behavioral sciences influencing public initiatives in a total of 135 states (Whitehead et al., 2014). This essay will be exploring the continued and ever-evolving use of behavioral public policies worldwide and the impacts these have on the role of state. While investigating whether governments adapting these subtler approaches to ‘influence behavior’ (Halpern, 2015) are changing the relationship between the state and the citizens living within. The essay will also be exploring the contrasting opinions of the use of nudges and the ethical debate behind the transparency of nudges adopted, to question whether these policies which enable governments to indirectly govern the decisions of the nation, while striving to increase welfare of the citizens the state undermines the freedom of choice (Whitehead et al., 2017).

Before one can evaluate how the relationship between states and citizens is being influenced or re-imagined’ by behavioral public policies, it is important to establish the role of the state, and how this differs worldwide and has evolved over time according to the political leanings and agendas of those in power. Globally the 1970’s saw the emergence and spread of neoliberalism governance, which led to the rise of the free-market, capitalist approach evidenced through the election of Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagan’s presidency and Deng Xiaping’s move towards economic liberalization in China (Whitehead et al., 2017). The subsequent increase in socio-economic problems of the neoliberalism governance leading to inequitable outcomes and a failure to ‘facilitate personal autonomy’ (Whitehead et al., 2017) led to the growth of neuroliberalism. The behavioral, psychological and neurological insights both highlighted the flaws in the workings of neoliberalism, by appreciating the role of behavioral heuristics, emotional responses and inertia in preventing the human from behaving wholly rationally, while then being able to apply these in order to continue to support the market-based neoliberal approach. Foucalt’s early work in 1960s, explored the assumptions of human behavior, leading to the conclusion that the assumptions of rationality were not an accurate approximation of human behavior. Instead, humans were to be understood as ‘rational deliberators’ whom systematically reposed to ‘variables of the environment’, deeming humans to be ‘eminently governable’ (Whitehead et al., 2017). This move towards a more state-orientated neoliberalist approach pre-empted the psychological economic blend adopted through neuroliberalism. It is not however a coherent global, one size fits all approach, and this has led to the development of different styles of neurological governing worldwide, this essay will be comparing the applications of such policies in the UK and Singapore in order to explore contrasting applications, style of governance and the resultant impacts of these.

The new assumption of individuals with ‘bounded rationality’ is a result of the evidence of humans systematically deviating from the assumed rational consumers as well as relying on heuristics to navigate choices. Not only do these deviations called ‘behavioral biases’ lead to behavioral market failures through consumers choosing sub-optimal decision but firms also tend to use these biases for their own economic benefits. (Costa et al., 2016). The role of the government to nudge therefore stems from their role to increase the welfare of their citizens – an intention that they implement through traditional coercive methods, for example using taxes and subsidies to influence consumption of merit/demerit goods; as well as laws that ensure safety such as wearing seatbelts. To implement such behavioral policies is for the governing body to be a ‘choice architect’, thereby being responsible for tweaking and organizing the environment and background where people make choices, whether their influence is recognized or not (source needed). By altering the designs of everyday surrounding, such governing bodies make it easier for individuals to make optimal and favorable decisions in a more efficient manner, while reducing the focus on physical interventions (Whitehead et al., 2012). Through states using the behavioral insights they are aiming to operate on subconscious level, using techniques often attributed to the commercial sector. It is therefore imperative that the ‘architects’ behind such policies work efficiently to attempt to counteract and not be overpowered by the corporations using the same techniques for financial gain (Pykett and Johnson, 2015). This however highlights a flaw in such interventionist methods, by taking a less coercive approach, governments efforts to nudge people in one direction and vulnerable to being nudged back due to the large and efficient advertising budgets within the commercial sector (Marteau et al., 2011). The issue therefore remains that governments attempts to empower individuals’ choice making ability, whether the training and expertise of behavioral experts is well-enough engaged with the individuals in order to re-educate and realign decisions facilitating their best interests. It is therefore imperative that the architect is competent at identifying the populations goals (Grüne-Yanoff and Hertwig, 2015). This use of nudges however raises issues concerning the autonomy of individuals being nudges – their ability to control his or her own evaluations and choices (Hausman and Welch, 2010). By the state steering decisions of the citizens to make decisions they would like to, but fail to make (on account of greater welfare), these approaches can be argued to thereby undermine the individual’s responsibility to make own decision. While not removing alternative options, the states ‘organized effort’ to change behaviors and choices (Hausman and Welch, 2010), pushes towards one option thereby reducing the autonomy of the individual through their ability to make moral and informed decisions independently, by bypassing out capacities for deliberation (Levy, 2017).

There are a range of possible behavioral public policies, and with them come varying levels of criticism due to differing transparency, consent and accountability of the governing body or agency implementing such policy (Pykett and Johnson, 2015); the more transparent and overt a behavioral public policy is implemented, the higher the level of protection of autonomy (Mills, 2013). For a number of policies introduced the nudges implemented are used to increase individual’s attentiveness to evidence, such as by increasing information readily available or sending reminder text messages; or similarly rational persuasion policies thereby do not undermine autonomy and instead protect and enhance our ability to act in our own best interests and protect liberty (Hansen, 2016). Conversely, nudges that take advantage of loss-aversion or inattention can allow individuals to be more vulnerable to manipulation or exploitation (Hausmen and Welch, 2010). The concept ‘libertarian paternalism’, coined by Thaler and Suntein, refers to the nudgers within both public and private institutions, governing bodies implementing libertarian philosophy through preserving freedom of choice while designing such policies, and also taken on a paternalist role by trying to influence and improve individuals’ choices in a way that will be in their own interests, as judged by themselves (Thaler and Sunstein, 2003; Hansen, 2016). For politically free nations the introduction of a libertarian paternalist policy (or a nudge), Thaler and Sunstein argue does not comprise or threaten liberty as while it does nudge individuals in a certain direction, there are no obstacles in preventing them from continuing to choose alternatives (Hausman, 2010). The growth of nudge policies during periods of austerity also highlights a shrinking role of governments, through implementing nudges, the use of regulation and public spending can be offset. While this is beneficial for government budgets, this is not an equitable system, benefitting the powerful while and creating a state which shy away from interventions (Curchin, 2016). Nudges resultantly can be seen as a ‘thinly veiled assault on the welfare state’ (Leggett, 2014). However, given the prevalence of fake news in the media, the role of governments is to continue to nudge to improve individual’s ability to make informed decisions (Levy, 2017), while such interventions promote self-empowerment thereby shifting responsibility in decision making onto the individuals (Mills, 2013).

The BIT adopted and promoted use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when possible, they have since tested and developed a two-stage protocol whereby they conduct ‘gold standard’ evaluations on possibly interventions (Heal and Grout, 2017). This regulation of interventions highlights the paternalist approach, ensuring that nudges are based on empirical evidence to prevent manipulation, enforcing the ideal of ensuring freedom within the UK. However, since 2014, the BIT has been jointly owned by the UK government, its employees and NESTA (an innovation charity). The loss of centralized governmental control however poses a threat to the transparency required to ensure the government is protecting their citizens; transparency not only ensures citizens autonomy is respected but also allows governments to openly discuss and allow citizens to exert their democratic voice (Hansen and Jesperson, 2013). The decentering of the BIT was in a move to increase innovation, in doing so they became an exporting, revenue raising firm, with £14 million revenue in 2017. As neuroliberalism becomes increasingly involved with non-governmental sources such as academics and think tanks, the political infrastructure expands, blurring the line between the state and its citizens (Whitehead et al., 2017).

An example of the UK government taking on the role of ‘choice architecture’ is the proposed ban of two-for-one deals on junk food near supermarket checkouts, in an attempt to tackle childhood obesity (Wheaton, 2018). Therefore, offering politicians a tool whereby guidance can be indirectly offered, without the public and corporation anger that tough legislation such as physical limits on high sugar/fat content food options for consumers. This supports the paternalist philosophy of nudges by steering the individuals to choose my healthy decisions to combat the obesity issue within the UK. By being able to change the environment, it makes choosing food items more beneficial to their own health easier, a decision our cognitive biases may prevent us from doing. However, the argument prevails that this soft paternalist approach adopted by the UK government fails to address the multifactorial issues with obesity (Oliver, Rayner and Lang, 2011). Similarly, the ‘Change4Life’ program, which began in January 2009, was a marketing campaign promoting healthy lifestyle across society to enable, encourage and incentivize consumers to adopt a healthier diet and increase physical activity, a nudge policy which when investigated by the House of Lords was deemed ‘evidence-based’ and ‘appropriately targeted’ (House of Lords, 2011). However, many argue that by implementing such policies the governing body are reducing the responsibility of the state in the decision making, by influencing individuals to opt for a healthier lifestyle using more low-cost methods they are also benefitting long term costs associated with obesity. This project was also criticized for the commercial partnerships such as with Boots Chemist, which were said to be for commercial gain (Rayner and Lang, 2011). Another UK example is the automatic pension enrolment scheme introduced in 2012. This was a government mandate whereby an ‘opt out’ system was put in place; workers were automatically enrolled in their firm’s pension scheme and financial contributions automatically began to be dedicated from their salaries – unless employees formally requested to be exempt. Thereby making it easier to enroll, increasing the savings rate, the scheme increased private sector pension savings from £2.7 million in 2012 to £7.7 million in 2016 (Chu, 2017). This mandate was introduced taking account of individuals inertia, by simplifying a complex process and reducing the time taken to complete the task significantly. This opt-out default is arguably one of the most cost-effective policies implemented in the UK, due to the policy being well publicized many argue this nudge was transparent and allowed for individual self-reflection.

In comparison, Singapore’s implementation of behavioral public policies differs in approach due to the contrasting low level of political freedom, ranked 74th in the world by the Economists Democracy Index (2015), experienced in an authoritarian democracy. In Singapore instead, trials were deemed unnecessary and behavioral public policies have faced no such scrutiny by the media (Whitehead et al., 2017). The first research surrounding behaviorally informed policies in Singapore began in 2010-11 by the Civil Service College, with the first publication in 2011 highlighting the importance of behavioral insights into policy making to increase efficiencies of the traditional economic theory Singapore had been adopting. Since then, there has been advising from the BIT, who have since established an office in Singapore as well as the creation of training and development courses for behavioral economics, spreading the use of nudges throughout departments. In this case, the nanny state’s widespread introduction of nudges has reduced the coercive approach of traditional policies adopted and overall authoritarian governing tactics. Thus, the impact of incentives differs significantly, as these approaches have increased the autonomy of citizens by enabling less authoritarian governance styles (Lew and Leong, 2009). As a hotspot for behavioral insight think tanks, Singapore is continuing to adopt more advanced and complex policies often using gamifying and reinforcing social norms for policy successes. Examples include a nationwide health initiative whereby a challenge to collective lose one million kilograms, by gamifying initiatives and rewarding healthy living Singapore’s government have provided healthy competition and incentives to promote policies beneficial to individual’s health. Similarly, the ‘National Steps Challenge’ offering free fitness trackers to participants encouraging exercising (Keating, 2018), with over 500,000 participants within the first two challenges, with the success of increasing 70% participants activity levels (Channel NewsAsia, 2017). In a nation of strong social norms, the Ministry of Manpower use such to increase speed in which tax payments are paid also. However, the attitudes towards protection of autonomy when introducing nudge policies in Singapore tends to not be scrutinized due to historical high levels of trust in governments. The relatively recent exploration and research into behavioral public policies acts as a more robust and theoretical backing for policies that have tended to be behaviorally targeted (Low, 2011), allowing the Singapore government to create more efficient and innovative policies, as a result of a greater understanding of human behaviors. One could argue the relationship between the state and citizens in Singapore has remained relatively similar since the election of the People’s Action Party in 1959, whereby the role of benevolent dictatorship has been adopted and practiced, the evolving use of behavioral policies only tends to reestablish this role.

The varying approaches taken by governments lead to the evolution of different styles of governance. For example, as of 2014, the Welsh government alongside the Global Action Plan and Oglivy Change were trialing the adoption of a more transparent form of behavioral policies, in the form of ‘Mindfulness, Behavior Change and Engagement in Public Policy (MBCEPP) programme’. This approach thereby aimed to empower individuals subjected to nudges by educating about behavioral insights and mindfulness in order to increase transparency and protect autonomy while implementing nudges (Pykett and Johsnon, 2015). As both mindfulness and neuroliberalism are interested in human behavior, through exploring mindfulness alongside nudges one can say the government are promoting a more conscious process of choice for citizens. This combination is in early stages but for the Welsh government and other governments considering it, through using nudges in such a proactive route they are maintaining autonomy and preventing many of the negative connotations surrounding nudges personifying in their governance (Whitehead et al., 2017). Overall, the implementation of behavioral public policies and the subsequent evolving role of the state through institutionalized behavioral policy departments or teams, varies globally. However, the global push for increased behavioral insights and application of nudges suggests an overall shift in attitudes towards governments using less coercive measures to complement existing legislation for increased welfare and often improved financial efficiency – as often, nudge policies tend to be more cost-effective than traditional policies. It is also important to note that influencing behavior has always been a desired outcome for policymakers, through incorporating these more complex means through an improved understanding of human behaviors, the state’s role could be argued to be simply evolving to incorporate psychological limitations of individuals which reduce market efficiencies. However, nudges do not provide a quick fix or substantial change to more serious problems or market failures such as climate change, or health problems and traditional coercive techniques are not going to be replaced by such nudges (Oliver, Rayner and Lang, 2011; Goodwin, 2012). Throughout this essay, the use of grey literature to support arguments addressed, is an attempt to provide greater depth and insight into public opinions of such policies.

The desire to achieve excellence and strive for perfection is a common human trait that spans across cultures and generations. We see it in the pursuit of academic and professional success, in the pursuit of athletic and artistic achievements, and in the pursuit of personal growth and fulfillment. 

In this essay, we will explore the complexities of striving for perfection and how to strike a balance between pursuing excellence and practicing self-care.

The Benefits of Striving for Perfection

Striving for perfection can be beneficial, as it can give individuals the motivation they need to work towards achieving their goals and ambitions. It can also increase productivity and efficiency as they strive to meet their desired outcomes. Furthermore, striving for perfection can stimulate personal growth and development, as individuals push themselves to improve and acquire new skills. This process could ultimately result in an improved sense of self-worth and confidence in one’s capabilities. 

However, it is essential to maintain a realistic outlook when pursuing perfection, as an obsessive approach could have detrimental consequences. Individuals should look for healthy and sustainable ways to reach their goals, rather than getting carried away by unrealistic expectations.

The Drawbacks of Striving for Perfection

The pursuit of perfection can be a double-edged sword, as it can lead to feelings of stress, anxiety, and burnout. It is important to acknowledge the potential drawbacks of constantly striving for perfection, as it can lead to an obsessive and unhealthy pursuit that negatively impacts mental and physical health. 

Moreover, the focus on achieving perfection can also hinder creativity and spontaneity by diverting attention away from exploring and experimenting with different approaches. Additionally, this pursuit can give rise to unrealistic expectations and a fear of failure, which impacts one’s mental health and overall sense of well-being. 

For these reasons, it is essential to strike a balance between striving for excellence while simultaneously maintaining a healthy perspective on the value of imperfection and the importance of self-compassion. Only then will you be able to move forward without becoming fixated on achieving an unattainable level of perfection?

Balancing Perfection and Realism

Achieving a balance between aiming for excellence and keeping a realistic outlook is essential for professional and personal success. This chapter will explore strategies to achieve this equilibrium. Establishing achievable objectives is the first step in this process, as it can assist people in concentrating on progress rather than perfection. 

Furthermore, setting realistic expectations helps to prevent any negative impacts from an obsessive drive for perfection. Learning self-compassion and embracing flaws can be helpful too, by allowing individuals to recognize their accomplishments and improvement while accepting their limitations and errors. 

Strengthening resilience is significant in bouncing back from failures and defeats since it empowers them to learn from blunders and keep on forward with a reinvigorated sense of determination and motivation. By finding a balance between reaching for excellence while maintaining a realistic attitude, people can get results while preserving their mental and physical health.

The Role of Environment in Striving for Perfection

The societal and cultural factors surrounding the pursuit of perfection can have a significant impact on individuals. Social pressures and expectations can create a sense of urgency to achieve perfection, which can lead to a constant feeling of anxiety and dissatisfaction. 

Besides, the pressure to meet the expectations of family members or cultural norms can further exacerbate the desire to strive for perfection. In the workplace, a culture that emphasizes competition and perfectionism can create a toxic environment that leads to burnout and mental health issues. Social media and the beauty industry also play a role in shaping an individual’s perception of perfection, often promoting unrealistic standards and damaging beauty ideals. 

It is essential to recognize the impact of the environment and work towards creating a more supportive and inclusive space, where individuals are encouraged to embrace imperfection and focus on personal growth rather than societal standards.

Conclusion

Striving for perfection can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can lead to increased motivation and productivity, as well as personal growth. On the other hand, it can create stress, anxiety, and unrealistic expectations. Therefore, balancing the pursuit of excellence with realistic approaches is important. Strategies such as setting achievable goals, managing expectations, practicing self-compassion, embracing imperfection, and building resilience can help individuals achieve success while taking care of their mental and physical health. 

Yet, it is up to each individual to find their own balance between striving for perfection and realism – success is not necessarily defined by perfection but rather by a commitment to growth, progress, and self-improvement.

The most defining factor of my schooling so far is my community involvement through two of the most significant charity associations in Hong Kong – the Hong Kong Joint School Volunteering Association (JSVA) and the Hing Kong Lion Club. Such extensive social work gave me many excellent opportunities to have meaningful interactions with the different factions within my community. Each faction holds its unique identity based on religion, social status, profession, or even family background. In an attempt to connect with each individual at an emotional level, I developed a keen interest in psychology. At the same time, I tried to figure out the factors that shape our personalities beyond the external criteria often used to categorize people.

Being someone who has enjoyed the privilege of quality education, safe shelter, healthy food, and loving relationships, I often failed to comprehend how those deprived of such “necessities” make it through every single day. It was not until I learned about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and some fundamental concepts of Positive Psychology that I came to appreciate how adaptable human beings are. The fulfillment of physiological needs is sufficient for survival, and as a person climbs up the “pyramid,” the motivation to drive further changes drastically. I would say that currently, I am somewhere between pursuing my esteem needs and achieving self-actualization – something that is profoundly related to Positive Psychology.

Based on what I have understood from the self-study of this subject, which is also part of my extended project, we can only achieve our full potential once we make our self-esteem and emotions independent of our life circumstances. Undoubtedly, certain obstacles and challenges do influence our actions, but we must realize that we always have an informed choice to make. Even being happy with what you have is a choice. And interestingly, I feel that people surviving near the poverty line are closer to this self-actualization than many of us who enjoy more than our basic needs. Instead of being driven by society’s trends, they quickly learn to stay within their resources and strive for what actually matters.

However, I firmly believe that there is no single approach to achieving fulfillment, and that is why I am eager to explore many other disciplines within psychology. It is for our ease that we make common generalizations about diversity and define set personality types in which we try to fit every individual. Chinese astrology and personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs type indicator demonstrate this idea reasonably. While we may be able to investigate specific attributes of a person using these techniques, many other factors play in a complicated manner. The nature vs nurture debate is a classic example here. Even when I try to apply some psychology theories in my day-to-day interactions and social work, I occasionally find exceptions or even contradictions. Such instances inspire me to undertake a more holistic and comprehensive study of this subject to account for every subtle aspect involved in a particular case.

Finally, I am excited to apply some principles of the psychology of learning to excel in this undergraduate program just like I have been doing throughout my school life. Using 25-minute distraction-free sessions to beat procrastination with the Pomodoro technique, and then using self-assessment to solidify my newly learned concepts has been a killer combination in my study routine. In short, I can safely mention that psychology encompasses every aspect of my life, and carrying my passion for this subject, I eagerly look forward to exploring it further at the university level. 

Transformational Psychology is a union of every single known arrangement of individual upgrade; a crate of all the most functional systems of development treatment, ceaselessly added to as new techniques and thoughts are painstakingly assessed. The entire is more prominent than the aggregate of the parts, be that as it may, since the strategies are intended to stir the cerebrum in an arranged grouping, relating to its regular advancement. Right now, understudies’ learning encounters of more than 25 years and significant further innovative work of our own, have upgraded Transformational Psychology as rehearsed on Trans4mind’s scope of courses to where it has gotten one of the best and sweeping frameworks of psyche/cerebrum/awareness improvement.

The ‘Investigations’ in Transforming the Mind present a choice of starting Transformational Psychology systems, specifically those that can securely be rehearsed at home by a newcomer to the subject. Recorded as a hard copy this book it has likewise been my plan to offer a synopsis of the expansive floods of mental ideas that are the unique circumstance and wellspring of cutting edge Transformational Psychology systems.

The primary goal all through is self-improvement. The preparation depends on the reason that we have learned inabilities, which set limits to our activity and knowing. Be that as it may, nobody needs to acknowledge that they should stay as they were formed, by inherited points of confinement and by the molding of their adolescence and culture.

When we locate an advantageous objective, the intensity of will alone can change the programming of our psyches. The human cerebrum is developed to such an extent that it will adjust to the requests of the brain, requested by the intensity of will.

The point when you feel furious or discouraged, in a foolish way, is the consequence of negative or nonsensical inward discourse that you may not know about, as it is frequently passing or underneath the limit of cognizance, or basically not perceived all things considered.

These assessments are connected to before times when they were imparted forcibly of agonizing experiences. At the point when such an encounter was too awkward to even consider remembering, the emotions (in the correct cerebrum) were quelled and made oblivious.

Impressive mental vitality is bolted up by proceeding to subdue sentiments and feelings, and this is legitimized by unreasonable and over-summed-up decisions about self as well as other people.

The strategies to be displayed will empower you to take a gander at your convictions with a new perspective. This will assist you with releasing the impacts of kept-down injury and have full access to your potential for natural, innovative, and comprehensive reasoning.

With an increasingly adaptable viewpoint and more prominent opportunity for enthusiastic articulation, new skylines may show up, and objectives moved toward that before appeared to be distant. Issues and troubles currently become open doors for innovative decisions and significant getting the hang of, venturing stones towards what you truly need to accomplish.

When, similarly as with numerous individuals, 90% of the mind’s ability isn’t used ideally because of hypochondriac suppression, the staying 10% is adept to fall into a mechanical state. The individual carries on engraved standards of conduct that are unsurprising from everyday and possibly reacts semi-deliberately when something stands out for him. The under-used 90% is helpless to mesmerizing impacts and the individual is driven by his condition and conditions; this is a long way from oneself decided state he presumably believes himself to be in. For the greater part of us, an extreme program of stirring is critically required!

We confirm that Man’s inclination is basically otherworldly however that it is a whole lot of nothing looking for profound things until we can recognize the profound from the commonplace. To accomplish the higher brain of profound mindfulness and mystic capacity we should be discharged from the thrall of the lower intellectual psyche. This can’t happen with any strength (other than ‘top encounters’) until taking a shot at the lower mind is finished. While a lot of our mental aptitude is not used as a result of related stifled recollections and inward clashes, there is a potential Achilles heel to any hypothesized condition of satori.

A receptive outlook and a real want to learn and grow. The significant objective of Transformational Psychology is to encourage the improvement of self-decided individuals assuming full liability in their lives. To be sure, we have to investigate the unmapped region of our brains and create it without limit, in the event that we are each to have the understanding to have the option to viably slice through the blinkered speculation in our surroundings, and to have an effect on what is befalling our reality’s social, monetary and natural frameworks.

Settling the confusion of fixed thoughts that everybody has somewhat, is an angled procedure of investigation, of rediscovering both target reality and the novel, instinctive facts that exist in ourselves.

The Psychological Society (BPS) defines psychology as ‘the scientific study of people, the mind, and behavior’ (BPS, 2020, as cited in Gross, 2020). This essay will discuss the arguments for and against psychology being regarded as a science, which is defined as ‘the systematic study of nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms’ (Collins English Dictionary, 2021). Many scientists consider that psychology should not be regarded as a science, therefore this essay will reflect on the features that make psychology a science as well as characteristics that psychology lack which prevents researchers from being able to investigate more on those topics.

The test of conditioning by behaviorists leads to Freud’s concepts becoming a part of mainstream psychology terms. Sigmund Freud published a psychoanalytic theory of personality where the unconscious mind is crucial. He further developed a form of psychotherapy called psychoanalysis using the psychoanalytic theory in the 1900s. This is important, especially in clinical psychology such as psychiatry where observing phenomena like mental health is needed to be explained. Furthermore, through psychoanalytic theory, researchers such as Freud worked within medicine and now known as psychiatry, and formed a ‘talking cure’ or insight therapy based on Freud’s notion of the unconscious. The psychoanalytic theory enabled the association of ideas such as talking about childhood events through therapy which is then analyzed by researchers as a case study that influences clinical practice and everyday psychology (Gross, 2020). Empirical data can be collected through questionnaires, performance tasks, experimentation, or observation to verify or reject the researcher’s hypotheses (Haig, 2006). Furthermore, Watson formed methodological behaviorism, transforming the subject matter of psychology from mind to behavior, which accepts emotions and states of mind but did not deal with them as they are not public and are not subject to be confirmed by multiple people (Gross, 2020). The basis of Watson’s behaviorism was the key to learning, such as conditioning which allows behavioral responses to be observed due to certain stimuli. Methodological behaviorism further developed by Watson influences scientific psychology through the experimentation and measuring of observational events. Further contributions such as behavior therapy and modification, behavioral pharmacology, biofeedback, teaching machines, and programmed learning majorly influenced the practice of scientific psychology (Skinner, 1974, as cited in Gross, 2020). This contribution emphasizes the importance of which psychology should be regarded as a science, through using treatments for behavior and symptoms and the effects of drugs on brain activity. behaviorism shows the need for scientific rigor and objectivity to form more reliable observations and treatments.

However, some scientists believe that psychology should be regarded as non-scientific especially philosophy. They have shown limitations to approaching psychology as a science particularly due to the lack of exploration of topics that cannot be investigated using scientific methods as it is not available for taking the research to collect the necessary data. This can be seen in contemporary psychology which is difficult to define its boundaries due to having many theories (Gross, 2020) which cannot be investigated using scientific methods and are neglected. For example, limits of human possibilities, what causes the most extreme behavioral change, or a change in a human’s state of mind, such topics would be very difficult or impossible to approach scientifically. Furthermore, collecting evidence to reinforce an idea or theory can cause researchers to form scientific methods that falsely generate evidence, which is then referred to as pseudoscience. Observations can be made however, rigorous methods and models for such theories have not been developed to produce measurements to be used as evidence (Krpan, 2021). Furthermore, theories developed by Freud due to rejected assumptions resulted in the psychodynamic approach such as the ego psychology and psychosocial theory. This approach is criticized to be unscientific as it cannot be disproved especially as is it mainly based on the unconscious (Gross, 2020).

There are certain characteristics that most psychologists and philosophers of science would agree that define science. One of the major features of science is hypothesis testing which psychology uses where predictions are made on behaviors under certain conditions and experiments were carried out by researchers (Gross, 2020). This is shown in conditioning studies such as ‘the Little Albert case’ where Watson and Rayner took an interest in Ivan Pavlov’s study in conditioning. They hypothesized that humans can become fearful of animals and objects that are considered to be typically not fearful (Vincent, 2021). The importance of hypothesis testing is to find a possible relationship between an independent and the dependent variable due to people not predicting outcomes, as well as they, had thought.

Broadly speaking, it is no doubt true that clinical psychologists come across the complexity of human nature through their practice every day (Forman, 2010). Human thinking and behavior are not something fixed. Biological, psychological, and social factors are combined together and interact with each other leading to unique results in clients’ lives. When people enter into therapy, regardless of their mental health issues, oftentimes their common aim is to eliminate their discomfort and distress and learn how to cope better with their current difficulties. Most times achieving those goals is highly related to the quality of the working alliance between the therapist and the client (Lambert & Barley, 2002). Additionally, it is common sense that the development of the therapeutic relationship depends on the client’s willingness to trust the therapist and confide their deepest thoughts, fears, and emotions to them (Younggren & Harris2008). Revealing sensitive topics can make the client feel vulnerable and emotionally exposed. Thus, clinical psychologists have the ethical and legal duty to protect client’s privacy and ensure that the shared information will remain confidential.

At first sight, confidentiality may seem a simple, clear, and defined issue. However, in real-life settings, it can be a complex concept to apply to a therapeutic context and it is often limited due to a variety of reasons, such as safeguarding the client or others. Some people support the idea that confidentiality is essential to the therapeutic process and the client’s privacy should always be protected, while others argue that confidentiality should be breached under certain circumstances. The purpose of this essay is to review these two different perspectives critically. Stepping back and observing the whole picture will enable us to formulate a deeper understanding of this controversial issue.

In order to be able to understand and evaluate the importance of confidentiality in clinical psychological practice, it is crucial to explore the meaning of its definition as well as the responsibilities with which it is accompanied with. Confidentiality is a moral and legal obligation of psychologists and it is included in the practice guidelines of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and other regulatory documents. The term refers to the therapists’ duty to refrain from sharing clients’ information and keep all the records in a safe place in accordance with legislation and national policies (British Psychological Society, 2017).

According to Woody (1999), confidentiality is “the cornerstone of professionalism” (p.607). It is an essential part of the therapy and it should be discussed at the beginning of the therapeutic process. It is necessary for clients to be aware that the information they will bring to the therapy will remain confidential and secure. Additionally, at the initial session clinical psychologists should inform them about the limits of confidentiality explaining to them in which situations their information may be shared (BPS, 2017). After having all the information, clients can decide if they will consent orally or in written form. Another important issue to be mentioned is that many times clients’ views on issues regarding confidentiality may differ from the therapist’s perspective. It is important for therapists to notice the difference in the way of thinking, discuss it with them about it, listen to their opinion, and review this ethical contract whenever it is necessary during the therapeutic sessions.

Considering all the above information, it becomes clear the ethical imperative of confidentiality, which can lead someone to wonder why it is such an essential part of the therapeutic context. In order to address this issue, it is really important to construe confidentiality as a part of the therapeutic process rather than just as a discrete and “one-time” procedure.

Firstly, it is reasonable to assume that confidentiality could lead to higher levels of self-disclose. In the cortex of clinical practice, this term refers to the ability of someone to freely reveal their hidden thoughts, fears, or shameful experiences and it is considered a fundamental element of therapy. People who seek support from a clinical psychology practitioner may experience a variety of symptoms or situations that are not comfortable with. As a result, they can frequently feel embarrassed to express their thoughts and feelings (Younggren & Harris, 2008). To put it in other words, without confidentiality, clients may be unwilling to communicate their secrets and deepest beliefs with the therapist or even lie about them to avoid feeling ashamed or humiliated. In a recent survey, ninety-three percent of participants admitted that they had lied to their therapist (Blanchard &Farber, 2016). Among other reasons for lying, the main one was feeling uncomfortable about the discussed topic. Being dishonest or hiding information can easily lead to poor quality of service and eliminate the positive outcome of the therapy. In contrast, ensuring their privacy and keeping that promise can help them feel safe enabling them to reveal more information. Indeed, there is some evidence that supports this point of view. According to Woods and McNamara (1980), who work with undergraduate students, receiving from the therapist the promise of confidentiality can affect the client’s level of disclosure. In more recent work, in which researchers tried to explore the factors that are related to self-disclosure, they conclude that confidentiality is a main factor and can contribute to the client’s willingness to be open and share personal and sensitive information (Ignatius & Kokkonen, 2007).

A lot of academic discussion has been done in regard to how confidentiality related to the effectiveness of clinical practice, with many professionals arguing that confidentiality is a fundamental element of effective therapy (Kobocow McGuire & Blau, 1983; Martindale, Chambers & Thompson, 2009). Discussing confidentiality and giving consent is the first step in building a trusting relationship. In a qualitative analysis, that aimed to explore clinical psychology service users’ perspectives on confidentiality and informed consent, it was shown that all participants related their experience of these issues to the quality of the relationship they had developed with their therapist (Martindale, Chambers & Thompson, 2009). Reassuring clients that therapy is a safe environment where they can make their confessions without fear will lead to a strong therapeutic alliance probably. A good therapeutic alliance in turn can affect the outcome of the therapy. The good quality of the therapist-client alliance can predict the positive results of the psychotherapy, regardless of the psychotherapy approach that will be used (Ardito & Rabellino, 2011). With all the above in mind, it is relatively easy to address the question of why confidentiality is considered an ethical duty and a fundamental part of the therapeutic process.

Discussing clients’ records, outside the therapeutic context and without their consent, may harm them in multiple ways and provoke a big trust “rift” between the therapist and the client. In their work, Donner, VanderCreek, Gonsiorek, and Fisher (2008), conclude that breaching confidentiality “should be a last resort” (p.369) and that it is necessary to minimize the reasons leading to disclosure. On the other hand, under certain circumstances sharing clients’ information is the οonly possible solution. 

Introduction

Jessica is a 3-year-old girl who has speech and language difficulties. She has spent the majority of her life around her primary socialization which consists of her mum and gran. When she started nursery the Practitioners realised there was an issue with her speech and language, Practitioners can pick up on milestones in children and Jessica wasn’t meeting her language development, which impacted her holistic development. The Practitioners were unable to understand what Jessica was saying. Jessica struggled socializing with her peers, she had a strong attachment to her mum and found it very difficult to settle into the nursery.

Theorist 

Noam Chomsky Chomsky (1957) developed a book called “Syntactic Structures”, with the idea that “All human beings may be born with an innate understanding of how language works”. Stanborough, J, R (2019).

Chomsky’s theory of ‘Universal Grammar’ has reformed the study of language and according to Chomsky, we can interpret language because we have a simple understanding of how communication is arranged. He believed that language acquisition must be innate because of how complex it is and that it would be extremely difficult to learn and master a new language in a short space of time. Chomsky supported the nature aspect over nurture because all children follow the same sequence. He believed that children had an optimal learning age and by the age of 10 children will be able to talk in entirety. Chomsky also believed that language is what makes us different from other species and children can learn any human language.

He believes that all children have a LAD (Language Acquisition Device) in their brain which is pre-wired and encodes the major concepts, which allows children to understand vocabulary and the structure of grammar, its believed children naturally know how to combine a noun and a verb and create a sentence. He states the language passes through the LAD and children learn an appropriate set of rules for the language they are learning. Chomsky believes that language comes naturally to children, they don’t have to be told to do it, and by speaking around children and bathing them in language they will learn it. He also believes that if children are corrected, they will still speak the same way as before they were corrected.

Evaluate

Jessica has a speech and language issue and Chomsky believed if Jessica were to be “bathed” in a language she would be able to learn it, as it’s inherited biologically, and when language goes into the ‘LAD’ she will make sense of it. Chomsky believes when Jessica hears words and sounds she will have the ability to grasp the concept of language. Chomsky also believes Jessica is at the optimal learning age for learning and processing language and when Jessica hears words and sounds, she will be able to process and learn them. However according to Skinner’s Theory of ‘Operant Conditioning,’ he believed that children learn language through positive reinforcement, where praise and recognition are given to the child which will encourage them to learn and develop, which will have a positive impact on their education. Skinner also believed in negative reinforcement so this would be to ignore and not to acknowledge Jessica if she said something incorrectly, which he believed would encourage her to communicate properly and she would want to learn the language for the ‘reward’. Chomsky criticized Skinner’s theory “Children will never acquire the tools needed for processing an infinite number of sentences if the language acquisition mechanism was dependant on language input alone”. Lemetyinen, H (2012).

Analyse

Chomsky’s theory would be good for Jessica as it encourages her to be surrounded by language, which would enable her to learn words and produce sentences therefore the Practitioners would be able to understand what she’s saying. By socializing with peers, Jessica will be able to build on her vocabulary whilst she mixes with her peers and expands on her linguistic development. I don’t agree that Jessica can’t be corrected in her speech and that she is able to understand the grammatical errors which she is making otherwise speech therapists wouldn’t be able to provide the support in which she needs to help with her language development. Chomsky’s theory helps with the development of Jessica’s speech and language as it informs us that if people who are working with children should communicate with them at every opportunity will stimulate the innate learning of language ability which will help promote Jessica’s development.

References

1. Stanborough, J, R (2019), Born This Way: Chomsky’s Theory: Explains Why We’re So Good at Acquiring Language, Healthline, available at [https:www.healthline.comhealthchildrens-healthchomsky-theory] last accessed [280121].
2. Lemetyinen, H (2012) Language Acquisition, Simply Psychology, available at [https:www.simplypsychology.orglanguage.html] last accessed [280121].
3. McLeod, S, A (2020) Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Simply Psychology, available at [https:www.simplypsychology.orgmaslow.html] last accessed [280121].