Which is more likely to cause a person to devalue some other person?

Which is more likely to cause a person to devalue some other person?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Scenario: Mary and John are in a relationship. Elen is Mary's best friend.

What will make Mary devalue Elen more? Hearing that Elen likes John (romantically) or hearing that John likes Elen?

Let's assume that Mary and John have been dating for a few months. Mary is a dependent person with low self-esteem who would go to great lengths not to lose her boyfriend. All three of them are around 20 years old.

According with the description of Mary, I think that she would devalue her best friend.

Explanation: Elen and Mary have been friends for more time than John and Mary have been dating; this means that Mary could feel more betrayed because she trusted a lot in her friend, and respected her boyfriend. She's more likely to think that John does not like her because she's not enough good for him (because of her self-esteem), and that would generate more dependence (she would try to fix this problem because a part of her identity is at stake). Hope this help you.

Because Mary is in a relationship with John she likes him sexually. Liking somebody sexually has more value then a regular friendship, thus, even to begin with Elen has less value to Mary than the relationship that she has with John. Now, in addition to that, Elen begins to pose a threat to Mary's relationship with John by liking John. If that was not enough, John likes Elen, too.

I think that it's not rare that when a person starts dating somebody they stop being friends with other people. So, to answer the question: Mary will devalue Elen.

Bipolar disorder is widely believed to be the result of chemical imbalances in the brain.

The chemicals responsible for controlling the brain's functions are called neurotransmitters, and include noradrenaline, serotonin and dopamine.

There's some evidence that if there's an imbalance in the levels of 1 or more neurotransmitters, a person may develop some symptoms of bipolar disorder.

For example, there's evidence that episodes of mania may occur when levels of noradrenaline are too high, and episodes of depression may be the result of noradrenaline levels becoming too low.

7 common causes of forgetfulness

Memory slips are aggravating, frustrating, and sometimes worrisome. When they happen more than they should, they can trigger fears of looming dementia or Alzheimer&rsquos disease. But there are some treatable causes of forgetfulness. Here are six common ones.

Lack of sleep. Not getting enough sleep is perhaps the greatest unappreciated cause of forgetfulness. Too little restful sleep can also lead to mood changes and anxiety, which in turn contribute to problems with memory.

Medications. Tranquilizers, antidepressants, some blood pressure drugs, and other medications can affect memory, usually by causing sedation or confusion. That can make it difficult to pay close attention to new things. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist if you suspect that a new medication is taking the edge off your memory. As shown in the table below, alternatives are usually available.

Medications that may affect memory and possible substitutes

If you take these drugs&hellip

&hellip ask about switching to one of these drugs

another antidepressant such as fluoxetine (Prozac) or sertraline (Zoloft), or a different type of antidepressant such as duloxetine (Cymbalta) or venlafaxine (Effexor)

a different type of heartburn drug, such as lansoprazole (Prevacid), omeprazole (Prilosec), or esomeprazole (Nexium)

oxybutynin (Ditropan) or tolterodine (Detrol, Detrusitol)

other medications for an overactive bladder, such as trospium (Sanctura), solifenacin (Vesicare), or darifenacin (Enablex)

amitriptyline (Elavil), desipramine (Norpramin), or nortriptyline (Aventyl, Pamelor)

another type of medication, depending on why your doctor has prescribed a tricyclic antidepressant (neuropathic pain, depression, etc.)

cold or allergy medication containing brompheniramine, chlorpheniramine, or diphenhydramine

loratadine (Claritin) or other non-sedating antihistamine

(Adapted from Improving Memory: Understanding age-related memory loss, a Harvard Medical School Special Health Report)

Underactive thyroid. A faltering thyroid can affect memory (as well as disturb sleep and cause depression, both of which can be causes of forgetfulness). A simple blood test can tell if your thyroid is doing its job properly.

Alcohol. Drinking too much alcohol can interfere with short-term memory, even after the effects of alcohol have worn off. Although "too much" varies from person to person, it&rsquos best to stick with the recommendation of no more than two drinks per day for men and no more than one a day for women. One drink is generally defined as 1.5 ounces (1 shot glass) of 80-proof spirits, 5 ounces of wine, or 12 ounces of beer.

Stress and anxiety. Anything that makes it harder to concentrate and lock in new information and skills can lead to memory problems. Stress and anxiety fill the bill. Both can interfere with attention and block the formation of new memories or the retrieval of old ones.

Depression. Common signs of depression include a stifling sadness, lack of drive, and lessening of pleasure in things you ordinarily enjoy. Forgetfulness can also be a sign of depression&mdashor a consequence of it.

If memory lapses are bugging you, it&rsquos worth a conversation with your doctor to see if any reversible causes are at the root of the problem. Something like getting more sleep, switching a medication, or a stress reduction program could get your memory back on track.

The Seven D's - Stages of a Relationship with a Person with BPD

TLDR - This is a repost from several weeks ago. I've added and changed a few things, thought maybe Iɽ throw it out again since I've noticed a lot of newer active members. Let me know if reposting is not allowed and I'll take it down. I'm not trying to promote myself, just trying to get the word out.

Many of us who have found ourselves drowning in one of these relationships have at some point asked the question "what the hell is going on?" or "what can I do to make this better?" I believe that often this is a stage that comes right before "how do I get out of this?" My goal is to let people in this position know that they are not alone, they are not crazy, and that there is often a pattern (or at least very common elements) to these relationships. Sometimes it helps just to know what to expect.

While most of the folks in the BPDLovedOnes community will recommend getting out of the relationship, some of us need(ed) some supporting information before we could make that choice. We still had hope and wanted a glimpse at our possible future.

Like the Stages of Grief that are commonly referred to after losing a loved one, my list is not a set of hard-and-fast certainties that will always occur. Nor will these things always happen in the order in which I've presented them here. I am not an authority on BPD or on relationships. But I do have my own experience to call on to try to help others understand as well as an even greater resource. all of the great people in this sub.

I believe that all of us have at some point experienced many of these stages, so I created this to present to those that come in from the storm that first time, have no idea what to expect, and might need a slightly less direct suggestion than "get out". Ultimately that is the best advice, but for anyone that's like me there was a need to process through where I was at that moment of discovering BPD and then a need to know what I should expect before I could decide where I needed to go. This is not an account of just my relationship, there are a lot of things in here that I've picked up from others in this sub and from online sources that seem legitimate.

DESTINY - You meet. Things seem very casual, natural, like you’ve known each other for a while already. You seem to have very similar tastes, interests, and habits. It’s easy to connect. They will probably seem to have many (or all) of the same interests as you. They may even start to display similar or identical physical mannerisms as you. This is called mirroring. You will likely feel a very strong attraction early on, but what you are attracted to are things you like about yourself that they are mirroring back to you. This is not the 'real' version of them, this is simply what is displayed. You may start to feel as though you’ve finally met your “soul mate”. They start to make you feel like you’ve been really missing out in all your past relationships. They will likely tell you how different you are than all of their past partners, how much better you are, how much better the relationship is. They will likely tell you how badly all of their past partners treated them. You may never hear them say anything good about a previous boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse. If you’re having sex, it’s probably very good and/or very frequent. You feel satisfied, relieved maybe, to have finally found such a compatible companion. Even if you’re not inclined to rush into relationships, you feel so good about this that you ignore your inner voice and follow along at their pace. Of all the stages, this one seems to have the most definitive time frame, usually the first 4-6 months. Often referred to as the "honeymoon" phase or the "love bombing" phase.

DISMISSAL - They start seeming more forward (and more erratic) about their feelings and less attentive to your boundaries. “Love” comes up early in the relationship, maybe even marriage and children. They will build you up and make you feel special, and that makes it easy to dismiss these things and tell yourself it's true love and you actually think it’s exciting and healthy. This also helps you gloss over the fact that they are probably starting to isolate you from your friends and family. This may also be where the gaslighting starts - they begin to say and do very subtle things that make you doubt yourself. You start to notice that their version of events changes or isn’t consistent with what you feel is reality, but they are so convincing that you feel you should believe them and you don’t want to upset them by questioning their account of reality. You notice that they will say something very clearly, then moments later deny ever saying it or recall a different version of what they said. You may also notice that they start reacting very negatively to things you’re not aware you’re doing like facial expressions, voice inflections, or lack of any visible emotions at all. Here is where it may be clear that they don't process their emotions well and that they cannot process simultaneous emotions at all, but you may also start to doubt your own sanity and version of reality because they are very, very convincing when gaslighting you. It's common for people with BPD to have a comorbid addiction such as alcohol or drugs. It's easy to pass off a lot of the negative behaviors as side effects of the addiction.

DENIAL - You start to see them snap at the smallest things. You’re a bit surprised at the dramatic displays over such harmless issues, but you rationalize that with “hey, everyone has bad days” or even “hmmm… I wonder what I did to cause that?”. You might even empathize and try to convince yourself that they are justified in overreacting. They might be more jealous than before, accusing you of having an affair even if there’s no evidence of it. They may start to be less subtle about their desire to separate you from your friends and family. But they will continue to do this in a way that makes you feel like you want to or should, and sex may have now become the means to reward you for behaving the way they want you to. The sex is still good and by now you may feel addicted to it, but now you also notice that you are not as involved in deciding when to do such things, and it becomes somewhat of a currency or even a weapon in the relationship. They may not initiate sex like they used to so you’re left to repeatedly guess as to if/when you’re going to have sex again. Then it can be 'granted' as a reward for behavior they deem acceptable, and later withheld again as punishment for behavior they deem unacceptable. This is called intermittent reinforcement and it is extremely harmful. But even as you witness these behaviors more frequently and start to question your own motives, behaviors and desires, you continue to deny that it’s wrong or unhealthy for them to behave this way. You continue to hope that it’s just a phase that will pass, but you start to notice a nagging feeling that things are not normal or healthy. If you bring this up with them, they will likely be defensive and shift the blame to you, further causing you to doubt your own mental health.

DEVALUATION - The fighting may seem almost constant by now, with relatively short periods of time (days or even just hours) in between battles. These will often go in circles, where your person will constantly evade any resolution to the issue at hand by leading the argument back around to the beginning or switching to victim mode without acknowledging anything you've said. They will likely “paint you black” or "split you black" suddenly, or devalue you as a part of their life or as a person altogether. This can come during relatively peaceful times, or during a struggle over something completely unrelated to your relationship. When it happens you are stunned. You cannot believe that the person you love, the person that just seemed to love you too, could discard you so easily. You may feel as though it’s your fault, because they will often tell you that. You may feel as though you need to work harder to regain their favor. One of you may suggest couples counseling at this point. If you go to counseling together, you find that the focus ends up being on the things you do wrong or that you do not do at all. You see that they rarely, if ever, accept blame or hold themselves accountable for anything negative that happens in the relationship. They may also say that they are the one doing all the work to keep things together and you are undermining that. Often at this point it feels as though they are focused on amassing a list of reasons why you don’t deserve them, which causes you to try even harder to regain their favor. It's also common to be painted black one minute, then the next be treated as if nothing happened. This is sometimes called Splicing. At this stage, trauma bonds often begin to form. This may not be apparent while they're forming, but can manifest in devastating ways if/when the relationship ends. Here is a link to a survey to see if you have developed trauma bonds (betrayal bonds)

DIVISION - They break up with you or leave unannounced. This can happen during/after a fight or seemingly out of nowhere. Sometimes it’s because they are finding intimate companionship elsewhere while you are devalued (and maybe have been all along), but it can be for many reasons or for no apparent reason at all (ghosting). Often times this is when they will have completely convinced you that you are the one with a problem or disorder. You may also be the one that feels you need to leave at this point. If you try to leave, you see their disposition change from a bully to one of extreme neediness or they threaten to harm themselves if you leave. At this stage it's not uncommon to witness clearly the push/pull dynamic of the disorder, or "I hate you, don't leave me". You see the cycle of their two greatest fears (engulfment and abandonment) at constant war in the relationship. When you get close, they move away. When you back off, they desperately want you back. You may also feel at this point that you can’t leave them because you’d be responsible if they hurt or killed themselves. Frequent break ups and make ups are common in these relationships. It will likely feel very odd and confusing, feeling them push you away one minute and then do whatever they can to get you back the next. We codependents can get stuck here because we continually try to find new ways to “break through” to our pwBPD and prove once and for all how much we love them, theoretically breaking the cycle. We also feel that the affection and love bombing is a direct response to something "good" we've done, but then we are crushed when we continue to do that same "good" thing and they suddenly pull away or get angry. Many people find themselves stuck in this stage #4 - #5 cycle for long periods of time, even decades. Sometimes the relationship ends here. The pwBPD leaves, finds another "supply" and never returns. But in most cases, they will reach out to you later to try to reconnect and keep the cycle going.

DETACHMENT - At some point you (hopefully) realize you do not want to live this way any more. You realize you cannot keep fighting. You feel lifeless. You no longer feel hopeful for the future. You settle into simply trying to navigate the destruction and you may have found ways to limit the highly emotional drama in daily life . You’re not happy, but you feel you are stuck (or so addicted to the sex and "good" times that you don't want to leave), so you simply get through the days mechanically. Some people start to employ the Gray Rock Method as a way to cope. If you have children with your person you probably feel even more stuck, and you feel as though you have to stay together for the sake of the kids. You start to feel little or nothing about your situation other than despair or utter hopelessness, only responding to fires as they are lit and then settling back to coping with daily life and trying to keep them happy, which never seems to happen. But you probably don’t feel sure you can leave yet, because you can’t accept the thought of them hurting themselves because of you or you are still convinced that "if you just do this one thing right, you can turn things around". You have probably taken responsibility for not only their happiness, but for their physical and emotional health and safety as well. They will certainly feel your detachment and in many cases they will choose to discard you before you can leave them. This takes the cycle back to stage #4, and things can end up in a seemingly endless loop that never gets past this point. This may be the point where you Google something like "I feel like I'm walking on eggshells" and you end up on several mental health websites and ultimately on Reddit discovering BPD. Maybe you've gone to see a counselor and BPD gets mentioned there.

DEPARTURE - You find yourself either completely drained or so angry that you start to look for ways out. Things you didn’t think you’d ever be open to doing (like leaving the relationship) now seem not only possible, but necessary. You slowly start to put more weight on your own well being than on continuing to try to please your person. You likely have stopped talking to your friends and family about the specifics of why you’re unhappy in the relationship because nobody seems to quite understand what you’re going through, and sometimes that even leads you to more doubt about the validity of your feelings. You feel more isolated, manipulated, and abused. If your person hasn't already left you, you may finally decide to leave the relationship. Many people find the strength at this point to leave and leave for good. Many others leave, resolve to be done, and then end up back at stage #4 or #5 because their person finds a way to draw them back in. This is called Hoovering. If/when the relationship does end "for good", many people then find themselves moving through the Stages of Grief because the emotional involvement/investment in the relationship can make the loss feel similar to when a loved one actually dies. Many nonBPD's that have successfully left one of these relationships have expressed their shock at how easily their BPD partner moved on to a new partner and became what seemed to be a completely different person.

Here are some common acronyms (& verbage) used on this sub and in other publications regarding BPD:

Causes of Pedophilia

According the DSM-5, the criteria to diagnose Pedophilia (Pedophilic Disorder) is defined as recurrent experiences of intense sexual arousal, fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, usually under the age of 14. The person has acted on these sexual urges or these sexual urges or fantasies cause the person distress or problems in interpersonal relationships.

In order to be classified with this disorder, the person must be at least 16 years of age and five years older than the child or children for whom he has these feelings that are possibly acted upon.

A person in late adolescence involved in a long term sexual relationship with a 12 or 13-year-old is not included in this category (American Psychiatric Association, 2014).

Different theories exist about what causes pedophilia.

Some experts propose that the causes are neurodevelopmental. Differences in the brain structure of pedophiles have been noted, such as frontocortical differences, decreased gray matter, unilateral and bilateral frontal lobe and temporal lobe and cerebellar changes.

According to research, these differences are similar to those of people with impulse control disorders, such as OCD, addictions and antisocial personality disorder.

Pedophilia could be a byproduct of other co morbid psychiatric diseases. These brain abnormalities may have been formed by abnormal brain development. However, post-traumatic stress disorder also causes these types of brain abnormalities. Traumatic experiences in the pedophiles early life could have caused this atypical development (Hall & Hall, 2007).

Neurological Differences

Other neurological differences found in pedophiles included lower intelligence levels and the lower the intelligence level, the younger the preferred victim.

A substantial number of studies have indicated that pedophiles have cerebral abnormalities found in the temporal lobes (Hucker et al., 1986). Many Serotonin agonist differences were also found in pedophiles over tested control subjects.

Also found was an increased level of pedophilia in those people who sustained serious head injuries as young children, especially prior to age six. Another finding was that more pedophiles had mothers with psychiatric illnesses than the average person (Hall & Hall, 2007).

Some pedophiles were also found to have chromosomal abnormalities. Out of 41 men studied, seven of them were found to have chromosomal abnormalities, including Klinefelter syndrome, which is a condition in which a male will have an extra X chromosome in their genetic code (Berlin & Krout, 1994).

Environmental Factors

The environmental factors involved in pedophilia must also be considered. There is much controversy over whether or not being sexually abused as a child causes that child to grow up to be a sexual abuser. Statistics do weigh out indicating, that in general, more people who abuse children as adults were abused themselves as children.

The range is anywhere between 20% and 93%.

What would the reasons be for this happening? Theorists have proposed that perhaps the pedophile either wants to identify with his abuser or conquer his feelings of powerlessness by becoming an abuser himself, or maybe the abuse itself is somehow imprinted on the psyche of the abused (Hall & Hall, 2007). Some scientists hold to the view that pedophilia really is not that much different from other mental illnesses, other than in how its deviant behavior is manifested. Like other troubled people, most sex offenders have problems establishing satisfying intimate sexual and personal relationships with their peers (Lanyon, 1986).

Developmental Issues

Other developmental issues occurred in the lives of pedophiles more often than the general population. Sixty-one percent of pedophiles repeated a grade or were enrolled in special education classes (Hall & Hall, 2007).

As mentioned earlier, it was found that more often than not, pedophiles had lower IQs than other people. Some theorists propose that pedophiles have arrested psychosexual development, caused by early childhood stress, which has caused their development to be fixated or regressed and is manifested in their sexual preferences for children.

Perhaps these early stressors caused an incomplete maturity process in these individuals which keeps them irrationally young in mind (Lanyon, 1986). Conceivably, that is why so many pedophiles identify more with children and view their behavior as completely acceptable.

Pedophilia is similar to certain personality disorders because the individual with the disorder is very self-centered, treats children like objects for his pleasure and does not really suffer personally with emotional distress (as is the case with many mental illnesses.)

Pedophiles, on the whole, seem to really believe that their behavior is normal, yet they must hide it because conventional society does not accept it. Pedophiles are convinced that they are doing a good thing when they molest children and that the children actually enjoy the relationship.

It has been speculated that pedophiles have not developed properly and are fixated or stuck at a certain stage of development mentally, while their hormones and physical bodies matured typically. Because of this conflict, the adult-child that the pedophile has grown up to become still relates to children better than adults.

American Psychiatric Association (2014). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Berlin, F. S., & Krout, E. (1994). Pedophilia: Diagnostic Concepts Treatment and Ethical Considerations. Retrieved from

Comer, R. J. (2010). Abnormal Psychology (Seventh ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Hall, R. C., & Hall, R. C. (2007). A Profile of Pedophilia: Definitions, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes and Forensic Issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82(4), 457-471.

Hucker, S., Langevin, R., Wortzman, G., Bain, J., Handy, L., Chambers, J., & Wright, S. (1986).

Neuropsychological Impairment of Pedophiles. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18(4), 440-448. Lanyon, R. I. (1986). Theory and Treatment in Child Molestation. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 54(2), 176-182.

Why Do People Yawn When Other People Yawn? Is Yawning Contagious?

Everybody yawns- both people and animals. Even fish and snakes! But only humans and chimpanzees, and possibly dogs, yawn when they see someone else yawn- aka the “contagious yawn”. It definitely appears to be contagious when one person in a room yawns, about half of the people in the room will then yawn.

What is a yawn? The most common definition is that it is an involuntary action that causes us to open our mouths wide and breathe in and out deeply. That, in turn, causes the inhalation of oxygen and the stretching of the ear drum, followed by exhalation of carbon dioxide. That is the physical process, but what facts do we actually know about yawning based on research? We have learned that 40 to 60 per cent of adults yawn when they see someone else yawn. The average yawn is 6 seconds long. We also know that humans don’t engage in contagious yawning until about 4 years of age despite the fact that they have documented fetuses as young as 11 weeks of age yawning. Research has also shown us what yawning is not several studies have debunked the myth that yawning is due to a lack of oxygen or too much carbon dioxide.

Why do we Yawn?

There is no generally accepted theory to explain the cause of yawning or contagious yawning. There are, however, a variety of theories that reflect either a physiological basis or a social-emotional basis. Several theories have been formulated in the past which looked at mostly physiological causes. As previously mentioned, one of the first theories hypothesized that when a person was bored or tired they breathed more shallowly so their body took in less oxygen. They theorized that yawning helps bring more oxygen into the bloodstream and moved carbon dioxide out of the blood. Thus they claimed that yawning is an involuntary reflex that helped control oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the body. From there, they reasoned that people yawn in groups because groups take more oxygen out of the air and produce more carbon dioxide. That seemed to make sense however, studies have shown that breathing in more oxygen does not decrease yawning and increasing carbon dioxide did not increase yawning.

Another theory states that yawning stretches the lungs and lung tissue. When you yawn and stretch, it is a way to flex your muscles and joints, increase heart rate and feel more alert and awake. The purpose of yawning is to make the body more alert. It is true that yawning can increase heart rate by up to 30%. This theory has not been disproved but it appears to be more of a statement as to what yawning does rather than the cause of yawning.

Yet another theory, which is still a widely held belief today, is that yawning is caused by boredom. Although you might want to blame your spouse or a long-winded professor for causing you to yawn, that would not explain why so many professional athletes yawn just before they compete. Nor does it explain why a dog yawns just before it attacks. Or why a fish yawns when the water temperature is too high or lacks sufficient oxygen.

More recently, the theory that yawning promotes brain-cooling has been touted in the news. It is a popular idea and supported by studies that demonstrated that people who engaged in brain-cooling techniques (such as breathing through their nose or pressing a cold pack to their forehead) nearly eliminated contagious yawning and appeared to be more alert and able to think more clearly. They found that the subjects yawned more when they were in situations where their brain was likely to be warmer (pressing a warm pack to their forehead, etc). The conclusion was that yawning developed as a means to keeping us alert (Andrew Gallup, 2007).

Is Yawning Contagious?

As for contagiousness, another recent theory holds that the cause for contagious yawning may be due to ‘mirror neurons’ in the frontal cortex. Mirror neurons have been implicated as a primary force for imitation- which lies at the root of much human learning such as verbal and nonverbal language acquisition. This was supported by a 2007 study that found that children with autism, as compared to a control group, did not increase their yawning after seeing videos of other people yawning. In fact, they actually yawned less than during the control video!

Other theorists place more focus on the social-emotional reasons for yawning rather than physiological causes. Most of them agree that yawning when others yawn is related to empathy and some say it is also a form of social bonding. They propose that contagious yawning shows an emotional link to those around us. Empathy is the ability to recognize and share the emotions that others feel emotional contagion is when the emotion of others influences your feelings. For example, being around happy people tends to make you feel happier. Contagious yawning, although not an emotion, would seem to reflect both of those concepts. A 2011 behavioral study at the University of Pisa revealed that only social bonding was able to predict the occurrence, frequency, and latency of yawn contagion. The rate of contagion was found to be greatest in response to relatives, followed by friends, then acquaintances and lastly strangers. The closer you are emotionally to someone, the more likely contagious yawning is likely to take place. Yawning is contagious, as is contagious laughing (or contagious crying) – it’s a shared experience that promotes social bonding.


Senju, A Maeda, M Kikuchi, Y Hasegawa, T. Tojo, Y. Osani, H. (2007) “Absence of contagious yawning in children with autism spectrum disorder” BIOLOGY LETTERS 3(6):706-8

Norscia, Ivan Palagi, Elizabeth (2011). Rogers, Lesley, Joy, ed. “Yawn Contagion and Empathy in Homo sapiens” PLoS ONE 6(12): e28492

Gallup, Andrew (2007). “Yawning as a brain cooling mechanism: Nasal breathing and forehead cooling diminish the incidence of contagious yawning”. EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY 5(1): 92-101

Poor Social Skills

Some stalking is not particularly intrusive, only crossing the line occasionally. For example, a former romantic interest might call you every day or a friend might send you too many messages on the Internet. In these cases, the stalking is not a threat, just a source of annoyance. People who don’t understand boundaries and who cannot take subtle cues often lack social skills. You will have to be clear and direct, yet gentle. Occasionally, these stalkers escalate to other, more aggressive, forms of stalking, so be prepared to seek help if that occurs.

Which is more likely to cause a person to devalue some other person? - Psychology

Carl Ransom Rogers was born on January 8, 1902, in Oak Park, Illinois, the fourth of six children born to Walter and Julia Cushing Rogers. Carl was closer to his mother than to his father who, during the early years, was often away from home working as a civil engineer. Although his illness prevented him from immediately going back to the university, it did not keep him from working: He spent a year recuperating by laboring on the farm and at a local lumberyard before eventually returning to Wisconsin. Rogers received a PhD from Columbia in 1931 after having already moved to New York to work with the Rochester Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Rogers spent 12 years at Rochester, working at a job that might easily have isolated him from a successful academic career. The personal life of Carl Rogers was marked by change and openness to experience. As an adolescent, he was extremely shy, had no close friends, and was “socially incompetent in any but superficial contacts”. He was the first president of the American Association for Applied Psychology and helped bring that organization and the American Psychological Association (APA) back together. He served as president of APA for the year 1946–1947 and served as first president of the American Academy of Psychotherapists.

Person-Centered Theory
Although Rogers’s concept of humanity remained basically unchanged from the early 1940s until his death in 1987, his therapy and theory underwent several changes in name. During the early years, his approach was known as “nondirective,” an unfortunate term that remained associated with his name for far too long. Later, his approach was variously termed “client-centered,” “person-centered,” “student-centered,” “group-centered,” and “person to person.” We use the label client-centered in reference to Rogers’s therapy and the more inclusive term person-centered to refer to Rogerian personality theory .

Basic Assumptions
What are the basic assumptions of person-centered theory? Rogers postulated two broad assumptions—the formative tendency and the actualizing tendency.

Formative Tendency
Rogers (1978, 1980) believed that there is a tendency for all matter, both organic and inorganic, to evolve from simpler to more complex forms. For the entire universe, a creative process, rather than a disintegrative one, is in operation. Rogers called this process the formative tendency and pointed to many examples from nature. For instance, complex galaxies of stars form from a less well-organized mass crystals such as snowflakes emerge from formless vapor complex organisms develop from single cells and human consciousness evolves from a primitive unconsciousness to a highly organized awareness.

Actualizing Tendency
An interrelated and more pertinent assumption is the actualizing tendency, or the tendency within all humans (and other animals and plants) to move toward completion or fulfillment of potentials (Rogers, 1959, 1980). This tendency is the only motive people possess. The need to satisfy one’s hunger drive, to express deep emotions when they are felt, and to accept one’s self are all examples of the single motive of actualization. Because each person operates as one complete organism, actualization involves the whole person.

Tendencies to maintain and to enhance the organism are subsumed within the actualizing tendency. The need for maintenance is similar to the lower steps on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It includes such basic needs as food, air, and safety but it also includes the tendency to resist change and to seek the status quo. The conservative nature of maintenance needs is expressed in people’s desire to protect their current, comfortable self-concept. People fight against new ideas they distort experiences that do not quite fit they find change painful and growth frightening.

Even though people have a strong desire to maintain the status quo, they are willing to learn and to change. This need to become more, to develop, and to achieve growth is called enhancement. The need for enhancing the self is seen in people’s willingness to learn things that are not immediately rewarding.

The Self and Self-Actualization
According to Rogers (1959), infants begin to develop a vague concept of self when a portion of their experience becomes personalized and differentiated in awareness as “I” or “me” experiences. Infants gradually become aware of their own identity as they learn what tastes good and what tastes bad, what feels pleasant and what does not. They then begin to evaluate experiences as positive or negative, using as a criterion the actualizing tendency. Because nourishment is a requirement for actualization, infants value food and devalue hunger. They also value sleep, fresh air, physical contact, and health because each of these is needed for actualization.

Once infants establish a rudimentary self structure, their tendency to actualize the self begins to evolve. Self-actualization is a subset of the actualization tendency and is therefore not synonymous with it. The actualization tendency refers to organismic experiences of the individual that is, it refers to the whole person—conscious and unconscious, physiological and cognitive. On the other hand, self-actualization is the tendency to actualize the self as perceived in awareness. When the organism and the perceived self are in harmony, the two actualization tendencies are nearly identical but when people’s organismic experiences are not in harmony with their view of self, a discrepancy exists between the actualization tendency and the self--actualization tendency.

Rogers (1959) postulated two self subsystems, the self-concept and the ideal self.

The Self-Concept
The self-concept includes all those aspects of one’s being and one’s experiences that are perceived in awareness (though not always accurately) by the individual. The self-concept is not identical with the organismic self. Portions of the organismic self may be beyond a person’s awareness or simply not owned by that person.

The Ideal Self
The second subsystem of the self is the ideal self, defined as one’s view of self as one wishes to be. The ideal self contains all those attributes, usually positive, that people aspire to possess. A wide gap between the ideal self and the self-concept indicates incongruence and an unhealthy personality. Psychologically healthy individuals perceive little discrepancy between their self-concept and what they ideally would like to be.

Without awareness the self-concept and the ideal self would not exist. Rogers (1959) defined awareness as “the symbolic representation (not necessarily in verbal symbols) of some portion of our experience” (p. 198). He used the term synonymously with both consciousness and symbolization.

Levels of Awareness
First, some events are experienced below the threshold of awareness and are either ignored or denied. An ignored experience can be illustrated by a woman walking down a busy street, an activity that presents many potential stimuli, particularly of sight and sound. Because she cannot attend to all of them, many remain ignored.

Second, Rogers (1959) hypothesized that some experiences are accurately symbolized and freely admitted to the self-structure. Such experiences are both nonthreatening and consistent with the existing self-concept.

A third level of awareness involves experiences that are perceived in a distorted form. When our experience is not consistent with our view of self, we reshape or distort the experience so that it can be assimilated into our existing self-concept.

Becoming a Person
Rogers (1959) discussed the processes necessary to becoming a person.

First, an individual must make contact—positive or negative—with another person. This contact is the minimum experience necessary for becoming a person. In order to survive, an infant must experience some contact from a parent or other caregiver. As children (or adults) become aware that another person has some measure of regard for them, they begin to value positive regard and devalue negative regard.

That is, the person develops a need to be loved, liked, or accepted by another person, a need that Rogers (1959) referred to as positive regard. If we perceive that others, especially significant others, care for, prize, or value us, then our need to receive positive regard is at least partially satisfied.

Positive regard is a prerequisite for positive self-regard, defined as the experience of prizing or valuing one’s self. Rogers (1959) believed that receiving positive regard from others is necessary for positive self-regard, but once positive self-regard is established, it becomes independent of the continual need to be loved.

The source of positive self-regard, then, lies in the positive regard we receive from others, but once established, it is autonomous and self-perpetuating. As Rogers (1959) stated it, the person then “becomes in a sense his [or her] own significant social

Barriers to Psychological Health
Not everyone becomes a psychologically healthy person. Rather, most people experience conditions of worth, incongruence, defensiveness, and disorganization.

Conditions of Worth
Instead of receiving unconditional positive regard, most people receive conditions of worth that is, they perceive that their parents, peers, or partners love and accept them only if they meet those people’s expectations and approval. “A condition of worth arises when the positive regard of a significant other is conditional, when the individual feels that in some respects he [or she] is prized and in others not” (Rogers, 1959, p. 209).

We have seen that the organism and the self are two separate entities that may or may not be congruent with one another. Also recall that actualization refers to the organism’s tendency to move toward fulfillment, whereas self-actualization is the desire of the perceived self to reach fulfillment. These two tendencies are sometimes at variance with one another.

Psychological disequilibrium begins when we fail to recognize our organismic experiences as self-experiences: that is, when we do not accurately symbolize organismic experiences into awareness because they appear to be inconsistent with our emerging self-concept. This incongruence between our self-concept and our organ ismic experience is the source of psychological disorders. Conditions of worth that we received during early childhood lead to a somewhat false self-concept, one based on distortions and denials. The self-concept that emerges includes vague perceptions that are not in harmony with our organismic experiences, and this incongruence between self and experience leads to discrepant and seemingly inconsistent behaviors. Sometimes we behave in ways that maintain or enhance our actualizing tendency, and at other times, we may behave in a manner designed to maintain or enhance a self-concept founded on other people’s expectations and evaluations of us.

Vulnerability The greater the incongruence between our perceived self (selfconcept) and our organismic experience, the more vulnerable we are. Rogers (1959) believed that people are vulnerable when they are unaware of the discrepancy between their organismic self and their significant experience.

Anxiety and Threat Whereas vulnerability exists when we have no awareness of the incongruence within our self, anxiety and threat are experienced as we gain awareness of such an incongruence. When we become dimly aware that the discrepancy between our organismic experience and our self-concept may become conscious, we feel anxious. Rogers (1959) defined anxiety as “a state of uneasiness or tension whose cause is unknown” (p. 204). As we become more aware of the incongruence between our organismic experience and our perception of self, our anxiety begins to evolve into threat: that is, an awareness that our self is no longer whole or congruent. Anxiety and threat can represent steps toward psychological health because they signal to us that our organismic experience is inconsistent with our selfconcept. Nevertheless, they are not pleasant or comfortable feelings.

In order to prevent this inconsistency between our organismic experience and our perceived self, we react in a defensive manner. Defensiveness is the protection of the self-concept against anxiety and threat by the denial or distortion of experiences inconsistent with it (Rogers, 1959). Because the self-concept consists of many self-descriptive statements, it is a many-faceted phenomenon.

The two chief defenses are distortion and denial. With distortion, we misinterpret an experience in order to fit it into some aspect of our self-concept. We perceive the experience in awareness, but we fail to understand its true meaning. With denial, we refuse to perceive an experience in awareness, or at least we keep some aspect of it from reaching symbolization.

Most people engage in defensive behavior, but sometimes defenses fail and behavior becomes disorganized or psychotic. But why would defenses fail to function?

Denial and distortion are adequate to keep normal people from recognizing this discrepancy, but when the incongruence between people’s perceived self and their organismic experience is either too obvious or occurs too suddenly to be denied or distorted, their behavior becomes disorganized. Disorganization can occur suddenly, or it can take place gradually over a long period of time. Ironically, people are particularly vulnerable to disorganization during therapy, especially if a therapist accurately interprets their actions and also insists that they face the experience prematurely (Rogers, 1959).

In a state of disorganization, people sometimes behave consistently with their organismic experience and sometimes in accordance with their shattered self-concept.

An example of the first case is a previously prudish and proper woman who suddenly begins to use language explicitly sexual and scatological. The second case can be illustrated by a man who, because his self-concept is no longer a gestalt or unified whole, begins to behave in a confused, inconsistent, and totally unpredictable manner. In both cases, behavior is still consistent with the self-concept, but the self-concept has been broken and thus the behavior appears bizarre and confusing.

Client-centered therapy is deceptively simple in statement but decidedly difficult in practice. Briefly, the client-centered approach holds that in order for vulnerable or anxious people to grow psychologically, they must come into contact with a therapist who is congruent and whom they perceive as providing an atmosphere of unconditional acceptance and accurate empathy. But therein lies the difficulty. The qualities of congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding are not easy for a counselor to attain.

Like person-centered theory, the client-centered counseling approach can be stated in an if-then fashion. If the conditions of therapist congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic listening are present in a client-counselor relationship, then the process of therapy will transpire. If the process of therapy takes place, then certain outcomes can be predicted. Rogerian therapy, therefore, can be viewed in terms of conditions, process, and outcomes.

First, an anxious or vulnerable client must come into contact with a congruent therapist who also possesses empathy and unconditional positive regard for that client. Next, the client must perceive these characteristics in the therapist. Finally, the contact between client and therapist must be of some duration.

Client-centered therapy is unique in its insistence that the conditions of counselor congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic listening are both necessary and sufficient (Rogers, 1957).

Even though all three conditions are necessary for psychological growth, Rogers (1980) believed that congruence is more basic than either unconditional positive regard or empathic listening. Congruence is a general quality possessed by the therapist, whereas the other two conditions are specific feelings or attitudes that the therapist has for an individual client.

Counselor Congruence
Congruence exists when a person’s organismic experiences are matched by an awareness of them and by an ability and willingness to openly express these feelings (Rogers, 1980). To be congruent means to be real or genuine, to be whole or integrated, to be what one truly is.

Because congruence involves (1) feelings, (2) awareness, and (3) expression, incongruence can arise from either of the two points dividing these three experiences. First, there can be a breakdown between feelings and awareness. A person may be feeling angry, and the anger may be obvious to others but the angry person is unaware of the feeling. The second source of incongruence is a discrepancy between awareness of an experience and the ability or willingness to express it to another. Rogers (1961) stated that therapists will be more effective if they communicate genuine feelings, even when those feelings are negative or threatening.

To do otherwise would be dishonest, and clients will detect—though not necessarily consciously—any significant indicators of incongruence.

Unconditional Positive Regard
Positive regard is the need to be liked, prized, or accepted by another person. When this need exists without any conditions or qualifications, unconditional positive regard occurs (Rogers, 1980). Therapists have unconditional positive regard when they are “experiencing a warm, positive and accepting attitude toward what is the client” (Rogers, 1961, p. 62). The attitude is without possessiveness, without evaluations, and without reservations.

Empathic Listening
The third necessary and sufficient condition of psychological growth is empathic listening. Empathy exists when therapists accurately sense the feelings of their clients and are able to communicate these perceptions so that clients know that another person has entered their world of feelings without prejudice, projection, or evaluation. To Rogers (1980), empathy “means temporarily living in the other’s life, moving about in it delicately without making judgments” (p. 142). Empathy does not involve interpreting clients’ meanings or uncovering their unconscious feelings, procedures that would entail an external frame of reference and a threat to clients. In contrast, empathy suggests that a therapist sees things from the client’s point of view and that the client feels safe and unthreatened.

Stages of Therapeutic Change
The process of constructive personality change can be placed on a continuum from most defensive to most integrated. Rogers (1961) arbitrarily divided this continuum into seven stages.

Stage 1 is characterized by an unwillingness to communicate anything about oneself. People at this stage ordinarily do not seek help, but if for some reason they come to therapy, they are extremely rigid and resistant to change. They do not recognize any problems and refuse to own any personal feelings or emotions.

In Stage 2, clients become slightly less rigid. They discuss external events and other people, but they still disown or fail to recognize their own feelings. However, they may talk about personal feelings as if such feelings were objective phenomena.

As clients enter into Stage 3, they more freely talk about self, although still as an object. “I’m doing the best I can at work, but my boss still doesn’t like me.” Clients talk about feelings and emotions in the past or future tense and avoid present feelings. They refuse to accept their emotions, keep personal feelings at a distance from the here-and-now situation, only vaguely perceive that they can make personal choices, and deny individual responsibility for most of their decisions.

Clients in Stage 4 begin to talk of deep feelings but not ones presently felt. “I was really burned up when my teacher accused me of cheating.” When clients do express present feelings, they are usually surprised by this expression. They deny or distort experiences, although they may have some dim recognition that they are capable of feeling emotions in the present. They begin to question some values that have been introjected from others, and they start to see the incongruence between their perceived self and their organismic experience. They accept more freedom and responsibility than they did in Stage 3 and begin to tentatively allow themselves to become involved in a relationship with the therapist.

By the time clients reach Stage 5, they have begun to undergo significant change and growth. They can express feelings in the present, although they have not yet accurately symbolized those feelings. They are beginning to rely on an internal locus of evaluation for their feelings and to make fresh and new discoveries about themselves. They also experience a greater differentiation of feelings and develop more appreciation for nuances among them. In addition, they begin to make their own decisions and to accept responsibility for their choices.

People at Stage 6 experience dramatic growth and an irreversible movement toward becoming fully functioning or self-actualizing. They freely allow into awareness those experiences that they had previously denied or distorted. They become more congruent and are able to match their present experiences with awareness and with open expression. They no longer evaluate their own behavior from an external viewpoint but rely on their organismic self as the criterion for evaluating experiences. They begin to develop unconditional self-regard, which means that they have a feeling of genuine caring and affection for the person they are becoming. An interesting concomitant to this stage is a physiological loosening. These people experience their whole organismic self, as their muscles relax, tears flow, circulation improves, and physical symptoms disappear. In many ways, Stage 6 signals an end to therapy. Indeed, if therapy were to be terminated at this point, clients would still progress to the next level.

Stage 7 can occur outside the therapeutic encounter, because growth at Stage 6 seems to be irreversible. Clients who reach Stage 7 become fully functioning “persons of tomorrow” (a concept more fully explained in the section titled The Person of Tomorrow). They are able to generalize their in-therapy experiences to their world beyond therapy. They possess the confidence to be themselves at all times, to own and to feel deeply the totality of their experiences, and to live those experiences in the present. Their organismic self, now unified with the self-concept, becomes the locus for evaluating their experiences. People at Stage 7 receive pleasure in knowing that these evaluations are fluid and that change and growth will continue. In addition, they become congruent, possess unconditional positive self-regard, and are able to be loving and empathic toward others.

If the three necessary and sufficient therapeutic conditions of congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathy are optimal, then what kind of person would emerge? Rogers (1961, 1962, 1980) listed several possible characteristics.

First, psychologically healthy people would be more adaptable. Thus, from an evolutionary viewpoint, they would be more likely to survive—hence the title “persons of tomorrow.”

Second, persons of tomorrow would be open to their experiences, accurately symbolizing them in awareness rather than denying or distorting them. This simple statement is pregnant with meaning. A related characteristic of persons of tomorrow would be a trust in their organismic selves. These fully functioning people would not depend on others for guidance because they would realize that their own experiences are the best criteria for making choices

A third characteristic of persons of tomorrow would be a tendency to live fully in the moment. Because these people would be open to their experiences, they would experience a constant state of fluidity and change. Rogers (1961) referred to this tendency to live in the moment as existential living. Persons of tomorrow would have no need to deceive themselves and no reason to impress others.

Fourth, persons of tomorrow would remain confident of their own ability to experience harmonious relations with others. They would feel no need to be liked or loved by everyone, because they would know that they are unconditionally prized and accepted by someone. They would seek intimacy with another person who is probably equally healthy, and such a relationship itself would contribute to the continual growth of each partner.

Fifth, persons of tomorrow would be more integrated, more whole, with no artificial boundary between conscious processes and unconscious ones. Because they would be able to accurately symbolize all their experiences in awareness, they would see clearly the difference between what is and what should be

Sixth, persons of tomorrow would have a basic trust of human nature. They would not harm others merely for personal gain they would care about others and be ready to help when needed

Finally, because persons of tomorrow are open to all their experiences, they would enjoy a greater richness in life than do other people. They would neither distort internal stimuli nor buffer their emotions.

· Rogers, however, contended that people have some degree of free choice and some capacity to be self-directed.

· Throughout his long career, Rogers remained cognizant of the human capacity for great evil, yet his concept of humanity is realistically optimistic. He believed that people are essentially forward moving and that, under proper conditions, they will grow toward self-actualization.

· To the extent that we have awareness, we are able to make free choices and to play an active role in forming our personalities.

· Rogers’s theory is also high on teleology, maintaining that people strive with purpose toward goals that they freely set for themselves.

· Rogers placed more emphasis on individual differences and uniqueness than on similarities.

· Although Rogers did not deny the importance of unconscious processes, his primary emphasis was on the ability of people to consciously choose their own course of action.

· On the dimension of biological versus social influences, Rogers favored the latter.

· Receives only an average rating on its ability to spark research activity within the general field of personality.

· Rogerian theory high on falsification. Rogers was one of only a few theorists who spelled out his theory in an if-then framework, and such a paradigm lends itself to either confirmation or disconfirmation.

· Rogerian theory nevertheless can be extended to a relatively wide range of human personality. person-centered theory high on its ability to explain what is currently known about human behavior.

· We rate person-centered theory very high for its consistency and its carefully worked-out operational definitions.

· The theory itself is unusually clear and economical, but some of the language is awkward and vague.

The Tinder effect: psychology of dating in the technosexual era

If you are a romantic, you are probably not on Tinder, the latest big addition to the online dating world. Tinder is the aptly named heterosexual version of Grindr, an older hook-up app that identifies available gay, bisexual, or "curious" partners in the vicinity.

It is also the modern blend of hot-or-not, in that users are required to judge pictures from fellow Tinderers by simply swiping right if they like them or left if they don't, and 1980s telephone bars, in that phone flirting precedes face-to-face interaction.

Thus Tinder is hardly original, yet it has taken the mobile dating market by storm: despite launching only last year, an estimated 450 million profiles are rated every day and membership is growing by 15% each week. More importantly, and in stark contrast with the overwhelmingly negative media reception, Tinder has managed to overcome the two big hurdles to online dating. First, Tinder is cool, at least to its users.

Indeed, whereas it is still somewhat embarrassing to confess to using EHarmony or, Tinderers are proud to demo the app at a dinner party, perhaps because the alternative – logging off and talking to others guests – is less appealing.

Second, through eliminating time lags and distance, Tinder bridges the gap between digital and physical dating, enabling users to experience instant gratification and making Tinder almost as addictive as Facebook (the average user is on it 11-minutes per day).

But the bigger lessons from the Tinder effect are psychological. Let me offer a few here:

Hook-up apps are more arousing than actual hook-ups:

In our technosexual era, the process of dating has not only been gamified, but also sexualised, by technology. Mobile dating is much more than a means to an end, it is an end in itself. With Tinder, the pretext is to hook-up, but the real pleasure is derived from the Tindering process. Tinder is just the latest example for the sexualisation of urban gadgets: it is nomophobia, Facebook-porn and Candy Crush Saga all in one.

Digital eligibility exceeds physical eligibility:

Although Tinder has gained trustworthiness vis-à-vis traditional dating sites by importing users' pictures and basic background info from Facebook, that hardly makes Tinder profiles realistic. What it does, however, is to increase average levels of attractiveness compared to the real world. Given that most people spend a great deal of time curating their Facebook profiles – uploading selfies from Instagram and reporting well calculated and sophisticated food, music, and film interest – one is left wondering how on earth Tinder users are single in the first place … but only until you meet them.

Evolutionary and social needs:

Like any successful internet service, Tinder enables people to fulfil some basic evolutionary and social needs. This is an important point: we tend to overestimate the impact of technology on human behaviour more often than not, it is human behaviour that drives technological changes and explains their success or failures. Just like Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, Tinder enables people to get along, albeit in a somewhat infantile, sexual and superficial way. It also enables us to get ahead, nourishing our competitive instincts by testing and maximising our dating potential. And lastly, Tinder enables users to satisfy their intellectual curiosity: finding out not only about other people's interests and personality, but what they think of ours'.

Tinder does emulate the real dating world:

As much as critics (who are beginning to resemble puritans or conservatives) don't want to hear it, Tinder is an extension of mainstream real-world dating habits, especially compared to traditional online dating sites. This has been an important lesson for data enthusiasts who have tried to sterilise the game of love by injecting rigorous decision-making and psychometric algorithms into the process. Well, it turns out that people are a lot more superficial than psychologists thought. They would rather judge 50 pictures in two minutes than spend 50 minutes assessing one potential partner.

This reminds me of a TV show we created a couple of years ago we profiled over 3,000 singletons using state-of-the-art psychological tests and created 500 couples based on psychological compatibility… but ignored looks and race. When the couples finally met – even though they trusted the science of the matching process – they were 90% focused on looks and only decided to date a second time if they were deemed equally attractive or worthy of each other's looks.

So, just like the social dynamics at a bar, Tindering comprises a series of simple and intuitive steps: you first assess the picture, then you gauge interest and only then you decide to start a (rudimentary) conversation. Clearly, psychologists have a lot of work to do before they can convince daters that their algorithms are more effective.

Romanticism is dead, except in retail: This is not a cynical statement. Let's face it, if it weren't for Valentine's Day and the engagement industry, we would have officially moved beyond romanticism by now. The realities of the dating world could not be more different. People are time-deprived, careers have priority over relationships, not least because they are often a prerequisite to them, and the idea of a unique perfect match or soul-mate is a statistical impossibility.

Yes, some people still embrace a certain degree of serendipity, but the abundance of tools – admittedly, most still under construction – to reduce the huge gap between demand and supply is bound to make the dating market more efficient and rational, even if it doesn't translate into long-term relationship success.

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of business psychology at University College London and vice-president of research and innovation at Hogan Assessment Systems. He is co-founder of and author of Confidence: Overcoming Low Self-Esteem, Insecurity, and Self-Doubt

Get more articles like this sent direct to your inbox by signing up for free membership to the Guardian Media Network – brought to you by Guardian Professional.

There is not one specific cause, but rather a combination of different factors that may influence a person's tendency to be shy. Shyness can be caused by a combination of nature and nuture, and can change as a person grows older and experiences new things.

Moreover, people may not remain shy all their lives it is possible to go through phases of shyness and periods in one's life where one's self-confidence may rise or fall.

Some of the most comment causes of shyness include experiencing harsh treatment, having faulty self-perception and life transitions that may be hard to handle (such as divorce, a new job, going away to school.)