UCLA Study On Friendship Among Women

A friend and coworker sent me this article last week in an email forward. We both work in research and have always valued empirical evidence. But this friend is also very holistic. She's been a nurse for over 40 years and is a certified acupuncturist. She likes to remind us that though science and "proof" is important, especially in our line of work (substance abuse treatment), it's just as vital to follow instincts, connect with one another, and be present in the moment. She forwarded this article along that contains research to support just that...

©2002 Gale Berkowitz
"A landmark UCLA study suggests friendships between women are special. They shape who we are and who we are yet to be. They soothe our tumultuous inner world, fill the emotional gaps in our marriage, and help us remember who we really are. By the way, they may do even more.

Scientists now suspect that hanging out with our friends can actually counteract the kind of stomach-quivering stress most of us experience on a daily basis. A landmark UCLA study suggests that women respond to stress with a cascade of brain chemicals that cause us to make and maintain friendships with other women. It's a stunning find that has turned five decades of stress research---most of it on men---upside down. Until this study was published, scientists generally believed that when people experience stress, they trigger a hormonal cascade that revs the body to either stand and fight or flee as fast as possible, explains Laura Cousin Klein, Ph.D., now an Assistant Professor of Biobehavioral Health at Penn State University and one of the study's authors. It's an ancient survival mechanism left over from the time we were chased across the planet by saber-toothed tigers.

Now the researchers suspect that women have a larger behavioral repertoire than just fight or flight; In fact, says Dr. Klein, it seems that when the hormone oxytocin is release as part of the stress responses in a woman, it buffers the fight or flight response and encourages her to tend children and gather with other women instead. When she actually engages in this tending or befriending, studies suggest that more oxytocin is released, which further counters stress and produces a calming effect. This calming response does not occur in men, says Dr. Klein, because testosterone---which men produce in high levels when they're under stress---seems to reduce the effects of oxytocin. Estrogen, she adds, seems to enhance it.

The discovery that women respond to stress differently than men was made in a classic "aha" moment shared by two women scientists who were talking one day in a lab at UCLA. There was this joke that when the women who worked in the lab were stressed, they came in, cleaned the lab, had coffee, and bonded, says Dr. Klein. When the men were stressed, they holed up somewhere on their own. I commented one day to fellow researcher Shelley Taylor that nearly 90% of the stress research is on males. I showed her the data from my lab, and the two of us knew instantly that we were onto something.

The women cleared their schedules and started meeting with one scientist after another from various research specialties. Very quickly, Drs. Klein and Taylor discovered that by not including women in stress research, scientists had made a huge mistake: The fact that women respond to stress differently than men has significant implications for our health.

It may take some time for new studies to reveal all the ways that oxytocin encourages us to care for children and hang out with other women, but the "tend and befriend" notion developed by Drs. Klein and Taylor may explain why women consistently outlive men. Study after study has found that social ties reduce our risk of disease by lowering blood pressure, heart rate, and cholesterol. There's no doubt, says Dr. Klein, that friends are helping us live longer.

In one study, for example, researchers found that people who had no friends increased their risk of death over a 6-month period. In another study, those who had the most friends over a 9-year period cut their risk of death by more than 60%.

Friends are also helping us live better. The famed Nurses' Health Study from Harvard Medical School found that the more friends women had, the less likely they were to develop physical impairments as they aged, and the more likely they were to be leading a joyful life. In fact, the results were so significant, the researchers concluded, that not having close friends or confidants was as detrimental to your health as smoking or carrying extra weight.

And that's not all. When the researchers looked at how well the women functioned after the death of their spouse, they found that even in the face of this biggest stressor of all, those women who had a close friend and confidante were more likely to survive the experience without any new physical impairments or permanent loss of vitality. Those without friends were not always so fortunate. Yet if friends counter the stress that seems to swallow up so much of our life these days, if they keep us healthy and even add years to our life, why is it so hard to find time to be with them? That's a question that also troubles researcher Ruthellen Josselson, Ph.D., co-author of Best Friends: The Pleasures and Perils of Girls' and Women's Friendships (Three Rivers Press, 1998). The following paragraph is, in my opinion, very, very true and something all women should be aware of and NOT put our female friends on the back burners.

Every time we get overly busy with work and family, the first thing we do is let go of friendships with other women, explains Dr. Josselson. We push the m right to the back burner. That's really a mistake because women are such a source of strength to each other. We nurture one another. And we need to have unpressured space in which we can do the special kind of talk that women do when they're with other women. It's a very healing experience."

Oprah's "Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women"

I'm glad that my friends hold me accountable for blogging and send me various articles throughout the week that i should have read or should be reading. I swear, i'll get to them... i've been swamped with work and personal drama. A good friend, Heather, sent this article to me stating that she was a bit conflicted. I agree. I think the author meant well... but a few aspects of this piece read a bit off.

To me, Fischer's article seemed doused in stereotypes. Men never. Women always. The piece quotes a woman who states, "I enjoyed sex with men, but there was a lack of emotional intimacy with them." As a feminist woman committed to a feminist and gender bending male, i find it difficult to evaluate things in such black and white terms. I think it's important to highlight the uniqueness of lesbian relationships without devaluing heterosexual relationships and especially without exploiting mainstream lesbian stereotypes like the examples of media in the article:

"Actress Lindsay Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson flaunted their relationship from New York to Dubai. Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl" topped the charts. The L Word, Work Out, and Top Chef are featuring gay women on TV, and there's even talk of a lesbian reality show in the works. Certainly nothing is new about women having sex with women, but we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable—or at least, acceptable."

Most of those examples barely make for genuine relationships. They are more a form of faux lesbianism that has been tolerated throughout the decades. I use "tolerated" purposefully because examples of straight men daring women to make out with each other and watching isn't genuine acceptance of same sex couples. And though these straight men reveling in faux lesbianism may be extreme and some would argue, outdated, Work Out, Katy Perry's pop hit, and reality TV shows come pretty damn close. They all feature hot, leggy, women and a sense of "trying it out" that doesn't really make for commitment. Either that or androgynous and "butch" women who are entirely open about their sexuality. But where are all the women in between, that don't fit either mainstream norm? Don't get me wrong, i think openly gay women on TV shows and radio is such a step in the right direction, i just wish it was more genuine and less forced into those stereotyped boxes that society and media has for gays and lesbians. Even Rachel Maddow, who i absolutely adore, has been discussed in terms of fitting into a standard of beauty that she may not be 100% comfortable representing off the screen.

But what makes me even more conflicted is, as feminist philosopher Susan Bordo, states for the article, "when a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things." So okay, whether or not media is exploiting lesbian relationships for ratings, just by showing same sex couples on the screen diminishes the taboo around these relationships and gives lesbian, bi, and questioning women and chance to feel comfortable in their sexuality and embrace alternative options. That is such an important step.

The other part of the article that left me wondering was a paragraph about a 2004 landmark study in sexual orientation:

"During the experiment, the female subjects became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. This was true for both gay and straight women. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. "We found that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men's, and it's more changeable over time," says the study's senior researcher, J. Michael Bailey, PhD. "These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains."

But how much of this too is socially driven and impacted by media exposure and the diminished taboo surrounding lesbian relationships? I would argue that even arousal in the confines of a home, let alone when being observed and evaluated by a researcher, is mediated by shame and the participant's ideas of normatively. Being called gay or "fag" is so much more a perceived threat for men than it is for women in our culture. My thoughts are that fear and shame surrounding stereotypes and homophobia impact men's arousal much more than they impact women's. "Lesbian" for women isn't used in the same negative connotation or to the same degree as "gay" is for men.

I think a lot of Oprah's article is valid. Definitely great to get the message out separating sex, from gender, and then especially from sexual orientation. I also think there's a lot of importance to putting a face on same sex relationships, as this article has done, to tell people's stories as apposed to always talking in terms of research and data. Putting a face to the literature always helps readers feel connected. But i do think the article could have done a better job assessing stereotypes rather than exploiting them.

If you have a few minutes, check out the article and let me know what you think :)

Quick Apology

Sorry about the posting drought... but unfortunately it will continue for a bit longer because i'm going to The College on Problems of Drug Dependence conference from Sunday to Thursday. Needless to say, i have tons of work to get done before i leave and will be even more busy while i'm there... i'm psyched though because the conference is in Puerto Rico this year! :)

Which leads me to my next question: Do i have any readers in Puerto Rico? If so, any chance you want to show me around San Juan Sunday? :)

Parents' and Psychologists' Different Approaches to Trans-Gender Children

This is amazing. Seriously, go listen...

NPR's two part series: "Two Families Grapple with Sons' Gender Preferences; Psychologists Take Radically Different Approaches in Therapy"

Part 1 and Part 2

The Madonna "Diet"

My first interest in feminism and Women's Studies centered around body image, eating disorders, and social standards of "beauty." Jean Kilbourne's work propelled me into the field and focused both my activism and academic interests on the thinness, control, body image, and social influence. I attended a lecture by Kilbourne that taught me not only the importance of media literacy but also of the accessibility of social activism, cultural differences in beauty, and unconscious influence. In fact, when i started this blog i thought i'd be writing a lot more about body image and eating disorders than i have been, primarily because it's where i feel most comfortable and the area i know most about. In retrospect, i realize i haven't touched the subject all that much.

(check out About-Face and Jean Kilbourne's site for more negative advertising)

My undergraduate honors thesis examined body image satisfaction and thin-ideal internalization in relation to feminist identity. I hypothesized that feminists, or women with a stronger feminist consciousness, would be more satisfied with their bodies and would internalize thin-ideals less than women who did not relate to feminism. Some of my findings were inline with that: as feminist self-identification increased, body dissatisfaction decreased. Thin-ideal told a more complicated story. I measured two aspects of thin-ideal: awareness and internalization and found that although awareness of the thin-ideal was impacted by feminist identification, internalization of the thin-ideal was not. What this told me is that raising feminist identification in general may not be enough and although feminist identification raises awareness of negative stereotypes about women, it may not protect women from internalizing these stereotypes. Basically, social messages, images, stereotypes, advertising, etc. may effect us way more than we consciously know and realize.

Feminism taught me the importance of maintaining a critical eye. Whether i was looking through fashion magazines, watching TV, or going about my daily business, applying the feminist tradition of not accepting things as they were totally changed my life (and annoyed lots and lots of people).

Dealing with my own stuff surrounding food I quickly became empowered by feminist theories of "normalcy" and beauty. I also finally understood that a woman's value is not defined by how she looks or how much she weighs. I'm not saying that feminism will cure an eating disorder, if i could prove that i'd be rich and lots of girls wouldn't be starving themselves. What i am saying is that feminism allows women to embrace themselves and their bodies, as they are, and recognize that their value, importance, and position in the world should not be a direct result of how they look. Also, i quickly realized the amount of time, money, and energy women spend on looking a certain way. The conspiracy theorist in me was convinced that this "standard of beauty" for women was nothing more than a way to keep women in their place and far away from equality. As long as there are impossible standards of beauty women will never be equal.

Moving on to what this post was supposed to be about: Madonna. I used to be all about Madonna. I recently had an incredibly interesting intergenerational conversation with an older feminist about Madonna's legacy and influence on women's sexuality. I think Madonna has done some amazing things for the women's movement (intentionally or just as career moves) especially surrounding women's power, sexuality, and freedom. These arguably progressive and positive influences on women's bodies and sense of self have undoubtedly left a mark in music, popculture, and society in general. In fact, Courtney (who ya'll know i love) featured Madonna today on her "Thank You Thursdays" column.

Like I said, used to be all about Madonna. Until this week that is. US Magazine did a piece on Madonna's new "diet." In quotes because it consists of her eating around 700 calories a day and exercising about 2hrs daily... If this isn't an eating disorder guide for girls i don't know what is.

Needless to say, it left me a bit disappointed in Madonna... I won't go on a tangent about the social responsibility celebrities should take for the younger generation that is looking up to them, but for real, come on! Cele/bitchy calculated the caloric intake for some of Madonna's meals that appear in the article. Here is an example of a day in the life of Madonna's diet:

Breakfast: 1 cup Kashi cereal, with ½ cup plain—or vanilla—nonfat rice milk [262 calories]
Lunch: 2 hardboiled eggs with ½ cup each of baby carrots and cherry tomatoes [194 calories]
Dinner: 3 to 5 oz grilled sea bass with ½ cup steamed spinach [240 calories]

[Total: 696 calories]

Combine that with 2 hours of exercise and you have a really unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle that no one would be able to maintain longer than one week. Madonna has a huge influence in both music and pop culture. It scares me to death that girls will be reading that article and replicating Madonna's extreme diet.

Race, Class and Gender - A Semester of Frustration

Below is a guest post from a co-worker and friend, Brandi. For me, one of the most interesting things to witness is the formation and development of feminist consciousness in another person. I experienced this in my first WS class during college, some stages that i went through to form my feminist identity included challenging my former beliefs, admitting my own privilege, realizing that indeed there is a problem, outrage, and recognizing the need for collective action. Feminist identity develops during different times in peoples lives and not always out of academic circumstances. Below is an example of a woman who is going through this now and would love feedback on other people's experiences and when to (and how to) speak up for what you believe in.

From Brandi:

Last summer, I had a chance to work closely with Galina. Galina was hired to work for the company I work at about a year and a half ago though we never actually worked together. Fortunately she had some down time in between research studies and she was able to help me out during a time of turnover/trainings, etc. I got to really know her and I’m so thankful for that time – even if it was difficult. I learned that she is strong-willed, is passionate about her views and sticks up for what is right. I don’t think I have ever met someone with such conviction before and it is so refreshing and inspiring.

Admittedly, prior to meeting her and reading her blog, I myself never understood what being a feminist means. Like many other (ignorant) people in this world, I too thought feminism was a “dirty” word and that feminists fit the following criteria: they are always women, are mean, mostly lesbians, have narrow views of the world, and are just out there to cause trouble. I understand now that this is all cultivated by the media. I now proudly claim to be a feminist – if ever I’m asked to describe myself, that is a word that I use.

This semester I enrolled in a class called Race, Class and Gender. Once the end of January rolled around I was excited about all the topics we would cover and the heated discussions that would transpire. I was fully expecting some people to be shocked and a little hurt. What has been happening in class; however, I was not prepared for.

There is a group of females that sit right in the front of the class in a gaggle. I hate to stereotype, but they are all carbon copies of each other – they go tanning, have manicured fingernails, expensive and trendy haircuts, carry Coach bags, etc. Often times in class they are giggling and distracting to both the original professor (we had to have a guest professor come in from now on since someone complained about the class and my professor’s accent – I have good reason to believe it was one of said girls) and the rest of the class.

One day we were discussing patriarchal societies and our professor asked, “Do you think we live in a patriarchy.” I nodded my head as did several other people in my class. The ringleader of the group of girls in the front (we’ll call her A.) said, “I don’t think we do.” My professor was curious as to why – she’s very good at letting us make a case for our opinions. A. said very surely, “Well, I’m ok with how things are so it’s ok.” Clearly, this is not a valid argument. Just because you yourself are ok with how our society is does not a non-patriarchal society make. Until we have equal pay for equal work, we are in a patriarchy. Until a day goes by where the media doesn’t comment on Hilary Clinton showing her emotions or tearing up during a speech, we are in a patriarchy. Until a woman CEO is not compared to her male colleagues, we live in a patriarchy.

Two weeks ago, one of A’s friends did a presentation on an article about teenage girls getting plastic surgery. This lead to a discussion about America’s Next Top Model which I admit I love to hate to watch. Another one of A’s friends mentioned that there is always a “bigger” girl on there but “they usually don’t make it far”. Our guest professor asked, “Oh, you mean she’s like the average woman in America, not just a size 0?” and the friend said, “No, they’re obese.” OBESE?? Whitney who is this season’s token “plus sized model”, if you could call her that, is a size 10! How is that obese? Seriously, look at her photos!

Then A. opened her mouth again and said that she didn’t believe that the teenage girls who get plastic surgery are doing it because of the media or society, they just, you know like want to look good. Well A., who makes them think a tiny waist, small thighs and big boobs make ya look good? SOCIETY.

Last week’s class was the icing on my cake. The same girl who thinks the “plus sized” models on ANTM are obese did her presentation on an article about a boy in middle school who was gay. She ended her presentation with a little gem that tied the article into her own life. She said, “I have a friend who is a lesbian and I just don’t understand how she knows she is a lesbian if she has never slept with a boy.” In her mind you need to at least sleep with one guy before you make a decision to be attracted to girls. Maybe the same should be true to be sure you aren’t gay? I don’t know. Our guest professor calmly turned the tables and asked her “Well, how did you know you were attracted to boys?” The girl turned her eyes upward and thought for a minute and then said, “Yeah, I guess I can see that.” I really hoped this was true and was satisfied with the discussion.

BUT THEN, my original professor said, “Well, there have been some studies to show that many people who are gay have been abused early on and that is why they are gay.” And of course that gaggle of girls in front all nod their heads. So now they are walking out the door of the class thinking that people they meet who are homosexual have been abused and poor them, they don’t know any better! I was seething in my seat and I looked around at my class but no one else had the reaction I had. How could she just make a statement like that without the exact statistics and source to show that?

So, I tried looking them up myself. I couldn’t find anything right away. But then I stumbled upon the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force website and did a keyword search of ‘sexual abuse’. What I came up with was a report called “Love Won Out: Addressing, Understanding, and Preventing Homosexuality”. Basically in 2004 there was a conference called Love Won Out which was sponsored by Focus on the Family (Feministgal interjection: they also promote creepy pro-life fetus comics such as Umbert!). There were several speakers who identified as “ex-gay” and “ex-lesbian” and the conference focused on the prevention of homosexuality and that both change and hope is possible.

“Speakers frequently claimed that childhood sexual abuse is a prominent cause of lesbian orientation” (p. 5). Also, on page 4, “Homosexual behavior is an attempt to “repair childhood emotional hurts” through same-sex sexuality. As such, homosexuality is a kind of reparative drive.” Here for more of these gems (click through some of their “resources”.)

Interestingly, I have not found any actual statistics on the rate of homosexuals being abused in their childhood, aside from a plethora of religious websites. Even the American Psychological Association website states: “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

"No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

This has been a difficult semester for me, and I know that I should feel free to stand up and say “This is ridiculous!” but I need some advice on how to handle this. I thought about emailing both the original professor and the guest professor and ask exactly where these statistics are and explain how I did some research and could not find anything other than Christian websites. You would think Sociology professors would know to question the source, but you never know.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever experienced anything like this?

(PS – don’t get me started on the day in class when A. did her presentation on Abercrombie & Fitch being sued for keeping minority and overweight employees off the sales floor. Guess what her sweatshirt proudly said across her chest. ABERCROMBIE).

Psychology Research Holiday Humor :)

All of us who've struggled to get studies through the IRB will very much appreciate this :)

Dr. K Kringle
Adjunct Professor of Child Psychology
Far Northern University

Dear Dr. Kringle (Ph.D, M.D., D.O.? Please verify your credentials):

At the regularly scheduled December 24 meeting, the IRB reviewed your protocol, "A Global Observational Study of Behavior in Children" While we believe it has many good features, it could not be approved as submitted. If you choose to revise your study, please address the following IRB concerns:

1. You propose to study "children of all ages". Please provide an exact lower and upper age limit, as well as the precise number of subjects. Provide a statistically valid power calculation to justify this large of a study.

2. Your only inclusion criterion is "belief in Santa Clause." Please provide a copy of the screening questionnaire that determines such a belief. Provide a Waiver of Authorization under MPAA in order to record these beliefs prior to enrollment in your study. The Board recommends that you obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality as beliefs are sensitive and personal information.

3. You propose to "know when they are sleeping and know when they are awake". How will this be done? Will children undergo video monitoring in their beds? Will they have sleep EEGs? You list 100 elves as research assistants. Are any of them sleep physiologists? Please provide credentials of elves.

4. Your primary outcome measure is to "know when they've been bad or good." What standard is being used to determine "goodness'? Do children have to be good all year or just most of the time? Please specify required duration and provide the instrumentation, with appropriate consent forms, that will be used for operationally defining "goodness".

5. You propose to conduct your research by entering the subjects' homes through the chimney. Have you considered the liability potential, i.e., damage to the roof, carpeting, etc., that this will cause? Moreover, children are likely to be startled by your appearance late at night. Please revise your protocol to conduct your home visits between 9 am and 5 pm Monday through Friday with at least one parent being present and all risks and benefits carefully described.

6. You state that compensation for participation will be "sugarplums, candy, and toys" for the good little girls and boys. This may not be appropriate for the children with obesity, dental cavities, and hyperactivity. Also, your proposal to leave a lump of coal in the stockings of the bad children will be unfairly stigmatizing to them individually and as a group. In general, the Board suggests a small token of appreciation for all participants. Perhaps a $5 Toys-R-Us gift card would be more appropriate in order to avoid potential coercion.

7. The database of good and bad children will be kept "on a scroll at the North Pole." Please describe the location of the scroll and the security provisions you have in place to protect the data. Is the scroll kept in a locked cabinet in a locked room? Who has access to the scroll? Are there backup copies of the scroll and how often are they compared to the original?

8. You mention the participation of "eight tiny reindeer" in your protocol. Please provide the Board with documentation of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval.

9. Please provide the Human Subjects Protection training dates for Mrs. Claus and the elves.

10. As this study involves prospective data collection and is more than minimal risk without prospect of direct benefit to the subjects, informed consent signed by all guardians will be required. Please have the consent form translated into every language spoken by children and ensure that assent forms are signed by all. Please submit 25 copies of your revised protocol to the IRB. The IRB will be on Holiday Season schedule for the next two weeks. If approved, you will be able to conduct your study sometime in the spring, if all items are appropriately addressed.


Sincerely,
E. Scrooge, MD

Chair, Institutional Review Board

Sex education... works?!

Feministing and the Journal of Adolescent Health provided me with a perfect follow-up to yesterday's post.

Hopefully this empirical evidence gets the government's attention to put more money into sex ed as apposed to abstinance only education in schools.

Here's the abstract for all us fellow psych nerds:

Purpose
Sex education is intended to provide youth with the information and skills needed to make healthy and informed decisions about sex. This study examined whether exposure to formal sex education is associated with three sexual behaviors: ever had sexual intercourse, age at first episode of sexual intercourse, and use of birth control at first intercourse.

Methods
Data used were from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative survey. The sample included 2019 never-married males and females aged 15–19 years. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using SUDAAN. Interactions among subgroups were also explored.

Results
Receiving sex education was associated with not having had sexual intercourse among males (OR = .42, 95% CI = .25–.69) and postponing sexual intercourse until age 15 among both females (OR = .41, 95% CI = .21–.77) and males (OR = .29, 95% CI = .17–.48). Males attending school who had received sex education were also more likely to use
birth control the first time they had sexual intercourse (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.13–6.81); however, no associations were found among females between receipt of sex education and birth control use. These patterns varied among sociodemographic subgroups.

Conclusions
Formal sex education may effectively reduce adolescent sexual risk behaviors when provided before sexual initiation. Sex education was found to be particularly important for subgroups that are traditionally at high risk for early initiation of sex and for contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

I only have one word for this: "Duh."