You are currently browsing the archives for January 2010

The Relevance of Self-Efficacy

  • Posted on January 29, 2010 at 3:05 AM

Another thought spurred by my studies starts with this definition:

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s convictions (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and course of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context.

The Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., by Andrew J. DuBrin, 2007, pg. 126

The chapter is on motivation, particularly as it is applied in work situations.  It relies heavily on psychology.  Two particular applications of this definition of self-efficacy stood out for me.

First, there is expectancy theory.  Basically with expectancy theory, the idea is that people will be highly motivated if they have high expectancy, high instrumentality, and high valence.  Expectancy involves the belief that more effort will improve performance.  Instrumentality involves the belief that improved performance will improve the outcome.  Valence involves the belief that the outcome is worth the effort.  If someone does not expect that their effort will improve their performance, they’re not likely to try harder.  If someone does not believe performance is instrumental in getting the results they want, they’re not likely to perform.  If someone does not value the outcome, they’re not likely to care enough to try.

(Realize that each of these high/low values are subjective, meaning they rely on individual belief not independent reality.  For example, trying harder may really lead to doing better, but if I don’t believe that it will, I’m not likely to try harder and so I won’t do better.  Therefore, belief is a very powerful, especially belief in oneself.)

One of the things that struck me as I was studying this concept was how it serves, at least in part, to explain some of the issues in relation to autism.  So often it is easier to assume someone with disabilities, especially cognitive disabilities, cannot do something.  This assumption is so easy that people often do not stop to question why they don’t do something.  It’s like the possibility that the individual does not choose to perform is never even considered.

The first time I ran smack into this concept was when I was concerned that Alex could not catch.  I understood, at least to some degree, the complexity of the catching action and its association with later skills development.  So, that Alex couldn’t catch was something that deserved attention.  Sitting with the physical therapist, I learned the distinction between can’t catch and doesn’t catch.  Specifically, if a child does not catch a ball, first you have to discern whether the child has any interest in the ball; if not, you must then find something the child does have an interest in.  Alex can rarely be induced to catch a ball, but if you throw a Veggie Tales plush toy at him he’ll probably catch it.  Unfortunately, the perspective of this therapist seems rather rare, but I’m certainly glad she shared it with me.

The next relevant way this concept of self-efficacy is used is in social learning theory.  Social learning theory is the process of learning through observing and mimicking others.  Many parents of young children with autism will recognize the significance of this, even if they’ve never heard the term.  It was drilled in me when the boys were young that children with autism have to be taught to mimic so that they can learn.  But, in looking closer at the concept through its business applications, once again the issues of expectancy theory come into play.  Expectancy (the belief that more effort will lead to improved performance), instrumentality (the belief that improved performance will lead to a better outcome), and valence (the level of desire for the outcome) are key aspects of social learning.  Some of the things that teachers and therapists are bent on teaching my children are of no interest to them.  The valence simply isn’t there.  Yet, if they watch me use the VCR or the computer, they pick those skills up quick.  And, yes, it is through social learning—observing and mimicking desired behaviors.

And now, we’re back to self-efficacy.  While the significance of instrumentality and valence cannot be ignored (yet seems to be ignored more often than not), when teaching people with autism self-efficacy has its own relevance.  Self-efficacy (belief in one’s own abilities) is a component of self-esteem (which also includes the person’s belief that he or she is worthy of happiness, also called self-respect).  Having fundamentally different neurological processes, and growing up learning in a million different ways (some subtle, some quite obvious) that your neurological processes are inferior, is going to affect any person’s self-efficacy and self-respect.  Yet, when attaining a new skill expectancy is essential, which requires self-efficacy.  If one has high self-efficacy, then one is more likely to believe that more effort will improve performance.  If one has low self-efficacy, then one is more likely to believe that more effort will not improve performance.  If one’s expectancy is low enough, then the individual will not even try to perform.

And it all comes back together.  If we insist on trying to teach people a task for which they have low instrumentality and/or low valence without first successfully raising their perceptions of instrumentality and/or valence—then claim that since they did not learn the task they must try harder or are incapable—we are eroding (and eventually destroying) that individual’s expectancy, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.  In the long-run, this erosion creates an environment of systemic disempowerment.  Essentially, we are teaching people they can’t, because we are trying to force them to learn something for which they have no interest and for which we create no sense of value.  That “can’t” attitude further pervades their lives.

The more I learn about “normal” psychology the more I believe that the worse thing psychologists ever did was divorce “abnormal” psychology from “normal” psychology.  I suspect if psychologists opened their minds to the possibility that the assumption that “abnormal = bad” is wrong, the more they would be able to see how “normal” psychology relates to their own ineffectiveness.  Perhaps then more people would get genuine help that repairs and re-builds their senses of expectancy, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, which would lead to improved performance on the behaviors they value.

Highlight It

1 Comment

The Prevalence of “Normal”

  • Posted on January 25, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Studying business has been an interesting transgression from the vague plans I laid out for myself in childhood.  When I first decided to pursue business, I had very particular goals:

  1. Prove that “business ethics” didn’t have to be an oxymoron.
  2. Learn what I needed to know to be an effective business writer.

What I didn’t expect was that I would find myself immersed in a sense of normality that I recognized less and less as my classes unfolded.

In business, “normal” is not only dominant, but it’s everywhere—often at the complete exclusion of anything atypical.  It’s not just that “normal” is preferred; it’s that anything perceived as abnormal isn’t even acknowledged, or if acknowledge it is not explored.

People who live comfortably in this environment often perceive much of my life as abnormal, atypical, or different.  I say often, because some are not aware of the possibility, and therefore do not acknowledge it when they see it.  After all, I can “pass,” so I couldn’t really be abnormal, atypical, or all that different.  Right?

This is proving more and more of a struggle for me.  When I took psychology (early in my studies), I risked my grade (and thus my goals) by questioning the validity of some of the scientific principles we were being taught.  Psychology is a field I find troubling, because so much of it is based on the assumption that normality=good and abnormality=bad.  At least, much of the psychology I have been taught has held those assumptions dear and close.  And, I have to ask, can it really be “science” if such a fundamental assumption is made and not questioned?

After I made it through psychology with my grade intact, by the skin of my teeth as they say (do teeth have skin—I mean, really, what’s that about!), I breathed a great big sigh of relief and figured I was done with that.  I’m studying business, not psychology.  Now, I just have to laugh at my own naiveté—what a silly girl am I!

A fundamental concept/function of business is to manage; particularly it involves the management of people.  To understand how to manage people effectively, one has to understand how people behave and how one can induce the behaviors one would like to see.  In walks psychology, bold as brass (again, is brass bold, and how so if it is so?), to educate and inform.  Behavioral science, in particular, seems to be a favorite.  It’s in marketing, advertising, public relations, human resource management, organizational behavior, team development and management, strategic management, entrepreneurship, decision making, career development, and project management.  Basically, “normal” psychology pervades the vast majority of my core classes.  And each and everyone seem bent on ignoring the abnormal, atypical, and different.

“Oh, but they don’t, you see—we talk about diversity!”  Pah!  Yes, they talk about cultural diversity, racial diversity, sexual diversity, and generational diversity.  Yes, they do.  And, despite having taken a cultural diversity course; despite having discussed how these forms of diversity apply to marketing, advertising, public relations, human resource management, organizational behavior, team development and management, strategic management, entrepreneurship, decision making, career development, and project management; despite all this diversity-sensitive education—not one has prepared me to discuss mutual interests with the many people on the Internet without sounding, well, ignorant.  Yes, I know Britain, Canada, Australia, and everywhere else is different from the U.S.  Congratulations!  Welcome to the obvious.  And yet, the U.S. can be so very [insert your preference]-centric, these rather obvious distinctions are so often lost on people.

To butcher Shakespeare (because I can, not because I should):

There are more differences in heaven and earth, America,
Than are dreamt of in your diversity.

The business world assumes a sense of normality and conformity that does not exist, and yet wonders (or fails to wonder) why productivity is so much lower than it could be and competition is flooding in with us so unprepared.

Highlight It

3 Comments on The Prevalence of “Normal”

Autism Speaks in Congress

  • Posted on January 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Elizabeth Emken, the former Vice President for Government Relations at Autism Speaks, is running as one of six Republican candidates for California’s 11th Congressional District.  She is challenging incumbent Jerry McNerney, a Democrat who has held this seat since 2006.

While, generally speaking I am a conservative independent voter who enjoys seeing incumbents ousted from office—I’m the former Secretary on the Board of Directors for VOID, after all—I can’t offer the least bit of support for Ms. Emken.

Ms. Emken is using her business experience at IBM and her government relations experience through Autism Speaks to assert her qualifications for Congress.  Usually, I would consider both to be quality means of gaining experience to represent constituents on a national level.  But the political implications of Autism Speaks’ eugenic agenda are profound.  Supporting eugenics, even merely in theory, on a national level is a danger our country has already lived through.  Let’s not go back there!

If you live in California’s 11th Congressional district, please elect your representative carefully and consider the full implications of a candidate who proudly associates with an organization that promotes eugenics.

Highlight It

3 Comments on Autism Speaks in Congress

A Look at What’s Going On

  • Posted on January 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM

First, I would like to add my support for the Autism Women’s Network.  Here’s a quick look at what you can find at this great new site:

  • First, note that this network is not exclusively for women or for those who are autistic.

 “AWN is dedicated to building a community of autistic females, their families, friends, and supporters who have a place where they can share their experiences amongst a diverse, inclusive, and supportive environment.”

  • Organized much like an e-zine, there are also articles of interest to AWN’s target audience.  Here is an excerpt from Amy Caraballo’s piece on Zakhquery Price:

“During a typical school day in October, Zak had a behavioral tantrum in class. It has been reported that while in mid-tantrum, he was cornered and “taken down” by school staff in an unspecified restraint technique. He fought back and allegedly caused insignificant injuries to the staff involved.”

  • AWN also offers a calendar of events, which lets us know about expected radio guests and other relevant events.
  • AWN provides a forums section, which includes forum areas like “Strategies for Daily Living,” “Advocacy,” and “Networking.”
  • There is a directory of prominent participants of the Autism Women’s Network and contact information.

Now, I would like to draw your attention to latest issue of Autism-Asperger’s Digest Magazine.  Not only are there some great articles in this issue, one is of personal interest to me!  A few that caught my eye right away follow:

“Like many of you, I’ve read articles and heard lectures on the importance of carefully choosing providers and selecting services for our children with autism.  I’ve walked away from doctors, and even a school because of what I’d learned.  I took charge of my children’s care and actively led every team involved.  Then, I learned how much damage one wrong provider could do.”

  • “Neurodiversity: A balanced Opinion” by Nick Dubin, Psy.D

“And that’s where the battle lines seem to be drawn: ‘High functioning’ autistics versus the parents of ‘low functioning’ autistics and various adults on the spectrum who also advocate for a cure.  What’s the solution?  Is there a solution?”

  • “Asperger’s Adults and the Court System” by Laura Larissa Scott

“My second court system interaction was much less pleasant, made more so, I believe, by the fact that I am an adult with Asperger’s Syndrome (AS).”

Please check this issue out if you can!

Highlight It

2 Comments on A Look at What’s Going On

The Child You Have

  • Posted on January 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Recently, my boys had the opportunity to mingle with four young men of long-term acquaintance.  At least once a year, our families get together for a Christmas celebration, and each year is an opportunity to assess the progress my children have made since our last Christmas gathering.  I was quite content with my children’s progress:  from Ben’s abundance of words to Alex finding comfort in crayons and finding a positive outlet for his energy; from Willy’s minimal meltdowns to Brandon’s lessened antagonism of Willy.  They’ve all come a long way in the past year.

This year, however, another thing struck me.  Suddenly, I saw something taken for granted that really shouldn’t be.  These four young men—ranging from two adults (one who has and one who will soon reach their majority) to two children near Willy’s age—are extraordinary in and of themselves.  Each of these boys has faced or continues to face exceptional medical conditions.  Some past and some present; some acute and some chronic.  Each of these medical challenges is enough to cause distress and upheaval.  Each of these medical challenges has been known to break families in a variety of ways.  Yet, while the families involved face the challenges and stress one might expect, none of them have even come close to breaking over them.  There’s no lamenting over not having a normal child.  There’s no wishing for a child to be something or someone he cannot be.

Each of these families has taken the child they have, embraced that child, and embraced the challenges of raising that child, continuing to nurture that child into adulthood.

Considering the families in question this doesn’t surprise me.  Yet, when I read what I do and when I hear what I’ve heard and when I see what I’ve seen, I have to stop for a moment in awe.  It seems so very many parents reject their child, because the child is not the person the parents’ expected or wanted.  From the simple things, like the dad who wanted his son to follow in his footsteps, or the mother who wanted her daughter to go to college instead of playing in a band.  To the much more challenging things, like the musician whose son is born without the ability to hear or the mother who will sacrifice anything and everything, including her child’s well-being, to fight autism and find a cure.  I’m faced with so many of these stories that sometimes it’s hard to remember that so many families face their challenges quietly, but with extreme love and patience.  While far too many families reject their child as unwanted or unexpected, there are so many families who go unsung who take the child they have and make their futures bright and true.  It’s important to take the time to celebrate these families who live their exceptional lives and make it good.

Highlight It

2 Comments on The Child You Have

The Year 2010

  • Posted on January 3, 2010 at 4:28 AM

In speculative fiction—science fiction and fantasy—the question to ask is often: What if?  Future times and round numbers are often points of fascination as writers look ahead to the many possibilities the future might hold.  2010 is a year that has been used in many stories to convey a near, but distant future in which great and remarkable changes have taken place in the world around us.  Yet, now the year 2010 is here.  The future is now.

I look back on the three decades of my life, and recognize that many fascinating changes have occurred.  From the fiction of Star Trek’s communicators to the reality of cell phones, iPods, and Blackberrys.  From the fictional black President that symbolized the end to racial prejudices and social injustices to the reality of President Obama lingers well beyond this symbolic happening.

What if? holds a desperate fascination for writers.  Yet, an equally important question always follows it:  How does this change cause more and different and worse problems?  A story, by its nature, requires conflict.  Humanity, by our nature, thrives in the face of and perpetuates conflict.  A time of peace and justice, however much we may long for it, may forever be out of our reach.  In Christian terms, man is fallen—imperfect and incapable of perfection.  In scientific terms, man is an accident—just another animal, if a bit more able and adept than our fellow creatures.  Neither vision promises much hope for a truly peaceful and just society here on Earth.  As we progress and develop, both technologically and socially, we find that we do make improvements on how our lives are lived.  We also find new ways to exert our destructive capacity on the world and its many inhabitants.  Each step forward opens new possibilities for hope-filled brightness and misery-causing darkness.  It is up to us to choose how we use the progress at our fingertips.

For me, the year 2010 will be a year of significant change.  Within a few short months I will graduate with my baccalaureate in Business Administration.  A little before or perhaps a little after that, I will launch my business writing business.  I will also seek to further my writing career by preparing materials for my first nonfiction book.  In the fall, I will start graduate school, seeking a certificate in Corporate Written Communications and following that with a graduate degree in Written Communications.  There are many opportunities before me and much work to do to achieve my goals.  Yet, as I start this year of opportunity, I cannot help but stop, breathe, and think that what I’d truly like for this year is something else entirely.

While the voices of people with autism, their families, and their friends have grown considerably louder and more influential over the last decade, there is still an imbalance in mainstream media representation.  Organizations like Autism Speaks typically garner more mainstream media attention than organizations like The Autistic Self Advocacy Network.  The word count, page space, and time allotted to the different perspectives on autism are unfairly distributed.  From a public relations perspective this is deeply concerning.  Yet, the truth is the voice of autistics and their allies have always been perceived as less significant and less worthy in the mainstream media.  In the last decade, great progress has been made to push those boundaries and to spread this “alternate” view through media outlets.  As I applaud this great accomplishment, still I find the reactions of the mainstream media inadequate in the face of the growing importance and long unrecognized significance of these voices.

Perhaps a perfect world, with justice enough for everyone, is beyond our reach.  Perhaps the shining ideals I cling to are mere dreams that can never fully come to pass.  But this much can happen:  For 2010, it is my hope and my wish to see this distribution of media attention distributed more fairly and evenly, so the true nature of the autism community, with all its complexities, is represented for the public to see, to read, and to hear.  Let the people decide for themselves what is right and good and true.  It is for this end that I intend to work, using my skills to achieve a greater space in the mainstream media for these “alternate” and underrepresented voices.

Highlight It

1 Comment