Placeholder Content Image

As pet owners suffer rental insecurity, perhaps landlords should think again

<p>Pet owners grapple with rental insecurity, new research shows. Despite the popularity of pet ownership across countries such as <a href="http://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-2013-Summary-ONLINE-VER.pdf">Australia</a> (where 63% of households include a pet), the <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html">United States</a> (62%) and <a href="http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population-2014">United Kingdom</a> (46%), rental policy rarely recognises pets as important members of households. Instead, landlords and property agents typically restrict the right to keep pets.</p><p>Reports from animal welfare organisations suggest these policies <a href="http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/home/push-to-make-landlords-respect-renters-right-to-keep-pets/news-story/f6c24acd2c716a20d308fb5dfed5fa3d">make it difficult</a> for pet owners to find rental housing. There is also evidence of connections between rental insecurity and <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/81572944/No-pets-allowed-Rental-restrictions-see-pets-abandoned-and-families-divided">poor animal welfare outcomes</a>. </p><p>Research shows that insecure housing, including difficulties finding pet-friendly rental properties, is a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0601_04">key factor driving people to relinquish their pets</a>.</p><h2>The ‘no pets’ clause</h2><p><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2016.1210095">My research</a> shows that pet ownership can trigger feelings of housing insecurity for renter households. The research involved an open survey with 679 households that had rented with pets in Sydney, as well as 28 in-depth interviews.</p><p>The majority of survey respondents rated finding pet-friendly housing in their suburb as difficult. They perceived that it became more difficult to find rental properties after they acquired their pet. </p><p>About half of those who always declared their pets when they applied for properties had been given pet ownership as the reason their application was rejected. These figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of those who have been rejected for pet ownership as reasons for rejection are rarely provided. </p><p>The <a href="http://www.domain.com.au/news/apartment-rents-continue-to-climb-in-sydney-domain-group-20160713-gq3lwu/">competitive nature of Sydney’s rental market</a>, which gives real estate agents a larger pool of tenants to choose from, was believed to have increased the challenge. A small number of households had even been offered rental housing if they got rid of their pet. These experiences led to a sense of rental insecurity and feelings of stress when participants wanted or needed to move house.</p><h2>Compromising on quality, cost and location</h2><p>In the in-depth interviews, households were asked how they found their current rental property. They explained how long lists of available rental properties would disappear when the “pet-friendly” filter was activated on popular property search websites. </p><p>There was also a widespread perception that advertised pet-friendly housing was of a lower quality than housing that did not allow pets. Many described making compromises on property quality and cleanliness. Some purposefully chose less desirable properties to increase their chance of success.</p><p>For example, one participant stated, "I think they call them ‘pet friendly’ because they don’t really care what happens to them. They’re probably going to pull them down eventually."</p><p>Another explained, "It was quite heartbreaking when you looked at the properties, because they were pretty much all rundown and disgusting. Really sort of dark and dingy, bathrooms that you would see were, I suppose, just not up to scratch. Or houses that seriously probably haven’t had a lick of paint or anything done to them in 20, 30 years."</p><p>Households also made compromises on property location and cost. These choices led to feelings of housing stress. For some it meant living in housing they considered sub-standard, including properties that were unclean or located in undesirable or unsafe areas. A number accepted longer work commutes or greater financial stress to secure a property. </p><p>As one interview participant put it when explaining why they stayed in a neighbourhood they didn’t like, "My car is on the street and it’s been broken into several times and there are a few personal safety issues but they let me have the cat, so..."</p><p>The vast majority of pet owners declared some or all of their pets when applying to rent a property. Those who had previously been rejected for a property because they had a pet were less likely to declare their pets. Why take this risk? </p><p>In-depth interviews suggest that renter households were extremely concerned about housing security: they valued their rental property and wanted to live in it as long as they could. </p><p>However, some felt that they could secure a property only if they didn’t declare their pets. Despite finding it extremely stressful to live in a rental property without permission to kept their pets, these households risked eviction so they could find somewhere to live with their pets.</p><h2>Are landlords’ fears justified?</h2><p>Tenant experiences in the research suggest that landlords are concerned about the risks to their properties that pets might bring. </p><p>Sometimes these concerns are based on real experience. However, there is some evidence to suggest that landlord fears are just that. </p><p>In one <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/089279305785594270">US study</a>, for instance, 63% of landlords who were concerned about pets in their properties didn’t have any firsthand experience of the problems they identified. Further, when damage did occur it was “far less than the average rent or the average pet deposit”.</p><p>Indeed, somewhat counter-intuitively, having a pet-permitting lease may provide more protection for landlords than simply restricting pets. Pet-friendly leases do not mean all pets are automatically allowed. Landlords can ask for a “<a href="http://www.domain.com.au/news/renting-in-sydneys-a-tough-job-a-cv-makes-it-easier-20111021-1mc2d/">pet CV</a>” as well as references for the pet, such as from a local vet, neighbours or former landlord. This is a way of ensuring the pet applicant is appropriate to the property. </p><p>Some jurisdictions in Australia allow for special provisions such as for <a href="http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2010/42">carpets to be steam-cleaned</a> if an animal such as a cat or dog lives at the property. In others, such as in the US and some states <a href="https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/pet-bonds">in Australia</a>, an additional pet bond can be charged to cover any potential damage.</p><p>A pet-friendly lease may even bring benefits. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/089279305785594270">US research </a>suggests that households with pets stayed in rental properties longer than those that did not have pets. This brings longer-term, more secure rent to property owners. These factors are worth weighing up when landlords are making property management decisions.</p><p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p><p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-pet-owners-suffer-rental-insecurity-perhaps-landlords-should-think-again-63275" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>

Real Estate

Placeholder Content Image

Finance drives everything — including your insecurity at work

<p>There’s a common link between the many things that have promoted insecurity at work: the growth of franchising; labour hire; contracting out; spin-off firms; outsourcing; global supply chains; the gig economy; and so on. It’s money.</p> <p>At first, that seems too obvious to say. But I’m talking about the way financial concerns have taken control of seemingly every aspect of organisational decision-making.</p> <p>And behind that lies the rise and rise of finance capital.</p> <p>Over the past three decades there has been a <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/theausinstitute/pages/2838/attachments/original/1532441299/Labour_Share_Symposium_Peetz.pdf?1532441299">shift in resources from the rest of the economy to finance</a>. Specifically, to finance <em>capital</em>.</p> <p>One way to see this is in the chart below. It shows the income shares of labour and capital, and the breakdown for each between the finance and non-finance (“industrial”) sectors, in two four-year periods. They were 1990-91 to 1993-94 (when the ABS started publishing income by industry) and, most recently, 2013-14 to 2016-17. (I use four-year periods to reduce annual fluctuations and show the longer-term trends. <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/theausinstitute/pages/2838/attachments/original/1532441299/Labour_Share_Symposium_Peetz.pdf?1532441299">Here</a> is more detail and explanation of methods.)</p> <h2>Income shares of labour and capital</h2> <p><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231263/original/file-20180809-30464-pr7pkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /> <span class="caption">Factor shares by industry, 1990-94 and 2013-17.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Source: ABS Cat No 5206.0</span></span></p> <p>The key thing to notice in the chart is that finance capital’s share of national income doubled (it’s the dark red boxes in the lower right-hand side of the chart), while everyone else’s went down.</p> <p>So, over that quarter-century, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@Archive.nsf/log?openagent&amp;5204046_factor_income_by_industry.xls&amp;5204.0&amp;Time%20Series%20Spreadsheet&amp;0B9214F6B9273E85CA2581C50014A63A&amp;0&amp;2016-17&amp;27.10.2017&amp;Latest">the share of labour income (wages, salaries and supplements) in national income fell</a>. In the early 1990s it totalled 55.02% — that’s what you get when you add labour income in finance, 3.21%, to labour income in “industrial” sectors, 51.81%. In recent years this fell to 53.58%. There were falls in both finance labour income (from 3.81 to 2.83% of national income) and industrial labour income.</p> <p>The total share of profits and “mixed income” accordingly rose from 44.99% to 46.42%. The thing is, all of that increase (and a bit more) went to finance capital. Profits in finance went from 3.16% to 6.16% of the economy.</p> <p>At the same time there has been a large increase in the share of national income going to the very wealthy — the top 0.1% — in <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1631072">Australia</a> and many <a href="https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/en/news/the-top-incomes-database-new-website/">other countries</a>.</p> <p>This shift in resources does not reflect more people being needed to do important finance jobs. Nor is it higher rewards for workers in finance. The portion of national income, and for that matter <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/5F60A449AE6DE5F6CA258090000ED52A?OpenDocument">employment</a>, devoted to labour in the financial sector actually fell from 3.21% to 2.83%.</p> <p>The economy devotes proportionately no more labour time now to financial services than it did a quarter century ago. Yet rewards to finance have increased immensely. The share of national income going to “industrial” sector profits and “mixed income” has declined.</p> <p>In short, the <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_End_of_Laissez_Faire.html?id=GKAiBAAAQBAJ&amp;redir_esc=y">widely recognised</a> <a href="https://www.bis.org/publ/work231.htm">shift in income</a> from <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/83616/1/dp1482.pdf">labour to capital</a> is really a net shift in income from labour, and from capital (including unincorporated enterprises) in other industries, to finance capital.</p> <h2>Finance matters</h2> <p>You may have heard about “<a href="http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/financialization">financialisation</a>”. It’s not really about more financial activity. It is about the growth of finance capital and its impact on the behaviour of other actors.</p> <p>Financialisation has led to finance capital taking the <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-owns-the-world-tracing-half-the-corporate-giants-shares-to-30-owners-59963">lead shareholdings in most large corporations</a>, not just in Australia but in other major countries (to varying degrees) as well.</p> <p>This role as main shareholder and, of course, chief lender to industrial capital has driven the corporate restructuring over the past three decades that has led to greater worker insecurity and low wages growth (as I recently discussed <a href="https://theconversation.com/self-employment-and-casual-work-arent-increasing-but-so-many-jobs-are-insecure-whats-going-on-100668">here</a>).</p> <p>When “industrial capital” has been restructured over recent decades — to promote franchising, labour hire, contracting out, spin-off firms, outsourcing, global supply chains, and even the emergence of the gig economy — it has been driven by the demands of finance capital. Casualisation is just one manifestation of this.</p> <h2>Short-term logic</h2> <p>Now there’s no conspiracy here (or, at least, the system doesn’t rely on one). There is actually a lot of competitive mindset in the financial sector. This is just the logic of how the system increasingly has come to work. Financial returns, particularly over the short term, have become the principal (really, the only) fact driving corporate behaviour.</p> <p>This has come at the expense of human considerations.</p> <p>That same logic is behind resistance to action on climate change. Continuing carbon emissions are the perfect, and deadly, example of short-term profits overriding longer-term interests.</p> <p>Yet even finance capital is not monolithic. There are <a href="https://theconversation.com/class-and-climate-how-financial-warfare-affects-the-air-23019">parts of finance capital</a> that have a longer-term perspective (“<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/85broads/2012/12/19/theres-no-business-on-a-dead-planet-green-business-is-good-business-the-necessity-of-paradigm-changes/#54d71e737547">there’s no business on a dead planet</a>”). So they are effectively in battle with those parts of finance capital for which the short term is everything. The former <em>want</em> governments to intervene in, for example, carbon pricing.</p> <h2>Policy questions</h2> <p>All this leaves some big questions for policymakers about how to redress the new imbalance of power.</p> <p>In part, it requires changing institutional arrangements (including industrial relations laws) that in recent years have made it much harder for workers to obtain a fair share of increases in national income. It requires rethinking of how we regulate work.</p> <p>But it also requires rethinking of how we regulate product markets and financial markets.</p> <p>The almost <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/235201468764398871/Financial-deregulation-and-the-globalization-of-capital-markets">global reduction in regulation</a> <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/2011/05/listen_to_the_imf_america.html">of the financial sector</a> over three decades ago has ultimately led to this imbalance. It is time to rethink all of that.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101107/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-peetz-4004">David Peetz</a>, Professor of Employment Relations, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a></em></span></p> <p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/finance-drives-everything-including-your-insecurity-at-work-101107">original article</a>.</p> <p><em>Image: jijomathaidesigners</em></p>

Retirement Income

Placeholder Content Image

Is your lover insecure?

<p>Loving an insecure person can be frustrating. You always feel like you have to offer praise or reassurance. Not only can that be exhausting, but in trying to do what you think is helpful, you might actually be making matters worse.</p> <p>When people with insecurities hear something good about themselves, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.05.003">they tend to doubt or even dismiss it, as much research shows</a>. This means, quite perplexingly, that hearing positive feedback can often raise their anxieties, because it may clash with the more pessimistic views they hold of themselves.</p> <p>Insecure people may wonder whether their partner truly knows them, or worry that they cannot live up to the partner’s expectations. At times, praise can even lead their minds to argue back; it can trigger unfavourable thoughts about themselves that contradict the praise.</p> <p>What can loving partners do instead? Try conveying genuine curiosity, rather than compliments. Asking a simple question — “How was your day?” — can show concern without triggering a negative self-assessment.</p> <p>At the University of Waterloo, we recently conducted a series of studies showing that asking this simple question can make insecure people feel cared for. We <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.003">ran two survey studies</a> involving 359 adults (aged 18 to 66) across the United States who were in romantic relationships.</p> <p><strong>Fly under their insecure radar</strong></p> <p>To determine our research participants’ level of security and trust in their partner’s love, we gave them a questionnaire assessing how confident they were that their partner loves them, is committed to them and will be responsive to them in times of need. Another questionnaire tapped into their relationship satisfaction.</p> <p>In two studies, we found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.003">the satisfaction reported by those who usually felt more insecure in their relationships actually increased when their partners asked them about their day</a>.</p> <p>For people higher in security, who were already high in relationship satisfaction, being asked “How was your day?” was rarely the boost that it was for people lower in security.</p> <p>Why is asking “How was your day?” effective? We anticipated that this expression of interest, if it is genuine, signals caring.</p> <p>To test the idea, we conducted another study. Participants read a scenario in which a couple, Mike and Sarah, had a pleasant, brief conversation after Sarah arrived home from work. Participants in one group read that during that conversation, Mike asked Sarah about her day. Participants in a second group were not given this detail.</p> <p>Those who read that Mike asked Sarah about her day predicted that Sarah felt more cared for than participants who were not given this detail. The benefit did not derive from Sarah describing her day; when participants read a scenario about Sarah describing her day, even though Mike had not asked, participants thought Sarah would not feel as cared for as when Mike asked her directly.</p> <p>We suspect that this care signal works especially well for people low in security because it is subtle and nonthreatening. It does not make them question why a partner is asking or whether they deserve it. Thus, asking about a partner’s day may fly under the insecure person’s radar.</p> <p><strong>Curiosity more effective than praise</strong></p> <p>There is nothing special about the four words, “How was your day?” Rather, showing genuine interest is special.</p> <p>In a final study, we brought 162 romantic couples (undergraduates or from the community, between 17 and 47 years of age) into the laboratory and separated them, ostensibly to work on different tasks.</p> <p>We led participants to believe that their partner had written a note to them. In one group, the partners simply described their own experiences, whereas in the other group, partners described their own experiences, but also asked, “How did your task go? Did you enjoy it?”</p> <p>Partners lower in security who received the note that asked about their experiences felt more cared for by their partners than those who were not asked. In contrast, for people higher in security, being asked did not matter. We suspect that people high in security don’t need the signal of interest to feel valued.</p> <p>We’re not suggesting you should stop praising your insecure partner altogether. The complete absence of praise could be harmful, especially if your partner asks for praise or reassurance. But praise may not accomplish what you want it to. Don’t count on reassurance to convince your partner that you care.</p> <p>Instead, show interest in him or her by asking, “How was your day?” Showing attention and interest in someone, especially in a society as filled with distractions as ours, can be the most important signal of caring there is.</p> <p><em>Written by <span>Joanne Wood, Professor of Psychology, University of Waterloo and Kassandra Cortes, Assistant Professor, Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University</span>. Republished with permission of </em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/is-your-lover-insecure-a-simple-question-could-transform-your-romantic-relationship-125868" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em>. </em><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: http://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

7 classic signs of insecurity

<p><em><strong>Susan Krauss Whitbourne is a professor of Psychology and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She writes the Fulfilment at Any Age blog for Psychology Today.</strong></em></p> <p>You know you’re in the presence of people trying to show how important they are by the way they make you feel inferior. For reasons you can’t quite explain, you look at yourself more critically when you’re in their presence and may start to wonder why you’re such a failure. It’s a relief to get away from them, so you can relax and be yourself.</p> <p>But people who feel inferior will often puff themselves up on a pedestal to alleviate their own sense of weakness. The Viennese psychoanalyst Alfred Adler was one of the first theorists to address such individuals by defining the quality of “striving for superiority.” Adler, who also coined the term “inferiority complex,” believed that people who were convinced of their own weaknesses would build an outward shell in which they went through unusual efforts to present themselves in the most favourable possible light, in order to avoid confronting their own weak and wobbly interiors.</p> <p>Although not always recognised for the important impact it had on contemporary psychology, Adler’s theory indeed became the basis for much subsequent research on self-concept and identity. That division between<em> real </em>(i.e., weak) and <em>ideal</em> (i.e., superior) selves can be seen as the basis for failure to find true fulfillment in life. Therapy, according to this model of personality, involves helping individuals confront and accept their true, if flawed, selves. However, until people actually receive such an intervention, they will continue to do whatever they can to create the impression that they’re more magnificent than everyone around them. The longer they can avoid confronting their true selves, the better they will become at these manipulative strategies.</p> <p>Anadolu (Turkey) University’s Ramazan Akdoğan (2017) explored the ways in which inferiority, as defined in terms of both Adler’s theory and the attachment theory of John Bowlby, would predispose individuals to feelings of loneliness. You can imagine that a person constantly needing to feel self-important would have difficulty confiding in others. To show their weakness would threaten their fragile sense of self, so rather than let others in, they create a shell around themselves that they rarely let others penetrate. In the Akdoğan study, a sample of 422 Turkish undergraduates completed self-report questionnaires assessing their feelings of loneliness, attachment style, and inferiority. The primary focus of the investigation was to predict loneliness scores from attachment, and indeed, people with insecure attachment did receive high loneliness scores. However, inferiority scores played an important role as well. Feelings of inferiority were higher among people with an insecure attachment style, and these inferiority feelings in turn predicted perceived loneliness.</p> <p>This was a correlational study, so there’s no way to know whether people who feel inferior tend to feel lonelier, or whether the lonely perceive themselves as inferior to everyone else. There were also no measures of striving for superiority, so that all we know is that perceptions of inferiority can lead individuals to feel isolated. When you’re looking for signs of striving for superiority in others, keep in mind that to the extent that they are based on deep-seated inferiority feelings, the individuals who display them aren’t all that content with their relationships or, quite likely, themselves.</p> <p>Here, then, are the seven ways people who feel inferior will try to show that they are anything but:</p> <p><strong>1. They pretend they’re in a rush.</strong></p> <p>People trying to seem important will act as if their schedule is so full that they can’t really spend any time with you. They’ll look at their watch, glance at their phone, walk unusually fast, and in general seem harried and overworked. After all, the higher you are on the social or career ladder, the less you can afford to dawdle or relax.</p> <p><strong>2. They relabel ordinary events with terms meant to impress.</strong></p> <p>Terms such as “board meeting,” “conference call,” or “executive committee” sound like they must be events reserved for only the most successful in life. The “board meeting” may be no more than a gathering of friends planning a community fundraiser, but it certainly makes it sound like one is on an exclusive list.</p> <p><strong>3. They put on an air of preoccupation.</strong></p> <p>Busy people are worried people, and so to feign an air of self-importance, they avoid appearing relaxed or open to distractions. They frown or squint and seem to have a great deal on their mind.</p> <p><strong>4. They use away messages on email even if they’re not away.</strong></p> <p>This wisdom of leaving an “out of office” email when you’re away is debatable. Taking this one step further, people who want to seem as though they’re too important to be able to deal with individual emails put an away message on their email stating something like “due to the high volume of email I receive, I may not get to your message for some time.” They can add further to the pomposity of this auto-reply by recommending that the sender instead “contact my assistant.”</p> <p><strong>5. They make you wait for them to arrive.</strong></p> <p>People who want to seem important want to seem like they have so much to do, so if they do arrange a time to meet, they’ll never be the first one there, and on top of that, they may arrange to arrive on the late side. By being forced to wait, you’re now put in a position of lower power, which suits their need to be important.</p> <p><strong>6. They exaggerate their accomplishments on social media.</strong></p> <p>People striving for superiority aren’t shy about broadcasting their renown. On sites such as LinkedIn, they’ll give themselves a slight job promotion without actually lying, and they’ll list every single skill that they believe they possess, or ever have possessed. Their Facebook posts will similarly put them in a continually favourable light, and they’ll make sure their Instagram posts feature them in a position of prominence, such as sitting on a “conference call” or taking a series of back-to-back flights to go to “meetings” or give “talks.”</p> <p><strong>7. They behave as if they’re the smartest person in the room.</strong></p> <p>When insecure people feel threatened by the possibility that other people are smarter than they are, they’ll feel irrationally challenged. Even if they don’t actually know what they’re talking about, they’ll put on a show with the hope that their razzle-dazzle will fool the crowd. Needless to say, they'll dismiss your contributions as irrelevant or as conveying information that they of course already knew.</p> <p>Some people have earned every major kudo they've received, but if they’re comfortable with themselves and not particularly concerned about letting everyone else know who they are, you’ll get along with them as well as with anyone. Although people who feel a need to assert their importance aren’t quite as pleasant to be with, gaining insight into what drives them can help you sympathise with what may be a very lonely existence.</p> <p><em>Written by Susan Krauss Whitbourne. First appeared on <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/" target="_blank">Psychology Today</a></strong></span>.</em></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

Why narcissists are more insecure than you think

<p><em><strong>Nick Haslam is a professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne with a PhD in clinical and social psychology from the University of Pennsylvania.</strong></em></p> <p>Like a grotesque mask reflected in a pool, narcissism has two faces, neither of them attractive. Narcissists have an inflated sense of self-worth, seeing themselves as superior beings who are entitled to special treatment.</p> <p>However they also tend to be thin skinned, reacting angrily when their unique gifts are challenged or ignored.</p> <p>This combination of high but easily undermined self-worth might seem paradoxical. A positively viewed self would be expected to be a happy and secure self. To understand the paradox we need to parse the complexities of self-esteem.</p> <p><strong>Self-esteem</strong></p> <p>The main thrust of early research on self-esteem – the broad positive or negative evaluation of the self – explored the implications of its level.</p> <p>People with higher self-esteem were compared to those with lower, and were generally found to report better life outcomes. High self-esteem people tended to be happier, healthier, more successful in love and work, and more resilient in the face of adversity.</p> <p>On the strength of such findings, self-esteem came to be seen in some circles as a panacea of all manner of personal and social ills. If we could only improve people’s self-esteem, we might remedy their suffering and underachievement.</p> <p>In the 1980s the state of California set up a <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/11/us/now-the-california-task-force-to-promote-self-esteem.html" target="_blank">self-esteem task force</a></strong></span> to promote that cause.</p> <p>Unfortunately, the self-esteem bandwagon was sideswiped by some troubling research evidence, presented in an <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71496.pdf" target="_blank">influential review</a></strong></span> published in 2003. Studies commonly showed that high self-esteem was a consequence or side-effect of life success rather than a cause.</p> <p>Enhancing a person’s self-esteem would therefore no more increase their performance at school or work than applying heat to a light bulb would increase its luminance.</p> <p>In addition, high self-esteem appeared to have some negative implications. For example, people with some forms of high self-esteem are sometimes especially prone to forms of <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.319.3502&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" target="_blank">aggression</a></strong></span> and antisocial behaviour.</p> <p><strong>Different forms of high self-esteem</strong></p> <p>One way to reconcile this ambivalent picture of high self-esteem is to recognise that it is not only the level of self-esteem that matters. We also need to consider the consistency and stability of self-esteem.</p> <p>People whose overt self-esteem is high but accompanied by covert self-doubts may be worse off than those whose self-esteem is consistently high. And people whose views of self are dependably positive are likely to be better off than those whose self-views are equally positive on average but oscillate wildly.</p> <p>These two alternative ways of thinking about high self-esteem have been recognised by psychologists as <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/jordan2003.pdf" target="_blank">“defensive”</a></strong></span> and <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447858" target="_blank">“fragile”</a></strong></span> self-esteem, respectively.</p> <p>People with defensive self-esteem evaluate themselves positively by questionnaire, but negatively when their automatic or non conscious self-views are examined. Their positive self-views are inferred to be defences against lurking insecurities.</p> <p>The self-views of people with fragile self-esteem are prone to fluctuate, dropping sharply when they encounter difficulties because their self-worth lacks a firm anchor.</p> <p><strong>Narcissism and self-esteem</strong></p> <p>These two forms of self-esteem help to make sense of narcissism. There is evidence narcissists tend to have higher than average levels of self-esteem, but that these levels are to some degree defensive and fragile.</p> <p>Below the shiny surface of their arrogance and grandiosity, narcissists often view themselves less positively. Their inflated self-image also tends to deflate rapidly when punctured by evidence that other people do not share it.</p> <p>The dynamics of self-esteem among narcissists are well illustrated in a <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304135726_Puffed-Up_But_Shaky_Selves_State_Self-Esteem_Level_and_Variability_in_Narcissists" target="_blank">recently published study</a></strong></span> by a team of German and Dutch psychologists. The researchers examined the facets of narcissism and linked them to the level and stability of self-esteem in a series of laboratory and field studies.</p> <p>The studies spring from a model that distinguishes two key components of narcissism. “Narcissistic admiration” refers to assertive self-promotion of a grandiose self-image. People high on this component may be charming, but it is a charm that gradually loses its lustre as the person’s unquenchable appetite for admiration becomes apparent to others.</p> <p>In contrast, “narcissistic rivalry” is the tendency to react antagonistically to perceived threats to the narcissist’s egotism. People high on this component are fiercely competitive and prone to denigrate those who challenge their sense of superiority.</p> <p>The two components are only moderately related, so narcissistic people may be substantially higher on one than the other.</p> <p>The researchers found that admiration and rivalry had quite different associations with self-esteem. People high on admiration tended to report high levels of self-esteem and average degrees of stability. Those high on rivalry, in contrast, reported average levels of self-esteem but high degrees of instability.</p> <p>By implication, narcissists scoring high on both admiration and rivalry would show the familiar toxic combination of high but fragile self-esteem.</p> <p>In one of the researchers’ three studies, for example, a large sample of students reported their levels of self-esteem on a daily basis over a two-week period. People who reported higher average levels of self-esteem scored high on admiration and low on rivalry. Those whose levels of self-esteem varied widely from day to day scored high on rivalry.</p> <p>In addition, when self-esteem dropped from one report to the next, these drops were greater among people high in rivalry. A follow up study showed that these people were especially likely to experience drops in their self-esteem on days when they felt less liked by their peers. A perceived lack of social inclusion is particularly bruising to the self-esteem of people who see others as threats to their sense of superiority.</p> <p>This research shows that narcissism is not a unitary phenomenon. In the words of the researchers, it involves a self that is “puffed-up but shaky”. Such a self may be unpleasant to others, but it is fundamentally a vulnerable self.</p> <p><em>Written by Nick Haslam. First appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Conversation</span></strong></a>. </em><img width="1" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/76678/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation"/></p>

Mind

Placeholder Content Image

3 steps to rid insecurities and build confidence

<p>Many of us have insecurities – we might feel concerned that we aren’t tall enough, that our weight is a bit higher than we want it to be, that we aren’t as attractive to a loved one, that we’re too old to do something, or that we are being labelled incorrectly.</p> <p>Whatever the insecurity, even the smallest thing can set our minds reeling. For instance, when trying on clothes, we might feel frustrated with what we see in the mirror. Or if someone turns down our offer of a second date, we might automatically assume it’s got something to do with how we look.</p> <p>The feelings that well up when our insecurities flare up are unsettling and uncomfortable. Nobody wants to feel like they aren’t good enough. So what do you do when you find yourself triggered in some way? Try these 3 steps and see if they can help you get your confidence back.</p> <p><strong>1. Be aware of the triggers</strong></p> <p>Once you know what sets you off down a spiral of negative thoughts, you hold the power to turn things around. Realising that you have been triggered is a great first step – so just recognise the symptoms and reflect on how you are feeling. Shortness of breath, hot flushes, headaches, trembling – all of these could be signs that you’ve been set off. Before you start trying to work out what it all means, just step back and notice the feelings. That’s all you need to do for now.</p> <p><strong>2. Avoid the negative thought spiral</strong></p> <p>In general, this is the point where our brain takes over and starts the monologue that goes something like this: ‘You’re not good enough. You can’t handle this. You always buckle under pressure.’ Instead of letting that voice dominate your thoughts, stop it in its tracks before it kicks off. Realise that it’s just in your mind and that your thoughts don’t define you. Give yourself a break and point out to yourself that this is just a flare up of insecurities and that really you are just fine as you are.</p> <p><strong>3. Turn inward and find comfort</strong></p> <p>This is where you look inside your heart and give it a bit of self-love. Realise that it’s your heart that is being wounded and that you are only human. Think of yourself as a small child that you can take care of, love and nurture. Remind yourself that you don’t need anyone else to look after you. Think about all the things that you are good at, and the people that are in your life that make you feel loved. This will help you to realise that thoughts are just thoughts and you are not the person that you were ten, twenty or thirty years ago. From there you can turn the whole experience on its head and focus on what you are grateful for in your life.</p> <p>How do you deal with it when old insecurities flare up? We’d love to hear your advice in the comments.</p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><a href="/health/mind/2016/08/how-to-build-self-discipline-in-10-days/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>How to build self-discipline in 10 days</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/health/mind/2016/08/bad-habits-that-are-actually-good/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>7 “bad” habits that are actually good for you</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/health/mind/2016/08/4-proven-ways-to-worry-less/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>4 proven ways to worry less</strong></em></span></a></p>

Mind

Placeholder Content Image

The REAL Maria from Sound of Music was a difficult woman plagued by insecurities

<p>For 50 years, The Sound of Music has touched the hearts of people. Telling the story of a nun who falls in love with a widower and his seven children, it has endured as one of the most beloved musicals in the world.</p><p>But the real life Maria Kutschera is a far cry from the smiling Julie Andrews waltzing through the Swiss Alps. Her son Johannes, 75, has revealed in a new book that his mother was in fact a complex and difficult Austrian woman plagued by insecurities.</p><p>“She was incredibly strong with a formidable will, literally an indomitable will,” he said. “And sometimes running into that will was not so pleasant.”</p><p>Rosmarie, one of Maria and Georg's (pictured) children, said she found her mother difficult.</p><p>The 87-year-old said: “We never went running in a field and singing songs like that. We had a hard life. It was a struggle.”</p><p>When Maria sold the rights of her life story to Hollywood for £3,000 even director Robert Wise rebuffed her attempts to act as adviser.</p><p>“She was bossy, I didn't like that about her,” he said.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Related links:&nbsp;</strong></p><p><a href="http://oversixty.com.au/news/news/2015/02/paul-mccartney-number-one-single-australia/" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>Paul McCartney is the oldest person to score a number one single in Australia</strong></em></span></a></p><p><a href="http://oversixty.com.au/news/news/2015/01/twiggy-the-new-face-of-l%E2%80%99oreal/" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>65-year-old Twiggy is the new face of L’Oreal</strong></em></span></a></p><p><a href="http://oversixty.com.au/news/news/2015/02/to-kill-a-mockingbird-sequel/" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>Harper Lee to release second novel 50 years after To Kill a Mockingbird</strong></em></span></a></p>

News

Our Partners