Political chasms, wars, oppression … it’s easy to feel hopeless and helpless watching these dark forces play out. Could any of us ever really make a meaningful difference in the face of so much devastation?
Given the scale of the world’s problems, it might feel like the small acts of human connection and solidarity that you do have control over are like putting Band-Aids on bullet wounds. It can feel naive to imagine that small acts could make any global difference.
As a psychologist, human connection researcher and audience member, I was inspired to hear musician Hozier offer a counterpoint at a performance this year. “The little acts of love and solidarity that we offer each other can have powerful impact … ” he told the crowd. “I believe the core of people on the whole is good – I genuinely do. I’ll die on that hill.”
I’m happy to report that the science agrees with him.
Research shows that individual acts of kindness and connection can have a real impact on global change when these acts are collective. This is true at multiple levels: between individuals, between people and institutions, and between cultures.
This relational micro-activism is a powerful force for change – and serves as an antidote to hopelessness because unlike global-scale issues, these small acts are within individuals’ control.
A personal connection makes you more willing to find common ground. Hinterhaus Productions/DigitalVision via Getty Images
Abstract becomes real through relationships
Theoretically, the idea that small, interpersonal acts have large-scale impact is explained by what psychologists call cognitive dissonance: the discomfort you feel when your actions and beliefs don’t line up.
For example, imagine two people who like each other. One believes that fighting climate change is crucial, and the other believes that climate change is a political ruse. Cognitive dissonance occurs: They like each other, but they disagree. People crave cognitive balance, so the more these two like each other, the more motivated they will be to hear each other out.
Advertisement
According to this model, then, the more you strengthen your relationships through acts of connection, the more likely you’ll be to empathize with those other individual perspectives. When these efforts are collective, they can increase understanding, compassion and community in society at large. Issues like war and oppression can feel overwhelming and abstract, but the abstract becomes real when you connect to someone you care about.
So, does this theory hold up when it comes to real-world data?
Small acts of connection shift attitudes
Numerous studies support the power of individual acts of connection to drive larger-scale change.
For instance, researchers studying the political divide in the U.S. found that participants self-identifying as Democrats or Republicans “didn’t like” people in the other group largely due to negative assumptions about the other person’s morals. People also said they valued morals like fairness, respect, loyalty and a desire to prevent harm to others.
I’m intentionally leaving out which political group preferred which traits – they all sound like positive attributes, don’t they? Even though participants thought they didn’t like each other based on politics, they also all valued traits that benefit relationships.
One interpretation of these findings is that the more people demonstrate to each other, act by act, that they are loyal friends and community members who want to prevent harm to others, the more they might soften large-scale social and political disagreements.
Even more convincingly, another study found that Hungarian and Romanian students – people from ethnic groups with a history of social tensions – who said they had strong friendships with each other also reported improved attitudes toward the other group. Having a rocky friendship with someone from the other group actually damaged attitudes toward the other ethnic group as a whole. Again, nurturing the quality of relationships, even on an objectively small scale, had powerful implications for reducing large-scale tensions.
Advertisement
In another study, researchers examined prejudice toward what psychologists call an out-group: a group that you don’t belong to, whether based on ethnicity, political affiliation or just preference for dogs versus cats.
They asked participants to reflect on the positive qualities of someone they knew, or on their own positive characteristics. When participants wrote about the positive qualities of someone else, rather than themselves, they later reported lower levels of prejudice toward an out-group – even if the person they wrote about had no connection to that out-group. Here, moving toward appreciation of the other, rather than away from prejudice, was an effective way to transform preconceived beliefs.
So, small acts of connection can shift personal attitudes. But can they really affect societies?
From one-on-one to society-wide
Every human being is embedded in their own network with the people and world around them, what psychologists call their social ecology. Compassionate change at any level of someone’s social ecology – internally, interpersonally or structurally – can affect all the other levels, in a kind of positive feedback loop, or upward spiral.
Even as a human connection researcher, I’ve been surprised by how much I and others have progressed toward mutual understanding by simply caring about each other. But what are small acts of connection, after all, but acts of strengthening relationships, which strengthen communities, which influence societies?
In much of my clinical work, I use a model called social practice — or “intentional community-building” – as a form of therapy for people recovering from serious mental illnesses, like schizophrenia. And if intentional community-building can address some of the most debilitating states of the human psyche, I believe it follows that, writ large, it could help address the most debilitating states of human societies as well.
Simply put, science supports the idea that moving toward each other in small ways can be transformational. I’ll die on that hill too.
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
The first-generation Bronco was designed by McKinley Thompson Jr., Ford’s first African American designer. This highlights his significant contribution to the automotive industry during Black History Month.
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.
View all posts
‘I’ll have a coke – no, not Coca-Cola, Sprite.’
Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesValerie M. Fridland, University of Nevada, Reno
With burgers sizzling and classic rock thumping, many Americans revel in summer cookouts – at least until that wayward cousin asks for a “pop” in soda country, or even worse, a “coke” when they actually want a Sprite.
Few American linguistic debates have bubbled quite as long and effervescently as the one over whether a generic soft drink should be called a soda, pop or coke.
The word you use generally boils down to where you’re from: Midwesterners enjoy a good pop, while soda is tops in the North and far West. Southerners, long the cultural mavericks, don’t bat an eyelash asking for coke – lowercase – before homing in on exactly the type they want: Perhaps a root beer or a Coke, uppercase.
As a linguist who studies American dialects, I’m less interested in this regional divide and far more fascinated by the unexpected history behind how a fizzy “health” drink from the early 1800s spawned the modern soft drink’s many names and iterations.
Bubbles, anyone?
Foods and drinks with wellness benefits might seem like a modern phenomenon, but the urge to create drinks with medicinal properties inspired what might be called a soda revolution in the 1800s.
An 1878 engraving of a soda fountain.Smith Collection/Gado via Getty Images
The process of carbonating water was first discovered in the late 1700s. By the early 1800s, this carbonated water had become popular as a health drink and was often referred to as “soda water.” The word “soda” likely came from “sodium,” since these drinks often contained salts, which were then believed to have healing properties.
Given its alleged curative effects for health issues such as indigestion, pharmacists sold soda water at soda fountains, innovative devices that created carbonated water to be sold by the glass. A chemistry professor, Benjamin Stillman, set up the first such device in a drugstore in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1806. Its eventual success inspired a boom of soda fountains in drugstores and health spas.
By the mid-1800s, pharmacists were creating unique root-, fruit- and herb-infused concoctions, such as sassafras-based root beer, at their soda fountains, often marketing them as cures for everything from fatigue to foul moods.
These flavored, sweetened versions gave rise to the linking of the word “soda” with a sweetened carbonated beverage, as opposed to simple, carbonated water.
Seltzer – today’s popular term for such sparkling water – was around, too. But it was used only for the naturally carbonated mineral water from the German town Nieder-Selters. Unlike Perrier, sourced similarly from a specific spring in France, seltzer made the leap to becoming a generic term for fizzy water.
Many late-19th-century and early 20th-century drugstores contained soda fountains – a nod to the original belief that the sugary, bubbly drink possessed medicinal qualities.Hall of Electrical History Foundation/Corbis via Getty Images
Regional naming patterns
So how did “soda” come to be called so many different things in different places?
It all stems from a mix of economic enterprise and linguistic ingenuity.
The popularity of “soda” in the Northeast likely reflects the soda fountain’s longer history in the region. Since a lot of Americans living in the Northeast migrated to California in the mid-to-late 1800s, the name likely traveled west with them.
As for the Midwestern preference for “pop” – well, the earliest American use of the term to refer to a sparkling beverage appeared in the 1840s in the name of a flavored version called “ginger pop.” Such ginger-flavored pop, though, was around in Britain by 1816, since a Newcastle songbook is where you can first see it used in text. The “pop” seems to be onomatopoeic for the noise made when the cork was released from the bottle before drinking.
A jingle for Faygo touts the company’s ‘red pop.’
Linguists don’t fully know why “pop” became so popular in the Midwest. But one theory links it to a Michigan bottling company, Feigenson Brothers Bottling Works – today known as Faygo Beverages – that used “pop” in the name of the sodas they marketed and sold. Another theory suggests that because bottles were more common in the region, soda drinkers were more likely to hear the “pop” sound than in the Northeast, where soda fountains reigned.
As for using coke generically, the first Coca-Cola was served in 1886 by Dr. John Pemberton, a pharmacist at Jacobs’ Pharmacy in Atlanta and the founder of the company. In the 1900s, the Coca-Cola company tried to stamp out the use of “Coke” for “Coca-Cola.” But that ship had already sailed. Since Coca-Cola originated and was overwhelmingly popular in the South, its generic use grew out of the fact that people almost always asked for “Coke.”
No alcohol means not ‘hard’ but ‘soft.’Nostalgic Collections/eBay
As with Jell-O, Kleenex, Band-Aids and seltzer, it became a generic term.
What’s soft about it?
Speaking of soft drinks, what’s up with that term?
It was originally used to distinguish all nonalcoholic drinks from “hard drinks,” or beverages containing spirits.
Interestingly, the original Coca-Cola formula included wine – resembling a type of alcoholic “health” drink popular overseas, Vin Mariani. But Pemberton went on to develop a “soft” version a few years later to be sold as a medicinal drink.
Due to the growing popularity of soda water concoctions, eventually “soft drink” came to mean only such sweetened carbonated beverages, a linguistic testament to America’s enduring love affair with sugar and bubbles.
With the average American guzzling almost 40 gallons per year, you can call it whatever you what. Just don’t call it healthy.Valerie M. Fridland, Professor of Linguistics, University of Nevada, Reno
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Each state in the U.S. has its own child abuse laws, and all states, tribes and territories aim to protect children from abuse. But all state laws also allow parents to hit their children if it does not leave an injury or a mark.
A typical example is Oklahoma’s definition of child abuse and neglect. It includes an exception that permits parents to use ordinary force as a means of discipline, including spanking, using an implement like a switch or a paddle. However, leaving evidence of hitting, such as welts, bruises, swelling or lacerations, is illegal and considered child abuse in all states.
Parental spanking of children is considered unique from other physical violence because of the relational context and the purpose. Laws entitle parents to hit their children for the purpose of teaching a lesson or punishing them to improve behavior. Children are the only individuals in society who can be hit by another person and the law does not regard it as assault.
Spanking’s impact on a child is unfortunately similar to abusive hitting. Spanking has been labeled as an “Adverse Childhood Experience,” or ACE. These are events that cause poor health outcomes over the span of one’s life.
The practice of spanking also affects parents. Acceptance of the physical discipline of spanking puts parents at risk for the escalation of physical punishment that leads to abuse.
Parents who spank their child have the potential to abuse them and be caught in a legal and child protection system that aims to protect children from harm. It is unclear what triggers a parent to cross over from discipline into abuse. Research shows that spanking at a young age, such as a 1-year-old, increases the chance of involvement by Child Protective Services by 33%.
Some school districts require permission from parents to allow disciplinary paddling in school, while others do not require any communication. State law does not assure agreement between parents and school districts on what offenses warrant a paddling. Parents may feel they have no alternative but to keep their child in school, or fear reprisal from school administrators. Some students are old enough to denounce the punishment themselves.
In this school district, physical punishment is used only when parents give written permission.
Is spanking considered the same as hitting?
The term spank conceals the concept of hitting and is so commonplace it goes unquestioned, despite the fact that it is a grown adult hitting a person much smaller than them. The concept is further concealed because hitting a child’s bottom hides any injuries that may occur.
Types of hitting that are categorized as spanking have narrowed over the years but still persist. Some parents still use implements such as tree switches, wooden spoons, shoes or paddles to “spank” children, raising the chances for abuse.
Most spanking ends by the age of 12, partly because children this age are able to fight back. When a child turns 18, parental hitting becomes the same as hitting any other adult, a form of domestic violence or assault throughout the U.S.
There is a lack of a consistent understanding of what constitutes a spanking. The definition of spanking is unique to each family. The number of hits, clothed or not, or using an implement, all reflect geographical or familial differences in understanding what a spanking is.
How do US adults view spanking?
People in the United States generally accept spanking as part of raising children: 56% of U.S. adults strongly agree or agree that “… it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking.” This view has been slowly changing since 1986, when 83% of adults agreed with that statement.
The laws worldwide that protect children from being hit usually begin by disallowing nonparental adults to hit children. This is happening in the U.S. too, where 31 states have banned paddling in schools.
At a national level, efforts have been made to end physical punishment in schools. However, 19 states still allow spanking of children in public schools, which was upheld by a 1977 Supreme Court case.
With the slow but steady drop of parents who believe that sometimes children need a good hard spanking, as well as the ban of paddling in schools in 31 states, one could argue that the U.S. is moving toward a reduction in spanking.
What does research say about spanking?
Spanking’s negative influence on children’s behavior has been documented for decades. Spanking seems to work in the moment when it comes to changing or stopping the immediate behavior, but the negative effects are hidden in the short term and occur later in the child’s life. Yet because the spanking seemed to work at the time, the parent doesn’t connect the continued bad behavior of the child to the spanking.
An abundance of research shows that spanking causes increased negative behaviors in childhood. Spanking lowers executive functioning for children, increases dating violence as teenagers and even increases struggles with mental health and substance abuse in adulthood. Spanking does not teach new or healthy behaviors, and is a stress-inducing event for the child and the adult hitting them.
No studies have shown positive long-term benefits from spanking. Because of the long-standing and expansive research findings showing a range of harm from spanking and the increased association with child abuse, the American Psychological Association recommends that parents should never spank their children.
What are some resources for parents?
Consider these questions when choosing a discipline method for your child:
Is the expectation of your child developmentally accurate? One of the most common reasons parents spank is because they are expecting a behavior the child is not developmentally able to execute.
Can the discipline you choose grow with your child? Nearly all spanking ends by age 12, when kids are big enough to fight back. Choose discipline methods you can use over the long term, such as additional chores, apologies, difficult conversations and others that can grow with your child.
Might there be another explanation for your child’s behavior? Difficulty of understanding, fear or miscommunication? Think of your child as a learner and use a growth mindset to help your child learn from their life experiences.
Parents are the leaders of their families. Good leaders show strength in nonthreatening ways, listen to others and explain their decisions. Don’t spoil your kids. But being firm does not have to include hitting.
Is spanking children good for parents?
Doubtful. Parents who hit their kids may be unaware that it influences their frustration in other relationships. Expressing aggression recharges an angry and short-tempered internal battery that transfers into other parts of the adults’ lives.
Practicing calm when with your children will help you be calmer at work and in your other relationships. Listening to and speaking with a child about challenges, even from a very early age, is the best way to make it part of your relationship for the rest of your life.
Choose a method that allows you to grow. Parents matter too.Christina Erickson, Associate Dean in the College of Nursing and Professional Disciplines, University of North Dakota
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
Valerie M. Fridland, Professor of Linguistics, University of Nevada, Reno
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
