Sustainable Change through Positive Emotional Attracters ( PEAs)

1. Sustainable Change through Positive Emotional Attracters (PEAs)

2. Background • Positive Emotional Attracters (PEAs) lead to more SUSTAINABLE change compared to Negative Emotional Attractors (PEAs) Sources: Conversations that Inspire: Coaching Learning, Leadership and Change https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/is-your-brain-culture/201008/how-you-are-who-you-are-in-chaos-theory http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00670/full

3. What are PEAs and NEAs? • Two states in which a person, dyad, team, or organization my find themselves when engaging in the creation of a personal or shared vision • Strange (Lorenz) attractors • Characterized by 3 dimensions • Positive versus negative emotional arousal • Endocrine arousal of the parasympathetic nervous system versus sympathetic nervous system • Neurological activation of the default mode network vs. the task positive network

4. Comparison • The PEA is: • Being in PNS arousal; feeling positive and hope, thinking about the future, dreams, and possibilities; • Being optimistic, focusing on one’s strengths; • Excited about trying something new, experimenting; and • Being in resonant relationships. • The NEA is: • Being in SNS arousal; feeling negative and fear; thinking about the past or present, expectations of others and problems; • Being pessimistic, focusing on one’s weaknesses; • Feeling obligated to things you “should” or are “expected by others” to do, like a performance improvement plan • Being in dissonant relationships.

5. Problem of Vision • To get community members to change their practices, they must buy into our prevention vision • Organization change research highlights the importance of shared vision, but little research on how to arrive at an effective vision • 3 key findings • (1) a personal vision based on an ideal self is required if the vision is to lead to sustained and desired change; • (2) in order to create a personal vision based on an ideal self, or among others, a shared vision, a person must be in the PEA; and • (3) while the NEA is required to move a person from vision to action, a person must spend significantly more time in the PEA in order to achieve sustained desired change. • You can attempt to create a tipping point and move a person into the PEA by arousing hope, compassion, mindfulness, or playfulness.

6. How this applies to Prevention • Strengths • Assessing need/hot spots/risk • Describing problem • Area for Growth • Connecting people to positives, which is really about connecting them to our vision • Overcoming stereotypes – “fun-killers”, “prohibitionists”

7. Why public health gets caught up in risk… • Strategic use of resources • We need the NEA to survive and the PEA to thrive.

8. Case Study #1 – Icelandic Model Outcomes • From 1998 to 2016, the percentage of 15-16 year old Icelandic youth • drunk in the past 30 days declined from 42% to 5%; • daily cigarette smoking dropped from 23% to 3%; • and having used cannabis one or more times, fell from 17% to 5%.

9. Case Study #1 – Icelandic Model Methods: • Goals:• Increase time spent together by adolescents and their families• Postpone the onset of alcohol use until 18 years of age and over• Increase adolescent participation in structured and organized youth activities supervised by adults • Because their youth survey (80-85% response rate) • Analysis of these surveys shows that affiliations with family, peer group effects and types of recreational activities available are the strongest predictors of the paths taken by adolescents. -Inga DóraSigfúsdóttir • 3 pillars of success: 1) Evidence-based practice; 2) Using a community-based approach; and 3) Creating a dialogue among research, policy and practice. • Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-b-milkman-phd/iceland-succeeds-at-rever_b_9892758.html

10. Case Study #1 – Icelandic Model Approach • Dr. Milkman – early work around personality types and drugs of choice • Mostly people use drugs to manage stress • People use drugs because drugs work • They get addicted to brain chemistry changes • Dr. Milkman decided to get kids addicted to something before they had the chance to use drugs • State-sponsored arts/sports activities • Organized parents to spend more quantity of time with children

11. Case Study #1 – Icelandic Model How does this apply to Oklahoma? • Population differences • Resource differences • Clarification of RPC role

12. Case Study #1 – Icelandic Model Caveat – they raised drinking age

13. Case Study #1 – Icelandic Model Parallels in changes in treatment model to changes in prevention model

14. Case Study #2

15. How could we use PEAs in our Prevention Work? • Do you have a vision for Oklahoma? • How could you incorporate PEAs into your discussion of that vision?

16. Mental Exercise… • Create a flip-side to your logic model using only positives – PEAs, protective factors, etc. • Alternatively, state your vision/goals/objectives in a way that utilizes PEAs • Can you arouse hope, compassion, mindfulness, or playfulness? • Is this easy or difficult? Why