Drew Westen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Drew Westen is Professor in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, an M.A. in Social and Political Thought from the University of Sussex (England), and a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Michigan, where he taught introductory psychology for several years.
While at the University of Michigan, he was honored two years in a row as the best teaching professor at the university and was the recipient of the first Golden Apple Award for outstanding undergraduate teaching. His research is in the cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes that allow people to maintain intimate relationships, with a focus on people with personality disorders who have interpersonal problems.
He then moved to Harvard University, where he was professor in the Department of Psychology and maintained a clinical practice at the Cambridge Hospital.
At Harvard University and at Emory, Westen's work has focused on developing and refining the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure as a tool for researchers and clinicians to help further the understanding of personality and its disorders. He has contributed to the literature on eating disorders.
Much of Westen's theoretical work has attempted to bridge perspectives, particularly cognitive, psychodynamic, and evolutionary. He has published over 140 research papers in the scientific literature. [1]
His series of videotaped lectures on abnormal psychology, called Is Anyone Really Normal?, was published by the Teaching Company, in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution. He also provides psychological commentaries on political issues for "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio. His main love outside of psychology is music. He writes comedy music and has performed as a stand-up comic in Boston. He is married and has two children.
[edit] Political bias study
In January 2006 a group of scientists led by Drew Westen announced at the annual Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference in Palm Springs, California the results of a study in which functional magnetic resonance imaging showed that self-described Democrats and Republicans responded to negative remarks about their political candidate of choice in systematically biased ways.
Specifically, when Republican test subjects were shown self-contradictory quotes by George W. Bush and when Democratic test subjects were shown self-contradictory quotes by John Kerry, both groups tended to explain away the apparent contradictions in a manner biased to favor their candidate of choice. Similarly, areas of the brain responsible for reasoning (presumably the prefrontal cortex) did not respond during these conclusions while areas of the brain controlling emotions (presumably the amygdala and/or cingulate gyrus) showed increased activity as compared to the subject's responses to politically neutral statements associated with politically neutral people (such as Tom Hanks).[2]
Subjects were then presented with information that exonerated their candidate of choice. When this occurred, areas of the brain involved in reward processing (presumably the orbitofrontal cortex and/or striatum/nucleus accumbens) showed increased activity.
As Dr. Westen said, "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged... Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want... Everyone... may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts.'" [3]
The study was published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:11, pp. 1947–1958 a peer-reviewed scientific journal. [4]
Even before being peer-reviewed and published, Michael Shermer used the presentation by Dr. Westen as the basis for his July 2006 Skeptic column in the magazine Scientific American.
[edit] Books
In 2007, PublicAffairs published The Political Brain by Drew Westen. The book has drawn considerable attention in Democratic national circles and may influence campaign strategies in a number of races in 2008 and beyond.
