Taylor Vacca

From ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) to the mPFC (medial prefrontal cortex): An Academic Adventure for ‘Artificial Attachment’ Exploring a Novel Perspective of ASD: The Absence (or Inability) of Securely-Attached Development This scientific-synthesis must begin by acknowledging the author’s relentless pursuit of achieving clinicalcompetence within cultural-complexities, hunt for humanist-healing vs. hierarchical- heuristics as well as to protect and preserve the privilege of personality, genuine diversity across the human-race and the magic (or madness) of our subjective-experience; while simultaneously treating “pathology” as a systemic-evolution through psychodynamically, therapist-projected, presence (cog+emotional integration), plasticity (resilience), and patience (willpower). Without further ado, a quick review of the following two case studies set the stage for comprehending the author’s psychodynamic-lens that created, conceptualized and carried out the personalized, integrated therapeutic-method described below. Catalytic & Curative Clinical Impressions & Conceptualizations: As I reflect on this research-process and -proposal, I can not help but find myself thinking back to Day-1, Hour-1, Supervisor-1 of my psychoanalytically-focused practicum. “I can’t seem to put my finger on it, but there's something very strange about that man.” As I understand psychodynamic-study requires a rigorous-depth of reflection, very strange wasn’t quite the reaction I was expecting to discuss with my supervisor. This very small, yet strikingly stigmatizing statement stayed with me. This client, who I will be naming A.M. for the sake of privacy, and P.M., another client needing introduction, were two individuals I had the honor of therapeutically-serving across 18-months; and whom I owe much respect and admiration for, without them this proposed theory would not be possible. These clients presented with about as many similarities as differences. Just a couple, young 30-year-old heterosexual, cis-gendered males seeking psychological- services later in life after receiving childhood- diagnoses of ASD. These two shared early life experiences such as identifying as the youngest-sibling out of three, believe-it-or-not, both consisting of family constellations inclusive of an eldest brother, middle sister, as well as developed alongside similarly reported absentee-father-dismissivemother parental-dynamics. Even down to consistencies across case- conceptualizations, both presented with clinically-significant levels of low self-esteem, frequent food- related intake issues, negative selfimage, as well as recalled regularly experiencing severe, relational- conflict and -crisis across closefamily and interpersonal- dynamics. What differences are left to exist, you may persist? A.M. displayed an anxious-attachment style, exhibited internalizing-episodes of psychological-distress, lived an entire life free of any- and all- substances, reported self-control issues with social media use when unable to sleep, reported life-long academic-excellence, exhibited perfectionist-thoughts and tendencies, struggled to engage comfortably within social settings, and held strong religious-beliefs and -involvement. While P.M., on the other hand, demonstrated a fearful- attachment style, displayed externalizing- expressions of emotions, lived the last decade struggling with substance-misuse, reported casual engagement with social media use for entertainment, and presented with an absence of spiritual-following. While A.M described tearful testimony of experiencing extreme social-alienation during his youth that continued into his college-days and beyond, P.M. reported experiencing frustration and a lack of academic-motivation having grown-up in a specialized-school setting requiring long-additional hours of social-skills training. A.M and P.M. both courageously transformed their lives, but in completely different directions, dimensions and developments. The history of ASD demonstrates diverse-depths of dangerously dysfunctional, diagnostically -focused, damaging discriminations that drastically destroyed the condition’s developmental-trajectories over the last century. ASD deserves a restored clinical-reputation that comprehends the complexity and conceptualization as an epidemiologically-evolved process, further diagnostically- misrepresented and societally- reinforced due to the lack of specialized-education. A.M. and P.M. 's psychoanalyticallyconceptualized clinical-profiles and -experiences taught me the pure power of a health-professional’s perceived prejudice (pathology versus personality) and its direct impact on an individual's own perceived severity-of-condition, sense of physical- and mental- wellbeing and their demonstrated, intentional motivational willpower to engage in treatment. When conceptualizing client-case studies through the lens of attachment theory, Erik Erickson’s social-development theory grounded in epigenetic-principles, and comprehending therapeutic-change and -healing through the individual's ability to mirror symmetricalattachment (i.e. resilience) not just within the sense of self, but also within the individual’s situational psychoanalytic- systems and -stressors. A.M. 's only significant early developmental-difference between P.M. was not receiving sociallyfocused, specialized- schooling during his childhood. This singular-opposition of opportunity, I believe, attributed to A.M’s inability to completely understand emotions [i.e. mirroring asymmetricalneurobiology: alexithymia] resulting in life-long difficulties to socially engage within numerous community systems, professional organizations, and interpersonal relationships (repressing emotionalemergence; requiring biological-systems to depend on “reward-conditioned-reactions” to register receivable forms of “satisfaction” reinforcing instant-gratification vs. biological-systems capable of free energetic-emissions that mirror “resilience-based-responses” that create cognitive-emotional growth expressed through functions of delayed-gratification) that often unknowingly projected insecure attachment-energies, heavily internalized over time. P.M., whom excelled socially [i.e. mirroring symmetrical- neurobiology: resilience], suffered severe-substance misuse due to repressed emotional- traumas and unresolved enmeshed-relationships that often unknowingly projected insecure attachment-energies, heavily externalized over time. As my original research- hypothesis was intended to explore and expand clinical-knowledge of how technology (i.e. problematic social media use [PSMU] and/or SMA [social media addiction]) has impacted human development and attachment, behavior and epigenetic-evolution; the author’s preconceived notion of seeking to clinically conceptualize PSMU as a form of ‘Artificial Attachment,’ (i.e. cognitive-non emotive; asymmetrical mirroring) ironically, was further catalyzed and crystallized by ASD- related research exploring the condition’s complexities throughout evolution via epidemiological- evidence supporting suppressive- solutions and, therefore, represents relentless societal- projections of insecureattachment energized by negativity. While reading between the lines, -in layman’s terms, the researcher discovered a mirror into the future from looking back through the past. The author would like to propose a novel perspective of ASD: the Absence [or Developmental- Inability] of Securely-Attached Development, aiming to address the systemic- influences and humanistic- properties of ASD at the biological-, neurological-, and personality- levels. PSMU (predicted to demonstrate ‘Artificial Attachment’), is also envisioned to emulate arrested cognitive-emotional psychosocial-development. The first iPhone debuted on June 29, 2007. This day also marked the historic release of a virtually invisible, cultural zeitgeist responsible for changing not only the structural-software of society, but the hereditary-hardware of humanity. Considering we have now progressed into the Age of Virtual and Augmented Reality, our digital and physical realities are becoming one. Surviving the global COVID-19 pandemic, for most, meant you had to either live virtually, or to, virtually, not live at all. Current statistics show that, on average, most Americans interact with their cellphones 2,000 times per day (Kolmar, 2023). These staggering statistics have me questioning, as mankind’s technology-tolerance is trending, the worldwide mental health pandemic has become unrelenting; could achieving human regulation (secureattachment) be exclusively dependent on an individual’s self-perceived interactional dynamics with their external-stimuli and -stressors? Considering science has yet to create an epidemiologically-interactive psychological- construct or theory describing intersubjectivity of the human experience and potential, why continue waiting? Due to the complexity of defining the perceptually-proposed trajectories of psycho social development, across both real- and virtual-, unlimited genetic-environmental demographics and dimensions, the author suggests referring to the following image (Figure 1.) for visual clarification: The Field of Angels & Demons: MODERN MIRRORING: REAL + VIRTUAL REALITY Figure 1. ILLUSTRATING OUR INFINITE PLANE OF SUBJECTIVE POSSIBILITY The researcher’s main goal is to be able to not only successfully quantify and qualify ‘artificial attachment’ exploring the properties of epidemiological evolution via the diathesis- stress model (desiring to demonstrate the first ever, interactive guide to conceptualizing and measuring adaptive-evolution in real-time); https://choreographic-turn.net/Alejandro-Karasik-On-Presence-and-Dance also to bring attention to the author’s proposed psychosocial developmental-process of achieving the most adaptive-forms of cognitive-emotionalintegration [i.e. symmetrical mirroring: fearful and secure- attachment] (within the context of systemicobstacles and societal-oppressions) in which environmental variables are highly responsible for controlling behaviors, as well as individual- biological profiles and patterns (Skinner, 1938). The author predicts this evolutionary-process of systemic- attachment mirrors the developmental potential of an individual’s perceived mindset [i.e. growth- vs fixed]; further operationalized through comprehending neurological-growth as a lifelong, continuous-pattern (E. E’s order of psychosocial development). Achieving higher degrees of cog-emo-integration via overcoming fearful-systems under adversity make possible the positive emission of a secure-attachment. Aiming to prove secure-symmetry, displaying resilience under repression, is only attainable via tolerating bio-energetic- adversity with a growth-mindset (i.e. neg. environment x neg. outcome); challenging current PDM-2: Overall Personality Organization’s order of “Severe” to “Healthy” (Psychotic, Borderline, Neurotic & Healthy) to represent psychosocial-growth as a constant, cyclic-pattern building up resilience to overcome Psychotic, Neurotic, and Borderline developmental- determinants and-defenses to achieve Secure-levels of cog-emointegration within self and surroundings. This theoretical- process is epidemiologically- dependent on interpersonal-neurobiology to transform negatively absorbed asymmetrical-mirroring (Figure 2., B.) into the emergence of positively-emitted symmetric-mirroring (Figure 2., A.) through activation of a securelyattached growth mindset [mPFC+Limbic System (i.e. cog-emo-integration)] within Borderline, fearful-systems. Figure 2. A: Borderline & Secure-Personality vs. B: Psychotic & Neurotic (Insecure)-Personality- A. Symmetrical (Social) Mirroring: bosons are organized and sociable, with whole-integer spins (i.e. 0, 1, 2, etc.). B. Asymmetrical (Non-Social) Mirroring: fermions are unsociable and disorderly, with half-integer spins (i.e. 1/2, 3/2, etc.). https://chem.libretexts.org/ How Attachment, Defenses & Psychosocial Developmental Dimensions are Determined in Systems: “At 42 minutes of age, infants intentionally imitate the facial expressions of an adult.” - (Wallin, 2007, p.52). Mirror Neurons & Bio-Energies Interacting within Systems: Attachment to Intersubjectivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model http://dimitrisangelakis.org/november-2015-few-photon-transport-in-many-body-photonic-systems-a-scattering-approach/ Evolution Across Experience, Cog-Emo Intelligence & Systemic-Energies: Growth Mindset Matters The Lens of Subjective-Symmetry: Secure & Fearful Attachment https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/-_3 The Analytic-Lens of Personality Possibility Under Adversity (Neg x Neg): https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-diathesis-stress-dual-risk-model-solid-black-and-solid-gray-lines-and-the_fig1_- The Epidemiological Evolution of ‘Artificial Attachment’ “If the mother’s face is unresponsive, then a mirror is a thing to be looked at but not looked into.” - D.W. WINNICOTT (Wallin, 2007, p.50). Modern Mirroring: Unmasking Our Post-COVID-19 Realities - Has Regulation Retired? The Reveal of the Rewired-Revolution Along with the chaos of COVID-19, America’s culture further weakened due to the radicalization and polarization the political-propaganda promoted. While exploring the role of social media consumption and modernized- fear in our youth’s learning development, addictive behaviors and attachment patterns, I have, unfortunately, come to discover themes that illustrate the dangers of how narcissistic-leadership has the potential to birth “bi- polar bipartisans;” exhibiting asymmetrical attachments that displays conflicting (Figure 2., B.) vs. harmonious (Figure 2., A.), symmetrical attachments and energies. The author’s psychosocial epidemiologically- developmental perspective best represents B.F. Skinner’s ‘Empty Organism Concept,’ describing the relationship of how externalenvironments and -outcomes interact neurobiologically and enact attachment styles (i.e. illustrating how infant-capacity for action is built into their physical makeup). Relational- and self-awareness related interactions also account for the infant’s projected- developmental trajectory, as well as predictedmotivations and/or -reflexes responsible for setting behavioral capacities into random motions (Skinner, 1938). To be able to predict random motion, we must be able to predict regulatory management. Tashjian and Galván (2020) aimed to understand the psychological-impact social media-related micro- aggressions mirrored, as well as identify the biological-component influenced while interacting with virtual exposures that instill negative self- identity and low self-esteem. Expectedly, the findings predicted negative social media exposures to transpire negative affect. Interestingly, worsening affect was found to be associated with greater habituation in the dlPFC, a region in the brain supporting higher-order affective- cognitivecontrol. The authors’ conceptualized increased response latency as adaptive; slowed response rates demonstrated the engaging of necessary cognitive-emotional systems required for accurate and authenticperformance. These findings illustrate fearful-attachment as evolutionary-adaptive via demonstrating delayed RT-effects representing cognitive-emotional responsiveness vs. cognitive- reactivity (instant gratification), further validating the author’s prediction requiring the diathesis- stress model to correctly comprehend the process of developing neurological growth (or vulnerability) through overcoming disadvantaged environments and elements (i.e. negative self-image and negative outcome-perspective). According to the diathesis-stress model, enduring adversity can either result in potential geneticvulnerability or enhancement; making the author question, what are the chances a client can change from asymmetric, artificial- to symmetric, authentic- attachment? An individual's behavioral-defenses and -developments are projected, by the researcher, to possibly measure the difference between a growth vs fixed mindset; attachment styles reveal implicit-drives of attentional, regulatory, and attachment-related cognitive-emotional patterns and predictions. The problem identified while extensively researching SMA (‘Artificial Attachment’), is that the problem has never truly been measured. To further explain, it appears scientists have, unfortunately, only seemed to address the individual’s identified trait-expressions, while neglecting the device’s state- and trait- dependent relational dynamics clearly at play. Arness and Ollis (2022) explored objective- and subjective- variables responsible for predicting PSMU across both self- and socially-driven evolutionary need- based influences. When examining SMA, impulsivity (i.e. self-control; insecure-instinct) was the mediating factor found responsible for developing higher frequencies of PSMU. When exploring attention (i.e. co-regulation; secure-motive), anxiety and engagement were the two mediating factors found responsible for developing higher rates of SMA. These interactions suggest to the author two important insights: attention-abilities depend on anxiety and engagement levels (confirming attachment theory-mechanisms), as well as challenging and overcoming ever-growing self-control and system-regulatory-demands, together and apart, catalyze secure attachment via growth-mindset development and demonstrating higher degrees of subjective-dimension. In corroboration with Arness and Ollis (2022) research-findings, a study conducted by He et al. (2021) validated (through the clinical-lens of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs) the direct mediating- effects of no-planning impulsiveness and cognitive-impulsivity on developing PSMU. Negative associations related to device-dependency were only found across inhibitory control and no-planning impulsiveness. When conceptualizing through the lens of addiction and physiological-need-based motivations (securing self- and social-regulation/ attachment needs), these studies discovered how technology-tolerance within personality-patterns have possibly evolved to express two distinct forms (each including a fixed- and growth- mindset potential) of epigenetic-developmental- dysfunction (cognitive+emotional dissonance =insecure attachment) and/or -enhancement (cognitive+emotional integration=secure attachment), derived from the very basic, implicit instinctual human motivations that reinforce either self- and/or social-regulation. The author created the image below (Figure 6.) to illustrate how attachment-styles, adversities, and mindsets interact and/or integrate: Advancing our Approach from Addiction to Attachment:Integrating Our Implicits - Erasing the Burden of Bias with Biology, Attachment & Personality As our implicit- drives and -motivations appear to depend on perceived self-image and -efficacy, the field of social-cognitive affective neuroscience has confirmed the association between state-self esteem and its functional connectivity with the mPFC and the ventral striatum, as well as trait-self esteem and its structural connectivity with the same regions. When comparing Tashjian and Galván (2020) results confirming the dlPFC as a region supportive of higher-order emotional- cognitive- control, and under worsening-affects displays greater habituation, to a study conducted by Fields et al. (2019) suggesting that mPFC modulation (reliant on the dlPFC) reflects downstream processes relating to the development and maintenance of the self-positivity bias, I find myself confused. Tashjian and Galván (2020) comprised of fifty-seven adults 18 - 29 years-old (38 female, 19 male) that identified within the following demo: 30% Hispanic/Latinx, 21% Asian, 18% Caucasian, 14% Black, 10% multiple races/ethnicities, and 7% Middle Eastern. While Fields et al. (2019) included seventeen female-participants attending an elite university (White (12), Hispanic (1), Asian (1), mixed Asian/White (2) and unreported[1]) between the ages of 18 and 23; now I find myself flabbergasted. Fields et al. (2019) findings were able to illustrate how female-individuals attending an elite university unconsciously (without any requirement to make an explicit decision about self-relevance) demonstrated an interaction between self-relevance and valence, only with positive scenarios showing more activity to self-relevant, than other-relevant-related scenarios (i.e. neutral and negative); and these results are supposed to reflect women’s tendency to present with higher levels of self-positivity bias in comparison to the male population, when no male-sample or even control-group sample studypopulation(s) were even considered and/or included in the research- methods itself? In addition to the study exhibiting low generalizability, due to the omission of collecting test-data from male-subjects, considering the mPFC has been neuroscientifically-linked to both state- and trait- related self-esteem, I feel Fields et al. (2019) conclusions have a high probability of demonstrating stigmatized- and/or stereotypical- beliefs and biases. Tashjian and Galván (2020) conclusions representing delayed-RT activity in the dlPFC (a lower-order region of the brain vs. the mPFC, a well-known higher-order region of the brain connecting cognition and emotion) during episodes of worsening -affect, as demonstrating “higher-order emotionalcognitive- control,” further validates my proposed revision of the PDM-2’s order of pathology (severe to healthy) to demonstrate authentic, neurobiological-growth and -development via resilient- vs. rewardbased evolutionary-adaptation expectations and energies that emerge from real-life experience and psychosocial-informed education. When considering evolutionary standards of attending an eliteuniversity, I’d say the mPFC responding positively should not be considered a form of “self- positivity bias; I’d say it is safe to illustrate positive-mPFC activity as perceptual-congruence between self-image and self-esteem. ” The author created Figure 4. through complex synthesis of all research cited, to further explores and examine positive, mPFC activity (Symmetric-Attachment) as the potential indication of achieving systemic-harmony, cognitive-emotional intelligence, and an infinite, open intersubjective-field of potential. Considering the author’s self-observed notion of PSMU primarily utilizing female-dominated and/or female-only sample populations, these findings alerted my attention to recognize the potential role of sex-based and/or gender-biased biological -implicit, -explicit, and/or -environmental reinforcements and/or motivations when predicting one’s subjective-spectrum of opportunity, as well as innatelyhabitual, and technologically-impacted, behaviors across diverse populations and limitless possibilities. The Evolutionary Exile of Epigenetics?: The Unacknowledged, Biologically-Sex-Dependent Differences Across Gender Durnford et al. (2020) attempts to make us aware of potential gender and/or sex-related bio psychosocial- influences that interact with human developmental-processes. The study aimed to observe and identify the interactions between the presence of parent (cis-gender woman and/or cis-gender man), emotional valence influence (negative, neutral, positive) and the PFC-processing of video stimuli across 3- and 4-year olds (intensive psychosocial period of interactive-development and growth) in order to better understand the biological- and psychological- reactions across real + virtual platforms, gender, and environmentally-elicited emotion; and to identify how these interactive- influences shape and form abstract- perspective and planning-performance. The research found stronger PFC-activity while joint-viewing with fathers versus mothers (regardless of child-gender), as well as stronger PFC-activity in cis-gendered girls versus cis-gendered boys, only while viewing positive stimuli; while boys only displayed higher, more overwhelmed-levels of PFC-activity during processing of negative-stimuli. The difference in PFC-activity while joint-viewing with each parent suggests that children are physiologically- processing exposures differently depending on the gender of the parent. The authors’ suggested this either is representative of the demonstration of the mother engaging in active, external emotional-regulation for the child, to in turn, allow the child more efficient cognitive-processing of information (i.e. the lower the PFC-activation, the lower levels of self-regulation required by child); or is representative of the demonstration of the father’s presence encouraging the child’s facilitation of mentalization during joint-viewing attentional tasks (i.e. the higher the PFC-activation, the higheremotional capacity to mentalize with the portrayed- character). And you thought I was confused/ flabbergasted before… The author holds secure-beliefs in human development being governed by the Law of Effect [i.e. when satisfaction follows an association, it is more likely to be repeated; when an unfavorable outcome follows an action, then it is less likely to be repeated (Skinner, 1938)]. Durnford et al. (2020) studyfindings provide astonishing proof of authentic- attachment-mirroring; demonstrating the hard-wired, evolutionary-process of interpersonal neurobiology in action: these results confirm and validate malechildren mirror lower levels of PFC-activity when engaging with their mothers, female-children also mirror lower levels of PFC-activity when engaging with their mothers; male-children were found to mirror high, intense levels of PFC-activity only with their fathers, female-children also mirrored high, intense levels of PFC-activity only with their fathers. In other words, evolutionary-adaptation was found and demonstrated by the substantial power of advanced neuro-imaging technologies used to provide real-time evidence and evolutionary-proof of “mirror-neurons” (child- imitation of male- vs. female- attachment- related survival instinct displaying nonselective-values across parental-genders) and their implicit-nature to ensure the instinctual-, innately-driven motivation to seek social-connection and secure attachment within possible-proxity and perceptual-ability of available realms of reality and relational- interactions with potentials of perceivedsafety (attention) and -stability (regulation). And to Durnford et al. (2020), attributing the potential mirroring, only while engaging with fathers, of higher, more intense-levels of PFC-activity demonstrated across both child-genders, possibly functioning as the father’s mirroring of “higher- emotional capacity to mentalize with the portrayedcharacter,” I strongly disagree with this clinical-interpretation, especially considering the portrayed-character in the video-exposures identified as the female- “Princess Merida of DunBroch” from the Walt Disney Pictures film Brave (2012); no hard feelings, I am just stating the obvious. Here, let me end this disagreement by reciting Wang et al. (2007) and the study’s revolutionary findings that provide evidence of epidemiologically- informed, specific sex-based stress-induced physiology grounded in evolutionary-science demonstrating interpersonal neurobiology that mirrors and reflects male-dominent (asymmetric-awareness) instinctive-reactions of Fight-or-Flight vs. female-dominant styles often (symmetric- awareness) emitting innately-responsive attachment energies of Tend-and-Befriend. These findings should come to no surprise considering the well-known and well-documented history of the female-gender taking the role of “primary caretaker,” highly reinforced and repressed by societal- influences and socially-saturated -intersubjectivity. As well as the male-gender taking the role of “protector and provider,” highly reinforced and repressed by societal- influences and socially-saturated intersubjectivity. In other words, on my pathway to understanding ‘Artificial Attachment,’ in honor of desiring to objectively clarify A.M.’s complex childhood, circumstances and unmatched compassion into a stigma- and/or stereotype-free field of both quantified- and qualified- clinical and -character-based conceptualizations; I pondered a bit off pier. All perspectives deserve validation, so no wonder how I ended up here. Below is my attempt to erase pathology, eradicate personality, enlighten perspective and potentially predict endless previous, possible “impossibles.” My finest-formulas to functionally fight and free fixed- and fearful-mindsets are as follows: Putting Analytic into Psychoanalytic Practice: Replacing Reinforcement with Resilience B.F. Skinner for the Winner: The author desires to download (pun-intended) the research-topic and -task of correlating the combination of cyber- and civil- realities (the human inner-subjective experience) as a theory reflecting an epidemiologically- interactive, developmental psychosocial process of evolution grounded in B.F. Skinner’s beliefs and biology. The author’s hypothesis relies on the following biases to be true in hopes of redefining “reward” and reestablishing clinical-norms of personality-perception and psychodynamicpractices to require securely-attached clinicians educated in the following philosophies that look to prove the process-development, perceptions of disadvantaged- vs advantaged- human-potentials over the course of psychosocial, developmental evolution alongside electronics, and the pure power (energy) personalwillpower, -resilience, and -security have in literally changing our evolutionary-design. Evolution Across Experience, Cog-Emo Intelligence & Systemic-Energies: Growth Mindset Matters The Field of Angels & Demons: Resilience in Social Symmetry The Lens of Subjective-Symmetry: Secure & Fearful Attachment https://www.math.uci.edu/~ndonalds/math161/hyper-plane.html The Analytic-Lens of Resilience Possibility: Growth Mindset: Symmetric-Borderline & Beyond https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-5-4-tiled-hyperbolic-plane-H-2-in-the-Poincare-disc-model-Each-tile-is-a-pentagon_fig2_- The Epidemiological Evolution of ‘Artificial Attachment’ 1. Identity (X): Developmental Position, Inhibitory Control Potential, Anxiety & Avoidance Patterns 2. Object Relations (Y): Subjective Experience, Diathesis-Stress x Cell Phone Device, Instant- vs. Delayed- Gratification Motivational Mechanisms 3. Level of Denses (Z): Asymmetric vs. Symmetric Mirroring, Fixed vs. Growth Mindset, Judgement vs. Plasticity Perspective 4. Reality Testing (fMRI): Neuroscience Imaging: Fixed (Asymmetric -PFC) vs Growth (Symmetric - mPFC+Limbic System) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Populations-of-the-Jaynes-Cummings-model-in-the-strong-coupling-and-detuned-regime-l_fig2_- Growth: (Insecure)→Psychotic→Neurotic→Borderline→Healthy→(Secure)→RESILIENCE→New Challenge→REPEAT References Arness, D. C., & Ollis, T. (2022). A mixed-methods study of problematic social media use, attention dysregulation, and social media use motives. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s- Durnford, J. R., Balagtas, J. P., Azhari, A., Lim, M., Gabrieli, G., Bizzego, A., & Esposito, G. (2020). Presence of parent, gender and emotional valence influences preschoolers’ PFC processing of video stimuli. Early Child Development and Care, 192(7),-. https://doi.org/10.1080/- Fields, E. C., Weber, K., Stillerman, B., Delaney-Busch, N., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2019). Functional MRI reveals evidence of a self-positivity bias in the medial prefrontal cortex during the comprehension of social vignettes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 14(6), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz035 He, Z. H., Li, M. D., Ma, X. Y., & Liu, C. J. (2021). Family socioeconomic status and social media addiction in female college students: The mediating role of impulsiveness and inhibitory control. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 182(1), 60-74. Kolmar, C. (2023). 25+ Incredible US smartphone industry statistics [2023]: How many Americans have smartphoness. Zippia. https://www.zippia.com/advice/us-smartphoneindustry-statistics/#:~:text=According%20to%20Pew%20Research%20Center,t%20live %20without%20their%20smartphones. Skinner, B. F. (1938). Behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Tashjian, S. M., & Galván, A. (2020). Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex response to negative tweets relates to executive functioning. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(7), 775–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa101 Wallin, D. J. (2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. Guildford Press. Wang, J., Korczykowski, M., Rao, H., Fan, Y., Pluta, J., Gur, R. C., McEwen, B. S., & Detre, J. A. (2007). Gender difference in neural response to psychological stress. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm018