This article was very interesting to read. It describes the different ways that advertisements can tug at our emotions. Guilt appeal is a great way to get consumer's attention, and it's used quite a bit in the advertising world. A good example of this is the commercials showing the dying polar bears without ice to live on, or the cute little puppies and kittens without homes. Another classic example of this is the commercials about the children struggling in poor countries, asking you to help them with a "dollar a day." Seeing these commercials evokes an emotional response, and leads the viewer to feel guilty, something advertisers are counting on. The hope is that if you feel guilty about these poor puppies and children, you will give them money to try and help them or "save a life."
Previous research found that mothers were the most likely target and more susceptible to these types of advertising techniques, so it was mothers that were used in this research study. They actually discovered that many times commercials and advertisements that used guilt as a motivational factor to buy the product actually evoked some levels of anger in the participants. This anger acted as a mediator between the guilt and the consumer's attitudes about the product or advertisement. This anger also seemed to affect whether or not the participants reported that they would buy the product or not. Though it may sound surprising that these depressing commercials could evoke anger, think about the last time you saw the Haiti relief commercials? Or the American Christian Children's Fund? Yes, they are all depressing and raise some amount of guilt, but at the same time many Americans feel that things need to change in our own country first. The article also discusses aspects of annoyance, and how the annoyance levels of these commercials can raise levels of anger as well.
Many commercials of the commercials like this act on the principle of relatedness. This aspect is also discussed in the book (Reeve, 161, 2009). Commercials want to make you feel as though you have a connection with the people or animals shown in the advertisement. This may be why they show close ups of big puppy eyes, and probably why they send you a "personalized letter and photo of the child you're saving." The advertisements are attempting to make you feel as though these people and animals are just like you or similar to you, your pets, or your children, and this makes us feel as though we should help them. The letters and pictures that the children's fund sends to you also plays a role in feedback, because these things give you good feelings about your donation, it will reinforce the behavior and allow you to associate donating with good feelings (Reeve, 117).
Using these types of positive reinforcements once they have the consumer to a point where they have made a donation increases the chances that they will make an additional donation in the future. Making people feel good about the things they have done (donating money, volunteering) is a way to provide a reward, and eventually this reward could develop into intrinsic motivations. When someone consistently volunteers and contributes to the community, there are positive feelings associated with the outcomes. This acts as a reinforcement/reward to begin with. As they continue to participate in these types of activities, the reward may evolve into an intrinsic motivation (Reeve, 111) because they are so used to those feelings and actions that they feel a basic internal drive to continue with their good feelings and positive contributions to the community. Along with this, another aspect of intrinsic motivations is the idea of challenge. People who participate in things such as Habitat for Humanity or other volunteer programs many have had feelings of guilt in order to get them started, but then a challenge developed and lead to more intrinsic motivations (Reeve, 111).
These commercials also incorporate the idea of sociability. When we feel as though everyone is donating to these funds (when they say "over a million Americans donate daily," or things of that nature), we don't want to be the only one's not donating. We have a drive to donate just because we hear that there are many other people donating. It's almost as if these commercials are peer pressuring us into donating to their particular fund.
Many aspects of the textbook can be seen in these emotion-provoking commercials. They play off of the fact that human's levels of self-perceptions can change at the drop of a hat (Reeve, 279). When we don't act on these donations, our mind often creates a negative affect from the guilt we experience, which leads us to feel bad about ourselves and could lower our self-esteem (Reeve, 266). The main difficulty here, according to Reeve, is that raising self-esteem is motivational intervention. Adversely, the lowering of self-esteem may also be a motivational intervention if you look at the effects that these commercials have on people. Because these commercials have made people feel bad, it motivates them to donate their money in order to feel good again. Then, every time we donate money and get those good feelings, it reinforces that behavior so that the behavior continues.
There are many other aspects of psychology within these types of commercials. What are some other areas where psychology comes into play within advertisements? What about within the media in general? How do these things affect our everyday lives when we aren't even thinking about them?
Recently in Self-Esteem Category
The discussion in Chapter 10 on self-esteem was very interesting to me. What I found most interesting was the idea that many people's idea that self-esteem as a way to motivate people is not necessarily true. Reeve discusses that there is no evidence that self-esteem causes anything at all. Self-esteem in caused by our past successes and failures (2009). The textbook author states that what really needs improving is people's skills for dealing with the world, not self-esteem. The causal relationship between self-esteem and things like achievement are not correlated in the way people assume. Increases in achievement cause higher self-esteem, not the other way around (Reeve, 2009).
Another point I found interesting was that boosting self-esteem has negative consequences such as increasing aggression and acts of violence when their favorable self-views are threatened. However, this finding has not stopped popular media from viewing self-esteem as a key to motivation. Reeve states, "The best conclusion to offer is that self-esteem is like happiness. Trying to be happy doesn't get you very far. Rather, happiness is a byproduct of life's satisfactions, triumphs and positive relationships." (Reeve, 2009, p.267).
With my new found outlook on self-esteem, I decided to try and find an article aimed at just this. I found an interesting article from the Mayo Clinic titled, "Self-esteem check: Too low, too high or just right?". The article discusses ways in which you can tell if you need to boost your self-esteem and ways to do it. It also discusses the benefits of having high self-esteem and the negative attributes associated with overly high self-esteem and low self-esteem. I found it very interesting that even the Mayo clinic bought into this idea that self-esteem is an important aspect of the person that it plyable and needs improvement in many.
The second page of the article offers characteristics of low self-esteem, some of which I find questionable. For instance, the fear of failure, I think that sometimes a person with a fear of failure may have high self-esteem but simply have a high need for achievement, therefore fearing failure at tasks in which they strive for. I feel like I personally have high self-esteem but possess some of the characteristics in which they state as predictors of low self-esteem. Overall, me even worrying about my self-esteem is based on my idea that self-esteem is very important with regards to my level of achievement and other factors that Reeve dispels.
I wonder what others have to say about the idea of self-esteem. Were you as surprised as I was with the information presented in chapter 10? Did you hold the opinion that high self-esteem caused factors such as high achievement and motivation? Also, do you possess any of the attributes described in the article as common characteristics of low self-esteem and still consider yourself someone with high self-esteem?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/self-esteem/MH00128/NSECTIONGROUP=2
I read an interesting chapter from The Good Body (2005) by Eve Ensler. Ensler has been a radical feminist for nearly thirty years. I have added the link for the first chapter of the book. In the first chapter, Ensler focuses on her body image and her dislike for dissatisfaction with particular body parts. Like many women, she has always been anxious about a particular part of her body. Ensler shares she has placed much of her attention on her stomach. She continues to say she feels her stomach has become her most serious committed relationship. Regarding her stomach, Ensler states, "It has protruded through my clothes, my confidence, and my ability to work. I've tried to sedate it, educate it, embrace it and most of all, erase it" (pg. 6).
I found this chapter interesting because Ensler is an intelligent and confident woman, like most women she suffers with body image. I can relate to Ensler. I hate when my girl friends complain about their body size or some part of their body instead of embracing their body. However, I know I am just as guilty about complaining about my stomach and lack of abdominal muscles when I have not worked out, or eat a big, juicy hamburger with salty fries.
Does anyone else share similar feelings about body image? Do you think our culture has engrained into us that thin is beautiful; therefore, the only way to look? Do you think our culture places too much emphasis on appearance instead of, for example, intelligence?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/15/health/la-he-marathon-20100315
This article is about different factors that motivate people to participate in marathons. Some of the information seems fairly obvious, especially to people in this class, but it is still interesting to consider these findings. I found it especially interesting that the reason a person runs can make a difference in if they finish the race. In short, it was the people with high intrinsic motivation who tended to finish the training and marathon itself. It said that "The 75 who did not finish were those most likely to have been motivated by the wish to lose weight or gain recognition from others."
This finding makes sense to me, and I think it fits rather well with our individualistic culture. Many of us feel that it should be up to each person how they want to live, we should not spend our lives trying to please others. It would be interesting to see if this finding holds up in collectivistic cultures. If it would, we could be more confident than intrinsic factors of motivation may be inherently more powerful in influencing whether or not a person ultimately finishes a marathon.
This article mentioned that more and more people are creating bucket lists on which they include marathons. The article said this was a form of extrinsic motivation because it is being done for recognition, but I would argue that it really depends on the person. There are undoubtedly some people who will do extreme activities just to brag about them, but there are others (using the bucket list) who simply enjoy the challenge.
I find it rather interesting that some people do it for loved ones, and I have heard that others still do it for Christ. From what we first read (that the people with high intrinsic motivation tend to finish the marathons), it would seem that these motivations are extrinsic (being done for the approval of others). I think this certainly does seem true, but there are probably exceptions. If a Christian is doing the marathon as a type of self-imposed penance because they feel guilty about past wrongdoings or because they simply want to make a sacrifice for the Lord, that would probably be intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, if a Christian does the marathon as penance to avoid the fires of Hell, it seems that would probably be a form of extrinsic motivation. In retrospect, this past paragraph sounds somewhat like a bad joke, but I believe it is never the less very true.
Another point which merits attention is about endorphins. Over the past couple years I have read very contradictory "findings" on endorphins. You commonly hear that exercising and physical activities releases endorphins, and others have claimed that the level of physical exertion one must undertake to actually release significant levels of endorphins is dangerously high (with such physical activities doing actually more harm than good overall). I honestly do not know which view is objectively correct, so if anyone else might be able to shed light on this area, I would very much appreciate it.
One final point I would like to write about is that there obviously can be both primary and secondary motivations. The article also mentioned that specific reasons for making the commitment to a marathon may change over time. For example: physical health benefits may become dominant. Although raising money for charities seems to be partly be an extrinsic form of motivation, I really do not believe you can place it exclusively in a single category - there may be elements of both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation present (recognition from others and feeling happy that you have helped others).
How can it be that plus size women want to idealize themselves as perfect, when perfect is different to many people? Culturally as a nation we see "perfect" now a day's as being skinny, because you can be a beautiful plus size model, but still be overlooked by a skinner version. So how can we evaluate perfect? But this article only makes sense on two levels to me.
First off, right now our country is on a skinny health trip, which means, if you look skinny you are perceived healthier than those of a heavy weight or size. Which can change soon with the new focus on being actively healthy because of "skinny fat".
Secondly, plus size women only have lower self-esteem because they are constantly told that they are not as pretty as thinner women. Society creates this self-esteem issue, because look at some of the really dangerously thin women and ask them why they don't shop or enjoy the way they look. Plus, if they made clothing that was pretty for plus size women things could be different as well.
What do you think, can plus size models hinder you from buying clothing, shoes, watches or anything? Do you think that seeing plus size models make it more diverse when it comes to adds, because not everyone can be this size 0-4 frame?
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9697
The article I found talks about identity and how everyone becomes their own identity. Identity is not just what you know; it is also how you know. We are not born into our identities; rather we develop who we want to be in this world. Some factors that can come into play with choosing our identity can be our family, friends and society. A young child may see her mother as a creature that exists solely to take care of her, but an older child will often start to appreciate that her mother has needs of her own, and start acting less selfishly towards her mother so as to take that knowledge into account. Personal beliefs have no bias on one's identity, for example if a group hates a certain religious group, doesn't need to affect another person. Young children have simple identities and see things in an overly simple, generally self-serving manner. As people grow older and wiser, they identify themselves with other people, places and things in increasingly sophisticated ways and start to grow out of this initial selfishness. Sometimes life events can interrupt one's identity and their identity stops growing. For example a death of a parent, may cause a child to grow up and take on the parent role for younger siblings, and not get to live their childhood identities. According to Reeve, once a person takes one role, the identity directs the person to pursue some behaviors (identity-confirming behaviors) and to avoid other behaviors (identity-disconfirming behaviors), (2009 p. 279). Other things that can affect a person's identity are low self-esteem and low self-efficacy.
What do you think about this article?
Do you know what your self-identity is like...has your identity changed a lot throughout your life?
In one of my classes last week we were talking about the importance of mentors in our lives. It took me a while to think of a consistent mentor who has helped encourage me throughout my life. In essence, my experience with a mentor has revolved around persuasion techniques utilized by my mentor attempting to persuade and encourage me to continue a behavior. The textbook mentions how important coaches, parents, employers, therapists, etc. are in our lives and how such figures will always be there (for the most part) to lend a convincing hand. A lot of the time these convincing attempts serve as an efficacy booster for me, the mentee.
I have grown up in a musical family all my life, and I have also grown up playing the violin. There have been countless times throughout my life where I have wanted to give up and quit playing the violin. These sentiments mostly burgeon from my dissatisfaction with practicing the damn instrument. But, as we all know, "practice makes perfect." Unfortunately for me, I did not want to be a "perfect" violinist, let alone become that prodigious of a player. Fortunately, however, I had a set of encouraging parental figures who have continually given me the positive feedback and support necessary for me to continue my practices, at least all throughout high school and into my first couple years in college. My parents always knew that I didn't really want to quit. They were also well aware that practicing did not come easy for me, nor did it enlighten me. But, they always found creative ways to build up my self-efficacy, with regards to my violin playing skills and habit formation. Consequently, I know have the desire and intrinsic motivation to play the violin. I have played in the UNI orchestra all but one semester and I am a violinist for a post rock instrumental band in Cedar Falls.
Who have been positive role models/mentors in your life?
In what areas have they impacted you and encouraged your own self-efficacy?
I found this
quiz online called Destiny vs. Internal Locus of control. After I had taken the quiz my results were as
follows:
|
Your Score: 9 of your answers out of 12 questions showed an internal locus of control for a score of 75 percent. |
"Your
locus of control isn't strongly internal or external; it's mixed. That means
that there's probably some room for you to change your thinking style to feel
even more in control of what happens in your life. Read the resources below
to learn more about personal control and how to develop a stronger feeling of
confidence and personal power in your life."
I thought this quiz was very interesting, though this quiz could have
been a lot longer to really get at every facet of internal or external locus
of control. I would have to say,
however, that I believe that my score is pretty accurate with my views on my
own autonomy. I do believe that I am
in control of my own life and I make what choices best suite me. But, on occasion with some of the outcomes
of my life I do believe that I have been rather "lucky" in the outcome. In our
book, Reeve's definition of autonomy is "When deciding what to do, we desire
choice and decision-making flexibility.
We want to be the one who decides what to do, when to do it, how to do
it, when to stop doing it, and whether or not to do it at all." Through this quiz with each question I
could really tell where the question was heading whether I thought that I was
in control, or if it was some other influence that was controlling how I was
acting. You can find this quiz at http://stress.about.com/od/selfknowledgeselftests/a/locus.htm
|
For my Intro to Women's and Gender class one of the books we read was Women: Images and Realities by Amy Kesselman, Lily McNair, and Nancy Schniedewind. This book was comprised of essays about experiences in women and mens' lives. I enjoyed this book because it made me aware of many life experiences and how differently each person handles these experiences.
One of my favorite essays was called, "Klaus Barbie, and Other Dolls I'd Like to See" by Susan Jane Gilman. Gilman talks about Barbie dolls versus Dawn dolls. She hates Barbie dolls with a passion and named them "Klaus Barbie dolls", after the Gestapo commander. She feels Barbies are a pop artifact promoting Aryanism. In fact, she compares the blonde-hair, blue-eyed dolls to Hitler's cult. Although she commends Mattel on making an effort to create a variety of dolls, she feels they basically have the same Aryan features. Gilman also states, these unique dolls are limited edition Barbies, and not the normal or standard look.
However, Gilman is not anti-doll. As a child, Gilman and her friends played with Dawn dolls. Before this reading, I had never heard of these dolls; however, they intrigue me. Dawn dolls had four dolls in the collection. Dawn was the blonde doll, Angie had black hair (Italian or Hispanic), Gloria had red hair (Irish or a Russian Jew), and Dale had an afro. Gilman and her friends were Jewish, Black, Asian, and Latina and felt if you didn't look like Barbie, you didn't fit in.
Gilman's essay ends with her describing Barbie's she would like to see (my favorite part). These Barbie's include Dinner Roll Barbie, Birkenstock Barbie, Bisexual Barbie, Butch Barbie, Our Barbies, Ourselves, Harley Barbie, Body Piercings Barbie, Blue Collar Barbie, Rebbe Barbie, B-Girl Barbie, The Barbie Dream Team, and Transgender Barbie.
I found this reading unique and interesting. Like Gilman, I'm not sure Barbie is to blame for young girls constantly being insecure with their bodies; however, I do think it is a possibility. Personally, I never played with Barbies much. I found it more enjoyable to pull their heads off or play outside in the sandbox or swinging.
Does anyone agree or disagree with the fascinationtion and/or obsession our cultures has with Barbie dolls influencing young girls?
The wording in this article was disturbing to me. An example would be people who "strive to develop an eating disorder." It also goes on to explain that skinny anorexics have the "upper-hand" in the community because bulimics or those still "striving" to develop anorexia do not exude the same willpower to resist food and "idolize" the anorexics.
One of the most troubling things about this article is the pledge from a community, Thinnest of Them All, which I have pasted below.
"I believe in Control, the only force mighty enough to bring order to the chaos that is my world.
I believe that I am the most vile, worthless and useless person ever to have existed on this planet, and that I am totally unworthy of anyone's time and attention.
I believe that other people who tell me differently must be idiots. If they could see how I really am, then they would hate me almost as much as I do.
I believe in oughts, musts and shoulds as unbreakable laws to determine my daily behavior.
I believe in perfection and strive to attain it.
I believe in salvation through trying just a bit harder than I did yesterday.
I believe in calorie counters as the inspired word of god, and memorize them accordingly.
I believe in bathroom scales as an indicator of my daily successes and failures
I believe in hell, because I sometimes think that I'm living in it.
I believe in a wholly black and white world, the losing of weight, recrimination for sins, the abnegation of the body and a life ever fasting."
Your thoughts on this behavior or these communities? I couldn't find the Thinnest of Them All community, but feel free to share any Pro Ana communities you know of or come across.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1257083/pro_ana_community_underground_community.html?cat=5
*This blog is not in support of these communities or eating disorders. If you or a loved one has an eating disorder please seek help.
Procrastination - News Article
The link above is a news story that popped up after my google search of why I procrastinate.
It turns out I am just not a perfectionist and I don't have a lot of faith in completing tasks I need to complete. This is true [for me]...I will be honest that this internet blogging thing is so new to me and I always feel like I'm doing them wrong. So I put them off until Thursday when they are due...and I rush to get them done in a short amount of time.
Some facts that the news took out of the article state that perfectionists don't procrastinate, they just worry more about their final product. Are there any perfectionists out there? If so, is this true? Also, how do you do it?
Some questions:
To fellow procrastinators, do you think this article is true for you or is it bologna?
Do you think that procrastinators can not procrastinate if they work at it, or will they always delay getting work done?
I read some of the comments below the article and it seems that most people don't doubt their confidence level and self efficacy as being the problem. They just do so much better when under stress.
Here is a link to the actual sited article in the news story:
The Nature of Procrastination - Steel
I was rather intrigued by the research presented in this article. The main finding is alluded to in the title of the article - recent research suggests that those less motivated to achieve will excel on tasks seen as fun and those more motivated to achieve will not perform as well on tasks that are intended to be for fun. Obviously, this suggests that different students may need different types of motivation to excel. The students that are competitive and serious tend to be significantly less motivated when they think the task is just being performed for fun. Many other students do not take academics so seriously and work better when the task is fun.
Although these two groups are not all-inclusive (plenty of people lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes), I believe these differences do exist in the real world. As some individuals strive for excellence, they can become rather obsessed with perfection and get in the habit of avoiding anything fun-related to maximize their reputation of achievement. Given the incredible amount of time that many of these perfectionists put into their work, it is very hard for others to remain competitive without also putting a tremendous amount of effort into their academics. Because of this, I think many people stick to a more balanced (and perhaps more natural) life, in which they strive for excellence rather than perfection and are okay with not being labeled "the best."
Although I think many people are able to eventually find a balance between work and fun, there will always be those who are unable to achieve such a balance. I have not read much of the literature pertaining to this subject, but I wonder what the common causes of "overacheiving" are. It seems likely to me that some of these overly competitive individuals may be trying to compensate for low feelings of self-worth and others may be motivated by a need to feel superior. Whatever the reasons may be, I think most people realize is better for one's physical and mental health to not be overly competitive, but as people get older I think it becomes increasingly difficult for such people to change because the tendency to be that way has become a fundamental component of their personality. I think this research supports the idea that we can get too carried away and we can be overly motivated. Moderation is key in a great many areas of life.
Another questions that arises here is, "Does this research support the idea that people motivated by different approaches should be taught in separate groups (each given the learning style that works best for them)?" If we put more and more highly competitive people together into a single class though, would we also be creating the potential for even higher, even more unhealthy work ethics to arise? I suppose the questions I am posing here rest on the assumption that it can be unhealthy to be overly competitive, but I think this assumption is justified considering that those highly motivated become less able to do tasks that are supposed to be fun.
Recent Comments