Monday, August 6, 2012
Medical Hypnosis and Physiology
Source: Tracework by Yapko, 2005.
Traditional medicine has long recognized the "placebo effect". In some instances, a patient's positive belief that he or she is getting an active drug when she is really getting no drug at all, only a sugar pill resembling a drug, will generate the same level of therapeutic effect as if the patient has been given an active drug. Conversely, a negative expectation can foster a "nocebo" effect, a negative therapeutic effect. A person's expectation and attitudes can obviously have profound effects on mental and physical experience. With this growing recognition of the influence of client's expectancy on both physical and psychological treatments, there is a growing use of hypnosis and hypnosis-related techniques. Psychologist Irving Kirsch, Ph.D., has evolved a specific socio-cognitive model of hypnosis, known as the response set theory, which heavily emphasizes the role of expectancy in treatment (1985, 2000). In fact, Kirsch detailed considerable evidence that much of the positive effects of hypnosis is due to positive expectations on the part of the client, and Kirsch has even come to refer to hypnosis as a "non-deceptive placebo", unlike the sugar pill clients are fooled into believing are active drugs (1994). There is a considerable body of empirical evidence attesting to the power of expectations in both psychological and medical conditions ( Harrington, 1997).
Given a foundation for appreciating how expectancy can influence physiology and behavioral responses, is hypnosis only a placebo? Certainly there is some truth in that perspective, if that's all hypnosis was, it would still be worthy of intensive study. After all, the need to engage clients in their treatment is vital to enhancing treatment effects and minimizing a sense of victimization and even depression when such reactions delay or even prevent recovery (Lynch, 1999; Yapko, 2001).
In general, hypnosis can be useful adjunct to more traditional medical treatments for several reasons, the first of which relates to the mind and body relationship and the role of the mind (attitudes and related emotions) in medical disorders. "Miracle cures" that defy current medical understanding, which have evolved out of the patient's refusal to give up, are not uncommon in literature. Pragmatically speaking, why not encourage ---or at least permit "miracles"? Why place limitations on the patient that he or she would not place on him or herself?
A second reason for making use of hypnosis in the medical context is because of its emphasis, by its very nature, on the responsibility of each person for his own health and well-being. Use of hypnosis gives people a direct experience of having control over internal experiences, whether pain or distress. Finding resources of comfort or the ability to shift perceptions of their body within themselves is a dramatic experience, and allows a new and higher level of responsibility for patient's own well being.
Specific applications of hypnosis in medical contexts are greatly varied, but can generally be described as a way of attaining a significant degree of control over physical process. One possibility is the reduction or elimination of pain without the use of medication (Chaves, 1993; Montgomery, DuHamel, & Redd, 2000). Pain management is one of the more sophisticated uses of medical hypnosis, and is applicable to the patient in both chronic and acute pain.
Hypnosis is commonly used in the treatment of anxiety and stress disorders, and is considered to be the most effective treatment ( Schoenberger, 2000). Teaching the medical patient techniques for preventing negative stress whenever possible, techniques for identifying stress well before it reaches a level where it is likely to cause debilitating symptoms, and techniques for relaxing and managing stress positively are all elements in teaching a hypertensive patient to manage his or her condition positively and responsibly.
Hypnosis in the treatment of serious diseases, as an adjunct, not a replacement, for more traditional approaches, has demonstrated the necessity of addressing the emotional needs while using the mental resources of the patient as a part of the treatment....Hypnosis doesn't replace other treatments, it adds to them.
.
Monday, January 16, 2012
My Take on Personality Development
Part of human personality is predisposed. Hereditary is an important component in personality development. This is especially true for children. Physiology structure and functioning are inherited from our parents. It plays a large role in response tendencies and dispositions. Some children are naturally shy, cautious, fearless, outgoing, musically inclined, intellectually predisposed, etc. It can then be said that there is a part of human personality that is predetermined. Yet,human nature cannot be solely held responsible for personality development. How we nurture our children and ourselves is just as significant in its contribution. Children as well as adults need human connection. We need to feel loved. We need human interaction. As such, personality development is dynamic. As we learn which behaviors are most effective in obtaining our needs, we unconsciously fine tune ourselves in order to control results. When we make cognitive connections between how people react to our words and actions biological changes occur in our brain and neural synapses. Like a rubber band that has the ability to expand and contract, everyday encounters facilitate or hinder biological change within us which directly affects personality and its development.
Since I believe that genetic make up sets up the stage for personality development, I cannot completely claim the blank slate concept. What I can say is that some individuals have a leg up on developing healthy psychological functioning more than others. Individuals who are not so genetically lucky need a more caring and facilitating environment to make up for their so called genetic deficiencies. However, I do think that the blank slate illustration is effective in portraying the role of the environment in the personality development process. If two children, one genetically disadvantaged and the other of better genetics, were placed into an equality nurturing environment one can almost conclude that the child with better genetics will come out with the healthiest psychological functioning. Yet, if the genetically advantaged child was placed in a nurture deficient environment and the other child who is genetically disadvantaged into a room full of caring and nurturing adults, ultimately it is the genetically disadvantaged child who will psychologically strive.
The role of hereditary make up is an important contributor to personality. It is the starting point of every individual. But, it is the environment that will ultimately determine how far or limited that personality can develop. An individual may initially be limited by heredity but if one exposed one's child or oneself to enriching human interactions and situations, then biological changes will occur. This will further enable more positive psychological functioning.
I do not believe that perfect healthy psychological functioning exists or can be attained. I believe that every individual experiences doubt and psychological disturbance frequently in their lifetime. Sometimes, this psychological disturbance is so severe or debilitating that it is necessary to reach out for help. This is where we, therapists, come into play. This belief ties in to my prior statement that points out the dynamic and ever changing nature of personality development. As such it goes through cycles of lows and highs. The question of how low or high is a matter of how well one has learned coping and adjusting mechanisms.
Humans are social animals. Learning how to maneuver oneself socially is the key to maximizing psychological health . Being confident in a variety of social interactions yields social approval. In a society were social approval is necessary for prosperity and maybe even survival, one feels most healthy when one is socially received and comfortable.
Human nature is a result of both physiological makeup and environmental factors. Although genetic predisposition can be considered the starting point in personality development, introduced environmental factors will further mold personality via the process of learning. Environment influence and physiological changes will consequently and continually occur and influence each other. Thus, human personality is dynamic and ever changing. It adjusts according to the events of one's life.
Maximum and minimum levels of psychological functioning is also dynamic. Thus, the lows and highs experienced are normal and to be expected. I believe the best indicator of psychological health is in how well a person is able to cope and adjust to life changes.
.
Since I believe that genetic make up sets up the stage for personality development, I cannot completely claim the blank slate concept. What I can say is that some individuals have a leg up on developing healthy psychological functioning more than others. Individuals who are not so genetically lucky need a more caring and facilitating environment to make up for their so called genetic deficiencies. However, I do think that the blank slate illustration is effective in portraying the role of the environment in the personality development process. If two children, one genetically disadvantaged and the other of better genetics, were placed into an equality nurturing environment one can almost conclude that the child with better genetics will come out with the healthiest psychological functioning. Yet, if the genetically advantaged child was placed in a nurture deficient environment and the other child who is genetically disadvantaged into a room full of caring and nurturing adults, ultimately it is the genetically disadvantaged child who will psychologically strive.
The role of hereditary make up is an important contributor to personality. It is the starting point of every individual. But, it is the environment that will ultimately determine how far or limited that personality can develop. An individual may initially be limited by heredity but if one exposed one's child or oneself to enriching human interactions and situations, then biological changes will occur. This will further enable more positive psychological functioning.
I do not believe that perfect healthy psychological functioning exists or can be attained. I believe that every individual experiences doubt and psychological disturbance frequently in their lifetime. Sometimes, this psychological disturbance is so severe or debilitating that it is necessary to reach out for help. This is where we, therapists, come into play. This belief ties in to my prior statement that points out the dynamic and ever changing nature of personality development. As such it goes through cycles of lows and highs. The question of how low or high is a matter of how well one has learned coping and adjusting mechanisms.
Humans are social animals. Learning how to maneuver oneself socially is the key to maximizing psychological health . Being confident in a variety of social interactions yields social approval. In a society were social approval is necessary for prosperity and maybe even survival, one feels most healthy when one is socially received and comfortable.
Human nature is a result of both physiological makeup and environmental factors. Although genetic predisposition can be considered the starting point in personality development, introduced environmental factors will further mold personality via the process of learning. Environment influence and physiological changes will consequently and continually occur and influence each other. Thus, human personality is dynamic and ever changing. It adjusts according to the events of one's life.
Maximum and minimum levels of psychological functioning is also dynamic. Thus, the lows and highs experienced are normal and to be expected. I believe the best indicator of psychological health is in how well a person is able to cope and adjust to life changes.
.
Friday, June 10, 2011
NARCISSISM
The term “narcissism” has been seemingly embraced by the general public and incorporated into everyday language. Usually, its use refers to those who hold a sense entitled. But narcissism in medical terms is much more than this mere description.
Narcissistic individuals have a grandiose sense of self. They hold a sense of entitlement believing that they are superior to others. Constantly motivated to establish superiority, they tend to overestimate their accomplishments and competencies (Daig, Klapp, & Fliege, 2009).Morf & Rhodewalt's (2001) dynamic self-regulatory processing model describe it as “an ongoing personality process (rather than a static condition) organized around the chronic goal of creating, maintaining, and further enhancing grandiose self views” (as cited in Thomaes, Bushman, De Castro, & Stegge, 2009, p. 1234). Social interactions are used as opportunities to obtain admiration yet, the process often backfires because people are often turned off to this type of behavior and the narcissist ends up repeating the cycle in constant pursuit of external validation to self esteem. Narcissists come off as arrogant, selfish, and self absorb in need of constant admiration and external validation.
Theories of Development
Although diagnosing minors with narcissism is discouraged, many mental health professionals agree that narcissistic tendencies are established well before adulthood (Thomaes, et al., 2009). It is important to note that while adult narcissism is well documented and researched, lack of empirical evidence exist of this in childhood and adolescents ( Thomaes, et al., 2009). In the analysis of narcissistic tendencies and its onset, experts look into normal childhood development for insight.
According to Thomaes, et al. (2009) prior to eight years of age, children do not possess the necessary cognitive skills to “consciously and intentionally reflect upon themselves” indicating that self esteem and self worth is not developed at this point (p. 1236). It is then theorized that age eight is the point where manifestations of narcissistic tendencies onsets.There are basically four reasons for this premises. First, self-reflection and self-esteem emerges at this age. Second, from this age upwards, children and adolescents become self conscious of how they are viewed by others. Third, children at this stage are particularly sensitive to two emotions closely associated with self esteem: shame and humiliation.
Lastly, children and adolescents at this age tend to engage in “impression management” behaviors to influence others opinion of them ( Thomas, et al., 2009, p. 1236). Along with theories of the onset of narcissistic behaviors are theories of why narcissism emerges. Two theories have been cited as possible explanations: temperamental factors and socializing experiences. The innate factor of temperament is passed from parent to child through genetics and is seen to influence personality. Dispositions are physiologically based with brain networks influencing internal responses and thus external ones as well. The amygdala and hypothalamus, areas of the brain responsible for emotion, facilitates in these responses when regulating neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine (Thomas, et al., 2009). Basically, what is being indicated is that individuals have predisposition in innately behaving in certain ways depending on genetic influences predetermined before birth. It is then theorized that narcissistic individuals are likely those who have inherited a generally neuro-biological sensitivity to positive stimuli which is exacerbated by external environmental conditions.
Socializing experiences contributing to this maladaptive behavior are mainly attributed to parenting. One theories content that overvaluation and overindulgence are the culprits that lead to raising children with narcissistic predispositions. This parenting instills the grandiose self views and sense of entitlement associated with narcissism. Another theory lies on parental coldness, indifference, and lack of support and empathy combined with extremely high expectations encourages “inflated, narcissistic self-views to protect themselves against feelings of rejection and worthlessness” ( Thomaes, et al., 2009, p. 1240).
Working with Narcissism
It was previously thought of that low self esteem is a significant risk factor for
aggression. In fact, recent incidents of school shootings have had the U.S Department of Education include low self esteem as one of the warning signs of destructive behavior(Thomaes, Bushman, Stegge, & Olthof, 2008). A recent study by Thomaes, et al. (2008) found the opposite as true. In a study conducted on adolescents on aggression and narcissistic behavior, it was found that children that tested high in high self views were more prone to aggressive behavior. Furthermore, threats to pride, reputation, and self-esteem, especially when involving public exposure is a good predictor of this aggression and is well supported and documented in empirical research in narcissistic adults. Shame induced aggression serves as protective function in preventing further damage to sense of self (Thomaes, et al2008).Consequently, working with a client with narcissistic tendencies can be intimidating and unnerving. An article written by Pat McDonald (2011) illustrates this point. She cites a casestudy involving a narcissistic patient named Robin who was difficult to the point of hostile in his interactions with clinic staff. He shouted at the nurses and went into a “a narcissistic rage” when he did not get what he demanded. McDonald points out how important it is understanding the motivation behind these chaotic and seemingly unpredictable behavior.Mainly, she stresses that insecurity and fear is behind the difficult behavior and that compassion and understanding goes a long way in helping a narcissistic patient. This is especially true when the patient has a physical illness. McDonald also stresses setting boundaries. Be friendly and concerned yet professional at the same time.
Conclusion
Narcissistic behaviors have seem to be prevalent in today's society as senses of
entitlement is being looked upon more favorably as ever before. In spite of this change in American mentality, mental health professionals are well aware how damaging this can be to individuals and those around him. Narcissistic dispositions has been theorized to manifest during the ages of eight years of age and onward. It is further theorized that the root of narcissistic tendencies lie in temperament and parenting style during childhood development. As mental health professionals it is important to know what characterizes this maladaptive mechanism. Individuals with narcissism tend to be aggressive when pride, self-esteem, and reputation is threatened. Understanding the underlying causes and feelings of the manifested
behavior helps us feel the compassion and understanding needed to in turn help them.
References
Daig, I., Klapp, B. F., & Fliege, H. (2009). Narcissism predicts therapy outcome in
psychosomatic patients. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31(4),
368-377. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/622254918 ?
accountid=34899
MacDonald, P. (2011). Narcissistic personality disorder: The journal for nurses in general
practice. Practice Nurse, 41(1), 16. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/855003066 accountid=34899 ?
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., d Castro, Bram Orobio, & Stegge, H. (2009). What makes
narcissists bloom? A framework for research on the etiology and development of
narcissism. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1233-1247. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/742989934?accountid=34899
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping Shame by Blasts of
Noise: Narcissism, Self-Esteem, Shame, and Aggression in Young Adolescents. Child
Development, 79(6), 1792-1801. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01226.x
Narcissistic individuals have a grandiose sense of self. They hold a sense of entitlement believing that they are superior to others. Constantly motivated to establish superiority, they tend to overestimate their accomplishments and competencies (Daig, Klapp, & Fliege, 2009).Morf & Rhodewalt's (2001) dynamic self-regulatory processing model describe it as “an ongoing personality process (rather than a static condition) organized around the chronic goal of creating, maintaining, and further enhancing grandiose self views” (as cited in Thomaes, Bushman, De Castro, & Stegge, 2009, p. 1234). Social interactions are used as opportunities to obtain admiration yet, the process often backfires because people are often turned off to this type of behavior and the narcissist ends up repeating the cycle in constant pursuit of external validation to self esteem. Narcissists come off as arrogant, selfish, and self absorb in need of constant admiration and external validation.
Theories of Development
Although diagnosing minors with narcissism is discouraged, many mental health professionals agree that narcissistic tendencies are established well before adulthood (Thomaes, et al., 2009). It is important to note that while adult narcissism is well documented and researched, lack of empirical evidence exist of this in childhood and adolescents ( Thomaes, et al., 2009). In the analysis of narcissistic tendencies and its onset, experts look into normal childhood development for insight.
According to Thomaes, et al. (2009) prior to eight years of age, children do not possess the necessary cognitive skills to “consciously and intentionally reflect upon themselves” indicating that self esteem and self worth is not developed at this point (p. 1236). It is then theorized that age eight is the point where manifestations of narcissistic tendencies onsets.There are basically four reasons for this premises. First, self-reflection and self-esteem emerges at this age. Second, from this age upwards, children and adolescents become self conscious of how they are viewed by others. Third, children at this stage are particularly sensitive to two emotions closely associated with self esteem: shame and humiliation.
Lastly, children and adolescents at this age tend to engage in “impression management” behaviors to influence others opinion of them ( Thomas, et al., 2009, p. 1236). Along with theories of the onset of narcissistic behaviors are theories of why narcissism emerges. Two theories have been cited as possible explanations: temperamental factors and socializing experiences. The innate factor of temperament is passed from parent to child through genetics and is seen to influence personality. Dispositions are physiologically based with brain networks influencing internal responses and thus external ones as well. The amygdala and hypothalamus, areas of the brain responsible for emotion, facilitates in these responses when regulating neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine (Thomas, et al., 2009). Basically, what is being indicated is that individuals have predisposition in innately behaving in certain ways depending on genetic influences predetermined before birth. It is then theorized that narcissistic individuals are likely those who have inherited a generally neuro-biological sensitivity to positive stimuli which is exacerbated by external environmental conditions.
Socializing experiences contributing to this maladaptive behavior are mainly attributed to parenting. One theories content that overvaluation and overindulgence are the culprits that lead to raising children with narcissistic predispositions. This parenting instills the grandiose self views and sense of entitlement associated with narcissism. Another theory lies on parental coldness, indifference, and lack of support and empathy combined with extremely high expectations encourages “inflated, narcissistic self-views to protect themselves against feelings of rejection and worthlessness” ( Thomaes, et al., 2009, p. 1240).
Working with Narcissism
It was previously thought of that low self esteem is a significant risk factor for
aggression. In fact, recent incidents of school shootings have had the U.S Department of Education include low self esteem as one of the warning signs of destructive behavior(Thomaes, Bushman, Stegge, & Olthof, 2008). A recent study by Thomaes, et al. (2008) found the opposite as true. In a study conducted on adolescents on aggression and narcissistic behavior, it was found that children that tested high in high self views were more prone to aggressive behavior. Furthermore, threats to pride, reputation, and self-esteem, especially when involving public exposure is a good predictor of this aggression and is well supported and documented in empirical research in narcissistic adults. Shame induced aggression serves as protective function in preventing further damage to sense of self (Thomaes, et al2008).Consequently, working with a client with narcissistic tendencies can be intimidating and unnerving. An article written by Pat McDonald (2011) illustrates this point. She cites a casestudy involving a narcissistic patient named Robin who was difficult to the point of hostile in his interactions with clinic staff. He shouted at the nurses and went into a “a narcissistic rage” when he did not get what he demanded. McDonald points out how important it is understanding the motivation behind these chaotic and seemingly unpredictable behavior.Mainly, she stresses that insecurity and fear is behind the difficult behavior and that compassion and understanding goes a long way in helping a narcissistic patient. This is especially true when the patient has a physical illness. McDonald also stresses setting boundaries. Be friendly and concerned yet professional at the same time.
Conclusion
Narcissistic behaviors have seem to be prevalent in today's society as senses of
entitlement is being looked upon more favorably as ever before. In spite of this change in American mentality, mental health professionals are well aware how damaging this can be to individuals and those around him. Narcissistic dispositions has been theorized to manifest during the ages of eight years of age and onward. It is further theorized that the root of narcissistic tendencies lie in temperament and parenting style during childhood development. As mental health professionals it is important to know what characterizes this maladaptive mechanism. Individuals with narcissism tend to be aggressive when pride, self-esteem, and reputation is threatened. Understanding the underlying causes and feelings of the manifested
behavior helps us feel the compassion and understanding needed to in turn help them.
References
Daig, I., Klapp, B. F., & Fliege, H. (2009). Narcissism predicts therapy outcome in
psychosomatic patients. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31(4),
368-377. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/622254918 ?
accountid=34899
MacDonald, P. (2011). Narcissistic personality disorder: The journal for nurses in general
practice. Practice Nurse, 41(1), 16. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/855003066 accountid=34899 ?
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., d Castro, Bram Orobio, & Stegge, H. (2009). What makes
narcissists bloom? A framework for research on the etiology and development of
narcissism. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1233-1247. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/742989934?accountid=34899
Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping Shame by Blasts of
Noise: Narcissism, Self-Esteem, Shame, and Aggression in Young Adolescents. Child
Development, 79(6), 1792-1801. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01226.x
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Humor in Persuasion :)
Everyone is familiar with the sense of joy and empowerment the ability to make people smile or even laugh out loud has. Well, there is much more to humor than this. The power of humor extends farther when used for persuasive purposes. It can make goods, products, and services sell. It generates money. Studies has shown that humor when used correctly in conjunction with persuasion messages are able to change attitudes, if not behavior itself. Two articles entitled, " The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training" and " The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments" by Jim Lyttle (2001) and Cline & Kellaris (1999) respectively, discusses the relation of humor as it relays to persuasion. This article seeks to explore how humor can be a beneficial and powerful with the use of these these two articles mentioned above.
Effectiveness of Humor
In understanding the effectiveness of humor in persuasion, it would be necessary to review the elaboration likelihood model. This theory explains that messages are processed either through central or peripheral means depending on the receivers level of involvement. If one is thoroughly involved in a message and is knowledgeable in its topic, then messages are processed analytically and deeply through central processing. Argument considered compelling will sway the receiver. Peripheral route processing, on the other hand, occurs when there is a lack of self motivated interest or knowledge. Here, short cuts are taken in reaching conclusions. Factors such as source expertise, likeability, attractiveness and similarity play a role in these short cuts (Seiter & Gass, 2004). It is this author's opinion, as supported by an article by Jim Lyttle (2001), that humor is a convenient tool to use to equalize the playing field as it gets audiences to automatically rely on heuristic, peripheral processing.
It is only natural that humor in itself is effective in elevating an atmosphere or as they say putting people in a good mood. When one is placed in a good mood, then one is less likely to feel argumentative. It can then be said that one will be less likely to disagree. Adding to this heuristic processing is the fact that when one finds another funny, one can automatically conclude a shared sense of humor. This may also imply a shared sense of values (Lyttle, 2001). In education in particular, humor in text books are proven to relax students increasing the effectiveness in a message. Lyttle (2001) explains humor is known to be effective particularly in advertising and education (para 3).
The Risks of Humor
Incorporating humor in persuasion messages seem like a guarantee to persuasion success, yet according to Cline & Kellaris' (1999) findings in research, humor has the ability to backfire. They explain that humor in conjunction with the message's argument strength needs to be consider in order to be effective. Specifically, weak arguments always proves to work well with humor and are proven to be more effective when paired with it. Strong arguments, one the other hand, may work well with or without humor. As humor has the ability to disrupt central processing, attention is shifted from the message to the humor itself. This forces the receiver to use peripheral processing encouraging certain short cuts to be made and concluded. . As previously mentioned, heuristic processing of humor may lead receivers to believe that types shared sense of humor and even values exists increasing likability. Cline & Kellaris' (1999) also seem to indicate that humor is bi-functional. That is, as it forces peripheral route processing, it may also may encourage central processing depending on how related the humor is to the message. This basically happens when the humor reinforces the message forcing receivers to think and understand it in a deeper level.
Furthermore, when working with humor in persuasive messages, appropriateness also needs to be considered. For example, it would be considered inappropriate and even offensive if one used humor to advertise high risk goods such as medical insurance or funeral services. If one was promoting something of least importance such as gum or candy bars, low risk convenience goods, then humor would be appropriate and fully accepted. This is because medical insurance and funeral services are serious and can significantly impact quality of life; gum and candy bars do not.
Conclusions
Advertisers and marketers have long used humor as a tool in selling products and generating profits. It increases attention, likability, attractiveness. It also elevates the receiver's mood. All these have proven to encourage message processing via peripheral / heuristic means. Yet, it also theorized that central processing may also occur when humor becomes integral to the understanding the message.
Certain risks are also associated with using humor for persuasion purposes. These namely are: ( 1.) argument strength and (2.) level of risks. It has been determined that weak arguments always benefit from humor and generally not beneficial in strong arguments. The exception, of course, occurs when the humor makes receivers think and digest the message better. Other factors also needs to be considered when using humor in persuasive messages. That is the level of appropriateness and risk. Low risks products and goods such as gum and candy become more effective with humor and high risk products and goods fair better without.
References
Seiter, J.E. & Gass, R.H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and
compliance gaining. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics
training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128 (2), 206-217. Retrieved November 20,
2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 77223102).
Cline, T.W., & Kellaris, J.J. (1999). The joining impact of humor and argument strength in a
print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16 (1),
69-87, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID:
37875581).
Effectiveness of Humor
In understanding the effectiveness of humor in persuasion, it would be necessary to review the elaboration likelihood model. This theory explains that messages are processed either through central or peripheral means depending on the receivers level of involvement. If one is thoroughly involved in a message and is knowledgeable in its topic, then messages are processed analytically and deeply through central processing. Argument considered compelling will sway the receiver. Peripheral route processing, on the other hand, occurs when there is a lack of self motivated interest or knowledge. Here, short cuts are taken in reaching conclusions. Factors such as source expertise, likeability, attractiveness and similarity play a role in these short cuts (Seiter & Gass, 2004). It is this author's opinion, as supported by an article by Jim Lyttle (2001), that humor is a convenient tool to use to equalize the playing field as it gets audiences to automatically rely on heuristic, peripheral processing.
It is only natural that humor in itself is effective in elevating an atmosphere or as they say putting people in a good mood. When one is placed in a good mood, then one is less likely to feel argumentative. It can then be said that one will be less likely to disagree. Adding to this heuristic processing is the fact that when one finds another funny, one can automatically conclude a shared sense of humor. This may also imply a shared sense of values (Lyttle, 2001). In education in particular, humor in text books are proven to relax students increasing the effectiveness in a message. Lyttle (2001) explains humor is known to be effective particularly in advertising and education (para 3).
The Risks of Humor
Incorporating humor in persuasion messages seem like a guarantee to persuasion success, yet according to Cline & Kellaris' (1999) findings in research, humor has the ability to backfire. They explain that humor in conjunction with the message's argument strength needs to be consider in order to be effective. Specifically, weak arguments always proves to work well with humor and are proven to be more effective when paired with it. Strong arguments, one the other hand, may work well with or without humor. As humor has the ability to disrupt central processing, attention is shifted from the message to the humor itself. This forces the receiver to use peripheral processing encouraging certain short cuts to be made and concluded. . As previously mentioned, heuristic processing of humor may lead receivers to believe that types shared sense of humor and even values exists increasing likability. Cline & Kellaris' (1999) also seem to indicate that humor is bi-functional. That is, as it forces peripheral route processing, it may also may encourage central processing depending on how related the humor is to the message. This basically happens when the humor reinforces the message forcing receivers to think and understand it in a deeper level.
Furthermore, when working with humor in persuasive messages, appropriateness also needs to be considered. For example, it would be considered inappropriate and even offensive if one used humor to advertise high risk goods such as medical insurance or funeral services. If one was promoting something of least importance such as gum or candy bars, low risk convenience goods, then humor would be appropriate and fully accepted. This is because medical insurance and funeral services are serious and can significantly impact quality of life; gum and candy bars do not.
Conclusions
Advertisers and marketers have long used humor as a tool in selling products and generating profits. It increases attention, likability, attractiveness. It also elevates the receiver's mood. All these have proven to encourage message processing via peripheral / heuristic means. Yet, it also theorized that central processing may also occur when humor becomes integral to the understanding the message.
Certain risks are also associated with using humor for persuasion purposes. These namely are: ( 1.) argument strength and (2.) level of risks. It has been determined that weak arguments always benefit from humor and generally not beneficial in strong arguments. The exception, of course, occurs when the humor makes receivers think and digest the message better. Other factors also needs to be considered when using humor in persuasive messages. That is the level of appropriateness and risk. Low risks products and goods such as gum and candy become more effective with humor and high risk products and goods fair better without.
References
Seiter, J.E. & Gass, R.H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and
compliance gaining. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics
training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128 (2), 206-217. Retrieved November 20,
2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 77223102).
Cline, T.W., & Kellaris, J.J. (1999). The joining impact of humor and argument strength in a
print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16 (1),
69-87, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID:
37875581).
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Ethics of Persuasion
Is there room for ethics in persuasion? There are some who hesitate to make this connection mainly because its nature is hard to define. To some, persuasion is closely association to propaganda and thus something to be distanced from (Messina, 2007). Others still insist that ethics in persuasion is indistinct in communication and in fact, an important function in persuasion (Messina, 2007). This author contents that ethics is not only essential in persuasion but possible as well.
Live is full of ethical choices. Ethical decisions are manifested through behavior. That is, behaviors not only in action but also in speech. Many times, each individuals' ethics are manifested automatically and unconsciously. It has become a habit of certain responses. Same can be said for persuasion. Like ethics, persuasion occurs naturally and without thought. Yet, the merging of the two seem to be somewhat of a controversy. The question is, do we as communicators have a responsibility to persuade ethically? And if so, why and how?
Ethics is important to all behavior, most especially to that pertaining to persuasion. This is because persuasion can be a powerful force that shifts attitudes, beliefs, values, and behavior ( Seiter & Gass, 2004, p. 14). And as such has a great impact to any community. If one were to sucessfully persuade youths towards violence, for instance, this would make any community an unsafe place. It has the potential to affect and influence many lives. Persuasion is no doubt powerful when effective and thus the persuer holds a huge responsibility to act ethically.
There are many ethical theories on human behavior but only few are said that can be related to the ethics of persuasion. In Messina's article, “ Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: An ethical approach”, she mentions how the Kantian philosophy has been used to a guide to ethical persuasion. Yet, this viewpoint has been deemed lacking as a model to go by on. According to the Kant, humans worth comes from their ability to apply reason and as such reason should be the factor to human's decision making process. Ethical persuasion then should allow individuals the ability to think for themselves based on solid facts to allow voluntary informed rational judgements to the contents of a message. Distorted, false, and fabricated information, on the other hand, rob people of making informed and rational judgements which makes the persuasion unethical. Furthermore, Kant contends that people should be not be treated as merely a means to an ends but as ends in themselves (Messina, 2007). That is, they should not be coersed into a certain line of thinking merely to achieve the results one was looking for.
Yet, for all its seemingly sound application as it pertained to persuasion,the Kantian philosophy is inadequate. This was mainly because the Kantian philosophy is categorial in nature. For instance, it believes that lying is always wrong
regardless of circumstances. As Messina (2007) illustrates, it would be hard to justify this line of thinking if one was lying to protect the lives of others such of that of Jews in the time of the holocaust. She then contends that an absolute approach to the ethics of persuasion needs to reconsidered and offers the rule utilitarian perspective to be considered.
The rule utilitarian mainly uses reason as well as a guide in its decision process. But unlike the Kantian perspective, rule utilitarians, are not absolutionists. What it preaches is in the greater good for the greatest people. Its decision making process does not lie in what is necessarily considered right or wrong but what would bring the greatest happiness. In this, they weigh the “sum” of happiness versus that unhappiness ( Waller, 2005, p.49). However, even this perspective falls short in its uses in ethical persuasion. For one, how will happiness be measured? This poses difficulties in it ethical calculations. In the end, Messina (2007) resigns herself to concluding that the best approach to ethical persuasion is a combination of the two. Reason should be used in the search of ethics in persuasion yet greater good must also be weighed right in. Furthermore, it should be noted that exceptions has to be willed to be applicable universally.
Ethics have a significant impact on persuasion. A non-ethical persuader may withhold
information pertinent to making informed decisions. An ethical persuader, on the other hand, gives his audience a fair shot of analyzing and processing the message to his own satisfaction. As persuasion has the ability to change attitutes, values, beliefs, and behavior, it has lasting and dire effects on any community good or bad. For instance, to successfully persuade teenagers into violence would mean an unsafe community. To persuade people into obtaining pre-screening test for certain diseases through education and correct information means a healthy population. Ethics in persuasion is important because its results are tangible and may even be long term.
Conclusion
The question we came to explore was if there is room for ethics in persuasion. This author firmly believes that there is. Furthermore, it is believed that certain perspectives and standards can be established to act as guidelines in contemplating a message's ethicality. As demonstrated, two prospective viewpoints in combination have the capabilities to serve as such, the Kantian's theory of reasoning and the rule utilitarian's concept of the consideration of the greatest good serving the greater people. Ethics is not only essential to persuasion but that it had direct and possibly lastling effects.
References
Messina, A. (2007). Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: an ethical
approach. Journal of Communication Management,11(1), 29. Retrieved November
15, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1210421591).
Seiter, J.E. & Gass, R.H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and
compliance gaining. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc.
Waller, B.N. (2005). Consider ethics: theory, readings, and comtemporary issues.
New York: Pearson
Live is full of ethical choices. Ethical decisions are manifested through behavior. That is, behaviors not only in action but also in speech. Many times, each individuals' ethics are manifested automatically and unconsciously. It has become a habit of certain responses. Same can be said for persuasion. Like ethics, persuasion occurs naturally and without thought. Yet, the merging of the two seem to be somewhat of a controversy. The question is, do we as communicators have a responsibility to persuade ethically? And if so, why and how?
Ethics is important to all behavior, most especially to that pertaining to persuasion. This is because persuasion can be a powerful force that shifts attitudes, beliefs, values, and behavior ( Seiter & Gass, 2004, p. 14). And as such has a great impact to any community. If one were to sucessfully persuade youths towards violence, for instance, this would make any community an unsafe place. It has the potential to affect and influence many lives. Persuasion is no doubt powerful when effective and thus the persuer holds a huge responsibility to act ethically.
There are many ethical theories on human behavior but only few are said that can be related to the ethics of persuasion. In Messina's article, “ Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: An ethical approach”, she mentions how the Kantian philosophy has been used to a guide to ethical persuasion. Yet, this viewpoint has been deemed lacking as a model to go by on. According to the Kant, humans worth comes from their ability to apply reason and as such reason should be the factor to human's decision making process. Ethical persuasion then should allow individuals the ability to think for themselves based on solid facts to allow voluntary informed rational judgements to the contents of a message. Distorted, false, and fabricated information, on the other hand, rob people of making informed and rational judgements which makes the persuasion unethical. Furthermore, Kant contends that people should be not be treated as merely a means to an ends but as ends in themselves (Messina, 2007). That is, they should not be coersed into a certain line of thinking merely to achieve the results one was looking for.
Yet, for all its seemingly sound application as it pertained to persuasion,the Kantian philosophy is inadequate. This was mainly because the Kantian philosophy is categorial in nature. For instance, it believes that lying is always wrong
regardless of circumstances. As Messina (2007) illustrates, it would be hard to justify this line of thinking if one was lying to protect the lives of others such of that of Jews in the time of the holocaust. She then contends that an absolute approach to the ethics of persuasion needs to reconsidered and offers the rule utilitarian perspective to be considered.
The rule utilitarian mainly uses reason as well as a guide in its decision process. But unlike the Kantian perspective, rule utilitarians, are not absolutionists. What it preaches is in the greater good for the greatest people. Its decision making process does not lie in what is necessarily considered right or wrong but what would bring the greatest happiness. In this, they weigh the “sum” of happiness versus that unhappiness ( Waller, 2005, p.49). However, even this perspective falls short in its uses in ethical persuasion. For one, how will happiness be measured? This poses difficulties in it ethical calculations. In the end, Messina (2007) resigns herself to concluding that the best approach to ethical persuasion is a combination of the two. Reason should be used in the search of ethics in persuasion yet greater good must also be weighed right in. Furthermore, it should be noted that exceptions has to be willed to be applicable universally.
Ethics have a significant impact on persuasion. A non-ethical persuader may withhold
information pertinent to making informed decisions. An ethical persuader, on the other hand, gives his audience a fair shot of analyzing and processing the message to his own satisfaction. As persuasion has the ability to change attitutes, values, beliefs, and behavior, it has lasting and dire effects on any community good or bad. For instance, to successfully persuade teenagers into violence would mean an unsafe community. To persuade people into obtaining pre-screening test for certain diseases through education and correct information means a healthy population. Ethics in persuasion is important because its results are tangible and may even be long term.
Conclusion
The question we came to explore was if there is room for ethics in persuasion. This author firmly believes that there is. Furthermore, it is believed that certain perspectives and standards can be established to act as guidelines in contemplating a message's ethicality. As demonstrated, two prospective viewpoints in combination have the capabilities to serve as such, the Kantian's theory of reasoning and the rule utilitarian's concept of the consideration of the greatest good serving the greater people. Ethics is not only essential to persuasion but that it had direct and possibly lastling effects.
References
Messina, A. (2007). Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: an ethical
approach. Journal of Communication Management,11(1), 29. Retrieved November
15, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1210421591).
Seiter, J.E. & Gass, R.H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and
compliance gaining. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc.
Waller, B.N. (2005). Consider ethics: theory, readings, and comtemporary issues.
New York: Pearson
Friday, December 10, 2010
Doctrine of Double Effect
Monday, December 6, 2010 ---The Edwards' Family made an announcement that I found personally disturbing. The wife of the former presidential candidate has decided to cease treatment for her cancer. Instead, she has opted to rest at home with friends and family. Also mentioned, she was comfortable and experiencing no pain. At that, the doctrine of double effect immediately came to mind.
The doctrine of double effect is used to justify the case where a doctor administers drugs to relieve extreme pain fully aware that this may hasten the patients' death.
Having done some research on euthanasia, the doctrine of double effect has become particularly fascinating to me. This principle closely resembles euthanasia also otherwise known as "mercy killing" with only one single detail differentiating the two: Intent.
Intent abolishes any doctor of any wrong doing which can be considered euthanasia---- or worst, murder. Apparently, one single word can determine the difference between being kind or being "Kevorkian", of being morally wrong or of being a Samaritan.
Elizabeth Edwards, estranged wife of John Edwards and mother of four, had succumbed to breast cancer the next day---Tuesday December 7, 2010.
.
The doctrine of double effect is used to justify the case where a doctor administers drugs to relieve extreme pain fully aware that this may hasten the patients' death.
Having done some research on euthanasia, the doctrine of double effect has become particularly fascinating to me. This principle closely resembles euthanasia also otherwise known as "mercy killing" with only one single detail differentiating the two: Intent.
Intent abolishes any doctor of any wrong doing which can be considered euthanasia---- or worst, murder. Apparently, one single word can determine the difference between being kind or being "Kevorkian", of being morally wrong or of being a Samaritan.
Elizabeth Edwards, estranged wife of John Edwards and mother of four, had succumbed to breast cancer the next day---Tuesday December 7, 2010.
.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Animal Research
PETA is one well known animal rights organization committed to protect animals. Indeed, they are so popular they have become a household name. Many celebrities have become supporters of their campaign. Even to the point of posing naked in photographs to demonstrate their repulsion to animal exploitation. Yet, animals have always been used to benefit human kind. In fact, it is one of the very reasons we have survived as a species. We consume meat for food, put on fur for warmth, and use animal strength for labor. We even extract their hormones to treat many human diseases. Is the use of animals for research and experimental purposes any different?
Animal rights organizations maintain that the use of animal in research is unnecessary, primitive, and outdated. For instance, PETA (2010) claims that products get pumped into animal’s stomachs, rubbed into their skin, and squirted into their eyes for apparently no good reason. Instead, they cite computer models and cell structures as better alternatives (para. 3). Although our survival is no longer dependent on animals for food, warmth, or labor, the use of animals in research and experimentations is something that we cannot live without. We are a species plagued with many mental, behavioral, and medical problems. It is a fact that animal research has aided in the discoveries of many treatments including: Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, manic-depressive illness, obesity, drug addictions, depression, and many more disorders (Carlson, 2005, p. 19). The fact remains that these discoveries can only be made through biological research. Complex behavior and internal processes for one cannot be studied using computer models and cell structures as they cannot reflect the on goings within the context of a whole organism (Canadian Council on Animal care, 2010). They are simply no substitute. Without the use of animal research, we are unable to make progress in understanding and treating human diseases.
Supporters of animal rights argue that the use of animal research is inhuman and cruel. This is basically a misconception. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is a governing body that reviews all research involving animals. Its job is to make sure that the use of animals is justified by the benefits of the study. It also makes sure that any pain and suffering that might occur are minimized (American Psychological Associated, 2010, para. 1). The IACUC inspects project and facility that uses animals, reevaluates the overall animal care and use program, and helps develop and deliver training and educational programs to the research community and the public on animal care and use (Carlson, 2005, p. 18). In addition to this, researchers are required to consider the implementation of the so called, “Three R’s” of research design. The Three Rs stand for Replacement (using non-animal technique such as computer modeling and cell cultures when possible), Reduction (reducing amount of animals) and Refinement (minimizing animal suffering and treating them humanely) (Canadian Council on Animal care, 2010).
Animal activists claim that animal research is unreliable and even dangerous. They further argue that there is a physiological difference between humans and other animals that prevents the results from being relevant to humans. However, one is only to look at the many medical discoveries that have come through animal testing to see that this is not the case. The discovery of insulin, vaccines and antibiotics, open heart surgery techniques, organ transplants, in-vitro fertilization, HIV drugs, hormone replacement therapy, organ rejection, and many other came about because of animal research (Singh, 2009). It is true that there is a difference between the physiology of animals and that of humans but if you really think about it, it is also true about one human individual to another. The fact is, the physiology of humans and animals are similar enough to yield the significant discoveries and knowledge we are all benefiting from today.
There is always going to be those who oppose animal research. Yet, history has proven its effectiveness and usefulness. All individuals have, in one form or another, benefited from its findings. The reality is animal research is important and indispensible
References
Canadian Council on Animal Care. (2010). Satisfying the replacement principle. Retrieved
May 7, 2010 from http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/ETCC/Module03/04.html
Carlson, N. R. (2005). Foundations of physiological psychology (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson
education, inc.
Herzog, H. (2010). American Psychological Association: Discussing ethnical issues in
psychological research. Retrieved May 7, 2010 from
http://www.apa.org/education/k12/ethical.aspx
PETA. (2010). PETA people for the ethical treatment of animals: Animal Testing.
Retrieved May 7, 2010 from http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp
Animal rights organizations maintain that the use of animal in research is unnecessary, primitive, and outdated. For instance, PETA (2010) claims that products get pumped into animal’s stomachs, rubbed into their skin, and squirted into their eyes for apparently no good reason. Instead, they cite computer models and cell structures as better alternatives (para. 3). Although our survival is no longer dependent on animals for food, warmth, or labor, the use of animals in research and experimentations is something that we cannot live without. We are a species plagued with many mental, behavioral, and medical problems. It is a fact that animal research has aided in the discoveries of many treatments including: Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, manic-depressive illness, obesity, drug addictions, depression, and many more disorders (Carlson, 2005, p. 19). The fact remains that these discoveries can only be made through biological research. Complex behavior and internal processes for one cannot be studied using computer models and cell structures as they cannot reflect the on goings within the context of a whole organism (Canadian Council on Animal care, 2010). They are simply no substitute. Without the use of animal research, we are unable to make progress in understanding and treating human diseases.
Supporters of animal rights argue that the use of animal research is inhuman and cruel. This is basically a misconception. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is a governing body that reviews all research involving animals. Its job is to make sure that the use of animals is justified by the benefits of the study. It also makes sure that any pain and suffering that might occur are minimized (American Psychological Associated, 2010, para. 1). The IACUC inspects project and facility that uses animals, reevaluates the overall animal care and use program, and helps develop and deliver training and educational programs to the research community and the public on animal care and use (Carlson, 2005, p. 18). In addition to this, researchers are required to consider the implementation of the so called, “Three R’s” of research design. The Three Rs stand for Replacement (using non-animal technique such as computer modeling and cell cultures when possible), Reduction (reducing amount of animals) and Refinement (minimizing animal suffering and treating them humanely) (Canadian Council on Animal care, 2010).
Animal activists claim that animal research is unreliable and even dangerous. They further argue that there is a physiological difference between humans and other animals that prevents the results from being relevant to humans. However, one is only to look at the many medical discoveries that have come through animal testing to see that this is not the case. The discovery of insulin, vaccines and antibiotics, open heart surgery techniques, organ transplants, in-vitro fertilization, HIV drugs, hormone replacement therapy, organ rejection, and many other came about because of animal research (Singh, 2009). It is true that there is a difference between the physiology of animals and that of humans but if you really think about it, it is also true about one human individual to another. The fact is, the physiology of humans and animals are similar enough to yield the significant discoveries and knowledge we are all benefiting from today.
There is always going to be those who oppose animal research. Yet, history has proven its effectiveness and usefulness. All individuals have, in one form or another, benefited from its findings. The reality is animal research is important and indispensible
References
Canadian Council on Animal Care. (2010). Satisfying the replacement principle. Retrieved
May 7, 2010 from http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/ETCC/Module03/04.html
Carlson, N. R. (2005). Foundations of physiological psychology (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson
education, inc.
Herzog, H. (2010). American Psychological Association: Discussing ethnical issues in
psychological research. Retrieved May 7, 2010 from
http://www.apa.org/education/k12/ethical.aspx
PETA. (2010). PETA people for the ethical treatment of animals: Animal Testing.
Retrieved May 7, 2010 from http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)