Watch the ads, Save the Earth, Does it work?

What do you think about global warming? Do you make any special effort to help curb this phenomena? With Earth Day just over and Earth hour happening a month ago, it seems that global warming is becoming a big issue. In CNN.com news website, it was reported that many countries took part in Earth hour by switching off their lights. When you go to the supermarkets nowadays, incentive in the form of discounts are given when you bring your own bags. Some places require you to purchase plastic bags to lessen the usage.

Different people might have different attitudes towards such movements. A person with a positive attitude towards such movements and when their subjective norm support this behavior will most probably engage in ways to help. Subjective norms are individuals’ feelings of social pressure to perform or not to perform an action. They are based on the person beliefs that others want or do not want them to perform the action. Therefore, when a person feels that the people around him or her would want them to have a part in curbing this phenomena, they become more likely to engage in behaviors like saving electricity and bringing their own bags.

However, not everyone has similar attitude. Some people see it as a marketing gimmick used by supermarkets, a trend, a big fuss, thinking that it’s all a hoax, or impossible to happen. So how can their attitude be changed?

Advertisements have been created to persuade people. Using the elaboration likelihood model, it can be seen that both advertisements via the central and peripheral route to persuasion have been created.

An example of an advertisement via the peripheral route is this

It doesn’t provide much information and seems to be using the peripheral route to persuasion as it invokes humor and may condition the person watching it to feel good about it. Besides, it doesn’t require much cognitive elements. However, for people who rely on information, this advertisement might not work for them.

An example of an advertisement via the central route to persuasion is this

It provides information about how one can help save energy. With all the information, people can rationalize if changing their attitude to save energy is beneficial or not.

Of course, having people to change attitude isn’t that easy as there are a lot of other factors present. So have the advertisements worked for you?

To whale or not to whale

I experienced some dissonance within myself while reading an article about whaling from Yahoo! news. Cognitive dissonance theory states that having thoughts in harmony of each other makes us feel good while clashing thoughts makes us feel bad. The discomfort produced by dissonant thoughts spur us to do something to change our state.

The article talked about a clash involving Japanese whalers and anti-whaling activists. The Japanese whalers thought that the actions of the activist were dangerous and to them, whaling was required to pursue their research. However, Australia is firm in their views that there is is no scientific justification for the whale hunt and is determined to end whaling.

I have two opposing views on whaling. A part of me believes that whaling isn’t right. To me, whales are creatures that are part of the wild and they represent freedom. Killing animals (in big quantities) that don’t replenish themselves as quickly and endangering them for our own selfish reasons like selling them expensive as delicacies just seemed cold and uncaring for the environment. I thought,” you can farm animals to eat. So why be greedy and pursue something that belongs to the wild?” I found reasons which they gave like conducting research unacceptable as they continued to sell the meat commercially. Besides, there are other non lethal methods that they can use for conducting research.

Although I believed rather strongly about how creatures belonging to the wild should be kept free and not caught in big numbers, another part of me understood that whaling is part of a culture. Whales provide a source of food, oil, and craft material for people. Unlike a fish or chicken, every part of a whale is useful. It’s comparable to a cow but a whale feeds much more people. In the article, it said that whale meat holds sentimental value for some Japanese who ate it after the world war II. Being such a huge animal, the large amount of meat could feed many people especially during times of poverty. The oil can be used for fuel or cooking, the bones as craft materials or useful tools, the skin as clothes and the internal organs for other uses.

Besides the Japanese, other cultures in other parts of the world depend on whales too. Being very interested in Inuit (a group of people who live in the artic region of Alaska) culture since young, I understood that whaling was also part of their culture. Living in a cold climate, whales provide them with food, clothes, tools, fuel, etc. However, they believed in harmony with nature and had rules about the number of whales they could catch and letting the whales replenish themselves. In this way, whaling didn’t seem wrong to me. It was part of a culture which didn’t aim to harm.

To me, whaling was both right and wrong. If I agreed with the activist, I would be conflicting my beliefs of preservation of culture. However, if I agreed with whaling, I would be at odds with my idea that animals of the wild should be free and not killed in large numbers.

If I did not know about the culture related to whaling, I would be against the idea of whaling completely. This idea of leaving the animal alone was more important to me. Therefore, after thinking and pondering, I rationalized that; killing whales in large numbers for commercial use is unacceptable unless hunting was done on a small number of whales using old methods of the past which allowed more chances for the whales to escape. This way, hunting can still be done but we do not endanger the lives of the whales too much.

However as I ponder further, the shortage of whale meat in the commercial market might lead to the increase in poachers and they might use more brutal methods of killing the whales. Sigh… I guess this will be an argument that might take a while to settle.

Handsome vs Ordinary

People compare with one another for several reasons. Sometimes they do it to make themselves feel better, sometimes it is to make us want to improve. This process, termed as social comparison, is done when we make comparisons of ourselves to others in order to judge ourselves. We want to know what we are truly strong or weak at and the actual validity of our opinions and attitudes. This means that we need to set ourselves side by side with others to find out if we are really as strong or weak as we think we are pertaining to certain issues. Upward social comparison involves comparing ourselves with someone who is better to provide ideas for how to improve. Downward social comparison involves comparing ourselves to others whom we think are worse in order to feel good.

Social comparison is also done by people in romantic relationships. LeBeau and Buckingham (2008) stated that upward and downward comparisons among people who frequently compare their relationships with others cannot be avoided. They found that people who frequently compared received information that their relationship is both better and worse than others and this mixed information might lead to insecurity in their relationship.

In the Life! section of The Straits Times on the 7th of April 2008, a journalist, Suzanne Sng, discussed about dating attractive men. She called it the “Clooney conundrum”, named after actor George Clooney who in her opinion, is very attractive man. The confusion was described by her by her asking, “who doesn’t want to go out with the sexiest man alive” but also mentioned that there was a downside to it. She mostly did a comparison between dating physically attractive men and less physicaly attractive men and expressed that dating ordinary men were better than those of movie-star calibre and having low expectations meant not being disappointed. She wasn’t dating anyone but she did both upward and downward comparison based on her girl friends. Basically, the entire article was about dating physically attractive men versus ordinary men and the compatibility between partners.

Downward comparison wise, the only good thing about dating a physically attractive man to her is, well, he is basically more attractive than other men.

Interestingly, there was more upward comparison when comparing dating a physically attractive man to a ordinary man. She quoted one of her friend making a comparison between good-looking men and non good-looking men and said that there are a lot of unfunny good-looking men as compared to non good-looking men. To her, pairing up with someone like Brad Pitt must be very stressful as there is bound to be insecurities. According to LeBeau and Buckingham (2008), relationship social comparison tendencies were associated with low self-esteem,anxious attachment style,and relationship insecurity,which all tap some aspect of insecurity. Self-esteem can also be affected by social comparison (Alicke, 2000 as cited in Breckler, Olse, & Wiggins, 2006). If she didn’t compare herself with other women and a physically attractive man to a ordinary man, would such insecurities be present?

Furthermore, she said that a girlfriend of a movie star might be wondering when he is going to move on to someone else showing that besides comparing the men, there would be comparisons to other female

The most interesting thing she said was one of her friend, too smitten with her good-looking partner, crashed her car into a tree while examining his facial features. Something to which a friend said it was more important to date someone who was really interested in her as compared to a good-looking man who is in love with himself. It seems that too her, in this comparison, good-looking man would love himself more than he would love her.

Turning it around by comparing ordinary men to physically attractive men, it would become a downward comparison based on the disadvantages of dating a physically attractive man. Buunk, Oldersma, and Dreu (2001) said that downward comparison seems weaken the negative effect of discontent (which in this case, being less physically attractive) on the evaluation of the relationship, whereby realizing that it could be worse (like having a narcissistic good-looking partner) helps individuals to be less harsh on their relationship.

Can people stop comparing? I guess not. In my opinion, it is innate in us to want to compare with others. We compare protect ourselves from being too critical on ourselves, to prevent ourself from overestimating and falling down and to strive to get something better. But when it leads to confusion and insecurity, maybe we should stop a little while to find out what we sincerely want instead of how we match up to others.

References

Breckler, S. J., Olsen, J. M., & Wiggins, E. C. (2006). Social Psychology Alive. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Buunk, B. P., Oldersma, F. L., & Dreu, C. K. W. d. (2001). Enhancing satisfaction through downward comparison: The role of relational discontent and individual differences in social comparison orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 452– 467

LeBeau, L. S., & Buckingham, J. T. (2008). Relationship social comparison tendencies, insecurity, and perceived relationshop quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(1), 71-86.

Conforming in a group

On the 22nd of March 2008, the SATURDAY newspaper ran an 8 page article about teenage girls being declared Beyond Parental Control by their parents. This meant that their parents felt that they cannot control them and needed the court’s assistance. Typically, these girls joined gangs, took drugs, smoked cigarettes (even though they’re underage), have sex casually, self mutilate etc.

These behaviors can endanger their lives. From my experience during secondary school times, policemen would come to my school to give talks about joining gangs. They would show gory pictures of what happens after a fight and warn us about the problems we might get into. Teachers would emphasise on how we should resist peer pressure when we’re asked to do things that are not socially acceptable. We would be given brochures and taught about the harmful effects of drugs, cigarettes and casual sex. Even as we watch television, read the papers or even walk about the streets, we can see advertisements warning about the dangers of smoking, drugs, casual sex or joining gangs. These information should make us feel fearful about performing socially undesirable acts. However, as reported in the article, the number of girls arrested and being declared out of control by their parents have increased. Besides, there may be many more such cases which have not been reported or brought to the attention of the authorities.

So why do these girls engage in those activities? Why do they join gangs and get into fights? Why take part in activities that can cause harm to their lives? Unlike animals or our ancestors who needed to fight for survival reasons, these girls fight over issues like territory, boyfriends, or staring incidents. These are not essential for them to survive. In the report, a girl reported sniffing glue until she passed out. Shouldn’t this frighten her and stop her from sniffing glue again? Pictures of blackened lungs on cigarette packets and information about how drugs can kill or get them into trouble with the law should scare them shouldn’t they? Knowing about sexually transmitted diseases or the risk of getting pregnant at a young age should make them afraid of having casual sex shouldn’t it?

***

A critical factor, norm of reciprocity, which was proposed by Cialdini and his colleagues, stated that if we have a favor done to us, we should reciprocate. The free-gift technique is a way of increasing compliance by giving somebody a small gift before requesting something from them. These gangs use the free-gift techniques to make the girls comply with them.

As stated in the article, some of them were treated like important people by the gang members who give them treats. Their friends in the gang would celebrate their birthdays with them and provide them with promise them friendship. As they have not been treated well unconditionally before, these were like free gifts to the girls. In return, these girls reciprocate by joining the gangs and help them peddle drugs and illegal DVDs.

The girls would get into fights, have sparring sessions, take drugs, smoke, have casual sex, or dress similarly. They even spot similar tattoos on the same area of their body. It is a behavior that they engage in as a group and the girls would conform. Why do they conform? There are two reasons. Informational influence occurs because they are influenced by others in the gang. They do not know what to do and the other more experienced gang members seem to be more knowledgeable and doing the correct thing. Normative influence occurs when they perform the behavior either with or without thinking the others have done is correct in order to gain rewards or avoid punishment. Therefore, in desiring to be correct in the group and obtain recognition and approval from the other members, they conform. Besides, it a social norm within the group to dress similarly and have similar tattoos.

In the article, it stated that the parents of the girls were sometimes too busy with work to spend time with them. One of the girl said that when she wanted to talk to her mother, she was always not there. This loneliness and rejection lowers their self esteem. As people are usually motivated to strive for high self esteem, they seek friends and approval elsewhere. Apart from conforming with the group, when they fight well and win, sell more drugs or manage to steal something, they get praises from the gang. This increases their self-esteem and makes them feel that they are worthy.

Will simply telling teenage girls about the dangers prevent them from joining gangs? Instead of using fear to prevent them from breaking the law, why not do as the gangs do and let them form groups that engage in healthy or “cool” but legal activities? For example, teachers in schools can celebrate birthdays every month for students with birthdays in that particular month to allow them to feel a sense of belonging. Instead of only punishing them when they have done something wrong, why not praise them too when they’ve corrected a mistake or achieved a goal? This may increase their self-esteem and might prevent them from joining gangs to obtain that. We can also allow them to form groups to do fun activities like playing music or art instead of smoking or taking drugs to release stress.

It seems that not only do the teenage girls require education and guidance. Parents too, need to be informed of how they can affect the lives of their children. Messages about the harmful effects of drugs and smoking are everywhere but is there anyone around to educate their parents? If we can prevent the girls from committing mistakes, why not? Why wait till they’ve done something damaging and harmful to their lives before realizing that you’ve no ability to control them anymore.

Schema in the park

Schemas are mental representation of objects or categories of objects. It contains the obvious features of the object or category and assumption on how it would work. To decide how to behave in a situation, we go through an automatic process of categorization of things to establish meanings and predicting how they will work using schemas.

When we go through this process of categorizing something, we assume that it owns the characteristics of the schema although the characteristics cannot be perceived directly. This simplifying act of assumption allows us to make decisions quickly and it is essential in order for us to cope in this complex environment. It would be impossible and extremely time consuming if we had to deliberate over every detail to ensure accuracy in all situations and objects that we should encounter.

When making sense of an object, the schema we use to categorize it can influence what would be noticed. Schemas also have an impact on how we interpret ambiguous information. Ambiguous information are interpreted according to the schemas. Ambiguous actions may may lead us to have the assumption that the object has certain characteristics, and anything that suggest those characteristics may be interpreted that our assumptions are correct.

Last Saturday, my friend and I, who did not know that a park could exist in Chinatown, got curious and went for a stroll in Pearl’s hill city park. It was a quiet park with many trees and very few people. Near the top of the park, was a fitness corner for people to exercise. We saw a man. When my friend noticed and informed me that he was behaving oddly and smiling at me, we started walking away quickly. Nearing the exit of the park, we saw him again. He was ahead of us and seemed to be leaving the park. Suddenly, he turned and started walking towards us. We got frightened and were wondering what to do when he said “How are you?” in chinese. It got us really scared and we started walking quickly to get out. As we walked past him quickly, he seemed to approach us. But we were mistaken. He was greeting a man behind us.

The situation was not clear. He did not have a label on his clothes that said pervert or robber but we assumed it to be. This could be due to information from the media and from hearsay about perverts or robbers lurking about quiet parks, and with that being the most available information at that time, we formed a schema of a pervert or robber of the man.

The environment of the park being quiet, him walking towards us, and greeting, further increased the information we had to categorize and impose the idea that he wasn’t a good person and would do something bad. His simple act of smiling and greeting matched the schema of how some perverts (as we have seen in the news) behave, made us assume that it was evidence that we are correct and should run away quickly.

However, we were wrong, and this showed that the assumptions we made were inaccurate and we do not always categorize objects accurately. The schema we had caused us to form a stereotype of men who behave friendly in a quiet park as a bad person. If an incident were to happen in the park on the similar day, we would have assumed it was the man we saw was the perpetrator and he might be wrongly caught as a suspect due to the schema we had of him.

Although errors can be made, schemas can also be useful. As it was a situation where we were unsure of the circumstances, we formed the schema using the most available information of the situation (what we have seen in the media). It was automatic. We did not control our thoughts and think carefully if we should walk away quickly or not. This categorization allowed us to decide to move away quickly and if we were correct, this schema that we invoked would have saved us.

I would like to think that if such a friendly act was to be done at a party, we would react in a completely different way. As a party would provide us with a completely different schema of the man.