Gender Equality
To what extent has gender equality been achieved? What gender biases persist and why?
Daily we hear about how men and women are different. They say we come from different planets.
Gender divides humans into two categories: male and female. This division permeates through society and organises every realm of our lives.
For this discussion I would like to point out that sex is in reference to human biology, that is the physical characteristics of a man or a women and gender is in reference to the social and cultural construction of masculinity and femininity. That is to say that gender is not just what sex a person is but rather the set of meanings that sexes assume, a female body produces feminine behaviours, a feminine identity.
Subsequently gender divides humans into two categories (for the sake of this essay i am excluding other divisions of gender), male and female. What does it mean to be a man or a women, what roles do you have as a male or a female, how do you become masculine or feminine?
“gender difference is also typically the way we explain another universal phenomenon: gender inequality. Gender is not simply a system of classification by which biological males and biological females are sorted, separated and socialized into equivalent sex roles. Gender also expresses the universal inequality between women and men. When we speak about gender we also speak about hierarchy, power and inequality, not simply difference.” (Kimmel, 2000).
Every known society differentiates between men and women and almost every known society is based upon male dominance. “virtually every society known to us is founded upon assumptions of gender difference and the politics of gender equality” (Kimmel, 2000).
Gender means different things to different people, it varies cross culturally and across history however the same universal code of male domination applies. Some cultures encourage women to be decisive and competitive, whereas other cultures teach women to be passive and dependent, there are often dramatic differences between societies regarding gender differences and the level of inequality. There are obviously differences between a women in Australia in the 21st century compared to a women in Afghanistan in the 21st century. Gender identity is the ways in which other differences, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, age, region, all inform, shape and modify our definitions of gender.
Gender in the workplace
The transformation of men’s and women’s work roles stands out among the many technological, economic, social and cultural changes of the twentieth century.
“In 1950, only a small minority of women (29%) worked outside the home, but in 2000 nearly three quarters of women did. In 1950 women who were employed
worked in a relative handful of nearly exclusively female occupations but by 2000 were spread across nearly the entire spectrum of occupations. Finally, the average woman in 1950 earned 59¢ for every dollar earned by men while in 2000 she earned 73¢.” (Cotter, Hermsen, Vanneman, 2004).
Despite all this progress inequalities still remain in the workplace. Women are still not paid as much as men and still struggle to reach executive positions (http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/10/mens-womens-income.html). However there is nothing inherent in women that make them less likely, as individuals, to be successful in the workplace than men. So why still do differences remain?
For many women, particularly in high powered careers there is a certain social stigma associated with their success, many female politicians in particular have found this. women in politics have been subjected to much public scrutiny. Many female politicians receive excess backlash from the media criticising their dress sense, or making snide remarks regarding their size, weight and personal appearance.
Women who succeed are seen as having sacrificed their femininity. Women who succeed are punished for abandoning their femininity – rejected as potential partners often labelled as dykes.
“women who work enter a gendered institution in which everything they wear “signifies” something. So they look at one business-like dress and tell themselves “No, this is too frumpy. They’ll never take me seriously as a women in this dress!” So they hold up a slinker and tighter outfit and think “in this little number, all they’ll see in me is a women, and they’ll never take me seriously as an employee” Either way- corporate frump or sexy babe – women lose, because the workplace is, itself gendered and standards of success, including dressing for success, are tailored to the other sex.” (Kimmel, 2000).
Sports
From primary school gender socialization regarding sports is considerable. Girls are dressed in skirts and tunics whilst boys are commonly dressed in shorts and t-shirts, subsequently boys can freely run around and play sports at lunchtime whereas girls are far more physically constricted due to dress. Boys are encouraged to be rough and sports. Girls are encouraged to play in small groups in the shade.
The sporting arena has proven to be one of the key institutional sites for the study of the social construction of gender. From a young age we are taught that sport is far more valuable in a male than in a female, the characteristics of sport include competitiveness, physical strength and aggression, typical male traits which when displayed in a female are harshly judged and categorized.
Despite the rising number of women participating in both singular and group sports men’s sports still dominate in commercial value and in the media. Men’s sports are still assumed to be mostly for male spectators and women’s sports, however successful, have to be attractive to men as well as women viewers. As a result notions of conventional masculinity and femininity persist.
There is also the sexualisation of women in sports illustrated. Rather than appearing in the magazine as equal members in the sporting world they appear still as sexualised objects for the predominantly male readership.
Finally women’s sports seem to be largely controlled by men, and increasingly seems to reflect the valued characteristics of men’s sports (hierarchy, competitiveness and aggression). Even when it come to the most feminine sports male coaches are demanding the aggressiveness of adult men and submissiveness of young females. For example women’s gymnastics, where very young girls are typically coached by men who are often abusive and the girls learn to practice with painful injuries and often develop severe eating disorders in order to keep their bodies small.
Domestic violence, sexual assault & rape
The majority of violent crimes are committed by men, about 98 per cent; and the majority of violent crime against women is committed by men they know. In a study of reported rapes in Victoria, it was found that 61 per cent of victims who reported the rape to police were known to their offender (Victorian Community Council Against Violence 1991). Sadly women still fall victim to the larger percentage of domestic violence, sexual assault and rape and mainly for reasons of a familiar males control over them.
Societies where women are honoured, rape rates are exceptionally low, those where women are degraded and devalued rape rates are high. Rape is performed almost exclusively by one gender, men. It has been speculated that rape is an expression of power, of male power over women. It has only been a recent occurrence that women’s rape during the war be viewed a war crime.
Men
It should be mentioned also that men too suffer from gender inequalities. The stigma associated with being as stay at home parent, pressure to support a family, Increasing social isolation and the difficulties in admitting to mental illness and depression.
While we have indeed come along in the field of gender equality there is still along way to go. Although the vast inequalities women once faced are not as visible as they once were but they still exist. It should be said that women’s biological abilities to bear and nurse children might be seen as the expression of such ineffable power – the ability to create life? Maybe one day?
Online engagement
Online engagement for blog 2 has been active. I have regularly posted on my own blog: Please see full blog at http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/ I have also posted on other peoples blogs: Pssssssstttttttt – “Todays Women” at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6760461192885241905&postID=7717133668104543408 and on Josies social psychology blog – “love – where does it fit” at
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8841261988306058751&postID=8181136964412033801
References :
Baumeister, R F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008) Social Psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmond, CA: Thomson Wadsworth
Cranny-Francis, A., Waring, W., Stavropoulos, P., & Kirby, J. (2003) Gender Studies: Terms and Debates New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Kimmel, M.S. (2000) The Gendered Society. New York, Oxford University Press
Hargreaves, J. (1994) Sporting Females. Critical issues in the history and sociology of women’s sports. London and New York: Routledge
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Women and the Knife
I recently red an article (thanks James) entitled: Has Artificial Beauty Become the New Feminism? By Jennifer Cognard-Black, Ms. Magazine. Posted September 29, 2007.
The article raises issues about women and the increasing cosmetic surgery industry and the paradox of choice. The article can be found at: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/63683/?page=1
The article critiques the claim that cosmetic surgery is the new feminism and discusses the ways which plastic surgery is becoming more and more mainstream and acceptable in society. Most feminists are the first to adamantly oppose plastic surgery as a tool for a variety of reasons….
In starting a discussion about this topic I have a question for everyone: Cosmetic Surgery. Is this a setting of liberation or oppression – or both?
“Another comparable limitation (of the women’s liberation movement) is the tendency to reject certain good things only in order to punish men… There is no reason why a women’s liberation activist should not try to look pretty and attractive.”(Markovic 1979).
As I talked about in my previous post from when we are young women we are taught (both directly and indirectly) about looking good/pretty/thin/tanned and so on. Cosmetic surgery seems to me to be the manifestation of huge pressure on women to adhere to cultural ideals of beauty. That said is plastic surgery an example of conformity? Woman conforming to the westernized view of attractive, for example, Jewish girls getting their noses redone!!
Most of the argument for plastic surgery is rooted in the idea of choice. Women have the right to choose if they want to change their bodies. They also have the right to choose to use nail technicians, manicurists, dietitians, hairstylists, cosmetologists, masseuses, trainers, electrolysists, pharmacologists and dermatologists!
All these experts transforming the human (particularly female) body into an increasingly artificial and ever more perfect and beautiful OBJECT. To me all of this is an example of the ways a woman’s attractiveness is defined as attractive to men.
When people argue that all these changes are the new way of feminism aren’t they contradicting the whole point of feminism, which I understood to be the valuing of ourselves as who we are… as equals…? Cosmetic surgery is ultimately a way of saying I do not accept myself as I am.
Furthermore the reality is these surgical interventions are nasty, dangerous and risky they can result in infection, bleeding, embolisms, facial nerve injury, scar formation, skin loss, blindness, crippling and even death. What a perfect Christmas gift for your loved one!!!!
The knives and needles of the cosmetic surgeons “what kind of knives are these? Magic Knives. Magic knives in a patriarchal context” (Morgan, 1991)
Again I will put it to everyone: Cosmetic Surgery. Is this a setting of liberation or oppression – or both?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Gender
My second blog question is: To what extent has gender equality been achieved? What gender biases persist and why?
I think for this topic that first i should talk a little about the concept of gender.
Gender and a few ideas:
For this discussion I would like to point out that sex is in reference to human biology, that is the physical characteristics of a man or a women and gender is in reference to the social and cultural construction of masculinity and femininity. That is to say that gender is not just what sex a person is but rather the set of meanings that sexes assume, a female body produces feminine behaviours, a feminine identity.
From this we know that gender divides humans into two categories, male and female. What does it mean to be a man or a women, what roles do you have as a male or a female, how do you become masculine or feminine? We all probably realise that becoming our gender is largely influenced by socialisation... From birth we are treated a certain way depending on our sex... so a quesiton for everyone, In what ways do people begin marking a child’s gender after its birth?
When i think about this process of socialisation i consider my life... the way i was dressed a child in pretty pink dresses with ribbons in my hair and encouraged to dance, learn instruments and play with dolls. Obviously it has influenced the way i am now... still loving to wear dresses and look 'pretty'... its interesting to think about the ways we act out our gender. How do you ‘do’ gender?
Just a few starting thoughts, we cant really talk about gender equality without having an understanding about gender!! Next post I will address the topic of gender in culture.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
PostSecret
This has nothing to do with my blog i just thought eveyone might enjoy it!! I think its really beautiful and interesting. Its funny the way people do actually want to tell their secret.... so long as no one actually knows its theirs...
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Attitude Change and The National Drugs Campaign: Essay
Attitude Change and The National Drugs Campaign
Abstract
Attitude change programs permeate through society today, however questions still remain about what increases or decreases the effectiveness of attitude change messages. This essay aims to provide some insight into what factors influence the success of attitude change programs specifically in relation to the recent National Drug Campaign.
The National Drugs Campaign (http://www.drugs.health.gov.au) aims to reduce young Australians’ motivation to use illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use. The campaign also encourages parents to talk with their children about drugs.
The campaign consists of four television commercials highlighting the negative consequences of ice, marijuana, speed and ecstasy. There are also posters, brochures, websites and a booklet.
The campaign uses extremely graphic images (http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/ecstasy-television-commercial.html) of people suffering the extreme consequences of drugs.
In analysing the success of attitude change campaigns it is vital to understand what attitudes are and what role persuasion plays in influencing changes. An attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor of disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In other words an attitude is the tendency to evaluate a person, concept or group either positively or negatively. Psychologists have identified three important components of attitudes, cognitive, affective and behavioral (Oskamp, 1991). Cognitive components are thoughts or ideas about the attitude object, beliefs. The affective component consists of feelings, moods, and emotions in relation to the attitude object. Lastly the behavioral component of an attitude includes overt actions that people exhibit in relation to the attitude object.
In understanding attitudes it is also necessary to look at the two types of attitudes, implicit and explicit. Implicit attitudes are associations between attitude objects and feelings about them that regulate thoughts and behaviours unconsciously and automatically. Explicit attitudes are conscious attitudes (Weston, Burton & Kowalski, 2006).
Attitudinal ambivalence is the extent to which an attitude object is associated with conflicting evaluative responses. Ambivalent attitudes include two evaluative dimensions, positive and negative.
Persuasion is a deliberate effort to influence a person or group to adopt a desired behaviour or change an attitude. Characteristics of the source, message, channel and context all affect the persuasiveness of an appeal. The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Heuristic/Systematic Models (Zimbardo, Ebbesen &Maslach, 1969) of persuasion state that persuasion occurs through two routes: central and peripheral. The models state that knowing how to appeal to people requires figuring out the likelihood that they will think much about the argument and identifying the appropriate route that will be most successful.
The National Drugs Campaign uses a variety of persuasive techniques in order to change the attitude of its audience.
The National Drugs Campaign uses a central route processing technique to influence the audience to think carefully about the message and weigh up the arguments presented. However the emotional side of the campaign is appealing to the more peripheral route of processing.
There are two strategies identified in persuasion: Alpha strategies try to persuade others by increasing the approach forces whereas Omega strategies attempt to persuade by decreasing avoidance forces (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The Strategy employed by the National Drugs Campaign is an Alpha approach, they create a strong argument that justify and compel action.
The study of persuasion has been largely influenced by Carl Hovland. In Hovland’s view attitude change can be seen as a response to communication. He identified factors that can affect the persuasiveness of a message. Firstly target characteristics (characteristics of the person who receives the message) includes things such as intelligence, self esteem, mood, receptivity, yielding, age and so on. Secondly Source characteristics, that is, credibility, trustworthiness, likeability and finally message characteristics which is the nature of the message: reason or emotion, repetition, whether both sides of the story are displayed, as this has been shown to produce a more persuasive argument (Greenwald, 1968)
In relation to the National Drugs Campaign the target group is fairly broad however the campaign does acknowledge certain characteristics of the age group for example the party lifestyle. Secondly the campaign uses sources that are relatable to their target audience (adolescents) as well as experts in the field (doctors) which helps to build likeness, credibility and trustworthiness.
The campaign does however lack a two sided argument and this may decrease the success of attitude change on the target audience. The use of a one sided argument can often seem propagandistic in nature and receivers may begin to build barriers or rebel against the source of the message. Thus, two sided messages can provide a double-barrelled strategy where the source gets more support because receivers like one side and dislike the other.
The campaign utilises both rational (logical, scientific, factual evidence) and emotional (fear inducing) messages. The aim of an approach like this is to create inconsistencies between behaviour (drug taking) and attitude (drugs are bad), this tends to be psychologically distressful for those who engage in drug taking activity and creates what is known as cognitive dissonance.
The campaign also provides the desired behaviour, which is one way of reducing the dissonance caused by the ads (Valente, 2002). Dissonance is generally dealt with in two ways: change of attitude or change of behaviour, however the use of defence mechanisms is also sometimes employed by people to deal with the dissonance (i.e. pushing awareness of the dissonant object out of conscious mind).
The idea of defence mechanisms being employed in health communication campaigns have often said to be the result of highly emotional fear inducing ideas. Health promotion campaigns are generally designed to elicit fear however the success of such campaigns remains a question (Cohen, 1964). This idea is certainly not new and was first introduced in a study by Janis and Feshback (1953) regarding dental hygiene and college students.
The study showed that the effects of the campaign were stronger when information was not presented in an overly emotional manner. Students were presented with three different forms of a lecture on tooth decay. Each lecture differed on the amount of fear aroused. When the level of fear was high, the effectiveness of the communication was lower than when fear arousal was low. Janis and Feshback also noted that emotional appeals are also more effective if listeners are provided with concrete recommendations for action (Cohen, 1964).
Other studies have shown that the stronger the fear appeals the higher the production of perceived severity and susceptibility and messages are subsequently more persuasive than low or weak fear appeals (O’Keefe, 2002). However it has been argued that strong fear appeals produce the greatest levels of defensive response (for example denial of likeness to the group or simply ignoring the message)
From such studies no definite rule can be applied however the common belief now is that moderate fear appeals work best and all fear appeals need to include a component of efficacy. Efficacy is therefore a clearly important part in the production of behavior change messages.
Self efficacy plays and important role and has been an important factor in the development of many models of attitude change particularly within the health industry.
Health Belief Model
The Health Belief model (HBM) (Hochbaum, 1958; Rosentstock, 1966 as cited in Weston, Burton & Kowalski, 2006) Suggests that health behaviours are predicted by four factors: The perceive susceptibility, the perceived seriousness, the benefits and barriers of undertaking particular health behaviour and cues to action. (Media campaigns act as cues to action but also highlight risks, seriousness and susceptibility).
Using the National Drugs Campaign as a basis the HBM postulates that a person will take action if: They perceive that drug taking could have a seriously negative affect on them, perceive that if they don’t take drugs they rule out the risk of those negative health risks, they feel they are able to not engage in drug taking behaviour successfully. See http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/health-belief-model-concept-map.html for a concept map of the HBM.
Unfortunately many people (particularly those who engage in risky behaviours) experience what is known as optimistic bias (they believe they are less likely to suffer the negative effects of drugs) this also exemplifies attitude ambivalence.
Knowledge Action Model
The ‘Knowledge-Action’ model of behaviour states that knowledge about health is sufficient in motivating individuals towards the healthier alternative. However, this is not always the case and knowledge does not always motivate logical behaviour. (Egger et al, 1999). There is however exceptions to this model, people have the potential to ignore information that is too difficult or anxiety provoking (Egger et al, 1999). This is especially exemplified by smokers and those who engage in drug taking activity.
Theory of Reasoned Action.
The theory of reasoned action, much like the health belief model holds that behaviours stem from behaviour intentions. Behavioural intentions stem from attitudes and subjective norms. Attitudes, as we have discussed, are the belief that behaviour will produce a particular outcome. Subjective norms reflect a person’s perception of how others view the particular behaviour.
After viewing each of these models one would conclude that after viewing communication campaigns against drug taking no one would take drugs, however people still do, why? Firstly the campaign might effect explicit rather than implicit attitudes. The explicit attitude towards drugs is negative however the implicit attitude may remain that drugs are fun. Another reason is the attitude behaviour inconsistency which in the case of drugs means many people rationalize their behaviour. There is also the case of optimistic bias in which those who view such emotion filled messages think that would be unlikely to happen to them.
Having said that the National Drugs Campaign has been successful in its first and second phases. As discussed on their website at http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/ statistics suggest that the campaigns messages are being recognized, particularly with reference to drug prevention. We can however conclude with confidence that the success of an attitude change campaign depends largely on the target audience and the attitude you want to change.
References
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2007). National Drugs Campaign: http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/
Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Cohen, A. (1964) Attitude change and social influence. New York: Basic Books
Egger, G. Spark, R. Lawson, J. and Donovan, R. (1999). Health
> > Promotion Strategies and Methods. McGraw-Hill Australia. Roseville.
Glanz, K., Marcus Lewis, F. & Rimer, B.K. (1997). Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. National Institute of Health.
Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.
Greenwald, A. (1968) Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press
Hovland, C. & Sherif, M. (1965) Social judgment: assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale U.P: New Haven
Kiesler, C. (1934) Attitude Change: a critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Larson, C. U. (2007). Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility. Thomson Wadsworth, California.
O’Keefe, D. (2002) Persuasion: Theory and Research (2nd ed) ___: Sage Publications
Oskamp, C. (1991). Attitudes and opinions (2nd ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Valente, T. (2002). Evaluating Health Promotion Programs. New York: Oxford
> > University Press, Inc.
Westen, D., Burton, L., & Kowalski, R. (2006) Psychology: Australia and New Zealand Edition. Australia: John Wile & Sons.
Zimbardo, P., Ebbesen, E. & Maslach, C. (1969) Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior. Philippines: Addison Wesley Company
Appendices
Readability
My Blog has fairly high readability. It incorporates headings and links within the main text. The text is easy to read with 1.5 spacing and size 12 Times New Roman font.
Flesch Reading Ease: 37.7
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.2
Online Engagement
My online engagement has included: reading commenting and commenting on others blogs: http://beckpsychblog.blogspot.com/, http://psychcynic.blogspot.com/, http://jo-socialpsych.blogspot.com/. I submitted my blog feed early in the semester and have posted comments seeking comments from others by raising questions for discussion. I have published links and made effective use of multimedia, incorporating a video and two concept maps. I have also added personal information to my blog profile. I would grade this blog around a P+. This blog could have benefited from more post sharing and more sharing with others.
Self Assessment
My blog includes relevant theory and research. I have written in a clear and readable manor. In respect to marking criteria I would grade each of the sections: Theory: C, research : D, and written expression: D. My blog could have benefited from incorporating pictures into the main text. I could have compacted the information within the text better (It’s a little to long).
Abstract
Attitude change programs permeate through society today, however questions still remain about what increases or decreases the effectiveness of attitude change messages. This essay aims to provide some insight into what factors influence the success of attitude change programs specifically in relation to the recent National Drug Campaign.
The National Drugs Campaign (http://www.drugs.health.gov.au) aims to reduce young Australians’ motivation to use illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use. The campaign also encourages parents to talk with their children about drugs.
The campaign consists of four television commercials highlighting the negative consequences of ice, marijuana, speed and ecstasy. There are also posters, brochures, websites and a booklet.
The campaign uses extremely graphic images (http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/ecstasy-television-commercial.html) of people suffering the extreme consequences of drugs.
In analysing the success of attitude change campaigns it is vital to understand what attitudes are and what role persuasion plays in influencing changes. An attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor of disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In other words an attitude is the tendency to evaluate a person, concept or group either positively or negatively. Psychologists have identified three important components of attitudes, cognitive, affective and behavioral (Oskamp, 1991). Cognitive components are thoughts or ideas about the attitude object, beliefs. The affective component consists of feelings, moods, and emotions in relation to the attitude object. Lastly the behavioral component of an attitude includes overt actions that people exhibit in relation to the attitude object.
In understanding attitudes it is also necessary to look at the two types of attitudes, implicit and explicit. Implicit attitudes are associations between attitude objects and feelings about them that regulate thoughts and behaviours unconsciously and automatically. Explicit attitudes are conscious attitudes (Weston, Burton & Kowalski, 2006).
Attitudinal ambivalence is the extent to which an attitude object is associated with conflicting evaluative responses. Ambivalent attitudes include two evaluative dimensions, positive and negative.
Persuasion is a deliberate effort to influence a person or group to adopt a desired behaviour or change an attitude. Characteristics of the source, message, channel and context all affect the persuasiveness of an appeal. The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Heuristic/Systematic Models (Zimbardo, Ebbesen &Maslach, 1969) of persuasion state that persuasion occurs through two routes: central and peripheral. The models state that knowing how to appeal to people requires figuring out the likelihood that they will think much about the argument and identifying the appropriate route that will be most successful.
The National Drugs Campaign uses a variety of persuasive techniques in order to change the attitude of its audience.
The National Drugs Campaign uses a central route processing technique to influence the audience to think carefully about the message and weigh up the arguments presented. However the emotional side of the campaign is appealing to the more peripheral route of processing.
There are two strategies identified in persuasion: Alpha strategies try to persuade others by increasing the approach forces whereas Omega strategies attempt to persuade by decreasing avoidance forces (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The Strategy employed by the National Drugs Campaign is an Alpha approach, they create a strong argument that justify and compel action.
The study of persuasion has been largely influenced by Carl Hovland. In Hovland’s view attitude change can be seen as a response to communication. He identified factors that can affect the persuasiveness of a message. Firstly target characteristics (characteristics of the person who receives the message) includes things such as intelligence, self esteem, mood, receptivity, yielding, age and so on. Secondly Source characteristics, that is, credibility, trustworthiness, likeability and finally message characteristics which is the nature of the message: reason or emotion, repetition, whether both sides of the story are displayed, as this has been shown to produce a more persuasive argument (Greenwald, 1968)
In relation to the National Drugs Campaign the target group is fairly broad however the campaign does acknowledge certain characteristics of the age group for example the party lifestyle. Secondly the campaign uses sources that are relatable to their target audience (adolescents) as well as experts in the field (doctors) which helps to build likeness, credibility and trustworthiness.
The campaign does however lack a two sided argument and this may decrease the success of attitude change on the target audience. The use of a one sided argument can often seem propagandistic in nature and receivers may begin to build barriers or rebel against the source of the message. Thus, two sided messages can provide a double-barrelled strategy where the source gets more support because receivers like one side and dislike the other.
The campaign utilises both rational (logical, scientific, factual evidence) and emotional (fear inducing) messages. The aim of an approach like this is to create inconsistencies between behaviour (drug taking) and attitude (drugs are bad), this tends to be psychologically distressful for those who engage in drug taking activity and creates what is known as cognitive dissonance.
The campaign also provides the desired behaviour, which is one way of reducing the dissonance caused by the ads (Valente, 2002). Dissonance is generally dealt with in two ways: change of attitude or change of behaviour, however the use of defence mechanisms is also sometimes employed by people to deal with the dissonance (i.e. pushing awareness of the dissonant object out of conscious mind).
The idea of defence mechanisms being employed in health communication campaigns have often said to be the result of highly emotional fear inducing ideas. Health promotion campaigns are generally designed to elicit fear however the success of such campaigns remains a question (Cohen, 1964). This idea is certainly not new and was first introduced in a study by Janis and Feshback (1953) regarding dental hygiene and college students.
The study showed that the effects of the campaign were stronger when information was not presented in an overly emotional manner. Students were presented with three different forms of a lecture on tooth decay. Each lecture differed on the amount of fear aroused. When the level of fear was high, the effectiveness of the communication was lower than when fear arousal was low. Janis and Feshback also noted that emotional appeals are also more effective if listeners are provided with concrete recommendations for action (Cohen, 1964).
Other studies have shown that the stronger the fear appeals the higher the production of perceived severity and susceptibility and messages are subsequently more persuasive than low or weak fear appeals (O’Keefe, 2002). However it has been argued that strong fear appeals produce the greatest levels of defensive response (for example denial of likeness to the group or simply ignoring the message)
From such studies no definite rule can be applied however the common belief now is that moderate fear appeals work best and all fear appeals need to include a component of efficacy. Efficacy is therefore a clearly important part in the production of behavior change messages.
Self efficacy plays and important role and has been an important factor in the development of many models of attitude change particularly within the health industry.
Health Belief Model
The Health Belief model (HBM) (Hochbaum, 1958; Rosentstock, 1966 as cited in Weston, Burton & Kowalski, 2006) Suggests that health behaviours are predicted by four factors: The perceive susceptibility, the perceived seriousness, the benefits and barriers of undertaking particular health behaviour and cues to action. (Media campaigns act as cues to action but also highlight risks, seriousness and susceptibility).
Using the National Drugs Campaign as a basis the HBM postulates that a person will take action if: They perceive that drug taking could have a seriously negative affect on them, perceive that if they don’t take drugs they rule out the risk of those negative health risks, they feel they are able to not engage in drug taking behaviour successfully. See http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/health-belief-model-concept-map.html for a concept map of the HBM.
Unfortunately many people (particularly those who engage in risky behaviours) experience what is known as optimistic bias (they believe they are less likely to suffer the negative effects of drugs) this also exemplifies attitude ambivalence.
Knowledge Action Model
The ‘Knowledge-Action’ model of behaviour states that knowledge about health is sufficient in motivating individuals towards the healthier alternative. However, this is not always the case and knowledge does not always motivate logical behaviour. (Egger et al, 1999). There is however exceptions to this model, people have the potential to ignore information that is too difficult or anxiety provoking (Egger et al, 1999). This is especially exemplified by smokers and those who engage in drug taking activity.
Theory of Reasoned Action.
The theory of reasoned action, much like the health belief model holds that behaviours stem from behaviour intentions. Behavioural intentions stem from attitudes and subjective norms. Attitudes, as we have discussed, are the belief that behaviour will produce a particular outcome. Subjective norms reflect a person’s perception of how others view the particular behaviour.
After viewing each of these models one would conclude that after viewing communication campaigns against drug taking no one would take drugs, however people still do, why? Firstly the campaign might effect explicit rather than implicit attitudes. The explicit attitude towards drugs is negative however the implicit attitude may remain that drugs are fun. Another reason is the attitude behaviour inconsistency which in the case of drugs means many people rationalize their behaviour. There is also the case of optimistic bias in which those who view such emotion filled messages think that would be unlikely to happen to them.
Having said that the National Drugs Campaign has been successful in its first and second phases. As discussed on their website at http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/ statistics suggest that the campaigns messages are being recognized, particularly with reference to drug prevention. We can however conclude with confidence that the success of an attitude change campaign depends largely on the target audience and the attitude you want to change.
References
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2007). National Drugs Campaign: http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/
Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Cohen, A. (1964) Attitude change and social influence. New York: Basic Books
Egger, G. Spark, R. Lawson, J. and Donovan, R. (1999). Health
> > Promotion Strategies and Methods. McGraw-Hill Australia. Roseville.
Glanz, K., Marcus Lewis, F. & Rimer, B.K. (1997). Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. National Institute of Health.
Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.
Greenwald, A. (1968) Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press
Hovland, C. & Sherif, M. (1965) Social judgment: assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale U.P: New Haven
Kiesler, C. (1934) Attitude Change: a critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Larson, C. U. (2007). Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility. Thomson Wadsworth, California.
O’Keefe, D. (2002) Persuasion: Theory and Research (2nd ed) ___: Sage Publications
Oskamp, C. (1991). Attitudes and opinions (2nd ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Valente, T. (2002). Evaluating Health Promotion Programs. New York: Oxford
> > University Press, Inc.
Westen, D., Burton, L., & Kowalski, R. (2006) Psychology: Australia and New Zealand Edition. Australia: John Wile & Sons.
Zimbardo, P., Ebbesen, E. & Maslach, C. (1969) Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior. Philippines: Addison Wesley Company
Appendices
Readability
My Blog has fairly high readability. It incorporates headings and links within the main text. The text is easy to read with 1.5 spacing and size 12 Times New Roman font.
Flesch Reading Ease: 37.7
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.2
Online Engagement
My online engagement has included: reading commenting and commenting on others blogs: http://beckpsychblog.blogspot.com/, http://psychcynic.blogspot.com/, http://jo-socialpsych.blogspot.com/. I submitted my blog feed early in the semester and have posted comments seeking comments from others by raising questions for discussion. I have published links and made effective use of multimedia, incorporating a video and two concept maps. I have also added personal information to my blog profile. I would grade this blog around a P+. This blog could have benefited from more post sharing and more sharing with others.
Self Assessment
My blog includes relevant theory and research. I have written in a clear and readable manor. In respect to marking criteria I would grade each of the sections: Theory: C, research : D, and written expression: D. My blog could have benefited from incorporating pictures into the main text. I could have compacted the information within the text better (It’s a little to long).
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Ecstasy Television Commercial
One of four of the National Drug Campaign television commercials. Pretty scary stuff. The adds are aimed at the nations youth and use fairly extreme fear appeals to reduce peoples motivation to use drugs. I think the campaign tactics may be more successfull as a preventative tool rather than a persuasive tool to stop those who already take drugs. Most people who have already taken drugs might experience A) Optimistic bias and think the chances of that happening to them are pretty low and justify their actions or B) Use defence mechanisms to help them deal with the anxiety causing content and either ignore the add or discredit its value.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Attitude Change & the National Drugs Campaign
For blog 1 I’m doing the question about attitude change and what factors determine the success of attitude change programs.
My degree is Communications in Public Relations so the concept of attitude change is fairly relevant. Public relations practitioners are often involved in formulating social change programs (recently I can think of: the importance of installing smoke alarms, men’s depression, quit smoking etc). This is an area of great interest to me and something I one day hope to get into. On that note I have chosen the latest in social change campaigns the National Drugs Campaign!!
Drugs are an increasing problem in society and I’m sure one we can all relate to (drugs are so available nearly everyone knows someone who has or does take drugs). The reality is that drugs can ruin lives and often does.
For more information about drugs I found this site helpful: http://www.unodc.org/youthnet/youthnet_youth_drugs.html
The National Drugs Campaign aims to reduce young Australians’ motivation to use illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use.
The campaign also encourages parents to talk with their children about drugs by providing them with practical and up-to-date information about drugs.
If any one wants to check out the website its:
http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/
Questions I wonder about…
• What do you think of the efficacy of anti drug campaigns like this?
• Do you think drug taking is the result of underlying issues, which, if were addressed initially (say by government – via education programs, more free mental health services etc.) would result in less drug taking behaviour.
• Do you think once someone has already developed an addiction they are likely to respond to anti drug campaigns?
My degree is Communications in Public Relations so the concept of attitude change is fairly relevant. Public relations practitioners are often involved in formulating social change programs (recently I can think of: the importance of installing smoke alarms, men’s depression, quit smoking etc). This is an area of great interest to me and something I one day hope to get into. On that note I have chosen the latest in social change campaigns the National Drugs Campaign!!
Drugs are an increasing problem in society and I’m sure one we can all relate to (drugs are so available nearly everyone knows someone who has or does take drugs). The reality is that drugs can ruin lives and often does.
For more information about drugs I found this site helpful: http://www.unodc.org/youthnet/youthnet_youth_drugs.html
The National Drugs Campaign aims to reduce young Australians’ motivation to use illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use.
The campaign also encourages parents to talk with their children about drugs by providing them with practical and up-to-date information about drugs.
If any one wants to check out the website its:
http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/
Questions I wonder about…
• What do you think of the efficacy of anti drug campaigns like this?
• Do you think drug taking is the result of underlying issues, which, if were addressed initially (say by government – via education programs, more free mental health services etc.) would result in less drug taking behaviour.
• Do you think once someone has already developed an addiction they are likely to respond to anti drug campaigns?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)