Psychology Journal #1
Journal #1: Maxim. Cosmo. Playboy. Playgirl. Elle. Men’s Health. Vogue. These magazines spend millions of dollars researching the male/female mind so that they can market to it…to you. How well do you think that they understand the male or female psyche? Do you think that you fit in the average demographic to which they are marketing? Why or why not?
In this information age, we Americans have been increasingly raised by media moguls and advertising conglomorates. Behaviorism is alive and well in the marketing sector. The hypothesis that you can make anyone do anything has been tested and proven true time and time again. Marketing has been distilled to a science. Just as experimental psychologists research humans to answer questions about their behavior and mental processes, so to do marketing psychologist, using the same empirical processes. The only difference is the motivation for their research.
Consumer psychology targets consumers in general, then works to stratify the group into every marketable niche imaginable. Demographics are often constructed on the basis of age, sex, income, occupation and education. I’ve not one shred of doubt that my number has come up in countless consumer studies. Americans have been enculturated to doubt ourselves which causes us to perceive a need for products that will help us feel valid. The aforementioned magazines feed on this human tendency to feel unworthy. These publications market insider information that will put us ahead of the game and help us to stand out as a supreme mate.
Although I am not one to partake in such mindless reading, I must admit that from time to time I have been intrigued by some novel spin on fashion, a sexy tip list or an inspiring cover girl. Those millions of dollars have yielded results, the numbers prove the effectiveness of the marketing. That being said, it is my hope that as we evolve, an increasing number of individuals will realize that there is so much more possibility than these adverts with editorials offer.
Are powerful men horny? | Psychology Today »
As Woods is voted best athlete of the decade by Associated Press, his marriage to his wife of five years may be exhaling its last breaths.
Past president Clinton, former New York governor Spitzer, South Carolina governor Sanford lost their clout after their affairs. Although Sanford’s wife attempted to improve the situation, she’s now filing for divorce.
Food for thought
Are powerful men more sexual than their female counterparts or are all men the same, powerful men being more exposed? Are powerful women engaged in similar affairs? Do you believe they would handle them differently? Does society judge these affairs the same?
Interesting to think about…
Male-on-Male Sexual Harassment on the Rise - Newsweek.com »
Rate still only increased from 8 to 16% between 1992 and 2008 (rate being percentage of sexual harassment charges filed with the EEOC by men about other men)…. but still very surprising.
Dear Economist: WTF? - GOOD Blog - GOOD »
GOOD Blog > Amanda M. Fairbanks on January 8, 2010 at 10:00 am PST
This week, The Economist looks at the progress that women the world over have made in the workplace. Answer: Some advancement, but still a ways to go. And then it reports the following as fact:
The cost of motherhood is particularly steep for fast-track women. Traditionally “female” jobs such as teaching mix well with motherhood because wages do not rise much with experience and hours are relatively light.
Image via
Computer Science Is Too Nerdy For Girls »
Published in the very prestigious JPSP! And one of the authors is Claude Steele, a “founder” of stereotype threat!
"The Most Successful Women In The World Were The Victims Of The Bullies, Not The Bullies." - bullies - Jezebel »
Bullying is in the news again. And it prompted one writer to look back at that painful time when half the world’s a scapegoat:
Writes Judith Warner, after remembering a painful few years of early-teen cruelty,
In fiction. It’s what I hope my next book project will be, you see: a tween time-travel novel set in 1977, when there really was a roller rink on Waverly Place, and I was in 7th grade…The book is ostensibly all about a daughter’s learning that she can’t meddle in her mother’s (past) life; she has to let her have bad experiences and grow up to be who she is destined to be. But it’s not coincidental that, in the course of learning these lessons, my fictional daughter lives in a world completely controlled, defined and circumscribed by me.
What’s as interesting as Warner’s interesting piece is the reaction from readers: the comments section is filled with stories of well-remembered pain and a sense of its injustice that never goes away, even if it fades. (That headline quote comes from one of these readers.) There’s something about that age, on the cusp of childhood, that’s particularly vulnerable. (There’s a reason they made a movie, 13, abut this very period.) Yesterday, talking about Tavi the pre-teen blogger, we editors reminisced about our own 13-year-old accomplishments and the wondrous potential of that age. In fact, it’s a time I try to avoid thinking about, since it’s when the cozy cocoon of childhood broke and I found myself the target of casual mockery on a daily basis. It’s funny: I had not acknowledged that for years; I’d blocked 7th grade completely from my consciousness. But it’s when I went from self-assured and oblivious to aware that I was unattractive and tiny and ridiculous with my piping voice and big vocabulary. I remember primarily a sense of bewildered inadequacy, a wish to go unnoticed in the halls or the lunchroom and avoid a jibe or a throwaway remark that my antagonists surely forgot as soon as I was out of sight. Most people didn’t bother to be cruel, but there were enough. I’m reminded, if forced to think about that time, of the humiliating day when it all became too much and I broke down sobbing in class and was sent home, a victim. And I cease to feel like a normal-looking adult with a career and a basically-average height, and become a nonentity. This isn’t even a particularly traumatic case - it’s more average than not. Certainly not a horror story, and no cousin to the very real tragedies that we see week after week. But even now, thinking of those days of timing my trips through the halls so as to avoid other kids, or slipping into a seat just as class started so no one would have a chance to make fun of me, causes the base of my skull to tighten with a well-remembered tension.
Warner wishes both to spare her daughter that pain and reconnect with her younger self, and she’s clearly not alone: when one looks at the adult women questioning the work of a 13-year-old girl, it’s hard not to wonder if they, too, have scars dating back to that age. And wondering, per that commenter’s remark, where they and so many other successful women fell on the bullying/victim spectrum.
40 Is Not The New 12 [NY Times]
Earlier: Elle Editor Leads Backlash Against 13-Year-Old Fashion Blogger
Send an email to Sadie Stein, the author of this post, at Sadie@jezebel.com.
Ten Psychology Studies from 2009 Worth Knowing About - David Disalvo - Brainspin - True/Slant »
Several great psychology and neuroscience studies were published in 2009. Below I’ve chosen 10 that I think are among the most noteworthy, not just because they’re interesting, but useful as well.
1. If you have to choose between buying something or spending the money on a memorable experience, go with the experience. According to a study conducted at San Francisco State University, the things you own can’t make you as happy as the things you do. One reason is adaptation: we adapt to all things material in our lives in a matter of weeks, no matter how infatuated we were with the coveted possession the day we got it. Another reason is that experience, unlike possession, generally involves other people, and fosters or strengthens relationships that are more edifying over time than owning something.
2. First impressions are all about value. A study in the journal Nature Neuroscience identified two areas of the brain that show significant activity during the coding of impression-relevant information: the amygdala, which previous research has linked to emotional learning about inanimate objects and social evaluations of trust; and the posterior cingulate cortex, which has been linked to economic decision-making and valuation of rewards. The implication is that we’re all hardcore value processors even before “Hello” comes out of our mouths. The subjective evaluation we make when meeting someone new includes–to put it bluntly–what’s in it for us.
3. The “money illusion”—the tendency to allow the nominal value of money (amount of currency) to interfere with the real value (value of goods the money can buy)—is all in your head. No, really, it’s in your head—in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex to be exact. Here’s how it works: you get a 2% pay raise at the same time that the rate of inflation jumps to 4%. Nominally, you earn 2% more money, but really you’re 2% in the hole. An fMRI study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences identified reward circuitry in the brain that corresponds to the money illusion. You can’t change the wiring, but you can remember to check your willingness to accept nominal value. Think about what you can buy with your bucks, not just how many you have in your wallet.
4. Playing video games could be an unlikely cure for psychological trauma. Researchers at Oxford University hypothesized that playing Tetris after witnessing violence would sap some of the cognitive resources the brain would normally rely on to form memories. A well-structured study in the journal PLoS One confirmed the finding–Tetris acted like a ‘cognitive vaccine’ against traumatic memory. Memory research suggests that there’s about a 6-hour window immediately after witnessing trauma during which memory formation can be disrupted. The results of this study indicate that if you happen to have Tetris or a game like it handy during those six hours, it’s the cure for what ails you.
5. All of us spend time riding the moral self-regulation see saw. If you ever find yourself walking through the lighting section at a Home Depot and suddenly feel compelled to buy energy efficient light bulbs, stop and ask yourself if you’re compensating for something. For example, do you recycle? If not, maybe you’re buying those bulbs to offset a perceived moral deficit from throwing plastic water bottles in the trash can. A study published in the journalPsychological Science found that feelings of negative self-worth can predispose us to acting morally in an effort to fill up the self-worth bank account. If the account is already full, we might be predisposed to choosing not to act morally, or just not act at all.
6. If you’re preparing for a specific challenge, make sure you prep for that challenge and not just ones like it. A study published in the journal Cognitive Science found that chess players who practice specific moves in preparation for a match—as opposed to practicing general chess skills—not only performed better in the match, but actually performed better than they were expected to given their general skill level. In other words, specialization trumped general problem solving and made the players better than anyone thought they were.
7. If someone is trying to sell you something, be extra careful to keep your psychological distance. A study in the journal Psychological Science tested the hypothesis that emotional mimicry—the tendency to mirror the emotions of someone we’re interacting with—makes it difficult to identify liars. Nonmimickers were significantly better at identifying liars than mimickers, and thus were harder to fool with the old flim flam sales routine. The reason is that mimicry reduces psychological distance and lowers defenses. Even if someone probably isn’t lying to you, it’s best to keep the cushion in place just in case.
8. Turns out, saying you’re sorry really is important—and not just to you. A study discussed at the Child Psychology Research Blog found that receiving an apology makes the recipient feel better by affecting his or her perception of the wrongdoer’s emotions. In other words, people who received an apology felt better afterward because the apology indicated that the other person felt bad about what he or she did. Sounds simple enough, but the researchers think it goes a bit deeper: knowing that the other person agrees that what he/she did was the wrong thing to do reaffirms our view of the world as just and predictable, since the other’s sadness tells us that people in general don’t do things like this. Whether that explanation is true or not, just suck it up and say you’re sorry.
9. We can become bored with just about anything, but there may be a way to reverse the habituation blues. Researchers reporting in theJournal of Consumer Research think the trick is overcoming “variety amnesia”—our tendency to forget that we’ve been exposed to a variety of great things, be they people, food, music, movies, home furnishings or other—and instead focus our attention on the singular thing that no longer gives us the tingles. To shake ourselves free from this negative trap, we must “dishabituate” by forcing ourselves to remember the variety of things we’ve experienced. So, for example, let’s say that you’ve become bored with a particular musical group you once couldn’t listen to enough. This research suggests that what you need to do it recall the variety of other songs from other musical groups that you’ve listened to since the last time you listened to your once-favorite band, and by doing so you’ll revive appreciation for your fave.
10. If you’re a man and find yourself in an argument with your significant other, choose your words very carefully. Not only do they affect the other person, but research in the journal Health Psychology suggests that they can also significantly impact your health. In the heat of stressful conflict, your brain is commanding the release of a stress-chemical cocktail comprised of proteins called cytokines–produced by cells in the immune system to help the body mount an immune response during infection. Abnormally high levels of these proteins are linked to cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, arthritis and some cancers. This study suggests that how rational or emotional your communication is directly corresponds with the levels of those chemicals in your body and the damage they can do. Thing is, the same rules don’t apply to men and women—levels of cytokines in men show an increase over time, but in women they don’t. Why? Women may just be better at communication, or just luckier in this particular biological lottery.
Geek-aversion May Explain Lack of Women in Computer Science - Best of Treehugger - GOOD »
Best of Treehugger > Nikhil Swaminathan on December 16, 2009 at 12:35 pm PST
A new study by University of Washington psychologists may help explain the dearth of women in the field of computer science. According to their findings, it may be the trappings associated with coding and troubleshooting that deter females, not the actual coding itself.
More specifically, it’s the geeky surroundings they find off-putting: the Star Trek posters, the junk food, gaming paraphernalia, the bras that CS dudes wear on their heads when they try to bring Barbie dolls to life, etc.
The scientists asked a group of male and female students a battery of questions to probe their interest in computer science while they sat in one of two rooms: one that was geeked-out and another that was not (decorated with art instead of sci-fi posters, dictionaries in place of computer games, and coffee mugs in lieu of soda cans). Women who answered the questions while sequestered in the room with the nerd motif were significantly less interested in programming when compared to women in the neutral room and men in either locale.
The study adds some color to the findings of a Cornell team that recently reported that the lack of women in advanced positions in math-related field was not due to ability. Rather,lifestyle concerns were largely responsible for the effect, though the Cornell team highlighted relative inflexibility of scientific fields as a barrier to women who want to start families. (I wonder if there is something about Star Wars figurines that screams “not conducive to child-rearing?)
Still, there’s something about the Washington study that bothers me: If the (relatively harmless) environment where a trade is practiced is enough to deter someone from pursuing something they’re interested in, how are we supposed to get more women into the field?
Photo by Sapna Cheryan, U. of Washington
Shout out to Andrew Price for pointing out the study.
Mood News: Defying Stereotypes: Inside Allure: allure.com »
Defying Stereotypes
BY LOIS B. MORRIS
Women can prevail over gender bias by affirming qualities they value about themselves, a University of Arizona study led by psychologist Andy Martens suggests. Before taking a test in math, a subject traditionally considered more difficult for women than men, the participants rated the importance of several traits, such as social skills, creativity, and attractiveness. Some women then wrote about why their number-one trait mattered to them—and they scored 44 percent higher on the test than the others. The study authors say that when women reflect on their personal values, it can buffer self-esteem and reduce “the pressure generated by cultural expectations.”
Q&A with Gail Collins - When Everything Changed - Cosmopolitan.com »
Cosmo: It’s hard for our generation to imagine what it was like not to have equal rights (that’s what makes watching Mad Men so shocking at times!). If we take our rights for granted, do we risk losing them?
Gail: I think it’s important for people to know their own history, but not because there’s any danger that if we aren’t vigilant, Congress will repeal our right to have credit cards in our own names. This generation of women have their own challenges and problems.
Cosmo: What are the battles left to be won?
Gail: The top challenge is to join forces with women in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East who are fighting for equal rights. If you want to change the world, that’s the best possible way.
Cosmo: In your book, you mention the way television has mirrored the changes the country went through in regards to women, from That Girl to The Mary Tyler Moore Show to The Cosby Show. What TV show best describes the state of women in these times?
Gail: For the early part of the decade I might have said Gilmore Girls – it was so drenched in guys, career, single motherhood. I don’t know if I’ve got a good one for you now. I just hope it’s not Cougar Town or Gossip Girl.
Cosmo: Despite all improvements that have been made for working women, we still make 77 cents for each dollar men make. What do you think it will take to close this gap?
Gail: There are lots of reasons for that gap between men’s and women’s wages but to me, the big one is the work-family issue. Trying to juggle children and a job is tough under any circumstances, but especially if you’re shooting for the kind of career that involves long hours at work and being on call 24-7.
Cosmo: How have guys handled the career progress that women have made?
Gail: I think younger guys are mostly comfortable working with women as peers in business and having girlfriends who work and maybe make more money than they do.
Cosmo: In the book, you make several jokes about the fact that no matter how far women have come we still wear “silly, impractical shoes.” Many Cosmo readers (and editors) also wear Spanx and tights, which seem to be only a slightly more comfortable version of pantyhose and girdles. Has fashion played a role in the women’s movement?
Gail: When the women’s movement started in the 1960s, there was a vision of a future where women didn’t wear makeup or worry about how their hair looked, and everybody worse sensible, comfortable clothes. It ran into an absolute brick wall. The vast majority of women wanted a future in which they had equal rights, along with really cool clothes and great hair.
Cosmo: In your opinion, do people feel as sexually free now as they did during the sexual revolution? Do you think there will be another sexual revolution?
Gail: The sexual revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s wasn’t just a time when we knocked over the old rules about women saving their virginity until they married. It was also a totally unique moment in which sex carried very little physical danger. There was one little window of worry-free sex, before the herpes plague, and before AIDS. So people went off to sex clubs and did whatever they wanted with as many people as they wanted without a care. We probably won’t ever experience anything like it again.
Cosmo: How have the unofficial “rules” of dating changed since 1960?
Gail: I think the “guy asks you out to dinner” dating was still a lot more common in the 1960s and 1970s than it is now. For all the talk about the sexual revolution, I think young women now are way more sophisticated about sex than we were back then.
Cosmo: Is it possible to get your boyfriend to see you as an equal and still expect him to hold the door and pay for dates?
Gail: That does sound perfect, doesn’t it? I know a lot of women feel strongly about having the guy pay, but I have to admit that it doesn’t seem totally fair — unless he’s got a lot more money.
Cosmo: What’s your advice for women who want to have an amazing career and a great relationship?
Gail: The key to success for any woman who wants to have a really serious career and a family is to marry a guy who is going to take at least half the responsibility for the house and kids – and sometimes more than half. When I read all those Victorian novels in which a woman’s entire happiness hinges on finding a suitable husband, I think well, in a weird way that’s still true.
Ms. CEO: A Rare Commodity : College Candy »
December 2, 2009 - 11:00 am By Melanie - Northeastern University
Working on Fifth Avenue at New York City is nothing short of glamorous. Every day, I walk to work on one of NYC’s most famous streets, cutting through Central park, walking by the Plaza, passing Saks and finally entering the headquarters of one of the largest beauty companies in the world to work on photoshoots and press kits while bumping into celebs (and their stylists) in the process.<
Finally being dropped into the “9-5” has me thinking a lot more about my future. What if I want to be the chief executive one day? How feasible is that? What would my income be?
Although it is possible for a woman to become a CEO, out of the “Fortune 500” (the USA’s 500 biggest publicly traded companies), only thirteen of those CEOs are female. That’s only 2.6%.
We’ve had our first female presidential and vice-presidential candidate in the past year and higher education for women is on the rise, yet women are still not holding top positions in companies. The cherry on top of all of this? Even the women who have managed to make their way to the top are still the worst paid out of all CEOs.
Aside from the incredible income disparities, the issue we should be focusing on is why women CEOs are such a rare commodity, not necessarily the size of the paychecks. In 2005, Sheila Wellington was interviewed by Anne Fisher (CNN Money) on this exact issue. Wellington was no stranger to gender discrimination; she was forced to sign an agreement when she accepted her first position after graduating from Radcliffe that stated that she must not get pregnant for at least her first two years.
Wellington went on to become the president of Catalyst, a non-profit research group and is now a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business. When confronted with the question of the lack of female executives, Wellington stated, “I think we are in the midst of a cycle right now where there is a widespread perception that women aren’t fully committed to their careers. It tends to happen every time the spotlight is on a high-ranking woman who flames out, like [former Hewlett-Packard CEO] Carly Fiorina. You start hearing all kinds of people analyzing ‘what women are doing wrong.’”
Wellington goes on to say that the corporate perception of women must alter before women can reach high levels. She blames sexist perceptions such as, “women don’t like to travel” or “women don’t take risks” as platitudes that cloud judgment when hiring female executives. The antiquated mindset that females won’t succeed because of familial obligations, emotional reactions, high drama and lack of critical thinking hinders women from succeeding. Don’t think those perceptions are still out there? Just ask Neil French who resigned as WPP Group worldwide creative director after saying women in advertising “don’t make it to the top because they don’t deserve to.” This sentiment is common according to Wellington.
Does this mean that I can’t become a CEO one day? Working for a Fortune 500 has pushed my desire to do just that. But when I do get that position, do I have to give up my femininity, desire to have a family in the future, penchant for emotional outbursts once in a while, and indulging in guilty pleasures like Gossip Girl? I think not. The mentality around females in executive positions needs to be changed, not the female executives themselves.
Once the archaic stereotypes of women have left the workplace, then companies will realize that women are valuable assets in executive positions. It’s up to Gen Y to break those stereotypes, put much more than just cracks in the glass ceiling and finally finish construction on that bridge to somewhere.
Notes: My thesis was semi-inspired by some of these numbers and shocking realizations about the social context. While the salary and CEO numbers might be increasing, there are still VERY real and very different expectations about what women should do and the roles that a woman can take on (simultaneously and in order to do well in/at both). Basically, the numbers might support people who believe that gender is no longer an important issue worthy of study, but only if you ignore the psychological side and any statistics that really attempt to slice into the phenomena and explore where women are CEOs, how they got to those positions, and the so-called mommy track…
