Media impacts of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty on individuals with an eating disorder or body image issue - intro video

Intro Video and Update



This study was set to end last week, however due the interest and my ability to spend more time on the study, it has been extended. The results will be posted as soon as the study ends and I have sufficient time to work on all the statistics.

In the meantime, please view the intro video for the study. It has valuable information about eating disorder statistics.

Persuaders of Hate

Anti-Gay Rhetoric from the Christian Reich

The satirist Jonathan Swift once said, “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” I wonder why that is? When the Klu Klux Klan, a “White Christian Organization,” (kukluxklan.bz, 2009) makes derogatory statements about someone’s race or sexual orientation, we often call that hate speech. But when other Christian groups use anti-gay rhetoric to communicate their views, it is often legitimized and justified by hiding behind religious ideals.

The Westboro Church, famous for their “God Hates Fags” signs and picketing acts at funerals of soldiers and gay individuals, says their actions are justified because they are simply preaching against all sins (godhatesfags.com, 2009). The group American Vision says they are just trying to “Restore America to its Biblical Foundation” (americanvision.org, 2009). Abiding Truth Ministries, better known as Defendingthefamily.com claims they are just defending religious freedom, family values and human rights (defendingthefamily.com, 2009). The Traditional Values Coalition says they are just focusing on “the restoration of the values needed to maintain strong, unified families” (www.traditionalvalues.org, 2009). Focus on the Family says they are “defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide” (focusonthefamily.com, 2009).

According to The Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 84 active hate group organizations in California alone, and 11 anti-gay hate groups in the US. All of the organizations noted above, with exception of Focus on the Family, are on the hate group list (splcenter.org, 2009). What is interesting to note is that all of the anti-gay groups listed identify as “Christian” organizations. So why does the public view their messages differently from messages sent out by the KKK? Could it simply be a case of who the messenger is? Or is it the way the messages are presented? I think it is a combination of both.

Persuasion is the process of how a message is used to change the attitudes, behaviors or beliefs of an individual or group. In addition, credibility of both the message and messenger can play a key role in the persuasion process. “Social psychologists have found that who is saying something affects how an audience receives it” (Myers, 2007, p. 168). When the messenger appears credible the message also appears more credible. Who would you trust more, a politician or your priest/bishop/pastor, etc.? Is there really a difference between them?

In the case of Christian organizations, they are taking advantage of the far reach of the Internet, and they currently provide a lot of anti-gay news and information to their online readers. They update the stories frequently and provide a strong anti-gay bias to everything that is reported. “Some fundamentalists have even asserted that the Scriptures allow them, since they’re on the side of righteousness, to mislead people intentionally” (Irvine, 2005, p. 2). You can see this process in action on The Traditional Values Coalition’s (TVC) website. They have created a section called the Homosexual Urban Legends Series, where they use counter research to challenge existing research about homosexual issues and present their anti-gay biases in an educational manner. They focus on trying to link homosexuality to child molestation and to criticize activist groups, who in their eyes, are trying to promote the homosexual agenda (Irvine, 2005). By using counter research, to the uniformed reader, the message seems quite credible, when in reality the reader is not getting the full story.

“Persuasive power enables us to enlighten or deceive” (Myers, 2007, p. 184), these anti-gay Christian hate groups understand this, and they are quickly learning powerful new persuasive strategies to spread their anti-gay agenda worldwide. Armed with the shield of religion to hide behind, counter research tactics, and the Internet, their reach is expanding quickly.

References

Irvine, J. M. (2006). Anti-Gay Politics on the Web Behold the religious Right's latest anti-gay ploy: sound scientific. The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 13(1), 15-19.

Lee, E., & Leets, L. (2002). Persuasive Storytelling by Hate Groups Online: Examining Its Effects on Adolescents. American Behavioral Scientist. 45(6), 927-957.

Marková, I. (2008). Persuasion and Propaganda. Diogenes. 55(1), 37-51.

Myers, D. G. (2007, 4th ed.). Exploring Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thiesmeyer, L. (1999). Racism on the Web: Its rhetoric and marketing. Ethics and Information Technology. 1(2), 117.

Photo source: http://grannygeek.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/phelps-followers.jpg

Exploring Identity in the Virtual World

Is that REALLY you?

According to Myers (2007), the self is the most researched topic in psychology. “Our sense of self organizes our thoughts, feelings and actions” (Myers, 2007, p. 25). When you complete the sentence, “I am ________” you are essentially defining or describing your identity, how you see yourself. You could fill in the blank to describe an element of your personal identity, for example, “I am sarcastic” or “I am athletic” or you could use terms to describe your social identity, such as, “I am Jewish” or “I am Gay” (Myers, 2007). Junglas, Johnson, Steel, Abraham, & Loughlin (2007) suggest that identity formation includes two processes, exploration and commitment. Exploration is the time period where someone questions or searches for their beliefs, and goals, and commitment is when they decide, and invest in the beliefs and goals (Junglas et. al, 2007). More research on where and how individuals explore their identities is beginning to surface, with the focus turning from real world to virtual worlds.

In a study done by Cabiria (2008), he compared participants’ real world experiences to their virtual world experiences, as a gay or lesbian individual. Part of his findings suggest that, “The structure and design of virtual worlds allows its users to freely explore many facets of their personalities in ways that are not easily available to them in real life” (Cabiria, 2008). One reason for this freedom of exploration can be attributed to the anonymity that virtual worlds provide. It gives the individual the ability to be free from social norms, family pressures or expectations they may face in their personal real world lives (Junglas et. al, 2007). However with this anonymity, other consequences come into play when you look at the commitment aspect of identity formation. For example, if an individual creates a virtual identity that is different from their real life identity, it can take a lot of psychological effort to maintain the false identity. In addition, one of the two options will occur, the identities may converge into one, making the virtual and real identities more true, or the individual may simply toss out the virtual identity, and start over with a new one (Junglas et. al, 2007). According to Junglas et. al (2007), they determined that:

“In regards to the formation of an individual’s identity in virtual worlds, we have inferred that exploration, which motivates such formation, may play a more dominant role than it does in the real world.” (Junglas et. al, 2007. p. 94)

Adrian (2008) has referred to virtual worlds as “domains of liquid identity” because you never really know “who” the individual is and the virtual identities can be quickly “self-defined rather than pre-ordained” (Adrian, 2008, p. 367). Boon and Sinclair (2009), go on to say that, in regards to virtual worlds like Second Life, it is almost impossible to tell the real identity of a user. In fact, Second Life does not allow the user to use their real name. As a result, “It provides a very real disconnect from the real” (Boon & Sinclair, 2009, p. 106).

The element of anonymity within virtual worlds, may provide individuals with a safe and private arena to explore their identity. However, anonymity also presents a problem for others who engage in virtual worlds, and that problem is trust. Anonymity can leave you scratching your head wondering how much, if any, of an individual’s virtual identity, is really - real.

References

Adrian, A. (2008). No one knows you are a dog: Identity and reputation in virtual worlds. The Computer Law and Security Report. 24(4), 366-374.

Boon, S., & Sinclair, C. (2009). A world I don't inhabit: disquiet and identity in Second Life and Facebook. Educational Media International. 46(2), 99-110.

Cabiria, J. (2008). Benefits of Virtual World Engagement: Implications for Marginalized Gay and Lesbian People. Media Psychology Review. 1 (1). Retrieved September 25, 2009 from http://mprcenter.org/mpr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167&Itemid=120

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology. 34(2), 119-140.

Junglas, I. A., Johnson, N. A., Steel, D. J., Abraham, D. C., & Loughlin, P. M. (2007). Identity Formation, Learning Styles and Trust in Virtual Worlds. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems : a Quarterly Publication of SIGBIT.. 38(4), 90-96.

Myers, D. G. (2007, 4th ed.). Exploring Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Our Father, who art... Online?

Exploring Faith, Religious Culture and Identity on the Web

When we explore topics in cultural psychology, we are examining the “ideas that coordinate the actions and construct the meanings of a group of people” (Snibbe, 2003). When thinking about cultural issues, it might be more common to think of race related issues first. However religion seems to be an overlooked dimension in cross-cultural psychology. This dimension is important to explore because, “Religion is inextricably woven into the cloth of cultural life” (Tarakeshwar, Stanton & Pargament, 2003).

For many of us our religious identity was determined at birth. We grew up in an environment where we followed the religious beliefs of our family and the culture we lived in. Some of us may have had the opportunity to explore different faiths, while others did so at the wrath of their family. For example, I was raised in a very liberal household and my parents gave me the opportunity to seek out the religious identity that felt right for me. While I know many people who were brought up in strict Catholic and Jewish homes, where exploring any other faith was out of the question. But today, research is beginning to show a shift in how we form our religious identity. According to Barry Kosmin, director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, “Family and ethnic loyalties -- the old glue that maintained inter-generational religious identification -- has weakened.” In addition, he goes on to state, “Americans are more likely to be "searching" for religious truth, often outside their own traditions” (Useem, 2007). This is interesting because many of these “seekers” have taken to the internet to explore other religions, interact with like minded individuals, form religious communities and attend religious services online. According to a report produced by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, “Nearly two-thirds of online Americans use the Internet for faith-related reasons.” That figure is close to 82 million Americans (Clark, Hoover, & Rainie, 2004).

This break from traditional concepts of how religious identity and cultures are formed may frighten some people. For example, churches may feel that they will lose members of traditional organized religions offline, to the growing numbers of congregations and religions online. However, research suggests the opposite (Campbell, 2004). What researchers have found is that, “Faith-related activity online is a supplement to, rather than a substitute for offline religious life” (Clark et al., 2004). Furthermore, Heidi Campbell, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, argues that religion online is simply different, and it provides the individual with “a new place to experiment with spirituality in a safe and self-directed manner” (Campbell, 2004). This may be a major factor in why 16% of Americans have changed their religious identity in their lifetime (Useem, 2007).

It’s clear that online technology is changing the way individuals study, interact and worship within their religious cultures and communities, and I wonder what our religious culture will be like 5 or 10 years from now.

References

Campbell, H. (2004). Challenges Created by Online Religious Networks. Journal of Media and Religion. 3(2), 81-99.

Campbell, H. (2006). Religion and the Internet. Communications Research Trends. 25(1), 3-20.

Clark, L., Hoover, S., Rainie, L. (2004). Faith Online. Pewinternet.org. Retrieved September 5, 2009 from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/Faith-Online.aspx

Snibbe, A. (2003). Cultural Psychology: Studying More Than the 'Exotic Other'. Psychologicalscience.org. Retrieved September 5, 2009 from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1444

Tarakeshwar, N., Stanton, J., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Religion: An Overlooked Dimension in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 34(4), 377-394.

Useem, A. (2007). For Many Americans, Religious Identity is No Longer a Given. Pewforum.org. Retrieved September 5, 2009 from http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=12716

Emoticons :)

The Deliberate Nonverbal Communication Tool in Computer Mediated Communications

Last night when I returned from my long drive home, I went into my Facebook account and updated my mood to “tired and worn out” with the click of a button. If my friends were at my house they would have been able to see just how tired I really was, by observing my body language, voice intonation and facial expressions. However since they could not see me I thought I’d clarify just how I really felt, with a little help from an emoticon. Scott Fahlman created emoticons when he posted a message on the Carnegie Mellon University bulletin board system, on September 19, 1982 (Krohn, 2004). Emoticons originally started as simple punctuation marks and when viewed sideways resemble facial expressions. Now they have evolved into many creative richly enhanced, graphic versions. They range from happy, sad, tired, angry, cool, laughing to devilish, and many more.

Computer mediated communications (CMC) have been characterized as lacking the traditional nonverbal communication cues that occur naturally in face-to-face conversations, such as body language, facial expressions, eye contact, vocal intonation, and personal distance (Krohn, 2004). The reasoning for this is because CMC lacks actual physical presence that you have in face-to-face communications. However it seems that none of the “traditional non-verbal communication theorists foresaw the introduction of emoticons as nonverbal communication… and failed to envision nonverbal communication in electronic communication” (Krohn, 2004, p. 322). In fact some have argued that because media allows for less social presence, and creates more psychological distance, therefore CMC is less emotional, it is more impersonal and more task oriented (Derks, 2007). While the research is still very limited in this area, it is beginning to show that the use of emoticons may not only improve communications but that they may also “serve as nonverbal surrogates, suggestive of facial expression, and they may add a paralinguistic component to a message” (Derks, 2007, p. 843).

Derks (2007) found that the use of emoticons in CMC is similar to the expressions people make during face-to-face communication. However, he believes that emoticon use is deliberate and voluntary, with the potential for them to be used more unconsciously over time. Haung, Yen and Zhang (2008) found that the use of emoticons in instant messaging (IM) situations can actually speed up communication, make communicating more fun and make it easier to express emotion by using less words. They also found that, “emoticons are not only fun to use but may be beneficial because an increase in information richness is equivalent to an improvement in communication efficiency and effectiveness” (Haung et al, 2008, p. 470). From this research they concluded that the use of richly enhanced emoticons in Instant Messaging (IM) may help create a more caring and cooperative work environment (Haung et al, 2008).

So while previous nonverbal communication theorists view CMC as less social because of the lack of social cues (Derks, 2007), the limited new research is showing that the use of emoticons proves otherwise.

References

KROHN, F. (2004). A GENERATIONAL APPROACH TO USING EMOTICONS AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34(4), 321-328. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from E-Journals database.

Huang, A., Yen, D., & Zhang, X. (2008, November). Exploring the potential effects of emoticons. Information & Management, 45(7), 466-473. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from E-Journals database.

Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: the importance of social context. (2007, January). Computers in Human Behavior, Retrieved September 18, 2009, from E-Journals database.

Homophobia in Virtual Communities

Hate is Hate, regardless of the environment

Imagine as you sit quietly in the safety of your own home, you find yourself becoming a victim of hate speech, and prejudice because of your race, religion or sexual orientation. Imagine your child is the victim of cyber bullying or virtual rape, while trying to play a game online. Unfortunately this is becoming a common experience for many individuals who engage in online media, like interactive gaming communities.

In the case of homophobia online, according to a 2006 survey of gay video game players, conducted by the University of Illinois, “When asked how frequently players experience homophobia, those surveyed who responded "Always" or "Frequently" equaled 42%. Add in "Sometimes" and it brings up that total to 74.5%.” (Cole, 2009). The study is a few years old, however this problem has only been getting worse, and in an effort to find solutions, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has launched, “The Project on Homophobia & Virtual Communities” (Cole, 2009). I have posted the GLAAD panel discussions in the general discussion area for this week for your review. This issue is of great concern because virtual prejudice or cyber bulling is one thing, but what happens when these behaviors spill over into real life?

Prejudice and discrimination tend to be terms that overlap. So in effort to clarify them, prejudice is a result of any kind of negative prejudgment of an individual or group, it is a negative attitude. While “discrimination is a negative behavior” (Myer, 2007). Real life discrimination can become physically harmful and even deadly. “Cyber-bullying is a psychologically devastating form of social cruelty among adolescents.” (Shariff, 2005). Keep in mind, the average online gamer is 35, however 25% of online gamers are under the age of 18 and they are not only witnessing and engaging in anti-gay behavior online, some are beginning to practice this behavior in their real lives.

“According to a 2007 report by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, "86.2% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 44.1% reported being physically harassed and 22.1% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation." (Cole, 2009).

In addition, last year 15 year old, Lawrence King from Oxnard, California, was shot twice in the back of the head by another male student while sitting in class, simply because he had asked the shooter to be his valentine (NYTimes, 2008). This year an 11-year-old boy from Massachusetts and an 11-year-old boy from Georgia, both committed suicide. Both boys were victims of anti-gay bullying at their schools (Cole, 2009). What is important to note is that, according to the American Psychological Association, “suicide is the number one cause of death for gay teens” (APA, 2001). What is even more unfortunate is that it seems that sometimes, even in death, these young victims are still the focus of hate. For example, in the case of Lawernce King, a public Facebook group was created to honor his memory and when asked why the comment wall had been removed, the creator stated that:

“The wall was being abused by many of the members to spew hatred and show disrespect towards the cause and many messaged me asking for it to be disabled so I did.” (Gianakos, 2009).

The social learning theory of aggression, purposed by Albert Bandura, states that we learn aggression by observing how others act, and by taking note of the consequences (Myers, 2007). If online gamers, adults or children, learn that it is ok to engage in hate speech, bullying and violence online, why should we expect any different from them in real life? In virtual communities there appears to be little regulation or protection from these types of virtual assaults, but the efforts of GLAAD’s Project on Homophobia & Virtual Communities is a first step. Hopefully this act for social change will generate awareness and help people realize that this is not just a gay issue, it is also an issue that affects people of different races and religious beliefs.

In doing my research for this week’s topic, I came across several articles on how games, violent and prosocial, impact the player. However, there seemed to be very view articles on the impact of virtual prejudice and discrimination and how it impacts individuals in real life. I am sure in the future this will not be the case.

References

APA. (2001). Teen and Young Adult Suicide: A National Health Crisis.. Apa.org. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/psuicidetest901.html

Cole, J. (2009). The Impact of Homophobia in Virtual Communities. Kotaku. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://kotaku.com/5311939/guest-oped-the-impact-of-homophobia-in-virtual-communities

Gianakos, L. (2009). Remembering Lawrence King (Murdered Because He was Gay.). Facebook.com. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8872347853

Myers, D. G. (2007, 4th ed.). Exploring Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cathcart, R. (2008). Boy’s Killing, Labeled a Hate Crime, Stuns a Town. Nytimes.com. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/23oxnard.html

Shariff, S. (2005). Cyber-dilemmas in the New Millennium: School obligations to provide student safety in a virtual school environment. McGill Journal of Education. 40(3), 467-487.

Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age

Beating your Head Against the Deaf Wall

I really enjoyed Fine’s book. Now of course I can relate to what she is saying because I have been in her shoes and I think anyone who has a background in business and marketing consulting or change management, would enjoy her book immensely. However, just because I can relate, does not mean I can’t be objective about it. I do think that a chapter on the pitfalls of social media use would be very good for a future edition. However, Fine does address some of these concerns in her podcasts. I have also written a blog post about “The Good, Bad and Ugly side of Social Media.” The post explains an experience I had a few years back.

A few have commented that Fine places such a strong emphasis on going digital and getting connected and of course I would agree – that is the point of the book, she is explaining how to properly leverage social media platforms. However, I would really like to emphasize a key point she makes in her book that I feel is the central element that surrounds being successful in the connected age. And to take it one step further, I think it is a central element even if you are unconnected. That element is LISTENING. “Most corporations and activists are not taking the time to understand, listen to, and build relationships with their customers.” (Fine, pg 75)

Regardless of how connected or unconnected you are, Fine argues that you need to “Embrace Authentic Conversations” with your customers, donors, employees, etc. If you do not do this, you will not be as successful. Fine says, “Nothing substitutes for in-person meetings, but augmenting those meetings with e-mails, online discussion lists, conference calls, video conferences, or blogs will allow for a great deal of input to be given quickly and inexpensively.” (Fine, pg 81)

She also states that, “Listening is an activist organization’s first step in learning how its services are perceived and received by participants, and learning is the only way to improve.” (Fine, pg 80) This is the chapter I stood up and shouted out “YES – ABSOUTELY - I could not agree more!!!” – well ok, I just did a little happy dance in my head because, yes, I really could not agree more. Why? Well because I, like many other department leaders and consultants, have experienced first hand the headache that is created from beating your head against a deaf wall.

If I had a dollar for every CEO that hired me and then told me, “We have been doing it this way for X many years and it has always worked” - I’d be a very rich woman, sipping fruity drinks on some exotic Island typing this post between naps and dips in the ocean. Instead I am typing this post sitting on my couch in a sweat-box of a house right now, because of the recent San Diego heat wave. Anyway, the point of it all is that, the way they had been doing it for years, was not working NOW but yet they were unwilling to listen to new ideas, to let go or to try something different.

Fine states that, “An organization that is unwilling to listen creates a closed echo chamber that does not allow new ideas and strategies to be heard.” (Fine, pg 80-81) This made me think of a central theme that seems to run through both Lakoff’s book and Fine’s book, and that is, regardless of if you are a business or a politician, you cannot win or survive in the new world with an old way of thinking.

Another important point that Fine touches on is that, “Asking for input but not listening to it is worse than not asking at all.” (Fine, pg 81) If you have read her book, I’m sure we can all relate to her examples of sending in comments via an online form but never getting a response. I think that statement illustrates how many companies just do not know how to engage in social media. Having an online presence is not enough and social media only works when you are social. I wrote another blog post about this very thing as it relates to politics and the recent election - it discusses how McCain’s lack of awareness of how to leverage social media was a major issue for him during the campaign.

I agree with Fine, if you put yourself out there, be prepared to follow through. I have seen first hand how a simple email response, willingness to listen and help my customers has paid off. I not only get emails with positive comments back but I also read in the forums how much people were happy with our customer service and surprised that we even got back to them – because many companies do not respond to email inquiries. I have found that when you do respond, listen and try to help it is very good for business.