Pass the Asparagus

The asparagus seems to represent a lot about Kevin Spacey's character and the message he is trying to send in this scene. The nonverbal (and some inconspicuous verbal) communication associated with the asparagus reinforces the message Spacey is trying to send here. Spacey's verbal messages in the scene are that he is tired of being ignored and feeling like he doesn't exist. Now he wants to take charge and persuade them to pay attention and take him seriously.

Everything associated with the asparagus mirrors this message. The scene starts out with Kevin Spacey gradually asking for the asparagus more and more forcefully as his request goes unnoticed. After yelling at his daughter to sit down, he stands up to grab the asparagus himself. Now it is completely silent, suggesting it is unusual behavior for him to be so forceful. At the end, as we know, he shockingly throws the plate of asparagus at the wall and says, "Don't interrupt me."

These factors of the scene go along well with the persuasion portion of my book. Kevin Spacey is trying to send a credible and important message using verbal and nonverbal communication. In order for his message to persuade his receivers, he uses fear (yelling/throwing the plate), which in the book was said to be a very effective tactic when done correctly. When you think about it, Spacey also uses subtle repetition to get his message across, represented by him asking for the asparagus again and again. This suggests that perhaps in his past he tried to use quiet repetition to get someone to listen to him, but that it was ultimately unsuccessful. However, in the end of this scene his persuasion using fear was very successful, with the whole room silent, waiting to see what his next move would be.

Obviously there is a ton of psychology in this scene, as we talked about in class. I particularly like the way the mom and dad talked to each other. The mom was very sarcastic and was trying to upkeep her "good mother and housewife" type of attidude. The husband was very blunt and didn't give a shit. I don't know what kinda of psychology that is but obviously its interpersonal attraction and there are a lot of underlying tones in the scene. I also thought what Otto was saying about the angles and symmetry in the scene was really cool. I would love to hear more about that and pick it up in different commercials and other scenes.

I was intrigued by Otto's question at the end of class the other day, about why asparagus was chosen to be part of the scene, and not some other random food item like mashed potatoes or carrots perhaps. I thought that perhaps the asparagus was another portrayal of the family's relationships with one another- pretty superficial and trying to look good. I mean, I think that's really the only reason anyone would eat aspagarus- to make other people think they are super healthy. I felt like asparagus is not a good representation of a "family meal" food. When I think of family get-togethers, I think of mashed potatoes. Strangely enough, I also feel like this connects to socio-economic status as well. I would think more middle class families would be eating mashed potatoes together, probably at a not so decorated table, without music. In this scene, the family looks to be higher class (I haven't seen the rest of the movie) by the consuming of asparagus, the lighted candles and fancy table set-up, and the music in the background. But perhaps, this is just me being prejudiced (ironically, I'm the one with the cultural part).

maybe not necessarily relating to this scene, but i guess it was on the dvd...the title sequence! i don't know how many of you saw it, but i thought it was pretty interesting. basically it was just an ordinary plastic bag with a brick wall in the background. there seemed to be a sweeping tornado-like wind that caused the bag to behave randomly and with weird motions. i thought it related really well to the scene we watched, coincidental or not. just like the girl in the asparagus scene, it seemed the bag was torn between sides, like it had no idea where to go and was all alone. to play on this, the sequence used a variety of psychological tools to influence the viewer. for example, the background music was a simple, "lonely" piano tune...slow in tempo and gave the feeling of loneliness. we can all probably venture a guess at what it sounded like, since we've been reinforced so many times in movies and on tv of what lonely should "sound" like. also, the camera gradually zoomed in over the course of the entire scene, almost as if it was moving closer in an attempt to comfort the bag. this happens in everyday life; when someone is hurting we will usually try to move closer to console them. this scene plays on that notion directly by having the camera zoom in. also, the brick wall was a harsh and unwelcoming feature in the background, perhaps to emphasize the lonely situation the bag was in. maybe this is way off base and ridiculous, but i thought this scene was pretty powerful and used a lot of psychology to get the viewer to feel for the person/thing affected, even though in this case it was a plastic bag.

This scene was about a power struggle. The husband and wife are arguing but it is obvious that this isn't really about a single issue. This is something that built up and the issue at hand is only the tipping point. This is really about establishing dominance. They both wanted to have control but neither was letting down. The husband realized he had no control when he couldn't even get the asparagus passed to him. When it was obvious he had none, he took control by persuading with fear. Throwing the plate shocked and scared the wife, putting her into submission.

I feel like the scene was full of psychology, especially relating to the concept of perfectionism. Although not necessarily a specific disorder listed in the DSM IV, perfectionism is a characteristic that plays into other disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, depression, or anxiety disorders. The mom in the movie was obviously obsessed with keeping up impressions: her clothing and table settings were inapropriate for an everyday family dinner. She reminded me of Bree in Desperate Housewives who is so concerned with being percieved as perfect that she loses sight of all her morals and bases all her decisions on what looks good in the mind of others. When people lose sight of themselves and what they believe in, it can be dangerous. Basing your self concept on what other people think of you, means that it is no longer a self concept, but rather just a label placed on you by society. This is obvious with eating disorders-often the people who suffer from them use society as their mirror. They no longer judge themselves based on their own personal ability, but rather on what society sets as an overall standard of achievement and beauty. I kind of went on a tangent here, but I find perfectionism a fascinating topic.

I really noticed the psychology in how the wife and husband talked to each other. She was so blatantly disrespectful of him and kept cutting him down for quitting his job. Her disrespect and disregard for him as a husband seemed to be intended to motivate him to be "manly" and get another job where he could actually support his family. His attitude was really rather nonchalant about the whole job situation. I thought it was really interesting how she was the one who was really "hung up" on the fact that he quit his job, while all he wanted was the opportunity to eat his supper. She was livid that he quit his job ... and he was just livid that no one would pass the experience. I kind of felt sorry for the "rebel" daughter because her parents were having this inappropriate fight in front of her. In my opinion, parents should try to have these kind of disrespectful and rude disagreements out of the presence of their children.

**Before reading, you should know that it's very difficult to separate "stress" in the psychological sense from "stress" in the every-day colloquial sense. Keep that in mind - I've tried to specify, but just in case I missed one...**

The news that he has quit his job is immediately a stressor in the scene. The loss of a job (I hesitate to phrase it that way because of his reaction to it...) is threatening to the livelihood of the family because it takes away income. The interesting part of this scene comes from the fact that each person in the family has a different way of reacting to this stress.

First of all, the father is not really "stressed" (psychologically) by the loss of his job. He mentions in the scene that he has another job, so he's not feeling that their livelihood is threatened. It seems he's more irritated by the family situation that he is in, and looking for some support from his family. I wouldn't say that his reactions come from any certain "stressor," but from needing support from the people in his life, and reinforcement for his decision to quit. His actions in the scene seem to depict a greater need for attention, and he seems to react more out of anger than out of any kind of coping mechanism.

The mother, however, is definitely feeling stress (psychologically) because she now feels that she is solely responsible for the financial upkeep of the family. Her coping mechanism is to be sarcastic and demeaning and verbally attack her husband, and though it never gets to a point of violence, as can be common in negative coping strategies, it also does not display any attributes of real or constructive problem-solving.

And finally, the daughter, who walks into the stressful situation (yes, psychologically stressful) and finds that her father has no job, and sees her father and mother fighting rather intensely, which are both reasonably threatening to her well-being. She sits quietly for a moment and then gets up to walk away. She's practicing the coping strategy of total avoidance, which is, like her mother's coping, not constructive. (And keeping with what I said of her father, he calls her back, which I think displays his need for their attention)

In the end, no one really goes for effective coping strategies, no one attacks the problem or addresses the situation in a constructive manner. Mom gets angry, daughter avoids, and Dad uses the asparagus (which I think is relevant because it's a vegetable that "stands up" in the literal sense that it's a stalk that stands - and he's finally showing some backbone) to stand up and not be invisible any more.

As we have mentioned several times, there is a lot of psychology in this movie scene, and it can be connected to many differeent aspects of psychology. I am trying to analyze what motivated this type of behavior between the husband and wife. I think that some of it can be attributed to self-handicapping--doing things that contribute to failure and then using those things as excused for frailing to achieve a goal. For instance,we can look at how he refers to quitting his job while she refers to him losing it. I can discuss this in more detail later, but I have to leave for class now! :)

This scene demonstrates the psychological concept of work-family conflict. This is a term from organizational psychology in which people experience a conflict between the roles they fulfil at work and in their personal lives. Obviously, this scene demonstrates tension between family members as a result of a situation that occured at work, specifically because the husband quit his job and blackmaled his boss.

Also, I see emotional labor in this scene. Though emotional labor is defined as the regualtion of one's emotions to meet job or orgnaizational demands, I see the mother and father as (at least trying to) regulate their emotions to meet family demands. Though they are both very angry with each other, they try to remain civil at the dinner table in front of their daughter. Even after the husband loses it and throws the plate of asparagus, he calmly sits back down and talks without raising his voice. Even though they are both trying to regulate their emotions, it is still a very awkward situation for the daughter to be in. This demonstrates that the workplace can have a significant impact on family life.

I think that this scene fits into health psychology because of the emotions and stressors presented. One ironic thing is how the scene begins. You hear calm, relaxing dinner music and see an elegantly set table. When the conversation starts, it is evident that his wife is trying maintain this composed, elegant environment. She keeps forcing a smile even when her language and tone of voice are clearly conveying that she is upset. My book specifically talks about an experiment by James Laird- in which the researchers simply instructed the participants to move certain facial muscles (the participants were not aware of the expressions that these movements created- they were given a false focus) When instructed to "pull your brows together" and "contract these other muscles etc..." they were unaware that they were making a scowling, angry expression. However, following the experiment they said that they felt a little anger. The same happened with a smile- they felt happier and found humorous things more funny etc... This also worked when directly telling them to make a certain facial expression. The team determined that making the faces without interference of competing emotions will result in the corresponding emotion.

There are many more experiments repeating and altering this same process- showing the same results. As far as the physiological symptoms go- an experiment was done by Kathleen Burns Vaughn and John Lanzetta (1981) in which the participants had to observe someone else being supposedly electrically shocked, and each time a "shock" happened some participants were told to make a pained facial expression. The observers that were told to force the pained expression experienced more perspiring and faster heart rates than the others. Sometimes we do this naturally- mimicking others' expressions- which explains why sometimes emotions seem to be contagious.

Back to how this relates to the scene- the woman tries to keep forcing this smile and maintain a composed environment (the music, elegant dinner etc..) it could be her effort to take control of the situation and force it into something not so frustrating and stressful. It obviously doesn't work- but she tries. The same with her husband- towards the end (before and after he throws the asparagus) he becomes really calm and quiet- it might be his effort to take control and make the situation more calm. But each time one of them snaps- the other seems to begin to snap to and it just keeps escalating- they cannot maintain those forced emotions because of the psychological stress of the situation- and it's obviously not just the job loss that is the issue here.

In the section on anger in my book, it talks about how it can be harmful to others is if you get too angry- but it can also be harmful to you if you keep it inside. All the things that they were bottling up are coming to a head in this scene. Western cultures tend to think that "catharsis" (meaning we get rid of anger by aggressively releasing it) Basically this means that if someone makes you mad- you let them know it right then and there. This sometimes works for a short time to calm you down but often it results in guilt or anxiety. But most of the time (as research shows) the anger just brings more anger from both you and the other person/people involved- as this scene beautifully illustrates. When a person is angry- the body freaks out too. Your blood pressure, heart rate, and muscle tension all increase- anger is physically exhausting. However, it can't stay in such a stressed state for long or there would be permanent damage. So your body must eventually calm back down- which happens after he throws the asparagus- he just kind of sits back down and makes his point and begins eating again.

* a side note about the asparagus: I think that his 3 or so failed attempts at getting someone to pass him the asparagus were his own little attempts at calming himself down momentarily- a distraction or attempt to maintain some normalcy at the table.

Back to my post about self-handicapping.. Because I haven't seen the movie, I don't know if he really quit his job or if he was fired or if he was about to lose his job so he quit. However, if he were in fact about to lose his job and quit instead, this could be stretched to relate to self-handicapping. If failure (losing his job) was anticipated, then him deciding to quit his job could have been a comfort mechanism--he wanted to have control of the situation and protect his ego and self-esteem.

In this scene, I found the daughter, Jane, to be particularly interesting. Now, I have seen this movie, but I will try to separate myself from the rest of the plot and concentrate on this scene. When Jane first enters, we see that she is dressed in all dark colors, complete with dark hair and makeup. It seems to me that Jane doesn’t fit in with her surroundings, and it leads me to believe she may be rebelling slightly against her parents (she is a teenager, after all). In addition, she enters the dining room late, when tensions between her parents, who are sitting silently, are already high. Only after Jane sits down to dinner do her parents begin talking and arguing. This may illustrate the fact that Jane is not involved in their conflict, but simply an audience. However, her role involuntarily changes from audience member to participator, even though she doesn’t say much throughout the meal. When Jane first sits down, her mother begins talking to her about how her father “lost” his job. She communicates her ill feelings toward her husband through her speech to her daughter, rather than directly to her husband (even though he obviously hears). In response, Jane’s father insults her mother in the same manner – through communication with Jane. By talking to Jane and telling her their side of the story, each parent is persuading Jane to take their side using the peripheral route for persuasion, meaning they are focusing on negative personal traits to emotionally appeal to Jane. Jane seems to be caught in the middle, unable to choose a side, which makes her uncomfortable. Her position is further illustrated by her physical location, centered between the candles and windows, equidistant from both her parents. When Jane tries to remove herself from the situation and cope by avoiding the conflict completely, she is ordered to sit down by her father, to whom she is obedient in this instance. If Jane is slightly rebellious, as I earlier presumed, then one would think she would leave the table anyway. However, she does not. I believe that Jane is obedient to her father’s demand not only because of his authoritative role as her father, but because she is surprised by his outburst – it doesn’t fit her person schema for her father. Jane simply sits back down and listens to her parents’ argument while trying to adjust her schemas for both her mother and father, and their relationship.

Yes, I too also noted the more formal vibe at the table. There is lighted candles, tablecloths, music playing, and asparagus being served instead of some more common dinner vegetable like carrots. The use of asparagus reminds me of Olive Garden and other fancier restaurants because I end up with asparagus on my plate a lot. When my family eats a normal dinner at home it is nothing like this, we grab our food and drink and either sit down on the kitchen barstools or go sit on the couch in front of the tv. Due to the more formal atmosphere of the dinner in this clip it leads me to believe this family is at least doing pretty well financial wise, though I haven't seen the whole movie. My area of expertise is perception and I believe the formality of this dinner is noticed because it probably is not a typical type of family dinner to us so the use of candles, tablecloth, and "Please pass the asparagus," signals to the information schemas we have in our brain that this is not a normal dinner and we have that stereotype that the way this dinner is set up is the way well to do people eat (without throwing the food though).

While I really can't come up with a name for this, when the father threw the dinner plate of asparagus both the daughter and wife were completely stunned silent. So it appears that it is a rare behavior for the father to exhibit such force to get what he wants, seems to challenge the family dynamics in a big way which will lead to the relationships between all three changing or maybe even dissolving.

According to an article in Psychology Today entitled “Pitfalls of Perfectionism,” there are several problems that arise when people try to be perfect. The first one the author (Hara Estroff Marano) mentions is the adverse ability to adapt to change-a quality that is essential in order for the human race to survive. Perfection “rigidifies” behavior and constricts people from being able to cope with the fast paced world that is made up of ambiguity. This concept alone relates to the clip. When the husband loses his job, the wife is not able to handle the situation with maturity nor is she able to be flexible and think outside of the box in terms of how her family will survive. Instead she becomes emotionally distraught that she will have to be the sole bread winner. This concern over having to financially support the family ties into another problem with perfectionism: it keeps people from engaging in challenging experiences.
People with perfectionism do not try new things because they are afraid of failure. Instead, these people tend to stick to what they know that they can be successful in. This adherence to only one task reduces creativity and the development of new knowledge-exactly what is not adaptive in the global marketplace.
Besides being a negative force in evolution/survival and the workplace, perfectionism can lead to several psychological disorders. The first two disorders can arise from the perfectionist’s fear of uncertainty. This intolerance for uncertainty is a key feature in both Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Anxiety and depression can crop up due to the perfectionist’s steady source of negative emotion and self evaluation which lead to feelings of helplessness and doom. In fact, a study done by researcher Suniya Luthar, found that “Children with high perfectionist strivings-those who saw achievement failures as personal failures-had relatively high depression, anxiety, and substance use.”
Because I have never seen the movie, I cannot say this is 100% accurate for the mom in the film; however, these issues are what the majority of people with perfectionism face.

I recently checked out a book from Rod called, "Mind Altering Drugs" because I thought it could be interesting to examine the effects drugs have on consciousness. Although I do not believe alcohol played a crucial role in this clip, I did find it's presence to be significant enough to note. Most people recognize that alcohol does not allow one to pick up on certain social cues as accurately as a sobered individual might, and in extreme cases, one who is "under the influence" will lose the ability to see what is appropriate in a given situation. The scene here is somewhat humorous (and shockingly abrupt!) because the environment in which the argument takes place is one that is far too formal and polite for the type of fight that is happening there. Popular society can probably attest to the so-called "liquid courage" theory which basically expresses the loss of one's tendency to hold back. The inebriated person is suddenly able to say what he or she really wants to say, without hesitation and sometimes without immediate accountability. Now, I realize that Kevin Spacey was not drunk during his confrontation with his wife and daughter at the dinner table, but I thought that the inclusion of alcohol gave us multiple indicators. First, a study done by Jospehs and Steele in the early 90's showed that "alcohol consumption followed by distracting pleasant or neutral stimuli can attenuate stress responses" and I think that the placement of the beer on the table right in front of him clues viewers into the liberating mindset he is in. Secondly, it somewhat serves as a symbol for this scene of conflict. The beer sitting in the middle of a beautiful table setting, the tranquil music floating in the background during a tense conversation, and an argument full of foul language and blame in such an elegant room--each thing within the pair is in conflict with the other, but all work together to make a strong statement. (I have no idea of ANY of that made sense...)

This scene from American Beauty seems to fit perfectly with a section in my expert area of intelligence called "Barriers to Reasoning Rationally." This scene, as we all know, if full of conversation and actions that are brought on by emotion and not necessarily thought about rationally before they were expressed.

For example, the confirmation bias which is defined as paying attention only to evidence that confirms one's belief and finding fault with evidence or arguments that point in a different direction. Both the husband and the wife contribute to this bias in this scene. The wife seems to believe (though it may be true...I've never seen the movie) that the husband has quit his job and put added stress on her just to torture her. The husband, on the other hand, seems to be confirming that his wife is merely content with him being "a f-ing prisoner..." and also finds joy in her husband's problems.

Another facet of this section are mental sets. Similar to confirmation biases, mental sets are the tendency to try to solve new problems by using the same strategies that worked (or in some cases didn't work) in the past. A common mental set and one that is shown in this clip is the tendency to find patterns in events. Both the husband, wife, and the daughter seem to see patterns in the behavior displayed at the meal. The daughter even says "Ok guys, I'm not going to be a part of this," as if this happens frequently. The wife, as mentioned above, is finding patterns in her husband disappointing her and the husband seems to be finding patterns with his wife's lack of respect for him.

Both of these examples (confirmation biases and mental sets)are ways this clip shows the lack of rational thinking.