Show & Tell Final

My final contribution was the transparent illusion advertising. It's a huge play off of perception. Our brains construct our perception by selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensory information. The brain always likes to search for patterns, even when there are none. But, our brain has ways of grouping information: by the figure-ground relationship, proximity, connectedness, similarity, continuity, and closure. These grouping patterns help make optical illusions work.
The illusions I found for advertising are transparent illusions. These illusions look transparent because they are skillfully painted to blend with the background, making the ad look see-through. This plays off the figure-ground relationship in the brain, by appearing to be transparent, our brain has a hard time discerning what is the figure (the ad) and what is the background (behind the billboard/car or through it?). The ads look more like the background than the object itself. For the car especially, it is painted to make it look like you can see the parking lot and wall that would be directly behind it, normally out of our line of sight with a normal painted car sitting there. By blurring the normally clear lines between the background and the advertisement (the object) these ads play a trick on our perspective.
*Sidenote: Remember the color blind tests at all? Color blind tests are just optical illusions with colors. In the blog intro on the car advertisement it said color-blind people tend to be able to pick out the transparent car faster than someone who sees color. Wonder why that is? Is it because their color (or I guess colorless) perspective makes it easier to see the transparent car as an object rather than it blending into the background?
Transparent PSP billboards: http://www.moillusions.com/2008/12/transparent-psp-billboards-spotted-in.html
Transparent car recycling advertisement: http://www.moillusions.com/2009/05/hidden-skoda-fabia-optical-illusion.html

*And: Forgot to mention in class that I posted the link for the article on David under the Wild Children post. But here's the link again: http://www.houstonpress.com/1997-04-10/news/bursting-the-bubble/1
It gives you a very different look at David than what we got from the documentary perspective.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/48460/30-rock-santas-letter

Altruistism is defined as unselfish regard for the welfare of ohters. On the other hand, egoistic helping is defined as a form of helping in which the ultimate goal of the helper is to increase his/her own welfare. In this clip, the character had helped out some kids by responding to a dear Santa letter and providing gifts for Christmas. However, when she meets the kids she helped, she stated that she sent the gifts and that she made Christmas happen. Thus, this was an act of egoism instead of altruism because she wanted to make sure that the people around her knew that she donated the gifts. She was worried about making herself look good rather than the feelings of the children. This shows an example of how altruistic helping may turn into egoistic helping.

On the other hand, egoistic helping may also transform into altruistic helping. In the movie I Am Sam, a lawyer first takes a case involving Sam, a mentally retarded father trying to get his daughter back, simply to look good in front of her coworkers. However by the end of the movie, after getting to know Sam and the type of person he was, the lawyer genuinely wants to help Sam out for his own sake. This is an example of how egoism can turn into altruism.

I thought this topic was interesting because many times, acts that may seem altruistic may in fact be performed in order to make an individual look good or to look out for one's own well being. This demonstrates the norm of reciprocity in which people do something because they expect something in return. At the same time, acts done specifically to enhance one's own well being may lead to a deeper empathetic understanding of another persons position, and as a result, lead to a true act of altruism.

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2009/02/lauren-conrad-seventeen-magazine-april-2009.jpg

I chose to analyze the April edition of Seventeen magazine, specifically the cover and other elements inside. The cover is designed with a few bright colors like orange and yellow, which immediately grab potential reader's attention on the newsstand. As we all know, if something doesn't grab our attention, we are not going to notice it and it will get lost in the mix. By using bright colors, the magazine is more "eye catching" and thus, if we are able to pay attention to it we might buy it.

In addition to the colors on the cover, I think all the little phrases on the cover play a big role. Kayla mentioned this in her presentation about Cosmo, and the same thing happens w/ Seventeen. When the reader sees phrases like "the one guy mistake you're making" on the cover, they personalize the statment and experience a confirmation bias. Although before reading this the girl might have been perfectly confident with the opposite sex, this phrase introduces doubt in their mind and they think, "what if I'm doing something wrong? I should read this." Anyway, all the little teases on the cover introduce problems and conflicts into the reader's life, even though none may exist. Because conflict is introduced, the reader will probably be more prone to buying the magazine in order to get rid of the conflict.

A final thing I found interesting about this magazine was the inclusion of pseudosciences like "how to tell if a guy is into you" and horoscopes. Obviously, making generalizations like these will not apply to everyone, but somehow we continue to buy in to their veracity and believe them to be true. Although these statements and situations may be true some of the time, it's wrong to assume they're right for everybody all the time. Anyway, I just thought the inclusion of these pseudosciences was interesting, and it's even more interesting how some people completely believe them and place a lot of faith in them.

My clip focused both on emotion and ethics. Earlier in class, we talked about how an emotion lasts for about 3-5 seconds, whereas anything longer than that can be classified as a mood. In this clip, Alexander is experiencing a mixed emotion of sadness and fear. The commercial producer reported that the child was only crying for about 4-5 seconds, even though in the commercial it looks longer than this.

Emotions are also physiological reactions. In this commerical, the child was scared, and his response was emotional, he started crying and showed a look of fear on his face. This also reminds me of the basic human instincts of fight or flight when presented with a dangerous stimulus. Alexander really did neither of these, but that perhaps is because he is still young, and perhaps because he was just bewildered by the situation.

Emotions are also somewhat easy to see in facial expressions. Obviously, we could all tell that Alexander was upset and lost by the look on his face throughout the commercial. I think perhaps as people age they also get better at hiding their emotions, and because Alexander was so young, his is quite poignant and visible.

Also, Alexander's emotion was easy to read. The one article I read (CMOS, Win Big By Letting Emotions Drive Advertising Dan Hill. Advertising Age.) talked about six core emotions that are universal in all cultures. The emotion found on Alexander's face in this commercial had almost the same effects in New York as it did in Australia, which shows that this would be one of those core, universal emotions.

In order to sell a commercial, producers have to get the audience to watch or look at the advertisement. This look must happen and it must be a "gotcha," attention-grabbing event. If viewers are uninterested in what they are viewing, they will tune out and the commercial producers will have lost them. Feelings often come before thinking, and so that is why this commercial is so successful. The child is transfixing, and then the commercial just draws you in as you continue to watch the child look around for his mother. As he starts to bawl, you can really feel his pain. Also, the above-mentioned article talked about how persuasion is emotional in nature. In the case of this advertisement, producers are using the child's emotion to persuade smokers to quit smoking.

Besides the emotional aspect, there are some ethics involved, about whether it was right or wrong to let the child cry or not. The producer mentioned time and again that Child Protection Services was on the set at all times, and so everyone involved did not believe Alexander was being emotionally harmed. This also brings up the risks vs. benefit aspect. Is it worth scaring a child for a couple of seconds in order to perhaps save lives? I think in this case it was.

Here's the link to the Today Show clip: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30027473?GT1=43001

I analyzed a controversial anti-smoking commercial that originally aired in Australia and became a major controversy when aired in New York. It depicts a little boy who is in the train station with his mother but loses sight of her and begins to cry. It is attempting to depict a scenario similar to a child losing his or her mother due to death from smoking. The reason it is controversial is because in order to get the little boy to cry for the commercial, the producers played out the actual scenario—they elicited the child’s tears by actually taking him to a train station and taking his mother away.
Many psychological elements were presented throughout the commercial—one of them being the emotions that the producers are attempting to draw out of the audience. Most theorists believe that emotions play a crucial role in motivation, and this commercial is trying to motivate people to quit smoking by attempting to elicit emotions such as fear, anger, and sadness from the viewers. All of these emotions are considered universal, and effective at eliciting behaviors. These emotions are also goal-incongruent—they are negative emotions that serve a purpose, however; they are not trying to obtain something, and instead they are trying to stop something—smoking! Because emotions serve the purpose of motivating behavior, the producers are hoping
that by getting the viewers (especially those that smoke) to experience these emotions, they will then act in a way to decrease the emotion.
The concept of motivation and emotion also ties into cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when inconsistencies exist between a person’s thoughts and his or her actions
When these inconsistencies occur, people will act to reduce the tension and find equilibrium. In this case, if a person (particularly a mother) sees this commercial and is saddened and upset about it, yet continues to smoke, she may experience cognitive dissonance. One way to reduce dissonance is by changing the behavior, and the goal of this commercial is to get people/mothers to experience dissonance and change the behavior of smoking by ceasing to do so.
Finally, motivation in general plays a huge role in the commercial. It attempts to motivate viewers to quit smoking, or to encourage the people they know to quit smoking
The producers are trying to manipulate behavior by playing on feelings, emotions, and needs. An important part of motivation is having goals and knowing which direction to go, and this commercial emphasizes the goal of smokers quitting their behavior. In an indirect way, the producers provide direction—they suggest to the viewers that one of the initial steps may be to think about their family/loved ones, and how they would feel if something happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAxUpeVhCg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjpV7KepnYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGp6C6NTWJA

I looked at a scene from "The Mist." Both clips are from the same scene but with the middle 5 minutes cut out to focus on the parts I wanted to focus on. In this movie a group of people in a grocery store because of a mysterious mist which took over their town. Anyone who goes into the mist is killed by monsters so they are trapped in the grocery store. Phones and cell phones are out so they are cut off from the world.

Conformity is likely to occur in situations which are ambiguous and when people have a reason to doubt their own judgement. This situation meets both of those requirements. Mrs. Carmondy, a religious fanatic, took advantage of this and began to gather people as her "follower." She created a group of people who were willing to kill if she told them to.

At the end of the second part, notice that Mrs. Carmondy isn't directly the one attacking the group of people trying to leave, yet she is the one that is shot and ends the fight. This is because Ollie Weeks, the one who shot her, understood that was really her causing the fight. The shots might not have had the same effect if they hadn't of been at the leader.

There are other psychological aspects which you could also get into on this scene, including religion, sacrifice, self defense instinct, adrenaline response, and instinct for a parent to protect their child. Another which Otto pointed out to me is that hero of the scene, Ollie, doesn't match our stereotypical hero. He isn't brawny and good looking. He's just the kind of nerdy looking store owner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nopKDuydRo

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090416170505AASMszu

I did my presentation on the Sponge Bob Squarepants Burger King commercial. I focused on the lyrics and how they are thoroughly inappropraite. I also talked about the similarities between the commercial and the original "Baby Got Back" song and video. I applied psych principles by focusing on association and advertisements. The Burger King people were probably trying to relate to older people and their children by using a song older people know and a cartoon that younger people know. The commercial is selling 99 cent kids meals with an adult value meal, which is why they were trying to appeal to adults and children.

I did Scene 15 from the movie Hot Fuzz, but I could not find a youtube video online. In this scene the two main character's have a heart to heart about how Nicholas Angel cannot "switch off". Nicholas Angel speaks of his japanese peace lily plant as having simply needs and that it helps him releive his stress. I think Angel experiences conflict stress, both approach-approach and pressure conflict stress. He experienced approach-apporach conflict stress because he had to choose between spending time with his girlfriend and spending tim at his job. He seemed to enjoy doing well at his job and really cared about his girlfriend, giving him to positive choices to choose from. He experienced pressure conflict stress, because of others and his own expectations of him succeeding at his job. The inverted U hypothesis states that stress can help one perform a task better up to a certain point, at which the stress interferes with one's ability to perform well. Angel is portrayed as being absolutely perfect at his job of police officer, and so it would seem he has a healthy level of stress in those situations. However, his devotion to his job has interfered with his interpersonal relationships and that is why Angel and his girlfriend broke up. It is also why he is so fond of his peace lily, as he says in the scene, "it's needs are simple". It seems that the only relationship he can form is with an inanimate plant that does not have any emotional needs.

My presentation was about motivation regarding a Tide to Go Commercial, here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju4jAfg4p8s&feature=PlayList&p=8711DCBB3D6B5035&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10

I think that, like most advertisements, this commercial focuses on motivation. The first thing I noticed was that the two voices talking at the same time was a really stressful, irritating experience. You really want to hear what the guy is saying, but you can't because the stain is distracting you. We can't process and understand the two inputs at the same time, so it creates this unpleasant situation. The stain's voice becomes a negative environmental stimulus and acts as an incentive for us to get rid of the stain so that we can hear what they guy is saying.
I also think that this commercial really plays on two of our need based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As humans, we have physiological needs, etc... but we also have needs for belonging and acceptance. We need to be accepted and belong to groups of people, we hate rejection and many times don't know how to deal with it. We also have self esteem needs, we need people to respect us and like us etc... Basically, we need to be loved and have people around us that support us and make us feel loved. Therefore, most of our social behaviors are aimed at avoiding rejection and gaining that support and acceptance that we need- meaning we try to make good impressions of ourselves to people. To do so, we have to conform to norms in our culture that tell us how to belong and avoid rejection by others. This is what advertising is focused on, making you feel like you NEED something to be accepted, and if you don't buy it then you will be rejected. If you wear a certain brand, or use this make up, or that pair of shoes, then you will belong and people will like you- this is the message that advertising often sends. It is pretty well accepted in our society that you are supposed to have clean clothes and look nice when meeting new people or trying to make a good impression on someone. Obviously the guy does not conform to this norm, and he is therefore rejected because the girl thinks he is gross. That rejection is his motivation to change whatever caused the rejection, and in this case it was the giant talking stain. Once he gets rid of it, he can try again and this time, speak for himself instead of letting the stain speak for him.
Lastly, the slogan at the end "Silence the stain, instantly!" has a double meaning regarding motivation. The audience wants to the stain to stop talking so that they can understand the guy, and the guy wants to silence the stain so that he can tell the girl about himself without letting the stain talk for him

I shared a scene from Episode 19 of this season's Grey's Anatomy. Here's a link to the free episode viewer: http://fep.abc.go.com/fep/player?src=abccomjs&show=93515 . You will probably have to download an application to watch the scene; sorry! I analyzed the portion of the movie where the little girl's father yells at the pediatrician and Dr. Bailey about his daughter's cancer and insists that he is taking her to Mexico for treatment, regardless of what they tell him.

The psychological aspects of this scene that I focused in on were the obvious denial the father is dealing with. Even though he knows his daughter is dying, he repeatedly denies the doctors' prediction of how soon she is going to die. Also, he displays a lot of self-centered behaviors in this scene; he talks about himself a lot and about what HE has found and what HE wants to do, etc. I found it interesting that even though his daughter is the one dying from cancer, all he can really talk about is himself. Another aspect of the scene that I noticed but forgot to share in class were attributions. During the tale end of the scene the dad tells one of the doctor's, "Shame on you doctor. Shame on you for not having faith in my daughter." (or something to that effect!) Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that in his period of intense denial, the father attributes the pain and difficulty he is facing to the doctors, who had tried their best and still could not save his little girl.

Alright, so the problem is that for some reason, the clip that I chose is the only clip to not appear on youtube.

I presented on "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and talked about a few things. First, there is the aspect of memory. In the scene, we find out that the man (Joel - played by Jim Carrey) is having his former girlfriend (Clementine - played by Kate Winslet) erased from his memory. The doctor performing the procedure says that the basis is that each memory triggers an emotional center in the memory, and if they can map these emotional connections in the brain and eradicate them, it destroys the memory. Not really feasible, I think. Research does suggest that these sort of "emotional connections" exist (or are made) in the right prefrontal cortex. However, when faced with a memory-laden object, say, a doll, there are dozens of memories and connections being made - not just the one emotional memory of the one person.

The main focus, however, was this procedure as a coping strategy. On the surface, it's the best thing ever, because if you don't even remember something, it never causes you pain, and you never have to deal with it. But then again, it's problematic because you don't learn from experiences, you don't gain insight into new experiences, and you don't really grow. A big part of our development is that we have experiences and understand them, deal with their consequences, and do better the next time. The person who erased an ex is bound to have more exes, because they didn't learn. And lastly, the procedure is brain damage - any coping strategy that is harmful to oneself or others is not a good strategy. This also includes the fact that the other people in the lives of those who undergo the procedure have to forget as well - and are not allowed to broach the subject of the forgotten person.

Sum up: interesting idea, lots of good social commentary, a great movie, but probably not plausible as a real procedure, and not an effective means of coping.

My final presentation focused on the psychology of death, mostly centered around the Elizabeth Kubler Ross' grief cycle. I chose clips from the second season of Six Feet Under to demonstrate how the media was pretty accurately depicting these stages. They were accurately shown because they did not all happen in the same order, nor was every character on the same page in their grief. Six Feet Under is also a great example of a show that breaks barriers; forcing viewers to face the taboo that is talking about death. It is a show that makes death a reality and does so through the use of characters who are very real as well (not "perfect looking" and very flawed). The final episode was obviously about the different stages of grief that everyone in the family was feeling. Claire was finally mourning her father's death, Nate was dealing with the death of a friend, and choosing to accept his own death. The mother and brother were denying the possibility of Nate's death. It was interesting to observe the contrast between all of the different places they were at in their grief.

For my final presentation, I chose to examine three covers of Cosmo magazine. Firstly, the magazines draw customers in through their bright colors and various frilly fonts, which draw attention to certain words and phrases. Also, the location of certain words draws people in – the word “sex” on all three covers is directly below the heading. The covers demonstrate that the magazine is obviously targeting a very specific group of people, that being young, non-conservative women (or those who want to have that kind of lifestyle…like “cougars”). This is apparent from the topics addressed on the cover as well as the celebrity cover girl advertising the magazine. Few people outside of this target group would probably know who these girls are. The cover girls on the magazine also serve another purpose. She is always friendly-looking with a smile on her face, making it seem as if she is your friend. She is the one who is giving you the advice on the page. This point is further supported by the language used on the cover. One cover advises consumers how to “save your ass at work” and how to “be a lucky bitch”, both phrases strangers would not say to someone. The magazine is reiterating the point that the cover girl (and the magazine itself) is a friend. Another way the magazine appeals to consumers is through confirmation bias. The advice they advertise on the cover makes consumers feel as if something is missing or wrong in their life, and the magazine will help remedy that. For example, the covers all advertise some kind of weight loss program, leading readers to think they need to lose weight (even though they contradict these statements with articles on self-esteem and acceptance throughout the magazine). Also, although the magazine is supposedly empowering to women, it plays on female stereotypes, assuming for example that women only engage in sexual activity for emotional reasons. For these reasons listed above, consumers are influenced to buy this product.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuFX0vumDAA

I presented on the documentary Steve-O Demise and Rise. Along with the documentary I spoke about an article by Dr. Drew Pinskey that studied celebrities and their tendency to be narcissists. The example that Dr. Drew used was Anna Nicole Smith, specifically how she was so in love with being on camera and in the public spotlight, she did not even recognize when the constant attention was becoming detrimental to her health and emotional stability. I thought that Dr. Pinsky's study was applicable to the Steve-O documentary because throughout his stuggles with addiction Steve-O was constantly taping himself. He was more concerned about shocking people and being in front of the camera, that he would do awful things to his body (huffing nitrous oxide)simply to gain attention. Another part of the article was how this sort of narcissism is negativly affecting a whole generation of youth. It is necessary to teach children about the difference between good attention and bad attention and what behaviors go along with each.

I already e-mailed this to you a week ago, because my computer crashed and with graduation stuff going on I wasn't going to be able to have access to a computer. Anyway, I thought I would also post it here now that I finally bought a new computer to make sure that you received my presentation summary:

I did Scene 15 from the movie Hot Fuzz, but I could not find a youtube video online. In this scene the two main character's have a heart to heart about how Nicholas Angel cannot "switch off". Nicholas Angel speaks of his japanese peace lily plant as having simply needs and that it helps him releive his stress. I think Angel experiences conflict stress, both approach-approach and pressure conflict stress. He experienced approach-apporach conflict stress because he had to choose between spending time with his girlfriend and spending tim at his job. He seemed to enjoy doing well at his job and really cared about his girlfriend, giving him to positive choices to choose from. He experienced pressure conflict stress, because of others and his own expectations of him succeeding at his job. The inverted U hypothesis states that stress can help one perform a task better up to a certain point, at which the stress interferes with one's ability to perform well. Angel is portrayed as being absolutely perfect at his job of police officer, and so it would seem he has a healthy level of stress in those situations. However, his devotion to his job has interfered with his interpersonal relationships and that is why Angel and his girlfriend broke up. It is also why he is so fond of his peace lily, as he says in the scene, "it's needs are simple". It seems that the only relationship he can form is with an inanimate plant that does not have any emotional needs.