My expert area is perception, so, when I found this picture online depicting a hole of lava on the sidewalk, I had to analyze it. For background, it seems the three dimensional ground illustration is an advertising campaign in New Zealand trying to prevent pedestrians getting hit by cars on busy main roads. The campaign also features a snake pit and a shark in water. I'll be focusing more on the lava depiction.

It is after that realization that one reads the words that are sending the real message, "Over 900 pedestrians were injured on Auckland City roads in the past five years: Don't step into danger." This is trying to relate to the pedestrians walking around by telling them to pay attention. The message sort of sends to the viewer that if you weren't watching where you were going you could have stepped into a lava pit and not even known until it was too late, the same with crossing the street.

But, why can one perceive this 3D image to be on the flat sidewalk? Humans have the ability of depth perception by retinal disparity, perceiving objects as three dimensional even though the retinas in our eyes see things as two dimensional. Humans have two eyes, so the brain must combine two seen images into one. The greater the difference between the two eyes, the closer the object is. Depth perception is typically used to judge distance, like how far away a car is. But, it isn't just horizontal, depth perception allows us to see things that go vertically as well, like the lava hole illustration. Also, in the picture, the person who took the picture must have been standing very close to it, because I perceive the illustration to be right in front of me, so there is a lot of difference from one eye to the other. It can be tested by closing one eye at a time and the picture will appear to greatly shift positions.

So, while we see the image in 3D, what makes us see the image as a hole in the ground? That has to do with being able to see light and shadow. Our brain almost always makes one assumption when it comes to light; we assume the light source is always from above, probably because of the importance of the sun through time. If an object appears lighter, it is either closer to you, because objects that are closer reflect more light, or it is facing in the direction of the light source. What is not lit by the light source is shaded. For this ad, it is placed outside, so its light source is the sun. So, seeing those darker, shaded areas cues our brain into perceiving depth, not a flat one color sidewalk, and to step around the hole.

One other principle helps make this a relative campaign to those standing around it. It is the use of placement. Placing the ad on the sidewalks by the busy streets not only ensures that more people will see the advertisement, but, it provides more relevance to those viewing it. The ad matches the setting it is placed in. If this drawing was placed in a quiet, suburban neighborhood it probably would not have much effect. Not only because of less people seeing it, but, due to people discounting it as not relevant to their situation. People in quiet neighborhoods usually do not have to worry about a whole lot of vehicles coming at them while crossing the street, so, this group will not see the ad as really all that important.

Furthermore, the use of brighter, more vivid colors for the advertisement campaign like orange, yellow, blue, and white are much more eye catching to those passing by these creations on the sidewalk. If more dull colors were used I do not think the campaign would have the same effect, because many people would ignore them and probably associate them to being silly drawings on the ground done by bored kids instead of an important message. If one looks closely at the picture, the colors give the illusion that the lava depicted there is very hot and churning because of the difference in the lava color, the appearance of swirling, and the perception of steam rising. The colors give more of a sense of meaning and more life-like illustrations. They grab someone's attention quickly and the colors bring their eyes to the campaign's message of assuming there is danger even on the sidewalk.

One of the compelling parts of this ad campaign is the use of danger. The word danger implies something threatening and to stay away from it. Lava holes, snake pits, and water full of sharks are definitely situations that a normal person would stay out of. Walking across a sidewalk has become a more careless activity, something this city in New Zealand thought that pedestrians weren't taking seriously enough. Many people do not even bother to look while crossing the street in major metropolitan areas, assuming that everyone in vehicles see them and will stop just because they are pedestrians, leading to many pedestrian hits. This is where the word danger comes in. The creators of the campaign want to associate crossing the street with the threatening situations of snake pits, etc. As said before, the situations created in the ads are things that most people would take care to avoid or take precautions and go around. If the campaign is successful, it will provoke more thought in pedestrians in the metro area to take more precautions where many vehicles are present, reducing the number of fatalities, which is the whole purpose of the advertisement.

http://www.moillusions.com/2008/12/dont-step-into-danger-3d-chalk-drawings.html 

Systematically discuss a psychological element of the documentary

Do an indepth analysis of the Wild Child that is not covered in the documentary

Do an indepth analysis of another 'wild child' case

                Situations similar to the one presented are all too common in today's world.  Increasingly, bikers and motorists are sharing the road, and this combination has potential to be deadly.  With all the other things to pay attention to while driving, it's relatively easy for motorcyclists and bicyclists to get lost in the mix.  The most obvious reason for this is their smaller size, enabling them to hide in blind spots and blend in to the surroundings.  Additionally, because drivers are often only on the lookout for other cars, they are simply not paying attention to the fact that cyclists may be present.  This presents a dangerous situation for all involved, and several ad campaigns have begun with the goal to get more drivers to pay attention to potential cyclists.  Transport For London's "Awareness Test" illustrates this situation perfectly, and it really opens the viewer's eyes to the danger of not paying attention out on the road.

The Awareness Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQJP40PcGI

                Upon first view, this commercial seems to be relatively straightforward.  It opens with a shot of two teams, each with four players.  After this, the narrator asks a seemingly simple question, "how many passes does the team in white make?"  Immediately following this, the clip runs for about 20 seconds, with the viewer counting the number of passes made.  However, the real fun begins after this.  Right after finding whether or not they'd counted correctly, the viewer is confronted with a different question, "did you see the moonwalking bear?"  To the viewer who took the bait, this question seemingly comes out of the blue.  However, upon watching the playback of the original clip, the viewer is able to easily recognize the bear dancing in the background given the new information.  After being shown how their attention has a big impact on what they see, the commercial drives the message home for the viewer, stating that, "it's easy to miss something you're not looking for...look out for cyclists."

                Although at first glance this commercial appears to be more comical than scientific, the basic idea for the scene is based on an actual psychological study.

The Original Study http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkn3wRyb9Bk&feature=related

  In 1983, researchers Robert Becklen and Daniel Cervone essentially set up the same scenario.  In their research, they were looking for occurrences when the brain failed to recognize certain stimuli, and based upon these instances they hoped to explain why this happened.  The setup for their experiment was extremely similar to the present day Transport For London commercial; it involved two teams of four players, both teams passed a basketball amongst themselves, and in the middle of it all there was a seemingly random object passing through everything.       

Becklen and Cervone's study, however, seems to put much more stress on the brain to focus intently.  The video seems to show the players as transparent, making it difficult to distinguish one person from another.  In addition, the participant had to press a button every time the ball was passed.  This introduced yet another thing the participant had to pay attention to, further eliminating their capacity to see the "hidden" object.  In the end, however, the results were the same.  Nearly 35% of participants did not see the woman walking through the scene, and when participants were not instructed to count the number of passes, nearly all were able to spot the woman.  The implications from the study are quite amazing.  Given the same stimuli, some participants were able to see the woman with the umbrella, while others were not because they were too focused on other tasks.  So, even though the brain has immense capacity and computing power, it cannot do everything we ask it to do at once.  Thus, as was observed by Becklen and Cervone, some items get lost in the shuffle and are filtered out in order for the brain to perform the task at hand.

I believe that this commercial was done perfectly.  It took the findings from Becklen and Cervone and applied them in a way that appeals to nearly everyone, while at the same time introducing a powerful message.  I want to first look at the significance of the bear, obviously the centerpiece of the whole advertisement.  My first thought when I saw this commercial was "why a moonwalking bear?"  As I thought about it more and more, I realized this had to be strategic.  After viewing a video of Becklen and Cervone's study and seeing the woman with the umbrella, I immediately knew why the advertisers chose the bear.  Although a normal person walking across would have illustrated the same point, introducing a dancing bear has a much greater effect.  Because it is off the wall and random, people feel silly for not noticing such a blatant character.  Had the bear been replaced with a normal person, the viewer could attribute their inattentiveness to the stimulus blending in too much and that it could not have been seen even if they were looking for it.  However, because the moonwalking bear is so ridiculous, the viewer is left with the feeling of "how did I miss that?"  In this way, the issue of inattentional blindness is called to the forefront and the viewer sees its detrimental effects.

Another part of this commercial I love is the ending.  Immediately after being shocked with the revelation of the moonwalking bear, the commercial wastes no time and drives its point home.  Following the replay of the scene, the sound cuts out and the screen turns entirely black.  This sudden shift grabs our attention quickly, and this silence is somewhat disconcerting to us because of our fast-paced society containing a lot of motion and noise.  Finally, the advertiser's message is displayed on screen, leaving the viewer to read it for themselves.  Instead of the message being thrown in our face (as is common with many commercials today), the viewer actually wants to read it because the commercial has caught our attention.  I believe the silence also holds a dual purpose.  In addition to calling our attention to the statement at the end, it also gives us time to think and reflect about what it really means.  This insures that the advertiser's remarks are powerful and have an impact on our thinking.

When I first saw this commercial, I was amazed that I missed the bear.  Since that time, I've shown the clip to several of my friends and family, and each time they've missed it too.  What's even more interesting is what happened to me after seeing the Transport For London commercial the first time.  Immediately after viewing it, I caught a clip of Becklen and Cervone's study, and again I failed to see the hidden body!  This was not even two minutes after watching the commercial for the first time, and yet after knowing the general circumstances of the study and what I "should" be looking for, I still whiffed.  This anecdotal evidence really speaks for the power of perceptual blindness.  Even though something may be conspicuous and out in the open, if we don't pay attention to it, we're not going to see it.  It really is quite amazing how much we can miss if we're not paying attention. 

Overall, I think this commercial was extremely well done.  In addition to introducing some legitimate psychology to prove a point, it also had a humorous side that made it more memorable than otherwise.  The moonwalking bear brought the issue of inattentional blindness to the forefront, and the connection to the disastrous effects of it occurring on the road was established immediately.  At the conclusion of the commercial, the viewer was left with something to think about, and this message was extremely powerful.  So, not only was this commercial funny and informative, I believe it was effective at using psychology to its advantage.

Crash (Film): Scenes 6 and 17

            Crash has a plethora of psychological principles throughout the entire film, mostly relating to social behavior and stereotypes.  However, I decided to focus on a couple of scenes that in concert always provoke an intense emotional response in me every time I watch the movie.  These two scenes display psychological theories in developmental psychology, conditioning, and persuasion. 

            In Scene 6 of Crash, a father comes home late at night from work to find his daughter awake, hiding under her bed.  The fact that the daughter is scared and hiding in her room is a very good example of classical conditioning, in which a stimulus is able to cause a response that was originally caused by another stimulus (Weiten, 2005).  The daughter is scared and hiding under her head because she "heard a bang".  In another situation or a safer neighborhood, one might assume the loud noise was simply someone slamming a door or throwing or dropping something.  However, the father and daughter later talk about how a bullet came into her bedroom window not that long ago.  The father also mentioned that they had previously lived in a worse neighborhood than this one.  Therefore, through TV, their living situation, and parents lecturing the daughter has already been conditioned to be afraid of bullets.  However, she might not have associated all loud noises with bullets until one hit the window of her room.  Therefore, the previous neutral stimulus of a loud noise is now able to evoke the emotional response of fear and anxiety in the daughter that was previously evoked by bullets or guns.

            The father seems to experience emotions of guilt and sadness for his daughter's fearful state and her being to afraid to sleep in her own bed.  In order to subdue her fear, he comes up with a plan to make her feel safe in her room again.  He decides to try to tell her a story about how he obtained an invisible and impenetrable cloak from a fairy.  However, the daughter appears to be between ages five and seven and her cognitive abilities are too great to easily fall for this fairytale.  The father tries to use "reverse psychology" to persuade his daughter to believe him.  Interestingly, I could not find much information or research on "reverse psychology", suggesting that it is not a well supported theory in psychological research and more of a public misinterpretation.  However, some research seems to call this idea reactance psychology and the research does indicate that when people's behavioral freedom is threatened, they will fight back against it (Brehm, 1966).  Basically it means that if you tell someone you can't do something, it will make them want to do it more.  Whether this theory is well supported or not, it seems that often parents use this principle and this is exemplified in this scene.

            In Crash, the father uses reactance psychology to make his daughter listen to his story about the invisible and impenetrable cloak.  He starts to propose the idea and then stops himself, saying, "Nah, forget it.  You ain't gonna believe me."  Mentioning and acting excited that he has some interesting information, but then making it secret causes his daughter to protest.  Now she really wants to know what it is.  Then later as he starts to tell the story of a fairy flying around the room, the daughter criticizes the idea.  The father uses reactance psychology again now by threatening to leave and telling her he knew she wouldn't believe it.  This then causes the daughter to beg him to stay and at least finish the story, even if she is skeptical of its credibility.  In this scene the reactance psychology is effective in getting her to want to hear the story, but does not seem to have an effect on whether she will actually believe it or not.

            There are some benefits that the father has in persuading his daughter to feel safe and believe in his story in order to motivate her to accept the cloak.  Persuasion is defined as trying to persuade someone's attitude and an attitude is defined as positive or negative evaluations of objects or thought (Weiten, 2005).  In the beginning, the daughter has a negative attitude towards the idea of a fairy giving her father an invisible and impenetrable cloak.  One thing that really helps the father's persuasion is his source credibility.  Erikson proposes there are eight stages of development from childhood to adulthood and the first stage is trust versus mistrust (Weiten, 2005).  Erikson suggests that trust is developed in the first year of life if the child has been taken care of properly and his or her needs have been met (Weiten, 2005).  He further theorizes that if the child's needs are met properly he or she will develop a more optimistic and trusting attitude towards the world (Weiten, 2005).  It seems that the daughter in this case is very trusting of her father and the world as she begins to listen and start to believe his story.  This trust gives the father high source credibility so that she scrutinizes his story less.  Also, in Psychology: Themes & Variations, Weiten states that trustworthiness is a very important component of source credibility.

            The father also uses effective persuasion in his actual message.  Weiten states that two-sided arguments are more effective than one-side arguments (2005).  While telling the story of the fairy, the father acts like he was very skeptical at the time of the incident and is still skeptical today.  He says there was a fairy flying around his room when he was a kid, but that her wings could have been glued on or something.  He then also mentions that the fairy gave him the impenetrable cloak, and he has never gotten shot or stabbed since.  This statement suggests he might still be doubtful of the cloak's abilities, but that his experience suggests it might be real.  Another effective method in persuasion for the message is using fear.  This might seem a little backwards since the father is trying to reduce his daughter's fear.  However, because the daughter is already fearful about a bullet coming into her room, it makes his message more attractive.  In the end, the father succeeds in persuading his daughter that he has an impenetrable cloak and in motivating her to accept it from him.  This is confirmed by her slowly caressing the cloak as she later sits comfortably on top of her bed while the father leaves the room.

            Though the father helped his daughter to feel safer in her own room, he did not anticipate the possible problems that this impenetrability concept could cause.  In Scene 17, the negative aspects of this persuasion are displayed.  Apparently the father's persuasion was much more powerful than he ever expected.  After coming home from work in the afternoon and parking the company truck in their driveway, the father is threatened by a man with a gun.  The details of this man's anger and frustration are lengthy and will not be discussed here, but overall the man's anger will not be stopped by the father's negotiations.  At the same time, the daughter is watching this man wave a gun at her father through the window in the house.  As mentioned before, the daughter appears to be between ages five and seven.  Therefore, she is most likely in Erikson's stage three of development, Initiative versus Guilt (Weiten, 2005).  At this stage Erikson states that children learn how to function socially within their own families.  The daughter is definitely more on the initiative side of this stage in which she is also thinking of other family members' needs and desires.  This is evident as she runs out to jump in front of her father and protect him with her impenetrable cloak.  She seems to be experiencing emotions of fear and guilt that she took the cloak from him and is motivated to try and save her father's life.  This confirms that the father was very powerful in his persuasion that he had obtained an invisible and impenetrable cloak.

            Overall, these scenes in Crash provide a very powerful image of the relationship between a father and daughter.  Scene 6 presents the psychological theories associated with conditioning an emotional response of fear and anxiety.  Also in this scene, the father very effectively persuades his daughter due to his high source credibility and delivery of a very influential message.  The effectiveness of this persuasion is reinforced by the daughter's actions in Scene 17.  Though these scenes are only a sliver of the intense psychological aspects of the film Crash, they provide a powerful and emotional image all on their own.

References

Weiten, W. (2005). Psychology: Themes & variations. Belmont: Thomson Learning.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Crash Scenes Available Online:

Scene 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7aMrkGBDBQ

Scene 17 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Wi4k_NeFA

One form of psychology in the media that many people may not realize is song lyrics. Though many people may not recognize, or even listen to, the lyrics of the songs they listen to, many songs incorporate various terms and concepts related to psychology.

            The first song I will discuss is "Pass it on Down" by Alabama. This song applies principles of psychology in order to encourage people to save the environment. The lyrics of this song illustrate the concepts of social dilemma and cognitive dissonance applied to environmental sustainability. A social dilemma is defined as a situation in which individuals acting in their own best interest have a negative collective consequence for the larger population. Cognitive dissonance is defined as an uncomfortable state of tension that arises when two or more cognitions are incompatible, or when a person's attitudes and actions are inconsistent with each other.

            "Pass It On Down" calls attention to many of the environmental problems that the world is facing today. This song addresses issues from water pollution to global warming, emphasizing that human behavior must change in order for future generations to survive on Earth and maintain an acceptable quality of life. The main chorus of the song illustrates the social dilemma theory. The lyrics encourage listeners to act for the good of the environment ("so let's leave some blue up above us, let's leave some green on the ground) instead of acting in self-interest so that we can pass the Earth down to future generations. The lyrics emphasize that the Earth is "only ours to borrow, let's leave some for tomorrow." Therefore, the song is encouraging ecological sustainability through the lyrics by promoting a change of behaviors among the population.

            Cognitive dissonance is also illustrated in the lyrics of this song in the last verse before the chorus repetition. The lyrics attempt to create tension by making people feel guilty of their behaviors because if they don't make an attempt to improve the environment ("if we take and don't put back"), it will be their own children who have to suffer the consequences of their actions ("they'll have to pay for all we did"). Thus, the song is implying that if an individual truly cares for their child, they will make choices that will benefit the child's future. If the person chooses not to give back to the environment, this may hinder the future of the child and as a result, could create tension in the parent due to the inconsistency of his/her behaviors and attitudes. Therefore, this song is applying cognitive dissonance in order to promote the quality of the environment.

I thought this song was very cleverly put together. It addresses many of the problems we are facing today while also applying psychological principles to encourage people to change their behaviors. The lyrics of this song are very powerful because it is relevant to everyone and emphasizes that even though we may not suffer much now, our kids and grandkids will be the ones paying for our actions if we don't take steps to improve our current environment. I think that this song presents the message in a way that hits home to a wide variety of people. What is interesting is that I had heard this song before, but not really paid attention to the lyrics. When looking for the psychology that is involved in the media, I actually listened to the lyrics, found out what the song was actually about, and understood the message it was trying to get across.

Another song that encourages people to change their behavior is "Take the Power Back" by Rage Against the Machine. This is an example of how a song can be used to express dissatisfaction, and applies psychology to culture and politics by encouraging people to change their government. According to the lyrics, the United States only values one culture. In this song, the lyrics question the ability of the social structure to provide equal opportunities to achieve cultural goals.

 The lyrics call for the people to "take the power back" because the system is one-sided and Eurocentric, explaining that the "circle of hatred" (eurocentrism) will continue unless the people react and take the power back. Thus, this demonstrates the concepts of conformity and obedience. Conformity is defined as a yielding to perceived group pressure by copying the behavior and beliefs of others. Obedience is the performance of an action in response to a direct order. The "circle of hatred" has continued because the population conforms to what is expected of them and obeys what people in authority say to them ("the complacent students sit and listen to some of that bullshit he learned in school"). Unless the population revolts in a revolution (nonconformity), the flawed social structure will remain the same. This song calls for the people to change the social structure because it is flawed and unfair.

This song also uses the two sided message persuasion technique. The lyrics provide many statements containing information explaining how the culture is Eurocentric and inadequate (i.e. "holes in our spirit causin' tears and fears, one-sided stories for years and years and years"). Then, the lyrics provide information on how to make a change for the better (i.e. "we need to check the interior of the system that cares about one culture... we gotta take the power back"). There are many more verses that could be used as examples. I found it interesting that even though this is a song, strategies are used in order to make the message more persuasive and appealing to the audience.

"Take the Power Back" is a good example of a song that demonstrates the concepts of conformity, nonconformity and obedience while also using a persuasion strategy. This shows how people can use the media (through songs) to announce and express their dissatisfaction with the government in an appropriate and effective way. This is another example of a song that I listened to for quite a while without actually understanding the message that it was trying to get across. After analyzing the lyrics, I understand that a lot more went into making this song than I once thought.

Other songs are used to express the artist's feelings in a different way. The song "I Run to You" by Lady Antebellum demonstrates the importance of relationships in our lives. Although we all try to avoid negative events in our lives, it is impossible to run away from all of them. Therefore, when life gets tough, having someone there to help us through our problems and keep our sanity will help immensely. The artists of this song use the lyrics to demonstrate the importance of that special person(s) in their lives.

One psychological concept demonstrated in the lyrics is the aspect of perceived control in our lives ("I run my life, or is it running me?"). This shows that although we have control over many aspects of our lives, there are some things that we simply cannot control. However, we can control the way we deal with our problems and hard times. For example, no matter how bad things get, you can always choose to "run to" someone for help ("When it all starts coming undone, baby you're the only one I run to"). This demonstrates the concept of social support. People who have social support are much more likely to have success dealing with and getting through problems than those who have no support at all.

This song may also demonstrate the concept of companionate love. Companionate love is defined as the affection felt towards those with whom our lives are deeply entwined. This type of love can be between people who are romantically involved, or between close friends. The lyrics suggest that two individuals are very involved with each other in a way that goes beyond romantic love. This one person serves as the safety valve for the other person to go to when everything else is going wrong ("our love's the only truth, that's why I run to you"). Therefore, these two people have a strong bond with one another, and what seems to be a mutual understanding of love and respect for each other. This song shows how important it can be to have a person to go to when life is getting you down.

I listen to all kinds of music, so I have noticed a number of different styles of psychology in the media. Though I am not a huge fan of rap music, I have noticed that many rap artists use the lyrics of their songs to let out their feelings regarding racism, stereotypes, and prejudice. A lot of songs tell a story of how hard it was for the artist growing up and/or the problems they have faced (or are facing now) because of their race. This may serve as a form of catharsis, but many of the songs also deliver a message about how life really is for many people growing up as a minority. Even though I don't listen to rap music a lot, the lyrics are sometimes very interesting because of the stories behind them.

From encouraging Earth-friendly behaviors, to venting about work, to expressing love, songs provide a wide variety of psychological concepts. The three songs that I used as examples display how psychology is used in song lyrics in a number of different ways. Though I only used three songs in this paper, I have noticed many others that have psychological messages in them or use psychological principles to make their lyrics stick out. Even though people may not realize it, we are exposed to many psychological concepts through song lyrics almost every day. This class has helped me become more aware of the lyrics and messages of the songs that I listen to rather than just the way the song sounds. Therefore, song lyrics serve as a good example of psychology in the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

update: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tolins/the-boyle-next-door_b_190252.html 

update: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041900508.html?hpid=topnewshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041900508.html?hpid=topnews

update: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/the-untold-susan-boyle-st_b_188719.html

Here are some sites about ID, and feel free to find and use other sources:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#primer

http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists