You are here: Home / Politics & Policy

Website Hijacking to Spread a Message of Protest

January 10, 2009 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 5 Comments
No Gravatar

The power of media to distribute information to a wide audience makes “stealing” media an effective method of disrupting or redirecting information flows.  The Media Psychology Research Center homepage was hijacked yesterday by a Gaza protest group.  (Thanks, Larry, for the heads up!)  I have included a thumbnail of the intruding page below.  The page, as you can see, is an angry display of outrage with photographs of people, mostly children, ripped apart (literally) by bombs and artillery attacks.  The frustration and anger in the page was palpable even if the graphic display was rudimentary (i.e. no graphic design team had been hired to assemble the message.)  At the same time, about half-way down the protest page was a small message: “Don’t worry.  Nothing of your files deleted.” I found that kind of charming amidst all the chaos.  Once I had overcome my panic given my lack of technical expertise in solving such problems and found a solution to restoring our files, I found myself quite empathetic to the need to share this expression of pain.  Somehow the small bit of consideration for the hijackee (me) made me able to think about the content of their message. There is a lesson in that–it’s easier to hear if you feel heard.  And it is, of course, always devastating to see children killed so brutally no matter whose side you’re on.
Hijacked by Protesters
I know the Palestinian-Israeli issue is a complicated one.  While I know something of the history of the region, and perhaps have a little objectivity as someone who is neither Jewish nor Muslim, I cannot come close to understanding the deep emotions and identities that drive the conflict.  I do try, however, to learn as much as I can about both sides.  As bystanders, the same power of media that makes hijacking websites an effective dissemination tool, also gives the rest of us the ability to learn more about the nuances of the conflict if we are willing to look and learn.  That, of course, is the key: caring enough to learn.  My recent research on the American view of China conducted around the Olympics showed overwhelmingly (and sadly) that most Americans just don’t care much about or give much thought to people outside our country.  They believe what they believe and media only changes their opinion when it creates a personal reason to do so.  That personal reason is usually fear or desire, since little else on media triggers our emotions so quickly and effectively.  Just ask Madison Avenue.

My research also showed that what does allow people to have the mental flexibility to change their views was travel–experiencing places and people first hand. A hopeful finding is that experience trumps media. I know the lizard brain doesn’t always discriminate between virtual and real, but real experience triggers multiple sensory perceptions that code higher cognitions with emotional experience.  Fortunately we have 3 layers of cognition (often called lizard, dog, and human), so we don’t have to rely just on the limbic system.  Unfortunately, memories in the neo-cortex can degrade in a way that emotional experience does not.

One of our goals at MPRC, and one of my goal personally, is to figure out how to use media to provide some connection between peoples and cultures that counteracts the short-term “watch me” incentives of most media distribution channels.  I realize that media isn’t the same as personal experience, but maybe we can make positive placeholders in people’s  minds until we can get them on an airplane.  With the increased cost and aggravation of travel due to security issues and the zeitgeist of fear,  the possibility of Americans getting a more global view decreases, not increases.  In my mind, this makes the positive use of media all the more important.

[Tech Notes about the Hijacking Solution: I found that two new files had been added to our public_html folder on the server.  One was called "index.html" and one was a proxy ftp folder.  Our home page file had been altered with an underscore so it didn't load first ("_index.html").  Deleting the intruding files and restoring the name on our index file was all it took, thankfully.  We use Joomla! for our website, so I am now upgrading to the most recent version hoping that will provide increased security.  Our hosting site, Lunar Pages, says that an intruder would have been unable to access our files through their system given their server security.  If you use Joomla! you may want to check your version. If you have other insights or advice on this, I'd love to hear. My technical expertise is not in web programming.]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Cognition, Culture & Society, Politics & Policy Tagged With: , , , ,

Think of media as a utility like electricity

December 30, 2008 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 10 Comments
No Gravatar

I am frequently asked questions about studying media psychology and about what jobs exist for media psychologists.

Here are a few questions I received recently:

  • How are social networking sites viewed in Media Psychology?
  • Are Media Psychologist working at most companies encouraged or discouraged from joining such sites?
  • How companies feel about employees having personal information online?
  • How are blogs, podcasts, and vodcasts used in the job?

Most of the answers to the questions like these are dictated by the environment in which a person works, particularly when a person is part of an organization of any kind, from educational to corporate. Different companies and organizations have different policies.

More important, however, is that media psychology is an emerging field. Therefore, there is no narrow or established definition of a media psychologist. Media psychology has as many applications as there are disciplines, from education, business, politics, and healthcare, to entertainment. Media psychology can involve research, assessment, and development of media technologies. It is not possible to say what media platforms a psychologist will use or know well, much less be appropriate to a situation.

The important thing to remember about media psychology is that is starts with psychology not media. Media psychology is an understanding of human behavior and human/media interaction that is applied to the assessment, development and research of continually evolving technologies.

A degree in media psychology should provide a thorough grounding in psychological theory (cognitive, developmental, social, affective, personality, biological bases) and an understanding of how those theories and the accompanying body of research applies to existing and emerging communication and media technologies. Media psychologists examine the way people use media platforms, the way people construct media content, and the way media impacts individuals and society.

This is definitely no one-size-fits-all kind of field. Media psychology provides a basis for determining which applications might best meet a given set of needs and how to best implement them. Individuals use different media platforms is specific purposes and goals. In business, for example, a goal might be to develop or promote better internal or external communications, for brand development and product development, or for customer relations and sales interface. In education, the goal might be to determine what media platforms best enhance the learning experience. Another example is social networking. This can be a a powerful tool , but whether or not to use it depends upon an individual’s or company’s goal.

Media psychology also examines the ethical issues that arise from emerging technologies, such as privacy, intellectual property, or negative behaviors such as cyber-bullying and addiction. It also addresses broader social issues such as conflict resolution and identity development.

The term media is often seen as a synonym of mass media. For most media psychologists, media is not restricted to any single platform. Personally , I think of media as a utility, like electricity. (But not one that should be heavily regulated.) Media psychology is about understanding how humans put media to use and how that changes their lives. For me, it is also about how to harness that power to make people’s lives better.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Cognition, Education, Emerging Technologies, Politics & Policy, Psychology Tagged With: , , ,

Red Wine, Alzheimer’s and Media Violence

November 23, 2008 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge Leave a Comment
No Gravatar

I was excited by a recent article in ScienceDaily (How Red Wine Compounds Fight Alzheimer’s Disease ). I’m quite sure it is all a matter of balance, but I really like red wine, so these research findings really work well for me. I do try to keep informed about developments in nutrition. This is not the same thing as developments in new diets and exercise approaches. These are interesting to me, too, but I am talking about the biology and chemistry of nutrition science. I wasn’t surprised to read that it is the compound called polyphenols. Polyphenols block the buildup of proteins that are the basis for the buildup of toxic plaques that scientists believe contribute to the deterioration of cognitive function. Polyphenols are also good anti-cholesterol compounds for much the same reason.

As I was doing my victory lap around the living room, it struck me that I was committing the same mistake that I was so angry about others making a week or two before. I didn’t read the actual article. I didn’t look at the sample size, the research question, the methodology, the funding of the research project, or anything else other than the Science Daily reporters take on the press release from, in this case, UCLA and Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. The actual article is in the Journal of Biological Chemistry–a fine journal but one where a subscription is required to access the article online. I can, of course, jaunt off to my not-so local university library and see if they will 1) let me in and 2) have the article. But otherwise, I am dependent on the journalist’s interpretation of the public relations officer’s interpretation of the research. Sketchy at best in spite of what are probably pretty good intentions all down the line.

Two weeks ago, I was frustrated by a couple of articles. One was an article in ScienceDaily called Teen Pregnancy Linked To Viewing Of Sexual Content On TV. The second article, well press release really, circulated in the psychology list-servs with the ominous title Rutgers Researcher’s Study Cites Media Violence as ‘Critical Risk Factor’ for Aggression. Both these articles cited research that appears in academic journals not easily available to the public. (This lack of access to the original articles drives me nuts especially when the research is funded by the Federal Government, which is to say, OUR money.)

Anyway, I digress. Neither the journalist nor the public relations person critically reviewed the methodology of the study. There are lots of issues with both of them, frankly. But a larger problem is the use of the words “link” and “critical risk factor.” It is very common to have relationships in research become causality at the hands of journalistic license, researcher enthusiasm, or public ignorance. The TV sex and pregnancy study says:

High rates of exposure corresponded to twice the rate of observed pregnancies seen with low rates of exposure…

Corresponded is not the same as causality. Isn’t it possible that high rates of exposure are due to lack of other things to do? Isn’t it possible that kids who have nothing to do watch more TV and have more sex?

The Rutger’s study is quoted as saying:

…Childhood and adolescent violent media preferences contributed significantly to the prediction of violence and general aggression…

Wait a minute. That’s not what the press release headline says. Violent media preferences are not the same thing as a risk factor. What the quoted sentence says is that people who prefer violent media content tend to be more violent. The headline says violence in the media is a “critical risk factor” in aggression. Does that mean the same thing to you?

There are a host of other issues, such as citing outcomes as “significant” statistically when they are actually not very meaningful. Statistically significant and meaningful are not the same thing, but statistically significant sure sound important! And then there’s the definition of violence. A Google search on TV and movie violence returned Disney’s Prince Caspian.

I think it is important to ask:

  • Are these agenda-driven research projects?
  • Have the questions and research been designed (intentionally or not) based on some inherent bias of the researcher or funding organization?

There is a lot of “sex and violence in the media” research that is done because of a societal belief that all this media must be harmful. Media is new, it wasn’t like this when the researcher, politicians, and parents grew up, and so it must be bad. Most research (and there are less exceptions than you’d hope) does not examine the experience and meaning of the media from the user perspective. They measure user behavior and then assume experience based on their own experience. Oops. Not exactly the scientific method.

Even more problematic is when these narratives hit Washington. It wouldn’t be fair to call them research at this point, as the original study is long left by the wayside. Legislators, not known for their in-depth analysis, rely on fresh-faced staffers to vet topics presented by lobbyists and identify public hot buttons. Legislators take “research results” to substantiate their how their legislation is going to protect us, children, and society.

This will date me, I know, but I grew up watching Meredith Wilson’s musical “The Music Man.” (n fact, it was so popular in my family that most of us can, sadly, recite the entire sound track.) In the Music Man, Professor Harold Hill, played by Robert Preston, warns River City parents of the dangers of a new pool hall in their community. Well, you’ve got trouble my friends! Watch it sometime and see if it doesn’t remind you of the media violence argument.

But this brings me back to the polyphenols, red wine, and Alzheimer’s. I want a positive connection between drinking red wine and good health because I want to drink red wine and not feel guilty about trashing my health. Even with the article in front of me, I would, perhaps, still be inclined to see the results in a positive light. I, however, would not feel it appropriate to mandate that everyone drink red wine. I don’t, I hope, have the hubris to think that my view is right for everyone. Others are not so generous with our rights. Research can be a very dangerous thing if lose our ability to think and ask questions critically and assume that results are “truth” to show that our point of view is “right.”

——–
PHOTO CREDITS:
Red wine, www.angelfinewines.uk; Teen pregnancy, www.americaspromise.org; Prince Caspian Movie Poster from http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg207/blurbitchproject/Narnia.jpg
Filed Under: Culture & Society, Politics & Policy Tagged With: , ,

California Prop 8: Minorities vote to block rights of other minorities

November 7, 2008 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 3 Comments
No Gravatar

I’m supposed to be packing because moving vans come tomorrow, but I had to remark on this story in the Washington Post: Most Calif. blacks backed proposition 8: 53% of Latinos Also Supported Proposition 8

In it, Vick and Surdin write:

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 — Any notion that Tuesday’s election represented a liberal juggernaut must overcome a detail from the voting booths of California: The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage.

This makes me extraordinarily curious about the rationale these voters had on this issue.  Is it religious?  Or is it that we all need to “other” somebody?  A huge body of research talks about intergroup conflict, group affiliation, and the need to establish clear boundaries of others to affirm our own groupness.  This is the same tribalism I talked about in the last post.

I question if it is every possible to overcome this because biologically we’re driven to form groups.  It is important for safety, food gathering, and the survival of our genes (our kids.)  Even though we don’t have to worry about tigers behind every tree, humans also need the psychological connection to flourish.  We know there is cognitive comfort in similarity —and this is not racial but shared perspectives, which can of course be racial, but lots and lots of other things also bring people together into “tribes”: art, music, sports, geography, clubs, status, etc.

If, therefore, we need groups, we probably need to get over this idea that everyone should like each other and just focus on a more basic approach, like right to exist.  I wonder if we took the argument to a more basic level of humanity, if we could get past some of the emotional baggage that accompanies these issues which are predominantly about acknowledging any human’s right to be who they are*. (*With the caveat of not doing others harm of course.)

We talk all the time about framing in the media.  But framing is just the context of any communication.  If gay marriage had not been framed as “marriage,” i.e. challenging a long-standing cultural and religious issues, would it have passed?  Do gays need to call it “marriage” or could a new word be used with equal meaning and legitimacy if it would allow the earlier achievement of being essentially married?  Once you’re legally united, of course, you can call it whatever you want.  I realize that those same cultural values are what embue “marriage” with meaning for everyone, straight or gay and this may not be acceptable to many.  I just wonder if sometimes we need to decide the highest priority and compromise on some of the others.

My mother is old and crazy. She isn’t ever going to change.  This is really unfortunate.  I know her hot buttons and if I need to get something done, I frame it in language that fits her world model.  I don’t care what we call it; I want to get it done.  My sister, on the other hand, still wants our mother to get her point of view.  Not going to happen.  And they have the battle scares and little progress between them to prove it.

For better or worse, there are a lot of old, crazy, or just inflexible folks in the world.  Would we be better able to make some human rights and social progress if we weren’t so determined to get other people to accept a cultural re-definition or our cultural definition?   I don’t know.  I guess it depends on how flexible we are.  Your thoughts?

Filed Under: Culture & Society, Politics & Policy Tagged With: , , , ,

Media framing: “Conservative” or Cognitive Inflexibility?

November 6, 2008 By Dr. Pamela Rutledge 1 Comment
No Gravatar

Scott Kaufman in a Psychology Today blog discusses research claiming that conservatives are less creative (Are conservatives less creative than liberals?).  Kaufman is fairly even-handed, but I have a problem with research that takes several political policy positions and uses that to establish that some is a “conservative” since that has a much broader social connotation.

Why not frame of this finding using a more appropriate (and possibly more accurate) designation such as cognitive inflexibility. This takes away the political baggage and inherent emotion that baggage brings. There have been many studies that link individuals who need cognitive closure and have an intolerance for ambiguity with lack of creativity. (note: links are relationships, not causality).

Given the research premise, these findings should be consistent with anyone who is firmly and unwaveringly committed to ideas and positions without questioning–conservative or liberal or in between. As he notes, there is variation in conservatives. For example, some people are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Anyone reading the headline would assume that much broader definition of conservative than the research supports.

I think in the spirit of the Obama win, we should work toward humanizing individual differences and avoid stereotyping of any group.

Filed Under: Culture & Society, Politics & Policy, Psychology Tagged With: , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »

Copyright © · Media Psychology Research Center · on WordPress ·