Honorary Degree: Lewis R. Goldberg

In anticipation of college commencements that will soon occur throughout the United States, this week’s post focuses on identifying an appropriate candidate for an honorary degree award at my home institution, the University of Southern California (USC). During each annual graduation ceremony, USC awards at least one nominee with an honorary degree, and this recipient delivers the commencement speech to the graduating class (pictured to the right). One purpose of such an accolade, according to the criteria on this campus, is to “honor individuals who have distinguished themselves through extraordinary achievements in scholarship… but who may not be widely known by the general public.” Author and former president of the University of Iowa and Dartmouth College, James Freedman, pictured to the left, notes the importance of selecting the right recipient for this recognition, which is bestowed by numerous American universities, for when granting honorary degrees, he states: “a university makes an explicit statement to its students and the world about the qualities of character and attainment it admires most.”

With Freedman’s admonition in mind, the doctoral degree that I am proposing for this year’s USC commencement speaker is for distinction in science, more specifically psychology. I believe that the most deserving person is Lewis R. Goldberg, pictured to the right. Through his research, Goldberg has exemplified the ideal qualities of scholarliness and ambition that are inscribed on Tommy Trojan, USC’s beloved mascot (pictured below). Currently writing scientific journal articles at the Oregon Research Institute, he has been a professor at numerous universities, such as University of California at Berkeley. Over the course of his career, Goldberg has received various honors for his contributions to psychology (for example, the Block Award for Outstanding Scientific Contributions) and was involved in leadership positions in his field, such as his recent presidential position in the Association for Research in Personality, a field where he has established himself at the forefront. Goldberg’s most important contribution has been his findings on the five main personality dimensions, first discussed in his 1981 article entitled “Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons,” in addition to more recent work, such as his co-authored essay “The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.” Goldberg is one of the major proponents for the Big Five Theory of personality, as opposed to the Five-Factor Model, and argues that the basic personality characteristics are urgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intellect. In "An Alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The Big-Five Factor Structure," Goldberg describes some of his findings on personality, concluding that "trait adjectives" such as agreeableness or conscientiousness "can be viewed as blends of five major features," the basic personality characteristics "that relate in a gross way to Power, Love, Work, Affect, and Intellect."

Goldberg’s research is controversial in the eyes of supporters of an opposing theory for personality, the Five-Factor Model. Researchers such as Paunonen and Jackson have “argued that [Goldberg’s] study used too loose a criterion for inclusion in the Big Five,” meaning that results were not actually statistically significant, despite the researchers claims that the findings did in fact support the hypothesis. Paunonen and Jackson are essentially asserting that Goldberg set up his experiment so that any minimal results would seemingly maintain his argument. They might claim that he is not the proper recipient for the honorary degree because, according to them, his research is not the most accurate in his specific field. This has implications, for the expert James Freedman would not support a candidate, nor would USC, who was not respected for an honorary degree, since he sees this award as “ a practice rich in opportunity—but… also ripe for abuse.” Additionally, those opposed to personality testing might not support the results of Goldberg’s findings, and therefore be in opposition to his nomination. For example, many believe that personality testing can only capture a portion of a one’s identity, and is not precise enough.

However, Goldberg’s qualifications do not end with psychology, and given my emphasis on the intersection of psychology and business, Goldberg becomes even more compelling as a prospective honorand. His criticisms notwithstanding, in my opinion Goldberg’s findings are not only legitimate and important to the field of psychology, which is based on the study of individuals, but his notions of personality traits have been applied in the business world as well. Personality testing during the interview process, in addition to many other areas in the work place, has become a widespread and important resource for numerous employers. Because the time and monetary costs of turnover and employee dissatisfaction are high for businesses, with some companies reporting “costs at more than $30,000 for each lost worker,” personality assessment has become a valuable tool in combating turnover and dissatisfaction before they can begin. Goldberg’s Big Five theory is utilized by businesses in a specific test, called the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). Such achievements make Goldberg qualified for the honorary degree, which may be awarded to those who are "highly regarded for achievements in their respective fields of endeavor."

One of the most important aspects of the honorary degree is the commencement address given by the honoree. In his commencement address, Goldberg would be able to integrate information about how this research was utilized by multiple fields. Goldberg might speak to the audience about his experiences with persevering during studies and research, in addition to handling criticism in a professional manner—this knowledge will encourage graduates that are struggling professionally after college to behave ethically and have a positive attitude about the future. Additionally, Goldberg could describe the satisfaction he has derived from contributing to the psychological and business community, and from working with the Oregon Research Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “studying human behavior and developing programs to improve the health and well being of individuals, families and communities.” One hopes that this would motivate students to be involved in philanthropic activities and take pride in their achievements. Lastly, he can integrate personality testing into his speech by explaining how each individual’s unique personality will be key in their future success, whatever field they plan to pursue. In sum, when candidates for USC’s honorary degree in my field are held up to the requirements, Lewis Goldberg will stand out for being one who, as Freedman states, has arrived at “distinguished and sublime achievement.”

Subliminal Advertising: Psychology and Ethics

A recent Food Network mistake caused a flurry of allegations that the network was attempting to use subliminal messaging on one of the network’s gourmet shows, Iron Chef, when a McDonalds symbol flashed across the screen (pictured below). Subliminal advertising, which plays on the theory that “one can influence behavior by secretly appealing to the subconscious mind with words, images, or sounds,” is clearly a controversial topic in the business world today, despite its widespread use for the past fifty years. Customers are frightened by the idea that their subconscious minds can be influenced, without their awareness, to respond to advertisements. Some of these adds feature sexual or otherwise-appealing hidden messages. For example, some have claimed the Starbucks Coffee symbol, pictured to the left, has sexual undertones (notice the strategic placement and suspicious number of the mermaid’s fins).

Are these fears justified, and what are the ethical implications of unconscious advertising? The first psychologist to coin the term “subliminal advertising” was James Vicary, who tested out his idea in 1957. He declared that over forty-five thousand moviegoers were subjected to images flashed briefly across the screen stating “Eat Popcorn” and “Drink Coca-Cola,” which caused popcorn sales to increase by an incredible 57%. Although his widely publicized experiment is how many consumers and advertisers today became aware of this phenomenon, Vicary himself later admitted that his results were falsified, and there is evidence to show that he never conduced the experiment in the first place. Despite such evidence, sexually suggestive and even explicit subliminal advertisements consistently appear in television, magazine, and radio advertisements.

Recent psychological studies have begun to claim that there may be some truth to the effects of subliminal advertising. One psychologist, Hawkins, was able to show “increased thirst ratings following subliminal exposure to” Coca-Cola, which “have been used as empirical evidence that subliminal advertising can directly affect consumption-relevant behavior.” According to Jo Anna Natale of Psychology Today, companies like Potentials Unlimited are taking a new direction in admitting that their products are full of subliminal messages that will help consumers break bad habits (similar to hypnosis). Natale also cited a study in which groups were shown the same advertisement, either with or without a hidden sexual image (a naked woman). The findings supported the power of subliminal messages, as participants in the group “who saw the whiskey ad with the hidden image rated it higher…than did people who saw the whiskey ad without the image.” This is a similar concept to the picture of the flowers to the left, which contains a hidden word. Psychologist Johan Karremans was recently able to conduct one of the most convincing studies. In her article “Subliminal Advertising may work after all,” Alison Motluk of NewsScientist.com explains how his study showed that thirsty participants exposed to subliminal advertising for Lipton Ice were more likely to choose that beverage afterwards.

For each argument in support of the effectiveness of subliminal messaging, there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Follow up studies conducted on Hawkin’s study featuring Coca-Cola did not find convincing results. Another study by Trappey, which attempted to “scientifically evaluate whether or not subliminal marketing stimuli [were] an effective means for influencing consumer choice behavior” found that “… leading to the conclusion that subliminal advertising has little influence on the consumer’s decision to select between alternatives.” Potentials Unlimited tapes work like hypnosis. Individuals only claim to have been successfully hypnotized if, prior to being hypnotized, they were believers in hypnosis. Likewise, subliminal messages will most likely effect individuals who consciously think that such messages will alter their behavior. And, it is not yet clear how long the effects in the Lipton Ice experiment will last—it could easily only be a few minutes. As long as consumers are aware of why they are making their decisions as buyers, subliminal advertising will not have a harmful effect. In other words, if individuals think consciously and rationally before making purchases, subliminal advertisements will not influence their decisions. Additionally, while some ads blatantly display hidden sexual images or undertones, many of the claims made that ads feature suggestive elements are grasping for messages that are not there or were not intended by their creators.

If subliminal advertising does, however, have the potential to affect buyers’ choices, is it an ethical practice for businesses and psychologists to use and develop? Rebecca Clay’s article from the American Psychological Association gives examples of psychologists, such as Esther Thorson, who have been “analyzing ads to learn more about the art of persuasion” and make subliminal messaging into a kind of science that they can sell to advertisers. Psychologists, though, should not employ their knowledge of perception and cognition to alter behavior against consumers’ conscious wishes. In my view this would be a violation of free will. Moreover, the Federal Communications Commision does not support subliminal advertising, although the practice is difficult to prove and has not been formally defined. Realistically, subliminal persuasion is probably not going to stop, but if consumers become more educated on its methods the effects of such advertising will likely diminish.

Personality Testing: Will Irises Replace Resumes?

Personality tests are no longer just a frivolous way to procrastinate, and they might end up costing you a job or two. More and more businesses are using tests such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator during the interview process to try and find the perfect fit for their company culture and reduce turnover. What do psychologists have to say about personality? Personality is not fixed, is not necessarily accurately determined by personality tests, and, unfortunately, is difficult to fake during such tests. In this post I am focusing on personality from the view of both a psychological and a business standpoint. I have commented on two recent blogs that have addressed the subject of personality developments in each prospective field, and have inserted my comments below. The first blog post I commented on, entitled The Iris is the Window to the Soul, is written by Dr. Vaughan Bell, a psychologist and one of the authors of the book “Mind Hacks,” pictured next to the comment. Bell overviews an exciting new psychological study that claims the eyes reveal certain personality traits- almost like palm readers and seeing the future, except this can be scientifically proven (the specific components of the iris, pictured and labeled above, are determinant of certain characteristics). In the second blog, author and founder of AllCountyJobs.com C.M. Russell discusses matching employees with the right jobs based on personality. In his post, Burn Jobs, Burn, Russell looks into the upcoming website JobBurner, pictured at the end of this post, which aims to use personality tests to synchronize the right applicants and companies.

“The Iris is the Window to the Soul”
Comment:
This research is both impressive and disconcerting. While it is not surprising that personality is, at least in part, genetic, it is unbelievable and exciting that the irises more or less map out the personality. Mostly, it makes me wonder how such technology will be used in the future, and what its purpose is. Your comment that “the UK government wants to encode iris information on passports and keep copies on database to use in iris recognition systems” seems like a violation of privacy and is reminiscent of the futuristic movie Minority Report, in which eye scanning is used by both the government and by advertisers to identify and target individuals. I could even see eye scanning being used to screen applicants’ personalities for jobs. Lastly, I am unclear about a couple of concepts. You cited other similar studies that looked into the relationship between personality and color, which “fail to replicate the personality findings, typically because the effect tends to fade after early childhood.” Is Larsson's research primarily different and more successful because it is applicable in adults? If so, since personality is not stable, do our irises change with new personality developments? Hopefully, if this technique is used on younger children it will not lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy from parents!

“Burn Jobs, Burn”
Comment:
I realize that it is not a new phenomenon to test applicants’ personalities during an interview, but JobBurner seems to be taking this to a new level. I am skeptical of their claim that their “patent-pending personality scoring system” will “generate better results” than existing ones. Personality tests, from a psychology standpoint, are never that accurate in the first place. Hopefully, businesses will take such results lightly and continue to focus more on experience, recommendations, and the quality of the interview. You quote that Shane Henderson, the CEO, “previously was Director of Development at Match.com and is an expert in software algorithms that match people together. I wonder how Henderson’s previous experience with personality testing will translate- it seems that a very different approach should be taken to match people romantically versus professionally. The bottom line is that job rejection has become even harder now that your personality score, not just your resume, is being critiqued.

Facebook: Does it Help or Hinder Hiring?

College graduates are beginning to face a brand new dilemma. While months ago they were being told to increase the privacy of online profiles, now Facebook, pictured on the right, is becoming a networking and job-hunting asset. This has inspired me to take a new approach to my post by commenting on two other blogs recently discussing Facebook and hiring practices. My comments can be seen in the following two paragraphs. The first post I chose to comment on is from the blog Unit Structures by Fred Stutzman, a Ph.D. student and established businessman. In his recent blog post entitled “You're not my Friend: A new look at Privacy on Facebook,” Stutzman researches how many undergraduate students use available privacy options for the site. The second post I commented on is by Katie Fehrenbacher, a reporter for GigaOM, who focuses on technology and companies. Her blog, “Jobster Gets a Facebook Lift,” comments on the recent agreement between the job posting site and Facebook.

“You're not my Friend: A new look at Privacy on Facebook”
Comment:
First, I would like to say that I found your post and research interesting. However, I would like to disagree with, and expand on, some of your points. While you seemed surprised by the number of undergrads using privacy controls, stating, “We're no longer in a paradigm where privacy isn't important to students; they are mindful of their privacy and are acting to protect their interests,” your findings show that fewer than thirty percent of students were using these controls. Considering some of the content on many Facebook pages, such as addresses, telephone numbers, and explicit and personal pictures, this seems like far too small of a percentage. Additionally, you focused on how many students blocked other campus-affiliated parties from their profiles- is this really the issue? Since Facebook has expanded to allow just about anyone to join, it seems that the real concern is how many undergraduates are restricting those from outside of their college or university. More specifically, problems have occurred when employers or hiring managers have found a way to access student profiles to view their information.

“Jobster Gets a Facebook Lift”
Comment:
Your post brings up many interesting questions about the direction Facebook is taking and how this will affect undergraduates currently utilizing the service. As “Jobster is adding a ’share on Facebook’ button on Thursday that will pull in aspects of the Jobster profile onto your Facebook page,” profiles on the site will now transform from a personal to a professional networking service. I wonder if this will create as much of an outcry from enraged Facebook users as the new “News Feed” option did, which gave the site much less of a private feel. In a way, linking Facebook to job searching takes the fun out of Facebook, which was originally created as a way to let college students network and share with their friends. College students have already been warned about having to try and hide their profiles from potential and current employers by raising privacy settings and taking off content that would seem inappropriate to such parties. Are they taking the fun out of Facebook, or was Facebook only a business venture in the first place?