After class on Monday, I was thinking a lot about situational ethics and I think this applies very much to the dietary supplement industry. Many supplements, like Hydroxycut, claim to be a miracle drug. What most consumers don’t know is that these drugs have not been evaluated by the FDA, and can have serious side effects. This is a serious ethical issue because there is no way of knowing what effect the drug will have on you, your unique body chemistry and with the prescription or over-the-counter medicines that you are taking. The most common are counteracting birth control, which leads to unplanned pregnancy or causing cardiac arrest becuase of an underlying (or unknown) heart condition. The advertisements lead individuals to believe that they can take this and continue eating Burger King and blowing off the gym. I find these advertisements to be very unethical because they invoke no behavior change. On the Hydroxycut Web site, it does mention that it needs to accompany diet and exercise, but it is in a much smaller font at the bottom of the Web page. Interestingly enough, there is another message of equal font size at the top of the page directing customers to another page for more information about the “voluntary recall” of the product in May. Most people don’t visit the Web site anyway.. they get excited and rush to CVS to purchase the miracle drug without consulting a doctor or researching the product. If they do, it is not common sense like researching a car. Even college-educated individuals can get bogged down in dense medical terminology. Like a car salesman, the motive is to push products, but unlike the car salesman, this can seriously harm you. Recall the ephedrine case from several years ago!

However, I don’t feel that dietary plans like Nutri-System or Jenny Craig are unethical. You do have to change the way you eat, and anyone with common sense realizes that once you stop ordering and eating the food, you will gain the weight back. These type of plans do teach portion control, so at least there is one positive aspect. I find this to be perfectly ethical because you know what you are getting upfront.

Last week we studied the bystander effect and it holds true that groups are less likey to lend assistance in an emergency than an individual. Unfortunately, I was able to apply some of the findings of Kitty Genovese’s case to my own emergency situation. Last monday evening, I was involved in a car accident and discovered that my situation supports the findings. First, I noticed that immediately after the collison a passerby slowed to see exactly who was involved and the severity of the accident. After the first car slowly passed, the group of cars that followed simutaneously repeated the behavior of the front driver. This supports  the findings that groups tend to produce conformity. Then as traffic continued to move along on the highway, my brother’s friend noticed my car was involved in an accident. He proceeded to the median to assist me and to ensure that I was not seriously injured while we waited for the police officer to arrive. In support of the experiments conducted in relation to the bystander effect and behaviors, it is true that:

1. Friends are more likely to help than strangers.

2. People tend to diffuse the responsibilty because they believe that their personal responsibility is reduced.

3. Social proof which states that other’s inaction implies the situation is not that serious.

4. The idea of intervention inertia which states that it is easier to do nothing than something.

Fortunately, I was not seriously injured. This was not how I wanted to test the validity of the Bystander Effect but my findings truly supports the prior experiments conducted . I would like for you to view this You Tube video. Im sure most of you have seen this which further supports the experiments conducted on the Bystander Effect and Behavior.

The clip above is from the Finale of Seinfeld. The portion I want to discuss is the last minute of the clip. in this episode, Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer are on their way to Paris when the plane breaks down and they can’t take off. They are waiting for the plane to be fixed and walking around a town unfamiliar to them when they see a man being car jacked. They do not help the man, they stand on the street and watch and Kramer even videotapes the encounter. There are four people in their group and so because the group is larger they are more likely not to do something than if they were there as individuals. Social proof says that the presents of other people tend to inhibit helping behavior. Intervention inertia says that it is easier to do nothing than something, and since they already have a problem of their own, they just assume someone else will help and they do not have to go help the man who’s car is being stolen.

Recently I found a series of ads by the condom brand Durex, in a campaign they designed to increase sales of their products and clearly, decrease pregnancies. In the main frames of the ads is a product you would need if you had a baby, like a playpen or a car seat and the price those items would cost (ranging between $100-$500). Then, underneath the item towards to bottom of the frame is the price for Durex condoms: $2.50, which is a very small price compared to all the items needed for a new baby. While this series of ads is clever, and probably funny to most of us, is this instance of persuasion ethical?

I think these persuasive advertisements walk a fine line. It is clear that Durex is promoting safe sex with condoms that will prevent STD’s and also unwanted pregnancies. So their motive is a good one—they are offering customers a safe way to have sex while helping themselves to a profit. Yet the means through which they persuade us become questionable. Can we really put a price on a child? Can we really measure the experience of having a baby with dollars and price tags? Should we even be considering the gift of life’s price next to Durex condoms? Also, should the main motivation to abstain from having children be cost cutting? It is very clever and clear that the price of a child is being compared directly to the price of condoms. Without even touching on the implications of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, this advertisement campaign is still bordering on unethical.

On the other hand, one of the big reasons people delay having children is because raising children is expensive, and these advertisements remind us of that. So in that sense, the Durex advertisements are appealing to an audience with their main concern and offering an inexpensive alternative. Logical and funny, yes, but still joking about the price of life is always a touchy topic!

According to the three characteristics of ethical persuasion, this advertisement would be ethical if it showed respect for the audience, equality for all people and displays tolerance in the message. I believe the Durex advertising series is showing equality for all in that it isn’t singling out any group and it isn’t displaying intolerance in its message by not being prejudiced. Yet I do not think that this advertising series is respecting its audience. While they may be targeting young people who would not be offended by these print ads, more people see them than that. By playing with a sensitive topic, their means for persuasion are not very ethical. In conclusion though, this ad would not rate as ‘extremely unethical’, but instead would be better suited as rated ‘slightly unethical’.

Sorry Y’all! I didn’t realize that I hadn’t posted this blog up earlier. I tried doing the voice thread and I’m not good at it, so hang in there! This voice thread explains Heider’s Balance Theory, which was discussed in class earlier in the semester.

http://voicethread.com/share/750894/

Last week in class we discussed Conformity.  Just a re-cap…Conformity is the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are influenced by other people.  This can happen in small groups or society as a whole. Identification occurs when people are united together with similarities and beliefs.  I see both conformity and identification in the following two examples.  I believe conformity and identification happen everyday and that it starts at a young age. Whenever we have breaks from school, I try and substitute in Elementary schools around the Charleston area.  I see children trying to conform to eachother and that’s when they start trying to find their “click.”  We all know this happens often and some of it is due to peer pressure and the influence from others.

Another example of conformity is through politics.  Conformity happens when people are influenced by others.  In this example, people are influenced by Obama; therefore, they tend to conform to the liberal side and support his campaign. Democrats all share most of the same beliefs and were influenced by Obama’s campaign.  In this YouTube video, we see that many people want to conform to Obama’s beliefs and many people support him.  They are influenced with what he has to say about our nation being One. Through conformity, persuasion is seen. Conformity influences the formation and maintenance of social norms and allows society to function smoothly and with Obama, we can all see the smooth, ending result. With this video, you may see people of all ages wanting to be like Obama.

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

Last week we talked about identification and conformity in class. Identification occurs when people are united in substance. This means that they share similar attitudes, activities, etc… Kennith Burke said that through communication people are motivated to communicate with one another to create identification. A reference group is the power to influence us through the process of identification. A major impact in deciding to be in one of these reference groups is if you admire someone or a group and want to be like them. People tend to conform more to a group of people that are similar to us than a group of people who are not.
This Nike commercial that is I am Tiger Woods is one of the best examples of identification and theory. In this commercial people that are united in substance by race, identification, attitudes and activities all want to be like Tiger Woods. They even say to the camera “I am Tiger Woods.” This is a clear example of a reference group because they all identify with Tiger Woods and play because they believe they can be the next Tiger Woods. The fact that they all say they are Tiger means that they admire him and want to be like him proving he has a strong impact on them. They conform by all trying to go out and play golf either by themselves or in groups all with a goal to be like him. Since they start young and most if not all are in the same race as Tiger they are similar to him so they group together with each other with the same goal. I found this commercial interesting and motivational for people aspiring to be like him. This proves the concepts very well by showing other people that are striving to be like in such large numbers.

According to Random House Dictionary,  ethics is defined as “the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.” Therefore, ethics are subjective with regards to societal norms and values. There are American ethics, Christian ethics, and even family ethics.  Each set of principles define good and evil in different ways. A white lie told to your mom after a night of partying is not a big deal in the family ethics. Yet, that same lie to your parent is completely unethical to the Christian ethics remembering, “Honor thy Father and Mother” and not to bear false witness.

In the United States, individualism and success is embedded into the society. The rags to riches story has been told over and over again. The American mantra is pull yourself up by your boot straps. However, the “American Dream” can be highly detrimental. To gain power and success, many people will do just about anything to get ahead. Greed can become intoxicating.

Persuasion is crucial in a capitalist, consumerist society. Competition is key. So, to get the consumer to by one product over another, the industry must be persuasive. The more persuasive the business is, the more success is will obtain.

With such a great desire for success, where do ethics play a role? Historically, we have seen how competition and greed can erase moral principles altogether. This unethical greed is seen in all classes of American society; from drug dealers on the street, who want money and power, to the white-collar workers at Enron, who wanted more money and more power.

Businesses and industries must work very hard to keep an ethical code. Though American ethics may be more lenient than any sort of religious ethics,  moral principles must remain. Persuasive power,  greedy success, and deceptive competition should never have more control on a society than the desire to eliminate evil and to do good.

The subject of conformity is a very controversial one; what causes people to conform and why people conform to certain institutions are two of the many questions that we constantly ask.  People naturally crave conformity.  No one wants to be the person who is left out, or ostracized from society.  For these reasons, individuals act in certain ways to maintain an acceptable image in the community.

It has been proven that people tend to act in a particular manner when they are with different crowds or confronted with unfamiliar situations. The case of Kitty Genovese is one that is very well known and clearly representative of the ideas regarding conformity. When Genovese was in desperate need of help, no one was there to help her. It was evident that no one wanted to get involved or take responsibility; each person thought that the other had called the police or called for help.

A few weeks ago, I was able to experience this first hand, when I stumbled upon a man who was lying in the middle of the sidewalk.  Unfortunately, instead of asking him if he was okay, I found myself conforming to ideas represented in large groups.  I was positive that someone else had already called the cops; I even came to the conclusion that the man was homeless and taking a nap. Until this day, I still think back to that day and wonder if I did the right thing.

From these two examples, it is obvious that in general, groups are less likely to lend assistance in an emergency than an individual is; the presence of others tends to inhibit helping behavior.  There are many other bystanders that affect conformity.  First, the larger the crowd, the less likely people are to help.  Individuals that are familiar are more likely to help. Additionally, when an uncomfortable situation occurs, people wait for someone who knows what to do, which is called Pluralistic ignorance.  Diffusion of responsibility is another important bystander; personal responsibility of each person is minimized, as the group gets larger.  Also, people assume that someone else has called for help or will eventually call.  Lastly, Intervention interior, which says that it, is easier to do nothing rather than something.

For years now, we have all heard the arguments that pages and pages of magazines filled with ads of beautiful women lead to all sorts of problems among young girls and even women. Eating disorders, lack of self confidence, individuals feeling as if they need to look like the models in all of these ads. However, at the same time we hear about the behind the scenes work of the advertisers to make women look much different than they may actually appear in real life. Airbrushing, cropping, editing, all of the various tactics that the technology of our age allows for.

Millions of Americans are deceived everyday that there are individuals that look like these models. Is this fair to consumers? Should individuals be tricked into buying products based off of how altered models look in various apparel.

Take Victoria’s secret for example. Each and every catalog or page of their website features gorgeous women wearing all of their products with everything from pajama pants to lingerie. Is this an ethical way of selling their product? Are consumers actually seeing models or are they being deceived into thinking there are actually women that look like this. I say deception, perhaps these women are beautiful but I believe they are altered to some degree, nobody can be THAT perfect.

So not only do I argue that consumers are being deceived by editing advertisements, I think that the use of half-naked women in general is an unethical way of persuading buyers to buy a product.