The Social Responsibility of the Press: Lessons From the 1947 Hutchins Commission

This article originally appeared on February 26, 2015.

Journalists and the media platforms that broadcast their work play an essential role in the American version of democracy. Those who write the news, produce, and distribute it act as an unofficial fourth estate of government. Founders including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson felt that the press should act as a watchdog that keeps-in-check the actions of the executive, legislative, and judicial estates of government.

The history of journalism is necessarily entangled with the history of technology. With each technological revolution, the fourth estate has undergone considerable transformations. In its earliest appearance town criers would read the news aloud to a largely illiterate citizenry. The press came to refer to the news when figures such as  John Campbell, John Peter Zenger, and Benjamin Franklin established press-printed news broadsheets; early forms of print newspapers. The technological transition passed from an oral, to print, to electronic, and currently to digital medium which has been described as a networked fourth estate or a fifth estate. Marshall McLuhan's (now banal) declaration that, "the medium is the message," points to the fact that technology influences how we receive, process, and react to information.

The Public Pursuit of Personal Significance

It has been a decade since Facebook has been available to all Internet users. We construct public personae that proposes what we would like others to believe about us and what we would like to believe about ourselves. We cultivate a satisfying image that we float for others to either validate or reject through likes and comments. We carefully construct our persona campaigns through images, writings, videos, and sound recordings. We also carefully share media produced by others that supports our public image.

Sometimes a post is made with just one recipient in mind. We make these posts publicly as a sort of cloak under which the intended recipient can be reached without the risk of our having to take full responsibility for our actions. We can also carry on private conversations which enables us to communicate with one person, or a select group of persons. Often these conversations take place synchronously with a corresponding public conversation. In this way, the platform functions on a public and private level, Facebook replicates a conscious/unconscious or private/public structure. We present carefully selected information publicly and privately. It is interesting to consider what the chronological correspondence must look like, if we were able to compare one's public and private postings.

Before the digital persona campaign, we knew much less about fewer people. When we encountered an acquaintance, or an old friend in a public space, there were certain limitations on what they knew about us and what we knew about them. Public image, the persona campaign, was much slower and shallower. One's public persona was limited to how they acted, what they shared, and with whom. Occasionally some individuals or families would publish annual newsletters that served to inform those close to them of the state of their affairs. Some published holiday cards with the image of the happy, prosperous family. But those media are trifling compared to the mass, digital platforms we use today.

We now know much more intimate details about many more people. These details are carefully crafted; we have become public relations experts. We attentively construct how we want others to think of us and look to their reactions for validation of a desired image and self-view. Much of what we publicly post goes beyond the polite and acceptable grounds of sharing, and serves the purpose of generating a social image of ourselves and our families.

We grieve our losses, celebrate our accomplishments, share gossip, news, and culture at a pace and volume that was heretofore unknown. Each of us now eclipses the daily exposure that even the most celebrated celebrity experienced only fifty years ago. Every piece of information is carefully selected, constructed, presented. Some of us have become extremely well versed in the strategies and techniques while others founder. Some strategically observe and cautiously, conservatively release well timed, infrequent, declarations of self and family. Others disseminate on a hourly basis and on multiple platforms. These are different styles of public relations used in the persona campaign.

What is the purpose of all this campaigning? Are we merely sharing with others, socializing with our communities, and participating in the conversation? Do we need digital, social networking to satisfy those needs? Does it have to be so fast, so frequent, and so profuse? Or are we acting as a sort of salesperson, peddling ourselves on the character market, hoping to reap the riches of social acceptance, admiration, and even that most prized evidence of our personal value--being envied?

It seems we are all selling something on the Internet, and I gather that something is ourselves. Or maybe a carefully crafted, strategically conceived, self-assuring idea of ourselves. The goal seems to be the same for each of us, regardless of the campaign strategies. We all have a deep need to feel significant.

How we Understand Others & Ourselves

It seems to me that any exercise of one's right to speak what's on one's mind comes with the prerequisite obligation that one first thoroughly examines one's mind. I am stubborn on this point. I pay due respect to those thoughts which show evidence of care being taken in their formation. A sign of my interest or respect in somebody's thinking can be found in my reaction to them. If I question and disagree with that person, it may be taken as a sign of my respect for their thinking. If I smile, nod, and seem to agree with everything they utter, chances are I am not willing to put more effort into their thoughts than they have been willing to.

I find it unfortunate that our education system fails to provide us with the basic tools for self-examination and critical thought. I am not merely talking about logical fallacies and rhetoric, but rather, about sincere self-criticism and the ability to be aware of one's own self-serving beliefs and attitudes that skews thinking. But these words--belief and attitude--take on a specific meaning in my usage. I am getting ahead of myself, and I should start from the beginning, not the middle.

Here is a quote that is attributed to Mohatma Gandhi.

"Your beliefs become your thoughts,

your thoughts become your words,

your words become your actions,

your actions become your habits,

your habits become your values,

your values become your destiny."

This quote illustrates a few of the core principles in Hindu, Buddhist, and Judeo-Christian psychology. A variation is also found in the pragmatism of William James, in his Principles of Psychology. I think that this verse illustrates a pragmatic human truth as to how each of us come to develop a unique worldview (Weltanschauung). In psychology, we refer to a belief as the fundamental aspect of an individual's Weltanschauung. We hold many different beliefs which are learned through interaction with our parents, our culture, and members of our society. These beliefs are largely based on education (or indoctrination) and many of these were absorbed so subtly, and over such a long period of time, that we have no recollection of them being absorbed at all. In fact, most of these beliefs feel "natural"--as if they were with us from birth. This is not the case. Every branch or thought shows us that there is not one belief for which we cannot find a cultural exception.

Belief, Attitude, & Weltanschauung

Beliefs, based on learning from others and through personal experience, become a conglomerate that fuse together into an attitude. An attitude, as we intend it in psychology, is not used in the same way as it is often used in everyday language, so you will have to abandon what you think "attitude" means in order to understand how we use it. Attitude is a collection of beliefs that one has about a certain phenomenon. For example, one has a set of beliefs that forms their attitude towards science, marriage, men, women, transvestism, religion... everything in a society's culture. We all hold attitudes that govern our actions, emotional responses, and thinking about others. To recap, beliefs are formed by learning and experiencing, and attitudes are the basis for how we think, feel, and act about people, places, and things. Attitudes, taken collectively, form our Weltanschauung--our worldview.

I find it useful to think of the self as a conglomeration of beliefs and attitudes which influence how we think about, emotionally react to, and behave towards others. This serves my early insistence that it is imperative that we examine our beliefs and our attitudes to better understand our Weltanschauung and our sense of self. It is not only critical that we pay attention to what we believe, but also, to explore how and why we have come to the beliefs, and how they are structured in to attitudes. Plato's dialogues of Socrates have shown us that our attitudes are often based on contradictory beliefs that diffuse upon contact. This is not only why it is important to read these dialogues of Socrates--to be better able to challenge our own attitudes--but also why the dialogues are so often neglected. It is painful to think critically about one's own beliefs and attitudes. It might also be why  we are often more aware of the problematic thinking of others than we are of our own--it is always easier, and possibly more beneficial, for us to see the faults in others rather than in ourselves.

In my experience, this kind of training is absent in our educational system. It is not typical to find people who know how or have taken up the task of the imperative "know thyself!" There are many models and techniques that one can use to distill their self, and to understand not only what, but why, and how they believe what they do. It is not an easy task. It is far easier to "let sleeping dogs lie". However, the rewards in examining one's self are extremely valuable, and possibly even necessary for living a "good life". 

I am basing this short introduction on how we understand others and ourselves on four sources. Firstly, we will be investigating the 1958 text by Fritz Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. We will also be discussing ideas found in social psychologist Eliot Aronson's text The Social Animal. The aforementioned work by William James, The Principles of Psychology serve as useful foundation in the understanding of habitual thought and beliefs. Collectively, we will understand how we make sense of ourselves and of others through the social psychological concepts of attribution theory and self-justification.

The Motivating Role of Affect
Our most fundamental, and most compelling psychical phenomenon is affect. Affect, commonly called feelings or emotions are the most powerful motivators in the human condition. Although it is typical, if not somewhat dull, to consider biological drives as the most powerful motivators, we experience hunger, thirst, and sexual desire as we do the drive for power--as emotions. The etymology of emotion is the Latin emoter meaning "to move away from". Emotion moves us into thinking and into acting. However, emotion is also formed through beliefs and attitudes.

Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory
One of the ways in which contemporary social psychologists talk about this emotional discomfort is  with the term cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is pretty much what most people talk about as angst, anxiety, or guilt. Terms that hint at morality, or suggest some sort of emotional motivation, aren't so popular with contemporary, academic, psychologists, so they tend to use this term. Cognitive dissonance was first used by an insightful psychologist named Leon Festinger in the 1950s. What Festinger described was not too different from what previous psychologists told us about motivation and behavior, but, it was packaged in a language that was quite different from previous theories. Cognitive dissonance theory is essentially psychoanalytic ego defense mechanisms (without the psychoanalysis) and Gestalt attribution theory (without the attribution). We will discuss attribution theory next, and the ego defense theory in a separate essay. The reader should keep in mind that these theories are essentially identical, however the conceptualization of each offers unique, and useful, points of view into the human condition.

Let's illustrate cognitive dissonance with a worn-out but effective example popular in introduction to psychology classes; smoking. Aronson illustrates:

"Supposed a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition 'I smoke cigarettes' is dissonant with the cognition 'cigarette smoking produces cancer.' Clearly, the most efficient way for this person to reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking. The cognition 'cigarette smoking produces cancer' is consonant with the cognition 'I do not smoke.' 

But, for most people, it is not easy to give up smoking. Imagine Sally, a young woman who tried to stop smoking but failed. What will she do to reduce dissonance? In all probability, she will try to work on the other cognition: 'Cigarette smoking produces cancer.' Sally might attempt to make light of evidence linking cigarette smoking to cancer. For example, she might try to convince herself that if Debbie, Nicole, and Larry smoke, it can't be all that dangerous. Sally might switch to a filter-tipped brand and delude herself into believing that the filter traps the cancer-producing materials. Finally, she might add cognitions that are consonant with smoking in an attempt to make the behavior less absurd in spite of its danger. Thus, Sally might enhance the value placed on smoking; that is she might come to believe smoking is an important and highly enjoyable that is essential for relaxation: 'I may lead a shorter life, but it will be a more enjoyable one.' Similarly, she might try to make a virtue out of smoking by developing a romantic, devil-may-care self-image, flouting danger by smoking cigarettes. All such behavior reduces dissonance by reducing the absurdity of the notion of going out of one's way to contract cancer. Sally has justified her behavior by cognitively minimizing the danger or by exaggerating the importance of the action. In effect, she has succeeded either in constructing a new attitude or in existing attitude." (Page 146, The Social Animal)

 Aronson's example provides us with an easy-to-understand illustration of Festinger's basic premise. When our action is incongruent with social pressures, we experience dissonance. That dissonance manifests as a psychical, and frequently physical, discomfort. In extreme cases we call it symptom. In order to alleviate this dissonance, we either have to change our behavior or change our belief. It is typically more likely that the mental gymnastics of justification will win out over a change of behavior, as was described in the example. These mental gymnastics have been precisely catalogued  by the psychoanalysts as ego defense mechanisms, also suggested earlier. In everyday jargon we know cognitive dissonance as the age-old experience called guilt.

Fritz Heider & Attribution
In 1958 the Gestalt psychologist Fritz Heider published The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. The ideas and thoughts which Heider presents in this book remain some of the most important, and most useful, in psychology. Heider's work is curiously absent in Eliot Aronson's classic text The Social Animal, which leaves Aronson's book less rich and, due to the book's popularity, Heider's work less read. A future revision would not only benefit from the inclusion of Heider's work, but would also provide students and young psychologists with the important research in attribution theory.

Heider was a Gestalt psychologist informed by phenomenology. An accessible definition of phenomenology might be: the study of how people participate in meaning making within the world. Heider illustrated this concept in an experiment from 1944 in which he showed a short film depicting non-human shapes in motion. Human subjects projected human-like qualities on to the shapes. This illustrates the basic question of phenomenology; how we participate in reality making.

Heider's work in 1958 took up the phenomenological question in terms of how we attribute cause and effect in ourselves and others. Heider claimed that we make sense of our own behavior, as well as that of others, based on personal "motivations, intentions, and sentiments". In other words, our perception of "reality" is dependent upon emotional factors that are often self-serving. This concept is hitting on the same issues that Aronsons discusses as self-justification in his text.

Heider begins on the Kantian ground that we each seek-out meaning; specifically causation in the events of everyday life. Heider's theory rests on the idea that we seek to attribute causes to events which we experience. Heider also found that we are motivated to attribute those causes in such a way that serves the interests of the individual who is making the attribution. This is nearly identical to self-justification research discussed above. Heider found that we tend to attribute the cause of something either to a personal (internal) or a situational (external) cause.

I often illustrate this distinction of personal versus situational attribution to my students with an experience that is familiar to them: receiving an exam grade. When we receive a good exam grade, we find ourselves in a self-congratualtory mood, often praising our performance as due to "hard work" or laborious hours of study. These causes are both personal and internal attributes. Hard work and the self-discipline necessary for hours of study are attributes of personal choice and self-discipline. Contrast these personal attributions with the typical reaction one has to receiving a poor grade. "The book is terrible," or "the professor did not lecture on anything that appeared on the exam!" In the second example, the cause of one's poor test performance is attributed to something outside of themselves; an external cause. In short, we take credit for our successes and point the finger to a scapegoat for our failures.

This kind of behavior is referred to as the self-serving bias. It is the tendency for us to maintain a sense of security, empowerment, and self worth--in short, a sense of safety-- through a reshuffling of the factors that contributed to out situation. We tend to twist the facts to accommodate our personal interests. This behavior isn't isolated to a few others whom we meet here and there, Heider found that it is a characteristic of each of us; we all all attribute cause and effect in service to our need to self-preserve.

This self-serving bias is a prerequisite to one of the most popular attitudes that we find in American culture: the just-world hypothesis. The just world hypothesis is a belief, a false belief, that "good things happen to good people," and that "bad things happen to bad people." First discussed by social psychologist Melvin Lerner, the just-world hypothesis has become one of the most thoroughly researched topics in social psychology. It turns out that we have the tendency to place blame on victims as a way of maintaining our belief that the world is somehow a fair and just place to be in. This belief receives justification from as disparate places as "the justice of God" to "the laws of evolution". Both of these view the causation as being attributed to some greater, law enforcing entity.

What can we take from this handful of theories from social psychologists for better knowing ourselves? To start, we can learn to hesitate in our willingness to be right in every situation. We can pause and ask ourselves, "From where do I see this cause?" "From where do other people see this cause?" If we hold our own thinking against the criticisms we make of others' thinking, what do we learn about ourselves? What do we risk? If we have the tendency to attribute our successes to our own efforts, and our failures blamed to others, what might be gained by asking ourselves in a moment of failure, "what role do I have in this?" or, in a moment of success, "whom do I owe a debt of gratitude for their help in this success?" If we do so, we will find that there are few examples, if any, of an entirely "self-made" success or failure.

Direct comments, questions, & corrections to Matthew Giobbi.

How do we Study Personality? (Part 3)

I'd like to begin our discussion of research by making the distinction that we alluded to in the second part of lecture 1. And that's the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research. Understanding quantitative research as distinctly different from qualitative research, quantitative research can usually be identified by having a coefficient with it, a number. Quantifiable research has to do with counting, quantifying, to count. So anything that uses statistical measures, standardization, anything that has a numerical coefficient assigned to it is considered to be quantifiable research.

Qualitative research, on the other hand, is usually descriptive in nature. It's usually not measured. It's usually more of a description certainly as is evident in a case study or in observing a group or observing children and play behavior. That's qualifiable behavior, qualitative research.

Sometimes qualitative research takes on the guise of quantitative research. An example of this would be the Likert scale. So when an individual self assesses the amount of pain they have on a scale of one to five. It looks as if it's quantitative research. But it's really a qualitative measure.

So we have to be careful when we're analyzing research and we're understanding research findings that sometimes assigning a number to something arbitrarily, such as happens in a Likert scale of pain description, is the guise of quantitative research, when it's actually qualitative research. You're just using a number to describe an individual's interpretation of their level of pain or whatever it is that one is researching.

How do we Study Personality? (Part 2)

Transcript

There's been a tendency in research psychology to break things up into seemingly obvious dichotomies-- in other words, a personality trait, such as introvert and extrovert. Yet when many of us experience our own lives and contemplate our own experiences, we often realize that describing ourselves as either an introvert or an extrovert is not always such an easy thing. In fact, we notice that a lot of it has to do with situations we're in or periods of our lives.

So we make the first distinction in the studies of personality of doing away with or being cautious of false dichotomies. Whenever we see a yes or no, either/or option for studying an aspect of personality-- in this case, in psychology in general-- we become skeptical of this.

So for instance, a common example would be the nature/nurture question. This is really a question that is no longer discussed in the traditional sense of is it nature, or is it nurture? Is it genes, or is it environment? And we now embrace an interactionist model, understanding that it's not so easy to distinguish between nature and nurture.

It's not so easy to parse these things apart-- that, in fact, maybe they are two aspects of the same thing, or two ways of looking at the same thing. So we're going to take this approach in personality as we approach it. We're going to avoid dichotomous thinking and instead think more in a third way, in an interactionist way.

Now, this is going to come into play as we discuss the big questions about human nature. Those big questions are, are we in charge of our lives? Free will versus determinism-- because there are the two options, free will or determinism. What dominates us, our inherited nature or nurturing environment? So it's the classic nature or nurture question.

And a third question that we're going to be looking at for each of these theories is, are we dependent or independent of our past? In other words, are we determined by our past? Is human nature unique or universal? In other words, is there a basic human nature of good or bad at the core?

Our life goals-- are we headed toward satisfaction or its growth? In other words, are we being human beings or human becomings? Are we something that we arrive at, or are we something that is ever changing? Another question that we look at is, are we ultimately optimistic or pessimistic in our theoretical world view?

So we look at these questions, these six questions, not as dichotomies but as an interactionist model. Now as it turns out, each of the individual theories that we're going to study takes a stance on the six questions. And we are going to ask these six questions and describe each of the answers to these six questions through the eyes of each of those theories.

So we want to remember from the beginning that often, these dichotomies are false. They're artificial parsing of the topic. And we are always going to be asking, what is the interaction? What is the third way that is a possibility? Is there a possibility of something other than nature or nurture, a new way of looking at the problem? So that's one thing that we're considering today I'd like you to think about regarding personality theory.

I think a role model in this approach is one of the theorists that we're going to be studying in this course, and that's Erich Fromm. And in 1964, Erich Fromm wrote a book called The Heart of Man, and in that book, he addressed each of these six questions and showed us how traditional thinking is unanswerable because we're asking the wrong question.

So if you have an interest in exploring these in a very intimate way, take a look at that book by Erich Fromm. The link will be provided here in the assignment section-- Eric Fromm, 1964, The Heart of Man.

Now let's take a look at each of those individual questions more in depth. The theories of personality that we'll be addressing in this course will each deal with six questions. In other words, there's a certain worldview that each of these theories embraces, and we can describe that worldview through six questions.

These six questions are the question of free will versus determinism; the question of nature versus nurture; the question of being dependent or independent of our histories, of our pasts; the question of a unique or universal human nature; the question of whether we are growing or we are static, so a being versus a becoming; and the question of whether or not the theory itself takes an optimistic or a pessimistic view of the human condition. Let's take a look at each of these questions and go into depth describing what they're talking about.

The first dichotomous question that's presented to us that we evaluate each theory using is the question of free will versus determinism. Simply put, free will means the ability to volitionally, autonomously, and spontaneously make decisions on how we act, how we think, how we feel. So this is the concept of free will.

In the theories that we are going to discuss, we see a broad range of some theorists who embrace the idea of free will, and we see many theories in which the theorist dismisses the concept of free will. Largely today in psychology, free will does not exist within the exception of the existential phenomenological psychologists, also known as the humanists. The reason for this is scientific method, the site science itself, which looks for lawful behavior, eliminates the possibility of free will.

So if you are an individual theorist who believes in choice and free will, then this is beyond the scope of a scientific endeavor, which is ultimately looking for lawful behavior. So to do psychology in a scientific way, one must be deterministic.

So we often see today a distinction between biological determinism and environmental determinism, which is whether or not biology determines how we think, feel, and act, or our social conditions determine how we think, feel, and act.

So in contemporary psychology, the dichotomy is still free will versus determinism, with free will being embraced by humanists and existential psychologists, and the scientific psychologists looking at determinism. And the debate in determinism is between biological determinism and environmental determinism.

Now, that should sound familiar because it's the old debate of nature versus nurture. Biological determinism would be nature, and environmental determinism would be nurture, biological determinism meaning we are a product of our genes, environmental determinism meaning we are a product of our upbringing, our childhood, the way our parents approached us and parented us, our socioeconomic situations, all of these considerations.

So let's take an example here. When we're dealing in, say, psychopathology, we know that there's a distinction between the medical model and the psychological model. And the medical model usually sees things such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, any of the mental disorders, as a product of a biological cause in the brain. So it could be genetic, or it could be a brain lesion or some sort of chemical disruptance, a tissue problem, a connection problem in neurons, or the nerve cell itself could be damaged or malfunctioning. This would be biological determinism.

The disease model is biological determinism. The idea that addictions, or depression, or anxiety as a disease is the assumption of biological determinism, and that is really described by the medical model.

The alternative view to this is the environmental model, which would claim that things such as addictions, and depression, and anxiety would have to do with how the individual grew up, the family members that raised them, how they learned to think about things, to react to things, to feel about things, how they learned how to behave. So this would be an environmental determinism.

Of course, free will would be the idea that there's ultimately a choice in behavior-- the behavior of the addict, for instance. It may feel as if it is controlled by an impulse in genetics or a learned habit, but in fact, it takes-- for the free will thinker, it takes an act of volition, of autonomy, to choose to, say, buy the alcohol, open up the bottle, pour it into the glass, and to drink it. There's a lot of volition involved here.

So we really see the nuanced nature of the nature-- I'm sorry, of the free will/determinism question. And within that is embedded the nature or nurture question. We have phrased it here as biological versus environmental determinism, and you should be able to identify both terms, nature/nurture, as equal to the biological versus environmental determinism.

Regarding the nature/nurture issue, or the, as we call it, genetic versus environmental determinism issue, we should realize that today, most thinkers in this area take what is called the biopsychosocial model, which is not exclusively a biological determinism or a social determinism, but some sort of interaction between both biological and the social.

To a greater or lesser extent, individuals claim to reject the false dichotomy of biological versus environmental determinism and claim that there's a certain interaction between environment and genes, or environment and biology.

We'll see this as being the real crux, or the real foundation, of Sigmund Freud's theory as being actually a tripartite interactionist theory that deals with biological drives, social pressures, and an individual's ability to make choices. So Freud's theory, as we're going to see on that lecture in psychoanalysis, actually encompasses both biological determinism, environmental determinism, and free will.

The third main issue that each of these theorists can be evaluated upon is the idea of historical determinism. That's the idea of how much are we dependent-- is our to personality dependent on our past? Does the current event, the current situation, affect how we think, feel, and act more than our history does, our past does, our childhood, major experiences in our lives? So this is the concept of historical determinism, and it falls under the dichotomy of independence or dependence from our past.

You can see that that's intimately related to environmental determinism, but we're talking now more about an historic or a time-related determinism. In other words, do present, current circumstances affect our personality manifestations more than our past, our historical experiences?

Another dichotomy that we can evaluate the theorists upon is the difference between unique or universal personalities. So are there theories that can be applied to all people in all places at all times? Or must we evaluate each individual uniquely and on their own terms?

So this dichotomy is referred to as the unique or universal basis of human nature. Is there one universal human nature? Say, are all people at the core good? Or are all people at the core greedy or whatever descriptive word you would look for? Or must we look at individuals and unique situations? Can someone be, perhaps, altruistic in their human nature and another person be greedy in their core human nature? So that's the issue of unique or universal aspects of human nature.

A fifth dimension on which we can evaluate each of the theorists is the idea of satisfaction versus growth, and this really has to do with motivation. Are we motivated, as the humanists or the extensional psychologists would say? Are we motivated towards self-actualization, towards becoming the ideal self? Or are we momentarily pushed and motivated to satisfy certain urges, certain sexual urges or-- for moving from pleasure-- or, I'm sorry, from unpleasure to pleasure, or from pain to the absence of pain?

So the idea here is looking at the idea of how an individual theory views our life goals, the motivation of life. Is it something that we are being pulled towards in a teleological way, trying to manifest our ultimate self? Or is it in a cause-and-effect relationship of satisfying an immediate sense of desire from unpleasure to pleasure?

Finally, we come to the description of either an optimistic or a pessimistic view of the theory. Does the individual theorist seem to feel that the ultimate nature of human beings is a pessimistic one or an optimistic one? For example, if individuals are inherently self-serving and seeking their own pleasure, this might be a pessimistic view-- a theory that holds a pessimistic view.

Really, the question that we're entering in here is a question of ethics, and for some of these theorists of personality, ethics is an intimate aspect of personality-- morality. For other theorists, certainly the scientific trait theorists, questions on ethics and morality don't really play into the description of personality. But certainly for psychoanalysts and the humanists, psychodynamic theorists, we're going to see that morality and ethics are an important aspect of personality for some of these theorists.

Broadly speaking, I think we can distinguish between two main groups of theories that we're going to investigate in this series of lectures. The first, I would say, is more of an ideographic approach, that is, an individual approach that studies individuals and describes them within a theoretical framework. This might even be seen as a deductive method, starting with a theory and then looking at individuals and how they fit into that theory.

We also have nomothetic research. And the nomothetic research is more statistically based, looking at groups of individuals. Trait theories are utilizing much more standardization and statistical measures of individuals.

So we have these two categories, one of a nomothetic nature, groups using statistics to understand maybe different personality traits that are dominant in different cultures and different time periods, and we have the ideographic approach, which is really looking at individuals one on one and how their personality-- describing their personality, typically within a theoretical framework.

The ideographic method is typically used by the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theorists as well as the humanists, whereas the nomothetic research is typically used in trait theory and some of the biological neuroscience theories looking at how cultures may differ based on percentages of individuals who score in certain levels on certain traits. So we have these two different broad methods, ideographic and nomothetic.

We're also going to see in the next part of our lecture that different theories use different research methods. The nomothetic methods are-- or nomothetic theories, rather, are typically using more empirically based research that includes questionnaires, and standardized testing, and the use of statistics, and statistical models, standardization, to understand how individuals compare to others.

We also have in the ideographic research and most of the psychodynamic theories and humanistic theories-- we're looking more at qualitative research. That's description and not so much a coefficient or a numerical quantification, but a qualification, a quality-based research, a qualitative research of understanding things as they fit into theoretical systems.

And of course, the goal in all of this, typically, is to predict behavior and to, in some instances-- to control behavior, and in other instances to modify behavior. And to certain degrees, each of these theories have that as its aim.

An exception to this would be the existential phenomenological theories, or the humanistic theories, as they're called in North America, which are usually more interested in growth and achieving an individual potential more than controlling and predicting. It's more of a personal growth type theory. But they can be used, of course, to prepare predictions, to control and to change behavior because ultimately, that's what therapy is. Therapy is about change.

So these theories are very diverse, very nuanced, and we have now the basic considerations that we're going to evaluate each of these theories on, the six basic evaluations that we're going to look at.

Next, we're going to move on to research methods in personality theory. So we're going to look at qualitative and quantitative research methods, the dominant research methods that are used in each of the schools of thought that we'll be investigating. Then we'll talk about some of the strengths and weaknesses of those research methods, and that'll be in part three of lecture one, theories of personality. Thanks for listening.

Hugo Münsterberg On Psychology and The Cinema

At the turn of the century the "movies" were the latest rage in both Europe and America. For the French, in the tradition of the Brothers Lumière, cinema was a social experience. The very nature of their sewing machine inspired camera, and the gas lamp illuminated projector, made the cinema a public experience. Unlike the American Kinetoscope, which came out of Thomas Edison's New Jersey laboratory, the French cinematic experience was a social event from the start. In 1895, inside the basement Salon Indiene du Grand Café of Paris, audience members watched as a train appeared to burst through the wall, reportedly startling audience members who enjoyed the experience as a group. Edison's Kinetoscope was not a social experience. The Edison device was activated by dropping a coin into a slot and peeking into a tiny viewer at the top of the cabinet. Working class patrons would line up to see prize fights, one round each on a series of cabinets, at a corner arcade. The longest lines were found waiting for the final Kinetoscope, the one that featured the knock-out.

By the time the German psychologist Hugo Münsterberg had settled in to his position as professor of psychology at Harvard, the American "movies" had taken the communal direction of the French. Nickelodeons (literally five-cent theaters) were quickly being replaced with movie palaces as vaudeville odeons were being adapted for picture shows. The attitude of the time was largely class conscious, finding live theater and moving picture shows as a choice of status, rather than an preference of medium. Münsterberg was a proud German emigre in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and was living up to the image that his predecessor and founder of the department of psychology, William James, had created for him as the genius needed to run the psychology lab at America's "greatest university". Münsterberg accepted James's flattery and his invitation.

Münsterberg was a visionary in psychology who is often neglected in contemporary scholarship. He championed psychology as a useful lens through which to see the world, writing in popular magazines like The Cosmopolitan and Atlantic Monthly, on topics as broad as education, psychotherapy, industry, and personality. It was in 1914 that Münsterberg permitted himself to step into a movie palace to see Neptune's Daughter, a silent film directed by Herbert Brenon.

Despite Münsterberg's reputation for pretense and elitism, he found himself captivated by the film and the experience of seeing a movie in the movie palace. In 1915 he wrote an article about the psychology of the "photoplay" for Cosmopolitan Magazine, and only a year later published a full text on the psychology of movies. In Why We Go to the Movies, first published in the December 15, 1915 issue of The Cosmopolitan, Münsterberg is introduced by the editor as "a wizard at telling us why we do things. He is the first psychologist to take up the study of the strong appeal of the photoplay, and his important conclusions and discoveries here given are quite as interesting and fascinating as those which have proved so helpful in commerce, industry, education, law, and other spheres of practical life."

The article is an intelligent yet accessible introduction to thinking about film, the effects of film on the audience, as well as the experience of going to the movies. Münsterberg begins his article by addressing the class implications of the photoplay, and proposes that the reader abandon any prejudices of cinema as a lesser form of the live theater, and instead encounter it on its own terms. He explores the educational opportunities that film will provide, which he described as "show[ing] us the happenings of the world and  gave us glances at current events and exhibited a little of animal life!" His enthusiasm is that of an academic who is not only celebrating a newly developing technology, but also speculating on how this technology might be used in a practical way, when applied to education as well as entertainment.

The article is not only an entrée into the psychological investigation of cinema (it sets the stage for earliest example of film theory that we can find in academic scholarship, his 1916 text The Photoplay: A Psychological Study), but also serves as a significant declaration for the infant field of psychology--a declaration of psychology as an applied discipline.

Hugo Münsterberg

This effort to make psychology something useful and practical to the masses was not met with cheers from Münsterberg's colleagues. At the time there were about 10 university psychology labs in Germany and 40 in the United States. The attitude with most of those psychologists, including Edward Titchener at Cornell, was that psychology should not degrade itself into a technology, but rather, should strive to maintain its dignity as a "pure science". Münsterberg rebelled against the scholarly attitude of his colleagues and published numerous books an articles that spoke to the general public.

Münsterberg became wildly popular through his writings. He was engaged by corporations, educational institutions, health care facilities, as well as two American presidents (Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft) for his insights on psychological matters. Hugo Münsterberg opened the possibilities for non-academic uses of psychology, and worked to establish psychology as an applied field of study.

With the entrance of the United States into The Great War, Münsterberg found his popularity fading. His years of ardent celebration of German Kultur, as well as his condescending criticism of Americans and their attraction to superficial kitsch, caught with him as he suffered both personal and professional ridicule in the press. Once America's most famous psychologist, Münsterberg died a despised and dishonored German-American who was even caused of being a spy.

Although  Münsterberg is seldom mentioned outside of the history of psychology, his contributions to film theory are significant. His works have become foundational texts in film theory classes, and are often taught in media psychology courses. He authored the first academic text on film theory in 1916, The Photoplay: A Psychological Study, as well as two essays, Why We Go to the Movies (1915), and Peril to Childhood in the Movies (1917). The cinema would be the final application of psychology that Hugo Münsterberg would explore. On December 16, 1916, just months after The Photoplay was published, Münsterberg collapsed and died of stroke while lecturing to students at Radcliffe College in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Direct questions, comments, & corrections to Matthew Giobbi.