Entry 004 - Death and Disney

This entries question comes (albeit inadvertently) from Kaleigh Marie from Maine who writes:

"Disney's Earth is the worst movie I've ever seen. Animals eating and killing each other, baby animals getting slaughtered, and running out of water. Why in the hell would Disney make such a movie?"

The quoted message was from a recent Facebook status update, in which she expresses her distaste for the variety of death scenes found throughout the video meant for children. Although it was not directly asked to the blog, it is a profound question, which has been discussed at some length with others, making it worthy of further investigation.

DEATH IN DISNEY:

Death and Disney, as Forrest Gump may say, go together like "peas and carrots". Although I am uncertain as to how well peas and carrots truly go together, anyone who was raised on Disney films is aware of the variety of horrific death scenes throughout their films. These scenes are what nightmares are made of.

Although I have no specific citation for the frequency of death throughout Disney film, I have decided to display several heart breaking scenes throughout this blog, which will hopefully illustrate this point.

I sincerely apologize for the pun.

However, is all of this death unwarranted? If not, what value could displaying concepts of death to children through film possibly have? Perhaps like many other phenomenon in psychology, Terror Management Theory poses some insight to the questions at hand.

What was truly heartbreaking was the knowledge he 

would have to live with his father.

TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY:

Terror Management Theory [TMT], derived from Ernest Becker's 1973 Pulitzer Prize-winning non-fiction entitled The Denial of Death, argues that all human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death. Greenberg et al., (1992/1986) purposed and tested the main theoretical and experimental paradigms for TMT, which spawned a vast and rich body of literature, all confirming the robust effects of TMT.

Specifically, Psyczynski et. al., (2004) posit that humans share a biological predisposition to continue existence, or at the very least avoid premature termination. However, human’s posses an array of highly develop cognitive abilities which give them awareness of the inevitability of death, which can cause paralyzing terror. In order to manage this terror, humans have developed elaborate cultural world views through mechanisms such as self-esteem, which allow us to believe our existence is meaningful within the universe. Thus, in order to be successful in manage the terror derived from the existential threat, one must have faith in a meaningful conception of reality (the cultural worldview) and hold a belief that one is meeting the standards prescribed by that world view (self-esteem). However, how does TMT apply to children?

NOTE: For a complete review of Terror Management Theory, see The Handbook of Existential Psychology.

CHILDREN AND THE EXISENTIAL THREAT:

Aside from supplying a possible account of the evolution of cultural world views, TMT has also attempted to provide a developmental account of how infants acquire cultural world views and maintain self-esteem in the face of death. Following the works of Bowlby's (1969) formation of infant attachment, TMT is theorized to start with the immaturity of infants from the moment of their birth. Early in life, parents (ideally) provide care for their child, but over the course of the child's development, parental affection becomes contingent upon engaging in certain behaviors while refraining from others. Although some of these behaviors may be to protect the child (e.g. do not play in traffic), other behaviors may be reflective of the society (e.g. do not eat worms). While there is nothing lethal about eating worms, from a biological perspective, most parents frown on this activity.

Old Yeller is rewarded with a brand new bullet

after saving his humans from a wolf.

Throughout development, children are taught to associate good with safe and bad with unsafe, which is transferred from their personal relationships and culture. As they grow older, Children also begin to realize that their parents are mortal and will be unable to provide them with the safety and security they have received in perpetuity. If children do not understand death from birth, when does it develop?

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF DEATH:

From an objective perspective, death is an irreversible outcome of a natural process, and a mature conception of death implies that an individual understands it is inevitable, universal, and irreversible (Florian, 1985). However, this concept of death is only reach through cognitive development. Nagy (1948) suggested that there were three developmental stages of death. Those in preschool lacked a fundamental understanding of deaths inevitability and irreversibility. Those aged 5-9 tend to personify death, such that, it could be avoided if swift enough. Only in the third stage (9-10) did children realize the permanence of death, and the fact that it could occur through a variety of circumstances.

Florian (1985) examined the development of death from pre-kindergarten to first grade in Israeli children, and found that with a gradual increase in age, the understanding of death solidified. This finding has also been replicated in Western countries (Smilansky, 1987; Speece & Brent, 1992; Wenestam & Wass, 1987). The critical stage of development of death seems to occur during Piaget's concrete operations (ages 7-11).

Beyond this process, Florian and Kravetz (1985) claimed that a child's physical and cultural environment influence their representation of death. In fact, cultures which emphasize the notions of divine purpose and reincarnation may even inhibit the development of the view of death as the irreversible outcome of a natural process (Bowlby, 1980). Experimentally, Florian and Mikulincer (1998) exposed children (age 7 or 11) to mortality salience, and found that only 11 year olds reacted to mortality salience similar to adults noted in previous studies (Greenberg et al., 1997). This reaffirms the notion that it is not until children reach a mature age that their notions of death fully develop.

WALT DISNEY IS REJUVINATED BY THE TEARS OF CHILDREN:

One of the most evil men in the world, next to Hitler.

Although it is easy (and fun) to think of Walt Disney as an evil person, does he deserve the bad rap? If the children watching these films are too young, they may not fully understand the consequences of death. Additionally, some children who do not have a complete understanding of death often will fill in gaps in understanding with fantasy elements (Baker, Sedney, & Gross, 1992), which may be taken from the media that children view, such as Disney movies. Thus, the question of whether or not Disney portrays death in an accurate and acceptable manner arises.

THE VALUE OF DISNEY DEATHS:

Cox, Garrett, & Graham (2005) conducted a study in which they performed a content analysis on Disney films to locate 23 death scenes from 10 full-length Disney animated films ranging from classics such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937) to modern movies such as Tarzan (1999). Each characters death was watched by several research assistants who determined the characters status (protagonist or antagonist), depiction of death (implicit or explicit), emotional reactions (were characters in the movie sad or happy regarding the death), and causality (justified or unjustified).

Results from Character Status suggested that both "good" and "bad" characters are susceptible to death, which can be beneficial as children viewing these scenes receive the message that even good characters can die (Brent et al., 1996; Willis, 2002).

Depictions of death were evenly implicit and explicit. Explicit deaths were more likely to be noted where protagonist died; however, this can also be a positive occurrence as these scenes may demonstrate explicit deaths of characters that the viewer cares about, reinforcing the consequences of death.

Implicit deaths occurred mostly for antagonists, which may send a message that their deaths are inconsequential in comparison to those of the protagonists, perhaps sending a mixed message to children about the importance of death.

That's right... twist the knife.

Death status throughout the majority of films were permanent. This is also a positive message, as it enforces the idea that death is a permanent phenomenon, a concept that many young children do not yet grasp (Baker et. al., 1992; Brent et. al., 1996; Grollman, 1990; Willis, 2002). Thus, it is theorized that seeing these scenes may help children develop this understanding of death sooner. However, if left unaided in understanding these scenes, there may be an internal crisis derived from the realization of the permanence of death. Of the deaths which occurred, only six were reversible. All of the reversible deaths occur among protagonists, suggesting that antagonists do not get a second chance at life. This point is one of caution, for, as discussed earlier, the notion that death is not permanent could inhibit the development of death. Additionally, half of the protagonists who died came back in some form. For example, in The Lion King, Mufasa returns to communicate with Simba. Although this scene may show children that loved ones can always be part of them, it could confuse children into thinking that the deceased may actually return (Worden & Silverman, 1996).

...Braaaaainnns....

Emotional reactions were generally negative for protagonists, which may provide some children who lack experience with death a model of grieving (Baker et al., 1992). Presumably, when children see characters grieve and show frustration over the death of loved ones, they may learn that these behaviors are normal and acceptable. Positive emotional reactions occurred solely for antagonists, and were extremely uncommon.

Finally, it was noted that all of the deaths which were justified were among the antagonists, many of whom died from the result of an accident. The fact that these individuals died via accidents allowed them to "get what they deserve" while maintaining the innocence of the protagonists.

CONCLUSION:

Collectively, a child’s understanding of death seems to depend on two factors. The first is their experience with death (Speece & Brent, 1984), with the second aimed at their developmental level (Brent et al., 1996; Willis, 2002). These films may give children something to relate to when they are experiencing a loss. Watching films in which characters die may help children understand real death in a way that is less traumatic and threatening. Depictions of death may also serve as springboards for discussion between children and adults about death, for many parents try to downplay the severity and reality of death when discussing it with children (Grollman, 1990; Ryerson, 1977; Willis, 2002). As long as a parent is available to open the appropriate dialogue, and encourage a healthy discussion surrounding death, the negative consequences of these death scenes in Disney seem to be fewer than the theorized benefits.

If only Chance (voiced by Michael J. Foxx) could go back

in time, he could prevent this tragedy from ever occurring!

However, given the nature of the content analysis conducted by Cox and colleagues (2005), the interpretations should be viewed with some skepticism. In order to infer actual benefits, an experimental study with manipulations is ideal. With the evidence at hand, there seems to be little to no permanent harm in watching Disney movies, but future research should be aimed at examining the consequences of these films, specifically on those who may be older, and susceptible to mortality salience.

Whether or not Disney movies are right for a kid is up to each parent. While the developmental stages of death have been suggested to solidify around the age of 9-10, it is important for parents to realize that this is a generalization, and that no one may know what their child is actually able to comprehend like the parent. With this information in mind, parents must carefully weigh the consequences of letting their children view these movies, and make themselves available to quash confusion while putting the information in the appropriate context. As for Kaleigh’s original statement about the violence in Disney's Earth, I'll let you decide:

NOTE: If you have a question for me to research and answer please submit it as a comment, or send it to ELKronos@aol.com / Facebook.com/ELKronos. Submit your name and location if you wish to opine.

CITATIONS:

Baker, J. E., Sedney, M. A., & Gross, E. (1992). Psychological tasks for bereaved children. American Journal of Orthopsychitray, 62, 105-116.

Becker, Ernest (1973). The denial of death (1st ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bowlby J [1969] (1999). Attachment, 2nd edition, Attachment and Loss (vol. 1), New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss: Sadness & Depression. Attachment and Loss (vol. 3); (International psycho-analytical library no.109). London: Hogarth Press.

Brent, S. B., Speece, M. W., Lin, C., Dong, Q., & Yang, C. (1996). The development of the concept of death among Chinese and U.S. children 3-17 years of age: From binary to “fuzzy” concepts? Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying, 33, 67-83.

Cox, M., Garrett, E., & Graham, J.A. (2005). Death in Disney films: Implications for children's understanding of death. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 50, 267-280.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189–212). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Rosenblatt A., et al. (1992). Assessing the terror management Analysis of self-esteem: Converging evidence of an anxiety-buffering function. Journal of Personalilty and Social Psychology, 63, 913-922.

Greenberg, J.; Solomon, S.; Pyszczynski, T. (1997). "Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and". Advances in experimental social psychology 29 (S 61): 139.

Greenberg, J.; Koole, S. L., & Pyszczynski, T. (2004). Handbook of experimental existential psychology. Guilford Press.

Grollman, E. A. (1990). Talking about death: A dialogue between parent and child (3rd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435–468.

Florian, V. (1985). Children's concept of death: An empirical study of a cognitive and environmental approach. Death Studies, 9, 133-141.

Florian, V., & Kravetz, D. (1985). Children's concept of death. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Florian, V.; Mikulincer, M. (1997). "Fear of death and the judgment of social transgressions: a multidimensional test of terror" (Registration required). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (2): 369–80.

Nagy, M. (1948). The child's theories concerning death. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 73, 3-27.

Ryerson, M. S. (1977). Death education and counseling for children. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 11, 165-174.

Smilansky, S. (1987). On death: Helping children understand and cope. New York, Peter Lang.

Speece, M. W., & Brent, S. B. (1984). Children’s understanding of death: A review of three components of a death concept. Development, 55, 1671-1686.

Wenestam, C.G., & Wass, H. (1987). Swedish and U.S. children's thinking about death: A qualitative study and cross-cultural comparison. Death Studies, 11, 99-121.

Willis, C. A. (2002). The grieving process in children: Strategies for understanding, educating, and reconciling children’s perceptions of death. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 221-226.

Worden, J. W., & Silverman, P. R. (1996). Parental death and the adjustment of school-age children. Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying, 33, 91-102.

Entry 003 - Just Say Please

This week's question comes from Amber Marble, currently in Barre Vermont, who asks:

"Is please really the magic word?"

Although this question may have been jocose, I felt it was a question worth further exploration. For those of you unaware, "please" is often referred to as the "magic word" among parents, professionals, and even pop culture:

Now, just for clarification purposes, it should be noted that please is not a magic word in a conventional sense (magician do not say "please" before pulling a rabbit out of there hat). It is said to be magical because it is implied that if one says please before a request, compliance is more likely. In order to understand why please may be a "magic word", it is worthwhile to inspect the origins of the word please, and manners at large.

PLEASE TELL ME THE HISTORY:

According to Webster's dictionary, please is derived from Middle English, Anglo-French, akin to Latin and Greek, with its first known use in the 14th century. Although it is unclear as to how the word please came about, sociologists view manners as the unenforced modern standards of conduct used to demonstrate that one is refined. Words such as "unenforced" and "modern" are especially important to the definition when one considers how manners can vary not only between cultures, but over time.

Although the history of manners is somewhat debatable, a complete and well researched account is offered by Norbert Elias, a German sociologist, in his two volume book "The Civilizing Process". In his book, Elias argues that a complex network of social connections which developed in post-medieval Europe lead to the creation of the "super-ego". Freud's theories aside, Elias theorized that perceptions of violence, sexual behavior, bodily functions, forms of speech, and even table manners were transformed by the increasing amount of shame and repugnance from court etiquette.

Due to the lack of research on how various forms of etiquette began, some speculation is necessary. It stands to reason that as prehistoric man formed societies, it was necessary to learn how to behave in a peaceful manner. Given that other individuals are often a source of self-esteem (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and that we cooperate with and seek out close others (Murray, 1938), manners could be a way for us to achieve social approve (Cataldi & Reardon, 1996). Speculation aside, the question at hand is whether or not saying please actually prompts a higher rate of compliance.

PLEASE LET THERE BE MAGIC:

According to Francik and Clark (1985), speakers who are requesting information often face potential obstacles in getting information. They devised a study in which participants read a variety of scenarios which contained a high or low obstacle to getting the information they requested. Results suggest that participants who read a scenario which entailed a large obstacle were less likely to make direct requests, such as "Do you remember what time the concert begins tonight" as opposed to "What time does the concert begin tonight". The ladder implies that wording requests in a manner such that they are not authoritarian is suited when the obstacle is seen as large.

While this finding may not be directly related to the word "please" it is interesting to consider in the context of when saying "please" is deemed necessary. Perhaps one of the most common instances in which please is deemed necessary is in early childhood interactions with teachers. Everyone likes to be respected, and teachers may even think it is their job to instill good manners in children; however, what does expecting a child to say "please" really imply? If the child wants something to use the bathroom, and the teacher insists the child say "please", this is similar to the teacher considering themselves a larger obstacle in the child's ability to go to the bathroom than the child itself is willing or able to recognize. Additionally, if an authority figure asks a child to clean up by saying, "please pick up your toys", the word please makes the request sound less important, and may even lead the child to believe that they have the ability to say no to their parental figure. Instead of teaching a child to say please after every instance, it may be more worthwhile to teach children the subtleties of when to say please, as well as reconsidering when you really think a please is necessary.

SAYING PLEASE CAN HELP:

Given that please may not always be necessary, can saying please ever really help? Pennebaker and Sanders (1976) conducted one of the first studies which may shed some light on the question at hand. While their paper is examining the effects of authority on reactance, their experimental manipulation warrants some notice. In this study researchers posted placards in 17 toilet stalls throughout the day. The signs had a message containing a high threat (e.g. "Do NOT write on the walls!") or a low threat message (e.g. "Please, do not write on the walls").

While there is more to the study than what has been described, researchers noted that under certain conditions, proffered threats may cause the behavior to increase rather than decrease. This implies that in a public setting, a high threat message may be worthwhile, but in a private setting, where the chances of getting caught are minimal, a low threat message (one that says please) is more effective than that of a high threat.

SAYING PLEASE CAN HURT:

Firmin et al. (2004) conducted a study which directly tested the please hypothesis by conducting a telephone poll to students on campus. In the study, research assistants called participants asking whether or not they would commit to buying one cookie to support a local homeless shelter. Experimenters kept the script the participants heard the same, except for the addition of the word please.

As suggested by the results, the addition of the word "please" seemed to backfire, such that, when participants were asked to please commit, they were less likely to state they would buy a cookie than when the plea was not used. Researchers attempted to explain these findings by claiming that on a campus setting, which constantly bombarded with pleas to commit their time and money to various causes, students may be more immune to the word like please. Additionally, researchers theorized that students may have been suspicious of the request, as the word please was not really necessary for what was asked, and it may have been perceived as if the person making the request was too good to be true in selling homemade baked goods in support of a homeless shelter.

Although several other theories are postulated as to explaining the results, I personally feel that when participants were asked to make a commitment, they felt good about themselves for supporting others. However, when the word please was tacked on, participants were robbed of that feeling, for the word implies that the request is great, and as a result they may have rationalized that they were buying the cooking for the asker, not the cause. This explanation fits the perception-of-relationship theory proposed by Aune and Basil (1994).

CONCLUSION:

As illustrated in the video below, saying "please" to a computer is not likely to gain additional compliance. However, one should not give up on ever saying please again. It is merely important to know how to use the term correctly.

Collectively, saying "please" can go a long way to making a request seem more reasonable; however, caution should be used as to when the word is said. Please should not be used for just any request, but rather a request that might be considered unreasonable without it. As suggested by Sanders and Fitch (2001), the context in which a statement is made is of great importance. Please can be a magical word, and in the case of our magician, there may be some situations where they would want to say please to get the rabbit out of the hat, but futher research is needed to determine what times make please the most "magical".

NOTE: If you have a question for me to research and answer please submit it as a comment, or send it to ELKronos@aol.com / Facebook.com/ELKronos. Submit your name and location if you wish to opine.

CITATIONS:

Aune, K., & Basil, M. (1994). A relational obligations approach to the foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of applied social psychology, 24, 546-556.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Cataldi, A. E., & Reardon, R. (1996). Gender, interpersonal orientation, and manipulation tactic use in close relationships. Sex Roles, 35, 205-218.

Elias, N., (1969). The Civilizing Process, Vol.I. The History of Manners, Oxford: Blackwell.

Firmin, M.W., Helmick, J.M., Iezzi, B.A., & Vaughn, A. (2004). Say please: The effect  of the word "please" in compliance-seeking requests. Social behavior and personality, 32, 67-72.

Firncik, E.P., & Clark, H.H. (1985). How to make requests that overcome obstacles to compliance. Journal of memory and language, 24, 560-568.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Pennebaker, J.W., & Sanders, D.Y. (1976). American graffiti: Effects of authority and reactance arousal. Personality and social psychological bulletin, 2, 264-269.

Sanders, R., & Fitch, K. (2001). The actual practice of compliance seeking. Communication theory, 11, 263-289.

Entry 002 - Lily Toxicity & Cats:

Welcome to this weeks blog post. This entry’s question comes from Sara Dawn, from Big Horn, Wyoming, who writes:

“Why are lilies toxic to cats?”

Sara’s question is in no doubt derived from her recent experience outlined in her blog. Although the question could be answered in a heavily scientific manner, I have attempted to avoid that which may be percieved as enigmatic to foster a better understanding of the question at hand.

WHY LILIES AND CATS DO NOT MIX:

Certain members of the lilaceae plant family (Tiger, Rubrum, Asian, Stargazer, and Easter lilies to be precise) have been observed to cause life threatening illness in cats when the plants are ingested (Teft, 2004). Specifically, when cats ingest lilies, they may develop a renal disorder, causing an acute kidney failure. Kidneys are necessary for a cat to survive as they act as a filtration system, which removes toxins and waste products from the body. When the kidneys fail, toxic substances begin to build up in the body, poisoning the animal's system and having a variety of negative side effects, and ultimately death.

Until recently, research was unable to identify the component of lilies which are toxic to cats (Hall, 1992). Modern research has noted that many lilies contain parent compound(s) or metabolite(s) which induce nephrotoxic tubular necrosis; However, the exact makeup of these compounds have still eluded researchers, preventing the creation of an anti-toxin (Brady & Janovitz, 2000; Rumbeiha et al. 2004). However, these studies note that when lilies are ingested, renal ultrastructural changes occur, which include swollen mitochondria, megamitochondria, edema, and lipidosis. Although many plants are toxic to a variety of pets, cats seem to be most influenced animal in regard to lily consumption, as studies have noted no effects of lily ingestion for rats or rabbits, and only a mild effect on dogs (Hall, 2001; Milewski & Khan, 2006).

SYMPTOMS OF LILY INGESTION:

The first sign of lily poisoning occurs within 30 minutes to several hours after the ingestion. Typically, a cat which has ingested lilies is likely to vomit, show signs of depression, lethargy, tremors, seizures, and have a loss of appetite. Renal failure generally occurs within 24 to 96 hours of ingestion, with signs such as increased urination, thirst, as the kidneys begin to fail. This failure generally leads to dehydration and death (Groff, 1993; Volmer, 1994).

TREATMENT & PROGNOSIS OF LILY INGESTION:

As discussed earlier, scientific research has been unable to find the specific agent within lilies which is poisonous to cats. Given that it is unclear what part of the lily causes renal failure in cats, a suitable anti-toxin cannot be made. As a result, treatment for cats which ingested lilies is somewhat more invasive.

The most common treatment for lily ingestion in cats is the use of decontamination and fluid diuresis. This treatment has been extremely successful in cats which have ingested lilies within 6 hours of treatment (Hall, 1992). The National Animal Poison Control Center recommends that induction of vomiting, followed by the administration of charcoal with a cathartic be utilized.

If treatment is not undertaken within 18 hours of ingestion, acute renal failure is likely to develop (Hall, 1992), with death occurring as early as 3 days without treatment (Hall, 2001). If a cat is unable to pass urine, dialysis is generally the only treatment option remaining.

As stated earlier, renal failure is preventable if decontamination and fluid diuresis are utilized successfully before 6 hours of ingestion, prompting a full recovery. However, once renal failure is noted, the prognosis is not as positive. Although the onset of renal failure may lead to other problems, tubular regeneration has been noted (Langston, 2002; Hall 2001).

OTHER COMMON CAT TOXINS:

Developing treatments for animals which have been exposed to poison is extremely difficult given the communication gap between species. Although one may believe that humans are more likely to succumb to poisonings given the prevalence of drug abuse and suicide, animals often lick their coat when something has been spilled on it, and due to their lack of hands, are more likely to use their mouths to explore. Even thought cats are said to be more cautious than dogs (according to Bjornstad (2008) dogs have indiscriminate eating habits prompted by curiosity), they may face a variety of challenges in navigating a world shaped by humans. These behavioral differences, combined with inherent differences in physiology, anatomy create major problems for veterinarians when it comes to finding a successful treatment. Given the lack of suitable treatments, it is every pet owner’s responsibility to ensure that their environment is pet friendly.

• INSECTICIDES: Toxicology reports have suggested that topical insecticides (e.g. products for dogs with permethrin, or others used for flea control) can lead to tremors and seizurs in cats. Ingredients may include organophosphates or carbamates, pyrethroids, imidacloprid, fipronil, and selamectin, all of which have been contributed to health problems in cats. This can present a challenge for owners of mulitple pets (Richardson, 1999; Volmer, 2004).
• VENLAFAXINE: This bicyclic antidepressant is extremely toxic to cats. A serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor as well as a weak dopamine reuptake inhibitor, cats seem to be drawn to consuming these pills. Less than one 37.5-mg capsule is enough to cause mydriasis, vomiting, and an array of other complications (ASPCA APCC: Database: Unpublished data, 2002-2005).
• GLOW JEWERLY AND STICKS: Any plastic bracelets, necklaces, and wands that contain a liquid that glows in the dark can be hazardous to cats. Given that cats frequently bite into jewelry, dibutyl phthalate can cause hypersalivation, agitation, and, occasionally, vomiting. Given its unpalatable taste, most cats stay clear of this poison (Rosendale, 1999).
• LIQUID  POTPOURRI: Used as  a household fragrance, the open bowl and heat source is often appealing to cats. Liquid potpourri may contain high concentrations of cationic detergents, essential oils, or a combination of both, which can damage the gastrointestinal track, and central nervous system (Richardson, 1999).
• NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS: NSAIDs are often administered to pets by owners; however a vet should be consulted before giving pets any medication. Cats have a low tolerance for NSAIDs, and are thought to be at least twice as sensitive to drugs, such as ibuprofen, as dogs are. When exposed, cats often develop ulceration, hemorrhaging, and acute renal failure. Because of this sensitivity, most exposures require aggressive treatment (Villar, et al. 2004).
• ACETAMINOPHEN: Similar to NSAIDs, acetaminophen (drugs such as Tylenol) is often given to sick cats by their owners. Exposure can cause respiratory distress and hepatic necrosis (Roder, 2004).
• ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES: Although rat baits are generally similar in appearance, many traps do not use anticoagulants with bromethalin (a neurotoxin) or cholecalciferol (a vitamin D analogue). These substances typically cause hemorrhaging of the lungs and respiratory problems (Means, 2004).

NOTE: If you have a question for me to research and answer please submit it as a comment, or send it to ELKronos@aol.com / Facebook.com/ELKronos. Submit your name and location if you wish to opine.

CITATIONS:

Bjornstad, M. (2008). Differences between human and animal poisonings. Clinical toxicology, 46, 357-372.

Brady, M.A., & Janovitz, E.B. (2000). Nephrotoxicosis in a cat following ingestion of asiatic hybrid lily (lillium sp.). Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation, 12, 566-568.

Groff RM, Miller JM, Stair EL, et al.: 1993, Toxicoses and toxins. In: Feline practice, ed

Hall, J., (1992), Nephrotoxicity of Easter lily (Lilium longiflorum) when ingested by the cat. Annual Meeting of Veterinary International Medicine, 6, 121–121.

Hall, J., (2001). Lily nephrotoxicity. In: Consultants in feline internal medicine 4. Philadelphia, ed. August JR, pp. 308–310. WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 10. Hardy RM: 1994, Diseases of the exo

Langston, C.E. (2002). Acute renal failure caused by lily ingestion in six cats. Journal of Vetrinary Medicine Association, 220, 49–52.

Means, C., (2004). Anticoagulant rodenticides. In: Plumlee KH, ed. Clinical veterinary toxicology. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 444-446.

Milewski, L. M. and Khan, S. A. (2006). An overview of potentially life-threatening poisonous plants in dogs and cats. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 16: 25–33.

Richardson, J.A., (1994). Potpourri hazards in cats. Veterinary Medicine, 94, 1010-1012.

Richardson, J. A. (1999). Permethrin spot-on toxicoses in cats.  Journal of veterinary emergency critical care, 10, 103-106.

Roder, J.D., (2004). Analgesics. In: Plumlee KH, ed. Clinical veterinary toxicology. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 282-284.

Rosendale, M.E., (1999). Glow jewelry (dibutyl phthalate) ingestion in cats. Veterinary medicine,94, 703-712.

Rumbeiha, Francis, Fitzgerald, Nair, Holan, Bugyei, & Simmons (2004). A comprehensive study of Easter lily poisoning in cats. Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation, 16, 527-541.

Teft, K.M. (2004). Lily nephrotoxicity in cats. Veterinary compendium, 5, 149-157.

Villar, D., Buck, W.B., & Gonzalez, J.M., (1998).  Ibuprofen, aspirin, and acetaminophen toxicosis and treatment in dogs and cats. Veterinary human toxicology, 40, 156-161.

Volmer, P.A. (1999). Easter lily toxicosis in cats. Veterinary medicine, 94, 331-342.

Volmer, P.A., (2004). Pyrethrins and pyrethroids. In: Plumlee KH, ed. Clinical veterinary toxicology. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 188-190.

Entry 001 - Odd Pricing:

All of my cool friends are blogging (Erin Yosai & Sara Davis), and while I cannot claim to be greater than or equal to their level of "coolness", it is 2AM, I am wide awake, and thus, I have decided to blog.

Although my friends have shared the intimacies of their lives, my life is far less interesting, meaning I do not have much to share. However, what I would like to share with you are the answers to odd questions. It could be that you want to know where a saying came from? Perhaps you want to know whether or not a piece of information you heard is true? Or maybe you just want to know if something could actually happen? Regardless of your question, I intend to partake in my favorite activity (reading empirical research) so that I may answer your question!

If you have a random question for me to research and answer please submit it as a comment, or send it to ELKronos@aol.com / Facebook.com/ELKronos. Submit your name and location if you wish to opine.

THE QUESTION:

The question of the day (week, month, year, whenever I feel like updating) was submitted by Justin LeBreton of Milford Maine. Justin writes....

"Would a customer really feel they were getting a better bargain if the price of an item was listed as $4.99 as opposed to $5.00?"

What Justin is referring to is the notion of "odd pricing". For those of you who are unaware, "odd prices" are said to lead to increased sales. These odd prices have also been referred to as "magic prices", "charm prices", "psychological prices", "irrational prices", and "intuitive prices" (Boyd & Massy, 1972; Dalrymple & Thompson, 1969; Gabor, 1977; Kreul, 1982; Monroe, 1990; Rogers, 1990; Sturdivant, 1970). In the retailer realm, it is commonly accepted that if a price is reduced by one penny, the item is more likely to be purchased.

THE ORIGINS:

There are some discrepancies regarding where these prices originated. One source (Schindler & Winman, 1989) theorized that odd pricing originated after pricing became fixed in the United States. Before the Civil War ended, customers used to haggle with retailers over the price of an item (Georgoff, 1971). However, shortly after the war ended, prices were fixed. Retailers at the time wanted to remain competitive, and given that the value of a penny was worth $1,009,374,100 in the 1860*, many prices were listed as ending with .99.

Another theory regarding odd prices is derived from an explanation of anti-theft (Harper, 1966; Hogl, 1988, Sturdivant, 1970; Twedt, 1965). Before the introduction of odd pricing, cashiers used to pocket money from the register. However, with the introduction of ending items with .99 cents, cashiers were forced to open the register after nearly every transaction, which made it more difficult for them to pocket cash.

Finally, another theory of the odd pricing is said to have evolved from a price war in at a Texaco in Waco, Texas. Retailers were so anxious to get the upper hand, they started slashing prices by the cents to offer customers a better deal. However, regardless of the origins, odd pricing is extremely common in modern retailing (Schindler & Wiman, 1989), and it is here to stay.

WHY MIGHT THE EFFECT OCCUR:

The next time you go to a store, look around, and you will likely seem items listed as $19.99 or $49.95, as opposed to $20 and $50. According to Wilkie (1990) there are several reasons why this phenomenon may occur.

• Rounding Illusion: It has been theorized that customers approximate prices they pay by a lower integer/decimal rather than a higher price. Thus, if a price is 19.99, people will believe the price is $19 as opposed to $20 (Boyd & Massey, 1972). As a result, consumers may be more likely to "anchor" (Tversky, & Kahneman, 1974), on the first numbers (e.g. "19") as opposed to the full price ("19.99"). 
• Getting Change: People like to get change, and it is theorized that by reducing the price of an item by a few cents, customers may feel that they are getting more back for their purchase.
• Attractive Digits: Some have claimed that people feel that a number like 9,999 is "nice", which serves as an advertising mechanism, as it will attract the attention of more customers.
• Image of Discount: Stores try to create the illusions that they have slashed prices, and by cutting the cost of an item (even by one cent) they can claim that the item is on sale.
• Memory Constraint: It has also been theorized that consumers have a limited capacity for storing accessible information. This means that reducing the price of an item by even one cent will be likely to produce an increased expectancy in sales (Brenner & Brenner, 1982).

While there are many reasons as to why this occurrence may exist, the question remains as to whether or not reducing the price of an item by one cent actually increases sales.

DOES THE EFFECT ACTUALLY OCCUR:

According to Georgoff (1971), although a price illusion may occur for some products, the net effect of sales is weak at best. Lambert (1975) goes on to suggest that reducing based on odd prices is only likely to produce increased sales under some circumstances. Additionally, Dodds and Monroe (1985) found no evidence for a difference in perceived quality, value, or willingness to buy products regardless if the prices were reduces by one cent. Furthermore, Gabor and Granger (1964) found some support, noting that consumers had a higher intention to purchase items when they were reduced by one cent.

This is a tough question to answer, because economic research would dictate that purchasing is related to price, such that as a price decrease, it stands to reason that more people would buy it. Thus, the real question is not whether dropping the price of an item by one cent will increase sales (because lowering the price by any amount should), but rather whether or not decreasing the price of an item by one cent increases sales beyond that which would be predicted by the price index.

GENERAL DISCUSSION:

Economic theory purposes that quantity demanded increases when price is reduced. This means that as a price is decreased, people are willing to be more likely to buy it. One study conducted by Gendall, Holdershaw, & Garland (1996) found that individually, the differences between expected and actual purchase probabilities were not significant; however, the overall effect is unlikely to occurred by chance. This suggests that some items may not produce an effect, but collectively, marking items down by one cent may increase sales.

While the cause of odd pricing has yet to be determined from the studies mentioned, it has been noted that pricing an item to end in 99 cents creates a marked odd pricing effect as opposed to ending the item with 95 cents. This may tentatively support the notion that prices ending in ".99" are more likable than those which end at a more "even" integer.

Collectively, the notion of odd pricing is still debatable. However, it does appear that odd pricing is likely to produce an increase in sales among specific items, for a specific portion of the population. The next time you are out, and see a price listed at $19.99, ask yourself, do you round down to $19, or up to $20 when describing the price? Pending how you answer this question may reflect whether or not this tactic is effective toward your purchasing habits.

Finally, as a side note, it should be mentioned that the first few numbers may be most likely to stick with an individual when considering the purchase price. However, any priming effect this focus has elicited on an individual is unlikely to result in persuading individuals to buy the item who originally had not intent to purchase said item. According to North, Hargreabes, & McKendrick (1999), subliminal priming effects do not persuade individuals to do what they had not considered, but rather serve as a means to push them in a specific direction. Thus, if an individual focuses on $19 as opposed to $20, and decides to buy an item, the intent to buy said item must have originally been present.

CITATIONS:

Boyd, H.W. and Massy, W.F. (1972), Marketing Management, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando, FL.

Brenner, G.A. and Brenner, R. (1982), “Memory and markets, or why are you paying $2.99 for a widget?”, Journal of Business, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 147-58.

Dalrymple, D.J. and Thompson, D.L. (1969), Retailing - An Economic View, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Dodds, W.B. and Monroe, K.B. (1985), “The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 85-90.

Gabor, A. (1977), Pricing: Principles and Practices, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, London.

Gabor, A. and Granger, C.W.J. (1964), “Price sensitivity of the consumer”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 4, December, pp. 40-4.

Gendall, P., Holdershaw, J., & Garland, R. (1996). The effect of odd pricing on demand. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 799-813.

Georgoff, D.M. (1971), Odd-Even Retail Price Endings, Michigan State University Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Harper, D.V. (1966), Price Policy and Procedure, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, NY.

Högl, S. (1988), “The effects of simulated price changes on consumers in a retail environment - price thresholds and price policy”, Esomar Congress Proceedings, Lisbon.

Kreul, L.M. (1982), “Magic numbers: psychological aspects of menu pricing”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 70-5.

Lambert, Z.L. (1975), “Perceived prices as related to odd and even price endings”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 51, Fall, pp. 13-22, 78.

Monroe, K.B. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

North, A.C., Hargreabes, D.J., & McKendrick, J., (1999). The influence of in-store music on wine selections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 271-276.

Rogers, L. (1990), Pricing for Profit, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

Schindler, R.M. and Wiman, A.R. (1989), “Effects of odd pricing on price recall”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 19, pp. 165-77.

Sturdivant, F.D. (Ed.) (1970), Managerial Analysis in Marketing, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.

Twedt, D.W. (1965), “Does the ‘9 fixation’ in retail pricing really promote sales?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 54-5.

Wilkie, W., (1990), Consumer Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition.



*NOTE: The value of a penny in the 1860s may not actually have been $1,009,374,100.