Langer Rodin 1976 Article Review

Ashleigh Tucker
Assignment 3
Langer & Rodin (1976) Article Review
I. Preliminary Analysis of an Article
● What are the author’s credentials and institutional affiliation?
● Has the author’s work been cited by others? This will require you doing some looking around.
Dr. Ellen Langer, Ph.D., is a social psychologist and the first female professor to gain tenure in the Psychology Department at Harvard University. She is the author of eleven books and more than two hundred research articles written for general and academic readers on mindfulness for over 35 years. Her most recent book, the Wiley Mindfulness Handbook, is an anthology on mindfulness in which leading researchers integrate work derived from her western scientific theoretical base of mindfulness with research on eastern derived forms of meditation. It will be published in early 2014.
Judith Rodin is president of The Rockefeller Foundation, one of the world's leading philanthropic organizations. Since joining the Foundation in 2005, Dr. Rodin has recalibrated its focus to meet the challenges of the 21st century and today the Foundation supports and shapes innovations to expand opportunity worldwide and build greater resilience by helping people, communities and institutions prepare for, withstand and emerge stronger from acute shocks and chronic stresses. A widely recognized international leader in academia, science, and development issues, Dr. Rodin has actively participated in influential global forums. Dr. Rodin is also a member of the African Development Bank's High Level Panel and a Board member of the
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (co­created by The Rockefeller Foundation). In
November 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo named Dr. Rodin to co­chair the NYS
2100 Commission on long­term resilience following Superstorm Sandy, II. The Introduction
● Has relevant research been adequately reviewed? That is, did you see any potential problems?
● Are assertions supported with the appropriate citations?
● Are the purposes of the study clearly stated?
● Are the hypotheses clearly stated, and do they flow logically from the information in the introduction?
Langer & Rodin aimed to investigate the effects of enhanced personal responsibility and choice in a group of nursing home patients. Specifically if increased control has generalised beneficial effects, which in turn affect physical and mental alertness, activity, sociability and general satisfaction. This study was on the effects of allowing personal decision making among nursing home residents.

"The ability to sustain a sense of personal control in old age may be greatly influenced by societal factors, and this in turn may affect one's physical well being" "more successful aging ­­ occurs when a individual feels a sense of usefulness and purpose"
A feeling of helplessness may contribute to psychological withdrawal, disease, and death. The change from adulthood to old age is often seen as a process of loss, physiologically people change and psychologically. We don’t know how much of this is due to biology and how much is due to the environment. The ability to keep a sense of personal control in our lives may be influenced a lot by social factors and this can affect physical well being.
Studies have shown that more successful ageing, measured by living longer amongst other things, occurs when a person feels a sense of usefulness and purpose.
III. The Method Section
●
●
●
●

Was the nature of the subject sample specified?
Does the design of the study allow an adequate test of the hypotheses?
Are there any methodological flaws that might affect the validity of the results?
Is sufficient detail presented to allow one to replicate the study?

Residents who were in the experimental group were given a communication emphasizing their responsibility for themselves, whereas the communication given to a second group stressed the staff's responsibility for them. They selected two floors of a nursing home. One group was told the staff was there to help them. Despite the care, 71% got worse in only 3 weeks. In the other floor where they were encouraged to make decisions for themselves, the residents actually improved. They were more active and happier. They were more mentally alert and more active in activities. In addition, to bolster the communication, the former group was given the freedom to make choices and the responsibility of caring for a plant rather than having decisions made and the plant taken care of for them by the staff, as was the case for the latter group. Questionnaire ratings and behavioral measures showed a significant improvement for the experimental group over the comparison group on alertness, active participation, and a general sense of well­being.
IV. The Results Section
●
●
●
●

Did the statistically significant effects support or refute the hypotheses?
Are the differences reported large or small?
Were the appropriate statistics used?
Do the tables, figures, and text match?

Neither group was different on the questionnaire results given before the different treatment began. Residents in the experimental group with more control in their lives said they were happier than the comparison group. 71% of the comparison group were rated as having debilitated over the 3 week period. Only 25% of the comparison group compared with 48% of the experimental group said they were happier after the talk by the hospital administrator was given. The experimental group said they were more active than the comparison group. The nurses rating on alertness also showed the experimental group to be more alert; From the nurses’ ratings of residents, the experimental group had improved e.g. in terms of sociability, happiness, alertness,

& activeness. In terms of behaviour measures, the experimental group spent more time visiting other residents and visiting other people outside the home and spent more time talking to staff.
The treatment increased active, sociable activity but not passive activity like watching TV or reading. As well as the movie attendance being higher for the experimental group after the experimental treatment.
V. The Discussion Section
● Do the conclusions presented match the results reported?
● If the author speculates about implications of results, does he or she stray too far from the results reported?
● How well do the results mesh with existing theory and empirical data?
○ Does the author point the way to directions for future research?
● The main point: how do the findings related to Positive Psychology?
By giving a greater sense of personal responsibility & control to people who have given up making decisions by choice or because they had to, produces improvement. Situational factors should then be changed that reduce real or perceived responsibility in the elderly. Some of the negative effects of ageing can be reversed, slowed or prevented by giving elderly people the right to make decisions and a feeling of competence. “It appears that inducing a greater sense of personal responsibility in people who may have virtually relinquished (give up) decision making, either by choice or necessity, produces improvement.”
“It suggests that some of the negative consequences of aging might be retarded, (delayed) reversed or possibly prevented by returning to the aged the right to make decisions and a feeling of competence.”