Biomedical subjects

M Heesacker

Publications and source records attributed to M Heesacker.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Physical illness: social construction or biological imperative?

All cultures have metaphors for mental illness that define how it is diagnosed, treated, and experienced by the patient. Cultural metaphors that define mental illness have been traced predominantly to biomedical and systems models. However, the research on factors such as progression of illness, survival rates, adherence to medical regimens, level of disability, and experience of pain in chronic and acute life-threatening illnesses suggests another metaphor. This article not only explores how a constructivist metaphor makes sense of this research, but also suggests an approach to consider in helping patients and their families deal with the difficult life circumstances that illness imposes. Implications for nurses are outlined.

Culture↗

PubMed1984

Body-image consciousness and self-reference effects in face recognition.

Subjects differing in body consciousness were compared on face memory. Compared to subjects low in body awareness, subjects with a highly developed body image showed enhanced retention of faces judged for similarity to self-appearance. Although the imaginal component of the self-concept may not be effective in general, subjects who are schematic on that dimension can effectively encode experiences in this way.

Body Image↗

PubMed1984

Likability of targets and distractors in facial recognition.

Target and distractor likability were examined in two studies of face memory. Subjects studied faces that had been rated by others as likable or unlikable . The test required subjects to identify the previously studied face in an array of four faces, where the distractor faces were either likable or unlikable . Overall, unlikable targets were more readily recognized than likable targets. In Experiment 2, distractor likability appeared to have little effect on correct recognition when response bias was ruled out. However, in Experiment 2, arrays involving all new faces showed that likable faces were more apt to be falsely identified as targets. In general, these results seem more in accord with an interpretation based on distinctiveness instead of affective responses.

Affect↗