Follow-up to the white coat issue: Enclothed cognition

A few weeks ago, I wrote that the robotic surgery advertisement acceded to by the University of Illinois in support of a private company made inappropriate use of the image of white coats.  I argued that it did so to bring greater credibility to the advertisement: The public . . . views that symbol as emblematic of that sacred trust.  We look up to and respect people wearing the white coats.  We know they have devoted themselves to our well-being and have engaged in extensive training for our good.In this ad, for example, an administrative person was clothed in the white garb along with the medical staff.This point was greeted with disagreement by some. Maria, for example, said:It [the white coat] seems to have lost some of its meaning. It's not quite the ordeal it's made out to be when other professions/occupations borrow it.  I responded: I disagree, Maria, when it is used by a commercial firm to make an advertisement appear to be full of clinicians in support of their product.If you think the white coat has no meaning in that setting, why didn't the firm just show this person wearing regular business clothes? I believe they knew exactly what result they were trying to achieve in the public eye.  But the issue keeps coming up.  In a comment on a new Charles Ornstein column on the UI ethics issues, Joannie writes:I find it amusing that a hospital executive thinks that only physicians* wear white coats. Must have spent most of h...
Source: Running a hospital - Category: Health Managers Source Type: blogs