Business Program Grads Clash Over 'Hidden Persuader' Ethics

Four recent graduates of the Harvard-Radcliffe Program in Business Administration sharply disagreed Saturday on the ethics of "probing public consciousness to sell Davy Crockett , bigger cars, presidential s, and togetherness."

At the afternoon session of the 15th rural Program Alumnae Conference, panel debated the question, "Revived: That the hidden persuaders have a legitimate and necessary function in our society."

Speaking for the affirmative, Diana an, assistant in security analysis the First National City Bank of New York, declared that the first aim of research is "better satisfaction of the public's wants."

"Advertising does sell people things don't need," she said, pointing out "people don't need art, music, nature, or cars and refrigerators." "society of plenty," however, they unlikely to want these things.

Miss Greer denied that the Davy boom was a result of the manipulation of children."

Defending the use of motivation research to sell presidential candidates, she called it impossible to inform every voter on every relevant issue. "People are not necessarily going to be irresponsible leaders because of the way they're presented to the public."

In advertisements based on motivation research, "a promise goes along with the product--which can't possibly fulfill the artificial image," Jane S. Brookes, a housewife, argued. "Selling an image not really in the product contributes to the frustration in American society."

She questioned the morality of probing the individual unconscious to discover hidden wants and then playing on these desires with advertising claims.

M. Gertrude Lutze, personnel director for the YWCA, described motivation research as "an invasion of the individual's privacy to be irrational or rational." She agreed with Shirly M. Kligerman, a housewife, that "there comes a point when someone knows so much about your unconscious that he can manipulate you without your being aware of it. This practice violates individual integrity and dignity."

At the afternoon session of the 15th rural Program Alumnae Conference, panel debated the question, "Revived: That the hidden persuaders have a legitimate and necessary function in our society."

Speaking for the affirmative, Diana an, assistant in security analysis the First National City Bank of New York, declared that the first aim of research is "better satisfaction of the public's wants."

"Advertising does sell people things don't need," she said, pointing out "people don't need art, music, nature, or cars and refrigerators." "society of plenty," however, they unlikely to want these things.

Miss Greer denied that the Davy boom was a result of the manipulation of children."

Defending the use of motivation research to sell presidential candidates, she called it impossible to inform every voter on every relevant issue. "People are not necessarily going to be irresponsible leaders because of the way they're presented to the public."

In advertisements based on motivation research, "a promise goes along with the product--which can't possibly fulfill the artificial image," Jane S. Brookes, a housewife, argued. "Selling an image not really in the product contributes to the frustration in American society."

She questioned the morality of probing the individual unconscious to discover hidden wants and then playing on these desires with advertising claims.

M. Gertrude Lutze, personnel director for the YWCA, described motivation research as "an invasion of the individual's privacy to be irrational or rational." She agreed with Shirly M. Kligerman, a housewife, that "there comes a point when someone knows so much about your unconscious that he can manipulate you without your being aware of it. This practice violates individual integrity and dignity."

"Advertising does sell people things don't need," she said, pointing out "people don't need art, music, nature, or cars and refrigerators." "society of plenty," however, they unlikely to want these things.

Miss Greer denied that the Davy boom was a result of the manipulation of children."

Defending the use of motivation research to sell presidential candidates, she called it impossible to inform every voter on every relevant issue. "People are not necessarily going to be irresponsible leaders because of the way they're presented to the public."

In advertisements based on motivation research, "a promise goes along with the product--which can't possibly fulfill the artificial image," Jane S. Brookes, a housewife, argued. "Selling an image not really in the product contributes to the frustration in American society."

She questioned the morality of probing the individual unconscious to discover hidden wants and then playing on these desires with advertising claims.

M. Gertrude Lutze, personnel director for the YWCA, described motivation research as "an invasion of the individual's privacy to be irrational or rational." She agreed with Shirly M. Kligerman, a housewife, that "there comes a point when someone knows so much about your unconscious that he can manipulate you without your being aware of it. This practice violates individual integrity and dignity."

Defending the use of motivation research to sell presidential candidates, she called it impossible to inform every voter on every relevant issue. "People are not necessarily going to be irresponsible leaders because of the way they're presented to the public."

In advertisements based on motivation research, "a promise goes along with the product--which can't possibly fulfill the artificial image," Jane S. Brookes, a housewife, argued. "Selling an image not really in the product contributes to the frustration in American society."

She questioned the morality of probing the individual unconscious to discover hidden wants and then playing on these desires with advertising claims.

M. Gertrude Lutze, personnel director for the YWCA, described motivation research as "an invasion of the individual's privacy to be irrational or rational." She agreed with Shirly M. Kligerman, a housewife, that "there comes a point when someone knows so much about your unconscious that he can manipulate you without your being aware of it. This practice violates individual integrity and dignity."