An Old Idea Revisited: Reflections on the Role of Aesthetic Surgery in Behavioral and Social Change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir: On May 26, 2015, Plastic Surgery News featured the article from the Burnaby Now, “BBC Team Searching for Prisoner-Patients Given Cosmetic Surgery for Behavior Modification,”2,3 regarding a 1950s study that observed the impact of cosmetic surgery on the recidivism rates of criminals. As the Burnaby Now article references, in North America at that time, the Oakalla prison study was one of several ongoing projects looking at similar issues. Although the notion that an individual’s morality can be changed from bad to good solely with a procedure that improves physical appearance is controversial, the relationship between appearance and behavior is complex and pertinent to an individual’s psychology and quality of life. Where plastic surgery comes into play, as either treatment or adjuvant therapy, remains to be determined. In the 1950s, the philosophic mindset was framed by Darwinist influences of the nature-versus-nurture debate,4 Healey’s theories of adolescent psychology,5 and Lombroso’s individualization of punishment.6,7 These revolutionary ideas in social theory, highlighting the importance of physical appearance, sparked the interest of plastic surgeons. With this in mind, Dr. Bankoff in 1952 performed a pilot study using four inmates who underwent cosmetic surgery for congenital and acquired facial deformities.1 He reported strikingly positive behavioral changes immediately after surgery, including the cessation of criminal behavior.1 This positive behavioral change was accredited to the patient’s improved self-esteem and confidence. Thus began a series of studies performed from 1950 to 1980, investigating the impact of surgery on behavioral change in prisoners.1,8 Dr. Lewison in Vancover, British Columbia, Canada, conducted a study at the Oakalla prison published in 1965. The project was entitled “Project in Reconstructive Facial Surgery” and involved 450 subjects from 1953 to 1963.8 Male and female inmates volunteered to be evaluated as potential subjects for cosmetic surgery. Over a 10-year period, 450 elective operations were conducted at the prison. The procedures were performed mostly for nasal deformities. Lewison reported a general improvement in the behavior, with an immediate increase in cooperation with authority and participation in prison activities. The recidivism rate was 42 percent for the 450 subjects, compared with the general population rate of 75 percent at that time. Examining the rationale and outcomes for studies such as Bankoff’s and Lewison’s exposes the fundamental significance of physical appearance in our behaviors and our perceptions of behaviors. The relationship between an individual’s physicality and their morality is unclear. However, many agree that physicality contributes to personal self-beliefs and our perception by others, which in combination shape our behaviors. For example, efforts are made to encourage the removal of tattoos in former gang members, to help them integrate into society.3 Removing visual signs of a person’s past, such as tattoos, scars, and needle tracks, can help him or her make a new start in life. The old question of nature versus nurture in the formation of an individual’s psychological framework remains unanswered. The power of self-esteem makes physical appearance an influential force in our lives. How surgery can be used for positive psychological and behavior change warrants further investigation. Criminals may be merely unfortunate people who, because of some congenital or acquired defect, have a grudge against the World.… In such cases, almost from the hour the disfigurement is corrected, the cause of the long-held grudge disappears, and, with time and patient understanding, the man concerned is encouraged to take his place in society again. —Bankoff, 19521 DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article. No external funding was received. Ava G. Chappell, B.A.Janice F. Lalikos, M.D.Division of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcester, Mass.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».