SOCIAL ANIMAL PDF
you've twisted the drawing off to one side without being aware of it. At first you may find DRAW 50 ANIMALS Social Rules! - A Common Sense Guide to Social. ARONSON RDG_FM_ARONSON RDG instruktsiya.info 4/20/11 AM Page iiThis page was intentionally left blank ARONSON RDG_FM_ARO. The Social Animal Books by Elliot Aronson Theories of Cognitive Consistency ( with R. Abelson et al.), Voices of.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|ePub File Size:||21.88 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.44 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
this is a recommendation for you >> The social animal by Elliot Aronson. What are the differences between editions of the Social Animal by Eliot Aronson? Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement PDF format?. The Social Animal instruktsiya.info - Download as PDF File .pdf) or view presentation slides online. The Social Animal Elliot Aronson: one of the best psychology books ever. Read here The Social summary and review. Also available in PDF.
In other words, they formulated a moral stance before they had time to reason consciously about the decision. And in some cases, conscious reasoning may not influence moral decision-making.
Babies, for example, have already been automatically supportive of ethical behavior. In one experiment, six-month-old babies watched a movie showing a puppy struggling to climb a hill. After watching the movie, the babies had the choice of playing with one of the puppies.
And they typically chose the second puppy that was helpful. Not really! What always happens is that people without emotions do not make very rational decisions. Instead, they can make ridiculous decisions or even take them. Even simple decisions like deciding where to eat lunch can be difficult for these people. One reason why emotions are so important in decision making is that they allow us to assess the subjective value of different choices, which is a condition for rational choice.
In other words, our emotions allow us to feel what kind of impact the decisions will have on us. For example, what happens when you think you are falling off a cliff? You probably feel fear or even panic. We interpret these alerts as an emotion, and this reaction creates a great incentive for our choices or to avoid certain decisions. And that is precisely why Damasian patients had so much trouble making decisions.
They did not experience any emotional alertness; they simply had no incentive to choose anything. In reality, in many ways, we could not exist without other people. Of course, this is true on a survival level, but this also applies to identity issues. After all, when we are children, our personalities arise according to the relationships we have with our parents.
For example, parents often laugh when their babies are laughing, look at the baby when the baby is looking, or mimic the sounds the baby does and vice versa. This kind of reflex is critical to the development process because our brains have evolved to understand social cues, responding to them, and seeking a response from the other person.
When we observe someone drinking a glass of water or smiling, our brain simulates the same action. A specific set of neurons, called reflex neurons, is responsible for this process. When enabled, they create the same pattern that would appear if we did this action. For example, when you see someone smiling, you feel happy because your reflex neurons simulate that smile in your mind.
And this process works at the speed of light. Studies have shown that a college student takes an average of 21 milliseconds to synchronize his movements with that of his friends. And this example also demonstrates another fact about human social psychology.
We have a strong and automatic tendency to conform to group norms. It was proven in a famous experiment.
The Social Animal Aronson.pdf
Some people observed a set of three different sized lines. Your Unconscious Is Very Important Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, compared the human mind to an iceberg. We can only understand a tenth of what is happening in the brain — and that is the conscious mind, or the tip of the iceberg — while the rest is immersed in the water, hidden. In reality, the unconscious mind can handle large amounts of data-much more than our conscious mind-and we can rely on all this information to make quick decisions and perform complex tasks.
To understand the extent of this, consider the fact that, at any moment, our mind can process 11 million bits of information, but we can only be aware of 40! And even in its best capacity, the conscious mind is , times weaker than the unconscious mind. That information is crucial. For example, driving a car would be impossible if our unconscious mind could not handle so many motor and perceptive processes.
After all, thanks to its great processing power , our unconscious mind makes decisions in milliseconds. Meanwhile, our conscious mind takes much longer. Also, our unconscious is responsible for some incredible feats. This part of our brain can absorb and process large amounts of data in an instant, organizing and interpreting in milliseconds. That is why some people can make accurate predictions without being able to explain their reasons.
For example, many chicken farms have staff members who specialize in identifying the sex of the chickens. You can change your ad preferences anytime. The social animal pdf. Upcoming SlideShare.
Like this presentation? Why not share! An annual anal Embed Size px. Start on. Show related SlideShares at end. WordPress Shortcode. Natasya Follow. Published in: Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No. Indeed, the task was so easy, and physical reality was so clear-cut, that Asch himself firmly believed that there would be little, if any, yielding to group pressure. But his prediction was wrong. When faced with a majority of their fellow students agreeing on the same incorrect responses in a series of 12 judgments, approximately three-quarters of the participants conformed at least once by responding incorrectly.
Solomon Asch performed his classic experiment more than 50 years ago. Although the results were powerful, it is tempting to dismiss his findings on the grounds that American college students are quite different now.
Specifically, with the advent of computers and the Internet you might think we have grown more sophisticated and, therefore, much less susceptible to this kind of group pressure. Not so. Over the years, the Asch experiment has been successfully replicated a great many times.
Just a few years ago, in a particularly striking demonstration on national television, Anthony Pratkanis9 repeated the Asch experiment precisely as Asch did it 50 years earlier. Resisting group pressures is very difficult and this shows up in not only on the faces of the participants, but also in their neurological activity. These scans indicated a major difference between participants who yielded to and those who resisted group pressure.
Subjects who resisted showed a great deal of activity in the amygdala, a region of the brain associated with pain and emotional discomfort.
Going against the group is painful. The situation created by these experiments is especially intriguing because, unlike many situations in which we may tend to 22 The Social Animal conform, there were no explicit constraints against individuality. In many situations, the sanctions against nonconformity are clear and unequivocal. For example, I hate to wear a tie, and under most circumstances I can get away with this minor idiosyncrasy.
I can either put on the tie and eat in the restaurant or leave, open-necked and comfortable but hungry.
The negative consequences of nonconformity are made very explicit. In these situations, there were no explicit rewards for conformity and no explicit punishments for deviance.
In short, what I am suggesting is that these individuals had two important goals: the goal of being correct and the goal of staying in the good graces of other people by living up to their expectations. In many circumstances, both of these goals can be satisfied by a simple action. Similarly, if others agreed with your judgment of the lengths of the lines, you could satisfy both goals by being true to your own estimate.
If you were a participant in that experiment and you initially believed that the correct answer was line B, then saying so might satisfy your desire to be correct—but it might also violate the expectations of your peers, and they might think you a bit odd. On the other hand, choosing line A might win you the acceptance of the others, but unless you became convinced that they were correct, it would violate your desire to be right.
Most people believe that they are motivated primarily by a desire to be correct but that others are motivated primarily by a desire Conformity 23 to stay in the good graces of other people. For example, when people unobtrusively observe an Asch-like conformity experiment, they typically predict that the experimental participants will conform more than they actually do. That is, we know other people conform, but we underestimate the extent to which we can be induced to follow the group. Was Sam convinced by his fellow college students that his preferred presidential candidate was a phony, or did he simply go along with their judgment in order to be accepted while continuing to believe in the sincerity of the candidate?
Because Sam is a hypothetical person, we cannot answer that question definitively. If a participant is joined by even one ally who gives the correct response, his or her conformity to the erroneous judgment of the majority drops sharply. A fellow dissenter exerts a powerful freeing effect from the influence of the majority.
If there is unanimity, however, the actual size of the majority need not be very great for it to elicit maximum conformity from a person. In fact, the tendency for someone to conform to group pressure is about as great when the unanimous 24 The Social Animal majority consists of only 3 other people as it is when the unanimous majority is Commitment One way conformity to group pressure can be decreased is by inducing the individual to make some sort of commitment to his or her initial judgment.
Picture yourself as an umpire at a major-league baseball game. There is a close play at first base and you call the runner out—in the presence of 50, fans. After the game, the three other umpires approach you and each says that he thought the runner was safe. How likely are you to alter your judgment? Compare this with a situation like the Asch situation in which each of the three umpires calls the runner safe and then it is your turn to make a judgment.
Such a comparison was made in an experiment by Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard,14 who used the Asch paradigm and found that where there was no prior commitment as in the Asch experiment , some 25 percent of the responses conformed to the erroneous judgment of the majority.
Accountability Suppose you found yourself being subjected to group pressure while trying to make a decision. In addition, suppose that you knew that, at the end of the session, you would need to justify your decision to the other members of the group. What effect do you think that might have on your decision-making? Research has shown that under most conditions, this kind of accountability to the group tends to increase conformity.
To answer that question Andrew Quinn and Barry Schlenker16 put people through a procedure aimed at producing conformity to a poor decision. Before the conformity aspect of the experiment began, the experimenters did two things: 1 They got half their participants thinking about the importance of being as accurate as possible while getting the other half thinking about the importance of cooperation; and 2 They made it clear to half the subjects in each of those two conditions that, after they made a decision, they would need to talk to their partners about their decision and justify having made it.
The results were clear. The people who Conformity 25 showed the most independence and made the best decisions were those who were oriented toward being accurate and had to explain their nonconformity to the very people whose influence they resisted.
It is interesting to note that the people in this condition behaved with greater independence than those people who were oriented toward being accurate but were not held accountable. What this suggests is that most people will go along to get along unless they know that they will be held accountable for a dumb, compliant decision. The Person and the Culture Another important factor affecting conformity involves some of the characteristics of the target person.
Specifically, individuals who have generally low self-esteem are far more likely to yield to group pressure than those with high self-esteem.
Furthermore, task-specific self-esteem plays an important part in the process. If individuals are led to believe that they have little or no aptitude for the task at hand, their tendency to conform increases. Similarly, individuals who are given the opportunity to have prior success with a task like judging the lengths of lines are far less likely to conform than those who walk into the situation cold.
For example, to return to our previous illustration, if Sam had felt sure that he was liked and accepted by his acquaintances, he would have been more likely to voice disagreement than if he felt insecure in his relationship with them. This assertion receives strong support from an experiment by James Dittes and Harold Kelley18 in which college men were invited to join an attractive, prestigious group and subsequently were given information about how secure their position was in that group.
Specifically, all members of the group were informed that, at any point during the lifetime of the group, the members could remove any member in the interest of efficiency.
The group then engaged in a discussion of juvenile delinquency. After the discussion, each member was shown how the others rated him; in actuality, the members were given prearranged false feedback.
Some members were led to believe they were well accepted, and others were led to believe they were not terribly popular. The results showed that, for the individuals who valued their membership in the group, those who were led to feel only moderately accepted were more likely to conform to the norms and standards set by the group than were those who were led to feel totally accepted.
There are also some important cultural differences in the tendency to go against the group. In an analysis of some experiments using the Asch procedure in 17 different countries, they found that conformity is more prevalent in collectivist societies like Japan, Norway, and China than in individualistic societies like the United States and France. A group is more effective at inducing conformity if 1 it consists of experts, 2 the members are of high social status for example, the popular kids in a high school , or 3 the members are comparable with the individual in some way.
Thus, to go back to Sam, our hypothetical college student, I would speculate that it is more likely that Sam would conform to the pressure exerted by his acquaintances if he thought they were experts in politics and in making judgments about human relations.
Similarly, he would be more likely to yield to those people if they had a lot of status or were important potential friends than if they were of no consequence to him. Conformity works much the same way when the source of influence is an individual rather than a group. Thus, we are more likely to Conformity 27 conform to the behavior or opinions of an individual who is similar or important to us, or who appears to have expertise or authority in a given situation.
For example, research has shown that people are more willing to comply with a demand from a person wearing a uniform than with someone in civilian clothes—even when it comes to relatively trivial matters. In one study,22 pedestrians were asked to give spare change to a motorist actually one of the experimenters who was parked at an expired meter.
Thus, the appearance of authority—as potently symbolized by a uniform—can lend legitimacy to a demand, thereby generating high rates of compliance. On a broader level, popular writer Malcolm Gladwell23 suggests that major social trends often change dramatically and suddenly through the mechanism of conformity when certain kinds of respected people happen to be in the right place at the right time.
How can people who are not medical experts induce large numbers of women to get regular mammograms? The place is important. In this instance, the tipping point happened in places where women and only women gather informally and have the leisure to talk and listen to one another. The places were beauty salons, and the connectors were beauticians. Belonging Versus Getting Information People have a powerful need to belong.
Acceptance and rejection are among the most potent rewards and punishments for social animals because, in our evolutionary history, social exclusion could have 28 The Social Animal disastrous consequences—namely being cut off from the resources and protection of the group in a dangerous world.
Thus, humans who passed their genes along were those with the strong inclination to fit in with the group. The legacy of this history is that most of us will go to great lengths to avoid social exclusion.
One is that the behavior of others might convince us that our initial judgment was erroneous; the other is that conformity often secures our place within a group. This can be inferred from the fact that there was very little conformity when participants were allowed to respond privately.
At the same time, there are many situations in which we conform to the behavior of others because their behavior is our only guide to appropriate action. In short, we often rely on other people as a means of determining reality. The quotation from Thurber at the beginning of this chapter gives an example of this type of conformity.
An example should help clarify this distinction: Suppose that you need to use the toilet in an unfamiliar classroom building. Quite a dilemma—you are afraid to open either door for fear of being embarrassed or embarrassing others. As you stand there in dismay and discomfort, hopping from one foot to the other, the door on your left opens and out strolls a distinguished-looking gentleman. With a sigh of relief, you are now willing to forge ahead, reasonably secure in the knowledge that left is for men and right is for women.
Why are you so confident? As we have seen, research has shown that the more faith an individual has in the expertise and trustworthiness of the other person, the greater the tendency to follow his or her lead and conform to his or her behavior.
Thus, the Conformity 29 distinguished-looking gentleman would almost certainly be followed to a greater extent than, say, a seedy-looking fellow with wildly darting eyes and body odor. Indeed, research on jaywalking indicates that people will conform more often to the behavior of a seemingly high-status person than to the behavior of someone who looks less respectable or less well-to-do. Across several studies, researchers have found that, when in the presence of a model who refrains from jaywalking, other pedestrians are more likely to curb the impulse to jaywalk than people who are not exposed to any model.
This conformity effect is much stronger, however, when the person modeling the behavior is neat and well attired rather than disheveled and dressed in shabby clothes.
Institutions frequently request us to perform certain behaviors without making an outright demand. Since this behavior is slightly inconvenient, I was not surprised when our systematic observation revealed that only 6 percent of the students conformed to this request.
Accordingly, we enlisted the aid of a few male students who simply acted as models for the desired behavior. As soon as he heard someone enter, he turned off the shower, soaped up, turned it back on, briefly rinsed off, and left the room without so much as glancing at the student who had entered. We found that 49 percent of the students followed suit!
Moreover, when two students simultaneously modeled the appropriate behavior, the percentage of people obeying the sign 30 The Social Animal zoomed to Thus, in an ambiguous situation, other people can induce conformity by providing us with information suggestive of what people generally do in a given situation. Suppose, as you approach your car in the parking lot of the local library, you notice that someone has stuck one of those annoying fliers under your windshield wiper.
The Social Animal
So you remove it and, without thinking, crumple it up. The crucial question: Do you throw it on the ground or shove it into your pocket so that you can drop it in a trash can later? The answer: To a large extent, it depends on what other people are doing. In a clever experiment, Robert Cialdini and his associates28 placed fliers under the windshield wipers of a number of cars and waited to observe what each driver did when he or she discovered them.
For some people, when they first left the library, an accomplice of the experimenters walked past them, stooped down, picked up a discarded fast-food bag that was lying in the street, and placed it in a trashcan.
In the control condition, no bag was lying on the ground; the accomplice simply walked past the people who were headed toward their car. In the control condition, when the people got to their car and noticed the flier, 37 percent threw it on the ground. In a parallel experiment29 researchers used a more subtle technique of informational influence. They eliminated the human model and, instead, manipulated the appearance of the parking lot. The reason is that seeing one piece of litter reminds us of litter—and shows us that the vast majority of people are subscribing to that norm.
If the parking lot is free of litter, most people probably do not even think about the norm and, therefore, will be more likely to litter mindlessly.
Conformity 31 In the experiments in the shower room and in the parking lot, conformity was induced by information rather than by fear. But it is not always easy to distinguish between the two types of conformity. Often the behavior is identical; the key element that differentiates the two processes is the presence or absence of a punitive agent. Imagine that, in the mythical nation of Freedonia, it is considered gracious for guests to belch after eating as a way of showing the host that they enjoyed the meal.
State Department. If, after the meal, these diplomats began to belch, chances are you would belch also. They were providing you with valuable information. On the other hand, suppose you were in the same home in the company of some rather rude and brawny young men who were introduced to you as members of the Freedonian Olympic heavyweight wrestling team. If these behemoths belched after their meal, my guess is that you might not go along with this behavior.
That is, you would probably consider this an act of bad manners and would avoid belching. However, if they glared at you for your failure to follow suit, you might indeed belch too—not because of the information they supplied but because you feared rejection or reprisal for refusing to be a good sport by going along with their boorish behavior.
I would suggest that conformity resulting from the observation of others for the purpose of gaining information about proper behavior tends to have more powerful ramifications than conformity in the interest of being accepted or of avoiding punishment. I would argue that, if we find ourselves in an ambiguous situation wherein we must use the behavior of other people as a template for our own behavior, it is likely that we will repeat our newly learned behavior, without a cue, on subsequent similar occasions.
This would be the case unless, of course, we later received clear evidence that our actions were inappropriate or incorrect. Thus, to go back to our example, suppose you are reinvited to the home of the Freedonian dignitary for dinner. But this time you are the only guest.
However, if you had belched the first time out of fear of rejection or punishment as would have been the case had you dined in the company of the wrestlers , you would almost certainly not belch when you are the lone guest. To go back to Sam and the political candidate on television, you can now readily understand one of the many reasons why it would be so difficult for us to predict how Sam would actually vote in the election.
If he had been merely going along with the group to avoid punishment or to gain acceptance, he would be likely, in the privacy of the polling booth, to vote in opposition to the view expressed by his acquaintances. If, on the other hand, Sam had been using the group as a source of information, he would almost certainly vote against the candidate that he had initially preferred. Social Influence and Emotion To repeat: When reality is unclear, other people become a major source of information.
The generality of this phenomenon is nicely illustrated by some research performed by Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer, who demonstrated that people conform to others even in assessing something as personal and idiosyncratic as the quality of their own emotions.
His two-part conception of emotions can be likened to the process of playing a song on a jukebox: First, you need to activate the machine by inserting the coin; then you select the song you want to hear by pushing the right buttons. An emotion also requires both physiological arousal and a label. Specifically, if we are walking in the forest and bump into a hungry and ferocious bear, we undergo a physiological change.
This change produces excitement. Physiologically, this is a response of the sympathetic nervous system similar to one that might be produced by coming across a person with whom we are angry. We interpret this response as fear rather than anger, say, or euphoria only when we cognitively become aware that we are in the presence of a fearproducing stimulus a ferocious bear.
But what if we experienced physiological arousal in the absence of an appropriate stimulus? For example, what if someone surreptitiously slipped into our drink a chemical that produced the same physiological response?
Would we Conformity 33 experience fear?
Here is where Schachter and Singer enter the picture. In one experiment, they injected volunteers either with epinephrine—a synthetic form of adrenaline, which causes physiological excitation—or with a harmless placebo. These, indeed, are some of the effects of epinephrine.
Accordingly, when these people experienced the epinephrine-produced symptoms, they had an appropriate explanation. Thus, when their hearts started pounding and their hands started trembling, what were they to make of it? The answer is that they made of it whatever the people around them made of it. Picture yourself in this situation: You are alone in this room with a person who supposedly has just been injected with the same drug you received.
He bounces around energetically, happily wads up paper into balls, and begins sinking hook shots into the wastebasket. His euphoria is obvious. Gradually, the chemical you were given begins to take effect, and you begin to feel your heart pounding, your hands trembling, and so on. What emotion do you feel? Most participants in this situation reported a feeling of euphoria—and behaved happily.Nature or Nurture?
What emotion do you feel? By changing her environment for the better, Erica changed the big picture course of her life. In normal circumstances people who turn their backs on reality are soon set straight by the mockery and criticism of those around them.
If you decide not to cheat, you will become a much stronger and more vocal supporter of honesty. Still, the study found that self-control was a malleable trait. Intuitionists assert that not all our impulses and intuitions are selfish, and that human beings have an inner moral sense to guide them.
The natural habitat of The Social Animal. Another influential study followed the career trajectory of a group of highly intelligent students, who were at the highest percentage of IQs for their ages.
- EAST ASIA A CULTURAL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY PDF
- THE DYING ANIMAL PHILIP ROTH PDF
- SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION IN INDIA BOOK
- THE COMPLETE ANIMATION COURSE PDF
- SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS HISTORY THEORY AND METHODOLOGY PDF
- ELEMENTARY STATISTICS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 11TH EDITION PDF
- SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY ROBERT BARON PDF
- POSITIVE ATTITUDE BOOKS PDF
- TERMODINAMIKA TEKNIK JILID 1 EDISI 4 PDF
- RICH DADS CASHFLOW QUADRANT PDF
- ADOBE - ADOBE READER 9 PDF VIEWER