An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields
One of the mainstays of psychotherapy is the idea that talking about your emotions—or even writing about them—can help you to regulate them. Mindfulness-based approaches from Buddhism offer similar outcomes—the idea is that if you are “mindful,” or aware, of your feelings, then they won’t seem as strong. Until recently, it was not well understood […]
The post Does labeling your feelings help regulate them? appeared first on Emotion News.
People are often excluded from social groups. As researchers from the University of Basel in Switzerland report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, whether uninvolved observers find this acceptable or not may depend on the facial appearances of those excluded. The exclusion of cold and incompetent looking people is more likely to be accepted.
Social exclusion – be it at school, work or among friends – is usually a painful experience for those affected. This behavior also often has a considerable effect on third-party observers: Bullying and ostracism with the aim to hurt the victims are seen as particularly unfair and morally unacceptable. However, in some cases, social exclusion is also perceived as justified. Groups are, for example, more likely to ostracize people who cause trouble or arguments in order to restore the harmony in their group.
Quick moral judgment
Whether uninvolved observers view social exclusion as morally justified or not can be very important for the victim as a possible intervention depends on that judgment. Making such a moral judgment, however, is often difficult and time consuming, which is why observers revert to relatively superficial indicators for guidance. One such indicator is the face of the excluded person.
In several studies, the team of psychologists from the University of Basel presented different male faces to a total of 480 participants. The facial characteristics had previously been altered using a recently developed method for facial manipulation. The portraits were manipulated to appear warm or cold and competent or incompetent. The participants looked at each portrait for two seconds before spontaneously deciding how acceptable they thought it was for a group to exclude this person.
More protection for warm and incompetent looking people
In all studies, participants found it more acceptable to socially exclude people whose faces looked cold and incompetent. However, exclusion was found least acceptable when those excluded looked warm and incompetent. A possible explanation for this could be that these people are often perceived as especially in need of protection and therefore excluding them from a group would be particularly cruel, says lead researcher Dr. Selma Rudert from the Center of Social Psychology at the University of Basel.
Earlier studies have shown that humans have very clear-cut ideas of what a warm or cold person looks like. However, there is no evidence for any relation between facial features and personality traits. In other words: Although appearances are deceptive, individuals let them guide their judgment. The perceived warmth and competence in a person’s face play an especially important role in this judgment.
Objectivity would be important
“Our results suggest that the first impression a person makes can also influence moral judgments that would actually call for objectivity”, explains Rudert. These impressions can have far-reaching consequences for how people behave in social exclusion situations: “It is conceivable that a cold and incompetent looking victim of exclusion would get less support or, in the worst case, bystanders may even actively join the ostracizing group – all based on one glance at the face of the victim.”
To answer the question of why we seek justice and revenge, we first need to understand the evolution of the tendency in humans to form cooperative coalitions. This is because it’s this phenomenon only that gives rise to contexts in which we seek justice and revenge.So why do we form cooperative coalitions at all?Why do people come together and work together?The fundamental condition to be met for the formation of a cooperative coalition is that there must be some common goals that the coalition is trying to achieve. The attainment of these goals must benefit each member of the coalition in some way. If a member of a coalition feels that the goals of his coalition are not in line with his own goals then obviously he will decide to break free from the coalition.In short, it’s the gains that motivate people to form coalitions and stay in them.Ancient coalitionsIn our ancestral times, forming cooperative coalitions helped our ancestors to hunt large animals, share food, invade territories, build shelters and defend themselves better. Those who formed coalitions had an evolutionary advantage over those who didn’t.Hence, those possessing the psychological mechanism of coalition formation out-reproduced those who didn’t. The result being that more and more members of the population were willing to form cooperative coalitions.Today the people who desire to form coalitions far outnumber those do not possess any such desire to the point ‘forming alliances’ is considered by many as the fundamental attribute of human nature. The point is that the psychological mechanism of forming coalitions has made its way into our psyche because it had myriad benefits.But the full story about coalition formation in humans isn’t so simple and rosy…Justice, punishment, and revengeWhat if some members of a coalition are defectors and free riders i.e. they take away only the benefits without contributing anything or even incurring huge losses to other members of the group?Such members will have a huge fitness advantage over those who’re loyal to the coalition. Also, when huge costs are incurred over other members they’d doubtless want to break free from the coalition, and the coalition will get torn apart.So the presence of defectors and free riders will work against the evolution of the psychological tendency to form cooperative alliances. If such a tendency has to evolve, there must some opposing force that keeps defectors and free riders in check.This opposing force is the human psychological desire for justice, punishment, and revenge.
The desire to punish those who’re disloyal toward the coalition helps keep disloyalty in check which in turn facilitates the evolution of the tendency to form cooperative coalitions.We frequently witness the human desire for justice, punishment and revenge not only throughout history but also in our day to day lives. When strict punishments are in place for those who fail to contribute their fair share, high levels of cooperation tend to emerge. Add to this the desire to harm slackers and those who’ve incurred a heavy cost on others. This, in common language, is called revenge. Studies have shown that people’s reward centres of the brain are activated when they punish or observe punishment of those who they think deserve punishment. Revenge is indeed sweet.