Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Emotions and Social Networks

We’ve all either have told someone or have been told by someone that “this is not personal it’s business”.  The concept of keeping personal stuff personal and work stuff at the workplace is now becoming a thing of the past.

According to the Business Insider you can now throw caution to the wind and blur the lines.  They report that our emotions aren’t controlled anyway (even if we are trying to control them) and are already affecting our co-workers.  A recent Gallup Poll analysis shows that our well being has an impact on the people we work with and on the people who work for us.

The poll’s results suggest that emotion travels over social networks in much the same way viruses do.

The study included 105 teams and 1,740 individuals whose well being was measured in three six-month intervals. The average team size was 22 members, and the minimum team size was five members.

Researchers Nicholas Christakis M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., and James Fowler, Ph.D., showed in additional research that emotion travels over social networks in much the same way viruses do. Harter purports, “Based on this previous research, we expected to see that the well being connection within teams would be much stronger than that among employees who were not members of the same team.  But the surprising finding was that the relationship between supervisors’ well being and that of their direct reports grew substantially over time.”

The study’s results suggest that the mental state of a person’s boss will influence the individual’s mental state; therefore, an employee’s attitude is a direct reflection of their boss’ attitude.  So, being a good boss has a positive and most likely productive influence on the company.  Whereas being a negative boss will have a negative impact on the company.

Agrawl, a gallup research manager, expounds, “…meaning that individuals are likely influenced by the shared culture of their team.”  Harter continues, “There is plenty of evidence that wellbeing is shared within existing formal and informal networks and that it spreads based on social ties. ”

What kind of boss do you have?  Does your workplace attitude reflect your boss’ attitude?

Scared to Death…Literally. The Emotion of Fear

Scientists have been studying fear for quite some time and it is a fact that you can be “scared to death”.  NPR has reported on the phenomenon of Voodoo Death as doctors refer to it.

Dr. Martin Samuels interviewed with NPR and this is some of what he said:

Well, it’s a strong emotional reaction of any kind [that can cause Voodoo death]. It can be positive, as you said in the lead, or negative. And when this happens suddenly, there is a pulse of autonomic activity, we call it, which means automatic activity of the brain, which releases chemicals, natural chemicals related to adrenaline, which I’m sure everybody has heard about.  And that chemical is mainly good, but there’s a small, small risk that it can do harm to the various organs, including your heart.

The interviewer goes onto ask Dr. Samuel, “And you say it doesn’t have to be a scary experience”.  Dr. Samuels response, “No, just a sudden,usually unexpected powerful emotional experience.  A scary experience would be one example of it, but a powerful positive emotion can do it as well.  I have an example of a guy who hit a hole in one, he played golf his whole life and hit a ball over a rise and didn’t see where it went.  He and his partner went over and looked down on the green, and the ball was in the hole.  And he said wow, I hit a hole in one, I can die now, and he did.”

Extreme you say?  Maybe, but science has confirmed that it does happen.  This just might make you think twice next time you decide to pull a prank on someone.  If you’d like to listen to the entire Podcast click here.

What do you think about Voodoo Death?  Do you have an experience with this you can share with the Humintell Community?

Language & Political Aggression – New Research from Humintell

Many of us get into heated debates whenever politics are involved.  But what can be said about political candidates and leaders and their aggressiveness?  Many campaigns and debates turn into  all out battles when a candidate is referring to their opponent or even groups that they don’t really  like.

Want to know the secrets behind language and political aggression?

Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyi Sung Hwang’s continuing research has delved into the topic of language and how it can reveal much about a person’s intentions.  They studied the language used by group leaders in inciting their groups to aggress or not.

They noted that research into the field of language and aggression is very important and can be extremely beneficial both in theoretical and practical applications.  Theoretically it can improve our understanding of the mental state of the expressor and the psychological processes involved in communication related to aggression.

The practical implications of the identification of such markers are huge.  It provides a way to assess the potential for aggression by others.  This can be beneficial in a variety of professions, making possible the development  of early warning systems or methods to monitor the dynamic nature of intergroup relationships.

Methodology

Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyi Sung Hwang examined the words used by world leaders and leaders of ideologically motivated groups when talking about their despised opponent/out-groups in their speeches.

They tested three hypotheses about linguistic differences in speech content separately for groups that committed an act of aggression and those that did not.

1.  That leaders of pro-aggressive groups use more first-person plural pronouns and less first-person singular pronouns as their focus is on their social identity with their group.  ”We” produces feeling of closeness, similarity and sharing a common date with others more than the use of “I“.

2.  Speeches by leaders of aggressive groups would contain greater words of cognitive complexity than speeches of nonaggressive groups.  Cognitive complexity refers to the degree to which a person differentiates among multiple competing solutions and is attempting to integrate those solutions (Abe, 2012).

3.  The dehumanization of objects of hatred or aggression.  Speeches by leaders of aggressive groups would use less words related to social connectedness.  Aggression is easier when out-groups are dehumanized, creating social distance between the aggressor and victim.

Findings

Support was found for all three hypotheses, indicating that speeches associated with aggression had different linguistic markers than speeches associated with nonaggression.

The researchers analyzed archive records of such speeches and anchored those speeches to an identified act of aggression or non-aggressive resistance.   The speeches were analyzed at three points in time prior to those acts.

The study’s finding highlighted the function of speech by providing glimpses into the mind-set of the speech makers as their groups ramp up to violence or not.

The study is not without limitations.  One such limitation is that language associated with physical aggression may also be different than the language of verbal aggression and the  limited amount of source material across time frames.

Regardless of these limitations, the findings provided support for all three hypotheses.

  To read the entire findings of the study go to Journal of Language and Social Psychology or click here.