Marathon runners feel the love

Last Monday marked the 112^th running of the Boston Marathon, a tradition that has turned the third Monday in April into state-wide holiday. Marathon Monday has become the defining social event of each spring semester at BC, as students fire up the barbecues and crack open the beers at an hour that, on any other day, would likely be deemed early enough to fully justify sleeping through class.

While the Superfans are often stigmatized as being a rowdy, drunken collection of loudmouths, on Monday they were—well, exactly that. The difference is that on Marathon Monday, there are no opponents. There is no twice-suspended quarterback to scream obscenities at, no goalie whose last name we can turn into a cleverly offensive pun. On Marathon Monday, the Superfans flock to the streets purely in support the 30,000 runners that set out to run, walk, or wheel through those 26.2 miles.

Following the marathon, a few runners I spoke to talked about what a big help it is to reach Boston College’s Main Gate and see the fans lining the sidewalk. Letters and articles in The Heights expressed similar sentiments—the raucous crowd is what helps get them past Heartbreak Hill, the course’s biggest obstacle. One student explained the sensation: “One of the greatest feelings in the world is having all the people cheering for you and pulling for you,” he said. “My race ends at 21 miles—the adrenaline rush I get coming through BC is unbelievable.”

So are these runners embellishing a bit, and just being overly gracious to the fans who treated them so well? Or is there actually some kind of phenomenon at work here? Social psychology suggests the latter.

In discussing group behavior, psychologist Bob Zajonc refers to the dominant response, which is a person’s most common response in a given situation. The dominant response of a Superfan who prefers Guinness to Smithwick’s is, of course, to go with Guinness.

Taking it a step further, Zajonc put forth the social facilitation theory, which states that the presence of others will make us even more likely to tend towards our dominant response (so long as the task is not too complex). Being in the company of others increases our arousal, in turn strengthening the tendency to tend towards the dominant response. According to this theory, that same Superfan will, when hanging out with his friends, be even more inclined to order the Guinness.

So when those marathon runners arrive at Heartbreak Hill and see thousands of their peers, it’s pretty safe to assume their levels of arousal get a boost. Thus, their ability to perform the task at hand—running towards that finish line—gets a boost as well. Yes, the student above was probably exaggerating a bit when he claimed his race “ended” at Mile 21. Social facilitation doesn’t make those last five miles a piece of cake, but it does, in some way, increase the ability to run them.

Source: The Heights, 4/24/08

Coping with 9/11 through faith

When the Pope Benedict XVI visited Ground Zero last week, USA Today ran a cover story asking the question: Where was God on September 11, 2001? Interviews with several people who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attacks revealed a wide array of religious beliefs, many of which were severely altered after 9/11. While some were left looking for answers, many others found those answers rooted in religion.

Jennifer Sands, who lost her husband in the attacks, said that her faith was shattered on 9/11. She used to pray for his safe return when he left for work every day, and suddenly, he was gone. But Sands’ curiosity over this matter led her to begin to study the Bible for the first time and to develop a newfound evangelical Christian faith. Sands now prays before every meal (even in restaurants) and casually talks about Jesus with her friends—an issue that has led to some of them to peg her as a “Jesus freak.” She says that after 9/11, she had trouble grasping the fact that God would let something so terrible happen to her. Now, her faith has changed her mindset: “In John 16:33, Jesus says that in this world, you will have some trouble. But I know he has a plan for me.”

Travis Boyd, who, at age 12, lost his mother on 9/11, also turned to religion to help cope. “I know God does things for a reason,” he said. “I knew God would get me through it.”

Sands and Boyd, like so many others after 9/11, turned to religion to help ease her suffering. These actions fall under the realm of the terror management theory—the idea that self-esteem protects us from thoughts about death. The terror management theory presumes that, when reminded of death, people will use defense mechanisms to help rid thoughts of death from their mind and return them to a more composed psychological state. These defense mechanisms are often in the form of personal and cultural worldviews. Specific cultural views, such as religion, can help shield people from their underlying death anxiety.

Brian Jordan, a Franciscan priest who offered sermons to rescue and recovery workers, points out that “there were no atheists at Ground Zero—suddenly everyone had a spiritual life, no matter how tortured or confused.” After September 11, many of those who survived the attacks or lost loved ones discovered a new faith in God and religion. They were able to ease their pain by embracing cultural views that they had previously only hardly acknowledged. Their faith helped them deal with the reminders of death—and the accompanying anxiety—that were suddenly all around them.

Source: USA Today, 4/18/08

Nothing is sacred for blogging exes

As the world of technology continues to expand and information becomes more easily exchanged, the contents of our lives become more and more available to the public. We exchange text messages, emails, instant messages—except for in-person conversations, nearly any of our many forms of communication can be recorded.

For the cases in which we want to talk but can’t find anyone willing to lend an ear (or an eye or a thumb, for that matter), internet moguls blessed us with the invention known as the ‘blog.’ When I was first introduced to the art of blogging (on the first day of the semester, of course, when I excitedly created my blogger account and got my semester project underway), I wondered what exactly kinds of topics one could write about every day to keep the interest of faithful readers. A daily journal? Would suck the fun right out of one of my pastimes, which is telling unsuspecting acquaintances about the ridiculous or downright embarrassing situations I find myself in on any given day. A political commentary? Would be perfect—if I liked politics, or commentaries. An analysis of current events from a social psychological perspective? Brilliant, but that’s besides that point. No, after reading an article in The New York Times a few weeks ago, I discovered the greatest use of virtual blogging memory one could possibly imagine: telling secrets about former romantic partners. For this kind of entertainment, it’s incredible blogger.com is still free.

The Times article told the tragic stories of couples whose relationships collapsed, eventually driving one of the people involved to share their side of the story via the blogosphere. While the majority of the posts are tame and rational, some of them air all the dirty laundry without the slightest hint of reservation. Take the example of Tricia Walsh Smith who, upon being divorced by her husband Philip, broadcast to the world that she had found him hoarding a stash of Viagra, pornography, and condoms despite the fact that they had never had sex.

There’s also Jennifer Neal, who lovingly referred to her husband as DearSweetDave in her daily blog entries. That ended when Dave informed her that their marriage was over. By that afternoon, Jen’s 55,000 daily readers had read all about the other side of an apparently disloyal Dave.

So what is it that causes this? Why did these relationships go down the tubes so quickly? And why was Jen able to look past Dave’s disloyalty for so long?

When we look at close relationships from a social psychological standpoint, we understand that they can fail for a variety of reasons. Perhaps two partners are too dissimilar to get along for an extended period of time. Maybe they just get bored with each other. In Dave’s case—if you believe Jen’s side of it, that is—it seems that he had better options available. The availability of quality alternatives can be a key factor in determining how committed a person is to their relationship. Dave was able to justify breaking his commitment for one of these alternatives.

As relationships deteriorate, one thing that can facilitate this process is a shift in how partners make attributions regarding each other’s behavior. With a relationship-enhancing style of attribution, good behaviors are attributed to the partner’s inner qualities, and bad acts are dismissed as being the result of external factors. If a couple makes the transition to a distress-maintaining style of attribution, they will do just the opposite—attribute the good behaviors to external factors and the bad ones to internal factors. If Jen knew about Dave’s disloyalty before, it is possible that she attributed it to external factors (“it was a bachelor party, it happens”) than internal ones (“he’s a cheater”). It wasn’t till he pulled the plug on the relationship that she made the shift.

In a sense, the relationship-enhancing style of attribution entails making excuses for one’s partner. But this practice can be healthy for relationships. It leads to partners seeing idealized versions of each other, which helps strengthen the couple’s bond. The problem comes when somebody is actually being hurt by the behavior being excused—as Jen surely was in this situation.

These heartbroken bloggers show us just how drastically our opinion of a partner can change when we make adjustments to our ways of thinking about them. They give us some important insight into the dynamics of close relationships, even if the examples are a bit extreme. But extreme or not, I’m playing it safe. When flowers fail, I’m canceling the internet.

Source: The New York Times, 4/18/08

The Texas polygamist ranch

Under suspicions of abuse and neglect by their caregivers, 416 children were removed from the now-infamous polygamist ranch in Texas last month. After Texas authorities received a call from a 16-year-old girl reporting sexual and physical abuse, police raided the establishment and began taking out children by the hundreds.

Accounts from people removed from the compound have revealed that while inside, girls were forced to marry at ages as young as 13—in Texas, it is illegal to marry under age 16 under any circumstances. In the compound, husbands are allowed to marry multiple women, and competition over brides is often fierce. One former resident remembers seeing her father slap her mother for expressing jealous over his one of his other wives. Additionally, allegations have been raised regarding serious physical and sexual abuse towards the female members of the community.

With all of these poor conditions within the compound, why did almost nobody try to flee? Why did it take so long for somebody inside to report the injustices being done? The answers to these questions can be found through an exploration of the topics of social influence and persuasion.

Social influence is one of the fundamental topics of social psychology, and it investigates how people are affected by those around them and led to behave in certain ways. People can be influenced by others to act in certain ways for a number of reasons. They may carry out a behavior voluntarily and with little or no persuasion, or they may do it begrudgingly after much coercion.

There are three types of social influence: conformity, compliance, and obedience. In the case of the polygamy ranch, conformity seems to play the greatest role. In general, people are subject to normative social influence, which means that they are willing to go along with the crowd in order to be liked and accepted. This stems from our natural desire to feel a sense of belonging. Our need to belong makes us likely to conform to the ways of the people around us. So when the people around us are obeying the rules—even if, for girls, it means no haircuts or pants—we are probably going to follow them as well.

But why did people follow the compound’s rules in the first place? The obedience aspect of social influence comes into play here as well. In order to ensure that the youths never have the desire to leave the compound, the elders make use of fear appeals. Children are warned of “terrible forces outside the compound” that wish to do them harm, and they are told that eternal damnation awaits them should they decide to leave. With no reason to doubt their elders, the children obey the orders they are given—and develop a fear of the outside world in the process. With so many reasons not to leave, the children living in that compound knew of no other option but to stay.

CNN.com, 4/17/09; CNN.com, 4/8/08; CNN.com, 4/5/08

Olympic torch meets protests in London

Thousands of people showed up last month to protest as the Olympic torch made its way through London. Angry at China’s poor human rights history and its suppression of the people of Tibet, the protesters saw the torch’s highly-publicized trip through London as the perfect opportunity to make their voices heard. They turned out first by the hundreds and soon by the thousands, many carrying signs or shouting derogatory chants directed at the Chinese government.

Some of the demonstrators rushed the torch, and at least one tried to grab it. Another tried to put out the torch’s flame with a fire extinguisher. At one point, a crowd of about a hundred people tried to surround the torch, forcing police to move the torch and torch bearer into a bus to complete the next leg of the trip. In all, 36 people were arrested by Metropolitan Police during the demonstrations.

While the Olympic torch has faced protests virtually everywhere it has gone, London’s demonstrations have been the most extensive so far. When examined from a social psychological perspective, massive demonstrations such as this one seem to make more sense.

In large groups, people tend to undergo deindividuation—the loss of self-awareness and individual accountability. Individuals lose their personal identity, and the group formulates one identity as a whole. This feeling of anonymity allows people’s inhibitions and sense of to self-regulation diminish. As a result, they feel no shame in behave in impulsive and destructive ways that they normally wouldn’t. The people within the crowd energize and feed off each other, furthering the mob mentality. Such a process can be seen to an extreme extent whenever violent rioting occurs. When the other members of a crowd are behaving destructively, there is little stopping a given person from joining in.

In a group of over a thousand protesters, it is easy to see why destructive behavior can take place. The diffusion of responsibility occurs—just imagine the feeling of being responsible for only 1/1000th of the damage that is incurred. As the quote goes, “Each snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty.” So while it is doubtful that each of these protesters would have rushed the torch and tried to douse the flame on their own, they had no qualms about doing so when part of a huge crowd. In the case of the torch protests, little harm was actually done, but deindividuation can be dangerous when it occurs on a larger or more destructive scale.

Source: CNN.com, 4/6/08

Penn students back Obama

Back in 2007, as his campaign to become mayor of the city of Philadelphia got underway, Michael Nutter received his first endorsement from the University of Pennsylvania Democrats. Today, when he bumps into members of the organization—better known as the Penn Dems—he likes to point out that they helped him win the election.

Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell also has a strong relationship with the group, often showing up on campus and collaborating with the Penn Dems on political events. The Penn Dems have certainly made a name for themselves, and with good reason. With a membership of over 3000 students, they are the dominant political voice for college students in the city of Philadelphia.

The problem with all this is that the Penn Dems are supporting Barack Obama in the upcoming election, while Nutter and Rendell have aligned themselves with Hillary Clinton. Because of this, the group suddenly finds itself out of a synch with two of its major political partners.

Nutter, Rendell, and the Dems all benefit greatly from their relationship, so their recent differences have been a concern. These Democratic figures all rely on each other for success, and now their partnership has hit a snag.

This situation can best be explained by means of a theory put forth by psychologist Fritz Heider. According to his balance theory, people try to maintain a balance between beliefs, cognitions, and sentiments. Heider’s balance theory can also be referred to as the “P-O-X” theory, where P represents a person, O represents another person, and X represents an object. We seek balanced relationships among P, O, and X, and unbalanced states give us the desire to change them so they become balanced. For example, if Kevin (P) doesn’t like his new Uncle Mario (O), but Kevin loves the Mets (X), and Uncle Mario loves the Mets too, then Kevin’s triad is going to be unbalanced. This unbalanced state gives Kevin an uneasy feeling and makes him want to change something (luckily for Uncle Mario, Kevin is not going to stop liking the Mets, and will probably start to think that Uncle Mario isn’t that bad for his aunt after all).

Now back to the situation at UPenn. The Penn Dems (P) like Mayor Nutter (O). He does a lot for the school, he’s a pretty good guy, and, oh yes, he’s a Democrat. The Penn Dems like Barack Obama (X) as well. He’s focused, he’s a good speaker, and, oh that’s right, he’s a Democrat. But the Mayor Nutter does not like Barack Obama, thus causing the triangle to be unbalanced. It is this unbalanced state that has caused the Penn Dems to be “put at odds” with their beloved mayor and governor. If something doesn’t change—either Mayor Nutter starts to like Obama, or the Penn Dems give up their endorsement of Barack, then the triangle will remain unbalanced and tensions will continue.

But there is hope. When the dust settles and a Democratic candidate finally emerges, perhaps a discussion of their feelings towards John McCain will provide these two groups with the political equivalent of marriage counseling, and everyone will be friends again.

Source: The New York Times, 4/18/08

The Sean Bell case

On April 25, the three NYPD detectives charged in the death of Sean Bell were all acquitted. Much debate has arisen as a result of this verdict—any time 50 shots are fired at an unarmed man, questions are going to arise as to how they can still be allowed to walk the streets.

The fact that Sean Bell was black brought a new dimension to an already complicated case. The NYPD has come under scrutiny in recent years and has had trouble shedding its reputation as a racist, trigger-happy unit. After the shooting death of Amadou Diallo in 1999, incidents such as Sean Bell’s have been widely analyzed as case studies in prejudice and racism.

Following the acquittal of the three detectives, many have made calls for protests. A peaceful protest in Harlem took place two days after the verdict was announced. The Reverend Al Sharpton urged protesters to take to the streets and engage in civil disobedience, marches, and boycotts. He promised that New Yorkers would "see some mobilization they have never seen." As a representative to the Bell family, Sharpton strives to help the advancement of the black community.

As these protests unfold, the underlying assumption is that the three detectives were motivated by race when they unloaded 50 rounds on Bell and his companions on that night in November 2006. A closer examination of the situation, however, would suggest that this might be not sufficiently explain why the events of that night unfolded the way they did.

Any given action that a person carries out can be the result of internal factors, external factors, or a combination of the two. In trying to explain these actions, we make attributions, which are explanations for people’s behaviors or for events in general. Essentially, we are asking why a person acted the way they did. We must ask ourselves whether they did so because of temporary, situational conditions (external) or because of stable characteristics (internal). Did something about the situation bring about a certain behavior, or was it the person’s own personality, thoughts, and cognitive processes?

Attributions are an essential piece of social psychology because, when made correctly, they can help us predict future behaviors. Unfortunately, our attributions are not always accurate. We are very vulnerable to the actor-observer bias, which is the tendency for those involved in the situation to make external attributions and for observers to make internal attributions. When a kicker misses a field goal, he is likely to believe that the wind, the distance, and the opposing defense all combined to send the ball wide left. Meanwhile, an observing fan infers that the kicker is just plain bad at his job.

Under the heading of the actor-observer bias is the fundamental attribution error. This concept focuses on the observer side of the actor-observer bias. It maintains that we are much more likely to attribute other people’s behavior to internal factors rather than external ones.

When we discuss the Sean Bell case as a race crime, it is possible that we are making the fundamental attribution error. As it was presented in court, the evidence suggests that detectives’ motives in shooting Sean Bell were those of hatred or discrimination, but of the nature of the situation they were in. It seems that several external factors played key roles in determining the detectives’ behavior.

The detectives were present at the night club as part of an undercover operation that stemmed from complaints of guns, drugs, and prostitution. One would have to assume that such a situation would be characterized by pressure, tension, and fear. When an argument broke out outside the club and one of the men involved used the phrase, “get my gun,” the situation escalated and the detectives were immediately put on edge. And when Bell tried to flee and, in doing so, struck one of the detectives with his car, the situation quickly spiraled out of control.

While we don’t know what the each of the three detective’s internal state truly is or was at the time of the tragedy, to assume it is characterized by racism is an instance of fundamental attribution error. As in any situation, both the internal and external factors must be studied carefully before attributions can be made.

Sources: Newsday, 4/30/08; The New York Times, 4/28/08; The New York Times, 4/26/08; CNN.com, 4/26/08