clever as a fox, write for the world
 Modified Image: Artists include aitoff (the number screen) and Open-Clipart-Vectors (the skull) via Pixabay.com Dunbar’s Number: The Math That Murders the World
By Heath Shive The most evil number in the world is not 13 or even 666. The most evil number in the world is 150. It’s called Dunbar’s number. Don’t believe me? To the science! Dunbar’s Number In the 1990s, British anthropologist Robin Dunbar studied primates and found that there was a correlation between the size of the primate’s neocortex and how large their group size was. Using data from 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human “mean group size” of 148 – usually rounded to 150. So according to Dunbar, an average human can maintain only about 150 stable relationships comfortably. Dunbar explained it informally as “the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.” Dunbar’s number suggests that there’s an upper limit to how many people you can form stable social relationships (i.e., you genuinely care for them). Number History Dunbar connected the number to historical antecedents. For example, 150 is the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village. The upper limit of a Roman century was 150 – so is the size of a modern infantry company. The size of an average wedding is around 150. Malcolm Gladwell discusses Dunbar’s number in his best-selling book “The Tipping Point.” The management of W.L. Gore and Associates (best known for Gore-Tex) discovered that if more than 150 employees worked in one building, then social problems began to multiply. So when the office gets too big, they just set up the next 150 employees in another building! Conclusion Your emotional tribe only consists of 150 people. Why is this so evil? Because it means you cannot connect to the other 7 billion people meaningfully. Ever wonder how a CEO will not give a damn about the factory he shuts down? You want to know how materially comfortable people will not care for the poor? Do you want to know why nothing happens until it happens to you – or someone you care about? True, you can use your imagination to extend your empathy to strangers – but never in any genuine or accurate way. We tend to think of the brain as infinite and boundless. But we’re only human. There is a limit to what we can do and maintain in our brains. Because of Dunbar’s Number, you have only so much time – and only so much brain – to involve your life with only so many people. We tend to ignore anyone outside our tribe. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Dunbar, R.I.M. (1992). “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.” Journal of Human Evolution. 22 (6): 469-493. Dunbar, Robin. Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Harvard University Press, 2000. Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point – How Little Things Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown and Company, 2000. The Knot Wedding Study numbers for 2016 were taken from XOGroup Inc. https://xogroupinc.com/press-releases/theknot2016realweddings_costofweddingsus/ The Emotional Bank Account: Is A Relationship Just About Making More Deposits Than Withdrawals?8/5/2018
 Image by TukTukDesign (via Pixabay.com) The Emotional Bank Account: Is A Relationship Just About Making More Deposits Than Withdrawals?
By Heath Shive Imagine the perfect mate. The two of you never argue, never fight, and never make fun of each other’s family. This is basically the plot line of the classic movie The Stepford Wives. But sweetness is not the same as flavor – which is why you don’t see a plain bowl of sugar on a dessert menu. Sometimes, it is the tartness (as in berries) or bitterness (as in chocolate) that makes something wonderful. So what is the prime balance between sweet and sour? Or in this case, what is the ratio of positive to negative that is healthy for a relationship? To the science! The Emotional Bank Account The idea of a perfect mate is either impossible or pathological. Therefore, there has to be a mixture of positive and negative that psychologist John Gottman compared to a stable predator-prey dynamic – that “there is a balance between the necessary predator of negative affect and the necessary prey of positive affect.” John Gottman is a noteworthy psychologist who specializes in couple dynamics. He runs a couple’s therapy think-tank called the Gottman Insititute. Blog articles for the institute regularly mention a concept called the Emotional Bank Account. The concept is rooted in an earlier study by psychologists Gary Birchler, Robert Weiss, and John P. Vincent. According to the Birchler team, nondistressed couples had a positive-to-negative (“pleases” to “displeases”) ratio of 29.6 to 1. Distressed couples only had a ratio of 4.3 to 1. So you needed 29 pleasing moments to 1 negative moment to be a happy couple? Gottman in one of his works reported that the ratio of positive to negative interaction during conflict resolution was 5 to 1, whereas the ratio was 0.8 to 1 in unstable marriages. Conclusion So 29 to 1 for "good," but at 5 to 1 the relationship needs help. So if the relationship is getting “rocky,” you will need to make positive deposits in your Emotional Bank Account - because a little negative feels like a big withdrawal. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Birchler, G.R., Weiss, R.L., & Vincent, J.P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between martially distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349-360. Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (1), 5-22.  National Geographic (via Wikimedia Commons)/ CC BY-SA 4.0, Accessed 24 June, 2017 Livyatan Melvillei: The Super-Whale That Ate Megalodon Sharks?
By Heath Shive Once upon a time, there were things in the ocean much scarier than plastic. But oceans have never been safe. Even millions of years ago, the oceans had the Megalodon shark - a super-shark similar to a great white shark. Its bite radius could eat a whole cow in a single gulp. Now what if I told you that there was whale – a super-whale – that used to eat Megalodon sharks for dinner? Allow me to introduce Livyatan melvillei - a raptorial whale, as big as Megalodon, but with bigger teeth! L. melvillei lived in the same ancient oceans as Megalodon. The two super-predators must have clashed eventually. But who would win? The Megaolodon and the Miocene Whales C. megalodon was one of the largest predators of all time. Megalodon was an apex predator that ruled the oceans from 26-2 million years ago (Mya). Megalodon had a probable maximum length of 18 m (59 ft) – making it as large as a house with a length 3 times greater than the largest great white sharks alive today! A predator of that magnitude would need large prey, so it’s no surprise that Megalodon ate baleen whales. And there were plenty of baleen whales back then! During the Miocene epoch - 23-25 million years ago (Mya) - the planet was warmer and the oceans were larger. Back then, whales achieved their greatest biological diversity with about 20 different genera (compared to only 6 genera today). But during the Pliocene, the world became colder. North and South America combined, redirecting the ocean currents. Ice ages and glacial expansion lowered sea levels. Some whale species adapted to the colder waters. Other whale species went extinct. Eventually, Megalodon died with them. Megalodon wasn’t just losing its food supply. In fact, the Megalodon itself may have been food…for Livyatan melvillei. The Livyatan melvillei In November 2008, paleontologists discovered the first fossil remains of Livyatan melvillei in the Peruvian desert. The fossils consisted primarily of the head and jaws. The skull was about 3 meters (10 feet) long. The teeth were 36 cm (14 in) long! The fossils have been dated to 9.9 – 8.9 Mya. The whale was classified into the Physeter family of whales, which includes the modern sperm whale. In fact, the research indicated that Livyatan was just as big as a sperm whale – reaching lengths of 13.5 to 17.5 m (44 to 57 ft) long. In other words, as big as the Megalodon! They called their new fossil Leviathan (later changed to Livyatan), after the legendary biblical creature. The second part of the name is in honor of Herman Melville, the author of the epic “Moby Dick.” Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) have narrow jaws with teeth only on the bottom, made for sucking up squids. But, L. melvillei had functional teeth in both of its jaws. Livyatan’s jaws were robust, and its temporal fossa – where the jaw muscles anchor on the side of the head - were considerably larger than in a sperm whale. In fact, Livyatan’s skull looks more like an orca’s skull than a sperm whale’s skull. L. melvillei is one of the largest predators yet known, with whale experts using the phrase "the biggest tetrapod bite ever found" to explain their find. In 2016, fossil enthusiast Murray Orr found a tooth over 30 cm (12 in) long in Beaumaris Bay, Australia! The tooth dates to around 5-6 Mya and looks remarkably like that of L. melvillei. That means Livyatan was around for millions of years and all around the world. Poor Megalodon couldn’t catch a break! Livyatan vs Megalodon Who would win in a fight? Both Livyatan and Megalodon had about the same maximum size. The Megalodon would have had twice as many teeth, but the Livyatan’s teeth would be twice as big! The Livyatan would have certain advantages. If it was like a sperm whale, then the Livyatan cows and calves traveled in pods, and the bulls – though usually solitary – could have traveled in groups too. If Livyatan whales were like the modern raptorial orcas, then Livyatan could have hunted Megalodon as a pack. Even today, killer whales hunt great white sharks, primarily for their oil-rich livers. Of course, this is all moot. Neither Megalodon nor Livyatan survived the Pliocene. For which, I am thankful. It’s bad enough the modern oceans have billions of tons of plastic trash. We don’t need anything scarier in the water too. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Lambert, Olivier; Bianucci, Giovanni; Post, Klaas; de Muizon, Christian; Salas-Gismondi, Rodolfo; Urbina, Mario; Reumer, Jelle (1 July 2010). "The giant bite of a new raptorial sperm whale from the Miocene epoch of Peru". Nature. 466 (7302): 105–108. Smith, Bridie (21 April 2016). "Move Over Moby Dick: Meet Melbourne's Own Mega Whale." The Sydney Morning Herald.  Image by Alexa_Fotos (via Pixabay.com) "Nice Guys" Don't Finish Last: Narcissists Take Time to Fail
By Heath Shive Feeling sorry for yourself on the dating scene? You see her (the her you’ve been looking at all night, all month, all year) and she’s with a jerk. “Guess women love a**holes,” guys say. “Nice guys finish last,” people say. Well…no. She doesn’t like jerks any more than you do. The psychological problem that we all share is that it is difficult to spot a narcissist at first. To the science! A Closer Look at First Sight In 2011, psychologists Mitja Back, Stefan Schmukle, and Boris Egloff performed a study on the first impressions that popular people make. They gathered 73 college students on their first day of class (so that they didn’t know each other). All the students had to introduce themselves individually in front of the class. Immediately after this introduction, the rest of the class evaluated the student (no pressure!). Then, each student had to fill out a questionnaire at home which determined whether the student’s personality was – among other things – self-centered (narcissist) or self-transcendent (nice). The most popular people in the class were of 2 types: extraverts and the self-centered. Extraverts were considered popular because they were seen as more fashionable, more self-assured, had a friendly facial expression, strong voice, and an original introduction. Self-centered people were popular for the exact same reasons! Perhaps at first, we can be attracted to self-centered people not because they are self-centered, but because they superficially seem to be like extraverts! But whereas extraverts genuinely like other people, self-centered people view others as being inferior. But Sooner or Later In 1998, psychologist Delroy Paulhus performed a study on narcissists involving 124 college students. The students were tested to determine which ones were narcissists. All the students were divided into groups which met weekly to perform an assigned task that would allow a variety of personality traits to come to the surface. After each meeting, the students evaluated each other. At the end of the 1st meeting, the narcissists were considered intelligent, confident, and entertaining. The group seemed to enjoy their presence. But by the 2nd meeting, things began to change and narcissists were seen to be hostile and tending to brag. By the 7th meeting, narcissists were not liked at all. But non-self-enhancers (nice people) were able to sustain positive attributes across the 7 weeks! Conclusion “Nice guys” don’t finish last, but narcissists take time to fail. So if you see her with a jerk, she just might not know him very well…yet. And to be honest, do you really know her? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Back, M.D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010b). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality. 3, 225-238. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.  Photo by mintchipdesigns (via Pixabay.com) Wallflower’s Science: Psychology of the “Awkward”
By Heath Shive Everyone has awkward moments. But some people are chronically awkward. They can blush at the smallest slight or notice. They can have trouble recognizing a cue to approach, hug, or kiss. They can freeze when confronted, stammer when talking, or be silent when everyone else talks. The English word “awkward” is derived from the Old Norse word afgr – which means “facing the wrong way.” That’s how it feels, right? Psychologist Ty Tashiro wrote a book about this feeling entitled Awkward: The Science of Why We’re Socially Awkward and Why That’s Awesome. To the science! An Awkward Focus? A study led by Ralph Adolphs examined “face-processing strategies” used by awkward people – specifically the parents of autistic children, who sometimes exhibited “unusual social behavior” themselves. They were often seen as aloof (i.e., socially awkward). The psychologists studied how awkward people read faces as opposed to how non-awkward people read faces. They found that awkward people have a tendency to focus on the mouth, but socially fluent people focus on the eyes. The eye region is a more accurate sector for emotion-reading. A “smile” is easier to fake with your mouth than with your eyes. Whether by instinct or bad habit, awkward people have a harder time reading emotion because they might be looking in the wrong place! An Awkward Mind? One group of researchers used fMRI images to compare the brain activity of autistic and non-autistic people as they were asked to guess emotions depicted in photos. Perhaps predictably, non-autistic people gauged the emotions more accurately. But more importantly, brain activity was different for autistic people as they performed this task! The autism group activated the frontal component of their brain less than the non-autistic group. Furthermore, the autistic group didn’t use their amygdala at all! The researchers concluded that “social intelligence” is genuinely different than “general intelligence” because it requires use of different parts of the brain! There’s a huge difference between autism and chronic awkwardness. But their brain activity could be similar – with only a difference in intensity. Conclusion Tashiro’s book is not just about the science of awkwardness, but a story of his own awkward social life (and others’ lives) as well. Awkward people can learn to adapt their social strategies, especially when they understand themselves better. There are many routes to happiness and personal fulfillment. Are you surprised that your route may be unique? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Adolphs, Ralph, Michael L. Spezio, Morgan Parlier, and Joseph Piven. “Distinct face-processing strategies in parents of autistic children.” Current Biology 18, no. 14 (2008): 1090-93. Accessed via ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Baron-Cohen, Simon, Howard A. Ring, Sally Wheelwright, Edward T. Bullmore, Mick J. Brammer, Andrew Simmons, and Steve C.R. Williams. “Social intelligence in the normal and autistic brain: an fMRI study.” European Journal of Neuroscience 11, no. 6 (1999): 1891-98. Accessed via onlinelibrary.wiley.com  Image Artist: rubiopinar (via Pixabay.com) Did Dinosaurs Build Cities?
By Heath Shive Back in the 1990s, there was a cartoon called The Terrible Thunderlizards. The premise? A team of dinosaur-soldiers is given the mission to kill the first humans in order to protect dino-civilization – and the dinosaurs always fail. These cartoon dinosaurs have cities, helicopters, radios, and even missile launchers. Remember, this is a cartoon. It was funny (one of the dinosaurs sounded like Arnold Schwarzenegger). But it made me wonder: Could dinosaurs really have had cities? You might say: Of course not! However, what evidence really could survive 65 million years? And somebody actually wrote a book about this! Fragile, Disposable Civilization Alan Weisman wrote a very readable book entitled The World Without Us. The book is basically a thought experiment. Weisman does not write about dinosaurs – he writes about how easily human civilization (cities, roads, bridges, and everything) would disappear from Earth if humans ever went extinct. Let’s use New York City as an example. New York was built on an island that originally had 40 streams. These streams are paved over now. The city needs pumping stations to keep subways and foundations dry. Without humans, the water would seep back into the ground quickly. In time, the skyscrapers would start toppling over! Even the sturdiest bridges would not survive 1,000 years. For that matter, the area of New York City has been scraped clean by glaciers 3 times in the last 100,000 years. And it will be again in the next Ice Age. Mount Rushmore (South Dakota, U.S.A.) is carved from solid granite – and it might very well be the last human structure on Earth. By Weisman’s logic, if granite erodes 1 inch every 10,000 years, then the human faces on Rushmore could last 7 million years! Even Plastic Must Die According to government sources, disposable diapers and plastic beverage bottles could take 450 years to break down. Fishing lines need 600 years. But a glass bottle could last 1 million years! In the end, the last human artifact on Earth might be the first – flint spear heads. Flint is already a very strong rock and could be kept intact against the mix of geological processes for millions of years. Conclusion The pensive melancholy of Weisman’s book makes one realize the truly fragile nature of our mighty technology and civilization. If dinosaurs had cities, they would have suffered the same fate that our cities will meet someday. This is not meant to be a sad article. The point I want to make is that life on Earth is a wonderful thing. The possibilities seem endless. Even gun-toting dinosaurs can have a chance. It is humbling to realize the potential of our little planet. And it can be amazing to fulfill our potentials too. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Weisman, Alan. The World Without Us. Thomas Dunne Books, 2007.  Image Artist: severyanka (via Pixabay.com) Scarcity, Coquetry, and the Science of the Magic Cookie
By Heath Shive One of the great seducer types (as stated by Robert Green) is the Coquette – she entices you forward, then….slips from your grasp. She does this again and again. She drives you mad with desire. Of course, both men and women can use coquetry. It’s all part of the art of seduction, maybe the art of love. But it’s all based on the science of psychology! To the science (and the magic cookie)! Scarcity Psychologists Stephen Worchel, Jerry Lee, and Akanbi Adewole performed experiments in the 1970s regarding scarcity and its effect on human evaluation. A college student and an experimenter sat at a table on which there was – among other things – a cookie jar. As the 1st experimenter questioned the subject about the value of the cookies, a 2nd experimenter would come in with another cookie jar. In the first round of tests (the “scarce-change” tests) the cookie jar originally would have 10 cookies. A 2nd experimenter would come in unannounced and replace the jar with a 2nd jar that contained only 2 cookies. Sometimes the 2nd experimenter would say that they needed more cookies because of the demand of other students; other times the 2nd experimenter would explain the switch as a simple mix-up. In the second round of tests (the “abundant-change” tests), the cookie jar would start with 2 cookies. Then the 2nd experimenter would replace the old jar with a new jar with 10 cookies. Sometimes the experimenter would say that other students weren’t eating the cookies; other times the 2nd experimenter would explain the switch as a simple mix-up. After the switch, the 1st experimenter asked the students to rate the likability, attraction, and cost of the cookie. The Magic Cookie The students who saw a cookie jar go from 10 cookies to 2 cookies rated the cookies very highly. Yet the students who saw a cookie jar go from 2 cookies to 10 cookies rated the cookies very poorly. The students who thought the cookies were in demand estimated the cookie’s price to be 71 cents. The students who thought that the cookies were not in demand estimated the cookie’s price to be about 37 cents. The cookie was magically changing in value, even though physically it was the same. Conclusion Remember, the cookies are all the same! But the cookies’ value was different – depending on how scarce the cookies were thought to be. The psychologists believed that the most effective way to increase something’s value is “to reduce the supply of it and indicate that this reduced supply is due to popular demand.” Demand invites pursuit. Entice your target. Withdraw. “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” “You have to play hard to get.” The power of scarcity is as proverbial as it is scientific. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Source: Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 906-914.  Photo by jarmoluk (via Pixabay.com) The 4 Kinds of Drunks
By Heath Shive Ian Fleming wrote a short story collection of James Bond adventures entitled Octopussy and the Living Daylights. According to one line from the book, there are 4 kinds of drunks:
You can be any one style of drunk. Or you can be a different drunk at different times. But why? To the science! This Is Your Brain on Booze Alcohol is absorbed into your bloodstream. Eventually the alcohol will reach your brain, where it gets absorbed by your cerebral cortex – the outer layer of the brain that processes sensory data, motor functions, and your perceptual experience of the world. This is where the trouble begins. Since alcohol is a depressant, it impairs the synaptic functions between the nerves in your brain. If you keep drinking, the alcohol begins to work through the cerebral cortex and into your limbic system. The limbic system of your brain is where all your emotions are! In the limbic system, the alcohol starts impairing the synapses – which in turn makes it harder for you to process and control your emotions! As Kevin Kampwirth writes in his Mental Floss article: “The limbic system, which would typically keep our emotions in check, now subjects us to mood swings and exaggerated states.” According to Fleming, these “exaggerated states” are classified as sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic, or choleric. But they all end in hangovers. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!  Image by geralt (via Pixabay) Everyone on Earth Is Your Cousin?
By Heath Shive I was watching an episode of the TV show 30 Rock. On the episode “The Head and the Hair,” Liz Lemon meets a handsome man…only to find out that they are distant cousins. Lemon promptly breaks up with him. But here’s something weird someone told me. Technically, everyone on Earth is your cousin – your 30th cousin at least. To the logic! Cousins by Number Imagine this. Your mom takes you to see your grandmother. While she’s there, your mom meets her sister. Your mother’s sister is your aunt, of course. Your aunt’s children are your 1st cousins. You are “1st” cousins because only 1 generation separates you and your cousins from your common ancestor (your grandmother in this scenario). This is the cousin system of degree and removal. Your children and your cousin’s children will be 2nd cousins, because 2 generations will separate them from a common ancestor. (Incidentally, your 1st cousin’s children would be your 1st cousins-once-removed.) Cousins to the Nth Power! Every human on Earth needs 2 biological parents. That means every human has 4 biological grandparents, and 8 great-grandparents, and so on. Follow the math? 2 times 2 times 2… If you want to go back 30 generations, then you have to figure out the math of 2 taken to the 30th power. If 2 is taken to the 30th power, then the number is 1,073,741,824. That’s over 1 billion people! But here’s the problem: 1 billion people did not exist 30 generations ago! It has been estimated that the world human population did not reach 1 billion until around the year 1804. So that means, sooner or later, everyone on Earth must share at least 1 common ancestor in the last 30 generations! By this logic, everyone on Earth is at least a 30th cousin! We Are Family It hard to believe that you are a cousin to Oprah Winfrey, Jackie Chan, and Emilia Clarke. And you are a cousin to Presidents Barack Obama…and Donald Trump! But, of course, that doesn’t mean that every marriage is an act of incest. Genetic variation distances our bloodlines pretty quickly! So, for example, there’s no reason Emilia Clarke and I cannot get married (and I wonder if that’s why she’s not returning my phone calls). But the human family is more well-connected than we like to think. And doesn’t this put war in a weird perspective? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!  Image by RyanMcGuire via Pixabay.com Why Are They Still Together? Psychology and the Need for Consistency By Heath Shive Toxic relationships – whether with your spouse, friends, or political party – may be connected to the brain’s compulsion for consistency. Back in the 1960s, psychologists R. E. Knox and J. A. Inkster performed a study at a horse track. They found that people were more confident about their bet after they made their wager than right before they had made their bets. There was no change in facts. The horses, the track, and the weather were all the same. But 30 seconds after they made their bet, they were more confident of winning. Why? As Robert Cialdini described it in his book Influence, “Once we have made a choice…we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment.” Our brains are programmed for consistency. Staying with an earlier decision is usually a good thing - it's promotes stability, facilitates future decisions, and saves time. Consistency also makes us easier to control. The More Public the Choice, the More Stubborn We Are Social psychologists M. Deutsch and H. Gerard performed a study on 3 different groups of college students. The students had to estimate the lengths of some lines. The first group had to write down their estimates, sign the paper, and hand these papers to the experimenter. The second group wrote their estimates on an old-time Magic Pad – a pad with a plastic film on the front. When you lifted the plastic, the writing would disappear. The second group guessed, wrote, and lifted their writing away without anyone seeing their guesses. The third group only had to guess mentally – no writing, no public commitment. Then evidence for the true lengths of the lines was introduced. The third group was the most pliable – changing their estimates as more information was revealed. The second group (who written their guesses privately) were much more reluctant to change their minds. But the most stubborn group was the first. Those who had written, signed, and publicly announced their decisions were the most reluctant to change their minds in the face of new data. Ever See This? Have you ever had a boss make you sign a paper that acknowledged an agreement to change? Ever hear of a "straight ticket" voter? Have you ever seen a relationship that was so toxic, so dysfunctional, and yet it lasted for years? These are just examples of the “consistency principle” at work. Imagine a couple about to marry. First, they publicly announce their intention. Next, they commit to plans. Then, they sign official paperwork. Finally, they declare themselves publicly in front of friends and family. Are wedding traditions geared to hyper-enforce commitment? Some long-term relationships are successful! And some relationships just die hard. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Deutsch, M., and H. B. Gerard. “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (1955): 629-36. Knox, R. E., and J. A. Inkster. “Postdecisional Dissonance at Post Time.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1968): 319-323. |
AuthorHello! My name is Heath Shive, content manager at ScholarFox. I'll be the author of most of the blog posts. I'm a former geologist and currently a freelance writer. The world is complex and seemingly crazy. Good! Because when you love to learn, you'll never be bored. Archives
August 2018
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed