Social Engineering Blogs

Have you ever thought about an amount of bad news you hear every day? Or maybe, could you remind yourself the last good news you hear about?https://www.flickr.com/photos/caribb/15418956100Latterly, every time I turn on TV, radio or open any newspaper I have low odds to come across such topics as crisis, shootings, or corruption. And unfortunately, every time it convinces me how terrifying this world is. A level of cortisol in my blood increases because it seems that evil is closer and closer. And finally, I’m wondering if any bigger good happens that is worthy to show during evening news. Of course, except for celebrities’ weddings, divorces, private life confessions or shocking faux pas in dress code. These issues find their place between one tragedy and another – I am supposed to be cool about it. However, still – isn’t true that bad news rush everyday headlines?In my opinion it is truth. And luckily for me there are scientists of the same point of view. Trussler and Soroka (2014) did a study wherein asked people to choose some articles from a news website to read in order to measure their eye-tracking. Of course, they hid a real purpose of their study. What shouldn’t be surprising in the context of this paper, most participants chose negative stories. Even though at the same time they declared that they preferred good news and discommended media that provided overfull negative facts. In another study that was focused on electrical activity in the brain’s cerebral cortex, it was also proved that people react stronger to negative stimuli, e.g. a mutilated face than positive or neutral one (Ito, Larsen, Smith,& Cacioppo, 1998). Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2011) made a wide review of studies to answer the question whether bad is stronger than good. Trying to answer the above, they were searching for proofs in many fields including reacting to events, relationships, emotions, learning, memory, information processing , health etc. Evidences indicate that we respond strongly to bad things. In particular it applies to those bad news that retain in our unawareness even after an extinction of behavior changes that were caused by a negative stimuli.Michael J. Robinson (People & the Press American, 2007) went a step further and focused only on topics of news and prepared synthesis of 165 American surveys. He found that topics such a war, terrorism, disasters were in top 5 categories that had attracted people between 1986-2006. Robinson,M. J. (2007). The news interest index 1986–2007: Two decades of American news preferences/Part 1: Analyzing what news the public follows- and doesn’t follow.Indeed, there is no doubt that our news are overfull by pervasive mares. Why is that happening? Most studies mention a term “negativity bias”. To understand it, we need to start from the very beginning. Thus, in the beginning there was a fear that kept us alive. Being better responsive to dangerous situation, such as for example a meeting with wild animals, our odds to survive and pass genes increased significantly (Baumesiter et all., 2001). Unfortunately, times of our ancestors weren’t romantic and a rustle of leaves couldn’t be treated as a singing of nature and a doubtful entertainment was running away from a tiger.Daniel Kahneman (2011) a man who whole life studies psychology perspective of decision-making, as well as behavioral economics, also brings the theory of fast reacting for bad signs of predator in his book Thinking fast and slow (2001). Moreover, he writes about human “mechanism that is designed to give priority to bad news” and pay our attention that bad words such a crime or war (which we can hear in media everyday) attract our attention faster that happy ones. When we’ve already known our original “tendency to bad”, following Rozin and Royzman (2001) we can understand that negativity bias is “a principle that comes out in most situations, whereas negative events are more salient, potent, dominant in combinations, and generally efficacious than positive events.” Actually, I’ve also found another, a little different but still an interesting explanation. I would like to mention John Allen Paulos (1990), a famous American mathematician, who was tempted to write in his book Innumeracy that our focusing on bad news is a part of probability theory and was mostly related to people leaving in big cities, but it isn’t now. Why? According to statistics, unusual accidents aren’t very often. However, in population of millions of people, a probability that something bad will happen is higher. Even 1% becomes important and significant in ratio of an average city. Thus, the bigger population you live in, you are more aware of the occurred accidents. Nevertheless, times are changing and now when most people have access to news from all over the world, the prevalence of bad news increases for everyone. The truth is that no matter which theory we are more susceptible with regard to daily bad breaking news, we definitely spend more time focusing on them what is very profitable for media concerns. Of course, the solution is not to stop watching TV, listening to radio or using computer – however this idea probably would be quite useful for many of us not only in this case. Anyway, every day we should try to concentrate on a good that surrounds us. I believe that thanks to that, we will see the difference in our attitude to the life. And if someone asks you to remind yourself last news, please remember, it should be something good that made you smile.References:Trussler, M.,& Soroka, S. (2014). Consumer Demand for Cynical and Negative News Frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360–79.Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo,J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900.Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C.,&Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.Robinson,M. J. (2007). The news interest index 1986–2007: Two decades of American news preferences/Part 1: Analyzing what news the public follows- and doesn’t follow. Retrieved November 12, 2016, from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/pdf/NewsInterest1986-2007.pdfKahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (pp. 300-302). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.Paulos, J. A. (1990). Innumeracy: mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Just Ask!Im sure many of you are aware of the nightmare traffic getting into Glastonbury festival each year. Even those who don’t attend the festival are bombarded with traffic updates on the radio and news reports describing the sheer backlog of traffic. Well I was one of those Glastonbury goers this year, caught up somewhere in the thousands of people waiting in the 9 hour queues to get in.However, this is a tale of how I avoided most of the traffic in and out of the festival.How?By asking. The morning that we were meant to leave for the festival, we were warned by practically every form of social media and news report not to leave, and possibly delaying going until Thursday.  Glastonbury live traffic updates told any festival goer that if they hadn’t left yet, not to as they would be expected to be stuck for up to 9 hours.  Ignoring all warnings, we set off, and sooner or later 45 minutes into our journey, we hit the queue. We also had one tiny problem. we hadn’t previously purchased a car parking space online, and we soon realised that there were limited ones on the gate, therefore, we needed to get there ASAP, there was no way we could be turned away, not after all that excitement and queueing! Tweets by festival goers describing the traffic problems!Frustration rising in people waitingAfter tediously crawling through the trail of traffic (4 hours later, still going strong) we made it to a roundabout which was grid locked. We walked up and down the road, stopping for the toilet, grabbing snacks, and still would return to the same space we had been in 30 minutes ago. Since we had nowhere to go, other than wait to join the string of traffic we turned to the policeman guiding the traffic and simply smiled sweetly, and asked ‘Excuse me sir, but is there ANY other way into another Glastonbury car park or a way we can get a spare ticket before they run out?’…We all expected him to say, ‘sorry girls, just follow the traffic just like everyone else’. But no. To our astonishment he responded with, ‘Well girls, Im not meant to tell you this, and could get in a lot of trouble, but if you go across this round about, where absolutely no cars are going and follow the road around to the left (some other vague instructions) then there is an empty car park no one has opened yet. If you go that way you will find it and will be let in. You didn’t hear that from me!’We couldn’t believe what we had just heard him. What happens if he was wrong or worse we were sent back and had lost our space in the queue? Too late, we had raced off, we had to take the gamble.A short while later, we found the empty car park and drove straight in and bought a car parking ticket. We were unbelievably chuffed. Admittedly it then did take us around 4 more hours to wade through the thick mud to find a place to pitch our tent, but that’s not the point. As if to think our luck had ended. Oh no oh no… So the festival organisers recommended leaving the festival between 3am-6am (only 6 hours wait) opposed to leaving after 7am the next day which they estimated would take 9 hours in a car to get out of the traffic. We decided to leave around 3 am, and considering we would be stuck for 6 hours, we prepared ourselves for this, fetched snacks (sobered up in plenty of time) and finally found the car in our miracle space (in the pitch black). Whilst walking past the rows and rows of parked cars queuing to get out, we overheard one man say he’d been queuing for 5 hours already and had moved only a few metres! This was going to be a very long night!Nevertheless, after being helped out by the traffic coordinates, to get the little car out of the mud pile, we simply tried our luck again and asked, ‘is there another way to get out  that you know of, even if you shouldn’t tell us?’ again fluttering our little lashes and smiling sweetly.To our luck he replied, ‘girls, I shouldn’t tell you this, but at the other side of this carpark there is a gate that leads to the main road, it’ll be shut but you can open it and go through, it’ll lead you straight out and avoid all this traffic.’We got back to Bristol in 45 minutes. I woke up at 1pm the next day to hear people were still stuck in traffic…This demonstrates the power of asking. Ask and you will get.The power of asking had been demonstrated within studies in psychology. Clark and Hatfield’s 1989 study tested this phenomena, by having male and female subjects asking the opposite sex questions such as ‘would you go on a date with me?’, ‘would you come round to my apartment?’, and finally ‘would you go to bed with me?’.  The results really do demonstrate the success in asking. A table of results from the original study, illustrating the success In this study, and a replication of the original study, when female subjects asked men these questions, the statistics are high. Most men agreed to going to bed and going to their apartment. Results are consistent across studies. There was a small gender difference in that when men asked women the same questions, they are likely not to respond in the same way. A replication of the original study, with similar resultsIt is fair to assume, most people in that queue were following the majority. This is an example of informative social influence/social proof, everyone in their cars were looking to others for what to do, and consequently one long trail of cars preceded. However, we resisted the conformity and took the plunge by asking for a quicker route, that would guarantee us a parking space. We had nothing to loose just by asking. The general consensus amongst a lot of people, is that they are too afraid to ask, because of damage to their self-image, or not wanting to impose. Studies indicate the overestimation of the embarrassing nature of asking. It isn’t as bad as it sounds. The benefits outweigh the costs!ReferencesCialdini, R. B. (1987). Influence (Vol. 3). A. Michel.Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-55.Glastonbury festival-goers caught up in traffic chaos. (2016, July 22). Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-36594006 Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 453-458.Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2008). Is underestimation less detrimental than overestimation? The impact of experts’ beliefs about a layperson’s knowledge on learning and question asking. Instructional Science, 36(1), 27-52.

Anyone who knows me personally would know that when it comes to religion and God, I am a huge skeptic. However, by looking at the statistics, it is obvious that a lot of people have been convinced and persuaded by ‘God’s words and teachings’ (Pew Research Center, 2015). Each person has their own personal reason for their belief, however, after a few lectures on persuasion and influence, I soon came to recognise that many of the techniques found to be persuasively successful have also been used by religion. I agree that it would be a tremendous oversimplification to claim that these techniques are the reason behind the spread and acceptance of theology. Nevertheless, I do believe that they have a significant impact on people’s decision to believe in a certain religion. According to Robert Cialdini, one of the six main principles that are involved when influencing people’s attitudes and behaviour is the Reciprocity Principle.  The principle states that humans tend to give back, or reciprocate, the same behaviour that they have received. Therefore, in order to be able to persuade someone to do something for us, we must first do something for them. Once the favour has been done, they would then feel indebted and thus more likely to be persuaded to behave in a certain manner. Further support is provided Garner(2005) who found that participants given a hand written note were more likely to fill in a survey than those asked verbally. According to Cialdini, the effort that had gone through writing a note was recognized by the participant and obligated them into reciprocating that effort. This is why, participants who were provided the hand written note were also found to provide better quality responses. In religion, especially the Abrahamic ones, it is a common belief that most of the things we possess, including our soul and body, were created by the all-powerful God. Now, if I were to believe in God, I could easily see how people would feel indebted and obligated to spend their lives worshipping their creator. The Principle of Commitment and Consistency, which is another of Cialdini’s six core principles, can also be found in the Abrahamic religions. According to this principle, people are more likely to actually do something once they have publicly claimed or promised to do so. Once we make a promise, we feel obliged to fulfill our promise and stay true to our words. In addition, once we have made a decision and committed to something, we try and convince ourselves that we have made the right call by developing new justifications to confirm our decision. One of the most obvious examples of this tactic being used in religion is the sacrament of Confirmation performed in Christianity. The confirmation ritual allows those who have already been baptized to confirm their belief and the promises made on their behalf. Unfortunately, the act of baptism, which is mainly performed at infancy, creates a sense of commitment itself, and many would feel obliged to stay consistent with the decision made on their behalf as a child. In addition, most Catholic churches carry out the ritual around the age of 14, when the child still lacks the intellectual capacity and sufficient knowledge needed to make such a significant judgment. This is one of the reasons why many people, including myself, believe that the notion of theology should not be introduced to a child until much later in their lives. If we were to allow children to live the first 20 years of their lives without the mention of any God or religion, we would be able to provide them with the opportunity to make a well-balanced decision, rather than indoctrinate them and force them down a certain path.Another persuasive tactic, which arguably could be religions’ most effective technique, is providing a sense of belonging. This was actually brought to my attention by an atheist friend who claimed that growing up in a Hindu family, with religious parents and relatives, actually created a sense of alienation for her. The religion, according to her, formed a community for the rest, which she felt left out of. As pointed out in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we are social beings who need to interact and communicate      with one another. Religion, tactfully, uses this need and merges social interaction and religious rituals together, hence creating a community of people with similar attitudes and beliefs. This, in my opinion, is actually one of the few positive aspects of religion. However, this too can be used as a persuasive tool, especially if a person does not already hold a strong view towards a certain faith. People who are born or move into such communities with different beliefs may begin to feel excluded. In order to be able to feel like they belong, they may begin to partake in some of theses rituals. Eventually, this could create a cognitive dissonance, where one’s attitudes are no longer aligned with their behaviour. However, as mentioned previously, people seek consistency and thus when an inconsistency arises, they begin to try and change something in order to eliminate the dissonance. Many would consider changing their behaviour first, however, unsurprisingly, humans find it more difficult to change their behaviour than their attitude. In our case, their behaviour allows them to interact with the rest of the community and provides them with a sense of belonging. Hence, in most cases, it is our attitudes that are changed to accommodate our behaviour. The last technique that I will be discussing is the ‘appeal to fear’. Fear appeal is when persuasion is attempted through the presentation of potential risk and an arousal of fear. The stimuli creates a sense of anxiety, which in turn leads to a negative physiological state that compels the body to respond in any way in order to get rid of the threat and decrease the level of distress. If we take a look at Islam and Christianity, we are able to see that their Gods have presented them with similar notions of hell; a place made for the torment and punishment of those who have sinned and disobeyed His laws. By presenting them with an endless fear-evoking stimulus, many people may alter their beliefs and attitudes purely to eradicate the sense of anxiety. As Bertrand Russell points out, “Religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing – fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death” (Russell, 1957).As mentioned previously, persuasive techniques may not be the only answer to why religion has been able to spread so vastly, yet it is one of many rational responses. Most of the techniques I have discussed do not refer to logic in any way and instead, they appeal to emotions such as fear and a sense of belonging. Maybe if the ideas proposed were a bit more realistic and consistent, then they would no longer need to scare us into believing; reasoning with us would be enough. ReferencesGarner, R. (2005). Post-It® Note Persuasion: A Sticky Influence. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 15 (3), 230-237. Huitt, W. (2007). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology InteractivePew Research Center. (2015, April 2). The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ Russell, B. (1957). Why I am not a Christian, and other essays on religion and related subjects. New York City, NY: Simon and Schuster.