Social animals

Author: Elliot Aronson
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-09-01
Features: The Social Animal is a psychology book that explores interpersonal relationships, covering topics such as emotions, empathy, prejudice, aggression, conformity, and altruistic behavior. It provides scientific answers to everyday dilemmas: why do companies rely on celebrities in advertising? why do people stand by and do nothing when someone is drowning? why do people join cults? why do educated people blindly obey religious leaders even if they are willing to sacrifice themselves? The book is rigorous yet accessible, engaging, and has been translated into 14 languages, widely distributed worldwide, attracting readers in numbers unmatched by any other social psychology textbook.
Author's Preface: It is a great honor to be invited to write the preface for the Chinese translation of The Social Animal (8th edition). Here, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Zheng Richang and his colleagues for their efforts in translating this book. I am fully aware of the hard work involved. As a social psychologist, I have authored 18 books in my lifetime. If someone were to ask me which of my works I prefer, I might give a general answer: "They are all my children," much like an old man with numerous grandchildren being asked which one he loves the most. But if pressed, I would sincerely tell everyone that my favorite is The Social Animal, because the process of writing it brought me immense joy. Every time I revise the book, my feelings are the same as they were 30 years ago when I first wrote it. At least in two ways, The Social Animal is a very personal work. First, the issues it addresses are the most important in interpersonal relationships, such as aggression, altruism, empathy, prejudice, social influence, empathy, and love. Second, it reflects my attempt to understand interpersonal relationships—to contribute my modest efforts to creating a better world filled with peace, harmony, and mutual understanding. Additionally, the book's personalization is reflected in its content. I use examples from my own and my family's life to illustrate key points. For instance, in the opening chapter on aggression, I recount a dialogue I had with my older son about the unjust war the U.S. waged in Vietnam. I wrote:
"Many years ago, I was a young father. One day, while watching Walter Cronkite's TV news at home, the Vietnam War was in full swing. In the program, Mr. Cronkite reported that American planes had dropped napalm bombs over a village in southern Vietnam, which the Americans believed to be a Viet Cong base. As I was watching the news, my older son, who was only 10 years old, asked curiously, 'Dad, what is napalm?'
'Ugh,' I replied casually, 'It's a chemical substance that burns the skin and is sticky, and once it sticks to the skin, it can't be removed.'
After that, I continued watching the TV. A few minutes later, I glanced at my son, only to see him crying. Seeing his pain and sorrow, and thinking about what had just happened, I felt frustrated and guilty. I began to question myself: What was I doing wrong? If I wasn't cruel, how could I have answered that question so lightly—as if he had asked me how to make a baseball or what the function of leaves was. Had I become so accustomed to human cruelty?"
Since I wrote those words, decades have passed. That 10-year-old boy is now in his early 40s. He has become an environmental sociologist, raised four children, and has dedicated his life to promoting world peace. As a scholar and activist, he is doing his best to protect the natural resources of our small planet. Since the first edition of The Social Animal was published, three decades have flown by. Our understanding and knowledge of human social behavior have taken significant leaps, but fundamental questions remain largely unchanged. For this reason, I dedicate the eighth edition of this book to the readers of China, hoping to enhance mutual understanding between the two great nations.
Aronson, Santa Cruz, California, April 29, 2001
Excerpt: One of the films was purely pornographic and did not contain any aggressive behavior; the second film had neither aggression nor sexual content. After watching one of the films, these men participated in a study that seemed unrelated to the films—teaching a male or female assistant meaningless syllables and ordering them to administer electric shocks to assistants who answered incorrectly, with the option to choose the intensity of the shocks (unbeknownst to the participants, no one was actually being shocked). Those who had watched the rape film delivered stronger electric shocks—only to the female assistant. Similarly, Malamuth conducted an experiment where male college students watched one of two pornographic films. The first depicted a consensual sexual scene between two adults; the second depicted a rape. After watching the films, these men were asked to engage in sexual fantasies. Compared to the students who watched the first film, those who watched the rape film depicted more violent fantasies in their sexual imaginations.
In another experiment, Malamuth and Check had college students watch one of the two films: one realistically depicted sexual violence, while the other had neither violence nor sexual content. A few days later, these students filled out a survey on attitudes toward sex. The male students who had watched the sexual violence film showed an increased acceptance of violence against women. Additionally, they began to believe in some absurd myths about rape—such as the idea that women provoke rape and enjoy it. I must point out that believing in these absurd myths about rape is not limited to men. Malamuth and his colleagues conducted a survey of female college students and found that while some believed they would never derive pleasure from sexual violence, most thought it was possible for some women to do so.
I repeat, exposure to violent sexual content tends to increase men's belief in these absurd myths about rape. There is evidence that this belief is not necessarily an ingrained part of a deeply held belief system. For example, in one study, when male college students watched a sexual violence film, as expected, their belief in these absurd myths about rape increased. However, after the film, when researchers explained the experimental procedure, their belief in these myths decreased compared to the control group, which had neither watched the film nor received the explanation. While this finding is encouraging, we should not be satisfied with it, as the data also suggest that prolonged exposure to sexual violence leads to emotional desensitization and callousness in attitudes toward violence against women. Moreover, there is reason to believe that repeatedly watching X-rated sexual violence films—those that contain extreme violence but have less clear sexual content than pornographic films—would be more destructive than X-rated pornographic films without violence.
In one experiment, Daniel Linz and his colleagues found that male college students who watched at least two sexual violence films (one every other day) did indeed exhibit desensitization. That is, when comparing their reactions to the first and second films, they showed a reduced emotional response to the violent content in the second film and a greater devaluation of the women depicted in it.
Additionally, researchers compared the effects of X-rated sexual violence films, X-rated pornographic films, and films depicting adolescent sexuality on male attitudes toward victims of rape. Two days after watching the films, the participants took part in a presumed unrelated experiment: they watched a mock rape trial and were asked to judge the victim and the defendant. Once again, we see that sexual violence films have a significant impact on the attitudes of male viewers. Compared to students who watched non-violent pornographic films or adolescent sexual content films, male students who watched sexual violence films showed less sympathy for the victim in the trial.
These findings suggest that our society's film rating system has deviated from its goals and is misleading: we give an X rating to films that clearly depict sexual content but contain no violence, but we give an R rating to films filled with violent scenes—hence watched by more people—even though evidence shows that the latter has negative effects.
In conclusion, the combination of sex and violence—in both pornographic and sexual violence films—has the same significant impact as other forms of violence in the media: aggression levels are increasing, and in many cases, attitudes toward violence are being reinforced. Watching violence (whether pornographic or otherwise) does not serve as a catharsis; instead, it seems to encourage aggressive behavior.
These findings raise complex policy questions about censorship and the First Amendment, which go beyond the scope of this book. While I personally oppose the enforcement of censorship, I believe that an objective reading of this research would lead some media policymakers to take action