Narcissism and narcissistic personalities.

Like a lot people, you’ve most likely have encountered a few people who are narcissistic individuals. You know the type – the person who is typically described as vain and self-absorbed. They come across as someone that thinks they are extremely important and expect everyone else to be aware of how important they are to the point of obnoxiousness.

Though many people can be selfish and every so often be a little vain, some individuals take it to extreme levels. When these traits and other traits similar to it are a persons defining characteristics they often cause a damaging effect on themselves and anyone who is a part of their life – these traits usually signal a mental health condition known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder or for short Narcissism. 

As with all disorders, the degree of severity can vary quite a lot. They can’t admit being wrong and are hypersensitive to anything that resembles criticism. They want to control how other people see them and can presented in any number of ways. “Narcissists come in all shapes, sizes, and degrees,” says Dr. Samuel Lopes DeVictoria, “He/she may look, by appearance, intimidating and scary to the average person. He could also play the “nice guy/person” whom everyone likes. 

1. Lies and Exaggerations

Narcissists are likely to create lies and exaggerations which is usually about themselves and even about others, and have the tendency of putting others down to make themselves seem better by comparison. Though narcissists often try to make themselves seem superior and “special” by either bragging (directly or indirectly), taking credit for things they shouldn't be taking credit for, and other forms of self-aggrandizing behavior, narcissists tend to focus on making others feel inferior through criticism, and intimidation. Narcissists are are often proficient at distorting facts, character assassinations, and intimidation to boost their self-worth and maintain an image.

Free £59.50 from Topcashback. Click here to learn how!

2. Rarely Admit Flaws and Are Highly Aggressive When Criticized

Many narcissists can react poorly when called up on their negative behavior. When challenged, the narcissist is likely to do one of a few things; fight,have a temper tantrum, make excuses, flat out denial, shift the blame elsewhere or just use passive aggression like the silent treatment or resentment. The Narcissist can resort to deflection by using criticisms against their to counter any that was made originally to them to either intimidate or oppress their victim. Some Narcissists view relationships as competitive rather than collaborative team based relationship where one has to be in control or on top of the other.

3. False Image Projection

Narcissists tend to project false images of themselves to the world, in order to hide their shortcomings and insecurities.They give themselves his “trophy complex" where they use people, objects, accomplishments to further feed into their exaggerated personas and self image, similar to self completion theory. Many narcissists like to view themselves as someone who is all-powerful and strong, with their opinion being the one that matters most regardless of who they actually are or what the situation is. In essence, narcissists want others to worship them, these external facades become pivotal parts of their false identity, replacing the real and more vulnerable self.

4. Manipulation and control

Narcissists have a tendency to make decisions for others bend to their own agenda. Narcissists may use people who are acquaintances or even people who are close to cover up any flaws and shortcomings. Narcissists are not above of using guilt, blame, and victim-hood as tactics to manipulate their victimsNarcissists conduct psychological manipulation toward individuals micromanaging and controlling relationships, including their victims how they should think, feel, and behave and they can often become critical, intimidating, and/or hostile toward those who displease them. 

While the narcissist manipulate to compensate for a desperate sense of deficiency (a lacking of self worth of who they really are), this psychological type have an inability or an unwillingness to actually relate to people  as human beings. They have a need to become “special” and “superior” by being less themselves and de-humanizing others.

Continue

Donald Trumps speech style - what may have helped him win and influence the American nation.

If you were asked the unlikely question of "Who is Donald Trump?" One of the possible answers you could give would be, "The President of the United states - and a controversial one at that." But what is most controversial about President Trump is how he addresses large crowds and responds to anything anyone says to him. It's unlike any President that's preceded him. Or any other politician for that matter. 

One of the reasons Donald Trump is so seemingly unique is due to his unorthodox speech style. From an objective stand point he uses very straight forward and simplistic language to get his points across - though not always coherent but it is very straight forward and much easier to absorb what he is saying for anyone who doesn't often keep up with a lot of politics or do not fully understand it.   

Some also say he speaks with brutal open honesty which has helped him win his Presidency while others say he has little composure and low impulse control which can may often attribute to his need to use aggressive language when put on the defensive or just simply disagrees with whoever he is against. What we'll speak about is what aspects of his speech style has helped win over the people of America and ultimately influence the nation to win his Presidency.

His simple outspoken conversational style.

It's no secret that Donald Trump doesn't seem to come across as someone with a sophisticated and large vocabulary when comparing to other politicians and if anything his way of speaking since being in the political arena comes across as even surprisingly simplistic. Coupled with him often just speaking his mind and not seeming to be as measured with his words like other politicians this in itself has made him stand out tremendously because he just doesn't seem to want to fit the mold of how a politician would typically act and behave like and this build a sense of intrigue whilst at the same time being easy listen to due to his seemingly small vocabulary.

He frequently uses quick punchy phrases which really makes anything he says easy to comprehend and remember. Similar to how advertising campaigns use mottos to keep their brands memorable and easy to associate with. For example Kit Kat – “Have a Break, Have a Kit Kat” or KFC – “Finger Lickin’ Good”.

Some of Donald Trumps own memorable phrases:

"I will build a great wall—and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me—and I’ll build them very inexpensively"

"We don’t have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don’t have them. When was the last time anybody saw us beating - let’s say China - in a trade deal? I beat China all the time. All the time"

"Rocket man is on a suicide mission."

Incoherence and confusion

Due Trump's speech style being so unorthodox and disruptive, this means that the audience is forced to pay more attention to making sense of his of what he is saying. And because of this that means that the listeners are more likely to be influenced and persuaded. Though this isn't fool proof but effective nonetheless.

The majority of Trump sentences are essentially sentence fragments where two or more unrelated thoughts are thrown into one confusing sentence. Words are arranged in a way that not everyone can grasp, even if you have a good command of the English language. (“There is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself, and the Russians, zero”). - quoted from President Trump himself.

SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

The use of repetition.

Our brains are excellent pattern-seekers and because repetition breeds familiarity we tend become accustomed to what we are regularly exposed to - be it a song we hear on every other radio station or a movie trailer we see on every other television channel or maybe it's a slogan we may often hear such as "Red Bull - it gives you wings." This can be described as the mere exposure effect which is written in more detail here.

George Lakoff, a graduate professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California – Berkeley, explained that the brain is made of a vast amount of interconnected neurons that form circuits similar to a network, and these carry out every single word or thought we have. When these circuits are activated by words or the things we see, they become stronger, and if repeatedly activated, they can become permanent. To be put simply - by repeating something to someone you are training them to think a certain way.

In Trumps case he punctuates his speeches with repetition. It helps to bring his point across without the risk of his messages being forgotten and can also serve as a way to keep his messages memorable. Also it’s also a delaying tactic, giving him time to think of the next thing he needs to say. 

Some of Donald Trumps own repetitive phrases:

“That’s wrong. They were wrong. It’s The New York Times, they’re always wrong. They were wrong.”  

"I went to an Ivy League school. I'm highly educated. I know words. I have the best words, I have the best, but there is no better word than stupid. Right?"

"(on fellow candidates) All of 'em are weak, they're just weak. Some of them are fine people. But they are weak."

Continue

Book Review: The Lucifer Effect How Good People Turn Evil.

The Lucifer Effect, a New York Best Selling book written by research psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo  highlights an uncomfortable but honest observation regarding human nature: That even the most seemingly ordinary, up-right and good person can become a perpetrator of evil. When we're trying to understand behavior that is destructive, irrational and malicious we often direct our focus primarily onto innate characteristics or personality traits which would have lead to such behavior, while ignoring any circumstantial factors which would have shaped such behaviors. Similar to the Fundamental Attribution Error which you can read more about here.

What Zimbardo hypothesized is that it is possible for external situations and systems to become key influences of  change in behavior and that they can often override a persons morals and values and be a corruptive force in extreme circumstances. The analogy of Lucifer within this book was that he was God’s favorite angel, but due to Lucifers fall from grace when he challenged God’s omnipotent authority, Lucifer was transformed into the forever recognized symbol of evil, Satan. This is the idea of people turning from good to evil.

In The Lucifer Effect, the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 is the ideal starting point for Zimbardo as he recalls from first person accounts on how the events of the experiment unfolded. He describes how he and the other researchers set up a simulated prison in the basement of one of Stanford University's academic buildings and then selected 24 students to participate and play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The students he said were chosen from a larger group of 70 volunteers and were chosen specifically because they had no criminal background, had no psychological issues or medical conditions. The student volunteers agreed to participate during a one to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.

Lasting only a premature six days due to the experiment having to be stopped early Zimbardo describes in gripping detail how the students began to sink deeper and deeper into their roles and how they as guards became abusive, and the prisoners begin to show more signs of extreme stress and anxiety as their time in the experiment went on. While the prisoners and guards were free to interact in any way they pleased, the interactions became hostile and malicious. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners while the prisoners became passive, depressed and show signs of anxiety.

He writes that even the researchers themselves began to lose grip of the situation and lose sight of their objective whilst potentially leaving the students open to psychological damage. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, repetitively overlooked the hostile behavior of the jail guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced her concerns as to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment. Zimbardo aptly draws out every bit of emotion and drama involved in the experiment in 1971, which keeps the  reader in awe every step of the way. The Lucifer Effect is brilliantly written, intriguing, and keeps you emotionally engaged throughout reading it. In reference to the end of the experiment Zimbardo beautifully quotes in his book "Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously, I was not among that noble class,"

The book doesn't stop there.

In the remainder of The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo goes to show how important the concept of the Stanford Prison Experiment is and extrapolates that to some of the more horrifying real world events in recent times, such as the abuse at the hands of agents of the US at Abu Ghraib, the genocide in Rwanda and the rape of Nanking. He discusses how the insidious and corrosive effect of power often leads to the creation of a corrupt system corrupting the people involved.

The prison study of Abu Ghraib in Iraq is used as an example. Zimbardo became thoroughly involved in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib when he was asked to be an expert witness for Sergeant Ivan Frederick, one of the accused who inevitably stood trial for alleged prisoner abuses. Through his research into what transpired at the Abu Ghraib prison, Zimbardo was able to gain insight into what it was like for the soldiers who spent long weeks working shifts within a military prison, and although the accused was eventually sentenced to eight years hard time in another military prison, Zimbardo was able to document the failures in leadership that led to many of the abuses and states that the military system itself was the leading proponent and should be to blame for the conditions in which such atrocities could take place.

In conclusion, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Much of the book has much of a darker sombre feel to it compared to other books due to the descriptions of how ordinary good people can perform evil acts. The final chapters of The Lucifer Effect offers us a lighter tone reminding us that some people are able to resist situational influence and can have an unbending resolve against peer pressure and systemic evil. Zimbardo gives examples of such unique individuals which include Christina Maslach, the graduate student who spoke up to Zimbardo to end the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Private Joe Darby, the soldier who blew the whistle on the atrocities that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison.

If you want to learn more about The Lucifer Effect and read other book reviews about it...

Check it out here on Amazon.

Continue

10 Quick And Interesting Facts About Body Language

As you may know body language is more complex than it seems at first glance. This is because reading body language has so many nuances and subtleties you have to account for such as context, culture, mood, level of comfort, baseline behavior etc. The list can go on. For example a country and its culture can have a wide range of facial expressions, body movements, and hand gestures that can signal particular emotions and feelings but go from one country to another and those same gestures and expressions can get lost in translation.

Take a look at these 10 quick and interesting facts about body language and see if you learn something new. Because body language is often nuanced and subtle with wide variations of expression you'll always learn something new. There are also experts who professionally study and research in reading body language, and even they can’t always read and interpret body language correctly. It just goes to show how complex human beings can be! We hope you enjoy this list of interesting body language facts.

1. Amazingly woman have a wider range of peripheral vision which allows her to look at a man’s body from head to toe without even getting noticed. A male’s peripheral vision on the other hand is not as good. This is why a man would typically move his gaze up and down a woman’s body which is very obvious and can wind up with the man getting caught.

2. Britain, similar to a lot of Northern Europe and the Far East, is labelled as a “non-contact” culture where there is little physical contact in their daily interactions. The Middle East, Latin America, and Southern Europe are considered “high contact cultures” where physical touch is a part of everyday socializing.

3. Covering the eyes or "eye blocking" such as prolonged blinking, lowering the eyes for a longer than usual period are all powerful signals that portray confusion, disbelief or disagreement.

4. Custom officers often notice that passengers who point their feet toward the exit while talking to the officer to make their custom’s declaration are more likely to be hiding something they should have declared in the first place.

5. Research shows that whatever we’re feeling first shows up in our body before entering our conscious minds microseconds later.



SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

6. Kissing and romantic touch releases Oxytocin in the brain. It is a hormone that strengthens the emotional bond between the two people.

7. Similar to how a dog will expose its throat to show submission or surrender, humans use their palms to show that they are harmless and not threatening.

8. It has been noted that in stores thieves will try to hide their physical presence by restricting their motions by hindering their head exposure by raising the shoulders and at times lowering the head. Otherwise most people walk around the store with their arms quite free and active and their posture upright.

9. Squinting is a motion that can be very brief, just fraction of a second, but it can often signal negative thoughts or emotions. We tend to squint when we are angry or when we hear sounds, or music or even voices we don’t like.

10. Even when a person is standing still, a person’s body is always telling a story.

For more free and interesting tips on body language, click to get our free Body Language Guide here

Continue

The Pygmalion Effect - The Psychology of Having High Expectations

First named by the psychologist Robert Rosenthal; The Pygmalion Effect is where the someone who is in a position of leadership has expectations of someone to perform a task well and can encourage them to actually meet those high expectations and display higher levels of performance compared to if there wasn't any expectations at all. Conceptually it is similar to having Confirmation Bias where expected behaviors are shaped creating an expected outcome.

An example of the The Pygmalion Effect is in an office setting where Supervisor A is considerably favorable to one of his office workers and has high expectations him to do well in any task that is given to him. This office worker in response thrives under his supervisors leadership and does his utmost to live up to his high expectations. It motivated him to work harder and to do his best. 

Then then another supervisor comes along, Supervisor B. Things changed when Supervisor B replaced Supervisor A. Supervisor B did not think so highly of this favorable office worker. In fact, it would be safe to say he didn't think very highly of him whatsoever. Eventually Supervisor B's low expectations became a reality. The office worker made mistakes and didn't seem to have the same pride in his work he did when Supervisor A was in charge, his mind went blank whenever he was asked questions, his confidence evaporated along with his motivation. His performance suffered in Supervisor B's presence.

What seemed to have happened was the office workers good performance was encouraged by Supervisor A's high expectations and because he worked well Supervisor A would praise him on his good work which would spur this office worker to keep perform well again. And this would cycle over again and again. The opposite would happen with Supervisor B would have little to no expectations of the office workers performance causing him to behave accordingly, having a similar cycle.



SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

Psychologist Robert Rosenthal performed a study which proved that if teachers were led to expect a higher level of performance from students, then these students performance would improve accordingly.

 A selection of students in a California school in the 1960s were given a disguised IQ test. The teachers were told at the start of the study that some of their students could be expected to be "intellectual bloomers" that year, performing better than expected compared to the other classmates. The bloomers' names were revealed only to the teachers. At the end of the study, all students were again tested with the same IQ-test used at the start of the study. 

True enough the experimental group the "intellectual bloomers" performed higher than the other students keeping in mind that they were chosen at random. The conclusion of the study was that the teachers may have without realizing that they had given the supposed academic bloomers more personal interactions, more positive feedback, approval, and other positive gestures, such as nods and smiling as a result of having higher expectations. On the other hand, teachers would may have paid less attention to low-expectancy students, seat them farther away from teachers in the classroom, and offer less reading and learning contributing to a poorer learning experience. 

The power of the Pygmalion effect, can be used for better or for worse in the classroom, in the workplace, in the military, and elsewhere.

Continue

Sibling Relationship Psychology

Out of all the relationships throughout our lives whether it's a friendship, parent/child relationship or a romantic relationship one of the most unique and powerful bonds we may have is the relationships with our siblings. Our siblings are usually the ones that we share our life journey's with from a young age all the way across to our adult years and during that journey you experience the ups and downs, family woes, jealousy and hostility towards each other, competitiveness, joint responsibilities and most of all the joys of being part of a family unit.

Jeffrey Kluger a science writer and author of the book The Sibling Effect: What the Bonds Among Brothers and Sisters Reveal about Us speaks in this video about not only the common characteristics and behaviours of individual siblings in a given family but he also talks about how parental influences effect how siblings develop and interact to gain attention by cultivating their individual roles within the family household. A particularly interesting segment of the talk is where he speaks about parents and sibling favouritism, he briefly speaks about how opposite gender resemblance is a common factor when parents have a favourite child whether the parents know this or not; for instance the hard headed father may favour the no nonsense daughter because he see's a little of himself within her or the soft speaking mother may favour the quietly spoken son because of their similarities. Kluger describes it as a sense of reproductive narcissism from the parent to their favourite. This is a very profound talk from a very good speaker who cites some of the studies based on the topic of sibling bonds, it  generally is a topic which would likely relate to most people, a great talk and very interesting overall.

Continue

Understanding introverts

Normally misunderstood, introverts generally are lower energy and conservative than their extravert counterparts, but because western society often favours the extravert for their gregarious nature and their outwardly focused approach to life and the people within it introverts often get looked over and even worse misunderstood. As written previously in this post regarding introverts sometimes being introverted can be misconstrued as shy, reserved, even unsociable but in actual fact it is just a lower energy way of interacting with their given environment and they are energised by lower energy activities such as reading, socializing with a smaller group of close friends and long walks.

Susan Cain, the author of Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking speaks in this video below in depth about introversion and their inner strengths and characteristics as well as how some environmental factors such as businesses, classrooms and even group think have their part to play when utilising an introvert personality. She also talks about her own personal experiences on being an introvert and how it affects her, a truly illuminating video from a speaker who clearly has had a lot of experience and done a good level of research on this subject.  

Continue

Fundamental attribution error

When an incident or an event occurs (whether negative or positive) the tendency to place a significant amount of blame on a persons personality or characteristics rather than situational factors is quite a common one. This is because we tend to focus more on the person involved by assuming that a person is responsible due to their personality/characteristics and not the conditions around them that they could not have had control over in the first place. This phenomena is what you call the fundamental attribution error.

An example of fundamental attribution error is when you see someone driving and swerving and crashing into a tree, automatically you would think ''what is this person doing?!'' or ''this person is actually crazy?!'' but the real reason for the accident was not because of the person directly but because a pedestrian ran into the road and so to avoid hitting the pedestrian the driver hit the brakes whilst steering round them where their tyres slipped over a wet patch on the road causing the crash. As an observer watching the whole thing take place you would most likely blame the person driving for being reckless if you had not have known what contributed to the crash. The truth is that these multiple factors such as the surprise pedestrian, the wet patch in the road, etc, would have caused the crash regardless of who was behind the wheel, so it wouldn't have just taken a reckless personality to crash the car in this scenario.

SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

 A second example of the fundamental attribution error is when you ask a stranger for directions but they give you a seemingly snarky response or they're simply rude to you. Naturally you would peg this person as rude and having a bad personality, but looking past their initial first impression they may have had a bad day putting them in a foul mood or they've just received some devastatingly bad news and you were the first person they have come into contact with since receiving this news. They acted the way they did not because of their natural personality (most people are generally polite to strangers) but their circumstances made them act they way they did, in this case it was just having a bad day which was the cause.

Though there hasn't been one widely accepted causal reason for the fundamental attribution error there has been several theories which have been associated with being a root cause for why people are quicker to blame character traits for their circumstances rather than situational factors. One of the reasons is due to culture; for instance western cultures where people who are more individualistic tend to emphasize the individual over situational factors so they are  

more prone to fundamental attribution error as opposed to people from non-western cultures who tend to emphasize context and situational factors over the individual so they are less prone to the error. A study conducted by social psychologists Michael W. Morris and Kaiping Peng where they tested the hypothesis of a bias toward individual autonomy in American western culture while in there was a bias toward collective or contextual factors in Chinese eastern culture, in the experiment the participants where they were asked to watch an animated cartoon of swimming fish where one fish deviates from several other fish. In the experiment the animation was designed so that it was ambiguous whether the fish was a coordinated group influencing the behaviour of the lone fish or the lone fish acted on its own preference. Over several studies with different sets of participants both Morris and Peng confirmed their hypothesis with the western participants believing the fish acting on its own accord while most of the eastern participants believed the fish acted due to other factors outside of the individual fish.

The just world hypothesis is another possible reason for the fundamental attribution error where people have the belief that people get what they deserve whether good or bad, so if someone finds themselves in a car crash then most people believe that the person involved must have had it coming to them, conversely if someone has won a new car then most people would believe that they deserve it. In either case the just world hypothesis suggests that people in general believe that people get what they deserve. Social psychologist Melvin Lerner conducted an experiment where a group of participants watched a video of a subject complete a set of tasks where when they got a task wrong they would receive an electric shock. The subject pretended to get an electric shock of course. Lerner found that the participants had a low opinion of the subject saying that the subject deserved it and berated their appearance and character. Lerner concluded that the sight of the subject suffering ''electric shocks'' or their general misfortune motivated the participants to devalue the subject to bring about a more appropriate fit between their fate and their characteristics.

Continue

Group perceptions

When we observe or first encounter a group we inevitably have an opinion of them, we use all available and necessary information to create a mental picture of that group, and the information we use will be all relative to who we are individually, our experiences and their general impression. As we know opinions and impressions of a group don't always stick and they can and do change the more information we receive about a given group thus changing how we may respond to them whether they're negative or positive. This post will be discussing two aspects of group perceptions; one theory will be regarding how the observer and the observed perceive group decisions and the other will be regarding how groups perceive other groups in relation to themselves.

Group Attribution Error
Studied by social psychologist Professor Scott T. Allison in 1985 the group attribution theory comes in two layers, where a group that makes a decision for a course of action the members within the group believe that the decision outcome was a result of group effort following group norms while on the other hand an observer watching the same group will attribute the decision outcomes as a result of the roles of each individual member of the group having their part to play with the decision making.

For example when a group of advertisers come together to make the decision for the type of advertising campaign they want to use and they all agree on the models they will use, the colour scheme, fonts etc and go ahead and create and their campaign. After their efforts the advertising campaign they all worked on turned out to be a failure due to not getting the kind of response they were looking for. In reflection the members of the group would attribute their failure as a result of the decisions made by the group as a whole while to the contrary an observer such  

as their manager would attribute their decision failures to certain individuals within the group. In other words group members usually believe that their actions are driven by the group as a whole while the observer believes the groups actions are driven mainly by individual personalities within the group. 


In-group bias
The idea that we favour people that we perceive as part of our group is quite a common one. As a result of this we act positively towards the people within our group while anyone who isn't associated with our group are seen as outsiders and therefore are tainted in a less than positive light. This creates an us versus them mentality and can of course be the root of any larger scale animosities such as rival gang fights, racial tensions and hostilities between whole nations.



SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

A common and smaller scale form of the in-group bias phenomenon can often be found in team sports such as football. Where if you support one football team you automatically assign positive attributes to the team you support and also view anyone else who supports the same team to be associated with your in-group and assign them with similarly positive attributes. Also this means that because you're a supporter of one team this would paint other teams and their supporters as outsiders or potential rivals, and this can result in the your team using such behaviours such as team chants/rituals talking about the other teams shortcomings to feel a sense of superiority over them and even using mockery all resulting in further reinforcing your preference to your own team. Contrary to the idea that being involved in a group depends on an automatic conflict to an outside group this in fact is strictly not the case though it can be a common theme. Marilynn Brewer Professor of psychology at Ohio State University in 2007 stated that people join groups to feel security and a sense of belonging and these qualities are in no relation to having a sense of conflict with other groups what so ever. 

Continue

Scarcity: Having less making you want more.

We as people have the innate tendency to value things more that are seen as a limited resource whether it is something is that you cant have or something that you already own but its availability has begun to decrease. Robert Caldini best known for his ideas's of influence in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion states that the idea that something is less available can enhance its desirability through fear that you are losing out on a potential opportunity; and this can cause you to act hastily when you normally wouldn't. Scarcity is used in a variety of situations such as advertising, dating, economics, sales etc. There are some common principles in regards to the use of scarcity which are transferable and commonly used in different contexts on addition to the ones previously mentioned.


There are three ways as to how availability can be threatened...


A deadline.
An effective way to make an opportunity scarce is to give it a deadline, this is because like most people you do not act unless you have to; for example if someone says '' I have a car to give you to you for free, you can pick it up when ever you want'' then it is going to be indefinitely available and then there's no rush to get it immediately because it'll be there tomorrow... and the day after that, and the day after that, and so on. But give it a deadline such as ''I have a car to give to you for free but only until Wednesday when I'll then decide to sell it'' then you will be compelled to act fast in case of missing an opportunity and reaching the point of no return.


Banning and restriction.
The cliche phrase of ''you want what you can't have'' holds true because the rule of scarcity suggests we value things that are unavailable, if someone banned or restricted something from you it gives the object greater value in your eyes and makes you want to have it that little bit more. Books such as The Clockwork Orange, the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Fallen Angels have all been banned at one time in or another in America which ironically resulted in the increase of sales, where as if there was no ban or restriction to these books then it would be highly unlikely that people would have taken as much  of an interest in them as they did anyway.


Limited quantity.
A limited quantity of an item can make people act with more urgency much like a deadline discussed earlier, think about what advertising always tells us ''Act now while supplies last!'', ''Limited supplies left!'', ''Only few are available!'', these phrases are designed to make people act quicker to catch the deal before it is gone forever. This principle can also make objects seemingly attractive, for instance diamonds; they are seen as a rare stone and because of this they are very expensive which makes them more scarce to most people as not everybody can afford them. The funny thing is diamonds are not actually rare (though they were in the past), because of higher interests the supplies of diamonds are limited to increase their value thus increasing their desirability.   

Robert Caldini states that scarcity is based off a similar phenomenon called reactance theory, which was first coined by psychologist Jack Brehm. Reactance theory effects one main component in driving human behaviour; our need to keep our freedoms. To elaborate; when our freedom to perform a certain behaviour is threatened or restricted, we have more desire to perform that behaviour. So when our free choice is limited/threatened by the restriction of something that we had access to before, we are motivated to regain control and possess the item more than we previously wanted to so we can maintain that free choice.

Much like when someone says to you ''I want to tell you something'' at that point your interested and offer to listen but your nonchalant about it, then not long after that they suddenly say ''actually don't worry about it, maybe I shouldn't tell you'' .... your interest has suddenly now peaked and your now hassling this person to tell you what they were going to tell you in the first place, you have pretty much changed your attitude simply because of the restriction of information you assumed you was getting anyway. That is how effective reactance theory can be.

Continue

The mere exposure effect: You may have seen it before.

In psychology the phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect first identified by Robert Zanjoc in 1968 is when an unfamiliar object you either dislike or feel indifference towards becomes familiar and something you grow to feel favourably towards because of repeat exposure. So in essence, the more you see, hear or taste something the more you like it. Humans like comfort and familiarity, and when faced with a choice between two opposing options for example such as buying shoe's from a well known brand versus buying shoe's from a new unknown brand, nine times out of ten you will choose the shoe's from the brand you know and are familiar with because of previous exposure. This goes to show that the comfort and familiarity that came with the known brand is key when it came to choosing between these two options, because what people are mainly looking for when making a choice similar to this one in question is whether or not it is a brand they can trust, and for the most part comfort and familiarity builds trust. 

Advertising
Advertising is notorious for using the mere exposure effect, when a company releases a new product their marketing campaign makes the use of bill boards, posters, television adverts, newspaper adverts, magazine adverts.... you name it. This gives this new product a sense of omnipresence when you add it all up but the real intention behind this is to get it noticed at least once a day so when you do finally come across this new product in the shop you feel a sense of familiarity towards it, this is because of the repeated exposure and now are that much more likely to purchase it. The use of trailers for movies are also a form of the mere exposure effect, by giving you a small sample of the movie you become aware of it, then with enough repeat exposures you become familiar with it and may decide to go out and watch it because you've begun to favour it more and more over time. Lastly music is unmistakeably something that commonly uses the mere exposure effect as a tool, at some point you may have decided you didn't like a piece of music or a tune based on your initial impression of it but after hearing it a few times on the radio and seeing a promotional advert of it on television a couple of times then even hear your friends talk about it which evokes social proof, you slowly come round to deciding that you want to know what the fuss is about and may even go out your way to listen to it and even purchase a copy. Quite effective.

SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

An experiment conducted by social psychology pioneer Robert Zajonc in 1968 involving him showing a group of American participants images of a selection of Chinese characters varying different exposures up to 25 times then questioning the participants about what they saw asking how favourably they felt to each character that was shown. Keeping in mind that each character had no initial meaning to each of the American participants, the results were that the characters that were rated favourably and had more positive connotations were shown more frequently than the others which were shown less frequently. Zajonc concluded that the extra favourability some of the Chinese characters received was because of the familiarity gained by each repeated exposure.

Human relationships

The mere exposure effect is prevalent in human relationships, similar to how advertising works; the more time spent with someone or even just seeing an individual the more likely you are to form a positive opinion about them. This is provided that they haven't done anything overly negative. There are many situations where being in close proximity to someone increases the likelihood of being favourable to a person or a group of people through repeated exposure where you otherwise would not have in a one off situation. These situations would include college dorms, holidays where you would be staying for a period of time, your local supermarket, the gym, your workplace, your local bar... the list is endless. This principle goes for attraction in human relationships also, the feeling of liking increases the chances of someone being a potential partner (think people who date people at their workplace) because of their positive opinion of them as a result of repeated exposure and due to this we find we can be comfortable around them, and as people we are attracted to things we feel we are comfortable with. 

An unusual experiment regarding the mere exposure effect was carried out by Professor Charles Geotzinger in 1968 in his classroom at Oregon State University where he had a mystery student attend one of the professors classes for two months in a black bin bag with only his bare feet showing, this occurred every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 11:00 am with the student sitting at the back of the classroom. None of the 20 students that attended his class knew the identity of this mystery student. To begin with the students showed hostility towards the person in the black bag, and then over time this changed to curiosity, then some time after that the students eventually showed a positive attitude and developed a friendship with this mystery student.

Continue

3 quick facts on body language and non verbal communication.

Body language can communicate a wealth of information about someone but usually people do not have the correct knowledge or have had the training to be able to spot the subtle sub-communications that take place that the person themselves aren't usually aware of. Having an awareness of peoples body language helps refine your quality of your personal interactions and make you that much more intuitive as you learn to fine tune your ''radar'' for other peoples non-verbals and even improve on your own body language as well. This brief guide on the psychology of body language will describe some facts about non verbal communication and the psychology behind these different aspects to help you understand why they are the way they are.


Having objects in front of your body
Having an object in front of you serves as a barrier between you and the other person you are speaking to and barriers normally indicate a sense of insecurity whether it is rooted from shyness, intimidation or maybe just plain distrust. For instance a desk between you and an upset worker at the office, a stool between you and a person you don't really want to speak to and a notepad between you and that person you are about to give bad news to all serve as a barrier or defensive mechanism in the same way you cross your arms when you a feeling insecure. Small objects can serve as barriers also such as a pen on a desk between you and someone else sitting on the other end the same goes for mugs, cups and utensils. Just about anything can be used as a form of a barrier to limit exposure to your body in case of a potential emotional attack. Joe Navarro an ex FBI agent speaks about body language and the use of objects in detail in his book What Every Body Is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People

Pupil body language
Whether someone is feeling either emotionally open or defensive isn't just indicated through the main parts of the body such as the arms, legs and torso, these emotions are also signaled via the pupils. For instance when you see something you favor, like or you're feeling aroused your pupils quickly open up and dilate to let in a substantial amount of light allowing a large amount of information to reach the brain, while on the other hand when you feel defensive or an unpleasant stimulus presents itself the pupils will close and constrict blocking information from reaching the brain as well. Keep in mind for contextual reasons changes in lighting as they affect how your pupils will react even before any emotions are present; in a brighter setting your pupils will constrict to stop too much reaching the brain while in a darker setting your pupils will dilate to allow more light to reach the brain giving you a better view. Think of the pupils as a something similar to a dimmer switch. Lastly these responses are purely subconscious; meaning we have no control and are barely aware these responses are even happening while there happening.

SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

Early attraction signs and body language
In regards to dating and courtship males and females are two different sides to the same coin. In the presence of the opposite sex who they find attractive they will carry out behaviours to emphasize certain characteristics and use body language and non verbal communication to also make themselves seem more attractive. For instance males may act more dominant when around a female they find attractive because dominance is a masculine trait females find attractive. When sitting down or walking he may spread his arms, legs and feet out more giving the impression that he needs more space to take up his large stature. The male may be more controlled in his general behavior also talking in a more deeper evened out voice while making the use of his hands to highlight what he is saying (again taking up space).

On the other side of the coin females will act more submissive when in the presence of a male they find attractive as submissiveness can emphasizes her femininity and males are more attractive to females who are very feminine. When she is seated or standing her legs are more close together to give the impression that she doesn't take up much physical space, the same reason goes for when she uses her hands when she speaks; she'll keep them close to her body not using a lot of the space around her and maybe highlighting parts of her body. She is more likely to perform other behaviors such as tilting her head to the side which exposes her neck making her seem more submissive, she may also have her back arched to tighten and highlight her buttocks while at the same time this same position pushes out her chest to emphasize her breasts also, though some females may lean forward to expose her breasts to give them more shape.

Continue

Negotiation Tactics.

Pretty much all of us have come across a situation where we have to negotiate whether it is trying to convince your boss for a pay rise, closing a deal for a new home or even selling a new product or service to a potential client, in reality more often than not you will find yourself in a position where you have to put forth your best foot to explain your reasons for your proposal or argument or convince somebody else to help you do something for you in exchange for something that benefits them also, sometimes its the other way round where someone is trying to convince you to help them. In regards to negotiating it is useful to learn some techniques not only to help you with your business and personal life but to help you recognize them being used on you also. 

Know who you are dealing with 

One of the most important aspects of negotiating and building your negotiation skills is the ability to recognize and understand the person you are dealing with, this will help you shape your proposal for maximum effect. What you are looking for is a good level of rapport so you can have an idea of their psychology, their background, likes, dislikes and more importantly find out what they'd most likely respond to. You may not get this completely correct every time but it gives you a better foot to stand on. Keeping your ears open for clues in the conversation and keeping your eyes open for visual cues or body language clues which will help you achieve a good personality profile to work with.

Conditioning

This always begins before you start your negotiations which you are essentially stating your conditions; this can take place over the phone, via email, letter etc for example...

You phone the car salesman who you want to purchase a new car from. He's says ''I will be happy to talk to you but I don't want to waste your time as I will only accept the full price of car and will be looking for a close in the next two days as there is another customer who is interested''

The car sales man has just preconditioned you to some terms without you really being able to chime in and make any requests your own. A way to counter this negotiation tactic is to state why you are you are calling in the first place and separate the conditions previously made to even out the playing field. You would say something like ''the reason of us sitting down and talking is to see if we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement in regards to price of the car, why don't we set those terms aside and see if we can agree on everything else.''

The use of higher authority

An effective way to reduce pressure in a negotiation is to introduce an authority who you will essentially need to gain approval from, this will basically take a small bulk of responsibility away from you and also will be useful in delaying the negotiations if you want  time to think things through. For instance if you want reduce the price of a product or service you are interested in and find yourself in a difficult position in the negotiating process you can say something like..

''Though what you are saying sounds tempting I will have to get back to you as I have to run it by my partner'' or ''I can see your prices are reasonable but I have spoken to my boss and he/she will not go higher than the price I stated earlier''.

When other people use this tactic sometimes the authority isn't real and use it to just give them an edge in the discussion. Lastly don't over use this tactic because if you do it will seem like you have no power in regards to the decision making and your negotiator will ask to see your supposed authority.

Free £59.50 from Topcashback. Click here to learn how!

Good cop bad cop

A very common if not cliché technique which is designed to soften up the person being negotiated, interviewed or interrogated. Often used in movies and crime drama's the good cop bad cop technique is where one person is being questioned by two other people and one of them is particularly aggressive and abusive giving the person being questioned hassle while the other person is the polar opposite being more reasonable and understanding. The fact that the bad guy is so aggressive makes the person taking the grilling more pliable to the good guy seeing as he is looking for some sort of relief from the negative situation the bad guy has created, thus making him/her that much more suggestible for a negotiation in the good guys favour. Using good cop bad cop doesn't always have to be used by two people, one person can use this also by displaying two sides of his/her personality essentially being polarising and confusing. This tactic can be quite manipulative. 

High balling

Sometimes risky, high balling is where if you were selling a car you would set a price higher than the price you really want, if somebody was interested in the car naturally they would try and negotiate a price where it is cheaper for them but because you've set the price so high in the first place you may end up with a price exactly what you wanted to end up with in the first place or even better you may sell the car for more than you wanted in the first place. Though sometimes if you high ball too far the customer may decide to walk away as the price is too high and deemed questionable which is why you have too be careful as you may get rejected quickly. Their are many applications for high balling such as selling items and products, asking for a pay rise, selling a house and a lot more. When you ask for more, who knows? You might get it.

Nibbling

As negotiating can sometimes be tiresome and exhausting the longer the process take the need to reach an agreement becomes more and more desired. After a long negotiation process and when both parties agree on closing the deal one of the two people involved might ask for one more thing to include in the deal, this is called nibbling. Just before pen hits paper a request is made making it hard to say no as usually the request is small and the person being asked is psychologically drained after such a drawn out process. A nibble will usually be asked with something like ''by the way can you include a spare mouse with that computer system?'' A small request which is perceived as harmless. Remember nibbles are saved until the end when the other party is psychologically vulnerable.

Continue