Posts Tagged ‘Chameleon Effect’

Sway: Another Example of the “Chameleon Effect”

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Yesterday I wrote about how the trainees enrolled in a leadership course in the Israeli military were affected by the Chameleon Effect. Today I want to talk about another fascinating experiment described in the book Sway that demonstrates the ‘Chameleon Effect’ in action. Just to review, the ‘Chameleon Effect’ takes place when a person, or people, get influenced and change their behaviour based on how another person, or people, label them.

This experiment consisted of two parts. During the first part, fifty-one women were supposed to have a brief conversation with a men randomly assigned to them. These men and women signed up for a study on communication. The time allotted to the conversation was not long enough to engage into anything much deeper than chit-chat about the weather, past education, current work, and maybe some interests. The women were just told to sit by the phone and wait for it to ring. Each man, on the other hand, was given a sheet of paper, several minutes before the call, with the brief biography and a picture of a woman he was about to talk to.

The biographies were accurate, but the pictures were bogus and were carefully chosen by the researchers before the experiment. Half the men were given pictures of very attractive women and the other half were given pictures of ordinary looking women. As you can guess, the men gave the bio snapshot a quick glance and paid a lot more attention to the attached picture.

After reviewing the profile of the women they were about to call, the men were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their expectations regarding women’s personalities. Regardless of what was written in the bio snapshot, the men who were given pictures of very attractive women expected to talk to “sociable, poised, humorous, and socially adept women.” The group of men who were shown pictures of ordinary looking women, thought they would be chatting with “unsociable, awkward, serious, and socially inept” women. Women, of course, had no idea that this was going on.

As you can imagine, once men formed their opinions about the women they were about to talk to, they brought that bias into the conversation. When the men started talking to their women, the other, even more interesting, part of the experiment started.

During the second part, the researchers recorded the conversations of all the pairs. They then isolated women’s voices and played them to a group of twelve ordinary people who knew nothing about the study and have not met any of the participants. These twelve people were asked to fill in the same questionnaire about women’s personalities. Remarkably, they attributed the same traits to the women based on their voices alone, as the men attributed earlier based on their fake pictures.

This is an incredible example of how expectations of one person are picked up on, and, in turn, acted out by the other person. While fascinating, it is somewhat disturbing to know that once you form the expectations, they are difficult to change. My hope is that being aware of this will help me avoid this trap in the future. Or at least, by expecting the best from people, I can hopefully bring that side of them out into the open more often.

Until Monday,

V

Sway: Third Trap Of Diagnosis (or Decision Making)

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

Last week I talked about the three traps of diagnosis (or decision making). Just to recap the three traps,

Trap 1: Ignoring Objective Data
Trap 2: Giving Credit To Irrelevant Information
Trap 3: The ‘Chameleon Effect’

Earlier this week I gave you examples of the first and second traps in real life. The examples included the NBA, with how the draft pick order affects players’ careers, and the standard job interview procedure, which produces a lot of irrelevant and useless information about prospects future performance. Today I want to give you a more detailed example of the third trap of the diagnosis bias. This example, much like the other ones, comes from the book Sway, and it is about the Israeli army and a cool psychological experiment performed by Dov Eden.

The third trap is known as the ‘Chameleon Effect’. The ‘Chameleon Effect’ takes place when a person, or people, get influenced and change their behaviour based on how another person, or people, label them. This is counter-intuitive, but we are not talking about rational behaviour, are we? We are exploring irrational behaviour after-all. Now, let’s talk about this awesome experiment.

Don Eden approached the training officers who would soon be instructing a leadership development course for junior officers – pretty much grooming the leaders of tomorrow for the Israeli military. Mr. Eden informed these training officers, that based on the accumulated data on all the trainees, which included “psychological test scores, sociometric data from the previous course, and ratings by previous commanders”, each trainee was put into one of three ‘command potential’ categories: ‘high’, ‘regular’, and ‘unknown’ (for trainees with insufficient data). The training officers were told that they had to learn the names of their trainees and the associated ‘command potential’ profiles.

Now, since you know that this is an experiment, you probably figured out by now that the trainees had no idea that this was going on and that all the ‘command potential’ scores were assigned at random based on completely bogus data.

But here is the fun part. Fifteen weeks later, at the end of the course, all the trainees were taking a written test based on the materials they learned during the program. Dov Eden analysed the results of the tests and found that the trainees “whom the training officers thought had a high CP [command potential] score performed much better on the test (scoring an average of 79.98) than their ‘unknown’ and ‘regular’ counterparts (who scored 72.43 and 65.18, respectively). Simply being labeled, however arbitrarily, as having high leadership potential translated directly into actual improved ability – improved by a staggering 22.7 percent… Without realizing it, the trainees had taken on the characteristics of the diagnoses ascribed to them.” The ‘Chameleon Effect’!

Pretty cool, isn’t it?

I am sure you have heard of a similar experiment conducted in a school with ‘excellent’ teachers assigned ‘gifted’ students and achieving much better results with them than ‘average’ teachers teaching ‘troublesome’ students. Of course, like in the Mr. Eden’s experiment, teachers and students had their labels assigned at random.

So labeling is dangerous and can really affect performance. What experiences do you have with labeling? Have you labeled others based on your initial impression or some bogus statistics? Or maybe, have you been labeled in the past by someone else and suffered, or excelled, as a result?

Tomorrow I will talk about another fascinating example of the the third trap at work; this time it is about men and women!

Until next time,

V