A Laboratory Study of Behavioral Contagion

Grosser, Daniel; Polansky, Norman A.; Lippitt, Ronald

doi:10.1177/001872675100400201

Cited by 47 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We distinguish social contagion from social facilitation, which is concerned merely with the presence of conspecifics rather than conspecifics engaged in the same behavior as the recipient [Epple & Alveario, 1985;Gochfeld, 1978;Guerin & Innes, 1984;Stamm, 1961;Straumann & Anderson, 1991;Zajonc, 1965]. Behavioral social contagion has been demonstrated for humans [Jones, 1998;Polansky et al, 1950;Rodgers & Rowe, 1993;Wheeler, 1966Wheeler, , 1968Wheeler et al, 1964] and for a number of other species and behaviors, including feeding behavior in puppies, pigs, ponies, cows, chickens, and other birds [Benham, 1982;Birke, 1974;Evans & Marler, 1994;Grosser et al, 1951;James, 1953;Keeling & Hurnik, 1993;Kilgour, 1978;Sweeting et al, 1985;Tolman, 1967aTolman, , b, 1968Tolman & Wilson, 1965;Turner, 1964]; preening behavior in birds [Birke, 1974;Palestis & Burger, 1998]; nest building in birds [Birke, 1974;Bruen & Dunham, 1973]; and running speed in dogs [Scott & McRay, 1967]. Studies of behavioral contagion (also called the ''neighbor effect'') [Baker & Aureli, 1996] in primates have focused primarily on agonistic behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighbor effect: evidence of affiliative and agonistic social contagion in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Videan

Fritz

Schwandt

et al. 2005

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies of captive chimpanzees have demonstrated the "neighbor effect," or social contagion, with respect to agonistic vocalizations and behaviors. The present study considers whether there is a relationship between behavior patterns in focal animals and the auditory signals of neighboring social groups. Using focal-group sampling, we collected 172.5 hr of data on 51 subjects (25 females and 26 males) housed in 10 social groups. We performed two-tailed Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests to determine whether the relative frequency of the vocalizations (high vs. low) affected the behaviors. In keeping with past research, we found that agonistic noises and vocalizations from neighboring social groups had a significant effect on the rates of focal-group bluff displays, pant-hoots, and aggression (P<0.05). In addition, we also found significant relationships between grooming behavior and vocalizations in focal groups, and grooming vocalizations from neighboring groups (P<0.05). The results suggest that social contagion is not limited to aggressive behaviors, but also occurs for affiliative behavior patterns.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighbor effect: evidence of affiliative and agonistic social contagion in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Videan

Fritz

Schwandt

et al. 2005

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…POWER STRUCTURE or influence structure has received considerable attention by students of group interaction, notably by Grosser, Polansky and Lippitt (1951), March (1951), Lippitt, Polansky and Rosen (1952), Mills (1953), Hurwitz, Zander and Hymovitch (1953), Taylor (1954), and Dahl (1957). A creditable summary of methods of measuring influence in groups has been made by March (1956); measures have been made of general and specific (to a situation) influence of members, of shifts of opinion caused by influential members during group discussions, and of behaviors taken as indicators of influence.…”

Section: Variables Which Influence Communication In Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontmatter

1970

Language Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elwood Murray once described the communication edifice as "... an elaborate old mansion built on some extremely valuable property in the midst of a projected urban redevelopment project". The old mansion he referred to still stands, and the property on which it was built is more valuable than ever. Moreover, during the past few decades the dwelling has undergone such dramatic changes in both structure and function that even some of its tenants have trouble recognizing it. The mansion is no longer the same because of scholars like Elwood Murray. When Elwood Murray became Director of the School of Speech at the University of Denver in the early 1930's, college programs in communication were largely limited to training in fundamental skills such as voice, diction, and bodily action. Much attention was also given to oratory, debate, oral interpretation, and similar performance activities. Advanced courses and a great deal of the research in communication at that time focused on the history and theory of 'speechmaking'. Semantics, linguistics, group communication and the diagnosis and treatment of communication disorders received little emphasis. Professor Murray had no objection to curricula designed to improve communication skills and platform effectiveness. Indeed, he was very much aware of the value such training has for the individual and his society. He was convinced, however, that to be meaningful, communication training should be concerned with all factors that influence the communication process and not merely with a few. He also felt that the speech educator has a responsibility to bring about comprehensive and long lasting changes in the speech personality of his students, changes that would be reflected in the students' casual interaction as well as in their more formal speaking performances. One cannot broaden the goals of speech or communication training without also expanding the speech teacher's responsibilities as a student and a scholar. The teacher of public speaking, for example, should be well grounded in rhetoric and, among other things, have a good understanding of platform techniques. But this knowledge must be supplemented with relevant theory and research in the behavioral sciences if he is to encourage his students to develop more general communication PREFACE and as an area of inquiry. The readings are all original, not reprints, and they were prepared specifically for this collection. The authors represent such fields as speech and communication, psychology, anthropology, business administration, English, sociology, linguistics, education, and mineralogy. The subjects discussed range from such theoretical concerns as communication models and theories of perception to such practical matters as speech and communication training for middle management and the diagnosis of communication disorders. The book is divided into four parts. Each part is devoted to an important area of communication study and research that Elwood Murray helped integrate into speech and communication curricula: Communic...

show abstract

“…Each 8 boy aggregate was assigned to draw figure 8's on graph paper for 30 minutes. The boys were placed in an intentionally frustrating task designed for a recent study (Grosser, Polansky, & Lippitt, 1951). The situation was made even more difficult by placing several dart games and inflated balloons in the working area.…”

Section: Validation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

An instrument for classifying impulse control among boys.

Matsushima¹

1964

Journal of Consulting Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Laboratory Study of Behavioral Contagion

Cited by 47 publications

References 0 publications

Neighbor effect: evidence of affiliative and agonistic social contagion in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Neighbor effect: evidence of affiliative and agonistic social contagion in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Frontmatter

An instrument for classifying impulse control among boys.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About