Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Surviving better with psychology, April 19, 2008
"The Psychology of Survivor" by Richard Gerrig (Editor) brings the innovative reality TV program, 'Survivor' to Ben Bella Book's excellent Psychology of Popular Culture series. Providing a popular forum for PhD-level psychologists, the series aims to make the sciences more accessible to the average person. Discussing how the contestant's actions on Survivor have supported various theories pertaining to cognition, sociopathy, arousal, deprivation, social comparison, identification and many other social psychology concepts, the sixteen thoughtful articles in this book serve to not only increase our appreciation for the TV series but also help us gain insight into how we might be able to better survive (and perhaps thrive) in our own daily environments.
Many of the authors wax nostalgic about the first series, 'Borneo' in which an air of suspense hung around what the outcome of this bold, new experiment in group behavior might be. (In fact, readers should be advised that 'Borneo' contestants are frequently referenced, which probably makes one's knowledge of the classic first season requisite to gaining full benefit from the book.) Richard Hatch serves as a particularly important topic: Kevin Apple and Melissa Beers contending that Mr. Hatch's allied voting strategy befuddled the director's intent to produce a Darwinist struggle of the fittest; P.A. Hancock drills into Mr. Hatch's personality to find that he used an extraordinary mix of rational and intuitive thinking processes to persevere; and Vivian Hayas highlights the situational contexts that played to Mr. Hatch's advantage and led him to victory. Reflecting upon these and a number of other astute analyses, we can ponder the meaning of the Survivor contestants' struggles and relate the lessons learned to our own life experiences.
Several authors go on to assess how contestant interpersonal dynamics have changed as the series has evolved. Brad Wolgast and Mario Lanza suggest that Brian Heidik's victory in 'Thailand' and Rob Cesternino's strategy in 'Amazon' served to validate a sociopathic style of play that has subsequently deprived the game of its original charm, with much less ethics and much more rational, cold-blooded calculation in evidence in later episodes than before; in another article, these same two authors propose that social role theory explains why non-threatening females have tended to fare better competitively than alpha males. But if one is still interested in competing, Stephanie deLuse offers tips on how an understanding of psychology can help you get the best result possible on the show, if not in one's own daily life.
Interestingly, we learn that an experiment like Survivor would not be permitted in a laboratory setting due to the psychological community's ethical standards; nonetheless, many of the contributors clearly value the rare opportunity that the series provides to study the subject's behaviors. For example, Renee Engeln-Maddox is fascinated by the reversals in female body image on Survivor where the thin ideal becomes a sign of physical weakness and objectification becomes just another strategy to gain competitive advantage. Amanda Dykema-Engblade contends that Survivor's contrived situations can induce heightened states of arousal whose intensity is sometimes transferred between contestants, citing numerous instances of emotional bonding on the show. Ashley Hunt and Richard Heyman discuss how the fundamental attribution error is in ample evidence as contestants condemn others for behaviors that they themselves deploy as a means to advance in the competition.
On the other hand, Anne Moyer believes that the stress induced by the promise of a $1 million prize and extreme competitiveness amounts to an unethical and unacceptable exploitation of Survivor contestants by its producers. And, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, Robert Batsell proposes an outrageous reality TV program that should give us pause as to how far the public might be willing to allow the entertainment industry to go in attempting to justify highly-questionable scripts in pursuit of mass ratings.
I highly recommend this entertaining and insightful book to everyone.
|
|
|
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Pop Psychology Examination of Reality Television's Granddaddy., December 7, 2007
This installment of BenBella Books "Psychology of Popular Culture" series takes a look at the granddaddy of reality shows, SURVIVOR. I've been a fan of SURVIVOR since the first season and was eager to see what various psychologists would have to say about how the show reflects psychology. The different aspects of the show examined are quite varied. Even though the book is written for the laymen, it covers some rather deep psychological issues. Possible explanations about why the show is popular; the changes in how people have played the game over time and how those changes mirror life outside of the game; the effect that neuroscience has on those playing the game; tips for viewers based upon social psychological research; the importance of manipulating impressions while playing the game; how stress psychologically effects and changes the people playing the game; the intense aroused feelings that contestants feel; an analysis of how Richard Hatch won the first season of SURVIVOR; the importance of SURVIVOR and shows like it for vicarious psychological experiments; the ways that SURVIVOR plays upon viewers' emotions; how SURVIVOR contradicts the social stereotypes about women in current American culture; what has been learned about social isolation from contestants on the show; what the typical SURVIVOR winner looks like; the rational and naturalistic models of decision-making that contestants use; and even some tips about what one should do in order to win the game are all examined in THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SURVIVOR.
I've never enjoyed studying psychology. I've never seen much use for it. I gained a better appreciation for the field after reading THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SURVIVOR. I think I learned more about psychology through reading this book and how it is actually useful in real life than I did in all of my college psychology courses combined.
Anyone who has an interest in popular culture and psychology, will probably enjoy looking at this book. Fans of SURVIVOR might enjoy it, too and if nothing else they will at least want to read the last chapter that offers some concrete tips about how to win the game if they're ever chosen to be on the show.
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Ridiculous, Absurd and Distorted Psychological Analysis of Survivor, June 6, 2009
This ridiculous book is a series of short articles written by psychology professors who appear to have nothing better to do with their time than to over-analyze a reality television show without understanding how television series are produced. This 2007 book contains briefs articles covering topics ranging from "The Neuroscience of Survivor" (???) to "Survivor: A Series of Analogue Behavioral Observations." None of the pieces make any sense within the context of real life and most of them are incredibly dated--with many references made to the 2000 first season of the show. Most of the writers appear to think the show has been the same since day one, ignoring dramatic changes in how the game as been played over the years and failing to address racial, sexual and ethical issues that have developed more recently.
The absurd premise of this book is that the contestants on the island are experiencing things that these Ph.D.s claim that we all go through in our workplaces and relationships. The problem is that the writers all ignore the major factors in Survivor: no one addresses the fact that lying & deception (a personal loss of ethics) is required in order to get through the game; no one mentions the fact that what viewers at home see is edited by producers and may not represent anything close to what truly occurred on the island; and everyone overlooks the fact that the people on the show are "cast," hand-picked to be mostly young and beautiful to attract a young demographic to the old-skewing CBS network.
Namely, sticking 18 people on a deserted island for 40 days where they vote each other off and having everything that's said edited to create caricatures is nothing close to reality, so how can psychological parallels be drawn to everyday life?
How can academics who know nothing about television use a TV show to make such sweeping generalizations and conclusions? They fail in every single account to understand how the show is put together, that the audience's emotions are manipulated by producers that are creating characters by only showing certain scenes, and those "cast" to "star" on the show don't come close to representing the average citizen.
Yet these college teachers waste their time and research skills trying to draw conclusions based on false assumptions. Psychology experts shouldn't be proclaiming truth based on their misinterpretations of distorted reality TV characters. There could be an idea for a book here--but they need to deal with the real issues involved in the creation of the show instead of hypothesizing that what we see on the TV screen represents the average person's reality.
Most of the articles are simplistic at best, misleading at worst. Having known a number of people involved with this show and other reality series, I can tell you that they would laugh at the ridiculous conclusions drawn by these highbrow viewers. The writers don't understand the show at all and instead use it to spout psychological theories that have nothing to do with the reality of Survivor.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Mark Burnett
by Mark Burnett
by Neil Mulholland PhD
