While scrolling through channels on the TV one evening this week, I stumbled across one of my favorite shows, Survivor. As I settled into watch, I realized how perfectly Survivor illustrates many of the concepts of teams and organizations. We can see how the producers manipulate the group development process, how the fundamental attribution error influences players, and how group decision-making concepts effect how the game plays out.
I think one of the things that makes Survivor so interesting and drama-filled is the fact that, especially in the beginning, they force the tribes, or teams as I will call them here, to stay in the forming and storming stages of Tuckman’s developmental stages of groups. According to Pennsylvania State University (2017), these are the stages where the teams get together and get to know one another politely and then begin to attempt to sort out their roles with much intragroup conflict, respectively. As soon as the teams begin to enter the “norming” stage, where roles are figured out and groups are beginning to operate more efficiently, the producers of the show randomly switch up the groups and force the contestants to start all over. I think the prevention of moving onward into the performing stage of Tuckman’s stages is part of what makes Survivor so interesting. As viewers, we never get to see teams work seamlessly together, but we do get to see the repeated formation and conflicts that come with the initial stages of team development. While not ideal for creating effective teams, this makes for wonderfully drama-filled team dynamics for us as viewers.
We also see a lot of examples of the fundamental attribution error in Survivor. As the contestants on the show get to know one another and figure out who they want to form alliances with or work against, there are many instances where constants will attribute another person’s actions or attitudes to that person’s personal disposition. Later, we viewers often see interviews with that person, who will explain their actions or attitudes as responses to a situation. We often hear comments along the lines of “I’ve never been outside of my city before, so this is really different” or “I just lashed out because I’m so tired/hungry/stressed”. As Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012) note, the fundamental attribution error involves people attributing another’s behavior or attitudes to their personal demeanor, rather than taking situational factors into account. As we see in the case of Survivor, these fundamental attribution errors play a major role in how contestants view one another and select alliance members. If contestants attributed behaviors appropriately, it is possible that alliances could be different and the entire game could proceed in an entirely new way.
Finally, viewers can definitely see both normative and informational influences at play in decision making in Survivor. For example, alliances are an important part of the game of Survivor, with members of groups banding together to ensure their “survival” in the game. Often, a majority of a group will decide to work against a certain individual and, even if others disagree, they do not want to go against this majority group and make themselves a future enemy. This, according to Schneider et al. (2012), is an example of the pressure to conform influencing decision making, or the normative influence. On the other hand, situations in Survivor often occur where an individual is certain they will vote a certain way but then discover information from other group members that changes their perception of the situation, often leading to a change in their vote. This is a perfect example of informational influence, where information from others provides a person more information about a social situation (Schneider et al., 2012). The work of both of these group decision-making factors makes for interesting dynamics in this game, as we watch contestants grapple with both informational and normative pressures.
It is fascinating to me to see how so many aspects of group and organizational social psychology can be seen in something as mindless as a reality TV gameshow. After realizing this about Survivor, there are so many more identifiable layers to the game. I thought I enjoyed watching it before, but after having a more complete understanding of social psychology, it makes watching it even more interesting!
References
Pennsylvania State University. (2017). Organizational Life AND Teams. [Online Lecture]. Retrieved from http://cms.psu.edu.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
