Brutal sports battle

In November 1951, the Dartmouth College football team traveled to Princeton University to play the final game of the season. For Princeton, the contest had special significance: it was the farewell performance of their All-American quarterback, Heisman Trophy winner Dick Kazmaier. Princeton had an 18–1 record at home during Kazmaier’s tenure, and they walked onto their turf that day undefeated for the season.

From the opening kickoff, it was a brutal affair. Kazmaier suffered a late hit in the second quarter that broke his nose, caused a concussion, and forced him from the field. In retaliation, Princeton defenders knocked two consecutive Dartmouth quarterbacks out of the game, one of them with a broken leg. Several fights erupted, and referees’ flags filled the afternoon air, most of them signaling “roughing.” Although Princeton prevailed, both sides left the stadium bitter and resentful about the on-field violence.

In the days that followed, perceptions of the game diverged wildly, depending on scholastic allegiance. Princeton supporters denounced Dartmouth’s “dirty play,” and the Daily Princetonian decried Dartmouth for “deliberately attempting to cripple Kazmaier.” The Dartmouth student paper countered, accusing Princeton’s coach of urging his players to “get” the Dartmouth quarterbacks.

Perceptual differences weren’t limited to players and attendees. A Dartmouth alumnus in the Midwest heard reports of his team’s “disgusting” play and requested a copy of the game film. After viewing it, he sent a telegram to the university: “Viewing of the film indicates considerable cutting of important parts. Please airmail the missing excerpts.” Why did he believe that the film had been altered? Because when he watched it, he didn’t perceive any cheap shots by his team. So he presumed that they were edited out.

Intrigued by the perceptual gulf between Princeton and Dartmouth devotees, two psychologists—Albert Hastorf from Dartmouth and Hadley Cantril from Princeton— teamed up to study reactions to the game.

What they found was striking. After viewing the game film, students from both schools were asked, “Who instigated the rough play?” Princeton students overwhelmingly blamed Dartmouth, while Dartmouth students attributed the initiation of violence to both sides. When questioned about whether Dartmouth had intentionally injured Kazmaier, Princeton students said yes; Dartmouth students said no. And when asked about penalties, Dartmouth students perceived both teams as committing the same number. Princeton students said Dartmouth committed twice as many as Princeton. Though the two groups saw the same film, they perceived two very different games.

Although Hastorf and Cantril examined rival perceptions of a historic college football game, their results tell us much about the challenges we face in responsibly perceiving other people. Each of us perceives the “games,” “cheap shots,” and “fights” that fill our lives in ways skewed to match our own beliefs and desires. All too often we fail to consider that others feel just as strongly about the “truth” of their viewpoints as we do about ours. Every time we perceive our own behavior as beyond reproach and others’ as deficient, see others as exclusively to blame for conflicts, or neglect to consider alternative perspectives and feelings, we are exactly like the Dartmouth and Princeton fans who only could perceive the transgressions of the other team.

But successful communication and healthy interpersonal relationships are not built upon belief in perceptual infallibility. Instead, they are founded upon recognition of our perceptual limitations, constant striving to correct perceptual errors, and sincere effort invested in considering others’ viewpoints.

II. Terms

In your essays for this course it is very important to use the terminology of communication science. Therefore, take time to learn the terms and their meanings in each chapter. In the face-to-face version of this course, various interactive techniques will be used to test your knowledge of the major terms. In the online version of the class you will review the terms independently. Make sure you use the terms referred to below in your essays.

Active strategies of UR Actor-observer effect Algebraic impression Empathic concern Empathy External attributions Fundamental attribution error Gender Gestalt Halo and Horns effect Implicit personality theory Impression formation In-group Interactive strategies of UR Internal attributions Negativity effect Organizing

Out-group Passive strategies of UR Perception Personal constructs Perspective taking Polyanna effect Prototypes Punctuation Recalling Remembering Scripts Selection Salience Self-serving bias Stereotypes Stereotyping Uncertainty reduction

III. Names

It is very important to remember the names of scholars who contributed to communication theory. Your essays will sound more professional if you make reference to the people mentioned in this brochure. In the face-to-face version of this course, and in the audio lectures that accompany the online version of this course the names of these scholars will be routinely used to refer to various concepts. Study the names of communication scholars and try to remember their contribution to the science.

Asch, Solomon Berger, Charles Bruner, Jerome Calabrese, Richard DeVito, Joseph Kelly, Harold

Lippman, Walter Osgood, Charles Emerton Thorndike, Edward Titchener, Edward Bradford Von Ehrenfels, Christian

Дата добавления: 2015-10-30