in ,

Stars & real role models

role models

That we orient ourselves to role models is a deeply human quality. In biology, this phenomenon is called social learning. Compared to other forms of learning in which the individual is on their own, social learning, or even imitation learning, has great advantages: you do not have to try everything yourself, you do not have to be very creative, and you do not have to make every mistake yourself. Social learning is therefore a fairly efficient way to acquire skills and decision-making strategies. Not every fellow human being comes as an example in the shortlist. Who we choose as a role model depends, among other things, on our individual life situation. In the early childhood phase, the parents are the most influential influences. The actions of those closest to us socially shape our behavioral tendencies from earliest childhood. For example, parents who do not like to eat vegetables themselves will have little success in getting their offspring to a healthy diet.

But the influence of parents on their offspring is dwindling with age: the social orientation is shifting more and more in the direction of peers. If, during puberty, it is primarily about being established within the social circle in which you are moving, other people will be the center of our attention in adulthood.

role models

The British website YouGov.co.uk carried out a survey of around 2015 people in 25.000 countries in 23, looking at the most popular personalities and role models in each country. The best global placements by points: Angelina Jolie (10,6), Bill Gates (9,2), Malala Yousafzai (7,1), Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (6,4), Queen Elisabeth II (6,0) , Xi Jinping (5,3), Michelle Obama and Narendra Modi (4,8), Celine Dion (4,6), Ophra Winfrey (4,3), Pope Francis (4,1), Julia Roberts and Dalai Lama ( 4,0).

How do you become a role model?

Today, role models are mostly people who are in the public eye. This public reach creates an important basis for being effective as a role model. It is not enough to do great things that are at least as important as to let others know about them. Therefore, the media representation of individuals plays a special role in the creation of role models. Those people who are the focus of attention will be listened to, regardless of whether or not they can give a qualified opinion on the subject at hand. Leonardo DiCaprio recently became a hero on Facebook and Twitter and in other media because he called for more sustainable behavior in a thank-you speech. Not because of his qualifications, nor because of his exceptionally sustainable actions, but because of his popularity, he became a role model in sustainability.

Indeed, sometimes effective visibility seems to be the only factor that determines fitness as a role model. This phenomenon is related to another psychological effect: we prefer things that are familiar to us and find them more beautiful. So the more we are exposed to a certain stimulus, the more we like it.
Thus, media presence leads to people being taken seriously as pioneers and opinion leaders, far beyond the limits of their substantive competence. This phenomenon is rooted in our evolutionary history. While social learning is a cost-effective strategy for learning new things, it should not be completely undifferentiated. In the animal kingdom, social learning is often limited to mimicking the behavior of known individuals. Foreign conspecifics are not so trustworthy as role models and are therefore less often imitated. The media presence creates a pseudo-social relationship with the celebrities. The real experts, who only have their say when they have something to contribute in terms of content, lack this access. Therefore, paradoxically, we as strangers perceive them as less credible, although their technical competence would justify the opposite.

In advertising, this phenomenon is used: Stars promote products of all kinds. Now it is hardly to be expected that skiers possess special expertise in chocolate, or that an American actor knows more about coffee than the average Austrian. Nonetheless, companies are reaching deep into their pockets to connect a familiar face to their product. Even if advertising builds on expert opinions, it does not do it the way you would expect it, it really was about the expertise: Instead of letting many professionals speak, a person is established as an expert face. This strategy requires more time - the familiarity with the model has yet to be built - but can be successful in the long run.

Sciences do not provide 100-related statements. But nothing else interests the public as an argument for a role model.

Models are communication professionals

Currently, role models are those people who can successfully convey messages. It is particularly important to find a language that is understood. Again, people are often superior to the public. The sometimes superficial knowledge that stars have about topics they communicate makes it easier to wrap the messages they want to convey into simple words. Scientists, in particular, often have the opposite problem: by having sound in-depth knowledge, it is often impossible for them to reduce statements to easily digestible messages. The extraction of the central statement from a scientific work represents an almost insoluble task. Sciences, which deal with probabilities and distributions, do not provide one hundred percent statements. But nothing else interests the public as an argument for a role model.

Ideal role models

Ideal role models are people who combine a wide variety of qualities:
a) They can rely on a substantiated content that gives them expert status.
b) They have media visibility to give their message broad impact.
c) They are able to communicate messages so that they are understood by the public.
Since an egg-laying wool milk sow with such diverse characteristics scarcely exists, the question arises, if we can expect from scientists and experts really that they take role model effect in our society. It might be more useful to distribute the tasks in such a way that people who are excellent communicators are informed by experts so well that they can do their role as best as possible. Especially in science communication, a role distribution between scientists and science journalists emerges: Scientists focus on generating new knowledge and communicating it in the scientific community. The bridge between research and the public is being struck by others: science journalists with sufficient understanding to understand information from the scientific world translate it into a language that is generally understandable. If one succeeds in gaining the trust of knowledge creators and knowledge consumers, then the most important step in disseminating substantive messages is done.

The evolutionary mismatch

The mechanisms used in the selection of role models and in assessing the credibility of others have emerged in the course of our evolutionary history under conditions that are massively different from the current environment. Our ancestors could increase the effectiveness of social learning by learning from acquaintances. However, modern technologies create a pseudo-familiarity with people we do not actually know. Those who are virtually regular guests in our living room become virtual members of our group. That's why we believe them and choose them as role models. This carries the risk of trusting the wrong person, simply because we believe we know them. As long as we are aware that this gut feeling of trust is not necessarily a reliable basis, we can consciously counter it.

Role models: Fall Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg (facebook) hit the headlines earlier this year by donating much of his fortune. He was quickly made a hero, but soon doubts arose. The attempt to improve his image through this action was not entirely successful. Previously, there had been dissatisfaction that Zuckerberg hardly paid taxes despite billions in sales. While the immediate reaction in the social media was a wave of enthusiasm, the reaction in the classic media remained subdued. And rightly so, as it turned out, donations are the perfect way to save taxes, especially in the US. In addition, the money never left control of Zuckerberg's empire: the foundation is subject to the billionaire's instructions, and is likely to work in line with its goals.

This case highlights an extremely paradoxical phenomenon: those who abide by the rules and support social interaction through their normative behavior, for example by paying their social security contributions and taxes, are not perceived at all. On the other hand, those who are incapacitated by social abuse become heroes. We tend to underestimate things that conform to the norm while overstating rare things. As a result, we only become aware when something unusual happens. That is why rule-compliant behavior is hardly worth mentioning. Only by raising awareness of this distortion can we counteract this phenomenon.

Photo / Video: Shutterstock.

Leave a Comment