“It’s the first incident of a consumer boycott on Ariel College” declared Yonit Levy on Israel’s Channel 2 news a couple of days ago. According to the report, Rami Goldstein, the manager of a model airplane store in Haifa refused to supply equipment to the college, arguing, “As a person who cares about Israel, I think that Ariel is an obstacle [to peace].”
Goldstein’s action occured not long after a large group of artists refused to perform in a new theater in Ariel. A coincidence? Maybe. But, it is also possible that the artist’s action inspired and motivated Goldstein.
Indeed, research into social psychology has long demonstrated the impact of a model on human behavior. As early as the 1950s, a series of experiments by Blake Grosser et al, Rosenblith, and Schachter and Hall, have shown that soley observing a model response can effect a subject’s reaction to their immediate social setting. Consistent with these findings, Albert Bandura emphasizes in his social learning theory the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others and stated that “… most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.”
Why does modeling have such a strong impact on our behavior? A recent theory from social psychology, called “construal level theory” offers some clues. According to this theory, concrete things are perceived to be more proximal than distal things. For example, a vivid mental imagery about an event makes it seem more proximal (in time, or in place) than thinking about it in words (“inner speech”). The action of the artists in Ariel is a concrete depiction of an abstract opinion about the political situation, and is therefore perceived as psychologically close. It is possible that perceived proximity encourages an immediate imitation of the presented behavior.
The insights from the social psychology domain, as well as the action of Goldstein suggest that the impact of the artist’s refusal to perform in Ariel is much larger than originally considered, even by the artists themselves. Their action enabled and facilitated a transformation of abstract attitudes to a concrete action, which in turn will enable and facilitate more action. Furthermore, it pushed for an immediate, rather than delayed behavior. The fact that the artists are public figures bears a special importance, because their action attracts attention and provides further legitimacy to the action.
Yesha’ayahu Leibowitz once said that if 500 soldiers would refuse to the serve in the occupied territories it would bring the occupation to an end. Indeed, 500 people might not be enough today. However, the impact of social modeling still has the power to slowly but gradually change the reality. Democratic protests against events that are inconsistent with the views of the individual, such as the refusal to perform in the occupied territories, are therefore an important path to have an impact and create a change.
Elinor Amit is a post doctoral student in the psychology department at Harvard University. She moved to the US from Israel in 2008.
