1. When during a season do clear social distinctions become highlighted?
Tribal Councils, where players must vote one person off of the show and eliminate their chance of winning $1 million, are the most obvious times during which social formations can be seen taking shape. The alliances that people stick to, the discussions directly prior to voting, and even the facial expressions of tribe members as the votes are read aloud, reveal the intentions that are rooted in the players’ games. However, what is not as clear is that the frantic panic of players as they scramble at camp before going into a Tribal Council exemplifies just as much — if not more — about social strategies and values.
While general trends in social game tend to evolve as the years go by and knowledge of the game increases (in Season 1: Borneo, players found strength in authentic alliances and flippers were scorned, while in Season 31: Cambodia, a modernized “voting block” strategy, in which players would vote with different people depending on their desires at the upcoming Tribal Council, emerged), it can never be denied that the people you vote with reveal your own social position. When you have a Tribal Council ahead of you where your opportunity of a lifetime could be wiped out, do you vote with the alliance you genuinely trust, do you abandon ship and vote with people who will take you farther in the game, or do you combine the two methods and play like Survivor: Cagayan’s winner, Tony Vlachos, who played a “smart, often erratic, and ultimately villainous game … [but] built trust with people who had no business trusting him”(Wilder), using his charming persona to continue reeling formerly abandoned allies back in? With all this said, however, it can still be argued that since there is $1 million on the line in Survivor, the lines of social game are often blurred with those of strategic game, and the conclusions made may not always be accurate.
2. Following up with the previous question, then how, if it does, does Survivor conduct an accurate experiment to present social differences and instincts when there are $1 million on the line?
In Survivor, the social experiment consists of not only mundane instincts and alliances – it observes how far people are willing to go to win $1 million, and their approach in accomplishing this. There is questioning of moral righteousness, disregarding (or for some individuals, regarding!) of personal values and manipulation that, in real life, would be considered completely inhumane.
For example, in Survivor: Cambodia, Jeremy Collins revealed to the cast (including the jury, the people who ultimately choose the “Sole Survivor” of the season) that his wife was pregnant while he was on the show only once he made it to the Final 3. He triggered sympathy from the cast and, while there truthfully was not much controversy at the time due to efforts to comfort rather than attack Jeremy, it today is debatable as to whether his intention behind this reveal was an expression of genuine closeness and trust of the other castaways, or a cunning move to devilishly earn himself jury votes. Furthermore, Jonny Fairplay from Survivor: Pearl Islands, is infamously known for carrying out a scheme in which he tricked his tribe into believing his grandmother was dead — to make matters worse, he pretended the death had occurred while he was on the show, and he only found out from a friend who came to visit … which, of course, happened to be minutes before a somewhat crucial immunity challenge. As the particular challenge that day was one in which not only brain and brawn were required, but heart, castaways were soft and Jonny easily won. Survivor’s host, Jeff Probst, says “‘[this] was brilliant from a strategy [point of view] and horrifying on a basic human level’”(Schacter).
On the other hand, one could argue that the $1 million has no influence on the social game — it is solely there to attract castaways and make for a grand finish. Joe Anglim, for instance, was simply an athletic, hard-working, good-looking athlete in his first season, Survivor: Worlds Apart. He played with no intention of highlighting a strong social game; he was kind and helpful around camp, but did not force alliances and strong bonds. Once his tribe mates saw that Joe was absolutely dominating immunity challenges, they tried to vote him out immediately, and because he had no social game to back him up … they succeeded. In another season, Survivor: Cambodia, Joe once again was voted off for the same reason – he was too big of a physical threat. After yet another loss, Joe remarked that he certainly could have made it farther in his second season, if only he “[hadn’t given] it [his] all in challenges … [however] it’s easy to say that [afterwards], but [that’s] not a part of who [he is] to play down like that”(Helling). Joe’s seasons of Survivor potentially prove that your moral values cannot escape you, even with a prize at stake. Whether humanity is ditched or not however, Survivor (when viewed properly!) illustrates a fascinating and accurate social experiment.
3. How does the thought process in determining who to vote out vary for different players?
The type of players you want to vote off depends on the type of player that you are. For instance, players who dominate in physical challenges (like Joe and Ozzy Lusth, a power player from Survivor: Cook Islands, Micronesia, South Pacific, and Game Changers) vote against physically weaker players so that the remaining players are “[ones] who think [they] can beat [them]”(Ross), or the ones who can ultimately keep their physical strengths in hiding until they rise to the top during the final rounds. On the contrary, weaker players aim to vote out the power players early on, in fear that if they go any further, they will continue to win immunity challenges and never become vulnerable at Tribal Councils.
Different approaches to getting further in the game can also influence the thought processes of players; some players believe there is strength in a trust and vote with their allies, while others like Jon Misch from Survivor: San Juan del Sur are not afraid to jump ship when they feel it may give them immediate individual benefits and say – aggressively! – that “[they] didn’t come [on Survivor] to make friends”(Gerrig 7).
Additionally, the different types of castaways on Survivor throughout the years have also shown different approaches when it comes to voting – with no intention of stereotyping, it seems as though many of the academically inclined, “brain” players “change [their] behaviors as a result of being in different situations”(Gerrig 51) and try to predict how other players will vote in order to cast their own votes effectively. For example, Spencer Bledsoe (who was literally placed on the “Brain” tribe in Survivor: Cagayan) was cunning, which helped him at first, but ultimately made him seem unreliable and very independent, leading to the recognition of his poor sociality and the end to his game. Meanwhile, strong “brawn” players and “beauty” players who seem to be useless (only beautiful, as their title describes!) and stay hidden until they triumph later on in the game, tend to trust their instincts, think less, and be more spontaneous in their voting. Nonetheless, every castaway on Survivor has uniquely personal views and values, so while there are general patterns in Survivor’s social game, the true excitement of the show is derived from the outliers and unexpected moments.
Works Cited
Gerrig, Richard J. The Psychology of Survivor: Overanalyze, Overemote, Overcompensate: Leading Psychologists Take an Unauthorized Look at the Most Elaborate Psychological Experiment Ever Conducted … Survivor! Dallas, TX: BenBella, 2007. Print.Helling, Steve. “Survivor Cambodia Second Chance: Joe Anglim on Getting Voted Off.” PEOPLE.com. Time Inc, 09 Dec. 2015. Web. 13 June 2017. Ross, Dalton. “Ozzy from ‘Survivor: Game Changers’ Admits His Social Game Has Been ‘Crap’.” EW.com. Time Inc, 23 Feb. 2017. Web. 07 June 2017.Schacter, Hannah. “Outwit, Outplay, Outlast: The Psychology of Survivor.” Psychology In Action. N.p., 5 Jan. 2015. Web. 08 June 2017.Staff, CBSNews.com Staff CBSNews.com. “Survivor Psychologist.” CBS News. CBS Interactive, 31 Jan. 2002. Web. 13 June 2017. Wilder, Jonathan. “Survivor Social Game.” Inside Survivor. N.p., 29 Aug. 2016. Web. 08 June 2017.
Leave a Comment!
