Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • SCARF Neuroscience

    Uploaded by

    sridevi04
    12 views8 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views8 pages

    SCARF Neuroscience

    Uploaded by

    sridevi04

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    davidrock.com. SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others David Rock CEO, Results Coaching Systems International, GPO Box 395, Sydney, NSW Australia 2001 Faculty, CIMBA Co-founder, NeuroLeadership Institute Editor, NeuroLeadership Journal davidrock@workplacecoaching.com In a world of Incraasing interconnectedness and rapid change, there Is a growing need to improve the way peopla work together. Understanding the true drivars of human social behavior is becoming ever mora urgent in this environment. ‘The study of the brain, particularly within the fietd of social, ccagritive and affective neuroscience is starting to provide seme underying brain insights that can be applied in the reel world (Lieberman, 2007]. Sociel neuroscience explores the biological foundations of the way humans relate to each cother and to themselves and covers diverse topics that have ‘a different dagres to which they can be operationalized and ‘unambiguously tested. Topics include: theory of ming, the self, mindfulness, emotional reguiation, attitudes, stereotyping, ‘empathy, socal pain, status faimess, collaboration, connect- ‘edness, persuasion, morality, compassion. deception, trust ‘and goat pursuit, From this diversity, two themes are emerging from social neuroscience. Firstly, that much of eur motivation ériving social behavior is govemed by an overarching organizing principle of avinimizing treat end maximizing reward (Gordon, 2000), Secondly, that several domains of socal ‘experiance draw upon the same train networks to maximize reward and minimize threat as the brain networks used for primary survival needs [Lieberman and Eisenberger,200)-In ther words, social needs are treated in much the same way inthe bran asthe need for food and water ‘The SCARF model summarizes these two themes within 2 framework that captures the common factors that ean activate ‘a reward or threat response in social situations. This model can In groups, including all types of workplaces, educational environments, family settings and general social events, The SCARF model involves five domains of human social experience: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatodness: ‘and Fairness. Status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns being able to predict the future. Autonomy provides, a sense of control aver events. Relatedness is @ sense of safety with others, of friend rather than foe. And faimess is @ ‘perception of fair exchanges between peopia. ‘These five domains activate either the ‘primary reward’ cr ‘primary threat’ circuitry land associated networks) of the brain. For example, a perceived threat to one's status activates similar brain networks to a threatto one’s ie. nthe: ‘same way, a percelved increase in fairness activates the same reward circuitry as receiving a monetary reward, “The made enables people to more easily remember, recogtize, and potentalty madi the core socal domains that drive human ‘behavior, Labelling and understanding these drivers draws ‘conscious awareness to otherwise non conscious processes, wich can help in two ways Firstly, knng th drivers that ean ‘cause a threat response enables peplat design interactions to minimize threats. For example, knowing that alack of autonomy actites 9 genuine threat response, 9 leader or educator may consciously avoid microranaging their employee or students, Secondly, knowing about the drivers that can acthate a reward ‘response enables people to motnate others mare electvely by ‘tapping into internal rewards, thereby reducing the reliance on extemal rewards such 35 money. For example, a line manager ~ doe ae TE ABH, DOTS Here people collaborate. 5 might grant-more atonal a AUR aR RAPER RESEARCH NeuroLeadershipsounna Before exploring the domains of SCARF indhidually a beof contertotthe underlying science the SCARF model, Namely, the approach (reward)-avoid (threa respons and the impact of this response on mental performance, is provided, Foundations of the SCARF model. The approach (reward]-avoid (threat) response: a survival instinct According to Integrate Neuroscientist Evian Gordon, the ‘minimize dangar and maximize reward principle is an cverarching, organizing principle ofthe brain (Gordon, 2000. This central organizing principe of the brain i analogous to 4 concept that has appeared inthe literature for along time: the approach-avoid response, This principle represents the liceinood that when 2 person encounters a stimulus their brain wil either tag the stimulus as “good” and engage in ‘the stimulus (approach), or their brain wil tag the stimulus as bad’ and they will disengage from the stimulus avi. a stimulus is associated with postive emotions or rewards, it wil kely lead to an approach response: if itis associated with negative emotions or punishments, i wil ely eed to an aid response. The response is particulary strong when the stimulus is associated with survival, Other concepts from the scientific erature are similar to approach and aveidance and are summarized inthe chart below, ‘The appreach-avoid responseisa sunvivalmechanism designed to help people stay alim by quickly and éaslly remembering ‘what is good and bad in the environment, The brain encodes ‘one type of memary for food that tasted disgusting inthe past, and a diferent type of memory for food that wes good to eat. ‘The amygdala, a smell almond-shaped cbject that is part ‘of the limbic system, plays a central role in remembering whether something should be approached or avoided. The amrygdala fand ts associated networks) ae believed to activate ‘proportionally to the strength of an emotional response. ‘The limbic system can processes stimuli before it reaches: conscious awareness, One study showed that subliminally presented nonsense words that were similar to threatening words, were stil categorized as possible threats by the amygdala (Naccache et al, 2005). Brainstem - Limbic networks process threat and reward cues within a fitth of a second, providing you with ongoing nonconscious intuition ‘of what is meaningful to you in every situation of your daily life (Gordon et al. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, Sept 2008), Such studies show that the approach-avoid response tives attention at @ fundamental level ~ nonconsciously, ‘automatically and quickly. Itis a reflexive activity It is easy to se0 that the ability to recognizing primary rewards and threats, such as good versus poisonous food, ‘would be important to survival and thus apart ofthe brain, Social neuroscience shows us thatthe bran uses simitar Cireuitry for interacting with the socal werld. Lieberman and Eisenberger explore this fining in detail in a paper i this journal entitled "The Pains and Plaasures of Social Li 2008). ‘The sigificance af the approach-avoid response becomes clearer wien one discovers the dramatic effect that these states can have on perception and problem solving, and tha implications of this effect en decision-making, stress ‘management, collaboration and motivation. In one study, two groups of people complated a paper maze that featured a mousein the middie trying toreacha picture on the outside. One group had a picture of cheese on the outside, the othera predator ~ an owl After completing the maze both ‘groups were civen creativity tests. The group hoading towards, the cheese soled significantly more creative problems than those heading to the ow (Friedman and Foster, 2001). This study, supported by several other similar studies, shows that even subtle effects ofthis approach-avoid response can have 2 big impact on cognitne performance, ‘Translating this effect to the social world, someone fealing threatened by a boss who is undermining their credibility is less likely to be able to solve complex problems and more Uikely ornake mistakes, This reduced cognitive performance is ‘Sonya intnerature | Which traditional primary _| What soca facore/stuations Heeeaeaeaestatatg Z i L ate the | activate the response: ! Tappraach “Advance, attack reward, | Rewardsin form of money, | Happy, attractive faces. | resource, exgand, elution, | fed, water, sex shelter, physi asats for suri. strength, construct, engag | Rewards i the form of | increasing status, certainty, | | autonomy, relatedness, ‘Punishment in the form of | removal of money or ether Fearful, unattrective, "unfamiliar faces, Threats “trent, contrac, problam, i weakness, deconstruct. ‘resources or treats tke nthe orm af decreasing : atarge hungry eredator |stats, ceftaiy uty, 3mm a et 1 mg; 2045-~ Isatedgocsfarness. driven by sveral factors. Firstly, when a human being senses, 2 threat, resources available for overall executive functions in the prefrontal cortex decrease. There is a strong negative correlation between the amount of threat activation, and the resources availabe for the prefrontal cortex lAmsten, 1996) ‘Theresutistiterally less axygen and glucose avaiable for the brain functions invoed in working memory, which impacts Linear, conscious processing. When feeling threatened by one’s boss, it is herder to find smart answers because of diminished cognitive resources. Seconily, when threatened, the increased overall activation inthe brain inhitits peopla from perceiving the more subte signals required for sobng rnontinear problems, involved in the insight or “aha!” ‘experience (Suoramaniam et al, 2007], Thirdly, with the “amygdala activate, the tendency sto generalize mora, which increases the likelihood of accidental connections. There's 8 tendency to err on the sae side, shrinking from opportunities, 2 they are perceived to be more dangerous. People become rmore tkely to react defensively to stimuli, Small stressors become mors key tobe perceived as large stressors Phelps, £2006). Whan the boss appears threatening, perhaps they just do not smie that dey, suddenly a whole meeting can appear ‘threatening and the tendency can be toawid taking risks. Cleary the threat or avoid response isnot an ideal state for cailaborating with and influencing others. However, this response is the default situation that often occurs in teams, Due tothe over) vigilant amygdala, more tuned tothreats than rewards, the threat response is often just below the surface and easly tiggered Just speaking to one's supervisor or someone of higher status is likly to actvete this response. Thus itis much easier to causo aggravation facthate an ‘avoid response] than i sto help others think rationally and creatively {the approach responsel. Many psychological and brain studies now Suppor this idea, showing thatthe avoid response generates far more arousal in the limbic system more quickly and with longer asin effects than an appreach response [Beaumeister, 2001, This discovery that our brains interenty atuned to threatening stil helps expain many Asquating parts of lie, from why the media focuses on bad ‘news to why people are self-critical. It also points tothe neod to understand the socal nature ofthe brain and proactively ‘minimize comman social threats, (on the ether hand, an approach response is synonymous with the idea of engagement. Engagement is a state of being wiling to da dificult things, to take risks, to thnk deeply about issues and develop new solutions. An approach state is also closoy linked to positne emotions. Interest, happiness, joy and desie are approach emotions. This sate is one of increased dopamine levels, important fr interest and learning. Ther is 2 large and growing body of research Which ingicates that people experiencing positive emotions perceive more options when trying to sobe problems regpyskneter RB SA, DOFSTON-ineor problems.hat- RESEARCH require insight LJung-Beeman, 2007], collaborate better and generally perform better oversll In summary, the SCARF model is an easy way to remember and act upon the social triggers that can generate both the approach and avoid responses, The goal of this model isto help minimize the easily activated threat responses, and maximize positive engaged states of mind during attempts to collaborate with and infiuence others. ‘The SCARF model While the five domains of the SCARF model appear to be intertinked in many ways, there is also value in separating out tend understanding each domain individually. Let's look now ‘at some of the supporting research for each domain then ‘explore how threats and rewards might be managed in each, Status In researcher Michael Marmot's book The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity, Marmot makes the case that status isthe most significant

    You might also like