The good kind of psychology, as I see it, not only presents statistical correspondence but also exposes the mechanism at work in great detail, with evidence.
@Cerberus Yeah. Quite a lot of popular psychology tends to be something like Freud's psychoanalysis, or socio-psychology. Both of which are prone to playing things up for sensationalism when the mass media get a hold
> Subjects came into the lab believing they were going to perform psychological tests in which they could win money. The actor pretending to be the scientist attempted to make the subjects hate him by being rude and demanding as he administered a rigged series of tests. Each subject succeeded 12 times no matter what, but one group won 60 cents in total and the other won $3, which would be about $5 and $20 adjusted for inflation.
> After the experiment, the actor told the subjects to walk up the stairs and fill out a questionnaire. At this point, the actor stopped one third of all the subjects right as they were leaving and asked for the money back. He told them he was paying for the experiment out of his own pocket and could really use the favor because the study was in danger of running out of funds.
> Everyone agreed. Another third left the room and filled out the questionnaire in front of an actor pretending to be a secretary. As they were about to answer the questions, the secretary asked if they would please donate their winnings back into the research department fund as they were strapped for cash. Again, everyone agreed. The final third got to leave with their winnings without any hassle.
> The real study was to see what the subjects thought of the asshole researcher after doing him a favor. The questionnaire asked how much they liked him on a scale from 1 to 12. The people who won 60 cents ($5) were barely affected, but the people who won $3 ($20) saw things differently. On average, those who got to leave with their money rated him as a 5.8. The ones who did the secretary a favor gave him a 4.4. The ones who did the researcher a favor gave him a 7.2,
The conclusion is supposedly that people like those whom they have given money better, because they adjust their beliefs to compensate for their suffering: "if I gave him this money, it must be because I liked him". A kind of rationalization.
@MetaEd There may be something in that; but can you think of another factor that could explain it, at least partly?
My first thought was that people find the weak more sympathetic than the strong; hence the scientist's showing his weakness made him more sympathetic. Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if the scientist had begged them in some sort of friendly way.
Conversely, if they gave their money to the secretary, people might think that it was perhaps the scientist, whom they perceived as the boss, who had caused part of the department's troubles.
it could easily be primacy - the last thing they did involving him was a nice thing so the next thing they would do for him would be nice. If he had been a c**t and demanded the money back, and they gave it to him, then he would score a lot lower
@kiamlaluno Yes, if you want it to be, old Mr Gramps! If you will stand here at the bus stop in the corridor, the bus will no doubt come in a few minutes to bring you home.
primacy is the first ting that happened - so he was nasty to them. Recency is the last thing that happened - he grovelled. primacy is stronger than recency, but something could override that in a social context
@MattЭллен Hmm, okay. But that is about the accuracy of memory; how does it apply to actually doing things, where you haven't really forgotten anything? A contrary effect could be that people might try to balance their good deed by a bad deed, thinking, "I already did that for him, so now I'm off the hook". Apparently that is not a decisive factor; but one could reason in that direction.
@Cerberus people tend to behave the way they behaved last, I guess. If you were just mean to someone, then you will continue to be mean to them, and nice then nice. Also, there is a delay factor - the time between payment and the last interaction between the participants and the actor is different. If you have a good interaction sooner before rating someone, you will be more likely to rate them high.
The people who were asked to give the money back by the secretary had a bad interaction really near the rating. The people who were cajoled by the actor had a good interaction quite near the rating - plus they did something nice to the actor
@MattЭллен Yes, that sounds plausible. About the being mean if you have just been mean: isn't that mainly because you desire that your behaviour should be consistent? Especially when people are watching?
In the order the groups are mentioned in the summary at the end: A) treated rudely, win $, questionnaire. (5.8) B) treated rudely, win $, told by secretary that dept needs help and do favor, questionnaire. (4.4) C) treated rudely, win $, asked for a personal favor, questionnaire. (7.2)
The ones who rated the guy the highest had two nice things after one bad thing
The A group had a bad thing and a good thing and they just kinda canceled each other out
The B group had a bad thing, a good thing, and then a bad-ish thing
Interacting with the secretary and feeling obligated to do a favor to the department may have made them feel better about themselves but probably not change their opinion of the mean dude for the better
@MattЭллен Yes, clearly; but, if I had to order factors by plausibility, I would rate "they realized the institute was having a hard time, and so they felt more sympathetic towards it" higher than "they gave a positive review because they were in a positive mood from doing their good deed". Not saying the good-good thing is irrelevant, but the sympathy thing just sounds better to me. Of course I can't prove anything.
@Cerberus why would how they feel about the department make them rate the actor higher? They would feel that way when they gave the money back to the secretary
@MattЭллен FYI, both people are actors. In any case, I'd say they strongly associated the scientist with the department; this might make them sympathize with him too. Or they might think, "ahhh, that's why he was so grumpy!", and partly forgive him. Or they might feel a bit guilty for hating the scientist when they hear the whole department is going through hard times.
Group B is like "whatevs I already did my good deed by helping this poor secretary" when they get to the survey whereas C is like "I did well in the game and I helped this guy with my winnings, he wasn't so bad after all!"
@Cerberus But what happens is that you do a behaviour and that behaviour is strongly associated with the stimuli around you. If your behaviour is something that makes you feel good, and there is a person involved, then you will feel good about that person, so your next behaviour regarding that person is more likely to be in their favour.
@aediaλ I agree that the interaction between scientist and subject v. between secretary and subject is probably what makes the difference; I just think the sympathy effect may be very important.
@Cerberus If it were their regular lives, someone they knew, they might well associate the scientist with the department and have all these feelings, but the participants probably don't want to be there in the first place and barely think about what they're doing, certainly not that much...
@MattЭллен That may be so, and I don't deny it; I'm just wondering how great that effect may be as compared to the sympathy effect.
@aediaλ Why not? If someone begs you for his money back, and you have the time to think about it as you are filling out this questionnaire and walking up the stairs, don't you ponder your experience, especially as the experiment has triggered a strong emotional response already (irritation)?
@Cerberus Well, sure. I'm thinking that I feel bad for the secretary and the lead scientist was a jerk, or I'm thinking that I misjudged the lead scientist and maybe his bad mood can be partly explained (as someone said earlier, I am also rationalizing the fact that I gave to him, so I'm changing my opinion).
I'm not gonna get to the idea of scientist is part of the department so the fact that I gave to the secretary should make me feel compassion toward the scientist who could also be in a bad mood due to the department's money troubles during a walk up the stairs to answer a very brief questionnaire.
And you don't want me to - you want my more immediate reaction.
What's a good word to replace "сum" in the following sentence:
Open House cum 7th Anniversary Celebration early February.
I am looking for a laconic word that would describe that these two events coincide and I would like to avoid the use of Latin in the sentence.
@RegDwightѬſ道 Of course I don't notice, and I don't care about that answer. And, again, it isn't you who is voting to close so many questions. But it seemed a good moment to whine a little bit.
Possible Duplicate:
“log in to” or “log into” or “login to”
Is there accepted terminology for the process of logging in?
As a verb, would you say "Go to the website and log in", or "Go to the website and login"?
As an adjective, would you say "Clic...
> The Backfire Effect. — The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
I really don't think it matters so much which one came first as long as we close dupes. I know the dupe message says "earlier questions on this topic" but I think that's misleading.
I know I tend to do my best to argue my case, and I might not so easily concede that I was wrong on the spot; but I may do so later, after giving it some more thought.
My typical reaction to evidence that I don't want to believe even though it looks very convincing is "hmm, I don't know"—not "oh, now I am even less convinced than before".
> The last time you got into, or sat on the sidelines of, an argument online with someone who thought they knew all there was to know about health care reform, gun control, gay marriage, climate change, sex education, the drug war, Joss Whedon or whether or not 0.9999 repeated to infinity was equal to one – how did it go?
> Did you teach the other party a valuable lesson? Did they thank you for edifying them on the intricacies of the issue after cursing their heretofore ignorance, doffing their virtual hat as they parted from the keyboard a better person?
@Cerberus Hmm. Because qualms are quasi-questions, and we need to quibble to querulously... uhh I got stuck because I can't think of a q-word for progress or anything like that. But it was going swimmingly before that.
What's a good word to replace "сum" in the following sentence:
Open House cum 7th Anniversary Celebration early February.
I am looking for a laconic word that would describe that these two events coincide and I would like to avoid the use of Latin in the sentence.
Possible Duplicate:
“log in to” or “log into” or “login to”
Is there accepted terminology for the process of logging in?
As a verb, would you say "Go to the website and log in", or "Go to the website and login"?
As an adjective, would you say "Clic...
When should I use can? When should I use could?
What is right under what context?
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…