Front of a car? Our FFA lights up and fires insanely fast. The FFA is designed to basically be a fast pre-processing area. It fires very quickly. To process other attributes in a picture other than a face with emotion it takes more time. The image has to be rolled around through the visual cortex and then to somewhere else, then something else etc… It takes more than 4ms.
One quick note to point out is that I am not saying that the FFA is done firing in 4 ms, rather that the FFA only needs 4 ms exposure time to fire and process, whereas other areas of the brain may require more exposure time. When an image is around longer, as in the ms optimal condition, it mucks around with the framing parts of our brain. We are susceptible to framing. So you see quite a large jump in the optimal case from about 3. Study 4 also followed Study 3, but this time were asked to judge the symmetry of objects, so 1 would be not symmetrical, 5 would be a circle.
Again, there was no difference in the suboptimal 4 ms , but a significant different in the optimal ms. From this the researchers guess that geometric shapes also require a longer exposure time to have an emotional stimulus. Study 5 tested masculine vs. Distinct faces that do not differ in affective polarity, even if they differ in such obvious ways as gender, cannot be accurately discriminated from one another if they are exposed for only 4 ms.
What can this tell us? If you want to use evil subliminal messaging, use faces with expressions. This is why faces are so powerful because they are processed so quickly. Faces are more primal, and we have less control over our reaction to them. If you want to use other pictures to help frame emotions you need to have their attention for at least 1 second.
We are social creatures and our brains are evolved to put an emphasis on social cues, food, danger, and sex. Murphy, S. Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64 5 , Have you ever seen a chameleon? They instantly change color to adapt to whatever their background is. Public myths including yawning being contagious, or sneezing. Indifference to suffering.
Usually they used what in psychology they call a confederate; which is someone who appears to be part of the study along with everyone else… but is actually an inside imposter, planted by the researchers to get interesting results.
In Experiment 1 subjects participated in two consecutive sessions. Both had a minute interaction with a confederate. They were told to describe photos in the sessions but of course the photos were simply a distraction from the real study. The confederates, who were trained actors, varied their mannerisms throughout the interactions. During Session 1, the confederate either rubbed his or her face, or shook his or her foot.
During Session 2, the confederate did the inverse of Session 1; so if Session 1 was a foot shake, Session 2 would be a face rub. Afterwards they did a post-experiment interview and only 1 person guessed the other person was a confederate, and no one guessed what the confederate was up to. So clearly there is some sort of monkey see monkey do unconscious thought going on.
One more interesting data point for Experiment 1 involved smiling. Participants smiled more times per minute when with the active confederate median smiles per minute of 1. I should also note that the confederates were instructed not to make friends; only to smile. Further, participants performed the intended action more times with the nonsmiling confederate than with the smiling confederate median.
Very interesting indeed…. Now Dr. The goal of this experiment was to see if they could unconsciously manipulate people into enjoying their interaction with a confederate. After a minute session with a confederate people were asked to report how much they liked the confederate and how smoothly the session went on a 9-point scale, with 1 being extremely awkward or unlikeable, and 9 being extremely smooth or likeable.
The confederates either engaged in neutral nondescript mannerisms, which acted as the control, or the confederate mirrored the mannerisms of the participant. I think this is a brilliant evil theory that people like people who are like them.
If a participant folded their hands, the confederate would fold theirs, etc…. The confederates, being talented actors, played their part beautifully.
This is very important to point out; there was NO difference in scores between the neutral control, and the mimicking. It is not the case that the mimickers were being more friendly, making more eye contact, smiling, or were judged to like the participant more. This was controlled for. So the results are not simply friendly vs. The results are fun. Now there are certainly potential large implications in this study; from politics to sales to friendship.
The thing to take away from Experiment 2 is that human interactions go smoother and are more positive if you just mimic the movements and actions of the other person. Experiment 3 was the same as Experiments 1 and 2, except that subjects were also given an empathy questionnaire a perspective-taking subscale.
This makes sense. If you see someone hurt their leg, a small ghost reflection of mirror neurons in the leg area of your brain will also light up. It happens completely unconsciously. Okay so our first pin was that people in Experiment 1 performed the action more when the Confederate was NOT smiling. My theory is that we are always looking for a way to bond unconsciously. We as humans want to relate, we want to connect on whatever level we can.
Obviously smiling and laughing together is our natural go-to. Maybe we know and understand this innately so our brains are one step ahead of the research. We like people more who mimic us. We crave people to like us unconsciously , and so we unconsciously mimic others to the extent we can to get them to like us. And those who are the most empathetic also reach out the most to connect, so they mimic unconsciously the most.
There is a long list of practical applications. Sorority bonding, concerts or sporting events in unison, people in fields with lots of human interaction being more animated and reactionary HR, sales, customer service. If you want people to like you and try to bond with you; try mimicking their energy, behaviors, and mannerisms. Chartrand, T. The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 76 6 , What is economics good for?
The problem us economists face is that we must always have answers, and they must always be accurate. Anything short of that means that the entire science is bogus. But economics is only as good as the data it relies on, and data is always imperfect in some way. The first part is like advanced geology mapping equipment. Now you can stumble around blindly and just dig here or there, and depending on how much gold you have you might find some. But economics can point you to where the best spot to dig would be.
Economics achieves this by figuring out which way data are facing. That is to say, to maximize profit, should we decrease prices? Is it worth it? Economics can give you your answer. Maybe your sales estimation model is off. Just like how you can miss the gold vein, sometimes you can end up with the wrong result. But it helps you get close. And with more refinement you can often strike something. So you pull a strange rock out of the ground. Does it have gold in it? The way economics can tell you with certainty what it is that you have is with the magic of the p values.
The higher the p-value, the more likely the result is just the randomness of data. A quick example is the fastest way to illustrate the point. My hypothesis is that the coin is rigged to always land on heads. You flip the coin and it lands on heads twice in a row. So the p-value would be maybe. The next two flips are tails. Our p-value jumps to maybe. Then the next 10 flips are heads.
Every single one; right in a row. That is statistically fairly unlikely, but not impossible probability of about. So our p-value jumps down to maybe. Then the next 10 are heads.
Certainly if you are talking about research from the s showing that it is hard to read text on a computer screen, then more recent data is important -- the quality of computer monitors has changed so dramatically from the s till now believe me on this one, as I was around to see the screens of the s.
I am aware that many of you reading this blog have only seen a screen from the 80s in the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan, or maybe you saw it in an old black and white movie joke , or, as my daughter likes to say to me, "that must have been when you were younger and the dinosaurs roamed. Have an Open Mind -- So the purpose of the above long preamble to ask you to have an open mind about the following research that was done and written up in a book from Draw a Coffee Cup -- If you ask someone to draw a picture of a coffee cup, chances are they will draw something that looks like this:.
Of course not, you say, but And if you are going to say that the first perspective is the one that we actually see most of the time, when we look at a coffee cup For example, people were shown pictures of horses from various angles and perspectives and they most quickly recognized it as a horse when it was from this same canonical perspective. Yet I am fairly sure that most of us have not looked at horses from above most of the time.
And the research was done with people recognizing a very small dog or cat. The canonical perspective still won out, even though when we see cats or very small dogs we are mainly looking at them from high above, not just slightly above.
In fact the research shows that when we imagine an object we imagine it from this canonical perspective. So, Why Care? Why care? Well, if you want to use icons at your web site or in your web or software application that people will recognize, then you might want to use this perspective.
This is probably not so critical if you are using a well known logo, for example, the logo for itunes or Firefox, but becomes important if the icon is not as familiar, such as recognizing below that one of the logos is of a truck, or a photo printer. What Do You Think? And for those of you who like to read research:. Palmer, S. Posted by Susan Weinschenk at AM 6 comments.
Those of you who have been in the field of usability or user experience for a few years have probably heard the phrase "The Magic Number 7 Plus Or Minus 2". This refers, actually, to what I would call an urban legend. Here's the legend part: Legend : "A guy named Miller did research and wrote a research paper showing that people can remember from 5 to 9 7 plus or minus 2 things, and that people can process 7 plus or minus 2 pieces of information at a time.
So you should only put 5 to 9 items on a menu, or have 5 to 9 tabs on a screen". Have you heard this? If you've been reading about usability for a while I'm sure you have. Well, it's not quite accurate. Another guy named Baddeley questioned all this urban legend. Baddeley dug up Miller's paper and discovered that it wasn't a research paper, it was a talk that Miller gave at a professional meeting.
And it was basically Miller thinking out loud about whether there is some kind of inherent limit to the amount of information that people can process at a time. Baddeley conducted a long series of studies on human memory and information processing. And what he concluded is that the number is 3 to 4, not 5 to 9.
You can remember about things for about 20 seconds and then they will disappear from memory unless you repeat them over and over. For example, let's say you are driving in your car and talking on your cell phone ok, you shouldn't be doing that and someone gives you a number to call. But you don't have a pen handy, and anyway you are driving. So you try to memorize the number long enough to hang up from one call and dial the new number.
What do you do? You repeat the number over and over putting it back into short term memory each time, which buys you another 20 seconds.
The interesting thing about phone numbers is that they are more than 3 or 4 numbers long. This is mainly because my talks and presentations are highly visual. I would have to do an audio annotation for the slides to make any sense. I break the procrastination. On a weekend no less — When I got the email from my reader I decided that it was about time that I give it a whirl, so this weekend found me paring down my usual talk on the topic to a smaller number of slides.
Then I donned a set of headphones with a microphone, and started talking.
0コメント