Letters Remain

  • Prevention of Attainment Increases Desire, Decreases Attractiveness

    Being prevented from obtaining something we desire simultaneously increases our desire for the item and decreases its eventual attractiveness. That’s the counterintuitive result from a study that shows the various surprising effects of “being jilted”.

    We show how being “jilted”–that is, being thwarted from obtaining a desired outcome–can concurrently increase desire to obtain the outcome, but reduce its actual attractiveness. Thus, people can come to both want something more and like it less. […] In Experiment 1, participants who failed to win a prize were willing to pay more for it than those who won it, but were also more likely to trade it away when they ultimately obtained it. In Experiment 2, failure to obtain an expected reward led to increased choice, but also negatively biased evaluation, of an item that was merely similar to that reward.

    It seems that by being unavailable our expectations are raised to an unreasonable degree and we eventually become disappointed. I guess this is a warning for those thinking of scarcity marketing.

    Tags:
     / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Abstraction to Increase Effort (and Spending)

    When there is a medium placed between our effort and a desired outcome, we strive to maximise this medium regardless of whether or not it leads optimally to that outcome (think points or virtual currencies as a medium when attempting to obtain goods).

    That’s my attempt at a concise summary of the findings from a study coining the phrase ‘medium maximisation’.

    This example taken from the paper (pdf) and presented by The New York Times may help:

    Students were given a choice between two simple tasks. One would take six minutes, and the students were told that they would get a gallon of Haagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream as a reward. The other would require seven minutes of work, and the payment would be a gallon of Haagen-Dazs pistachio.

    Not surprisingly, since the second option involved more work and a less popular flavor, only about a quarter of the students chose it.

    But the researchers also repeated the experiment with a couple of tweaks. In the new version, the six-minute task led to a payoff of 60 points, and the seven-minute task brought 100 points.

    The researchers then told the students that anyone who finished with between 50 and 99 points would be given a gallon of vanilla ice cream. Anyone with 100 points would get pistachio.

    Practically, there was no difference between the two experiments. But the outcomes ended up being very different.

    In the comments of a previous post of mine looking at the denomination effect, the idea that “the greater the level of abstraction, the more ready we are to spend” was mooted. So it seems to be the case here.

    via @BFchirpy

    Tags:
     / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • This American Life on Proposals and Pitches

    As a way to increase the quality of the many submissions they receive, This American Life staff offer some excellent tips on writing pitches. They go further, presenting four pitches that made it on air, describing why they succeeded:

    • Each of these stories is a story in the most traditional sense: there are characters in some situation, and a conflict.
    • These pitchers are clear about who the characters are and what the conflict is.
    • Each of these stories raises some bigger question or issue, some universal thing to think about.
    • Finally, they’re brief.

    On that last one (brevity), they offer further advice. This time I find the advice goes much further than just radio or TV pitches, but pitches of any type:

    Select a short, self-contained section that might make a nice […] story and send us a couple paragraphs describing that section. […] Assume anything over 12 pages will not be read. If you have a hard time choosing an excerpt, then spend a page or two explaining what your book or documentary is about, and telling us a few of your favorite moments. If you have some ongoing project on your website or blog that you think might be interesting on the show, don’t just send us a link to your archives – paste a few choice excerpts into your pitch. Help us love you! Help us find your best, most radio-friendly material!

    Tags:
     / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Defining a Game

    In a talk lambasting what has become the most popular video game in America–Zynga‘s Facebook-based FarmVille*–we are shown how it fails to meet a single one of late sociologist Roger Caillois’ six criteria for defining games (as laid-out in in his 1961 book, Man, Play and Games):

    • Free from obligation, routine and responsibility.
    • Separate from ‘real life’.
    • Uncertain in outcome (involving chance and/or skill).
    • An unproductive activity.
    • Governed by rules.
    • Make-believe (requiring either immersion or the suspension of disbelief).

    *”Over seventy-three million people play FarmVille. Twenty-six million people play FarmVille every day. More people play FarmVille than World of Warcraft, and FarmVille users outnumber those who own a Nintendo Wii.”

    via @cojadate

    Tags:
     / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Health Effects of Marriage

    There are wide-ranging health benefits to be gained from being happily married, the research suggests, but just how extensive this effect is (and its intricacies) is hugely surprising.

    In Tara Parker-Pope’s comprehensive look at the physiological effects of marriage, we are told how just by getting couples to discuss a marital disagreement their healing of wounds can be delayed by days; that those in unhappy relationships have weakened immune systems; and most surprisingly that when women were subjected to mild electric shocks (to simulate stress) holding the hand of their husbands “resulted in a calming of the brain regions associated with pain similar to the effect brought about by use of a pain-relieving drug”.

    [Studies] have shown that married people are less likely to get pneumonia, have surgery, develop cancer or have heart attacks. A group of Swedish researchers has found that being married or cohabiting at midlife is associated with a lower risk for dementia. A study of two dozen causes of death in the Netherlands found that in virtually every category, ranging from violent deaths like homicide and car accidents to certain forms of cancer, the unmarried were at far higher risk than the married.

    What if you get divorced or are widowed? Remarriage won’t help and you will suffer “a decline in physical health from which [you will] never fully recover”. In these cases even the singletons fared better (traditionally considered to be worse-off due to having fewer resources and less emotional and logistical support).

    How different styles of conflict (and conflict resolution) affected the sexes differently was fascinating, too:

    The women in his study who were at highest risk for signs of heart disease were those whose marital battles lacked any signs of warmth, not even a stray term of endearment during a hostile discussion […] or a minor pat on the back or squeeze of the hand, all of which can signal affection in the midst of anger. “Most of the literature assumes that it’s how bad the arguments get that drives the effect, but it’s actually the lack of affection that does it […] It wasn’t how much nasty talk there was. It was the lack of warmth that predicted risk.”

    For men, on the other hand, hostile and negative marital battles seemed to have no effect on heart risk. Men were at risk […] when their marital spats turned into battles for control. It didn’t matter whether it was the husband or wife who was trying to gain control of the matter; it was merely any appearance of controlling language that put men on the path of heart disease.

    In both cases, the emotional tone of a marital fight turned out to be just as predictive of poor heart health as whether the individual smoked or had high cholesterol. […] The solution, Smith noted, isn’t to stop fighting. It’s to fight more thoughtfully.

    via Mind Hacks

    Tags:
     / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Why There’s No Good News

    Discussing briefly a key tenet from his latest book, The Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley looks at how and why pressure groups limit the amount of good news reaching the general public and those in decision-making positions:

    There are huge vested interests trying to prevent good news reaching the public. That is to say, in the ruthless free-market struggle that goes on between pressure groups for media attention and funds, nobody likes to have it said that ‘their’ problem is not urgent and getting worse. […]

    This is wrong on all sorts of levels. First, because it shows a staggering arrogance among pressure groups about who should be allowed to know the facts — almost amounting to attempted fraud. Second, because the way to encourage people to fund projects is to show evidence that they work, not that they are futile and ineffective.

    Ridley also puts blame on the journalists for their unquestioning belief of claims of urgency and deterioration: “the two things that get editors’ attention”.

    Tags:
     /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Bonus Cultures and Ideal Banks, Schools, Hospitals

    In light of the ongoing debate with regards to the financial sector’s so-called ‘bonus culture’, economist John Kay looks briefly at the history of the bonus and why the idea of a ‘bonus culture’ is a “poor joke” (using the example of teacher and doctor bonuses).

    At one time, the offer and receipt of a gratuity was a statement of social and economic superiority on the part of the giver, its acceptance a statement of social and economic inferiority on the part of the recipient. To be salaried – to be trusted to do the job for which you had been contracted and paid – was a mark of status. Contractually agreed performance-related pay – commissions and piece work – was widespread in shops and factories, but has now largely been abandoned.

    The common outcome was that employees came to care more about the quantity of the product than its quality. The system polarised the conflict between the interests of the organisation and of those who worked in it. […]

    Teachers and doctors strongly resist the introduction of a bonus culture: not just because they resent measurement of performance and accountability for their activities […] but because they oppose importing the culture of assembly lines. They fear an environment in which they would be encouraged to focus on narrowly quantifiable objectives at the expense of the underlying needs of clients.

    Even if many teachers and doctors are incompetent and lazy, many others are seriously committed to the organisations for which they work, the subjects and specialisations to which they are devoted, and to a broader sense of professional ethics: and it is only people like these who establish the kinds of schools and hospitals we want as parents or patients.

    Tags:
     / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • Clarifying Questions Placate Detractors

    Feeling misunderstood and as if we are not being carefully listened to is a reason why conflicts can turn ugly, suggests Psychology Today‘s Professor Todd Kashdan. To prevent ugly, unpleasant arguments (and to resolve uncomfortable negotiations) we should ask simple, clarifying questions:

    If people show that they are curious and willing to learn more about someone else’s opposing view, this might be the key to diplomacy. That is, ask a single clarifying question about what another person’s view is about. […]

    By merely asking for a single bit of information, the other person views us as more open-minded and warm. […] They view us as different from the typical person with a belief system that differs from their own. […] The other person feels as if we are paying attention and they don’t just feel good, they view us as a good person. […] When you show curiosity in what they care about, they show a greater willingness to gather additional information from you. In the end, they are more willing to negotiate and come to a compromise that benefits everyone.

    Chris Yeh weighs in, saying that

    Far too many in this day and age take a positional approach–establish your position, and advocate it as strongly as possible. But the positional approach is only optimal if the conflict or argument is truly a simple, zero-sum tug-of-war.

    Far better to seek an understanding that lets you craft an outcome that maximizes overall utility. Even if you don’t get a significantly better deal, allowing the other part to come out ahead as well has major benefits for future interactions and your overall reputation.

    Tags:
     /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • MacLeod on Entrepreneurship

    Hugh MacLeod shares a list of random thoughts on being an entrepreneur–a simple list of twenty-six inspirational titbits on business, positioning and success.

    My favourite five:

    • In a world of over-supply and commodification, you are no longer paid to supply. You’re being paid to deliver something else. What that is exactly, is not always obvious.
    • People buy your product because it helps fill in the narrative gaps in their lives.
    • You can either be cheapest or the best. I know which one I prefer.
    • People will always, always be in the market for a story that resonates with them. Your product will either have this quality or it won’t.
    • People remember the quality long after they’ve forgotten the price. Unless you try to rip them off.
    Tags:
     / / / /

    Lloyd Morgan

  • The Body Language Resource

    That “gestures come in clusters, like words in a sentence, and that they must be interpreted in the context in which you observe them” is the golden rule of understanding body language, says ‘The Book of Body Language’: a fantastically comprehensive body language resource, hosted by Westside Toastmasters.

    In the chapter on hand and thumb gestures, this in particular piqued my interest:

    Research into the Hands Clenched position by negotiation experts Nierenberg and Calero showed that it was also a frustration gesture when used during a negotiation, signalling that the person was holding back a negative or anxious attitude. It was a position assumed by a person who felt they were either not convincing the other person or thought they were losing the negotiation. […]

    We discovered a correlation between the height at which the hands are held and the degree of the person’s frustration: that is, a person would be more difficult to deal with when the hands are held high, as in a centre position, than they would be in a lower position. […] As with all negative gestures, you need to take action to unlock the person’s fingers, by offering them a drink or asking them to hold something, or their negative attitude will remain in the same way it does with any arm-crossing position.

    Tags:
     /

    Lloyd Morgan