The Psyblog makes an interested observation on the phenomenon called the 'Online Disinhibition Effect'...read the full article here.
"When communicating over the internet people don't feel the same pull towards social conformity as elsewhere. Online, people cast aside their inhibitions, worry less about the consequences of their actions and let it all hang out. Sometimes literally."
In a research context, there appears to be a great role for online methodologies to capture sensitive information that people would not be willing to disclose face-to-face. Something to think about when designing a study that requires people to disclose potentially embarrassing information.
I can't help but post up a blog almost every time after reading PsyBlog - the writers have a knack for picking great topics and making psychology theory sound interesting.
Their recent post talks about about what happens when you reward people that are already intrinsically motivated to perform a task. Studies have found that extrinsically motivating people with rewards (e.g. money, certificates, promotions etc) to perform a task, when they are already intrinsically motivated, actually reduces their productivity.
It seems counter intuitive right? That if you love doing something and someone comes along and say's "Hey, I'll pay you to do what you love", you start producing less or lower quality work.
The theory goes, that you can 'over justify' behaviour, i.e. we can get too caught up in the reward, start thinking too hard why we are performing a task and subsequently produce less/poorer quality
I think this quote sums it up nicely:
"We don't just work 'forwards' from our attitudes and preferences to our actions, we also work 'backwards', working out what our attitudes and preferences must be based on our current situation, feelings or actions"
I think this provides an interesting way to think about research, because we often talk to people about what they 'might do' or their 'intentions' or how they might react to a piece of communications in a group room...maybe we should be getting closer to what people actually do and work backwards from there?
The mystical-sounding 'acceptance prophecy' is simply this: when we think other people are going to like us, we behave more warmly towards them and consequently they like us more. When we think other people aren't going to like us, we behave more coldly and they don't like us as much.
The most amazing thing is that it's proven to be true! See the evidence here
The implication is of course:
- If we believe customers/clients will love us, they probably will
- If we believe respondents will warm to us and open up, they probably will
I wonder if what we eat defines who we are?
In a world where choice is so abundant, our editing of that choice and the resultant bodily intake of our choice surely tells so much about eat of us as individuals.
Does our food say much about our socioeconomic status, our life aspirations, our body image an level of self-esteem, our (intended, supported or desired) social image as surely we try different things to eat when we are 'out'
What do you think?