The Best Persuasive Phrase

Posted on 2013/03/202013/03/21 by Jason Hensel

There’s a great, simple phrase to use for anyone looking to persuade others. In fact, it’s so easy it’s hard to believe it isn’t used more often (then again, it might lose its power). The phrase is, “But you are free.”

PSYBlog explains it:

This simple approach is all about reaffirming people’s freedom to choose. When you ask someone to do something, you add on the sentiment that they are free to choose.

By reaffirming their freedom you are indirectly saying to them: I am not threatening your right to say no. You have a free choice.

The exact words used are not especially important. The studies have shown that using the phrase “But obviously do not feel obliged,” worked just as well as “but you are free”.

What is important is that the request is made face-to-face: the power of the technique drops off otherwise. Even over email, though, it does still have an effect, although it is somewhat reduced.

I’ve always believed that freedom is the best way to keep someone. Consider this: If someone gave you complete freedom to do what you want, wouldn’t you stay with that person as opposed to being controlled by someone else? Autonomy is an amazing aphrodisiac.

Give it a shot. Include “but you are free” when putting up a persuasive argument, and let me know in the comments how it worked for you.

(h/t to Farnam Street. Image via Flickr: AskMeAboutLoom/Creative Commons.)

Send to Kindle

Facebook Use Can Increase Cognitive Performance

Posted on 2013/03/202013/03/20 by Jason Hensel

Jokes about elderly people using technology are plentiful. Yes, it can be humorous to tease those that have a hard time with technology. But the truth is that there are benefits if the elderly (really, any age) are willing to learn something new. Let’s take Facebook, for instance.

Janelle Wohltmann, a psychology graduate student at the University of Arizona, found that people over the age of 65 who learned to use Facebook saw an increase in cognitive performance and became more connected socially.

Yes, you read that correctly. Being connected socially increases cognitive skills. The kicker is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be a face-to-face connection.

“The idea evolved from two bodies of research,” Wohltmann said. “One, there is evidence to suggest that staying more cognitively engaged – learning new skills, not just becoming a couch potato when you retire but staying active – leads to better cognitive performing. It’s kind of this ‘use it or lose it’ hypothesis.

“There’s also a large body of literature showing that people who are more socially engaged, are less lonely, have more social support and are more socially integrated are also doing better cognitively in older age,” she continued.

More research is needed to determine if Facebook’s social aspect truly contributed to better cognitive performances. Still, Wohltmann feels that the site’s complex interaction is a key component in boosting cognitive behaviors.

“The Facebook interface is actually quite complex,” she said. “The big difference between the online diary and Facebook is that when you create a diary entry, you create the entry, you save it and that’s all you see, versus if you’re on Facebook, several people are posting new things, so new information is constantly getting posted.

“You’re seeing this new information coming in, and you need to focus on the new information and get rid of the old information, or keep it in mind if you want to go back and reference it later, so you have to constantly update what’s there in your attention,” she continued.

This gives hope to anyone that isn’t able to get out and meet people, either by situation or choice. If you can be social online, then you can boost your cognitive abilities. And I’m sure this can expand to include anyone who plays games such as Call of Duty, where you’re playing alongside or against other players.

No, this doesn’t take away from the value of face-to-face interaction and its many benefits, but it does show that our brains can clearly define “social” in more ways than we usually allow in our minds.

(Story materials from the University of Arizona/Alexis Blue. Image via Flickr: Sean Dreilinger/Creative Commons.)

Send to Kindle

Why You Should Get Outside More Often

Posted on 2012/12/172012/12/18 by Jason Hensel

I’ve been in a bit of a creative rut lately. I’ve also been meaning to go camping for a while now. Could the two be related?

Yes, say psychologists in a new study. David Strayer (University of Utah), Ruth Ann Atchley (University of Kansas), and Paul Atchley (University of Kansas) found that backpackers scored 50 percent better on a creativity test after spending four days in nature disconnected from electronic devices.

“This is a way of showing that interacting with nature has real, measurable benefits to creative problem-solving that really hadn’t been formally demonstrated before,” Strayer said. “It provides a rationale for trying to understand what is a healthy way to interact in the world, and that burying yourself in front of a computer 24/7 may have costs that can be remediated by taking a hike in nature.”

The results aren’t surprising.

“Writers for centuries have talked about why interacting with nature is important, and lots of people go on vacations,” Strayer said. “But I don’t think we know very well what the benefits are from a scientific perspective.”

According to the study published December 12 in PLOS ONE, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science:

The study involved 56 people – 30 men and 26 women – with an average age of 28. They participated in four- to six-day wilderness hiking trips organized by the Outward Bound expedition school in Alaska, Colorado, Maine and Washington state. No electronic devices were allowed on the trips.

Of the 56 study subjects, 24 took a 10-item creativity test the morning before they began their backpacking trip, and 32 took the test on the morning of the trip’s fourth day.

The results: people who had been backpacking four days got an average of 6.08 of the 10 questions correct, compared with an average score of 4.14 for people who had not yet begun a backpacking trip.

“We show that four days of immersion in nature, and the corresponding disconnection from multimedia and technology, increases performance on a creativity, problem-solving task by a full 50 percent,” the researchers said.

The researchers caution that the study wasn’t conducted to “determine if the effects are due to an increased exposure to nature, a decreased exposure to technology or the combined influence of these two factors.”

“It’s equally plausible that it is not multitasking to wits’ end that is associated with the benefits,” Strayer said.

Yeah, maybe it’s about time I book that camping trip and recharge my creativity.

(Story materials from the University of Utah. Image via Flickr: Perfectance / Creative Commons.)

Send to Kindle

Lucky Number…Four?

Posted on 2012/12/012012/12/02 by Jason Hensel

We’ve been lead to believe for decades that the number of items a mind can cope with before it gets confused is seven. This number comes from a 1956 paper by psychologist George Miller titled “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” In fact, the Psychological Review named it the most influential paper of all time.

However, Gordon Parker, a University of New South Wales professor of psychiatry, says that Miller is incorrect. Parker says the mind works with four “chunks” of information, rather than seven.

“So to remember a seven numeral phone number, say 6458937, we need to break it into four chunks: 64. 58. 93. 7,” Parker said. “Basically four is the limit to our perception. That’s a big difference for a paper that is one of the most highly referenced psychology articles ever–nearly a 100 percent discrepancy.”

Parker suggests that the original paper’s success stems from “more in its multilayered title and Miller’s evocative use of the word ‘magic’,” than in the science.

Still, the mind’s storage capacity limits are unclear, Parker says.

“There may be no limit in storage capacity per se but only a limit to the duration in which items can remain active in short-term memory,” he said. “Regardless, the consensus now is that humans can best store only four chunks in short-term memory tasks.”

This will come in handy when you’re trying to memorize something. Or maybe it doesn’t matter that much anymore, since we can rely on computers and smart phones to access information quickly.

(Story materials via the University of New South Wales. Image via Open Clip Art Library / artefact.)

Send to Kindle

I’m Sorry, Your Name Is…?

Posted on 2012/06/202012/06/20 by Jason Hensel

I’ve taken improvisation lessons for more than two years now. While it has helped improve my listening skills, I still forget people’s names at times. And as someone who works in the meeting industry, forgetting names is often not a positive trait.

For the longest time, I thought it was my brain’s love of forgetfulness that it increasingly embraces every year. However, it’s not my mind’s mechanics that are at fault. It’s me. According to Richard Harris, a psychology professor at Kansas State University, your level of interest determines your brain’s ability to remember names.

“Some people, perhaps those who are more socially aware, are just more interested in people, more interested in relationships,” Harris said. “They would be more motivated to remember somebody’s name.”

Harris says that the more interest you show in a person, the more likely you’ll remember that person’s name. That’s common sense, but as with most common sense advice, it’s easily forgotten.

To help you remember names, try strategies such as mnemonic devices or saying the person’s name while you talk to the person. Or better yet, as Harris says, just show more interest in people.

(Image via Flickr: Emily Rose / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

I Was Born This Way

Posted on 2012/04/11 by Jason Hensel

I have trouble being mean. It’s next to impossible to not be nice. Sure, I get in bad moods and can be snippy at times, but overall I’m a nice fellow, you know, finishing last in all. And I’m okay with that most of the time, especially now that I’ve learned I was born this way.

According to psychologists at the University at Buffalo (UB) and the University of California, Irvine, a reason some people are nice is because of their genes. The study “The Neurogenics of Niceness,” appearsthis month in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

The researchers studied the behavior of subjects who have versions of receptor genes for two hormones (oxytocin and vasopressin) that are associated with niceness and to find out if these chemicals nudge other forms of pro-social behavior in us.

Subjects were surveyed as to their attitudes toward civic duty, other people and the world in general, and about their charitable activities. Study subjects took part in an Internet survey with questions about civic duty, such as whether people have a duty to report a crime or pay taxes; how they feel about the world, such as whether people are basically good or whether the world is more good than bad; and about their own charitable activities, like giving blood, working for charity or going to PTA meetings.

Of those surveyed, 711 subjects provided a sample of saliva for DNA analysis, which showed what form they had of the oxytocin and vasopressin receptors.

“The study found that these genes combined with people’s perceptions of the world as a more or less threatening place to predict generosity,” said Michel Poulin, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at UB. “Specifically, study participants who found the world threatening were less likely to help others–unless they had versions of the receptor genes that are generally associated with niceness.”

These “nicer” versions of the genes, Poulin says, “allow you to overcome feelings of the world being threatening and help other people in spite of those fears.”

“So if one of your neighbors seems really generous, caring, civic-minded kind of person, while another seems more selfish, tight-fisted and not as interested in pitching in, their DNA may help explain why one of them is nicer than the other,” he said. “We aren’t saying we’ve found the niceness gene. But we have found a gene that makes a contribution. What I find so interesting is the fact that it only makes a contribution in the presence of certain feelings people have about the world around them.”

(Story materials provided by the University at Buffalo.)

(Image via Flickr: Jason Liebig / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Review: Imagine

Posted on 2012/01/02 by Jason Hensel

There was much talk about innovation and creativity in 2011. In fact, I heard or saw the word innovation so much that its mention would bring on waves of hostility in me. Everyone talked about it, making it not, well, very innovative.

Most writers were telling you what to do to be innovative or creative. Rarely did you read why it happens. It’s as most people wanted to jump to instruction without knowing reason.

That’s where Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer comes in. As with his previous book, How We Decide, Lehrer explores the basis of a brain function that everyone wants to know about. Yes, he does offer creativity advice, but he bases it in reason. You have to know the hows and whys before you can know the whats.

Lehrer leads readers through many examples of innovation and creativity, touching on everything from how Bob Dylan found his writing muse to how no-wrong-answers brainstorming doesn’t work in the long run to the benefits of living in a city. And he keeps your interest, because he’s a great storyteller who asserts authority. He doesn’t just report research; he guides with pristine narrative.

“The Power of Q” chapter is one of the more interesting sections. It’s about socialist Brian Uzzi and his study of Broadway musicals, about why some are successful and some are not. Uzzi found that successful productions needed a certain amount of people who have known each other for a long time and a certain amount who are new to the operation. In other words, a sweet spot of social intimacy is needed.

The reason I found this chapter interesting is because around the same time I was reading it, the Dallas Mavericks were restructuring their championship team, losing several players that helped them win it all last season. I’ve always been one that feels you don’t break up the house, you keep teams together for the long-term in order to ensure yearly success. After reading this chapter, though, I’m thinking differently about teams (sports or work). Perhaps it is best that the Mavericks shook things up, bringing in some new faces to play with a few of the old-timers. (However, maybe it’s not working; the Mavericks are 1-4 at the time of this review.)

What Lehrer suggests–and something he consistently suggests in his writings–is that you should know yourself best. Find what works for you, because for every piece of research saying one thing, there will be another saying the opposite. Maybe you work better getting away from a problem. Or maybe you work better with a group. However you work best, identify that and edge toward it. That is where you’ll find your creativity. For you see, science is primarily about paying attention, and until you pay attention to yourself first, nothing will change. Lehrer’s latest book is a great tool toward this needed self-consciousness in society.

(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt will publish Imagine: How Creativity Works by Jonah Lehrer in March 2012.)

Send to Kindle

Your Creative, Cheating Heart

Posted on 2011/12/07 by Jason Hensel

Think of the most creative person you know. Now tell me, do you think that person cheats more than others? I bet you’ll say no, because most people place creativity and those who possess gobs of it on an elevated plain. If you’re less creative, then of course you’re a cheater, as the theory goes.

Oh how wrong that is, because, it’s actually those who are more creative that cheat more.

“Greater creativity helps individuals solve difficult tasks across many domains, but creative sparks may lead individuals to take unethical routes when searching for solutions to problems and tasks,” said lead researcher Francesca Gino, Ph.D., of Harvard University.

In other words, creativity breeds more rationality for choices.

Gino and her co-author, Dan Ariely, Ph.D., of Duke University, conducted five experiments to test their thesis that more creative people cheat under circumstances where they could justify their behavior.

From the paper:

We test our main hypotheses in a series of studies. First, as a pilot study, we collect field data to examine whether people in jobs that require high levels of creativity are more morally flexible than others. Next, we conduct five laboratory studies in which participants have the opportunity to behave dishonestly by overstating their performance and, as a result, earn more money. In Experiment 1, we measure creativity as an individual difference and examine whether this personality trait is associated with increased dishonest behavior. In Experiment 2, we prime cognitions associated with creativity and examine whether they temporarily promote dishonesty. In Experiments 3 and 4, we explore the mechanism explaining the link between creativity and dishonesty by focusing on people’s ability to justify unethical behavior. Finally, in Experiment 5, we examine whether individual differences in creativity moderate the effect of priming a creative mindset on dishonesty.

The researchers found during every study that the greater one’s creativity the more likely that person would cheat.

“Dishonesty and innovation are two of the topics most widely written about in the popular press,” the authors wrote. “Yet, to date, the relationship between creativity and dishonest behavior has not been studied empirically. … The results from the current article indicate that, in fact, people who are creative or work in environments that promote creative thinking may be the most at risk when they face ethical dilemmas.”

Gino and Ariely say there are some limitations in their study–primarily that they created monetary temptation situations. They say “that future research should investigate whether creativity would lead people to satisfy selfish, short-term goals rather than their higher aspirations when faced with self-control dilemmas, such as eating a slice of cake when trying to lose weight.”

I’m not sure about you, but I can always find a way to rationalize eating cake, creativity be damned.

(Photo via Flickr: Roadsidepictures / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle