Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • Good morning.

  • Welcome to the second panel of today's conference.

  • My name is Bo Feng, I'm an associate professor in the Department

  • of Communications at UC Davis, and I'll be the moderator for this panel.

  • The theme of this panel is how perception changes reality.

  • I think this is a, a great continuation and

  • of complementation of the earlier panel, which looks at how perception of

  • the world, how perception of reality, including social events,

  • organizations and ethnic groups is shaped by different things.

  • In this panel, we're going to hear from, three wonderful panelists

  • talking about their research into the other side of the cycle of relationship

  • between perception and reality, how perception shapes reality,

  • shapes people's cognitions, behaviors, and so so on.

  • So we're going to have the presenters, panelists present first, and after that we

  • will open up the floor to questions from the audience and coming from the audience.

  • So, let me first introduce our first panelist, Dr. Alison Ledgerwood.

  • Dr. Ledgerwood is an associate professor of psychology at the University of

  • California Davis and also, a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology.

  • Dr. Ledgerwood's research focuses on people's use of social psychological

  • controls to either immerse themselves in the current context or to transcend it.

  • She also studies symbols as tools that people use to communicate

  • group identity across time, space, and disparate individuals.

  • The title of her talk today is sticky frames,

  • why negatives lodge in the mind and what to do about it.

  • So without further ado,

  • let's welcome Dr. Alison Ledgerwood.

  • [APPLAUSE] >> Hi.

  • Let's see.

  • So because I'm being recorded, I can't pace, I have to stand next to that.

  • Okay, we'll see how that goes.

  • Remind me if I just start wandering over, to come back.

  • So I thought I would talk today about a, oh I can't, I cannot pace at all.

  • I'm just going to stand here calmly like I'm, like I'm fine with that.

  • [LAUGH] >> About a topic that,

  • that has been hinted on hinted at in some of the morning sessions.

  • So Amber hinted at negative news stories sticking more than positive ones.

  • We had some hints from Kim about what

  • negative behaviors might tend to stick to organizational identities.

  • Brad asked Christina a question about stereotypes sticking to social groups

  • [SOUND] and so I'm going to be talking a bit about

  • why that might happen in a very broad and general way and

  • more broadly, I'm going to be talking about the question of how do people think.

  • I'm kind of obsessed with this question.

  • I'm a social psychologist, which basically means I'm a professional people watcher.

  • So, this is what I do, I try to figure out how do humans think and

  • how could we maybe think better and

  • here's something I noticed a few years ago about how I seem to think.

  • Here's a typical week in my life,

  • which often seems to revolve entirely around publishing papers.

  • So here I am, that's me, just go with it.

  • I'm going along at baseline and let's say a paper gets accepted, I get this rush,

  • this blip of happiness, and then I'm back to baseline by about lunchtime.

  • [LAUGH] A few days later, a paper might get rejected, and that feels awful.

  • My world is crumbling, and so I wait for that blip to end but somehow,

  • I just can't stop thinking about it.

  • [LAUGH] Here's the kicker, though.

  • Even if another paper gets accepted the next day, well, that's nice but

  • somehow I just can't stop thinking about that stupid rejection.

  • So what is going on here?

  • Why does a failure often seem to stick in our minds, so much longer than a success?

  • Well, together, with my colleague Amber Boidstan who you heard from

  • earlier this morning, I started thinking about this question, a few years ago.

  • This question of do our minds get stuck on the negatives?

  • Now we all know intuitively that there are different ways of thinking about things.

  • So the same proverbial glass, for instance, can be seen as half full or

  • half empty and there's quite a bit of research across the social sciences now

  • showing that the way you describe the glass to people matters quite a lot

  • in shaping how they feel about it.

  • So if you describe the glass as half full, this is called a gain frame because you're

  • focusing people on what's good, they tend to like it.

  • If you describe the same exact glass as half empty, a loss frame, well,

  • now people don't like it.

  • So here's an example of a kind of prototypical experiment that would look

  • at this question, that would test this question.

  • In this particular study,

  • participants were asked to evaluate a work team based on its past performance and

  • the participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions.

  • In one condition, one group of participants

  • read that 30 out of 50 of the team's past projects had been successful.

  • In the other group, the other condition, the participants read

  • that 20 out of 50 of the team's past projects had been unsuccessful.

  • So mathematically, objectively, the reality is exactly the same here, right?

  • It's just that some of the participants have had their attention focused on

  • the part of the glass that's full, and the other participants have had their

  • attention focused on the part of the glass that's empty.

  • Then they're asked, how good is this work team?

  • And what you can see is that participants evaluated the work team much more

  • positively when it's record had been described in terms of gains,

  • the success rate, compared to when it's record had been described in terms of

  • losses, the failure rate.

  • All right, so this kind of effect has been studied across economics,

  • psychology, political science, marketing, a whole range of different disciplines in

  • the social sciences and together, these studies basically converge on the core

  • idea that what people think about something, what they do,

  • depends on how information is currently described or framed.

  • So you can really think of the key message of this literature, this body of research,

  • as being about the power of the current context to shape people's perceptions and

  • behavior but because it focuses on the current context,

  • this literature, one assumption, or implication of this literature,

  • seems to be that people are just happy when they see a gain frame and

  • sad when they see a loss frame, right?

  • That it's easy to bounce from one to the other but

  • that assumption hasn't actually ever been tested.

  • So, we wanted to know what actually happens when you switch back and forth.

  • This seems like an important question to ask, right.

  • In the real world after all,

  • people don't just encounter a single frame, like they do in the lab.

  • Instead, information is often repeatedly framed and

  • then reframed before people act on it.

  • So you might be talking to your doctor and hear him or

  • her describe a medical procedure, in terms of its success rate but

  • then go to get a second opinion or read an article online that talks about that same

  • procedure in terms of its failure rate.

  • Or you might be browsing the morning headlines and

  • see an article that talks about a program or policy in terms of the number of

  • workers who have lost their jobs and then see a different article that talks about

  • that policy in terms of the number of workers' jobs that have been saved.

  • So we wanted to know what happens in this kind of situation.

  • Can people really just switch back and forth or

  • do they get stuck in one way of thinking about it?

  • Does one of these frames, one of these mental labels,

  • tend to stick more in the mind?

  • And there's reason to think that at least some kinds of mental labels might be

  • cognitively or mentally sticky in this way.

  • That once we've thought about something in a particular way, that way of thinking

  • about it might tend to lodge in our heads and resist our attempts to change it.

  • There's a classic paradigm in psychology used to study creativity,

  • called the Duncker candle problem, that illustrates this idea nicely.

  • So if you're in a study that uses this paradigm, you walk into a room and you

  • see on the table in front of you a candle, a box of tacks, and some matches, and your

  • mission should you choose to accept it is to figure out how to light the candle and

  • then fix it to the wall in such a way that no wax drops onto the table below.

  • Any ideas for how to solve it?

  • It's kind of hard.

  • Here's the funniest solution I've seen to this problem.

  • [LAUGH] And here's the correct solution.

  • Notice though why it's so hard to solve, participants struggle with this a lot.

  • It takes them a long time and often they don't get it.

  • The reason it's so hard for

  • us to figure out the correct answer here is that once you've conceptualized that

  • box as a box, it's really hard to re-conceptualize it as a shelf.

  • That box label sticks in your head and it's very hard to change it.

  • So we thought maybe a similar thing would happen with gain and loss frames.

  • Now if frames can be cognitively, mentally sticky in this way

  • it makes sense to predict that loss frames would be especially sticky.

  • And that's because there's a general and presumably very adaptive human tendency to

  • prioritize or focus on potential negatives and safety.

  • The logic here, evolutionarily speaking,

  • is that if you're considering a visit to the prehistoric pond, and

  • you can think of this as getting a drink or as potentially aggravating a tiger it's

  • useful, it's functional, it's adaptive for the tiger conceptualization to stick.

  • Once you've thought about it,

  • you don't want to forget about the tiger in your excitement over the possibility

  • of getting a drink.

  • So, we thought that lost frames the, when we conceptualize something as a potential

  • loss that way of thinking about it might tend to stick in our heads, and

  • linger there, even in the face of a potential gain frame.

  • To put that idea a bit more formally, we reason that loss frames might be stickier

  • than gain frames in shaping people's thinking.

  • In particular, we predicted that the effects of a loss frame might linger

  • longer than those of a gain frame, when information is subsequently reframed, and

  • that this asymmetry might arise because it's more difficult for

  • people to mentally convert a loss-framed concept into a gain-framed concept

  • than to move in the opposite direction to re-conceptualize a gain as a loss.

  • All right, so one of the first experiments that we conducted to test this idea

  • we wanted to look at how switching from one frame to another would influence,

  • how people feel about an issue?

  • In this case, a surgical procedure.

  • So here's what we did.

  • We had participants read passage that looked like this.

  • We said imagine that a national panel is evaluating a recently developed surgical

  • procedure that involves new robotic technology.

  • A three year study evaluating the procedure has just concluded.

  • And then we randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions.

  • And the gain frame first condition participants read that based on the data

  • experts agree that the survival rate for the surgical procedure is 70%.

  • In the loss frame first condition they read instead that the mortality rate for

  • the surgical procedure is 30%.

  • Okay, so 70% of the glass is full or 30% of the glass is empty.

  • And we've carefully designed this material so

  • that the only difference between the two conditions

  • is this subtle change in the description or the way that the issue is framed.

  • We ask participants to evaluate the procedure, how much they liked it?

  • By moving some sliders along a series of unmarked scales like this one.

  • And we can pause here for a moment because we know from decades of framing research

  • exactly what should happen at time one after this initial first frame.

  • And what should happen is people should like the procedure when it's described in

  • terms of gains much more than when it's described in terms of losses.

  • In fact, that's exactly what we see.

  • So these are our data.

  • And people, when the procedure was described using a gain frame,

  • when it's described in terms of it's success rate, they like it.

  • They don't really like it when it's described in terms of losses,

  • in terms of it's mortality rate.

  • But unlike in previous framing studies, we didn't stop here.

  • We kept going, so we gave participants some more information that really simply

  • reframed the information they'd seen before, using the opposing frame.

  • So participants who had seen the procedure framed in terms of gains, it's surv,

  • survival rate, now saw it reframed in term of losses, it's mortality rate.

  • And people who had seen a loss frame at time one,

  • now saw the same information reframed in terms of gain.

  • Okay so one condition goes from gain to loss,

  • the second condition goes from loss to gain, and then we asked participants

  • to re-evaluate the procedure along with same skills they used before.

  • So here's why we use these unmarked slider scales.

  • We didn't want participants thinking oh, I circled five before,

  • I better circle five again to be a consistent reasonable person.

  • Right, we just wanted a clean, pure measure,

  • how they were feeling about the procedure right now?

  • Then we can think about what we should expect to find,

  • if people simply respond to the frame that's right in front of them,

  • the current context, as this literature has typically assumed.

  • If that's what's going on, then given that these were our results at time one,

  • at time two these bars should just switch places,

  • that is people should like the procedure when it's described in terms of gain,

  • the outside two bars, regardless off when that gain frame occurs.

  • And they should dislike the procedure, when it's described in terms of losses,

  • the inside two bars.

  • Again, regardless of what came before.

  • And, in our actual data, when the framing switches from gain to loss,

  • on the left side of this graph, that's exactly what happens.

  • So people like the procedure, when it's described in terms of it's survival rate.

  • They don't like it anymore when it's reframed in terms of it's mortality rate.

  • But when we switch the framing from loss to gain, people seem to get stuck,

  • on the negative side of the scale.

  • They don't like the procedure when we describe it in terms of losses,

  • and you know what?

  • They still don't like it, when we reframe it in terms of gains.

  • So in other words,

  • there's a muted change in response to reframing when we start out with losses.

  • Compared to when they start out with gains.

  • Here's a different example using a different scenario.

  • Here we asked participants to imagine that the current Governor of n important state

  • is running against an opponent.

  • We said that when the Governor took office,

  • statewide budget cuts were expected to affect 10,000 jobs,

  • which would in turn affect the state and national economies.

  • And then again, we randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions.

  • In the Gain Frame first condition they read that under this Governor's

  • administration, 40% of these jobs have been saved.

  • In the Loss Frame first condition they read that under this Governor's

  • administration, 60% of these jobs have been lost.

  • We asked them to rate their preference for the current Governor versus an opponent.

  • And then as before we switched the framing so people who had seen has record framed

  • in terms of gains now saw it reframed in terms of losses.

  • People who had seen this record framed in terms of losses now saw it reframed in

  • terms of gains, and then they re-rated their evaluations of the governor.

  • So we've got people's liking for this governor compared to his opponent,

  • along the y axis, the height of the bars, and we expected to see a pattern of

  • results that would look like what we saw in our first study right,

  • even though we had changed the scenario, and that's just what we found.

  • So when the framing switched from gain to loss, people's preferences followed.

  • They liked the current governor when his record was described in terms of gains.

  • They didn't like him anymore when his record was reframed in terms of losses.

  • But when the framing switched from loss to gain, again people seemed to get stuck.

  • When his record was described in terms of losses at time one, they didn't like him,

  • in fact they preferred his opponent.

  • But when his record was reframed in terms of gains at time two,

  • now still don't like the current governor.

  • Okay, so again, the effect of reframing depended on whether people started off

  • with gains or started out with losses.

  • One final example, here we asked participants to evaluate two policies that

  • could potentially lead to a certain number of teachers jobs being saved.efr Or

  • lost in California, and you see a similar pattern of results.

  • This starts to look really familiar, right?

  • A big change in preferences when the framing switches from gain to loss.

  • A small change in preferences when it switches from loss to gain.

  • So this was interesting.

  • But our next question was, why does this happen?

  • And could it be that it's actually harder for

  • people to mentally convert a loss-framed concept into a gain-framed concept

  • than to move in the opposite direction, to convert from gains to losses.

  • So we wanted to look at how easily can people convert from one frame to another.

  • How easy is it, or difficult is it, for them to reconceptualize a loss-framed

  • concept as a gained framed one, or vice versa.

  • To test this question, we asked participants to imagine that there's been

  • an outbreak of an unusual disease and 600 lives are at stake.

  • And then we asked one group of participants if 100 lives are saved,

  • how many will be lost?

  • And we asked the other group of participants if 100 lives are lost,

  • how many will be saved.

  • So everybody just has to calculate 600 minus 100 and hopefully, please,

  • come up with the answer of 500.

  • But whereas participants in the first condition have to convert from

  • gains to losses in order to figure out that answer,

  • participants in the second condition have to convert from losses to gains.

  • We timed how long it took them to figure out that 500 is the answer.

  • And what you can see is the,

  • the direction of the conversion that they were re, required to make mattered.

  • So when they had to convert from gains to losses to get the answer to the problem,

  • they could do that quite quickly in about seven seconds on average.

  • But when they had to convert from losses to gains, oh, be patient,

  • they're students, be patient.

  • >> [LAUGH] >> Seven seconds.

  • When they had to convert from losses to gains, this is way,

  • way longer, right, almost 11 seconds on average.

  • So this suggests, right, you this, this, you get the same pattern of results

  • when you change the numbers in the math problems.

  • So it's not something about that particular calculation being especially

  • hard for our participants.

  • You get the same thing when you change the content of the scenario so

  • it's not something about thinking of human lives.

  • You get the same thing if you ask people to convert acres of crops lost versus

  • saved, that sort of thing.

  • And taken together, this research suggests that once we think about something,

  • once we conceptualize it as a potential loss, that way of thinking about it

  • can stick in our heads and resist our attempts to change it.

  • Okay, so what I take away from this research and

  • from a lot of related research in the social sciences is that our view of

  • the world has a fundamental tendency to tilt toward the negative.

  • It's pretty easy for us to go from good to bad but

  • much harder to go from bad to good.

  • We actually have to work harder to see the upside of things.

  • And this matters.

  • So here, for example, I'm going to show you economic well being from

  • 2007 to 2010 aggregated across a variety of economic indicators.

  • And you can see that the economy tanked, just like we all remember.

  • And then by late 2010, it had recovered by most objective measures.

  • Now, here's data on consumer confidence that we polled over the same time period.

  • You can see it tanks right along with the economy, and then it seems to get stuck.

  • So instead of rebounding with the economy itself,

  • consumers seem to get psychologically stuck, back there in the recession.

  • Oddly then it take,

  • it may take a lot more, a lot more effort to change our minds,

  • our perceptions about how the economy is doing than to change the economy itself.

  • On a more personal level,

  • what I take away from this research is that we have to work to see the upside.

  • And I mean this literally.

  • It takes work, it takes effort.

  • Now we can actually practice this.

  • We can train our minds to do this better.

  • So there is research out of U.C. Davis in the Psych Department, Dr.

  • Bob Evans, showing that just writing about things that you're grateful for,

  • for a few minutes each day, or even a few minutes each week,

  • can substantially boost your happiness and well being and even your health.

  • So you end up experiencing fewer physical symptoms if you're kind of practicing

  • thinking about things that you're grateful for.

  • All right, so one effective strategy for

  • retraining our brain is to practice gratitude.

  • Another effective strategy is to rehearse good news and share it with others.

  • So we tend to think, right, that misery loves company, that we'll feel better if

  • we vent our negative emotions, and talk to other people about how bad our day was.

  • So if there's a frustrating meeting at work, or

  • an annoying traffic jam on the way home, or you get into a fight with your friend,

  • you talk about that with everybody, maybe for hours, right?

  • >> [LAUGH] >> But

  • we forgot somehow to talk about the good stuff.

  • And yet, this research suggests that's exactly where our minds need

  • the most practice.

  • So when we were just starting this research, Amber and I applied for

  • a grant from the National Science Foundation to fund some of it.

  • And we're waiting on pins and needles on what the decision is.

  • And finally, finally, the e-mail comes, and we open it.

  • And it says, congratulations your grant has been funded, and we say, hooray.

  • And then it says, unfortunately we had to cut your budget by 50%.

  • >> [LAUGH] >> And our first thought is oh my god,

  • we just lost half of our grant.

  • >> [LAUGH] >> This is terrible.

  • >> [LAUGH] >> And our second thought is wait,

  • wait, wait.

  • >> [LAUGH] >> We just got half of our grant,

  • this is good, isn't this good?

  • >> [LAUGH] >> And our third thought is wait,

  • are we participants in one of our own experiments?

  • >> [LAUGH] >> And for all the world,

  • even though we knew about our predictions and our facts, we were acting,

  • our minds were acting just like our participants' minds.

  • We couldn't stop thinking about the half of the grant we had lost.

  • But, we were determined not to think about it and

  • to retrain the way that our minds were working.

  • So for the next few weeks, when we corresponded over email, we would include

  • a mention or rehearsal or reinforcement, right, of the positive frame.

  • We would talk about how we were now grant funded.

  • And because we're serious academic scholars, we would include serious

  • academic scholarly pictures to reinforce the frame whenever possible.

  • >> [LAUGH] >> True story.

  • All right, so one strategy to retrain our minds is to practice gratitude.

  • Another one is to really rehearse good news and

  • share it with other people, anchor it in shared reality.

  • A third strategy that we can use to combat this, this,

  • negativity bias in our heads is to become more aware that bad tends to stick and

  • that it tends to propagate itself.

  • Right, somebody snaps at you or you snap at somebody else, and

  • that can stick with the person for the whole day.

  • And then they snap at the next person and the next person and the next person.

  • So how do you break yourself out of that cycle?

  • Well, psychological research on happiness suggests that one of the things that makes

  • us most happy is actually helping other people.

  • What's interesting about that is that when you're in a bad mood,

  • you tend to get really self focused and very focused on the negative.

  • So you're having a bad day at work, and every other negative

  • thing in your entire life and possibly the history of the world get's very salient.

  • It pops to mind very easily.

  • Right? And then you're grumpy,

  • and you're grumpy to the people around you.

  • And now they're grumpy too.

  • So how do you break yourself out of that cycle?

  • Go out of your way to focus on somebody else and do something nice for

  • somebody else.

  • So perform a random act of kindness.

  • Buy coffee for the person who is standing behind you in line, for

  • the homeless guy sitting on the street.

  • Give your umbrella to a stranger walking in the rain.

  • Go out of your way to make somebody else's day a little bit better and

  • suddenly your own gets better too.

  • So the point here, the take home message, is that our minds may be built to look for

  • negative information and to hold onto it once we find it.

  • And that may be very adaptive from an evolutionary perspective and not so

  • pleasant in the modern day world where we're generally safe from tigers.

  • But we can also, right, retrain our brains if we put some effort into it and start to

  • think a little bit differently about our lives and about the world around us.

  • Thank you.

  • >> [APPLAUSE]

Good morning.

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

粘着性のあるフレーム。なぜネガティブが心の中に留まるのか、そしてそれについてどうすればいいのか (Sticky Frames: Why Negatives Lodge in the Mind and What To Do About It)

  • 566 21
    Daniel Ngan に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語