Communication Studies

Pass the Milk: Is That a Question or an Order?

chase — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:16:07 +0000

A new study from the University of Portsmouth in Great Britain provides insight into the differences between the ways in which native English speakers and native Polish speakers use language during day-to-day interactions with family. The researchers hope their findings will lead to a greater understanding between members of the two groups and reduce misunderstandings based on cultural differences.

The researchers’ findings demonstrated how common exchanges between Polish family members lead to an enhanced sense of family and attachment within the Polish community, but sound offensive when translated directly into English.

Jörg Zinken observed family interactions among Polish and British families. He was particularly interested in the dynamics at play behind such everyday occurrences as a family member asking another family member to pass the milk during a meal. Zinken observed that British family members usually asked others to pass the milk, while Polish family members simply said, “Pass the milk.”

The British version is framed as a request even though the asker is already certain that the person being asked for assistance will comply. Zinken believes this is because English-speaking cultures typically value autonomy and wish to provide at least the illusion that the decision to pass the milk belongs to the person who is being asked for assistance. In addition, the responder has the option to assent, which further establishes the idea that individuals decide for themselves whether to help or not.

Polish family members often make no response, or respond with a one-word answer that has no direct translation in English but which translates roughly to “already,” suggesting that the responder is so eager to help that the deed is already as good as done.

When Polish people try to translate the Polish words to ask for the milk directly into English, the words sound offensive and rude to English ears. The new study suggests this is not because the words do not translate properly, but rather because they do. Similarly, the usual English way of asking for the milk would seem insulting to a Polish person if it were translated directly.

Zinken believes this is because both statements are considered respectful and positive in their native speakers’ own cultures but are inappropriate in the other culture. In Poland, the very fact that a family member would not consider refusing such a request is a sign of family love and closeness. The Polish way of asking for the milk expresses the idea that the asker knows and appreciates this fact about the other person. This is considered a positive statement about the relationship between the two family members.

According to Zinken, his research highlights the differences between an individualistic culture like that of most English speakers and a collectivistic culture like that of most Polish speakers. These differing values are expressed in even the simplest everyday verbal interactions. “Every culture has its own social rules and values, but we often don’t notice them because they are ingrained in the way we use language, not just in the words we use but in grammar and sentence structure,” said Zinken. “If we understand these differences better, we can understand where other people are coming from, while also reflecting on what our own language says about us and how we relate to others.”

No related posts.

How to Tell If Someone Is Lying On Their Online Dating Profile

chase — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:02:53 +0000

How do you know they're being honest?

People who seek mates online are notorious for blurring the lines between truth and fantasy. Stories about perfect online dates who bear no resemblance to their online profiles have become fodder for television sitcom plots, late-night punch lines and, unfortunately, crime headlines. Whether these examples reflect the reality of the online dating world or simply the public’s anxieties and fears regarding online matchmaking, the truth remains that online daters can easily get away with lying about themselves for at least as long as it takes to get a foot in the door.

Most people have a hard time telling when people are lying even when they are face to face with them. When the only clue you have is the language a person uses, as in online profiles, it becomes almost impossible for most people to tell when they are being deceived. New research threatens to change all that in the near future, however.

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison have figured out ways to tell when people are lying just by looking at the words they use and how many of them there are. Catalina Toma and Jeffrey Hancock looked at personal profiles written for online dating sites and compared the information provided with accurate information about the person profiled. The researchers analyzed the language used by would-be daters to see what profiles that contained lies and distortions had in common.

According to the findings reported in the Journal of Communication, it is possible to detect a pattern among the liars. For example, the more untruths a profile contains, the more the writer avoids using the word “I.” According to Toma, this is because liars subconsciously seek to maintain a distance between themselves and the lies they have written.

Liars were also much more likely to use negation. For example, they might state that they are “not in bad shape” rather than saying that they are physically fit or “not shy” instead of saying that they are outgoing. Those who had deceptive profiles were also more apt to use fewer words and tell less about themselves. Toma explains that this is to keep the lies simple so that the liar does not have to remember lots of details.

People who were lying were eager to avoid their lies once they were in place. For example, those who had lied about their vital statistics or who had submitted a doctored, outdated or otherwise deceptive photograph tended to avoid the subject of their appearance in other parts of their profile. They typically focused on achievements in the sections that invited them to tell a potential date about themselves.

Toma and Hancock first compiled the list of clues for spotting deception, then attempted to use them to ferret out those who were lying on their profiles. They were able to correctly identify people who were deceptive 65 percent of the time by looking for the indicators they had previously identified.

Next, volunteers were asked to review the same profiles and try to figure out which ones were being dishonest. Toma compared the success rate of the volunteers to what he would expect from flipping a coin.

Interestingly, eight out of 10 of the profiles studied included at least one falsehood, although many of the lies were small and infrequent. People were most likely to lie about their weight, followed by lies about height and age.

The authors explain that a number of factors make it easier to practice deception in online dating situations. For example, people have time to phrase their responses carefully and double-check their stories before proceeding. They can also choose not to answer. Still, says Toma, the study’s findings are consistent with what scientists know about the way liars conduct themselves in person.

Online dating profiles may be relatively new, but people have been misrepresenting themselves to potential mates for at least the last few thousand years, and there is no reason to think it was not happening long before the first cases were written down. Shakespeare’s heroine Viola did it, and Homer writes that even Zeus, king of the gods, was not above pretending to be something he was not in order to increase his chances with an attractive potential mate.

For now, online daters are on their own when it comes to sniffing out deceptive profiles. The researcher’s findings are too new to have been applied to the development of an online deception detector. However, the day may come when such applications become reality.

“Someday, there may be software to tell you how likely it is that the cute person whose profile you’re looking at is lying to you, or even that someone is being deceptive in an e-mail,” said Toma. “But that may take a while.”

Are You a Sensor or an Intuitive? How Does That Affect Your Communication?

chase — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:51:53 +0000

At some point in your life, you may have found yourself unable to get a point across to another person. This frustrating experience may have been a result of basic differences in the way individual humans perceive and process information.

Two Types of Perception

Carl Jung, one of psychology’s most influential pioneers, was the first to write about the different ways humans assimilate information. He split people into two categories: sensors and intuitives. According to Jung, everyone uses both ways to process information but most people rely more heavily on one or the other.

The basic difference between sensors and intuitives is that sensors perceive information and create meaning from the information they sense around them and intuitives do the same thing from conclusions drawn after raw information is pondered.

Sensors

Sensors pay attention to the things they can directly perceive around them. They like facts and concrete data. They tend to be very practical and are apt to live life on life’s terms. Sensors are very fond of logic and like order and schedules. They experience life as a sequence of immediate events and view things very specifically, without attaching symbolism or deeper meaning to events and sensations.

Sensors have been characterized as relying only on their conscious perception. Although their approach to life and living makes sense in light of their nature, they often frustrate their intuitive friends, relatives and coworkers, who think them superficial and shortsighted.

A sensor may not be able to offer any insight into the personality of a neighbor but can tell you that he says he is a butcher, drives a luxury car and wears designer suits when he leaves for work every afternoon.

Intuitives

Intuitives, on the other hand, barely notice details because their minds are busy looking for patterns, considering possibilities and interpreting what the information they are sensing means. Intuitives often focus on the long term, and like using strategy to pursue goals. For them, information has little meaning until it can be placed into a larger framework.

Intuitives have been characterized as relying on their unconscious perceptions. Again, their approach to life and living is entirely reasonable, considering their natural abilities, but the sensors who know and love them may consider them impractical, fanciful and lacking in resolve.

An intuitive may be able to tell you that the man next door is not trustworthy, but be unable to tell you exactly how they know this.

Communication

People often make the mistake of assuming that everyone thinks the way they do. It is natural to attempt to communicate with someone by expressing arguments that seem valid to you in ways that make sense to you. If you are a sensor talking to an intuitive, however, or an intuitive trying to talk to a sensor, you may feel as though you are speaking gibberish to an alien. Remembering a few basic concepts can make communicating across types much easier.

Communicating with Sensors

It is important to remember that sensors need and appreciate clarity. In order to get through to them, it helps to provide clear evidence, especially in the form of concrete presentations. Have plenty of details to share, and keep your plans down-to-earth and realistic, but do have a specific, step-by-step plan. Abstract concepts and long-term strategies are just words to sensors, so minimize them. They respond much better to being shown what you have in mind.

When making a presentation to a sensor, use pictures, details, schedules, specific examples and set practical, realistic goals. Pictures that evoke different senses are helpful. PowerPoint presentations, prototypes and sales data make good props.

Communicating with Intuitives

If you are attempting to communicate with an intuitive, begin with the big picture and then add details, getting gradually more specific until you notice their attention beginning to wane. Be prepared to answer questions about fine details, but do not offer them until you are asked. Intuitives do not have to have everything spelled out for them. Instead, intuitives will form a mental picture to match your ideas if you provide them with metaphors and analogies. Intuitives will want to participate in the dialogue, so be prepared for broad ideas and vague suggestions from them and realize that they do not have any details worked out at this point.

When making a presentation to an intuitive, express big ideas, long-term strategies and lofty goals. Use charts, testimonials and mission statements to illustrate your points and incorporate strategy sessions and question and answer opportunities into your presentation.

Perceiving the World from Another Perspective

It may be more comfortable to work with others who perceive in ways similar to your own. It is easy for sensors to dismiss intuitives and for intuitives to look down on sensors, but both types are effective at processing information and understanding situations. In the case of the dishonest neighbor, the sensor knows enough details about his life to know the man is not what he claims to be. The intuitive, on the other hand, has put together seemingly unnoticed details into a pattern and come to the same conclusion.

Fortunately, most people use a combination of both types of perception, and although individuals tend to rely more heavily on one than the other, most people have at least limited familiarity with both ways of experiencing the world. Recognizing the way others communicate can help you to harness the unique strengths of both types of perceivers to accomplish your communication goals.

No related posts.

Confirmation Bias Is False, Says Study

chase — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:08:32 +0000

Ever since cable news outlets that displayed a pronounced partisan slant became available, observers have voiced concerns that political partisans from both poles will immerse themselves in outlets that offer only reinforcement of their own beliefs, blocking themselves off from conflicting opinions (also known as “confirmation bias“). With the advent of online news sources with frankly partisan outlooks, that fear has only grown.

A new study from researchers at Ohio State University suggests that such concerns are unfounded. They discovered that even the most partisan readers visit mainstream news sites, as well as partisan sites that express views that oppose their own. In fact, as visits to partisan sites increased, the researchers noted a corresponding increase in visits to sites that represented the opposite extreme, as well as more mainstream, general news sources.

The study, led by assistant professor of communication R. Kelly Garret, is slated for publication in the journal Political Behavior. According to Garret’s results, those who push for legislation requiring the expression of opposing viewpoints on partisan websites and broadcasts can relax. Although the proliferation of partisan websites would make it easy for surfers to avoid ever encountering an opposing viewpoint, people do not appear to be immersing themselves in sites that only reinforce their own opinions.

The Ohio State academics analyzed data taken from multiple Pew surveys and a survey from the National Science Foundation that was led by one of the current study’s researchers. The surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2008 and interviewed from 600 to 2,500 respondents each. Participants were asked questions about their personal political leanings and about the frequency of their use of websites that use a particular ideological slant. Using a variety of different approaches, the surveys asked questions designed to elicit information on how often survey respondents accessed politically conservative or liberal blogs or news outlets, major mainstream news outlets and online newspapers.

The investigators determined that around 14 percent of the respondents go to websites that reinforce what they already believe. However, they do not stick to the same old sites, nodding mindlessly in response to ideas and viewpoints that they already hold, as many who fear confirmation bias have speculated. These respondents are also more likely to access mainstream news sites and online newspapers than respondents who report that they do not access sites with any partisan slant. This raises the possibility that individuals at both political poles are actually exposed to more viewpoints that oppose their own than those who hold more mainstream views.

Garret and his teams determined that a person who accessed sites with a particular political orientation had a nearly 80 percent chance of also accessing one of the major mainstream news outlets’ websites. This is slightly more than double the odds for a person who never visits sites that exhibit a partisan bias. The analysis showed that the more frequently a respondent went onto sites that agreed with their own political views, the more frequently they also went onto sites that presented the opposite view. Perhaps even more significantly, those with strong partisan views don’t tend to rely upon biased sites for the bulk of their political news. Nearly 70 percent of them visited sites that provided information and commentary that challenged their established political beliefs.

Although critics may be quick to speculate that people who hold strong political opinions may be more likely to access a variety of news and political information sites simply because their interests lie in that area, Garrett was quick to reassure readers that his team ruled out this possibility. According to Garrett, the study’s results hold true whether participants showed a great deal of interest in politics or only a little. ”Whether you’re very interested in politics or only casually interested, if you visit websites supporting one political view, you’re more likely to visit sites supporting the opposing view,” he said.

One of Garret’s co-authors, Dustin Carnahan, considers the study good news about the way Americans use the internet to gather information on politics. The results contradict conventional wisdom, which holds that the voting public is resistant to opposing viewpoints and that those on the far ends of the spectrum are particularly closed-minded. Instead, he said, voters appear to be much more willing than many had thought to consider political ideas and beliefs that do not reflect their own. Garret pointed out that this willingness is the crucial first step towards looking at both sides of an issue and achieving an eventual compromise. He acknowledges that it takes more than mere exposure to prevent people from lapsing into a confirmation bias. “Of course, it is not enough to simply look at what the other side has to say. But it is at least a start,” he said.

The Art of Wearable Communication [Video]

chase — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:18:21 +0000

In this video, Kate Hartman talks about the wearable art that she has created. Hartman, who calls herself an artist, educator and technologist, in that order, is a physical computing instructor. She shares with her audience her observations and personal sense of wonder about the ways in which humans communicate with themselves, with others and with the world around them in the context of modern technological advances.

Hartman begins her presentation by introducing herself and telling watchers about her credentials and her own work, then challenges her audience to think about why bodies matter. The answer, she tells them, is that everyone has one. Everyone uses their bodies to hear and to make themselves heard. As part of her exploration of the ways in which people use technology to facilitate or block the development of relationships with self, others and the surrounding environment, Hartman has developed a number of technological devices that can be worn.

Hartman’s whimsical communication projects include a Hat to Share Your Thoughts that allows wearers to share the cacophony of thoughts that fill the human consciousness, a Talk to Yourself Hat that channels the wearer’s voice back into his or her own ears, a Gut Listener to allow a person to listen to their own insides and the Discommunicator, that allows the intensity of angry words to get through but muffles the individual words that are spoken.

For Hartman, what matters is not so much the devices themselves and whether they accomplish their aims, but what occurs inside the person who wears them and how that experience changes the wearer. The message Hartman hopes to leave with those she touches through her art and her science is that although humans find themselves in a very exciting time when devices allow people to communicate more quickly and in more ways than anyone ever predicted, it is crucial that people “…maintain a sense of wonder and a sense of criticality about the tools we use and the way we relate to the world.”

No related posts.

Physical Attraction More Important than Many Realize [Study]

chase — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:38:09 +0000

"But, he's got a great personality!"

Most people will tell you what they prefer in a car or a house or a career, and for the most part, these preferences will predict which car or house or career they will choose. However, when people claim that physical attractiveness does not factor into their search for a partner, their claim may be less accurate in predicting who they will be attracted to. A new study reveals that what people claim to desire in a partner may bear little resemblance to what actually attracts them to potential mates.

Researchers at Texas A&M and Northwestern University have developed a new way to measure the responses of participants and use the measurements to predict to what extent their level of attraction to a potential partner will depend upon how sexy they find the candidate. The study was led by Paul W. Eastwick, along with co-authors Eli Finkel, Alice H. Eagly and Sarah E. Johnson.

Previous studies have indicated that, although people are usually very clear about what they want in a partner, those traits have little to do with who they find themselves attracted to in a face-to-face encounter. The new methodology allows researchers to figure out what a person really wants, even if the person does not know.

The study measured how quickly participants were able to identify words that represent different ways to say “physical attractiveness.” Those who were good at the task, it turns out, were also the most likely to fall for a potential partner who they considered to be physically attractive, regardless of whether the potential mate exhibited traits the participant previously identified as important in a partner.

This is not the first study to find that what people want in a partner often has little to do with what they choose in one. However, most prior studies based their results on what participants told the researchers regarding what they want in a mate. Investigators who conducted the current study were able to use their measurements to accurately predict how great a role physical attractiveness would play in the response a participant would have to potential partners in an actual encounter.

Don’t Use Facebook If You Have Low Self-Esteem [Study]

chase — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:27:49 +0000

People with low self-esteem post more negative updates, which makes them less likeable.

On the surface, Facebook would seem to offer important benefits to people who have low self-esteem. Sharing is easy and feels safe on Facebook, and sharing is an important way to improve friendships. Having a stable network of social connections helps to improve self-esteem. In reality, though, it may not work out that way. A new study conducted by Amanda Forest and Joanne Wood of the University of Waterloo found that people with low self-esteem tend to post too many negative updates, causing friends to see them as less likeable. The study will be published in the journal Psychological Science.

Initially, the researchers, who have a special focus on self-esteem and how it impacts which emotions people express, thought that Facebook would be an ideal venue for people to go to learn social skills and improve friendships. People who have lower self-esteem typically find it hard to share their feelings in a one-on-one setting. However, Facebook allows users to share and have social interactions without the need for face-to-face contact.

The researchers found that participants with low self-esteem often view Facebook as a chance to connect and interact with others in a safe setting without the awkwardness they often feel in live, in-person social settings. Participants were also asked to provide the ten most recent updates about their life that they posted for their Facebook friends to see. The updates were rated for negativity, then an undergraduate research assistant went through the updates and indicated how likeable they found the person who made the statements from the updates.

Participants who had low self-esteem tended to post updates that were more negative on average. In turn, the assistants who rated their updates tended to find them less likeable than people with higher self-esteem. Although the raters did not know the people who posted the updates, according to Forest, a previous study showed that almost half of the friends people list on Facebook are strangers or mere acquaintances, rather than close friends.

The study found that when participants with low self-esteem placed very positive messages on their pages, they received more responses from members of their actual Facebook friends list than they did when they placed negative or neutral messages on Facebook. However, participants who had high self-esteem got more responses from their friends when they posted negative messages. Forest and Wood speculate that this may be because, in both cases, these types of posts are more unusual for these users.

The investigators concluded that, while people who have low self-esteem may be more willing to share on Facebook, they might not receive the same benefits from doing so that they would get from face-to-face encounters. This is because people may not be as willing to provide feedback on Facebook the way they might in person. According to Forest, in a live social setting, people may be able to pick up on a friend’s negative reaction to to something they said. “On Facebook, you don’t see most of the reactions.”

News Framing Affects the Public’s Emotional Response [Study]

chase — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:33:03 +0000

Public relations personnel are charged with managing the way organizational crises are perceived by the public, but they are also responsible for encouraging a public response that benefits both the organization involved and the people and things impacted by the crisis. Recent research published in the journal Communications Research shows that the way the news of a disaster or tragedy is framed during initial media coverage has a strong impact on the way the public responds to the organization at the center of the crisis.

Researchers led by Glen Cameron of the University of Missouri showed participants two different news stories covering the same crisis. Some participants were given an article that took an “anger-frame” perspective, blaming the organization involved for the situation. A second group received an article that took a “sadness-frame” point-of-view, focusing on the victims and the negative impact on them of the crisis.

Participants who were shown the “anger-frame” story tended to skim over the information and to come away with more negative attitudes toward the organization than the ones who saw the “sadness-frame” article. Not only were their emotions influenced by the news slant used, but their information processing patterns were influenced as well, with “anger-frame” readers less likely to evaluate the information carefully and draw their own conclusions and quicker to join the article’s author in condemning the company involved.

The researchers also examined how the corporate response to a crisis affects public perception of the organization. They found that an official response that focuses on relief efforts and the welfare of victims led to an improved image of the corporation in the minds of the public. However, messages that focused on promises of justice sought to distance the company from culpability based upon legal principles had the opposite effect. These results held true regardless of whether people received their first account of the news in an anger- or sadness-framed presentation.

According to Cameron, the results show the importance of taking quick control of the message when a crisis occurs. Putting a human face on what may otherwise appear to observers to be a faceless, soulless corporate entity is crucial during such times, he said. “If a corporation can focus on the wellbeing of the victims and how the corporation will improve following the crisis, they have a better chance of influencing “sadness-frame” news coverage as opposed to “anger-frame” coverage,” said Cameron.

The focus of the research is not to find ways to help organizations avoid responsibility, according to Cameron, but instead to help them handle crises as effectively as possible. “Crises are going to happen,” he said. “Unfortunately, planes will crash and there will be oil spills. This study helps to show how the public will react to different types of news coverage of crises, and subsequently, what the best ways are for corporations to handle any crises they may encounter.”

Significant Personality Differences Between Men And Women Found [Study]

chase — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:35:03 +0000

How different are we?

The issue of whether the differences between men and women are real or imaginary has been a matter of much debate. Now a new study conducted by the University of Turin in Italy and published in the journal PLoS ONE claims to have uncovered evidence that large differences in personality exist between men and women.

Previous research has lent little credence to the popular school of thought that men and women are so different that they may as well live on different planets. However, lead author Marco Del Giudice claims to have developed a more accurate method to measure and analyze what he says are significant personality differences between men and women.

Under Del Giudice, investigators took personality measurements from more than 5,000 men and 5,000 women. They measured 15 different traits, including warmth and sensitivity. Unlike previous studies, Del Giudice’s project compared comprehensive personality profiles that considered many different traits, rather than focusing upon differences in the incidence of individual traits between the sexes. When the data is looked at this way, very large differences between men and women are seen.

Del Giudice admits that these individual differences, taken separately, do appear much less significant. He contends, however, that previous researchers not only neglected to correct for measurement errors, but that their practice of looking at one trait at a time obscured the big picture. As a result, according to Del Giudice, previous investigators failed to recognize the full extent of personality differences between men and women.

Trusted Sources Lend Credibility to Online Portals [Study]

chase — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:25:36 +0000

Just as retail stores are often judged by the brand names they stock, online news portals tend to be judged by the sources of the articles they post. According to a new study by researchers at Penn State and published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, people who access news articles from credible sources through online portals such as Yahoo News or Google News tend to view the portals themselves as more credible.

According to researcher S. Shyam Sundar, online news portals, which are often little more than fancy delivery systems for stories that originated elsewhere, reap most of the benefits of news sites, including enhanced credibility and revenue generation, while assuming little of the risk. He points out that even when the news item turns out to lack credibility, the portal is rarely held liable.

The investigators exposed study participants to various online news articles and asked them to rate the credibility of both the online portals the articles were accessed through and the original sources of the articles. To prevent participants from rating the articles based upon the quality of the writing, the researchers presented the articles through what appeared to be two different online portals and attributed them to two different original sources.

For the purposes of the study, Google News was chosen as an example of a highly credible portal and the Drudge Report represented a low-credibility online portal. The New York Times served as a highly credible original source, while the National Enquirer acted as its low-credibility counterpart.

When participants read an article they believed was from a trusted source, they were more likely to rate the online portal they accessed it through as credible. When they read an article they thought came from a source that lacked credibility, they tended to view the portal as less credible. Unfortunately for sources that were perceived as having low credibility, reading an article on a trusted portal was unlikely to make the reader view the source more favorably.

In spite of these results, Sundar noted that readers rarely took note of original sources unless they became involved in the story. When articles failed to engage an individual participant, he or she was unlikely to make more than a cursory investigation into the source of the article and was more likely to make a quick judgment based solely on the perceived credibility of the online portal.

It has become more and more difficult for consumers of news to trace the sources of information. When a reader views an article in a print copy of the New York Times, it is very clear where the story came from and who is taking responsibility for its accuracy. When the same article is viewed online, however, the story may have been taken from the original source and channeled through an online portal, forwarded via email and then posted on Facebook. Sources may become murky and may disappear altogether along the way, according to Sundar.

“With traditional media it’s fairly clear who the source is,” he said. “But in online media, it gets very murky because there are so many sources.”