DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Cosmic Variance
« Google Moon
The Blog as a Sharp Tool for Research »

You are what you read

by Sean Carroll

You know how, when you take snowboarding lessons, they teach you to look in the direction you want to go, not at obstacles you want to avoid? Well they do, and it’s good advice — keep looking at that tree and your subconscious will steer you right into it. Works for driving, too.

I’m not sure if it’s the same psychological phenomenon, but this is what I was reminded of when reading a post by Chris at Mixing Memory about some puzzling psychology experiments. Apparently, just being exposed to words expressing the concept of rudeness is enough to make people behave more rudely.

Bargh, Chen, and Burrows set out to demonstrate the existence of “automatic social behavior.” They conducted three experiments, each targeting different behaviors. In the first experiment, they first gave participants a scrambled sentence test, which involves presenting five scrambled words and asking the participant to form a grammatically correct sentence out of four of them as quickly as possible. They developed three different lists of scrambled words, one of which primed the concept RUDE, another that primed POLITE, and a third that was neutral with respect to rudeness/politeness. The primes in these lists included adjectives, adverbs, or verbs that were associated with the concepts (e.g., brazen, aggressively, or disturb for RUDE, and considerate, patiently, and respect for POLITE). While the participant was completing the scrambled sentence test, the experimenter left and began talking to a confederate (an experimenter posing as another participant). When the participant finished, he or she came out of the room to look for the experimenter to receive instructions for the next task (as the experimenter had instructed). However, the participant always found the experimenter talking to the confederate. Bargh et al. then measured the time it took for the participant to interrupt the conversation between the experimenter and the confederate.

Guess what they found. Of the participants who did the RUDE version of the sentence test, more than 60% interrupted in under ten minutes (they cut it off at ten minutes — can you imagine how frustrated some of those participants were after standing there for ten minutes?), whereas fewer than 20% of the POLITE-primed participants interrupted in that time. The neutral list participants were in between at around 40%. The RUDE participants also interrupted a full 3 minutes sooner than neutral participants, and almost 4 minutes sooner than the POLITE participants.

As Chris says, it gets weirder. My favorite was how people move more slowly after reading words associated with older people. So how do you think our personalities are affected by reading too many blogs?

Share

July 23rd, 2005 1:03 PM
in Science | 1 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

One Response to “You are what you read”

  1. 1.   Vincent Noel Says:
    July 25th, 2005 at 9:14 am

    This is the topic of a whole chapter in the book “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s a very interesting read. Makes you question your own judgements :-)





    • Cosmic Variance Cosmic Variance is a group blog by people who, coincidentally or not, all happen to be physicists and astrophysicists:
      • Daniel Holz
      • JoAnne Hewett
      • John Conway
      • Julianne Dalcanton
      • Mark Trodden
      • Risa Wechsler
      • Sean Carroll
      Our day (and night) jobs notwithstanding, the blog is about whatever we find interesting — science, to be sure, but also arts, politics, culture, technology, academia, and miscellaneous trivia. We have similar outlooks on many things, widely disparate opinions about others, and will do our best to keep the discourse reasonably elevated.
    • Recent Posts

      • How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • A 3.8-Sigma Anomaly
      • Boycott Elsevier
      • Mind = Blown
      • Unsolicited Advice XIII: How to Craft a Well-Argued Proposal
      • Your Favorite Deep, Elegant, or Beautiful Explanation
      • Good News/Bad News: Nobel Edition
      • Do I Not Live?
      • Noisy Systems and Wandering Canines
      • Happy Birthday, Stephen Hawking
      • Predictions for 2012
      • A Year Well Blogged
      • Happy Holidays!
      • Last-Minute Shopping List
      • The Girl With Various Interesting Qualities
    • Recent Comments

      • jammer on Mind = Blown
      • Kaleberg on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • David Brown on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Andrew on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • steven johnson on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Albert Z on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Phillip Helbig on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Marko on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Marko on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • JoeTurpin on Your Favorite Deep, Elegant, or Beautiful Explanation
      • Valdis Kletnieks on A 3.8-Sigma Anomaly
      • Bob Kirshner on A 3.8-Sigma Anomaly
    • Facebook

    • Archives By Date

    • Archives By Category

    • Useful Pages

      • Home
      • RSS Feed
      • Comments Feed
      • About
      • Links (Blogroll)
      • Guest Bloggers
      • Equations Using LaTeX
      • Facebook page and group
      • Twitter
      • Goodies Store
      • Google Blog Search
      • Technorati Profile
      • Bloglines citations
    • Site Meter



  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us