Comments on: Heavy, rough and hard – how the things we touch affect our judgments and decisions

By: Samba

Samba — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:18:24 +0000

With no cultural control group it’s impossible to tell whether the results reported are cultural artifacts or not. Were all these people educated? Do they spend most of their time,like so many educated people ,herding abstractions,or did you test some people who do physical work and are aware of thinking with their whole bodies? Carpenters can’t let the weight of a tool effect the accuracy of measurement. Test some musicians who use highly developed proprioception to be extremely accurate with the motions of controlling their instruments without being thrown by the emotional content of the moment,but rather than ignoring it give it expression . Test some advanced practicioners of martial arts that secifically address these areas, like Aikido ,Tai Chi and Kung Fu and see what they register. Treating physical perception as if it affects thought ,while reflecting a familiar cultural bias ,seems delusory. Science generally doesn’t recognize a mechanism for mind body seperation so how could movement and touch not effect thought. Nerve endings are part of the brain and perception is part of thought.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:16:26 +0000

Sitting on a soft chair right now, but still having a hard time swallowing this.

Mr. Nocera’s response above clearly illustrates the problem with the study: they found exactly what they wanted to find.

By: Christopher C. Nocera

Christopher C. Nocera — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:05:37 +0000

Hello Ellen,

I came across your post and as I am one of the co-author’s on the paper, it seemed only fair to offer you some clarification. With each type of touch we studied (hard/soft, rough/smooth, heavy/light) we did two types of studies: a Behavioral and a Perceptual.

The behavioral studies involve study subjects interacting and making choices for themselves based on the interactions.

The perceptual studies on the other hand, involve the subject forming an impression of someone else in a passive role. In other words, they observe other people interacting and are not directly involved. This could be in the form of a live interaction, a video or even a transcript.

The particular study you asked about was a perceptual task and involved and interaction between an employee and their boss. The study subjects were asked to form an impression and then evaluate the employee’s personality across an impression scale that included a list of trait terms (e.g. permissive, open-minded, trusting…… using 1-7 (“not at all” to “very”) scales.

What we hope to find was that people who participated in the study who touched the wood block (hard to manipulate) would answer the questions in such a way that labeled the employee as being strict (e.g. labeling the employee as non-permissive, close-minded…) whereas the people who interacted with the soft (e.g. malleable) cloth would do the opposite. This was what we found.

Hope this helps. Please ask for further clarification if you still have questions.

Thanks,

Christopher Nocera

By: Ellen

Ellen — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:25:32 +0000

Very thought provoking. These conclusions would undermine the tactic used by some negotiators when hosting a meeting: directing their “opponent” to the least comfortable chair to supposedly undermine the opponent’s confidence. Perhaps it would be best to see that they have the cushiest perch instead, to soften them up.

I am puzzled by one point though: in paragraph 10, “People deemed conversations to be stricter after touching a hard object, but not more positive. ” I’m unclear just what is meant by a conversation being “strict.” I tried to look up the article, but they want $$$. Perhaps my chair is too hard….

By: Lilian Nattel

Lilian Nattel — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:32:40 +0000

Perhaps that’s why our PM spent a billion plus on the G8/G20 meetings–he needed to make sure their chairs were cushiony.