Thursday, June 21, 2018

Why Do Movies Move?


If you spend time watching movies or TV, you have probably know that you see a moving image on the screen, but that the sense of motion is created by your brain from a series of static images.  Typical movies, for example, flash 24 frames per second.  Somehow, the brain takes the changes from one frame to the next and gives you the illusion of fluid movement. 
How does that happen?  Take a moment to try to explain it to yourself.
This question is just one of many that is explored in a great book that came out in 2015 called Flicker by cognitive neuroscientist Jeff Zacks.  The book itself explores a variety of topics ranging from low-level aspects of the way the visual system understands the images on the screen all the way to high-level topics like the reason why movies are so good at creating emotion.
So, why do movies move?
You might think that what is happening is that each image persists a little on the retina (the cells at the back of your eye that respond to light) and that changes in the image are detected there.  Or perhaps, when the image is first processed in the brain, it recognizes small discrepancies from one frame to the next.
Neither of those possibilities is quite right.
The images from the screen enter the eye and hit the retina.  From there, they are passed into the brain and ultimately make their way to the occipital lobe in the back of the brain where most visual processing is done.  Initially, the brain looks for simple visual features in the image like the presence of edges, because edges usually signal the boundaries of objects.
The interesting thing is, the brain divides up the task of understanding the image in multiple ways, with different brain areas searching for different features in the image.  The unified sense of vision we have arises because the brain ultimately puts all of those independent properties back together. 
Early in the processing of images a particular area of the brain called area MT (shown in the figure) looks for blobs that have changed position.  When MT sees a blob in a location that has changed it position a bit, it gives a signal suggesting that there was motion.  Sustained activity of MT indicating motion in a particular direction gives people the experience that an object moved.  This brain area doesn’t really care much about the blobs themselves.  The blobs could actually change shape or color from one frame to the next, it is just looking for motion.
So, the motion in movies comes from activity in the brain area MT.  As Zacks points out, though, this can sometimes cause problems.  In particular, when a movie is put together, it is usually constructed from a set of scenes that are spliced (or cut) together.  If the editor is not careful, when one scene is cut to the next, some of the objects may appear to jump from one location on the screen to another.  This jarring sense of movement is called a jump cut.  Filmmakers try not to create these jump cuts, and texts on film making give suggestions for how to avoid them. 
These jump cuts are caused by the same process that causes the sense of motion in scenes.  When one scene is cut to another, if area MT detects the motion of a blob, it will send a signal that an object in one location actually moved to another.  That can feel weird, because brain areas that calculate the size, color, and shape of the object may not see strong similarities in the objects from one scene to the next, so you can get a feeling of motion without have a clear sense of what moved.
One of the reasons why Flicker is an interesting read is that Zacks explores the ways that movies exploit the structure of the brain to give us an immersive experience.  If you can pull yourself away from the screen for a few hours, it is well-worth the time to check it out.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

The Effects of Synchrony on Conformity


Teams tend to do things together.  Soldiers march in step.  Athletic teams do stretches and simple drills together as a unit.  In public schools, all students repeat phrases together like the Pledge of Allegiance.  At stadiums, fans will chant together and make similar movements.
There is quite a bit of work that suggests that acting in synchrony like this can increase people’s sense of teamwork and conformity.  Why does that happen?  What happens to people watching others acting together?
This question was addressed in a paper by Ping Dong, Xianchi Dai, and Robert Wyer in the January, 2015 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 
In one study, they had a group of participants learn a set of four basic physical exercises.  Some groups performed the exercises all together as they counted off.  Other groups performed the exercises at their own pace, so that everyone was doing something different.  In addition to these actors, there were also observers.  Some participants watched the exercise being done.  They watched either a group moving in synchrony or a group in which there was no synchrony.  After observing, actors rated how free they felt, and observes rated how free the actors were. 
As a measure of conformity, after performing or observing the exercise, participants read reviews about products from a number of different categories (like sofas).  The reviews included information about how popular a particular brand was.  After reading descriptions of three products for each category, participants chose one.  The measure of conformity was the overall popularity of the products participants chose.  The more popular the brands, the more that these participants were conforming with others.  
In this initial study, participants who performed the exercises with others in synchrony tended to select more popular products than those who performed the exercises without synchronizing their movements with others.  Interestingly, the observers showed the opposite pattern.  They were more likely to select popular products when they observed groups who moved at their own pace rather than those who acted together in synchrony. 
Why did this happen?  The observers rated that the actors were significantly less free when they acted in synchrony with others than when they did what they wanted to.  Interestingly, the actors who performed the exercises did not differ in how free they felt regardless of whether they were instructed to act in synchrony or not. 
This suggests that actors feel a common bond with people when they act in synchrony.  The shared goal and the shared movement create a sense of wanting to agree with the actions of others.  In contrast, the observers focused on the individual freedom of the people.  When they watched people moving together, they were concerned about freedom, and so they resisted picking products that other people liked.
In several other studies, the researchers expanded on this point.  In one study, for example, the actors who were told to move in synchrony were told that they were part of a competition in which they would win a prize if their team moved together most effectively.  The group of actors that moved independently was not given these instructions.  The observers were told that they were judging the synchrony of the team they were watching for a competition.  Some of the observers were told that if their team won, they would share in the winnings, so that the observer became part of the common goal of the team.
Finally, at the end of the study, participants were given an opportunity to donate money to one of six charities.  Three of the charities were well-known and the rest were not well-known.  The amount of money given to well-known charities was the measure of conformity in this study.
Overall, actors who moved in synchrony tended to give more money to well-known charities than the observers who watched them.  However when the observer was also made to feel part of the team, the observer gave more money to well-known charities than to unpopular charities.  As in the previous study, actors who did not move in synchrony did not have a bias to conform: they gave about the same amount of money to popular and unpopular charities. 
Putting these findings together, when a group moves in synchrony, it increases their sense of belonging to a group and increases the willingness of members of that group to conform with others.  Observers have a different experience.  Watching others move in synchrony makes observers sensitive to the loss of freedom of those moving together.  Those observers are actually less wiling to conform as a result of watching the movements. 
In this way, synchronous movements are a double-edged sword.  They increase a sense of belonging in those who are made to feel part of the team, but they actually decrease that sense of belonging to those who see themselves as outsiders.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

The Danger of the Partial Confession


When you do something wrong, there are two typical reactions that pull in opposite directions.  On the one hand, you might want to hide what you have done.  If nobody finds out, then it may feel like you didn’t do it at all.  On the other hand, you might just want to confess what you have done wrong.  That gets the problem out into the open and helps people to move forward.
A middle ground between these possibilities is the partial confession.  In a partial confession, you admit to what you did wrong, but you don’t admit to the full extent of it.  The partial confession seems like a great compromise.  You get the benefit of admitting what you have done, but you can make your transgression seem less extreme than it was.  
A paper in the February, 2014 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Eyal Peer, Alessandro Acquisti, and Shaul Shalvi suggests that partial confessions may actually be worse than either a full confession or not confessing at all.
First, one study looked at whether people have a tendency to make partial confessions.  Participants in an on-line study performed a variety of tasks.  In one task, they went to another website that allowed people to flip a virtual coin and predict how the coin would come out.  They were asked to flip the coin 10 times.  Then, they were told to report the number of guesses they got right.  They got paid ten cents for each correct guess. 
Although the participants didn’t know it, their actual predictions and coin flips were monitored, so the experimenters knew whether a particular participant told the truth or cheated.  Overall about 35% of the participants over-reported the number of flips they predicted correctly.  (Almost nobody under-reported the number of correct guesses, so this is cheating and not bad memory.)
Later in the study, participants were given a chance to confess whether they cheated.  They were told that they would be paid based on what they reported even if they now admitted they had cheated.  They were also told that there would be no negative consequences of admitting that they had cheated. 
Only about 18% of the participants who cheated confessed.  Of those who did confess, the ones who cheated most were also the ones most likely to give partial confessions.  That is people who over-reported by just a few guesses tended to give a full confession, while those who over-reported a lot tended to give a partial confession. 
Why do people give partial confessions?  Another study gave participants a hypothetical situation like the one I just described.  They were told that they had over-reported and then were asked to assume that they had confessed fully, had not confessed at all or gave a partial confession.  Each participant responded to only one of these possibilities.  They rated whether they thought their story would be credible and how they would feel after giving the confession. 
Participants who were told to imagine they had given a full confession rated themselves as being most credible.  Those told to imagine they had given no confession rated themselves as least credible.  Those who imagined a partial confession came out in between.  There was no difference between groups in their prediction of how they would feel. 
Another study looked at how participants actually feel after confessing.  They gave participants an opportunity to cheat as in the study I described earlier.  In this study, participants were asked to rate their mood at the end of the study.  Unsurprisingly, participants in who did not cheat at all had the lowest level of negative feeling at the end of the study.  Participants who gave a partial confession actually had the highest level of negative feeling, greater than that of either those who cheated and did not confess or those who cheated and gave a full confession.
Finally, another study in this series asked people to imagine they were hearing about people who might have cheated in a task like the coin flipping task.  Participants found out that the individual reported an unlikely event and then later heard a confession that was likely to be a full confession, a partial confession, or no confession.  This study found that participants found the full confession most credible, the absence of a confession least credible and the partial confession to be in between the two.
Putting this all together, then, it seems that partial confessions are not that valuable.  They are somewhat more credible to others than not confessing at all.  But, the partial confession actually makes the confessor feel worse than no confession at all.  One reason why partial confessions create negative feeling is that discrepancies among thoughts are often discomforting.  The partial confession forces confessors to think both about what they did and about what they said.  The partial confession actually focuses more attention on the thing people did wrong than no confession at all.
An interesting question for future research is whether confessions act a little like forgiveness. In an earlier blog entry, I described research suggesting that when people forgive others for a transgression, they are better able to forget the details of what happened to them than when they do not forgive.  Perhaps a full confession also helps transgressors to forget the details of what they did wrong and to move on with their lives.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

How Children Use Information About Why Things Work


When children are about 3-years-old, one of the big things they need to do is to learn about the huge variety of objects in the world around them.  Not only does this learning help them to make sense of the world, but is crucial for children to learn the labels we use for different objects so that they can talk about those objects again in the future.
Indeed, starting when children are about a year-and-a-half old, they start learning lots of labels for new objects.  That pattern continues for a few years after that.
A fascinating paper by Amy Booth in the January 2015 issue of Cognitive Development explored the role of causal information in learning words for new objects.  Causal information is knowledge about the way the world works. 
Previous research suggests that when children find out something about the way an object works, they learn about the object faster than when they learn about some other property about it like what it looks like.  The materials used in this study are shown in the picture attached to this blog entry.  This picture is Figure 1 from the article. 
The novel objects were described with a label that the children would not have heard before (like Kulloo or Gippit).  The causal information focused on the function of the object.  For example, the Gippit was described as being used to make circles on walls.  The non-causal information (which Booth called “causally weak” to be careful not to assume that children would not make any guesses about causal information) was that Gippits always have circles painted on the bottom.  
Children were shown each object and were told the causal or noncausal fact about it.  They were then told the label.  On each block of the study, children practiced the label several times.  They continued learning until they could correctly remember which label went with each object.  They were tested by hearing the label and pointing to the object it went with. 
The causal information made the label easier to learn.  Children learned to identify the label that went with the object in fewer trials when it was associated with information about the function of the object than when it was associated with a hidden feature of the object. 
By the end of this part of the study, though, the children had learned the labels equally well regardless of which information they heard.  It just took them longer to learn it when they got feature information than when they got causal information.
The key question, though, is why the causal information helps.  One possibility is that causal information is particularly interesting to 3-year-olds, and so it causes them to pay more attention to the object and the label, and so they learn the label faster.  A second possibility is that the causal information provides a deep set of connections to existing knowledge and so children actually remember the labels better when they were connected to causal information than when they were connected to features. 
To test this possibility the children were brought back to the lab 2 to 3 weeks after the first session.  They were tested on the labels again. 
If the causal information just causes children to pay more attention to the object and the label, then two weeks later, children should be equally good at remembering which label went with each object regardless of the other information they heard about the object, because they had learned the labels equally well by the end of the first part of the study.
However, if the causal information is enriching the connection between the object and the child’s other knowledge, then children should remember labels associated with causal features better than those associated with non-causal features.
In fact, the children remembered the labels equally well regardless of the kind of information they learned when they encountered the object for the first time.  This research suggests that children find causal knowledge interesting, and when they hear about functions of objects, they pay more attention than if they just hear about other features.  Once they learn the label for an object, though, they remember it later, even if they hadn’t learned about the function of the object.
This finding suggest that it is valuable to teach children about functions at the same time that we teach them about the names for objects.  This causal information helps children to understand a little more about the way the world works.  It also makes it easier for kids to learn the labels for objects, which makes it easier for the children to talk about those objects later.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Speech at University of Texas staff awards ceremony

I had the chance to give a speech at the 2018 Staff Awards ceremony at the University of Texas.  Here is the text of my remarks.


           Thank you President Fenves.  Thanks to you, Debra Kress, and your staff for giving me the chance to speak to you today.  Congratulations to all of the award recipients and welcome to all those who have come to celebrate their accomplishments.
            The wonderful thing about awards ceremonies is that it gives us a chance to recognize people who have put in extra effort to make the University of Texas function so effectively.  One of the most important things that they do is to strengthen our community.
            Sociologists have spent a lot of time studying the kinds of relationships that people engage in.  It turns out that we can sort the people we encounter in the world into three groups:  Family, Neighbors, and Strangers.
            Most of the people in your life are Strangers.  You don’t know them, and they don’t know you.  You don’t have any kind of trust built up with them.  When you engage in transactions with Strangers, you have to settle up in the moment, because you don’t know if you will ever see them again.  If you are driving down Mopac and you get a flat tire and someone with a truck pulls over and helps you change your tire, it would not be embarrassing to pull out a twenty-dollar bill as a way of saying thanks.  The person might refuse saying they just stopped to help, but it wouldn’t be an inappropriate gesture.  Likewise, you can’t borrow eggs from HEB.  You are a Stranger to your grocery store, and so it is cash on the barrel for each purchase.
            At the extreme other end are Family.  You have lots of interactions with Family.  You engage in rituals with them.  You celebrate holidays and birthdays.  And—as a result—you have a highly trusted relationship with them.  So much so, that when you engage in transactions with family, you don’t really keep score.  Parents do and do and do (and do) for their children without ever sending them a bill (much as they might like to sometimes).  Children may take care of their aging parents without sending in a time sheet.  And every family has a ne’er-do-well uncle who has never made much of his life.  The Family takes care of him—even if he is the butt of the occasional family joke.  (I also tell people that if you can’t figure out who that uncle is, it might be you…). 
            In the middle, we have neighbors.  Neighbors are people we know reasonably well.  We have conversations and parties, and do favors.  We see them often.  We have developed some amount of trust.  You even have some rituals.  In my old neighborhood, at the end of October every year, we had Hallowine in which we put all of the candy from the block on one driveway while the adults drank wine and watched the costumes.  When we engage in transactions with neighbors, we don’t’ settle up in the moment.  But, we do keep score.  A neighbor who takes and never gives is eventually kicked out of the neighborhood. 
            If you wake up one morning and see that you have a flat tire, your neighbor might come out and help you fix it.  But, you wouldn’t thank him by offering a twenty-dollar bill.  That would be embarrassing.  Instead, you might bake a banana bread or drive his kids to school one day.  You don’t have to settle up that day, but you do in the long-run. 
             Most healthy organizations create neighborhoods.  Our co-workers are our neighbors.  UT is a big neighborhood. 
Each of us puts in effort at our jobs to help make the university a better place.  We get to know our colleagues.  We try to make sure that the people around us are able to achieve their goals.  Of course, we are keeping score.  Anyone who routinely takes things from others, but never gives back is eventually taken to task for it.  Other people will not band together to help solve a problem without payment when they do not trust that a particular person or group is part of the neighborhood.
We forget the importance of the UT neighborhood at our peril.  No important job can get done here unless everyone works together.  When one of our sports teams makes the playoffs, we all come together to ensure that an unexpected event is handled smoothly.  We bring together parking, facilities, UTPD and emergency services and more.  If we were all strangers, then each unexpected thing would have to be handled with a change order.  We would have contracts that specified the letter of what had to be accomplished. 
Neighbors don’t have contracts, they have covenants.  They agree on a set of principles that guide what they want to accomplish and then they work together to make it happen.  They know that some days their unit may have to bear the brunt of a new task, but that at other times, other members of the community will step up to do their share.
But, a neighborhood requires energy to keep up.  It does not happen on its own.
You who are here today—particularly those of you who are being honored at this ceremony—are the builders of the UT neighborhood.  You take it upon yourselves to welcome new employees into the neighborhood and to show them what it means to be a Longhorn.  You help to develop people’s careers and to let the people who work here know that UT wants them to succeed.  You lead by example, letting your commitment to the institution influence the attitudes and actions of the people around you.   You get to know your colleagues and develop a trusted network.
And we all must continue to tend our neighborhood.  Staff, faculty, and administrators must recognize how important—and how fragile—our neighborhood can be.  We must look to develop our future leaders and supervisors.  We must take care of each other when times are bad.  And give of our time, expertise, and wisdom when times are good.  We must all live up to the ideals of this great university.  And—most of all—we must continue to serve as an example to our students, to Texans, and the world beyond that what starts here changes the world only when we work together as neighbors.
Hook ‘em.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Successful People Have Conscientious Partners


Most of us have heard some version of the saying “Behind every successful man is a great woman.”  This quote highlights that people get accolades for their success in the workplace, but most people who achieve greatness in the workplace need people who support their personal lives.
So, is it true that successful people get significant help from their partners?  And is the form of this quote accurate?  Is it that successful men are helped by women, but not the other way around?
This question was explored in a paper in the December, 2014 issue of Psychological Science by Brittany Solomon and Joshua Jackson. 
They analyzed data collected from over 4,000 people over a five-year period in Australia.  The participants in this survey were married heterosexual couples.  The survey collected the Big Five personality characteristics (Openness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) for both the members of a couple.  The survey got information about job satisfaction, income, and promotions.  It also got information about a variety of other aspects of the relationship such as how much members of a couple would handle basic household chores. 
People’s own personality characteristics influence their success at work.  For example, replicating a lot of previous work, people who are more agreeable, tend to make less money and to be less likely to get promoted than those who are less agreeable.  People who are highly agreeable tend to avoid asking for raises and promotions, and so they get passed over in favor of those who are willing to stand up for themselves.  In addition, People who are extraverted at work tend to have high levels of job satisfaction and also get promoted (because people notice their efforts). People who are high in conscientiousness also tend to enjoy their work more and to make more money than those who are low in conscientiousness.
When looking at a person’s partner, though, conscientiousness was the big factor that had an influence.  People who had conscientious partners tended to enjoy their work more, make more money, and be more likely to get promotions than people whose partners were low in conscientiousness.  This influence of a partner’s conscientiousness go above-and-beyond the influence of a person’s own personality characteristics. 
One interesting facet of these results is that they were true for both men and women.  So, these findings suggest that behind every successful person there is a conscientious partner, but men and women benefit equally from conscientious partners.
Why does this happen?
There seem to be a couple of factors at play here.  First, more conscientious partners tend to take on a bigger share of household duties.  So, a person who spends a lot of time on their work has someone who picks up the slack on household chores.  Second, people tend to feel good about their relationship when they have a conscientious partner.  Presumably, people with partners high in conscientiousness, do not argue as much about housework as those with partners low in conscientiousness.  This higher level of relationship satisfaction also improves people’s success at work.
When people think about their satisfaction and success in the workplace, they often focus on their own characteristics.  These findings suggest that the status of people’s relationship also has a significant affect on their workplace success.   
Finally, it would be useful to see this study repeated in other countries.  It is interesting that there were no gender differences in the influence of a partner’s conscientiousness in this sample from Australia.  I would be curious to know whether the same results would be observed in Europe, the United States, and Asia.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

If You Trust Your Workplace, You Assume It is Fair


Periodically, dissatisfied employees will stage a job action in which they will do the minimum amount of work necessary to keep their job.  For example, in early 2015, New York City police minimized the number of arrests they made, to protest comments made by the mayor.  Similarly, teachers who are upset with contract negotiations may arrive at work and leave exactly on time rather than coming early or staying late to help students.
For this reason, it is important for organizations to maintain a sense of fairness among employees in order to get them to put in their best effort.  What drives this sense of fairness?
This question was explored in a paper by Emily Bianchi, Joel Brockner, Kees van den Bos, Matthias Seifert, Henry Moon, Marius van Dijke, and David De Cremer in the January, 2015 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Their starting point is the observation from previous research that people in organizations are influenced by two sources of fairness:  outcome fairness and procedural fairness. 
Outcome fairness is focused on whether the things that happen seem fair.  For example, a raise may seem fair if the size of a raise is consistent with a person’s evaluations and people with similar evaluations got similar raises.  Obviously, if the outcomes are not just fair but favorable, that is even better. 
Procedural fairness refers to the way that decisions are made.  If raises are given out arbitrarily, that does not seem like a fair system.  But, if there is a reasonable procedure that people think is objective, then they believe the procedure is fair, even if they don’t get what they think they deserve.
Both of these sources of fairness may influence the way people feel about the workplace. 
To explore this possibility, one study looked at a sample of employees of a shipping company in the UK.  The participants had worked for their company for an average of 4 years.  Participants were asked how much trust they had in the bosses at work.  They were also asked whether they thought that the outcomes the experienced (for things like pay and work schedule) were fair, as well as whether the procedures used to make decisions were fair.  Finally, they were asked questions about their level of commitment to the organization.
When people had a low level of trust in the organization overall, then they had a low level of commitment, unless they experienced both fair outcomes and believed that the procedures were also fair.   
When people had a high level of trust in the organization, then they had a high level of commitment, unless they experienced both unfair outcomes and believed that the procedures were unfair.
A second study obtained a similar pattern of results from a sample of workers for a variety of companies in the United States. 
What does this mean?
When people trust the organization they work for, then they have a high level of commitment.  That is no surprise. 
Interestingly, though, they look for evidence consistent with their trust.  So, if they perceive that there are fair outcomes or fair procedures, they assume their trust is warranted, and they keep their high level of commitment.  Only when they get lots of evidence that their trust is misplaced do they decrease their commitment to the workplace.
When people have a low level of trust to start with, then their commitment to the organization is low unless they get lots of evidence that the workplace is actually fair.  That is, they need both high levels of fairness in outcomes and procedures to overcome their lack of trust.
Clearly, people’s prior beliefs about trust and fairness have a big influence on the way that people interpret what is happening at work.  It takes a lot of evidence to change people’s beliefs about the workplace.
One other piece of evidence consistent with this idea is that this pattern of results was strongest for people who had not worked long for their company and got weaker as people’s tenure with the company got longer.  That is, early on, people have a level of trust in the organization that can be affected by the combination of outcome and procedural fairness.  After a while, though, that level of trust in the organization (whether it is high or low) is not changed much by new information.
Ultimately, this is another great example of a halo effect.  People’s beliefs about the trustworthiness of an organization affect their interpretation of the evidence they get.  For this reason, it is important for people in organizations to work hard to gain people’s trust early so that their employees may overlook small violations of fairness.