Cutting in Line
Imagine yourself waiting in line (queue, if you’re British) and someone cuts in front. This obviously upsets and frustrates you. Why should they be in front when you’ve been waiting longer? Why isn’t anyone doing anything about this line jumper?
It’s not just the loss of time and position that are upsetting, but also the violation of a social structure.
A study was done to determine how often, and which people would object to this. When a person intruded into a line, this resulted in an objection 54% of the time. However, when 2 people intruded at once, there were objections 91.3%. The figure shows that 73.3% of objections came from people behind the intruder, and the person directly behind the point of intrusion objected most frequently.
Additional experimenters were brought in to join the line legitimately with instructions to do nothing but stand in line. When the intruder entered the line directly in front of the passive experimenter, there were only objections 25% of the time. When the intruder entered the line in front of two passive experimenters, objections dropped to 5%. These passive line standers significantly influenced how often someone objected to the line jumping.
Then the question is why did a person’s relative position to the intruder affect whether or not they objected? Since everyone behind the intruder incurs the same cost, the objections should be uniformly distributed among the people in line.
There are 3 reasons that may explain this.
- They have to notice it. Those closer to the intrusion will be more likely to see it.
- They have to be aware that this is line jumping and not the more legitimate practice of “placekeeping”. Those further from the intrusion point may not be sure so they will be more hesitant to object.
- Those directly behind the intruder are socially regarded as more responsible for that spot. If everyone defended the space in front of them, line jumping would not be a problem. Hence, it’s their duty to object to those to who jump directly ahead of them.
I also hypothesize another factor is the relative cost to person in line. Those in the back are delayed only a small percentage of their time in line, while the person in front may have to wait twice as long.
So the next time you’re thinking of cutting in line, be aware that it’s about a coin toss whether or not you’ll be ousted, and most likely it’ll be by the person you’re directly stepping in front of. Never line jump at the same time another person is, even though it might seem like you have safety in numbers, it works in the exact opposite way. And lastly, ideally cut in front of someone who is unlikely to object, because your chances of being challenged greatly diminish the more passive people there are directly behind you.
Stanley Milgram is one of my favorite scientists. Psychology students may have learned of the Milgram experiment where subjects were asked to administer electric shocks to others. He also founded “six degrees of separation”, the concept of “familiar strangers”, and wrote about the woman murdered on the streets of New York with 38 onlookers.
I enjoy both classic publications as well as new research, so I’ll try to alternate between the classic and the new in my posts.
Milgram, S., Libety, H. J., Toledo, R, & Wackenhut, J. (1986). Response to Intrusion Into Waiting Lines. Journal of Personality of Social Psychology, 51(4), 683-689.
45 comments September 21, 2006
Massive Multiplayer Online Games as “Third Places”
A major concern of home media such as television and the Internet is that they are replacing essential social institutions and community. While a previous post has indicated that this might not be true, this research paper looks at massive multiplayer online games such as World of Warcraft to determine if they are indeed “third places”.
What is a third place? The first place is your home, where you can relax and be comfortable. The second place is where you usually are when not at home — work; work provides social interaction and sense of community. Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks introduced third places as somewhere besides home or work where people can socialize and feel comfortable. Think Cheers.
Online games are thus third places as defined by the eight characteristics of third places.
Neutral Ground: Individuals are free to come and go as they please. In online games, players are not obligated to play; joins and quits are not significant events.
Leveler: An individual’s rank and status in society are not significant. As in the culture of early video game arcades, “It didn’t matter what you drove to the arcade. If you sucked at Asteroids, you just sucked.” Players on online games use a separate avatar unrelated to their real life person, and social status is rarely invoked.
Conversation is Main Activity: In third places, conversation is the main activity that the individuals participate in. While debatable as the main activity in online games, players would not disagree that conversation plays a crucial role. Often, conversation drifts to real world discussion such as personal life, politics, culture, etc.
Accessibility & Accommodation: Third places are easy to access and accommodating to individuals. Online games allow players to log on and off at will and there are always players online. Activity occurs throughout all hours of the day.
The Regulars: Regulars are those who give the place its character, and attract new individuals. Guild members, who form a clan to play the online game together, and squatters, who stay within an area of the game, are the regulars of the online world.
A Low Profile: Third places are characteristically homely and without pretension. The population of online games follow a parabolic curve; after the onset of players following the release, the regulars remain while many move on to higher profile games.
The Mood is Playful: The general mood of a third place is playful and witty. Players in online games crack jokes during heated battles, perform goofy actions with their avatars, and mock each others’ appearances. Rarely are players overly serious about game matters.
A Home Away from Home: Rootedness, feelings of possession, spiritual regeneration, feelings of being at ease, and warmth. Online games possess a homely atmosphere where players notice others’ absenses and makes the overall feel of the game “warm”.
Social capital is analogous to financial capital in that it can be acquired and spent, but for social gains instead of financial gains — for example, to be comforted or receive advice. Bridging is when individuals connect with those from different backgrounds. The advantage if bridging social capital include gaining access to new information and resources. Bonding is when individuals that are already close provide support for each other, making the relationship stronger. In a sense, bridging provides breadth while bonding provides depth.
In online games, players come from a diverse background so they are usually bridging social capital. However, it’s not uncommon for a bond to grow during an online game if individuals player together for a long period of time.
Online games fit the definition of a third place, but as players become more hardcore and focus more on gaming, their function as a third place wanes.
I read this paper after attending a related talk by one of the authors, and you might find his other publications just as interesting.
Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 1. [HTML]
37 comments September 19, 2006
Why Men Commit Crimes (and Why They Desist)
It’s fairly well-known that young men commit the majority of crimes in every society.
Previous explanations for this behavior have been flawed.
“many adolescents find their roles lacking in intrinsic rewards and turn to sensate activities to achieve a sense of self.”
But why would adults not want the same stimulation from crime as adolescents?
Gove and Walsh explain crime among adolescents as a function of the combination of high autonomy and low responsibility during the teenage years”
This only describes teenagers in modern western society, and so doesn’t hold for developing nations or even western nations in the past.
Kanazawa extends evolutionary psychology to explain the relationship between age and crime.
Evolutionary Psychology
The brain of humans evolved over millions of years when they were living in the African savanna during the Pleistocene epoch as hunter-gatherers. The basic premise of evolutionary psychology is that humans adapted psychological behaviors in order to reproduce and survive as a species.
Male sexual jealousy provides us with an example of evolutionary psychology. During the evolutionary years, males could not be certain of the paternity of their mates’ offspring while females were always certain of their maternity, due to the nature of offspring originating from the female body. Hence, males who invested their resources in offspring that wasn’t theirs ended up wasting them and not reproducing. Males would therefore have a strong incentive to prevent other males from having any sexual contact with their mates. This sexually selected men who were not jealous from the gene pool, and so we are descended from those with a psychological mechanism to be jealous.
On the other hand, women become jealous when their mates get emotionally involved with other women, because it diverts their resources from them and their children. Jealousy is not a choice, but a psychological response that was developed over millions of years to increase our reproductive success.
However, in modern developed countries, there are birth control methods which prevent women from having children when having an affair. But no man would say that this reduces the feeling of jealousy since this psychological mechanism was developed when birth control did not exist.
Applied to Criminality
During the evolutionary period, humans were mostly polygynous where some males would monopolize access to the females while others were completely left out. Reproductive success was at stake and this made the system very competitive; hence, there was a lot of violence as a result of this direct competition. Similarly, women tended to mate with men with resources, so acquiring them through stealing would be a means to increase their chances of reproductive success.
Despite the fact that violence and property crimes are looked down upon in modern society, the psychological mechanism to commit crimes in order to reproduce is still very much within us. This happens unconsciously and even those committing crimes are unaware of this logic.
Why is there a sharp decline in crime by men after reaching adulthood? While the benefits of reproductive success are still there, most men would have already had children by adulthood. The risks associated with committing the crime is greater because their children might starve or victims of others. This benefit versus cost analysis has been done through sexual selection, explaining the increase of crime among young adolescents and sharp decline during adulthood.
This theory explains many previous findings, including why men commit crimes overwhelmingly more than women, why married men have less tendency to commit crimes, and why sexual competition increases men’s tendency to commit crimes in every society. This also explains why men with lower status among their peers are more likely to commit crimes — they are less competitive and need more resources to achieve reproductive success.
All of us are descended from men and women who were very successful at reproduction.
Kanazawa, S. & Still, M. C. (2000). Why Men Commit Crimes (and Why They Desist). Sociology Theory, 18(3), 434-447. [PDF]
Add comment September 17, 2006
The Impact of Communication Technology on Lying Behavior
Lying is a frequent, and sometimes necessary part of our lives. A study finds that 26% a person’s of overall daily interactions involved some sort of deception (1.6 lies/day on average).
But how does technology impact the number of lies we tell? Researchers asked 30 volunteers to record their daily interactions and lies told during the interactions.
Four modes of communication were investigated:
Phone: 37% of phone calls involved deception.
Face-to-Face: 27% of face-to-face conversations involved deception.
Instant Messaging: 21% of IM conversations involved deception.
Email: 14% of emails involved deception.
Two existing theories fail to explain the difference in lying frequency among technologies.
The Media Richness Theory says that people will lie more if the medium of communication is richer. However, the data contradicts this because lies during phone conversations occur more often than lies in face-to-face communication.
The Social Distance Hypothesis claims the opposite — people prefer to lie when the medium of communication is less rich. This is because it’s more difficult to detect, and because lying makes them nervous. However, this is also contradicted by the results since face-to-face lies occur more so than lies over email.
The paper presents an alternative theory — the amount of lying is affected by whether the medium of communication is asynchronous, recorded, or if the persons are in the same physical location. Phone conversations feature none of the above, so lying is most likely to occur. On the other hand, email is only distributed, so lies happen least frequently over email.
However, aren’t the functions of each medium somewhat different? Email is more likely to be used to make announcements or detailed plans. It would seem that this type of communication is unlikely to contain a lie. Instant messaging is often used for quick exchange of information and so there is also not a lot of room for lying there. The study also mentioned but didn’t take into account the difference in length of communication between mediums, which would likely skew the results. Hence, it would seem that the likelihood of lying is less discrete than suggested by the paper and instead influenced by a wide range of factors.
One other finding from the study is that lies were more likely to be premeditated when over email; this may be somewhat obvious since email is the only asynchronous form of communication investigated, giving the liar more time to perfect the lie.
Hancock, J. T., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and Design: The Impact of Communication Technology on Lying Behavior. Proceedings from CHI ’04: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 129-134. [PDF]
9 comments September 16, 2006
Unintentional Mirroring: The Chameleon Effect
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Have you ever noticed that you sometimes you lean forward when someone you’re talking with leans forward? Or you fold your arms when your friend folds their arm?
The Chameleon Effect is the unintentional physical and verbal mirroring between people who are getting along well. People may mimic each others’ body posture, hand gestures, speaking accents, and other behaviors when they are in rapport. The body is actually autonomously making the interaction smoother and increasing the level of liking while communicating.
Experimenters saw an increase in a subject’s behavior, such as shaking their foot, when they shook their foot during an interaction. When experimenters intentionally copied the mannerisms of a subject, the subject reported to like the experimenter more and claimed the interaction was more harmonious. Empathic individuals, those who took the perspective of others, were also found to mirror another person’s action more often.
Chartrand, T. L. & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The Chameleon Effect: The Perception-Behavior Link and Social Interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893-910.
5 comments September 13, 2006
How personalization and authentication affect Internet surveys
Internet surveys are an efficient way of collecting information. They have been shown to increase self-disclosure for sensitive questions, and also reduce “good” answers (more socially acceptable responses).
An interesting dilemma occurs when the participant comes across a question they might not want to answer, such as, “What is your salary?”
They can choose to passively not answer (no response, or the default choice), or they can actively not answer (selecting the option “I prefer not to answer”).
Authentication is when the participant needs to log in to take the survey, as opposed to going to a URL that encodes the participant’s information in the address. One of the studies shows that “I prefer not to answer” was chosen more often when authentication (log in) was used, versus when the URL encoded the information.
Personalization is when the email inviting the participant to do the survey had a salutation that identified the participant. The salutation would be something like “Dear Napoleon” instead of “Dear Student”. In the study, surveys where the invitation email had a personalized salutation did not generate a significant difference in non-responses to sensitive questions. However, it did ratio of active non-responses (“I prefer not to answer”) to passive non-responses (skip the question) increased.
To conclude, reduction of anonymity reduced responses to sensitive questions. However, it also encouraged participants to answer questions “better”. It’s interesting that such a minute detail would have a significant effect on responses to sensitive questions.
Joinson, A. N., Woodley, A., & Reips, U. (2007). Personalization, authentication, and self-disclosure in self-administered Internet surveys. Computers in Human Behavior 23(1), 275-285. [PDF]
Add comment September 12, 2006
Why people archive
Archiving is a method of storing objects for later retrieval. Documents, music, bookmarks, papers, videos, correspondence, projects. What do you archive, and why?
A recent CHI paper looks at the goals and structure of archiving by interviewing 48 academics and listening to their stories.
Why do people archive?
- Finding it later — The most obvious reason is to store things in a way to be able to find later
- Building a legacy — Past work and achievements are organized to proudly show a person’s legacy
- Sharing — Objects are archived in a home-grown structure to share with others
- Fear of loss — Fire, theft, or the oh-so-common hard disk crash. “If there ever were a fire, I would grab this folder right here,”
- Identity construction — Who am I? To reaffirm their identities, people kept things that projected their self-image.
Archives were either physical or digital. The typical time it took to find things did not significantly differ between mediums. The advantages of electronic documents include saving physical space, being able to access documents from any location, and the built-in facilities of computers such as search, copy, and virtual folder system. However, electronic papers were still printed out because printed papers were easier to read.
The study concludes by suggesting that archiving solutions be created for the different reasons for archiving, and that it’s unlikely archives will become fully digital soon. However, I disagree with the last point — I personally maintain a digital-only archive and find it most convenient and natural. It’s quickly becoming easier and easier to create digital-only archives. Personal letters have been replaced by email, and journals and conference proceedings are almost all available online now.
This summary only takes the cut-and-dry concepts from the paper, but you should read the paper if you have time. The stories and quotes are interesting, and it’s an easy read.
Kaye, J., Vertesi, J., Avery, S., Dafoe, A., David, S., Onaga, L., et al. (2006). To Have and to Hold: Exploring the Personal Archive. Proceedings from CHI ’06: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 275-284. [PDF]
1 comment September 9, 2006
Which type of drinker are you?
Empirical research from the past 15 years have distinguished four different motives for drinking among youths. Personality is the main influence for a person’s motive for drinking.
Enhancement motives: You drink to feel good, to get drunk, or just for its own sake. You desire intense and novel experiences, and others might say that you’re impulsive, extraverted, or aggressive. You drink with same-sex friends, at friends’ homes, and in bars.
Coping motives: You drink to cope with bad feelings, to relieve stress, or to avoid social rejection. You may be neurotic, disagreeable, or have negative views of yourself. You generally drink at home, but not at parties or with your family.
Social motives: You drink to be more sociable, or to help you enjoy a party. You’re a moderate drinker, and generally only drink in social contexts. You drink more frequently at mixed-sex parties, but not at home, in bars, or together with family members.
The “but not at home, in bars” part is a bit strange. One would think that social drinkers would be okay with drinking at bars.
Conformity motives: You drink because of pressure from peers, or to be liked. Specific personality or contextual traits were not found.
There are also differences in motives between genders as well as changes as a person ages.
…enhancement and coping motives, increase generally with age but are steeper among males than among females.
In adolescence and the college freshman years, indicating coping motives was found to be more strongly associated with excessive alcohol use among females than among males whereas after the freshman years and when entering the workplace in their mid-twenties men’s heavy drinking tallied more with coping motives than women’s heavy drinking.
The main targets for alcoholism prevention are people who drink for enhancement or coping motives because they often result in heavy drinking. Due to the changes in motives for age and gender, the authors recommend focusing on boys who drink for enhancement motives and girls who drink for coping motives.
Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., & Engels, R. (2006). Who drinks and why? A review of socio-demographic, personality, and contextual issues behind the drinking motives in young people. Addictive Behaviors, 31(10), 1844-57.
13 comments September 8, 2006
Looking back at Search Queries from 1997
In light of the recent search query logs released by AOL, I perused some to see what others have been searching for. There’s a bit of voyeur in all of us.
My initial reaction was that search queries have gotten a lot more sophisticated since the 1990s, where common searches were “free downloads” or “britney spears”.
This paper looks at over 1 million queries from the query logs of the Excite search engine from September 1997. The top 25 queries were (in order): and, of, sex, free, the, nude, pictures, in, university, pics, chat, for, adult, women, new, xxx, girls, music, porn, to, gay, school, home, college, state.
Findings from the study:
- The mean number of terms of query was 2.4
- Less than 5% of queries used Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT, +, -, “”, etc.)
- 48.4% of users submitted a single query, 20.8% two queries, 31% three or more
- Modified queries usually added additional terms rather than removing them
- 28.6% of users stayed on the first page of results, 19% looked at two pages
2.4 terms per query seems a bit low. A glance at the AOL query logs (totally not scientific) gives me the impression that people generally use more terms nowadays. Also, I would say the term “free” would be rarely used nowadays, since it’s been beaten to death by every commercial website out there. Basically, search queries have gotten more sophisticated since 1997.
One interesting remark,
That is, close to half of the users looked at two or less pages. Were users so satisfied with the results that they did not need to view more pages?
To me, this is surprising — I rarely go past the first page nowadays on Google. Did we really browse through pages and pages of search results back then? Tedious.
Spink, A., Wolfram, D., Jansen, M., & Saracevic, T. (2001). Searching the Web: The Public and Their Queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(3), 226-234. [PDF] [HTML]
2 comments September 6, 2006
The Psychology of Blindfold Chess
When I was 12, my friend and I would often play a verbal game of chess in the hotel pool while waiting for a tournament round to finish. We didn’t use any chess pieces or clocks, but the image of the chess game would be as sharp as if we were sitting there in a room across the table from each other, with the chess set between us and record sheets tucked underneath the felt chess board. We’d start, “e4″, “c5″, “Knight f3″, “d6″, … and the game would end when one of us made an illegal move — rarely could we finish a game because our memories would fail us first.
However, if you were a chess master like Reuben Fine, you would have no problem memorizing the sequence of moves throughout an entire game. Masters play “blindfold chess” against weaker opponents at exhibitions, where they would have their back turned toward the chess board, and verbally communicate moves between themselves and their opponent.
To a casual observer, this may seem like an amazing feat, since the master has to memorize the position on every board (when they are playing several opponents at once), and know exactly what piece if any is on each square.
So how do they do it?
- Associations: each chess piece and board position has a wealth of associations with it gained from past experiences.
- Notation: A special familiar language can be used to sum up a position in a few phrases.
- Spatial Gestalten: The breakdown of the chess board into several sections — structures which are familiar to the expert.
When I started reading this paper, I was pleased to see that the author was Reuben Fine, whose chess games I was familiar with when I was young. I’ve studied his games, and now I read his papers.
Fine, R. (1965). The psychology of blindfold chess: An introspective account. Acta Psychologica, 24, 352-370.
Add comment September 5, 2006
