And thus science decreed, thou must create equivalent groups.
The conclusions that can be drawn in a new study about the effects of facebook are limited, if not erroneousness because the task given the second test group do not allow for meaningful analysis.
A recent study by Cornell’s Gonzales and Hancock published in a cyberpsychology and social networking (?!) journal asserts that using facebook can increase self-esteem as it allows users to stylize their social identity. While I don’t dispute that facebook might increase positive feelings about the self (and fuel narcissism), I do not think that the research methods used in their study allow us to draw that conclusion.
The researchers compared the self-esteem scores reported by three groups, after they each completed a different “self-focused” task. Group 1 was the control and their task was to stare at a blank screen. Group 2 was a test group and did the self-focused task of staring at a mirror. Group 3 surfed their facebook page and associated pages. Each group did completed the assigned task for three minutes and then completed the self-esteem measure.
The test groups in this study should all have had the same end goals, namely the ability to shape one’s persona. While looking in a mirror is a self-focused activity, it is not an engaging or active self-focused activity like updating ones profile, looking at pictures of the self and friends, or pursuing passions’ fanpages. I think a more comparable self-focused activities should have been used as a test groups. For instance, having respondents write a description of their personality and interests, as if describing themselves to a new friend. Related to the mirror idea, another test group could apply make-up or style their hair in front of a mirror prior to taking the self-esteem survey. Similar to the facebook group, I think the other test groups tasks should all feature the ability to actively preen one’s social appearance – physical and personality.
By comparing the self-esteem scores of these two test groups and the facebook group, we can see if facebook creates the change in self-esteem, or if it ability to choose how one is represented in the social sphere that increases self-esteem.
Only once equivalent groups are created can we start to analyze and understand how social network usage affects users’ psyches.
I must note here that I haven’t read the paper, but if anyone wants to forward, I will gladly read.
Look at the following the links for summaries more info about this research:
This week on the BBC’s Moral Maze, (listen here until December 4th) panelists discuss “nudges” and if and how governments should be using theories of behavioral economics to encourage people to perform in certain ways. A few of the panelists were quite alarmed that the British government was employing “behavioral architects” to craft policies that seemingly coerce the public to act ways that could benefit themselves and the society at large.
Because the British seem to support their nanny state, it is unclear to me why they view nudges as being the first misstep that sends civil society into an Orwellian dystopia. (Wouldn’t be the first.) Aren’t nudges just another way that the state can protect its inhabitants from making bad decisions? (Rather than scolding them.) In the program, a few panelists worried that the government would use nudges as a way to manipulate and control the choices that people made. What they failed to understand is that people still have choices that can be freely made.
Just because there is now a picture of a fly in the urinal, doesn’t mean that you have to aim for it.
Just because now organ donation is the default, doesn’t mean that you can’t opt out of it. It just requires that you actually read your driver’s license document before signing it, if you want to make sure that you check that extra box so that your organs are selfishly buried with you. (For something like changing the default, making a choice counter to the default might take a little more thinking on the part of the citizens, but the choice is still there.)
The nice thing about nudges is that they can be unobtrusive, innocuous aids to help us make better decisions. The key is that the decision is still there to be made.
While it is interesting to discuss the morality of governments practicing nudging its citizens and to what level that nudging should be made salient, I am rather more interested learn about nudges that have already been enacted in the real world.
A Volkswagen-branded initiative in Sweden sought to change people’s behavior for the better and have fun while doing so. Their site TheFunTheory.com showcases four great examples of how nudges in the real world can encourage people to perform pro-social actions, such as picking up litter in the park or driving the speed limit, or actions that benefit the individual directly, such as taking the stairs. In these examples, the consumers/citizens/performers are delighted and entertained by the options given.
While The Fun Theory demonstrations are probably too costly to be scaled, their success should encourage governments, companies, non-profits to create and execute new nudges to encourage individuals to better themselves and their communities.
For additional reading, consult Thaler’s research, the popular book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Thaler and Sunstein, or social psychology research around framing and heuristics.
Let’s start by acknowledging a framework or paradigm with which to view the world. With this new endeavor, a paradigm about innovation is fitting.
Recently, I read Bronwyn Fryer’s article “How Do Innovators Think?” and was surprised and moved to learn that the business of creativity and innovation can be practiced and approached in a very structured, methodical way. As the saying goes, creativity is 99% work and 1% insight. What I found most helpful about this article was that is outlined five traits or practices of innovative people. I think that each of the five traits is desirable on its own, but by practicing and mastering each, it seems that one cannot help but be innovative.
As I am inspired by these five notions and enjoy referencing them, they are paraphrased below.
Have a read and tell me what you think.
Five common attributes of innovative people:
Associate. The ability to make connections across seemingly unrelated questions, problems, or idea.
Question. An ability to ask “what if,” “why,” and “why not” questions that challenge the status quo and open up the bigger picture.
Observe. The ability to closely observe details, particularly the details of people’s behavior.
Experiment. Openness to try new experiences and explore new worlds.
Network. Able to connect and befriend intelligent people with whom they have little in common, but from whom they can learn.
