3 ms·
Why does this work? I imagine a psychologist might be able to answer with reference to empirical studies, but can/could any neuroscientist answer with details
by wombatmobile 6y ago
Why does this work?
I imagine a psychologist might be able to answer with reference to empirical studies, but can/could any neuroscientist answer with details of a mechanism?
Or do we just not know enough about how the brain works yet?
- yboris 6y agoProbably closely related to Anchoring (cognitive bias) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) I doubt we have neurology-based explanations. Nor do I think that's the right level of analysis for many psychological phenomena (including this one).
- suprfnk 6y agoThe article mentions that: - Framing tasks or items in pseudo-sets works by (a) conveying the notion of a larger group or entity, which (b) increases perceptions of incompleteness, and in turn (c) a activates people’s desire for completeness. - We naturally find complete, cohesive units to be symbolic and meaningful, so we strive to achieve them. Think of the slight annoyance you may feel when buying a ‘6 pack’ of sodas with 1 missing. - If the goal is too high to achieve (e.g. workout 10 times this week), we expect we won’t reach a satisfying endpoint - so we won’t even start it. The article also links this paper: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37985562/barasz,john,keenan,norton_pseudo-set-framing.pdf https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37985562/barasz,...
- yboris 6y ago"Incompleteness" seems to nudge people to want to complete a task, aka "Zeigarnik effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeigarnik_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeigarnik_effect
- ravi-delia 6y agoHonestly my guess (as good as yours) is that in the real world most tasks come in 'sets' anyway, and the difficulty we find completing tasks that don't is somewhat eased by creating them artificially.