книгипсихология
листаю Behavior — The Control of Perception, чувак явно разбирается в психологии:
My objections to the statistical approach to behavioral research, exposed here and there in previous chapters, are not based on a dislike of statistics per se. Rather they reflect my dislike of the blindness of statistical manipulations to organizing principles, and of the way statistical facts entice us to overlook the individual organismic properties that must underlie all statistical facts. There is a magical aura about statistical relationships. Certain events manipulated by an experimenter correlate with subsequent changes in behavior, with no causative links at all being visible: the relationship, for all anyone can tell, may in fact be magical. Of course the hope is that a statistically significant relationship will provide a hint as to underlying causes, and I suppose things must work out that way sometimes. The hope, in any case, is probably vain for all practical purposes because when studying a complex system, one is likely to find that any event will be followed by alterations of many aspects of behavior to at least some degree. Given sharp enough statistical tools and unlimited freedom to repeat experiments, one could probably detect a significant correlation between any variable and any other variable involved in behavior.
These are the fascinating questions asked in a new [paper][1] led by Ibrahim Senay and Dolores Albarracin, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and published in [Psychological Science][2]. The experiment was straightforward. Fifty three undergrads were divided into two groups. The first group was told to prepare for an anagram-solving task by thinking, for one minute, about whether they would work on anagrams. This is the "Will I?" condition, which the scientists refer to as the "interrogative form of self-talk". The second group, in contrast, was told to spend one minute thinking that they would work on anagrams. This is the "I Will" condition, or the "declarative form of self-talk". Both groups were then given ten minutes to solve as many anagrams as possible.
At first glance, we might assume that the "I Will" group would solve more anagrams. After all, they are committing themselves to the task, silently asserting that they will solve the puzzles. The interrogative group, on the other hand, was just asking themselves a question; there was no commitment, just some inner uncertainty.
But that's not what happened. It turned out that that the "Will I?" group solved nearly 25 percent more anagrams. When people asked themselves a question — Can I do this? — they became more motivated to actually do it, which allowed them to solve more puzzles. This suggests that the Nike slogan should be "Just do it?" and not "Just do it".
