There are many /bbs/viewthread.php?tid=499769 on this page

There is also /article/2859040.html

There are also these< /p>

Tips of psychology

1. Birdcage logic

Hang a beautiful birdcage in the most conspicuous place in the room. In a few days, the owner will You will definitely make one of two choices: throw away the birdcage, or buy a bird and put it in the birdcage. This is birdcage logic. The process is very simple. Imagine that you are the owner of this room. As long as someone walks into the room and sees the birdcage, they will not be able to help but ask you: "Where is the bird? Is it dead?" When you answer: "I never have Ever had a bird?" People ask, "Well, what do you want a birdcage for?" You end up having to choose between two options because it's easier than endless explanations. The reason for birdcage logic is simple: most of the time, people adopt inertial thinking. So it can be seen how important it is to cultivate logical thinking in life and work.

2. Broken window effect

There is a phenomenon in psychological research called the "broken window effect". That is to say, if a window in a house is broken and no one repairs it, the partition will be damaged. Soon, other windows will be broken inexplicably; if there are some graffiti on a wall that is not cleaned off, the wall will soon be covered with messy and unsightly things. In a very clean place, people would be embarrassed to throw away garbage, but once there is garbage on the ground, people will throw it away without hesitation and without feeling any shame. This is a really strange phenomenon.

Psychologists study this "tipping point". How dirty does the ground have to be before people will feel that it is so dirty anyway? Give up on yourself and let it rot to the end.

If any bad thing is not stopped at the beginning and becomes a trend, it cannot be changed. It is like a river embankment. If a small gap is not repaired in time, the dam can collapse and cause millions of times the damage. loss.

Crime is actually the result of disorder. In New York City in the 1980s, there was robbery everywhere and killing every day. Even walking on the road in broad daylight would make you scared. Not to mention the subway. The carriages are dirty and dirty, and obscene sentences are scrawled everywhere. Everyone feels in danger while sitting in the subway. Although I have not been robbed, a professor was given a sap in broad daylight and lost his eyesight. This ended his research career and made me change my mind over the years. I did not dare to go to New York alone for meetings. Recently, New York's city appearance and reputation have improved a lot. I'm quite surprised that a city that has been sinking can actually come back from the dead and move up.

Therefore, when I went out for a meeting and met a criminologist, I immediately asked him for advice. It turned out that New York City used the broken windows effect theory discussed in books in the past to first improve the crime environment. , so that people are less likely to commit crimes, and then slowly arrest the murderers and thieves, and return to order.

Although this approach was scolded at the time as slowing things down and saying, "The ship is about to sink and we are still washing the decks." However, New York City still started by keeping the subway cars clean and would not buy tickets for free. People were handcuffed and lined up on the platform to publicly declare to the people the government's determination to rectify the situation. It turned out to be very effective.

The police found that people are less likely to commit crimes in clean places, and also found that catching fare evaders is very rewarding, because one in every seven fare evaders is a wanted criminal, and one in twenty Carry weapons, so the police are willing to take fare evaders seriously, which makes gangsters dare not evade fares, and dare not bring weapons when going out, so as not to lose more than they gain. In this way, New York City starts from the smallest and easiest place to break the criminal chain so that this vicious cycle cannot continue.

3. Responsibility diffusion effect

At 3:20 on the night of March 13, 1964, in front of an apartment in the suburbs of New York, the United States, a young woman named Juno Bibai was finishing her sentence. He was assassinated on his way home from work in a bartender. When she shouted desperately: "Someone is going to kill someone! Help! Help!" Hearing the shouting, nearby residents turned on their lights and opened their windows, and the murderer ran away in fear. When everything returned to calm, the murderer returned to commit crimes. When she screamed again, nearby residents turned on the lights again, and the murderer ran away again.

When she thought nothing had happened and returned to her home and went upstairs, the murderer appeared in front of her again and killed her on the stairs. During this process, although she shouted for help and at least 38 of her neighbors came to the window to watch, no one came to save her or even called the police. This incident caused a sensation in New York society, and also attracted the attention and thinking of social psychologists. This phenomenon of so many bystanders doing nothing to save people is called the diffusion of responsibility effect.

Psychologists have conducted a large number of experiments and investigations on the causes of the diffusion of responsibility effect, and found that this phenomenon cannot just be said to be a manifestation of people's callousness or increasing moral decay. Because on different occasions, people's aid behavior is indeed different. When a person encounters an emergency situation, if he is the only one who can provide help, he will be clearly aware of his responsibility and help the victim. If he refuses to save his life, he will feel guilty and guilty, which will require a high psychological price. And if there are many people present, the responsibility of helping the seeker will be shared by everyone, causing the responsibility to be dispersed. Each person shares very little responsibility, and the bystander may not even realize his own share of the responsibility, resulting in A mentality of "I won't save others, others will save them" creates a situation of "collective apathy". How to break this situation is an important topic that psychologists are studying.

4. Parkinson's Law

The famous British historian Northgood Parkinson wrote a book called "Parkinson's Law" through long-term investigation and research. In his book, he elaborated on the causes and consequences of agency staff expansion: An incompetent official may have three ways out. The first is to apply for resignation and give up his seat to a capable person; the second is to ask a capable person to assist Work by yourself; the third is to appoint two people with a lower level than yourself as assistants. This first path must never be taken, because it will lose many rights; the second path cannot be taken, because the capable person will become his opponent; it seems that only the third path is most suitable. So, two mediocre assistants shared his work, and he himself gave orders from above. They did not pose a threat to his rights. Since the two assistants were incompetent, they followed suit and found two more incompetent assistants for themselves. By analogy, a leadership system is formed that is bloated, overstaffed, at odds with each other, and inefficient.

5. Halo effect

Pushkin, the famous Russian writer, suffered greatly due to the halo effect. He fell passionately in love with Nathalie, known as "the most beautiful woman in Moscow", and married her. Natalie's appearance was amazing, but her ambitions were different from Pushkin's. Every time Pushkin read his poems to her. She always covered her ears and said: "Don't listen! Don't listen!" On the contrary, she always asked Pushkin to accompany her to have fun and attend some luxurious parties and dances. For this purpose, Pushkin abandoned his creations, racked up a lot of debts, and finally paid for her Death in a duel brought an untimely death to a literary star. In Pushkin's view, a beautiful woman must also have extraordinary wisdom and noble character. However, this is not the case. This phenomenon is called the halo effect.

The so-called halo effect is that in interpersonal communication, a certain characteristic of a person masks other characteristics, thereby causing barriers to interpersonal cognition. In daily life, the "halo effect" often quietly affects our perception and evaluation of others. For example, some elderly people are dissatisfied with the individual shortcomings, clothing, and living habits of young people, and think that they must have no future; some young people will look down on them because they admire a certain cuteness in their friends. Cute, as the saying goes, "one handsome man covers all ugliness." The halo effect is a kind of subjective psychological conjecture that overgeneralizes. Its errors are: first, it is easy to grasp the individual characteristics of things, and is accustomed to extrapolating from the individual to the general, just like a blind man touching an elephant, using points to represent aspects; second, , it links together some personality or appearance characteristics that have no internal connection, and asserts that if there is such a characteristic, there must be another characteristic; thirdly, it affirms everything if it says it is good, and denies everything if it says it is bad. This is a kind of Absolute tendency dominated by subjective bias. In short, the halo effect is a cognitive disorder that has a great impact on people's psychology in interpersonal communication. We should try our best to avoid and overcome the side effects of the halo effect in our interactions.

6. Hawthorne effect

An experimenter effect in psychology.

In the 1920s and 1930s, American researchers discovered the experimenter effect, called the Hawthorne effect, in experiments on the relationship between working conditions, social factors and production benefits at the Hawthorne Factory of Western Electric Company in Chicago.

The first stage of the experiment is the relationship between working conditions and production efficiency starting from November 1924, which is set as the experimental group and the control group. As a result, the output of the experimental group increased regardless of whether the illumination was increased or controlled, and the output of the control group with unchanged illumination also increased. In addition, factors such as salary remuneration, rest time, daily working length and weekly working days have been tested, but it cannot be seen that these working conditions have a direct impact on production efficiency. The second phase of the experiment was led by Mayo, a professor at Harvard University in the United States. It focused on studying the relationship between social factors and production efficiency. It was found that the improvement in production efficiency was mainly due to the huge changes in the mental aspects of the subjects. The workers who participated in the experiment were placed in specialized laboratories and led by researchers. Their social conditions changed and they received attention from all aspects, thus forming a feeling of participating in the experiment and feeling that they were an important part of the company, thus making the workers Incentivized from a social perspective to increase production.

This effect tells us that when classmates or oneself receive public attention or gaze, the efficiency of learning and communication will be greatly increased. Therefore, we must learn to get along well with others in our daily lives, and understand what kind of behavior is accepted and appreciated by classmates and teachers. Only by continuously increasing our good behavior in life and study can we be more accepted. Only with people's attention and appreciation can we make continuous progress in learning and be full of confidence!

7. Learned helplessness experiment

The learned helplessness effect was first discovered by Overmyer and Silligman, and has since been widely discussed in animal and human studies. Simply put, many experiments have shown that after training, dogs can cross barriers or engage in other behaviors to escape electric shocks administered by the experimenter. However, if the dog was previously exposed to an electric shock that was unpredictable (unknown when it would come) and uncontrollable (i.e., the interruption of the shock did not depend on the dog's behavior), when the dog later had the opportunity to escape from the shock, they became unable to escape. . Moreover, dogs also show defects in other aspects, such as feeling frustrated and depressed, reduced initiative, etc.

The dogs behaved this way because they learned a sense of helplessness early in the experiment. That is, they realize that no matter what they do, they cannot control the termination of the shock. In each experiment, the termination of the electric shock was under the control of the experimenter, and the dog would realize that it had no ability to change this external control, thus learning a sense of helplessness.

If a person develops learned helplessness, it will become a kind of deep despair and sadness. Therefore, we should broaden our horizons in our study and life, see the real determinants behind the events, and not let ourselves fall into despair.

8. Witness’s memory

In our understanding, witnesses are usually people who provide some objective evidence, that is, what they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. People who tell things truthfully. However, psychological research has proven that the testimony provided by many witnesses is inaccurate, or is biased, with personal opinions and consciousness.

A surprising finding is that witnesses' confidence in their testimony does not determine the accuracy of their testimony. Psychologists Perfecutt and Howlins decided to investigate this conclusion in more depth. To see if there was anything special about a witness's testimony, they compared the witness' memory with memory for general knowledge.

They asked subjects to watch a brief video about a girl who was kidnapped. The next day, the subjects were asked to answer some questions about the content in the video, and asked to tell how confident they were in their answers, and then took a recognition memory test. Next, using the same method, the content is general knowledge questions selected from encyclopedias and popular books.

As had happened before, Purfecutt and Howlings also found that those who were more confident in their answers were actually no better than those who were less confident in the accuracy of witness recollections. higher, but this was not the case for general knowledge, where people with high confidence recalled grades much better than those with low confidence.

People are self-aware of their strengths and weaknesses in general knowledge.

Therefore, they tend to modify their test results on the confidence scale. General knowledge is a database that is shared among individuals. It has generally accepted correct answers that subjects can measure by themselves. For example, people will know whether they are better or worse than others in sports. However, witnessed events are not affected by this self-knowledge. For example, they are unlikely to know that they are, overall, better or worse than others at remembering the hair color of participants in the event.

9. Rosenthal Effect

American psychologist Rosenthal and others conducted a famous experiment in 1968. They went to an elementary school and selected three classes of children from grades one to six to take a prestigious "test for predicting future development." Then the experimenter notified the teacher of the list of students who were considered to have "the potential for excellent development." In fact, this list is not determined based on the test results, but is randomly selected. It hints at teachers with "authoritative lies", thereby mobilizing teachers' certain expectations for the students on the list. Eight months later, the results of another intelligence test found that the scores of the students on the list had generally improved, and the teachers also gave them good conduct comments. This experiment achieved miraculous results. People call this phenomenon of teachers' subtle influence on students' psychology, so that students can achieve the progress expected by teachers, called the "Rosenthal effect". It is also commonly known as Pygmalion effect (Pygmalion is the king of Cyprus in ancient Greek mythology. He fell in love with a statue of a girl. His passion eventually turned the statue into a real person, and the two fell in love and united).

Educational practice also shows that if teachers like certain students, they will have high expectations for them. After a period of time, students will feel the care, love and encouragement of teachers; they often treat teachers with a positive attitude, Students have more self-esteem, confidence, self-love, and self-improvement when it comes to learning and their own behavior, inducing a positive passion. These students often make the progress expected by their teachers. On the contrary, those students who are ignored and discriminated against by teachers will over time feel the teacher's "partiality" from the teacher's words, behavior, and expressions. They will also have a negative attitude towards the teacher and their own learning, and ignore or refuse to listen to the teacher. requirements; these students often become worse day by day and eventually become undesirable elements of society. Although there are some exceptions, this is the general trend, and it is also a wake-up call for teachers.

10. False consensus bias

We usually believe that our hobbies are the same as those of most people. If you like playing computer games, it's possible to overestimate the number of people who like computer games. You also usually overestimate the number of people who will vote for your favorite classmates, overestimate your prestige and leadership ability in the group, etc. Your tendency to overestimate the number of people who share your behavior and attitudes is called false empathy bias. Some factors will affect the strength of your false empathy bias:

(1) When external attributions are stronger than internal attributions;

(2) Current behavior or events When you are very important to someone;

(3) When you are very certain or convinced of your opinions;

(4) When your status or normal life and study are affected by someone a threat