The Road awakens the demons in the people. There is a car turn to the street main and the right-of-way. Not a big thing actually, once the brake is touched, is already defused the Situation. Nevertheless, the anger burns out the Fuses of the reason. The verdict of the moment, to fall: first, the other one is a douche and secondly, he has made the intention, only a couple of places in the exhaust column up. It seems to be a General pattern to assume in terms of negative events and actions on purpose. Even if the probability is high that the other driver has taken a not with the intention of the right-of-way. He has only assessed the Situation differently, or simply overlooked, a Mistake.
search for scapegoats
misadventures awaken to the urgent need for an explanation: Why is this happening and especially who is to blame? News sites satisfy this Desire by setting up, in the case of worse events about Live-Ticker; and man himself, by, you'll need explanations and scapegoats identify. Just as psychologists have published Sean Laurent of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign a study, which deals with a special case of this phenomenon – the Side-Effect, or translated: the side-effect effect.
This was first described by moral philosophers Joshua puzzl from Yale University, and in 2003 published. The researchers worked with a scenario that has also used Laurent for his study. The following Situation: The Vice President of the group, proposes to the chief of a new program. You will earn a lot of money, but the damage to the environment. "I don't care," says the chief, "the main thing is, we make a Profit." Subjects should judge whether the boss to harm the nature, said most Yes. Modified puzzl and other researchers the scenario, but in a way that nature benefits as a side effect of the lucrative program, was skeptical of someone's intention.
If a company is committed to the environment, respond to the most suspicious and hostile.
If a company is trying, through environmental commitment on display, the most suspicious or hostile. Maybe the described effect in this mismatch.
Sean Laurent argues, however, that even the effects of an action, which determine the judgement about intentionality. "The moral Dimension is not, in my opinion, the decisive factor," says the psychologist. Instead, people would ask other questions, if you want to be informed of the intentions of the CEO. The chief had the necessary prior knowledge? If Yes, then the subjects of the psychologists derived in the negative case this intention. But not if the environment was helped as a side effect, then prior knowledge for the assessment of the intentions is irrelevant. Then, the subjects were interested, whether there is generally a desire of the CEO to help the nature.
The Computer make your life difficult
As angry road users or supercritical Consumer can be a this academic debate largely don't care. What explanation may also be behind this, the grossly simplified message is the same: the setbacks, catastrophes, and small dramas remains a demand for an explanation, in contrast to the small joyous events.
Carey more wedge described in a study in the journal "Journal of Experimental Psychology": If a Computer files to delete, the favorite team lose an important game or a natural disaster occurs, the people feared such a thing as acting beings behind it, so the psychologist. The Computer I have it apart to make a life difficult for the arbitrator to have stolen from the own Team to the victory and an angry God, the people are punished with a flood or an earthquake.
these setbacks, perhaps only by coincidence, have occurred, you want to accept. "If the files show up but it is reliable, the Team wins, the sky is blue and the sun is shining, then we will explain to us the circumstances rather than the influence of external powers", so more wedge. Then you will be accepted or not observed.
The man is bad
of Course, it is also possible that a sudden fortune with a supposed Act is constituted of external actors. However, this Justification came from falls in the case of joyful events is significantly lower, as psychologist Daniel Gilbert have shown. Similar to the results of the experiments can be interpreted, which has published more wedge.
The psychologist decided to play his subjects, variants of the so-called Ultimatum game. This works roughly like this: A player gets money a sum, and dividing them according to Gusto with a second player. This has the possibility to accept the proposal or reject it. He denied none of the two gets the money. Rational would it be, offer to accept, finally, some money is better than none at all. But as the man ticks, he is not a rational book holder a not too bad offer offends, and awakens the desire for punishment.
Bad news, especially, is useful
The subjects of more wedge did not know in the experiments now, if you had to do it in the rounds of the game with a human or a Computer, you were asked to advise then. The proposed division of the amount of money was very unfavorable for them, they kept her more for a human than for a computer. So mean only Homo can be sapiens. If it runs bad, must be behind it a will and perhaps also an intention.
Negative information are processed deeper or more thoroughly and more taken into account. Psychologists argue, for example, Roy Baumeister and Ellen Bratslavsky in a review article on the subject, published some years ago in the journal "Review of General Psychology". To know "something Negative about a new acquaintance will be more heavily weighted than is positive Information." Bad just expected more severe consequences, it makes sense to note some bad news. A stroke of fate can lift the personal world of in-depth from the fishing as a nice big surprise. Why I, one can speculate then, why?
Created: 18.02.2019, 20:14 PM