The results were basically the same as before. As reported in the October 2008 issue of the journal Psychological Science, those who read the instructions in the mentally challenging script saw the task as time-consuming and requiring a high level of culinary skill; they were not apt to try it themselves. They, in effect, viewed the alien writing as a proxy for the actual task and as a result ended up avoiding it. Those who received the more digestible instructions were much more likely to head for the kitchen and sharpen their knives.
Our brains employ all kinds of tricks and shortcuts to get us through the day with the least mental and physical effort, but it is good to be wary of these automatic judgments. If unchecked, our tendency to confuse thoughts and actions can make dubious choices seem easier and more desirable than they ought to be, or it can discourage us from healthy habits and creative exploration. After all, most of the time using a “self-operating” napkin is just as simple as it appears to be.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Recipe for Motivation".
This article was originally published with the title A Recipe for Motivation.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentThe article correctly points at our tendency to complicate. However, it does not identify the roots of this tendency - poor understanding. And this poor understanding seems to grow poorer and poorer. Even scientists often forget that they need to simplify, simplify and simplify their theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see much more research done in this arena. Research in difficulties novel thoughts might face would be especially interesting.
Kind regards,
i'd like to know if the researchers considered visual effects as well. i'm thinking of the Presentation Zen method of PPTs versus the traditional bulletized "death by PowerPoint" method. intuitively Reynolds simplified method makes sense, but i'd like to see some hard data behind the story, similar to what the gents Univ of Mich have done w/ font.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat explains why this SciAm web is so hard to read - a cryptic layout, large fonts and forced paging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter practicing 30 years in the motivational business I can categorical agree with the research. If the instructions, written, spoken or pictorial are complicate the perceived complexity of the task is greater. Further, a clear deductive overview preceding inductive training eases the perceived difficulty of the lesson. Marketing executives, technical and textbook writers should keep it in mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPublishers and corporations have long understood why graphic design is important, and are willing to pay for it. I have seen indications that some scientists put less value on graphic design, which may be why this research seems notable to that community. For example, compare the web site design of the Encyclopedia of Life that Edward O. Wilson has helped promote. It is poorly designed when compared to the New York Times web site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy was the name of the hard-to-read typeface not given? There is a lot of research being done by graphic designers and usability engineers about legibility of fonts, especially in the realm of digital displays. Generally, in this field, the writers are careful to give the names of the fonts being used for testing.
Decades ago, I read of the "reformation" of Readers Digest (and later, the Wall Street Journal): the whole point was to "reduce the reading level" to convey what is considered important information. Both publications (if memory serves) reduced their reading level to that of the average 13 year-old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat may sound "disastrous" but in fact it meant much greater success for both publications and for their readers. Of course, the distinction between useful simplification and "dumbing down" must always be kept in the forefront.
Interestingly (to me, at least) is that some of the best examples of useful simplification can be found in fiction. Novels which create "whole worlds" at a reading level no higher than "age 13" are massively popular for a reason. It might be a useful thing for every scientist and scientific organization to hire ghost writers from that category.
In my business, incentive compensation systems, and in the computer systems world in general, we're always encouraging clients to simplify. I referenced this article in one of my own here: http://www.canidiumblog.com/2009/03/this-seems-complicated/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this