We think more rationally in a foreign language Gndim mult mai raional ntr-o limb strin

One of psychology's major contributions has been to document the myriad ways our thinking is sent haywire by a series of biases. Investigations into the ways and means to combat these biases have lagged behind, but that's starting to change. Now a team of researchers at the University of Chicago has reported that people are immune to two key biases when they think in their second, less familiar language. Una dintre contribuiile eseniale aduse de psihologie a fost analiza bine documentat a felurilor att de variate n care gndirea noastr este scurtcircuitat de o serie de erori. Investigaiile referitoare la modalitile i mijloacele prin care se pot combate aceste erori au rmas n urm, dar aceast stare de fapt ncepe s se schimbe. n prezent, o echip de cercettori de la Universitatea din Chicago afirm c, n conformitate cu studiile lor, oamenii sunt imuni la doua erori fundamentale atunci cnd gndesc n prima limb strin pe care au nvat-o, mai puin familiar n comparaie cu limba nativ. The first half of the investigation involved well-established framing effects. Participants were told that 600,000 people were at risk from a deadly disease. They were then presented with the same decision framed differently. In one condition, they chose between a medicine (A) that would definitely save 200,000 lives versus another (B) that had a 33.3 per cent chance of saving 600,000 people and a 66.6 per cent chance of saving no one. In another condition, the participants chose between a medicine (A) that meant 400,000 people will die versus another (B) that had a 33.3 per cent chance that no one will die and 66.6 per cent that 600,000 will die. Prima parte a investigaiei a implicat bine-cunoscutele efecte ale psiholingvisticii. Subiecilor li s-a spus c 600 000 de oameni risc s moar din cauza unei boli fatale. Apoi li s-a prezentat aceeai decizie, formulat diferit. Iniial, trebuiau s aleag dintre un medicament (varianta A) care ar fi salvat cu siguran 200 000 de viei i un altul (varianta B) care prezenta 33,3% anse de a-i salva pe toi cei 600 000 de oameni, dar de asemenea implica 66,6% posibiliti s nu salveze pe nimeni. Apoi, subiecii trebuiau s aleag dintre un medicament (varianta A) n urma administrrii cruia ar fi murit 400 000 de oameni i un

altul (varianta B) care prezenta 33,3% anse c nu va muri nimeni, dar de asemenea implica 66,6% posibiliti c toi cei 600 000 de oameni n cauz vor muri. The gamble in each condition is effectively the same, but numerous studies have shown that people are systematically influenced by the way the choice is framed. In the first condition, the gains of A are made salient, and people tend to prefer the certainty of that option. In the second condition, A's losses are made more salient and people prefer to take the risk of medicine B. n fiecare din cele dou situaii, riscul e acelai, dar numeroase studii au demonstrat c oamenii sunt n mod sistematic influenai de modul n care este formulat o decizie. n primul caz, izbitor este faptul c cei mai muli subieci aleg varianta A, pentru c oamenii tind s prefere sigurana oferit de aceast opiune. n al doilea caz, i mai izbitor este c varianta A este surclasat de medicamentul B, iar oamenii deodat prefer s-i asume un risc mare. Boaz Keysar and his team showed that dozens of native English speakers showed the typical framing effect when they completed the task in English, but not when they completed the task in their second, classroom-learned language of Japanese. It was a similar story with native Korean speakers - they showed no framing effect when they completed the task in English. And it was the same again with native French speakers when they completed the task in their second language of English. A follow-up study added a third inferior option to the decision task and confirmed that participants weren't just choosing at random when taking part in their second language. Boaz Keysar i echipa sa au demonstrat c foarte muli englezi nativi au manifestat reacii tipice fa de cele dou formulri, atunci cnd au luat aceast decizie n limba englez, dar nu i atunci cnd au rspuns n prima limb strin nvat n coal, japoneza. Aceeai poveste s-a repetat i cu vorbitorii nativi de coreean atunci cnd nu s-au mai lsat influenai de formulrile neltoare, au rspuns n englez. Cazul a fost identic i pentru francezii nativi care au dat un rspuns n limba englez - prima limb strin nvat de ei. Un studiu fcut imediat dup acest experiment a adugat o alt variabil, anume o a treia opiune mai mrunt i astfel, s-a confirmat c participanii nu aleg la ntmplare o variant anume atunci cnd sunt obligai s gndeasc aciunile au loc n prima limb strin nvat. The second half of the investigation focused on loss aversion. We're typically affected emotionally twice as much by losses as we are affected positively by gains of equivalent size. So, presented with a series of bets on the toss of a coin, with the chance to win $1.50 or lose $1, people will tend to shy away from the bet even though the cold logic of probability theory suggests they'll win out in the long run. Keysar and his colleagues gave native English speakers $15 in cash to play 15 rounds of this game, with the chance to keep the balance of their wins and losses at the end. The key finding was that the players were far more willing to gamble when they played the game in their second language of Spanish.

A doua parte a investigaiei s-a axat pe aversiunea fa de pierderi de tot felul. n mod normal, din punct de vedere emoional suntem de dou ori mai afectai negativ de pierderile noastre decat pozitiv de ctigurile de acelasi fel. Aa c, pui n faa provocrii de a se implica ntr-un joc de ric, avnd ansa de a ctiga un dolar jumtate sau posibilitatea de a pierde un dolar, oamenii obinuiau s fug de un aa pariu chiar dac, gndind la rece, n spiritul obiectiv al legii probabilitilor, teoretic ei ar fi castigat pe termen lung. Keysar i colegii si le-au oferit englezilor nativi 15 dolari, bani-ghea, pentru a juca n 15 runde, dndu-li-se ansa s-i echilibreze singuri balana ctigurilor i a pierderilor din final. Concluzia-cheie este urmtoarea: juctorii erau mult mai entuziati s i asume un risc atunci cnd jucau rica n spaniol, prima limba strin nvat de ei. The researchers aren't entirely sure why speaking in a less familiar tongue makes people more "rational", in the sense of not being affected by framing effects or loss aversion. But they think it may have to do with creating psychological distance, encouraging systematic rather than automatic thinking, and with reducing the emotional impact of decisions. This would certainly fit with past research that's shown the emotional impact of swear words, expressions of love and adverts is diminished when they're presented in a less familiar language. Cercettorii nu sunt 100% siguri de ce a vorbi ntr-o limb mai puin familiar determin oamenii s fie mai raionali, adic s nu se lase afectai de formulrile neltoare i de teama de a pierde. Cu toate acestea, specialitii cred c totul se nvrte n jurul distanei psihologice ce ncurajeaz o gndire sistematic, mai degrab dect o gndire automat. Astfel, se reduce impactul emoional al deciziilor. Aceast descoperire se potrivete foarte bine cu investigaiile anterioare n care se arat c influena emoional a jurmintelor, a manifestrilor de iubire i a reclamelor e diminuat atunci cnd toate acestea sunt prezentate ntr-o limb strin. The findings have important implications for international internet research - psychological measures could vary according to whether participants are answering in their mother tongue or in a second language learned later in life. More generally, the researchers said the findings could have ramifications for real life. "People who routinely make decisions in a foreign language rather than their native tongue might be less biased in their savings, investment, and retirement decisions, as a result of reduced myopic loss aversion," they concluded. "Over a long time horizon, this might very well be beneficial." Aceast descoperire are implicaii importante n cercetrile internaionale desfurate pe Internet msurile psihologice pot varia n funcie de participani, dac ei rspund n limba lor nativ sau n prima limb strin nvat mai trziu n via. Probabil c oamenii care n mod normal iau decizii n limbi strine mai degrab dect n limba lor nativ sunt mai nelepi cu privire la economiile lor, investiiile fcute i la deciziile de pensionare, ca rezultat al reducerii miopiei provocate de teama unei pierderi eventuale., au concluzionat specialitii. Pe termen lung, acest lucru se poate dovedi benefic. _________________________________

Boaz Keysar,, Sayuri L. Hayakawa, and Sun Gyu An (2012).The Foreign-Language Effect, Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases. Psychological Science DOI: 1177/0956797611432178

$$$$

Not in my gang: Children's and teenagers' reasons for excluding others Nu-i din gaca mea: Motivele excluderii sociale la copii i adolesceni
It's a fact of life that when kids form friendship groups some would-be members get left out. A lot of psychology research has focused on what it's like to be rejected. But now a new study has taken a more unusual approach, asking children and adolescents to recall times that they left someone out, and to explain their reasons for doing so. Holly Recchia and her team hope the findings could help design better interventions for reducing social exclusion. Este un lucru de toi tiut c atunci cnd copiii i formeaz grupuri de prieteni, civa dintre amatorii care vor s se integreze n grupul nou-format ajung s fie dai la o parte. S-au fcut multe studii psihologice n aceast privin, toate concentrndu-se pe sentimentele celor respini, dar acum, o nou investigaie a ales s priveasc problema dintr-un unghi neobinuit, specialitii rugnd copiii i adolescenii s-i aminteasc momente n care i-au exclus pe alii i de asemenea, s explice motivele pentru care au reacionat astfel. Holly Recchia i echipa ei sper ca rezultatele acestui studiu s ajute viitoarele msuri ce se vor lua cu scopul reducerii excluderii sociale. Eighty-four children were interviewed: 28 7-year-olds, 28 11-year-olds and 28 17-year-olds. A clear difference emerged with age. The younger children rarely described themselves as having any choice when they'd excluded others. They mostly mentioned practical reasons "We were playing piggy-back wars ... another kid wanted to play ... we didn't have any more people for him," or peer pressure - "We were playing jump roping and somebody else wanted to play with us, but then my friend said no." Their pleas of innocence contradict behavioural observations showing that young children often leave other kids out deliberately.

The 17-year-olds, by contrast, were more up front, most often giving the reason that they disliked the excluded person - "We didn't invite this one girl because she's not openminded ... ," was a typical comment. Au fost intervievai 84 de copii: 28 n vrst de 7 ani; 28 n vrst de 11 ani i 28 n vrst de 17 ani. A fost sesizat o diferen clar odat cu creterea vrstei subiecilor. Copiii mai mici rareori se descriau pe ei nii ca lund vreo decizie personal atunci cnd au exclus ali copii. De cele mai multe ori, copiii mici au invocat motive practice: Ne jucam de-a cavalerii i fiecare copil era dus n spate de un altul ... apoi a mai venit un copil care voia i el s intre n joc... nu mai aveam un alt copil care s-l duc n spate i pe el, un alt motiv este presiunea grupului social Sream coarda i a mai venit cineva care voia s se joace cu noi, dar prietena mea a spun NU. Pledoarile lor candide contrazic observaiile behavioriste conform crora copiii mici i exclud pe alii intenionat, din proprie voin. Pe de alt parte. cei de 17 ani s-au dovedit mai direci, cel mai des invocat motiv fiind acela c antipatizau persoana exclus Nu am primit-o pe aceast fat n grupul nostru pentru c nu e deschis la minte, a fost un comentariu tipic. Based on the finding with the younger kids, Recchia and her team said that social inclusion programmes for youngsters may benefit from encouraging them to take ownership over their actions, "given their apparent reluctance or incapacity to do so spontaneously." Bazndu-se pe rezultatele studiului fcut asupra copiilor mici, Recchia i echipa ei afirm c programele de incluziune social pentru ei pot beneficia mult de pe urma ncurajrii copiilor s preia friele aciunilor lor, chiar dac la prima vedere ei pot prea sceptici sau inapi s procedeze astfel. On a positive note, when asked to evaluate their reasons for excluding others, even the younger participants showed evidence that they were conscious of the ramifications (for example, the rejected person might not want to be friends with them in the future). It was also clear that the participants sometimes deliberately avoided thinking too much about what they'd done - a strategy that the researchers said "was aimed at numbing their awareness of the emotional consequences of leaving others out." Consistent with this, some of the participants mentioned feeling guilty when they gave in to peer pressure and took part in the exclusion of others. Totui, dac privim partea plin a paharului, cnd subiecii au fost rugai s-i evalueze motivele pentru care i-au exclus pe ceilali, chiar i subiecii foarte tineri au demonstrat c erau pe deplin contieni de efectele deciziei lor (de exemplu, tiua foarte bine c persoana respins nu va mai dori poate s fie prieten cu ei n viitor). A reieit foarte clar c de asemenea, participanii la investigaia psihologic evitau n mod deliberat s se gndeasc prea mult la ce au fcut strategie pe care specialitii o explic astfel, avnd drept scop amortizarea luciditii n ceea ce privete consecinele emoionale ale excluderii sociale fa de ceilali. n acord cu aceast declaraie, unii subieci au menionat c s-au simit vinovai cnd au cedat presiunii sociale, mai exact cnd au luat parte la respingerea celorlali.

Even among the 17-year-olds, who mostly treated disliking another person as a valid reason for excluding them, there was evidence that they were aware of the "undesirability" of exclusion. Recchia's team said this was "heartening" and could provide "an initial entree for interventions aimed at helping widely disliked victims of exclusion become reintegrated." Chiar i printre adolescenii de 17 ani, care vedeau n antipatia lor fa de o persoan un motiv solid de a-l exclude, s-a demonstrat c acetia erau contieni de inechitatea excluziunii. Echipa Recchiei a afirmat c aceste rezultate sunt ncurajatoare i c ar putea asigura o porti de a interveni n ajutorarea celor antipatizai astfel nct ei s se reintegreze n grup. This is the first study to investigate the subjective experience of excluding others across a wide age range of children and teens. The researchers said a "one-size-fits-all" model fails to capture the complexity of their results. "We argue that research on social exclusion could benefit from a fuller recognition of this variability and complexity in young people's subjective construals of their own experiences," they concluded, "thus setting the stage for programmes that may help young people to more critically and deliberately weigh their multiple and varying goals and concerns." Acesta este primul studiu care investigheaz experiena subiectiv a excluderii sociale, prin intervievarea unor subieci copii i adolesceni- cu vrste att de diferite. Cercettorii spun c modelul reetei, pentru toat lumea i pentru toate situaiile, nu reuete s surprind complexitatea rezultatelor deduse de ei. Discutm dac cercetrile asupra excluderii sociale pot beneficia de pe urma recunoaterii depline a variabilitii i complexitii modului subiectiv n care tinerii neleg experienele prin care trec., au concluzionat psihologii, dac am face asta, am organiza apoi programe prin care i-am putea ajuta pe tineri s devin mai critici i mai contieni n privina scopurilor lor multiple i diverse i a intereselor lor. _________________________________

HE Recchia, BA Brehl, and C Wainryb (2012). Children's and adolescents' reasons for socially excluding others. Cognitive Development, 195-203 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.02.005