• About the Authors
  • Blogs and Shows
  • Journals
  • Open Invitation
  • References
  • Resources
  • Taxonomy
  • Who’s Who?

Media Psychology

~ Informing, Educating and Influencing

Media Psychology

Monthly Archives: April 2019

Can Our Brains Really Read Jumbled Words as Long as The First And Last Letters Are Correct?

29 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by Donna L. Roberts, PhD in Psychology

≈ Comments Off on Can Our Brains Really Read Jumbled Words as Long as The First And Last Letters Are Correct?

Don’t believe everything you read online.

Source: Can Our Brains Really Read Jumbled Words as Long as The First And Last Letters Are Correct?

MICHELLE STARR

You’ve probably seen the classic piece of “internet trivia” in the image above before – it’s been circulating since at least 2003.

On first glance, it seems legit. Because you can actually read it, right? But, while the meme contains a grain of truth, the reality is always more complicated.

The meme asserts, citing an unnamed Cambridge scientist, that if the first and last letters of a word are in the correct places, you can still read a piece of text.

We’ve unjumbled the message verbatim.

“According to a researche [sic] at Cambridge University, it doesn’t matter in what order the letters in a word are, the only importent [sic] thing is that the first and last letter be at the right place. The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it without problem. This is because the human mind does not read every letter by itself but the word as a whole.”

In fact, there never was a Cambridge researcher (the earliest form of the meme actually circulated without that particular addition), but there is some science behind why we can read that particular jumbled text.

The phenomenon has been given the slightly tongue-in-cheek name “Typoglycaemia,” and it works because our brains don’t just rely on what they see – they also rely on what we expect to see.

In 2011, researchers from the University of Glasgow, conducting unrelated research, found that when something is obscured from or unclear to the eye, human minds can predict what they think they’re going to see and fill in the blanks.

“Effectively, our brains construct an incredibly complex jigsaw puzzle using any pieces it can get access to,” explained researcher Fraser Smith. “These are provided by the context in which we see them, our memories and our other senses.”

However, the meme is only part of the story. Matt Davis, a researcher at the University of Cambridge’s MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, wanted to get to the bottom of the “Cambridge” claim, since he believed he should have heard of the research before.

He managed to track down the original demonstration of letter randomisation to a researcher named Graham Rawlinson, who wrote his PhD thesis on the topic at Nottingham University in 1976.

He conducted 16 experiments and found that yes, people could recognise words if the middle letters were jumbled, but, as Davis points out, there are several caveats.

  • It’s much easier to do with short words, probably because there are fewer variables.
  • Function words that provide grammatical structure, such as and, the and a, tend to stay the same because they’re so short. This helps the reader by preserving the structure, making prediction easier.
  • Switching adjacent letters, such as porbelm for problem, is easier to translate than switching more distant letters, as in plorebm.
  • None of the words in the meme are jumbled to make another word – Davis gives the example of wouthit vs witohut. This is because words that differ only in the position of two adjacent letters, such as calm and clam, or trial and trail, are more difficult to read.
  • The words all more or less preserved their original sound – order was changed to oredrinstead of odrer, for instance.
  • The text is reasonably predictable.

It also helps to keep double letters together. It’s much easier to decipher aoccdrnig and mttaerthan adcinorcg and metatr, for example.

There is evidence to suggest that ascending and descending elements play a role, too – that what we’re recognising is the shape of a word. This is why mixed-case text, such as alternating caps, is so difficult to read – it radically changes the shape of a word, even when all the letters are in the right place.

If you have a play around with this generator, you can see for yourself how properly randomising the middle letters of words can make text extremely difficult to read. Try this:

The adkmgowenlcent – whcih cmeos in a reropt of new mcie etpnremxeis taht ddin’t iotdncure scuh mantiotus – isn’t thelcclnaiy a rtoatriecn of tiher eearlir fidginns, but it geos a lnog way to shnwiog taht the aalrm blels suhold plarobby neevr hvae been sdnuoed in the fsrit plcae.

Maybe that one is cheating a little – it’s a paragraph from a ScienceAlert story about CRISPR.

The acknowledgment – which comes in a report of new mice experiments that didn’t introduce such mutations – isn’t technically a retraction of their earlier findings, but it goes a long way to showing that the alarm bells should probably never have been sounded in the first place.

See how you go with this one.

Soaesn of mtiss and mloelw ftisnflurues,
Csloe boosm-feinrd of the mrtuniag sun;
Cnponsiirg wtih him how to laod and besls
Wtih friut the viens taht runod the tahtch-eevs run

That’s the first four lines of the poem “To Autumn” by John Keats.

Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness,
Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun;
Conspiring with him how to load and bless
With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run

So while there are some fascinating cognitive processes behind how we use prediction and word shape to improve our reading skills, it really isn’t as simple as that meme would have you believe.

If you want to delve into the topic further, you can read Davis’ full and fascinating analysis here.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Quote

Brand Connected – Media Psychology

29 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by sergiodelbianco in Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

Tiffany White tells a cautionary tale about the modern, connected consumer. Tiffany Barnett White is Associate Professor of Business Administration and Bruce and Anne Strohm Faculty Fellow at the University of Illinois, College of Business. She joined the faculty at Illinois in 1999 and received a Ph.D. in marketing from Duke University in 2000. […]

via The [brand] connected consumer – Tiffany White  — consumer psychology research

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Digital Nation

22 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by Donna L. Roberts, PhD in Psychology

≈ Comments Off on Digital Nation

Is our 24/7 wired world causing us to lose as much as we’ve gained

 

 

Source: Digital Nation

SEASON 28: EPISODE 9

Over a single generation, the Web and digital media have remade nearly every aspect of modern culture, transforming the way we work, learn, and connect in ways that we’re only beginning to understand. FRONTLINE producer Rachel Dretzin (Growing up Online) teams up with one of the leading thinkers of the digital age, Douglas Rushkoff (The Persuaders, Merchants of Cool), to continue to explore life on the virtual frontier. The film is the product of a unique collaboration with visitors to the Digital Nation website, who for the past year have been able to react to the work in progress and post their own stories online. [Explore more stories on the original Digital Nation website.]

Watch this documentary at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/digitalnation/?fbclid=IwAR1306NU_-_a2KeXTN4chlR2rRj_b66DD6hsD5wWN-MPh25JdQLTyB3xr0s

 

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Quote

Why Image Is Everything – Media Psychology

16 Tuesday Apr 2019

Posted by sergiodelbianco in Psychology

≈ 2 Comments

via Why Image Is Everything

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Smart Phone, Lazy Brain

15 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by Donna L. Roberts, PhD in Psychology

≈ Comments Off on Smart Phone, Lazy Brain

We still call them “phones,” but they are seldom used for talking. They have become like a substitute for memory—and other brain functions. Is that good for us in the long run?

Illustration by Edmon Haro

Source: Smart Phone, Lazy Brain

BY SHARON BEGLEY

You probably know the Google Effect: the first rigorous finding in the booming research into how digital technology affects cognition. It’s also known as digital amnesia, and it works like this: When we know where to find a piece of information, and when it takes little effort to do so, we are less likely to remember that information. First discovered by psychologist Betsy Sparrow of Columbia University and her colleagues, the Google Effect causes our brains to take a pass on retaining or recalling facts such as “an ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain” (an example Sparrow used) when we know they are only a few keystrokes away.

“Because search engines are continually available to us, we may often be in a state of not feeling we need to encode the information internally,” Sparrow explained in her 2011 paper. “When we need it, we will look it up.” Storing information requires mental effort—that’s why we study before exams and cram for presentations—so unless we feel the need to encode something into a memory, we don’t try. Result: Our recollection of ostrich anatomy, and much else, dissipates like foam on a cappuccino.

It’s tempting to leap from the Google Effect to dystopian visions of empty-headed dolts who can’t remember even the route home (thanks a lot, GPS), let alone key events of history (cue Santayana’s hypothesis that those who can’t remember history are doomed to repeat it). But while the short-term effects of digital tech on what we remember and how we think are real, the long-term consequences are unknown; the technology is simply too new for scientists to have figured it out.

People spend an average of 3 to 5 minutes at their computer working on the task at hand before switching to Facebook or other enticing websites.

Before we hit the panic button, it’s worth reminding ourselves that we have been this way before. Plato, for instance, bemoaned the spread of writing, warning that it would decimate people’s ability to remember (why make the effort to encode information in your cortex when you can just consult your handy papyrus?). On the other hand, while writing did not trigger a cognitive apocalypse, scientists are finding more and more evidence that smartphones and internet use are affecting cognition already.

The Google Effect? We’ve probably all experienced it. “Sometimes I spend a few minutes trying hard to remember some fact”—like whether a famous person is alive or dead, or what actor was in a particular movie—“and if I can retrieve it from my memory, it’s there when I try to remember it two, five, seven days later,” said psychologist Larry Rosen, professor emeritus at California State University, Dominguez Hills, who researches the cognitive effects of digital technology. “But if I look it up, I forget it very quickly. If you can ask your device any question, you do ask your device any question” rather than trying to remember the answer or doing the mental gymnastics to, say, convert Celsius into Fahrenheit.

“Doing that is profoundly impactful,” Rosen said. “It affects your memory as well as your strategy for retrieving memories.” That’s because memories’ physical embodiment in the brain is essentially a long daisy chain of neurons, adding up to something like architect I.M. Pei is alive or swirling water is called an eddy. Whenever we mentally march down that chain we strengthen the synapses connecting one neuron to the next. The very act of retrieving a memory therefore makes it easier to recall next time around. If we succumb to the LMGTFY (let me Google that for you) bait, which has become ridiculously easy with smartphones, that doesn’t happen.

To which the digital native might say, so what? I can still Google whatever I need, whenever I need it. Unfortunately, when facts are no longer accessible to our conscious mind, but only look-up-able, creativity suffers. New ideas come from novel combinations of disparate, seemingly unrelated elements. Just as having many kinds of Legos lets you build more imaginative structures, the more elements—facts—knocking around in your brain the more possible combinations there are, and the more chances for a creative idea or invention. Off-loading more and more knowledge to the internet therefore threatens the very foundations of creativity.

Besides letting us outsource memory, smartphones let us avoid activities that many people find difficult, boring, or even painful: daydreaming, introspecting, thinking through problems. Those are all so aversive, it seems, that nearly half of people in a 2014 experimentwhose smartphones were briefly taken away preferred receiving electric shocks than being alone with their thoughts. Yet surely our mental lives are the poorer every time we check Facebook or play Candy Crush instead of daydream.

But why shouldn’t we open the app? The appeal is undeniable. We each have downloaded an average of nearly 30 mobile apps, and spend 87 hours per month internet browsing via smartphone, according to digital marketing company Smart Insights. As a result, distractions are just a click away—and we’re really, really bad at resisting distractions. Our brains evolved to love novelty (maybe human ancestors who were attracted to new environments won the “survival of the fittest” battle), so we flit among different apps and websites.

As a result, people spend an average of just three to five minutes at their computer working on the task at hand before switching to Facebook or another enticing website or, with phone beside them, a mobile app. The most pernicious effect of the frenetic, compulsive task switching that smartphones facilitate is to impede the achievement of goals, even small everyday ones. “You can’t reach any complex goal in three minutes,” Rosen said. “There have always been distractions, but while giving in used to require effort, like getting up and making a sandwich, now the distraction is right there on your screen.”

The mere existence of distractions is harmful because resisting distractions that we see out of the corner of our eye (that Twitter app sitting right there on our iPhone screen) takes effort. Using fMRI to measure brain activity, neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley of the University of California, San Francisco, found that when people try to ignore distractions it requires significant mental resources. Signals from the prefrontal cortex race down to the visual cortex, suppressing neuronal activity and thereby filtering out what the brain’s higher-order cognitive regions have deemed irrelevant. So far, so good.

The problem is that the same prefrontal regions are also required for judgment, attention, problem solving, weighing options, and working memory, all of which are required to accomplish a goal. Our brains have limited capacity to do all that. If the prefrontal cortex is mightily resisting distractions, it isn’t hunkering down to finish the term paper, monthly progress report, sales projections, or other goal it’s supposed to be working toward. “We are all cruising along on a superhighway of interference” produced by the ubiquity of digital technology, Gazzaley and Rosen wrote in their 2016 book The Distracted Mind. That impedes our ability to accomplish everyday goals, to say nothing of the grander ones that are built on the smaller ones.

The constant competition for our attention from all the goodies on our phone and other screens means that we engage in what a Microsoft scientist called “continuous partial attention.” We just don’t get our minds deeply into any one task or topic. Will that have consequences for how intelligent, creative, clever, and thoughtful we are? “It’s too soon to know,” Rosen said, “but there is a big experiment going on, and we are the lab rats.”

Tech Invasion LMGTFY

“Let me Google that for you” may be some of the most damaging words for our brain. Psychologists have theorized that the “Google Effect” causes our memories to weaken due merely to the fact that we know we can look something up, which means we don’t keep pounding away at the pathways that strengthen memory. Meanwhile, research suggests that relying on GPS weakens our age-old ability to navigate our surroundings. And to top it all off, the access to novel info popping up on our phone means that, according to Deloitte, people in the US check their phones an average of 46 times per day—which is more than a little disruptive.

Sharon Begley is a senior science writer with The Boston Globe Media Group, author of Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain, and coauthor with Richard Davidson of The Emotional Life of Your Brain. She writes a regular column for Mindful magazine called Brain Science.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Quote

Do We Form Similarly Close Relationship With Brands As With Our Loved One? – Media Psychology

08 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by sergiodelbianco in Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

Are brands addictive? Source: Do We Form Similarly Close Relationship With Brands As With Our Loved One? Martin Reimann For human relationships it is known that after an initial electrifying honeymoon period, excitement for the loved partner often goes down and is maintained at a lower level. At the same time, however, we include our […]

via Do We Form Similarly Close Relationship With Brands As With Our Loved One? — consumer psychology research

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

We know what will make us happy, why do we watch TV instead?

08 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by Donna L. Roberts, PhD in Psychology

≈ Comments Off on We know what will make us happy, why do we watch TV instead?

Do we know instinctively what kind of activities are conducive to lasting happiness? If so, why don’t more of us do them more often? By Christian Jarrett

Source: We know what will make us happy, why do we watch TV instead?

By Christian Jarrett

The luxury microwave meal was delicious, the house is warm, work’s going OK, but you’re just not feeling very happy. Some positive psychologists believe this is because many of us in rich, Western countries spend too much of our free time on passive activities, like bingeing on Netflix and browsing Twitter, rather than on active, psychologically demanding activities, like cooking, sports or playing music, that allow the opportunity to experience “flow” – that magic juncture where your abilities only just meet the demands of the challenge. A new paper in the Journal of Positive Psychology examines this dilemma. Do we realise that pursuing more active, challenging activities will make us happier in the long-run? If so, why then do we opt to spend so much more time lazing around engaged in activities that are pleasant in the moment, but unlikely to bring any lasting fulfilment?

Across two studies, L. Parker Schiffer and Tomi-Ann Roberts at the Claremont Graduate University and Colorado College, surveyed nearly 300 people (presumably US citizens, average age 33/34 years) via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website about what they thought of dozens of different activities: some passive like listening to music or watching movies, others more active and potentially flow-inducing, such as making art or meditating. Specifically, the participants rated how enjoyable, effortful, and daunting they considered the activities to be, as well as how often they engaged in each of them in a typical week. The participants also identified which activities they considered the most and least conducive to lasting happiness.

There was a clear pattern in the participants’ answers: they identified more effortful activities as being more associated with lasting happiness, yet they said they spent much more time on passive, relaxation-based activities, like watching TV. Looking at their other judgments, the key factor that seemed to deter participants from engaging in more active, flow-inducing activities is that they tended to be seen as particularly daunting and less enjoyable, even while being associated with lasting happiness. The more daunting an activity was deemed to be, the less frequently it was undertaken (by contrast, and to the researchers’ surprise, the perceived effort involved in the activity did not seem to be a deterrent).

Schiffer and Roberts consider this to be a paradox of happiness: we know which kind of activities will bring us lasting happiness, but because we see them as daunting and less enjoyable in the moment, we choose to spend much more of our time doing passive, more immediately pleasant things with our free time. Their advice is to plan ahead “to try to ease the physical transition into flow activities” to make them feel less daunting. For example, they suggest getting your gym clothes and bag ready the night before, and choosing a gym that’s close and convenient; or getting your journal and pen, or easel and paintbrushes, ready in advance.

The other thing they suggest is using mindfulness, meditation or some other “controlled consciousness” technique to help yourself to disregard the initial “transition costs” of a flow activity, such as the early pain of a run, and to focus instead on its pleasurable aspects and the long-term rewards.

“Future research is needed in order to empirically back our proposal that preplanning, prearranging, and, and controlled consciousness may aid overcoming the activation energy and transition costs that stand in the way of our true happiness,” the researchers said.

—The paradox of happiness: Why are we not doing what we know makes us happy?

Christian Jarrett (@Psych_Writer) is Editor of BPS Research Digest

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

How Your Brain Forces You to Watch Ads

01 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by Donna L. Roberts, PhD in Psychology

≈ Comments Off on How Your Brain Forces You to Watch Ads

…and how you can learn to ignore them

Related image

Source: How Your Brain Forces You to Watch Ads

Douglas Van Praet

Every day we navigate through a cluttered mediaenvironmentof thousands of ads vying for our precious time and limited attention. Studies in North America have shown that on average we are exposed to 3,000 ads per day. If you think you can simply choose to ignore these messages, think again. The best ads are designed to slip through your best defenses.

That’s because every consumer, i.e., human, has an automatic hardwired process for attention and awareness. And our decision to pay attention to stimuli in our environment (such as advertising) is often determined by our emotions, not our thoughts. But here is the challenge for viewers. We don’t choose our emotions. They happen unconsciously. We can only try to choose how to think about our feelings after the fact. So when an advertisement triggers a strong emotion, brands can rise to the top of shopping lists and markets. Because at this stage of human evolution, our feelings influence our thinking way more than our thoughts influence our emotions.

Think of emotions as automated actions programs that guide us through our (media) environment without having to think. Ads that trigger emotions can literally hijack critical thought and conscious awareness. Research has shown that ads processed with high levels of attention are six times more impactful at driving brand choice as compared to ads that aren’t consciously recalled. And cognitivescience experiments corroborate that familiarity breeds affection through mere exposure.

Every second your senses are taking in about 11 million bits of information, but you are only aware of about 40 of those bits. Because our conscious mind is so limited it works on a need to know basis. Think of the human brain as a survival machine vigilantly scanning the environment always making predictions about what will happen next. It works by recognizing and responding to patterns. Cognitive science tells us we don’t notice the world around us when it’s reliably predicted away, when what we are experiencing in the moment matches our intuitive predictions.

However, missed predictions fire a hardwired neuralresponse that biologically commands our attention. This reaction is what neuroscientists technically call the “Oh Shit!” circuit. When we expect something to happen and it does not, a distress signal is released from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The ACC is closely wired to the thalamus, a dual-lobed mass of gray matter beneath the cerebral cortex that plays a critical role in awareness by helping direct conscious attention. Nothing grabs our attention better than the element (and emotion) of surprise. Advertisers do this best by interrupting expected patterns.

In addition, novelty primarily activates the dopaminesystem in our brain, which is responsible for wanting behavior. The dopamine system also has a close relationship with the opioid system of the brain, which produces pleasurable sensations. Since learning is so important to human survival it makes sense that natural selection has also instilled within us feel good emotional responses to novel stimuli.

For instance, the Old Spice brand completely transformed its old-fashioned image thanks to an infectious effort that was brimming with pattern interrupts. This campaign embedded a much cooler and contemporary brand image in the minds of people by introducing the world to the charismatichunk Isaiah Mustafa, or “the man your man can smelllike.”

The magic behind this amazingly impactful campaign is not just the smooth pitchman of Old Spice body wash, but the equally smooth interruptions. The introductory commercial featured a series of seamless transitional pattern interrupts as Isaiah directs the viewer’s attention from unsuspecting scene to scene. He goes from his bathroom, to dropping in on a sailboat, and finally ending up atop a horse. Our brains are surprised and delighted with a blast of dopamine and the pay out of attention again, again, and again. The decision to watch this ad is not a conscious choice. It is the neurobiological equivalent of a forced exposure. Not surprisingly, this campaign generated an amazing 1.4 billion media impressions and a 27% increase in sales during the first 6 months post launch.

Similarly, there are certain stimuli—such as babies, for example—that come prepackaged with positive emotional responses. We don’t consciously choose to find babies adorable. No more than we choose to feel the “aww” reaction that commandeers our thoughts or the impetus to post pictures all over Facebook. The decision to find babies so compelling has been made millions of years ago through evolution and natural selection. If our forbears were not instinctually compassionate towards these innocent helpless creatures, they would have never survived. And our DNAand species would eventually cease to exist.

So when ads add novel twists to these mini mush magnets, attention and engagement soars. Take for instance the computer-generated Evian babies on roller skates who break-danced and back-flipped their way to what the Guinness Book of World Records declared was the most viewed online ad in history. More recently, the most watched ad on YouTube in 2013 was another spot by Evian called “Baby & Me.” This approach featured grown ups dancing while unexpectedly discovering their inner babies dancing in sync as their reflections in a mirror.

Just because you are aware of seeing an ad or buying a brand doesn’t mean you are aware of the unconsciousforces that prompted you to do so. The only way to avoid the trap of becoming glued to these types of advertising is to become aware of the patterns. So much of today’s ads are based on interrupting patterns and generating deep primal emotions because our attention span is an increasingly rare resource. By becoming aware of these patterns your mind will intuitively learns to predict and ignore them in the future and you’ll gain back precious seconds of your busy life.

And remember to push the pause button in your mind and rationally contemplate what draws you to advertising and products in the first place. When it comes to buying brands we often don’t have free will, but we do have free won’t. We can’t help having the feelings tugging at our heartstrings and desires. But we can also rationally reject these suggestions come shopping time if it doesn’t make sense.

For more information check out my book: Unconscious Branding

www.unconsciousbranding.com

https://twitter.com/DouglasVanPraet

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...
Ken Heller on

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 4,693 other subscribers

Media Psychology

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog Stats

  • 90,847 hits

Archives

  • December 2020 (3)
  • November 2020 (4)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (4)
  • December 2019 (8)
  • November 2019 (1)
  • October 2019 (5)
  • September 2019 (11)
  • August 2019 (7)
  • July 2019 (4)
  • June 2019 (3)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (8)
  • March 2019 (7)
  • February 2019 (4)
  • January 2019 (5)
  • December 2018 (4)
  • November 2018 (4)
  • October 2018 (5)
  • September 2018 (8)
  • August 2018 (7)
  • July 2018 (4)
  • June 2018 (3)
  • May 2018 (6)
  • April 2018 (4)
  • March 2018 (6)
  • February 2018 (6)
  • January 2018 (6)
  • December 2017 (4)
  • November 2017 (5)
  • October 2017 (5)
  • September 2017 (5)
  • August 2017 (5)
  • July 2017 (5)
  • June 2017 (5)
  • May 2017 (2)
  • April 2017 (2)
  • March 2017 (5)
  • February 2017 (4)
  • January 2017 (7)
  • December 2016 (3)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (4)
  • September 2016 (2)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • July 2016 (3)
  • June 2016 (5)
  • May 2016 (6)
  • April 2016 (4)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • January 2016 (1)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (2)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • November 2014 (1)
  • September 2014 (1)
  • August 2014 (1)
  • July 2014 (4)
  • May 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (1)
  • March 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (2)
  • January 2014 (2)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • November 2013 (2)
  • October 2013 (1)
  • September 2013 (1)
  • August 2013 (4)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (1)
  • March 2013 (4)
  • February 2013 (3)
  • January 2013 (5)
  • December 2012 (4)
  • November 2012 (6)

Addiction Advertising Agenda Setting Al-Jazeera Associated Press Behavioralism Bernays Cartoons Causality Cognitive Correlation Cultivation Theory Digital Immigrants Digital Natives Ellul Facebook Fallacious Arguments Film Framing Gaming Gerbner Giles Google Greenwald ICT Identity Imagery Impact of ICT Influence Ingress Internet Internet.org Journalism Marketing McCombs McLuhan Mean World Sydrome Media Media Effects Media Literacy Media Psychology Mobile Computing Mobile Phones Moscow Olympics Neural Pathways news coverage Operant Conditioning Persuasive Technology Physiological Psychology Pinterest Potter Prensky Privacy Propaganda Psychological Effects Psychological Operations Psychology Public Diplomacy Public Relations Quotes Sexism Skinner Smartphone Social Change Social Identity Social Media Social Networks Social Psychology Sports Taylor Technology The Engineering of Consent Transmedia Twitter Walking Dead

RSS The Amplifier – APA Div. 46 Newsletter

  • 2022 APA Division 46 Society for Media Psychology & Technology Convention/Social Hour Photos
  • APA Council Representative Report: August 2022 Council Meeting Highlights
  • President-Elect’s Column: Literally Sick and Tired of Political Advertising
  • Past President Column: Program, Awards, Social Hour
  • Student Committee Column: The Importance of the Pipeline

RSS APA Div. 46 Media Psychology and Technology Facebook Feed – Come check it out!

  • Kids Are Using Minecraft To Design A More Sustainable World 06/07/2015
  • Home – UsMeU 05/07/2015
  • Huggable Robot Befriends Girl in Hospital 03/07/2015
  • Lifelong learning is made possible by recycling of histones, study says 03/07/2015
  • Synthetic Love: Can a Human Fall in Love With a Robot? – 24/06/2015

RSS Changing Minds

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Media Smarts

  • YCWW IV - Online Privacy and Consent 24/01/2023
    Language English

RSS Adam Curtis

  • HYPERNORMALISATION 11/10/2016
    Adam Curtis introduces his new epic film

RSS Media Psychology Blog

  • does resurge work : Resurge weight reduction supplement is a... 10/04/2020
    does resurge work : Resurge weight reduction supplement is a distinct advantage program that would bolster your ascent to control. It will change you and make you more grounded than at any other time with improved wellbeing that can assist you with getting away from heftiness. This Resurge audit tells how the Supplement will help your lack of sleep and weigh […]

RSS The Psych Files

  • When Good People Do Bad Things 20/05/2020
    For years, the Stanford Prison Study has been used to tout the idea that putting any individual in a position of absolute control brings out the worst in them (and in a more general sense, that people conform to the roles they’re placed in). An article appearing in Scientific American (Rethinking the Infamous Stanford Prison Experiment) includes new informat […]

RSS The Media Zone

  • And He Knew All the Words 24/11/2014
    Stuart Fischoff pioneered Media Psychology. He was a TV talk-show shrink—until it got too rowdy even for him. He knew all the words to Sondheim. And now he's gone.

RSS The Media Psychology Effect

  • The Nature and Benefits of Earning an Ed.D. Degree 21/12/2022
    The Doctor of Education (Ed.D) degree is ideal for working professionals and leaders planning to advance their careers in education, business, politics, media, and communications.

RSS On The Media

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Media Psychology
    • Join 558 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Media Psychology
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: