Pimplomat

Think of the most creative person you know. Now tell me, do you think that person cheats more than others? I bet you’ll say no, because most people place creativity and those who possess gobs of it on an elevated plain. If you’re less creative, then of course you’re a cheater, as the theory goes.

Oh how wrong that is, because, it’s actually those who are more creative that cheat more.

“Greater creativity helps individuals solve difficult tasks across many domains, but creative sparks may lead individuals to take unethical routes when searching for solutions to problems and tasks,” said lead researcher Francesca Gino, Ph.D., of Harvard University.

In other words, creativity breeds more rationality for choices.

Gino and her co-author, Dan Ariely, Ph.D., of Duke University, conducted five  experiments to test their thesis that more creative people cheat under circumstances where they could justify their behavior.

From the paper:

We test our main hypotheses in a series of studies. First, as a pilot study, we collect field data to examine whether people in jobs that require high levels of creativity are more morally flexible than others. Next, we conduct five laboratory studies in which participants have the opportunity to behave dishonestly by overstating their performance and, as a result, earn more money. In Experiment 1, we measure creativity as an individual difference and examine whether this personality trait is associated with increased dishonest behavior. In Experiment 2, we prime cognitions associated with creativity and examine whether they temporarily promote dishonesty. In Experiments 3 and 4, we explore the mechanism explaining the link between creativity and dishonesty by focusing on people’s ability to justify unethical behavior. Finally, in Experiment 5, we examine whether individual differences in creativity moderate the effect of priming a creative mindset on dishonesty.

The researchers found during every study that the greater one’s creativity the more likely that person would cheat.

“Dishonesty and innovation are two of the topics most widely written about in the popular press,” the authors wrote. “Yet, to date, the relationship between creativity and dishonest behavior has not been studied empirically. … The results from the current article indicate that, in fact, people who are creative or work in environments that promote creative thinking may be the most at risk when they face ethical dilemmas.”

Gino and Ariely say there are some limitations in their study–primarily that they created monetary temptation situations. They say “that future research should investigate whether creativity would lead people to satisfy selfish, short-term goals rather than their higher aspirations when faced with self-control dilemmas, such as eating a slice of cake when trying to lose weight.”

I’m not sure about you, but I can always find a way to rationalize eating cake, creativity be damned.

(Photo via Flickr: Roadsidepictures / Creative Commons)

If you’re anything like me, you bounce around various news and magazine sites daily on the Internet. It’s rare that I consume one site totally. I more often graze on information like a starving student at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

This is common for a majority of Internet users. According to new research from the University of Missouri, “Internet users often do not make the conscious decision to read news online, but they come across news when they are searching for other information or doing non-news related activities online, such as shopping or visiting social networking sites.”

“Incidental exposure to online news is becoming a major way for many people to receive information about news events,” said Borchuluun Yadamsuren, a post-doctoral fellow at the Reynolds Journalism Institute in the University of Missouri School of Journalism. “However, many people don’t realize how their news reading behavior is shifting to more  serendipitous discovery.”

Yadamsuren surveyed almost 150 people and found that they experience online news in three different ways. The first way is specifically on news sites. The second way they’re exposed to news is via non-news sites and activities, such as social networking sites and checking email. The third way is by just happening upon news while conducting other Web searches.

Because of the many ways people come into contact with news, Yadamsuren believes organizations should have links to their stories on various Internet sites as much as possible.

Fair enough. But just having links doesn’t necessarily mean people are going to read it. For a perspective on that, we turn to an interesting piece called “The Top 5 Things That Bother Me About This Headline.”

In it, writer Alissa Walker questions how the Internet is changing the way she writes.

“…when I saw how a slight tweak to my text would make my page views skyrocket, I became a convert. Now, instead of organizing my thoughts into pithy paragraphs for readers, I engineer my words so they’re algorithmically attractive. I rewrite my headlines to make them more enticing to Google. I tag them with dozens of relevant phrases to boost my authority on specific topics. I add search terms to my text to further optimize my SEO ranking. I admit that I don’t totally understand what that last sentence even means.”

Meaning is what we writers and readers are constantly trying to find. What can I write that means something to someone? How do I find stories that mean something to me? There are no easy answers, because they rely on personal choices. You’re never going to write something meaningful if you’re creating quick-list articles. And you’re never going to read anything meaningful online if you’re always making the excuse that you don’t have time to read.

Where, then, is that middle ground? How do you find meaningful stories for yourself? What attracts you to online stories and news?

(Photo via Flickr: Mike Licht / Creative Commons)

Have a big scar on your face? Maybe a huge mole? You might want to figure a way to cover up that mark if you’re seeking a job. A new study shows that marks (stigmas) on faces are huge distractions to interviewers, causing them to remember the stigma more than content.

“When evaluating applicants in an interview setting, it’s important to remember what they are saying,” Rice University Professor of Psychology Mikki Hebl said. “Our research shows if you recall less information about competent candidates because you are distracted by characteristics on their face, it decreases your overall evaluations of them.”

The research conclusions came from two studies. The first involved 171 undergraduate students watching a computer-mediated interview while tracking their eye activity. They had to recall candidate information after the interview.

“When looking at another person during a conversation, your attention is naturally directed in a triangular pattern around the eyes and mouth,” said Juan Madera, a University of Houston professor and co-author of the study. “We tracked the amount of attention outside of this region and found that the more the interviewers attended to stigmatized features on the face, the less they remembered about the candidate’s interview content, and the less memory they had about the content led to decreases in ratings of the applicant.”

Face-to-face interviews were held during the second study. Thirty-eight full-time managers enrolled in a part-time MBA and/or a Master of Science in a hospitality management program, all of whom had experience in interviewing applicants for current or past staff positions, interviewed candidates who had a facial birthmark.

Even with their workplace experience and education, the interviewers had a tough time managing their reactions to the stigma, Madera says. The stigma’s effects were actually stronger with this group, which he attributed to the face-to-face interview setting.

“It just shows that despite maturity and experience levels, it is still a natural human reaction to react negatively to facial stigma,” Madera said.

“The bottom line is that how your face looks can significantly influence the success of an interview,” Hebl said. “There have been many studies showing that specific groups of people are discriminated against in the workplace, but this study takes it a step further, showing why it happens. The allocation of attention away from memory for the interview content explains this.”

Well, now, even more proof that looks do matter. What, then, is a good solution?

(Photo via Flickr: Bart Everson / Creative Commons)

One of the most ridiculous parts of the job hiring process is letting a company conduct a credit check to determine if you are financially responsible. Yes, I can see how this might be a good process for a job at a bank, for example. But just because you have a good or bad credit score shouldn’t qualify or disqualify you for most jobs.

Now, there’s some research to back up my belief. In fact, people who have good credit scores are more likely rude.

In a study to be published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers from Louisiana State University, Texas Tech University and Northern Illinois University focused on links between credit ratings and personalities.

“With regards to personality and credit–it makes sense that conscientiousness is related to good credit, but what was really interesting was that agreeableness was negatively related to your credit score,” said Jeremy Bernerth, assistant professor in LSU’s E. J. Ourso College of Business Rucks Department of Management. “That suggests easy-going individuals actually have worse credit scores than disagreeable and rude individuals.  This suggests that agreeable individuals might get themselves in trouble by co-signing loans for friends or family or taking out additional credit cards at the suggestion of store clerks.”

The researchers also found that there’s no correlation between poor scores and bad behavior on the job.

“It was telling that poor credit scores were not correlated to theft and other deviant types of work behaviors,” said Bernerth. “Most companies attempt to justify the use of credit scores because they think such employees will end up stealing, but our research suggests that might not be the case.”

I shared this study with an HR professional. She suggested that those who score poorly could also be more naive, which is something you don’t want in the workplace.

Interesting. Would you rather have a nice and naive or disagreeable and rude employee working for or with you?

(Photo via Flickr: Richard Lemarchand / Creative Commons)

There’s some good news from the 2011 Cisco Connected World Technology Report. In it, 40 percent of college students or young professionals say they would take lower paying jobs if companies offered more flexible social media policies.

This shows, to me, that people are getting away from the idea that money buys happiness. We’re becoming a society that values time more than how fat a wallet can get.

Findings include:

• Half of those surveyed would rather lose their wallet or purse than their smart phone or mobile device.
• More than two of five would accept a lower-paying job that had more flexibility with regard to device choice, social media access, and mobility than a higher-paying job with less flexibility.
• At least one in four said the absence of remote access would influence their job decisions, such as leaving companies sooner rather than later, slacking off, or declining job offers outright.
• Three out of 10 feel that once they begin working, it will be their right–more than a privilege–to be able to work remotely with a flexible schedule.

For years, I’ve gone on record several times where I work that I’d take a pay cut if management would allow me more freedom in my workday. It’s a losing argument, though, because it means managers have to give up some control. They would have to focus mainly on results.

The result of a controlling mindset, though, could be a disengaged, unproductive workforce. That is, if people actually want to work for a company like that anymore. And it’s beginning to a lot look like people don’t.

How important is social media access and workplace flexibility to you? Or are you just happy to have a job (if you have one)?

(Photo via Flickr: Kalyan Chakravarthy / Creative Commons)

Imagine walking through a door and forgetting everything. It’s possible, and a new study in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology explains how. Abstract, you have the floor.

Previous research using virtual environments has revealed a location-updating effect in which there is a decline in memory when people move from one location to another. Here we assess whether this effect reflects the influence of the experienced context, in terms of the degree of immersion of a person in an environment, as suggested by some work in spatial cognition, or by a shift in context. In Experiment 1, the degree of immersion was reduced by using smaller displays. In comparison, in Experiment 2 an actual, rather than a virtual, environment was used, to maximize immersion. Location-updating effects were observed under both of these conditions. In Experiment 3, the original encoding context was reinstated by having a person return to the original room in which objects were first encoded. However, inconsistent with an encoding specificity account, memory did not improve by reinstating this context. Finally, we did a further analysis of the results of this and previous experiments to assess the differential influence of foregrounding and retrieval interference. Overall, these data are interpreted in terms of the event horizon model of event cognition and memory.

Still with me? Basically, what the researchers found is that new memory episodes (event models) form in our brains whenever we enter a new environment. As you move from place to place, you’re stacking memories on top of memories, making them harder to retrieve.

I imagine this knowledge could affect how educators, event planners, or anyone involved in learning and group collaboration structure their operations. If you know that moving people from room to room causes them to forget, wouldn’t it be better to keep everyone in one room all day? If that’s not technically feasible, then what can you do design-wise to mitigate the forgetting?

(Photo via Flickr: Istvan / Creative Commons)

One of my pet peeves is traffic. More specifically, I don’t like commuting, which is the cause of most traffic. If you’re a knowledge worker and you can do 90 percent of your job at home, why bother with a commute? It’s time that could be better used for productivity. True, you could put in a language learning disc, for example, and listen to it while driving. But I think it would be more fun to learn a language at home where you can fully concentrate on it and not worry about someone crashing into you. Then again, maybe you live for danger. More power to you.

What I’m trying to say is commuting can be costly. Check out the graphic below and learn just how costly it is. Maybe this is something you can use for future wage negotiations or in creating a more flexible work arrangement. Or maybe you can read it for just the numbers, if you’re in to that sort of thing. More power to you.

Click image to enlarge

Via: Streamline Refinance

National Novel Writing Month is in November. I tried it once. I didn’t succeed. Writing more than 1,666 words a day is hard, especially if you have an editing and writing job. After a day’s work, I just want to come home and do anything but write or read for a few hours. Then by the time I want to write, it’s time for The Daily Show. Can’t miss that! Then it’s The Colbert Report. Have to watch that, too! Oh, look, it’s 11 p.m. What’s on Facebook? A few hours later, it’s time for bed. National Novel Writing Month, I hardly knew you.

There’s another national writing project that happens each month, though. It’s National Blog Posting Month. Writing a blog post a day seems totally doable, primarily because there’s no word count requirement or need for a complete story. If I want to write about banshees one day and then write about the dangers of electricity the next, as Bobby Brown would say, that’s my prerogative. It just takes engagement on my end.

Engagement, however, is difficult. A recent Gallup poll found that 71 percent of  U.S. workers were “‘not engaged’ or ‘actively disengaged’ in their work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and are less likely to be productive.”

And who are these less engaged workers that are bringing down production? They’re primarily college educated, men, and between the ages of 30 and 64. Oh dear, I’m in my prime disengagement period.

A perceived lack of progress or the fear of layoffs are two of the main reasons employees are less engaged in their work. Leaders, though, can mitigate the lack of engagement, according to Gallup:

Every manager can play a role in engaging workers by clarifying expectations, getting employees what they need to do their work, giving workers recognition when they do good work, encouraging employee development, helping workers connect to the broader purpose of the organization, and frequently measuring and discussing progress. The managers and departments within organizations that do these things are more likely to produce high-quality work and help their organizations grow and improve the wellbeing of their workforce.

Now while I believe a lot of workplace issues are due to mismanagement and poor communication from leaders, they shouldn’t solely take the blame. Employees should communicate with their employers about what’s bothering them. They should have honest conversations, without fear of retribution, about an organization’s direction and their role in that direction. Unfortunately, there’s usually a huge highway between employers and employees.

The Gallup poll says that employees younger than 30 or older than 65 are more engaged. That raises the question: Are these age groups just happily employed due to economic conditions?

Increasing engaged workers could spur job growth, according to the Gallup report. But maybe people don’t care about things such as job growth, seats at the table, and money anymore. Maybe 30- to 64-year-old, non-engaged worker concerns are about other things, such as time, family, and spiritual matters. Maybe to them, work is just work, so why be engaged in it? Get in, get enough money, and get out as soon as you can in time to enjoy the rest of your life. If that is your plan, then maybe being more engaged will get you there sooner. Or maybe not. Maybe you’re more engaged in throwing a Frisbee with friends every afternoon.

What I’m saying is choose your focus. Figure out what you ultimately want in life and do it. Maybe it’s working hard every day. Maybe it’s writing a daily blog post. Whatever it is, figure it out for yourself and be engaged in it, because there’s nothing worse in this world than a life half lived.

(Photo via Flickr: drinksmachine / Creative Commons)

Your sweet tooth is more than a preference for desserts. It’s also an indicator of your personality and behavior, according to a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Let’s read the study’s abstract together:

It is striking that prosocial people are considered “sweet” (e.g., “she’s a sweetie”) because they are unlikely to differentially taste this way. These metaphors aid communication, but theories of conceptual metaphor and embodiment led us to hypothesize that they can be used to derive novel insights about personality processes. Five studies converged on this idea. Study 1 revealed that people believed strangers who liked sweet foods (e.g., candy) were also higher in agreeableness. Studies 2 and 3 showed that individual differences in the preference for sweet foods predicted prosocial personalities, prosocial intentions, and prosocial behaviors. Studies 4 and 5 used experimental designs and showed that momentarily savoring a sweet food (vs. a nonsweet food or no food) increased participants’ self-reports of agreeableness and helping behavior. The results reveal that an embodied metaphor approach provides a complementary but unique perspective to traditional trait views of personality.

The part about increased agreeableness through sweets fascinates me. Do this mean you should bring sweets with you before every meeting? What does it say about someone who doesn’t like sweets? Does a preference for chocolate over hard candy indicate a different type of sweet and agreeable personality? So many questions.

(Photo credit via Flickr: Keith Macke / Creative Commons)

One of my goals this year is to write more so that I can become a better writer. If I’m not writing on 750words.com, then I’m doing my best to write at least 20 minutes a day.

Why do I do this? Well, I love writing; however, I also know that practice makes perfect. Or so I thought.

Now comes along Zach Hambrick from the University of Michigan. He says that working memory capacity may be what ultimately makes a person great.

“While the specialized knowledge that accumulates through practice is the most important ingredient to reach a very high level of skill, it’s not always sufficient,” said Hambrick, associate professor of psychology. “Working memory capacity can still predict performance in complex domains such as music, chess, science and maybe even in sports that have a substantial mental component such as golf.”

Hambrick says that when someone such as Malcolm Gladwell writes that practice is what separates those who are good and great, he’s wrong.

“The evidence is quite clear: A high level of intellectual ability puts a person at a measurable advantage–and the higher the better.”

However, it’s still not known if a person can improve his general intelligence, because a lot of it based in genetics and environments.

“We hold out hope that cognitive training of some sort may produce these benefits,” Hambrick said. “But we have yet to find the magic bullet.”

Until then, I’ll keep practicing.

Which do you find makes you greater in your chosen pursuit: intelligence or practice?

(Photo credit via Flicker: Alastair McDermott / Creative Commons)