Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected so far are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver. In this project, we aim to fill this gap. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate whether secret-sharing might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test the valence of the secrets shared as potential driver of the hypothesized effect, as negative secrets might signal a high level of trust, but might also present a burden to the receiver. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods to investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focuses on the receiver and tests whether another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreases distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 investigates lay theories and tests how an observer perceives the relationship between two people who share secrets (vs. nonconfidential information). Study 3 tests whether these lay theories about sharing secrets are predictive of behavior, and how a sharer might choose secrets of negative or positive valence to decrease perceived distance on the receiver's side. Our results will contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other

Not governed by chance: Flipping a coin to make own decisions

This dissertation focuses on the peculiar phenomenon of flipping a coin to decide but then making a decision independent of the coin flip. Many people have encountered this catalyst phenomenon in their lives, but a scientific explanation has been lacking so far. Previous research has focused on coin flips as deciders, meaning it is assumed that people will always do what the coin suggests. I paint a more nuanced picture and do not simply equate using chance with avoidance. Instead, I suggest (based on my own and previous research) that the appeal of the coin as a catalyst lies in its ability to simultaneously satisfy two needs: the motivation to obtain a particular outcome while reducing felt responsibility for the process of obtaining it. My dissertation thereby explains a decision-making phenomenon that has long been subsumed under choice avoidance or as a consequence of decision aversion. Empirically, I show that a coin flip suggesting how to decide rarely influences the decisions people make, thereby allowing for autonomous decision making, but that it critically influences feelings and information related to the decision-making process

Toss and turn or toss and stop? A coin flip reduces the need for information in decision-making

When deciding between two options, settling can be difficult if one option is superior on one dimension but inferior on another. To arrive at a conclusion, people may gather further information, thereby running the risk of prolonging or blocking the decision-making process or even making suboptimal decisions. Here, we suggest that random decision aids may prove fruitful by reducing the need for further information. Five experiments (total N = 997) examined how information need is influenced after making a preliminary decision between two options and then receiving a suggestion from a random decision aid (a coin flip). Across studies, coin participants are less likely to request additional information (Study 1 and two follow-up studies, combined p = .021) and indicate a lower need for additional information (Study 2, p = .023, and Study 3, p = .001) compared to a control condition without a coin flip. Interestingly, participants do not necessarily adhere to the coin but stick to their preliminary decision as much as or even more than the control group, suggesting that the decision aid does not determine the decision outcome. This is true for hypothetical decisions between changing versus maintaining the status quo without an objectively correct solution (Studies 1, 1b, and 1c), for a decision between two options with an objectively correct solution (Study 2), and for a real monetary decision without an objectively correct solution (Study 3). Random decision aids may thus help to avoid decision blocks or the collection of too much information

Toss and turn or toss and stop? A coin flip reduces the need for information in decision-making

When deciding between two options, settling can be difficult if one option is superior on one dimension but inferior on another. To arrive at a conclusion, people may gather further information, thereby running the risk of prolonging or blocking the decision-making process or even making suboptimal decisions. Here, we suggest that random decision aids may prove fruitful by reducing the need for further information. Five experiments (total N = 997) examined how information need is influenced after making a preliminary decision between two op- tions and then receiving a suggestion from a random decision aid (a coin flip). Across studies, coin participants are less likely to request additional information (Study 1 and two follow-up studies, combined p = .021) and indicate a lower need for additional information (Study 2, p = .023, and Study 3, p = .001) compared to a control condition without a coin flip. Interestingly, participants do not necessarily adhere to the coin but stick to their preliminary decision as much as or even more than the control group, suggesting that the decision aid does not determine the decision outcome. This is true for hypothetical decisions between changing versus maintaining the status quo without an objectively correct solution (Studies 1, 1b, and 1c), for a decision between two options with an objectively correct solution (Study 2), and for a real monetary decision without an objectively correct solution (Study 3). Random decision aids may thus help to avoid decision blocks or the collection of too much information

Effects Of Interface Aesthetics On Team Performance In A Virtual Task

HCI research has acknowledged the importance of aesthetics for user interfaces by examining its ef-fects on users’ attitudes and reactions. However, evidence for effects on task performance is mixed. By manipulating chat background colour in a within-subjects design, this study investigates the effects of a less attractive vs. attractive chat interface in a collaborative setting. Participants performed the simulated role of a nurse, a doctor, laboratory technician, or specialist as a member of an emergency response team that had to diagnose patients within a given time. The data of 184 participants during three rounds of the same task was analysed for effects of the colour manipulation on emotion, affect, and team performance. Chat background colour was randomly varied in round 2 and 3. Although par-ticipants clearly preferred the attractive to the less attractive version, analyses of variance revealed that neither their attitudes nor their performance as a group was significantly influenced by the colour manipulation. We discuss (1) further analyses on the individual level and qualitative analyses of the chat protocols, (2) possible explanations such as the performance criterion, nature of the task, and aesthetics manipulation, and (3) future directions for research on the link between aesthetics and per-formance

Solve the dilemma by spinning a penny? On using randomdecision-making aids

When people find it difficult to make a decision, they may opt to let chance de cide. Flipping a coin, rolling a die, or using a counting-out rhyme are well-known decision aids. When individuals direc tly follow the aid's suggestion, the decision aid acts as a decider . But when the decision aid elicits a felt response, such as liking or disliking th e aid's suggestion, and individuals act upon this response, the decision aid serves as a catalyst . This manuscript investigates whether and how many individuals apply these two strategies. In four studies (total N = 1135), we focus on coin flips as one of the most common decision aids and place an emphasis on the catalyst strategy. We examine (1) the freq uency of previous experiences and future willingness to use a coin flip to make decisions, (2) which affective reactions accompan y the coin flip when using it as catalyst, and (3) the circumstances under which individuals are more versus less likely to a ccept the use of a random decision-making aid to come to a decision. These results illustrate the catalyst phenomenon but a lso highlight the boundary conditions of individuals' willingness to use randomness as an aid for decision making. We discuss d irections for future research as well as potential applications

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance.

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver; a gap we aim to fill in this project. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate in three studies (N = 705) whether confiding a secret to somebody might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test whether the valence of the secrets moderates the hypothesized effect. While confiding negative secrets might signal a high level of trust and lead to a similar closeness as confiding positive secrets, they might also present a burden to the receiver and lead to a different pattern of closeness. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods and investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focused on the receiver and showed that another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreased the distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 tested how an observer perceives the relationship between two people. Distance was judged to decrease when secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) were shared, however, this difference was not significant. Study 3 tested whether lay theories about sharing secrets predict behavior, and how sharing information may be used to change perceived distance on the receiver's side. Participants preferred to share neutral compared to secret information and positive compared to negative secrets irrespective of the distance condition. Our results contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver; a gap we aim to fill in this project. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate in three studies (N = 705) whether confiding a secret to somebody might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test whether the valence of the secrets moderates the hypothesized effect. While confiding negative secrets might signal a high level of trust and lead to a similar closeness as confiding positive secrets, they might also present a burden to the receiver and lead to a different pattern of closeness. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods and investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focused on the receiver and showed that another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreased the distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 tested how an observer perceives the relationship between two people. Distance was judged to decrease when secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) were shared, however, this difference was not significant. Study 3 tested whether lay theories about sharing secrets predict behavior, and how sharing information may be used to change perceived distance on the receiver’s side. Participants preferred to share neutral compared to secret information and positive compared to negative secrets irrespective of the distance condition. Our results contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other