This column reports on science that can be applied in practice to create workplaces where people work to their full potential. If you read it regularly, you may, at least occasionally, share its contents with others.
Newman and Schwarz have just published a study detailing how our response to scientific information is linked to what discussions of it sound like, literally.
The Newman/Schwarz team reports that “Increasingly, scientific communications are recorded and made available online. While researchers carefully draft the words they use, the quality of the recording is at the mercy of technical staff. Does it make a difference? We presented identical conference talks…and radio interviews from NPR’s Science Friday…in high or low audio quality and asked people to evaluate the researcher and the research they presented. Despite identical content, people evaluated the research and researcher less favorably when the audio quality was low, suggesting that audio quality can influence impressions of science.”
In a press release issued by Australian National University, with which Newman is affiliated, Newman is quoted: “’Our results showed that when the sound quality was poor, the [study] participants thought the researcher wasn’t as intelligent, they didn’t like them as much and found their research less important…As soon as we reduced the audio quality, all of a sudden the scientists and their research lost credibility…Our results show that it’s not just about who you are and what you are saying, it’s about how your work is presented.’”
It seems probable that if sound has such a significant effect on opinions, so do visual impressions.
Another reasonable extrapolation from Newman and Schwarz’s work is that science-based sessions are not the only ones where audio quality, etc., influences opinions formed.
Newman and Schwarz’s findings get a person wondering. How many robust presentations/discussions have been contaminated by malfunctioning electronic conferencing programs, poor room acoustics, etc.?
Time spent making sure conferencing systems are up to snuff, room acoustics “work,” etc., is clearly time well spent.
Eryn Newman and Norbert Schwarz. “Good Sound, Good Research: How Audio Quality Influences Perceptions of the Research and Researcher.”Science Communication, in press, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018759345
“What Makes Someone Believe or Reject Information?”2018. Press release, Australian National University, http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/what-makes-someone-believe-or-reject-information. Sally Augustin, PhD, a cognitive scientist, is the editor of Research Design Connections (www.researchdesignconnections.com), a monthly subscription newsletter and free daily blog, where recent and classic research in the social, design, and physical sciences that can inform designers’ work are presented in straightforward language. Readers learn about the latest research findings immediately, before they’re available elsewhere. Sally, who is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, is also the author of Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture (Wiley, 2009) and, with Cindy Coleman, The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying Knowledge to Inform Design (Wiley, 2012). She is a principal at Design With Science (www.designwithscience.com) and can be reached at sallyaugustin@designwithscience.com.
