Shanna is easily annoyed:
My psychology professor went over our first exam today. He said if we made a good case for subjective questions, he might accept alternate answers. There were a couple questions that legitimately could have gone either way or were awkwardly worded, but he ended up giving credit to a bunch of people who clearly didn’t even read the textbook. One of the questions asked “According to Lepper’s theory of overjustification, what will happen if John is paid $5 for his good grades this semester?” According to the theory (and Lepper’s research), John will actually be less likely to spend his free time studying and doing homework because being paid actually decreases his intrinsic desire to succeed. It was a tricky question, because common sense would say the opposite, but definitely a fair question. But, most people didn’t read that far in the chapter and insisted that common sense says he would do well, and he ended up giving credit for that answer. Despite the fact that the question clearly mentions this particular theory that specifically says John will do worse.
The most annoying part is, overjustification was in the same chapter as the hindsight effect, which basically explained that psychological fact is VERY DIFFERENT than common sense, and often contradicts it entirely.
Notes
-
moxzillo said:
:(
-
logicandchaos said:
you definitely should’ve.
-
logicandchaos liked this
-
shannathebanana posted this
