7 inexcusable yet common UX gaffes that make you look like a total amateur.
[https://uxplanet.org/7-inexcusable-yet-common-ux-gaffes-that-make-you-look-like-a-total-amateur-cb504a74b917?ref=uxdesignweekly] - - public:weinreich
As social marketers and change agents, our theories drive how we understand and describe problems and propose and test different solutions to them. What is a theory? In science, it is a way in which we think about how the...
New research finds that people tend toward appeals that aren't simply more positive or negative but are infused with emotionality, even when they're trying to sway an audience that may not be receptive to such language. The findings appear in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science
For fields where the threshold for defining statistical significance for new discoveries is P < 0.05, we propose a change to P < 0.005. This simple step would immediately improve the reproducibility of scientific research in many fields. Results that would currently be called “significant” but do not meet the new threshold should instead be called “suggestive.”
By eliminating just one word from your writing you can automatically avoid a major communication pitfall. The word? Not. Cut the Not!
In a study, people ate less meat and conserved more water when they thought those behaviors reflected how society is changing.
In that study, gender and ethnicity information was removed from descriptions of potential job candidates. It was a study designed to interrupt unconscious biases against women and ethnic minorities. The results were surprising - blind recruitment made things worse for women and members of ethnic minorities. These results illustrate the limits of behavioural economics in action.
Comment from Daryl Mangosing who posted this on LinkedIn: To me, this isn't surprising, considering that those who take PrEP in *monogamous* relationships would be signaling that they either don't trust their primary partner OR that they themselves are having sex outside the primary relationship: "Men in monogamous relationships were significantly less likely both to think that PrEP is important for their partners and to be willing to convince their partner to use PrEP compared to men in monogamish and open relationships." Should we only focus PrEP uptake where there's a higher likelihood of success, i.e., among non-monogamous couples and not strictly monogamous couples?
Minimum Viable content