![]() Senior Research Psychologist The other day, my co-workers and I were having a lively conversation about products that supposedly help us be more “grounded.” They were electricity-powered bed sheets, blankets, and pillowcases. The websites—yes, there was more than one manufacturer—for these products boast glowing testimonials and reviews. You can reconnect with nature by sleeping in bed sheets plugged in to "ground" you to the Earth’s electrons and neutralize your free radicals, drinking alkali water to prevent disease by neutralizing acid in your blood, and wearing copper bracelets to regrow joint cartilage in order to relieve arthritis pain. While these may work for some, there hasn’t been much scientific evidence of their efficacy, so individuals who swear by these health-promoting strategies and products are likely experiencing the placebo effect. “So what?” you ask. If the mechanism by which these work for some individuals isn’t the mechanism touted by their proponents, should we get upset about that? Maybe it’s a case of “no harm, no foul.” So long as it doesn’t hurt to try the grounding blanket and if someone can benefit from it, then what’s the fuss? Perhaps anything could have therapeutic benefits—if we haven’t seen any, maybe it’s because the “right” person hasn’t used it yet. Maybe the truth about grounding blankets and other similar treatments is not whether they work or not, but it’s about who you ask. Does this make the truth about the grounding blankets relative? I don’t think so. I think the absolute truth about these treatments is that they illustrate the potency of the mind’s belief in health and medicine. In other words, we must consider both objective data as well as the individual’s subjective experience. The challenge lies in capturing this subjective experience in a meaningful way. Unlike objective data which can be verified from a “third person’s” view, an individual’s subjective experience is only accessible from a “first person’s” view. Our subjective experiences can change over time with circumstances and even with our frame of mind. This makes subjective experiences elusive and hard to capture. Researchers have attempted to look for objective neural correlates with specific subjective experiences such as consciousness, pleasantness, attention, and agency, but most rely on interviews and subjective rating scales. Developers of rating scales try to design these scales so that different individuals perceive the anchors or points on the scale in the same way, which is a main assumption about such rating scales. While there are multiple rating scales for experiences that are somewhat easier to describe or define, such as pain or workload, there are many other subjective experiences that are not easy to define and involve an individual’s beliefs, expectations, and worldview, e.g., fear and joy, both of which can have a profound impact on our task performance and responses. Capturing the subjective experience is essential for understanding how users engage with products, treatments, and even technology. While objective data provides a solid foundation for evaluating efficacy, it is the subjective lens—shaped by individual beliefs, expectations, and even cultural or societal influences—that often drives our behavior and perceptions. Whether it’s grounding blankets or copper bracelets, understanding the complex interplay between mind and body reminds us that human experience is nuanced. All this contributes to the evolving challenges in human-centered design.
Can you recall a time when you completed a subjective rating scale but thought that it did not quite capture what you were experiencing? What did you wish it asked instead?
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsThese posts are written or shared by QIC team members. We find this stuff interesting, exciting, and totally awesome! We hope you do too! Categories
All
Archives
January 2025
|