OSU researchers are looking into the answer to one of the oldest questions in baseball—do batters really keep their eye on the ball?
In reviewing the little previous evidence available such as film and lab studies, researchers determined that yes, they are keeping their eye on the ball, but they are moving their heads, not their eyes, to do it.
In some studies researchers found that at the last moment some batters shift their view to home plate. Researchers suspect they are trying to anticipate where the ball will be when in range of their bat. However, not all batters took their eye off the ball in a similar move.
After examining all the previous studies, they collected on head and eye movements in baseball batters, OSU researchers found they couldn’t come to a consensus on what combination of eye or head movements were best. However, further investigation to lead to a new kind of eye gaze training for batters in the future.
Study authors stated that because they know batters do keep their eye on the ball, but with head movements instead of eye movements there must be an advantage to tracking the ball with head movements, they just don’t know the answer to “why” yet.
A new study found that Instagram users who sense self-promotion or corporate marketing underlying a body positivity message may be put off by the blended messaging.
During the research women viewed manufactured Instagram posts that borrowed body positivity messages and hashtags (like #bopo) from actual users. All the posts contained the original body positivity message, but some posts also asked viewers for a like or a follow or advertised for a product or service.
The researchers determined that participants found those posts with self-promotion or advertising to be less appropriate morally and/or insincere in the poster’s support of the body positivity movement in comparison with posts that weren’t promotion or advertising.
Self-promotion was consistently viewed by participants to be less negative than corporate advertising but viewers didn’t consider corporate marketing to offensive or inappropriate, according to the study’s authors.
Consumers believe healthy food must be more expensive than cheap eats and that higher-priced food is healthier – even when there is no supporting evidence, according to new research.
The results mean not only that marketers can charge more for products that are touted as healthy, but that consumers may not believe that a product is healthy if it doesn’t cost more, researchers say. For example, people in one study thought eye health was a more important issue for them when they were told about an expensive but unfamiliar food ingredient that would protect their vision. If the same ingredient was relatively cheap, people didn’t think the issue it treated – eye health – was as important.
The study was conducted to examine the lay theory that we have to pay more to eat healthfully. Lay theories are the common-sense explanations people use to understand the world around them, whether they are true or not. Messages consistent with the “healthy = expensive” lay-theory are all around us. One example is the “Whole Paycheck” nickname people have given to Whole Foods, which touts itself as “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store.”
The results appear online in the Journal of Consumer Research.20
A team of researchers at the Ohio State University has been studying how to make old favorites feel novel again.
The study suggested that when a subject consumed something via an unconventional method they were more easily able to focus on what it was that they loved about it in the first place. This phenomenon has already been employed in “pitch black” restaurants. These popular eateries serve dinner in the dark.
The researchers conducted multiple experiments. In a study of 68 participants, subjects came to a lab thinking they were there for a study on how to help people eat more slowly. Some of the subjects ate 10 pieces of popcorn using just hands; the others ate the pieces with chopsticks. Subjects then rated their experience in a variety of ways. Some of the measures were overall enjoyment, how much flavor the popcorn had and how much fun they had eating it. Participants using the chopsticks later said they enjoyed eating the popcorn more than the subjects who used their hands.
According to new research, telling someone who is in distress something very simple, like “I understand why you feel that way,” can actually help people feel better.
During the study participants described something from their real life that had made them angry.
When researchers didn’t show support or understanding for the participants’ anger the participant showed decline in positive emotions. On the other hand, when a researcher validated the anger the participants were saying their positive emotions seemed to stay the same.
Study participants also reported dips in their entire mood as they retold the event that had angered them. Only those who were validated reported feeling any recovery in good mood.
There was no notable difference found in participants negative emotions. Researchers say this speaks to how powerful focusing on protecting positivity can be.
While it is really important to help people experiencing anxiety, fear or depression but the practice can also help people explore positive emotions such as love, flexibility, optimism or curiosity.