My initial thought is that the tactile element is no doubt important - but I think it's not just that comfort can improve receptiveness (reception!?). There is probably a judgement made on the *choice* of seat rather than just its innate comfort.
Like this kind of thinking: i) "I have comfy butt-cheeks - isn't the world great?!" == receptive mood ii) "Ooh... I have a comfy chair to sit on - this is a *nice* place!" == I've been treated well; I will respond.
That's an interesting question. I suppose it'd be relatively easy to design an experiment that took that into account - like making an incredibly posh but hard-seated chair (I'm thinking something throne-like), and a less-impressive but soft chair.
But then, what wouild they be making the decision based on? What you're talking about is surely a relative decision, based on expectations. If everybody in the room is using the same type of chair, does that problem of expectation still exist?
2 comments:
My initial thought is that the tactile element is no doubt important - but I think it's not just that comfort can improve receptiveness (reception!?). There is probably a judgement made on the *choice* of seat rather than just its innate comfort.
Like this kind of thinking:
i) "I have comfy butt-cheeks - isn't the world great?!" == receptive mood
ii) "Ooh... I have a comfy chair to sit on - this is a *nice* place!" == I've been treated well; I will respond.
That make sense?
That's an interesting question. I suppose it'd be relatively easy to design an experiment that took that into account - like making an incredibly posh but hard-seated chair (I'm thinking something throne-like), and a less-impressive but soft chair.
But then, what wouild they be making the decision based on? What you're talking about is surely a relative decision, based on expectations. If everybody in the room is using the same type of chair, does that problem of expectation still exist?
Post a Comment