Plazas e imaginarios. Una revisión tácita

Desde la [habitualmente] modesta plaza de barrio, hasta los parques lineales y/o de carácter metropolitano, este trozo de espacio público sigue resultando indispensable en el entramado urbano para uso y disfrute de la ciudadanía. A través de un cuestionario, aplicado a 100 personas, intentamos descubrir los factores implícitos en el imaginario urbano, sobre las preferencias en la utilización de una plaza o parque. Sobrepasando la mitad de los encuestados, la respuesta mayoritaria (54%) refiere a la “Cercanía” del enclave con respecto al hogar (42% corresponde a la plaza de la colonia, mientras que un afortunado 12% reside cerca de un parque de carácter metropolitano que es el utilizado por ellos). Además, tamaño y vegetación, son elementos clave que reafirman la predilección por el sitio, al realizar actividades tales como convivencia, descanso y ejercicio. Como dato curioso, tenemos que a la pregunta textual: “¿A qué plaza o parque va habitualmente?”, seis personas (6% de la muestra) respondieron que frecuentan una “Plaza comercial”. Esto alude a una transformación directa al imaginario colectivo a nivel urbano, pues el término “plaza”, normalmente asociado al espacio público, se imbrica con el “mall” privado, al que se visita también por cuestión de cercanía a la vivienda.Palabras clave: Plaza; imaginario, contextualidad. AbstractFrom the [usually] modest neighborhood square, to the linear parks and/or metropolitan character, this piece of public space continues to be indispensable in the urban fabric for the use andenjoyment of citizenship. Through a questionnaire, applied to 100 people, we try to discover the factors implicit in the urban imaginary, about the preferences in the use of a square or park. Surpassing half of the surveyed, the majority response (54%) refers to the "Closeness" of the enclave with respect to the home (42% corresponds to the colony’s square, while a lucky 12% resides near a metropolitan park that’s used by them). In addition, size and vegetation, are key elements that reaffirm the predilection for the site, when performing activities such as connivance, rest and exercise. As a curious fact, we have that to the textual question: "To what plaza or park do you usually go?” six people (6% of the sample) answered that they frequent a "shopping plaza". This alludes to a direct transformation to the collective imaginary at an urban level, since the term "plaza", normally associated to the public space, is imbricate with the private "mall", which is also visited due to the proximity to the house.Keywords: Plaza, Imaginary, Contextuality.

How Online Crowds Influence the Way Individual Consumers Answer Health Questions

SummaryObjective: To investigate whether strength of social feedback, i.e. other people who concur (or do not concur) with one’s own answer to a question, influences the way one answers health questions.Methods: Online prospective study. Two hundred and twenty-seven undergraduate students were recruited to use an online search engine to answer six health questions. Subjects recorded their pre- and post-search answers to each question and their level of confidence in these answers. After answering each question post-search, subjects were presented with a summary of post-search answers provided by previous subjects and were asked to answer the question again.Results: There was a statistically significant relationship between the absolute number of others with a different answer (the crowd’s opinion volume) and the likelihood of an individual changing an answer (P<0.001). For most questions, no subjects changed their answer until the first 10–35 subjects completed the study. Subjects’ likelihood of changing answer increased as the percentage of others with a different answer (the crowd’s opinion density) increased (P=0.047). Overall, 98.3% of subjects did not change their answer when it concurred with the majority (i.e. >50%) of subjects, and that 25.7% of subjects changed their answer to the majority response when it did not concur with the majority. When subjects had a post-search answer that did not concur with the majority, they were 24% more likely to change answer than those with answers that concurred (P<0.001).Conclusion: This study provides empirical evidence that crowd influence, in the form of online social feedback, affects the way consumers answer health questions.

PSYCHOLOGY OF PREFERENCES

Recent investigations of the psychology of preferences have demonstrated several intriguing discrepancies between subjective and objective conceptions of decisions. For example, the threat of a loss has a greater impact on a decision than the possibility of an equivalent gain. Most people are also very sensitive to the difference between certainty and high probability and relatively insensitive to intermediate gradations of probability. The regret associated with a loss that was incurred by an action tends to be more intense than the regret associated with inaction or a missed opportunity. These observations and others of a similar character contribute to the understanding of how people make decisions and to the elucidation of some puzzles of rational choice . . . . We asked a large number of physicians to consider the following problem: Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of a rare Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs would you favor. The majority response to this problem is a risk-averse preference for Program A over Program B. Other respondents were presented with the same problem but a different formulation of the programs: If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die.