Tag Archives: Frankfurt

Foreigners form impressions instantly about countries

In Berlin, Germany, I met a vending machine in a steel cage. Covering the machine with a cage surprised me because it was inside one of downtown subway stations. My friend told me the machine could be damaged at night by drunken people. I formed an impression that Germany was unsafe; juvenile vandalism, an action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property, was popular in this country.

 

 

A few days later, I met a public book shelf in another city. At a market in Frankfurt, people freely opened the window and picked up as many books to read as they wanted. Then, I corrected my impression and thought Germany is safe.

 

 

I find myself using trivial cues to quickly form an impression about a city or a country. A steel cage led me to think Germany was dangerous for tourists. However, as Brunswik suggested in his Les Model research, the first impression fails to reflect the truth. Soon after, leaning occurs. A book shelf changed my viewpoint about Germany; this country is safe for travel. I expect same things happen to foreigners. When Europeans come to an Asian country, they probably use a trivial cue to form an impression and use other cues to correct it. Learning should occur to understand different cities, countries, and culture correctly.

 

Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193-217.

This is the core or basic paper in a symposium on the probability approach in psychology. The paper expands on earlier contentions of this author that the environment to which an organism must adjust is semi erratic and that therefore all functional psychology is inherently probabilistic, demanding a representative research design of its own, and leading to a special type of high-complexity, descriptive theory. “The expansions beyond the earlier publications… concern mainly the use of a behavioral example… ; the brief consideration of such semi representative policies as ‘canvassing’; certain comparisons with factorial design and the analysis of variance, as well as with non-functionalistic uses of probability in psychology; and a discussion of actual and potential applications to the clinical-social area and to related domains.”

 

 

 

Self service kiosks are everywhere

The Frankfurt airport in Germany has Nespresso Coffee kiosks. They brew coffee.

 

 

The canteen at Copenhagen Business School in Denmark has a self-checkout system. It tells how much I should pay.

 

 

The Max, a fast food restaurant in Stockholm, Sweden, has a do-it-yourself kiosk stand. It receives orders.

 

 

A hotel in Oslo, Norway, has a self service kiosk reception. Doors open only when reservation information is entered.

 

 

Self service kiosks are everywhere in Europe. They benefit managers and customersManagers lower labor cost and customers avoid unnecessary relationships companies hoped for. However, self service kiosks have two weaknesses. Gretchen Gavett elaborated them in his article titled How Self-Service Kiosks Are Changing Customer Behavior.

 

… Technology lacks flexibility. When we’re interacting with a person and we’re having trouble understanding something, the person can adjust to us. If we’re having a misunderstanding, they can help clarify it. Technology really can’t do either of these things.

… A person has the ability to delight us or disappoint us. It’s really hard for a technology to ever delight, however, because it’s standardized and is built on a set of rules. But it is possible for technologies to disappoint us.

 

Neal’s Yard Dairy, a cheese store at the Borough market in London, UK, shows how and why people outperform kiosks. Customers should talk to the person over the counter to buy cheese in this store. While having conversation with another human being, customers learn what to buy and they are relieved or excited. Only people educate AND delight us at the same time. Kiosks cannot.