How to Choose Happiness: Combat 5 Decision-Making Biases
Choosing happiness can be hard work, but the effort often pays off.
Happiness is in our hands if only we could make the right decisions in life. Decisions often rely on making accurate predictions of how we will feel in the future. Unfortunately for us psychologists have shown that there are five major biases in the way we predict our future emotional states.
The good news is that psychological research reveals that each of these biases can be countered. Understanding and remembering these five biases will help you make decisions that will increase your happiness.
1. The distinction bias
What is it?
Imagine this: you are offered two jobs. The first is an interesting job that pays $60,000 a year. The second is a boring job that pays $70,000 a year. For the sake of argument, imagine that everything else is equal - which do you choose?
The distinction bias predicts that people will consistently over-estimate the importance of the $10,000 compared to how interesting the job is. Consequently, research shows that many will pick the boring job even though it makes them miserable and the extra money might well make little difference.
How to combat the distinction bias
Ignore conventional wisdom - comparing options directly is often too difficult because we're forever weighing up apples against oranges. Instead focus on the pros and cons of each scenario individually then make decisions on that basis.
» Read more about the distinction bias.
2. The projection bias
What is it?
Going to the supermarket when I'm really hungry, and without a shopping list, is a recipe for disaster. It will take an act of iron will to avoid returning without some kind of junk food. Later, after eating, I'll wonder how I could have bought junk food but forgotten healthy staples like rice and pasta.
Part of the reason people make mistakes like this is that research shows the projection bias anchors us in current emotional and cognitive states. The present is often like an emotional cage which we can't break out of to understand how we will feel in the future.
How to combat the projection bias
To make the most accurate decisions about what will make our future selves happy we need to be in roughly the same emotional state at the moment of choice. The bigger the difference in emotional state between present and future, the worse the decision will be.
» Read more about the projection bias.
3. The impact bias
What is it?
People often overestimate their emotional reaction to future events. Studies have found that two months after a relationship finished people were generally not as unhappy as they expect. It worked the other way around too: sports fans were generally not as happy as they expected when their team won. Finally, academics both overestimated how happy they would be when given tenure, and also overestimated their unhappiness at being denied tenure.
How to combat the impact bias
First, consciously widen your future focus; remember that other events are bound to intervene. Second, remember that rationalisation tends to reduce the emotional impact of both positive and negative events. The future doesn't normally have such an extreme effect on our emotions (whether good or bad) as we imagine.
» Read more about the impact bias.
4. The memory bias
What is it?
When making decisions about the future, we naturally use events from the past as litmus tests. Unfortunately the type of memories we retrieve to make decisions about our future happiness are often biased to unusual examples that are either very positive or very negative.
A study on subway travellers showed that people freely recalled their previous worst experience of missing the train. As a result they then predicted that if they were to miss the train later that day they would feel worse than did other people who had recalled less disastrous times they had missed the train.
How to combat the memory bias
Recalling more than one past instance of an event you want to make a decision about helps average out the emotion. Also, simply be aware that you are likely to recall the best or worst past example of an event.
» Read more about the memory bias.
5. Belief biases
What are they?
Over time we build up many rules of thumb about the situations that make us happy (or unhappy). Unfortunately we often over-generalise these beliefs to situations where they don't apply.
Research has uncovered four common belief biases:
- The contrast effect is the often incorrect belief that a good experience will be more enjoyable when it follows a bad experience (and that a bad experience will be worse when it follows good). Research on jelly bean tasting showed this can be a mirage.
- More choice is often not better: Research with gourmet jams has found people can be happier, and even better motivated, when they have fewer options to choose from.
- Adaptation: People often expect that repeated exposure to an experience will lessen the pleasure it gives. Research on ice cream, yoghurt and music showed that most people adapted to the taste, either coming to like it more, or at the very least dislike it less.
- Certainty: People expect to feel happier when they have reduced the uncertainty in a situation. Often, though, mystery can increase pleasure.
How to combat belief biases
Research suggests the amount that we are swayed by each of these biases depends on how much we believe in them. So, just reading, remembering and believing (!) this post should allow you to combat the belief biases.
» Read more about belief biases.
Following through on decisions
Even after conquering these biases, we need to actually follow through with the decision. This is where the happiness-seeking individual gets into trouble again... Read the second part of this article: 4 Reasons We Fail to Choose Happiness.[Image credit: xpectro]
Labels: Affective Forecasting
Infants Imitate Others When Only Weeks Old
What do infants understand about the social world?
One of the most basic forms of social behaviour is copying another person. Although imitation is something we adults take for granted, it's actually a pretty demanding process for a young infant.
At the heart of imitation is understanding the difference between yourself and others - something that famous Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget thought didn't emerge immediately in infants. Consequently he argued that infants could not imitate others until they were 8 to 12 months of age.
Stick your tongue out
In 1977, though, Andrew Meltzoff from Oxford University and M. Keith Moore from the University of Washington published a study that questioned Piaget's theory and was destined to become a classic in child psychology (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977).Their study was straightforward enough. An experimenter sat in front of tiny infants who were between 12 and 21-days-old. There he stuck his tongue out, opened his mouth, pursed his lips and moved his fingers, then watched, with a blank face, for the infants' reactions.
Sure enough the infants seemed to copy him.
The key to their study, though, was in showing that the infants were really imitating the experimenter rather than just sticking their tongues out or opening their mouths for some other reason. In other words: was this true imitation or something much more basic that couldn't be considered social interaction?
Imitation or something simpler?
Meltzoff and Moore tested all sorts of alternative explanations:- Were the infants simply getting excited by the experimenter? Probably not: when the experimenter opened his mouth, the infants responded with the same gesture, not by sticking their tongue out. And when the experimenter stuck his tongue out, infants stuck theirs out.
- Was the imitation just a reflex of some kind? Probably not: when infants had a pacifier in their mouths while the experimenter stuck their tongue out, they still imitated him after it was taken out a short time later.
- Had parents been training their children beforehand? No, parents were not told about the purpose of the experiment until afterwards.
- Was the experimenter accidentally signalling the infants after the initial tongue protrusion or mouth purse through further small facial movements? No, the experimenter's face was videotaped and rated independently as blank in the 'infant response periods'.
Born with social skills
This study is a major piece of ammunition for those who argue that infants are born into the world partly pre-programmed for social interactions. It has now been replicated many times and suggests infants don't have to learn to navigate the social world completely from scratch; from a very early age they have some grasp of their bodies and can copy other people.» Read other top 10 child psychology studies on infant memory, self-concept, learning and attachment.
[Image credit: xtopalopaquetl]
Reference
Meltzoff, A., & Moore, M. (1977). Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75-78.
Labels: Child Psychology
4 Belief Biases That Can Reduce Pleasure
Contrary to expectations, less choice between gourmet jams can make us happier.
Experiments have shown that people have a natural tendency to over-generalise beliefs about their emotions to situations where they don't apply. Psychologists call these belief biases.
Here are four belief biases that people often display when trying to predict how an event will make them feel in the future:
- The contrast effect
People expect that a good experience will be more enjoyable when it follows a bad experience. In fact research on jelly bean tasting shows that the contrast effect can be a complete mirage created by our expectations. The same is true when bad experiences follow good - there is an expectation that the bad experience will then be even worse, although often it's not. Perhaps this is part of the reason people think Mondays are more depressing than they really are. - More choice is not better
People expect that having more options will make them happier, but often it doesn't. Research with gourmet jams has found people can be happier, and even better motivated, when they have fewer options to choose from. In some situations, no choice at all may be better than choosing between two options - even when both options are equally enticing. Not convinced? Watch this video of Barry Schwartz. - Adaptation
People often expect that repeated exposure to an experience will lessen the pleasure it gives. Research on ice cream, yoghurt and music showed that most people adapted to the taste, either coming to like it more, or at the very least dislike it less. - Certainty
People expect to feel happier when they have reduced the uncertainty in a situation. Often, though, mystery can increase pleasure.
Fighting the belief biases
The amount that we are swayed by each of these biases depends on how much we believe in them. So, just reading, remembering and believing (!) this post should allow you fight back against the belief biases, helping you to make decisions that will increase your future happiness.» Discover other biases that affect how we predict our future happiness including the projection bias, the distinction bias, the impact bias and the memory bias.
[Image credit: bubbo-tubbo]
Labels: Affective Forecasting
Mondays Are Not As Depressing As You Think
Mondays should be depressing. The memory of a fun weekend still fresh in the mind, returning to all the problems left behind on Friday and the endless expanse of time until next weekend. Surely Mondays are the most depressing day of the week?
New research, though, suggests Mondays aren't as bad as we think. Unfortunately it also finds that Fridays and Saturdays aren't as good as we imagine either.
Imagined moods
Charles S. Areni of the University of Sydney and Mitchell Burger of the NTF Group surveyed 202 participants about what they imagined was their typical mood on each day of the week. This revealed some predictable results:
- People thought their worst moods were experienced on Monday mornings and evenings.
- People thought their best moods were experienced on Friday and Saturday mornings and evenings.
Fortunately Areni and Burger didn't believe these reports were accurate so they decided to test a further 351 people's moods in the moment by asking them how they were feeling each day, on that day.
Actual moods
They found that, on average, people's mood remained about the same throughout the week. Mondays weren't as depressing as people thought and Fridays and Saturdays weren't as exciting as people predicted.
On average, people were actually in the worst mood on Wednesday and the best mood on Sunday, but the differences were small.
The results demonstrate the memory bias: when thinking back we tend to recall the worst incidence of an event we've experienced before. Mondays are stereotypically depressing, so we tend to recall the worst Mondays. Fridays and Saturdays are stereotypically exciting so we tend to recall the best Fridays and Saturdays.
Consequently, in reality our mood fluctuation over the week might not follow the stereotypical pattern of a steady increase from a low on Monday through to a high on Saturday. Instead our weekly average mood profile could be much flatter than we imagine.
[Image credit: crocidillicus]
Reference
Areni, C. S., & Burger, M. (2008). Memories of "Bad" Days Are More Biased Than Memories of "Good" Days: Past Saturdays Vary, but Past Mondays Are Always Blue. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1395-1415.
See How Easily You Can Avoid The Memory Bias
Will booking an expensive restaurant for the weekend make you happy?
Today, making my plans for the upcoming public holiday sent my mind straight back four weeks. Then, heading out into the unseasonably warm spring weather, I had high hopes for a relaxing day off.
Unfortunately everyone else in London had exactly the same idea. The whole day my every plan for having fun was foiled: restaurants were booked up, bars were full to overflowing and when I finally did get sat down at a riverside restaurant, it started raining.
Perhaps this weekend I won't bother. Or, then again, maybe I shouldn't be too hasty...
When making decisions about the future, we naturally use events from the past as litmus tests. Our memories contain a huge database of experiences, all with emotions in tow, which help us work out what will give us pleasure in the future.
When trying to recall a past incidence of an event, people will naturally recall the worst instance, whether trying to or not. Unfortunately memory has all sorts of wicked tricks up its sleeve for deceiving us: it fades with time, can become blocked or be misattributed. Not only that, but psychological research reveals the type of memories we retrieve to make decisions about our future happiness are often biased to unusual examples that are either very positive or very negative.
Memory bias
A neat study by Dr Carey Morewedge from Harvard University and colleagues demonstrates how the memory bias works (Morewedge, Gilbert & Wilson, 2005).
Sixty-two subway passengers were randomly allocated to one of three groups. Each was asked to describe a time in the past when they had missed the train. But the question was asked in subtly different ways:
- Free recallers were asked to describe any instance.
- Biased recallers were asked to describe the worst instance.
- Varied recallers were asked to describe any three instances.
Participant then indicated how happy or unhappy they were on those occasion(s).
The results showed that people in both the 'free recall' and 'biased recall' groups remembered equally depressing times when they had last missed the train. This suggests that when trying to recall a past incidence of an event, people will naturally recall the worst instance, whether trying to or not.
Participants in the 'varied recall' group, though, were more positive suggesting that out of the three events they had recalled, at least one of them was positive. Recalling more than one event, then, makes it more likely that at least one of them is more positive.
Predicting the future
After being primed with memories of past experiences of missing the train, participants were then asked to rate how unhappy they would be if they were to miss the train today. This was to test how the memory bias affected their prediction of their feelings in the future.
Surprisingly it was the free recallers made the worst prediction about how they would feel in the future, significantly worse than the varied recallers and the biased recallers. The reason it's a surprise is that free recallers and biased recallers were both remembering past experiences that were equally bad, and yet the biased recallers made the lowest prediction.
Dr Carey Morewedge and colleagues explain that when people are explicitly asked to recall the worst event, they are then aware that it's the worst event. In contrast, when people are allowed to recall any event they like (free recall) they do still recall the worst event, but don't realise they've done so. As a result those in free recall make much worse predictions about how they will experience the same event in the future.
Bias emerges without prompting
Even when not specifically prompted to access past events people still display the memory bias.Two subsequent studies carried out by the same authors backed up these findings. In the first people demonstrated the memory bias when trying to predict positive events in the future. Given free reign people naturally recall an especially positive example of a particular event then go on to make much more positive predictions about the emotional effect on them of the same event in the future.
A third study extended the same findings to a more natural situation where one group weren't asked to recall anything when making a prediction about how they would experience an event in the future. Nevertheless people still demonstrated the same memory bias for predicting future events. This tells us that even when not specifically prompted to access past events people still display the same bias.
Conquering the memory bias
This research suggests a straightforward way of conquering the memory bias. When trying to predict how you'll feel at your friend's party, eating at an expensive restaurant or that looming dental appointment, try the following:
- Explicitly recall more than one past event of that type. The events then average out, giving you a better prediction of how you will feel in the future.
- Be aware that if you only recall one past example of that type of event it is very likely to be either one of the best or one of the worst examples of that event. Simply realising this should be enough to negate the bias.
These two methods should bypass the memory bias and contribute towards decision-making that leads to greater overall happiness in the future.
» Discover other biases that affect how we predict our future happiness including the projection bias, the distinction bias and the impact bias.
[Image credit: Thomas Hawk]
References
Morewedge, C. K., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2005). How Remembering the Past Biases Forecasts of the Future. Psychological Science, 16(8), 626-630.
Labels: Affective Forecasting
Why Money is Part of Human Nature: Money as Both Tool and Drug
It's no surprise that people want money - we've all got bills to pay. It's also no surprise that money is useful - it would be irritating to pay the electricity bill in corn, goats or some other non-monetary quid pro quo. Originally economists argued that the fact that money is so useful explains why we're interested in it. But when you think about it, the fact that money is so useful doesn't fully explain people's behaviour.
Why does a person who is already rolling in money want more?Think about how obsessed people can become with money, beyond its instrumental use, beyond rationality, beyond any easy explanation. Why does a person who is already rolling in money want more? Indeed, why do people whose lives are already comfortable make sacrifices in other areas of their lives - family, friendships and their own sanity - just to get more cash? Especially when, objectively, they appear to be dollars that they don't need.
Professors Stephen Lea and Paul Webley from the University of Exeter argue that people's actual behaviour towards money can't be explained solely by the fact that it is useful - what they refer to as 'tool theory' (Lea & Webley, 2006). There seems to be something more going on. Money provokes people into all sorts of bizarre behaviour that can't easily be explained in terms of its function purely as a tool. Here are five examples Lea and Webley provide:
- Big money
Money literally looms large in our minds - we seem to imbue it with a special status. Bruner and Goodman (1947) found that children actually perceive money to be physically larger than other objects that are actually the same size. Furnham (1983) found that at a time of high inflation, people consistently thought that old pound notes were physically bigger than the new ones. They were, of course, exactly the same size but people's knowledge that the currency used to be worth more had become physical in their minds. - Phased by face value
The real, useful value of money changes all the time, e.g. one hundred years ago one pound or one dollar bought a lot more than it does now. Despite this people respond to the face value of money irrespective of its real worth. The introduction in recent years of the Euro across Europe has shown the power of this illusion. Many Europeans have suddenly been faced with a new currency whose face-value is quite different to their old currency. Studies have shown that people are likely to overestimate the real value of money that has a higher face value, and underestimate the real value of money that has a lower face value (e.g. Gamble et al., 2002). - People like money's form
People are attached to the actual form that money takes and will often resist when innovations are introduced. British people have strongly resisted the introduction of the Euro and Americans continue to reject the introduction of a dollar coin to replace the dollar bill. - Being emotional about cash
Not only are we particular about money's form, we also have an emotional relationship with it. Psychologists have measured our attitudes towards cash in many different ways, but most find there is a considerable emotional component. When people describe their attitudes to money, it's more than just its utility that's important - people actually either love it or hate it. - When cash is not acceptable
The special kind of relationship people have with money is underlined by the times when it can't be used. Money is often not acceptable as a gift and almost never in sexual relationships; talk of money is also frowned on in high art, religion and education. Similarly there is a taboo about money buying political office (although it clearly does buy political office indirectly).
Money as tool and drug
What all these examples show is that people's behaviour with and attitudes towards money reach, in many circumstances, beyond its actual utility. People's thoughts and behaviour towards money can't easily be explained by it being simply an instrument, so how can we understand it?Part of the attraction of money, like drugs, is that it changes how we feel, but this change has no biological or evolutionary significance.Professors Lea and Webley argue that money is not just a tool for us, it also acts like a drug on the mind. Drugs act on the central nervous system to create mental states that do not meet some kind of function in the world in the same way that sex or food does. For example, the feeling of hunger drives us to find food, and we need food to survive, so hunger has an evolutionary function.
But if money is like an addictive drug, then where did we acquire this addiction, when did we pick up the taste for money? Lea and Webley suggest two evolutionary roots:
- Trading thrills: As a social species helping each other out has a long evolutionary history. Humans have learnt to exchange items or services for the benefit of both parties. It's plausible that those who traded more successfully were more likely to survive while those who stuck with what they had tended to die out. Trade gives us a buzz, and money, as the most potent catalyst for exchange, gives us vicarious pleasure.
- Money as a way of keeping score: Humans love to play. Compared to other animals, humans take a long time to grow up, and while growing up, and still afterwards, we have a strong instinct for play. Perhaps our propensity for play naturally provides part of the scaffolding on which we have built our addiction to money. Money turns out to be one of the most addictive games we ever invented.
Can't get enough of that money
Money is more than just a useful tool, as some economists have argued; while money is certainly useful, human behaviour towards it can't be explained just by its utility. The drug metaphor helps demonstrate how the motivation for money often extends past its actual utility. This ties in with many sociological analyses that emphasise money's social meaning and symbolic nature over and above its simple utilitarian applications.Culture on its own is not powerful enough to explain the human motivation for money.Thinking of money as a drug highlights the biological basis of money. An evolutionary account underlines this biological perspective by suggesting that money addiction might be built on our drive to trade and play.
What Lea and Webley are implicitly arguing against is a purely cultural understanding of humans' relationship with money. Their view is that culture on its own is not powerful enough to explain the human motivation for money. Money, they argue, whether for good or evil, is part of human nature.
» Find out more about the psychology of money: how people balance up social versus financial thinking about money, the power of 'free!' and the six quirks of ownership.
[Image credit: bryan chan & -sel]
References
Bruner, J. S. & Goodman, C. C. (1947) Value and need as organising factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33-44.
Furnham, A. (1983) Inflation and the estimated sizes of notes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 4, 349-52.
Gamble, A., Garling, T., Charlton, J. & Ranyard, R. (2002). Euro-illusion: Psychological insights into price evaluations with a unitary currency. European Psychologist, 7, 302-311.
Lea, S. E. G., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(02), 161-209.
Labels: Money
Internet Dating 2.0: Why Version 1.0 is Unsatisfying and Aversive
Research published in the Journal Of Interactive Marketing suggests this is because online dating interfaces tend to treat people like commodities - daters search profiles for matches using check-box categories, just as if they were shopping for a TV. Consequently the big online dating sites have seen a reduction in their growth.
A new experiment, though, suggests that online dating could be improved with virtual dates in which people can experience each other in something closer to a real encounter. Welcome to Internet Dating 2.0.
The problem with online dating
The research, conducted by Jeana H. Frost and colleagues, first wanted to establish exactly how people use currently well-established online dating systems (Frost, Chance, Norton & Ariely, 2008).Finding a connection with another person is all about the interaction: it is an experiential process. In a survey of 132 internet daters, the researchers found that users of a profile-based online dating site spent seven times as long screening other people's profiles and sending emails than they did actually interacting face-to-face on real dates. As a result participants reported finding online dating unsatisfying and aversive.
Frost and colleagues argue that part of the problem with online dating is the search mentality. In reality what makes people click together is hard to boil down to a few attributes in a search box. Finding a connection with another person is all about the interaction: it is an experiential process.
Online daters end up wasting so much time because the interface encourages endless ticking of boxes, searching profiles and sending emails, rather than actually experiencing another person.
Virtual dating
Instead of search-based online dating Frost and colleagues tested a new approach: the virtual date. This encouraged participants to engage in a more interactive experience than simply viewing profiles:- Participants could instant message each other.
- Images were displayed for the participants to talk about.
- Simple avatars were displayed onscreen which participants controlled.
To evaluate the virtual date in comparison with the more usual profile-based online dating, Frost and colleagues had 24 participants (half male, half female) each randomly assigned to two other opposite-sex participants.
People preferred others who they had first met in the virtual environment to those whose profile they had read.Each went on a virtual date with one of them and just viewed the profile of the other. A day or two later all 24 participants met each other in the flesh at a speed-dating event. After the dating each participant rated those they had met on liking, similarity, excitement and comfort.
The results showed that people preferred others who they had first met in the virtual environment to those whose profile they had read. Further results also suggested that this was romantic-liking rather than just platonic-liking.
The future?
Despite the small sample size in this study, the research does bode well for some of the new generation of dating technologies, dubbed 'Internet Dating 2.0', many of which do include virtual environments.Of course virtual dates are still bleeding edge and it will inevitably take time for both the industry and online daters to adjust. But when they do perhaps then singles will be spared the tedious task of skimming endless profiles in favour of heading off on potentially more successful virtual dates.
[Image credit: royblumenthal]
References
Frost, J. H., Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2008) People Are Experience Goods: Improving Online Dating With Virtual Dates. Journal Of Interactive Marketing Volume 22(1), 51-61.
» From Wired.com: Dating 2.0 Picks Up Speed
» From Time.com: Internet Dating 2.0
Labels: Internet Dating
40% Experienced Paranoid Thoughts on Virtual Journey
In the study, which took place a year after the London tube bombings, 200 participants navigated a virtual reality simulation of a 4 minute journey on the London Underground. Avatars within the simulation were designed to react neutrally to participants moving through the simulation. Despite this, more than a third reported paranoid reactions like the following:
- 'There was an aggressive person - his intention was to intimidate me and make me feel uneasy'
- 'One guy looked pissed off and maybe one guy flicked the finger at me'
- 'There was a man who tried to stare me out. But I didn't give him any ammunition. Believe his intention was to start an argument'
Compare these to how other people experienced the simulation:
- 'People were generally very friendly'
- 'One guy was checking me out - flattering'
- 'There were people smiling at you, which was nice'
This just underlines how people can experience exactly the same environment in completely different ways.
There's a very good video on the Wellcome website with Dr Daniel Freeman explaining more about the study, how it was conducted and showing clips of the virtual reality environment.
[Via Channel N and MindHacks.]
References
Freeman, D., Pugh, K., Antley, A., Slater, M., Bebbington, P., Gittins, M., et al. (2008). Virtual reality study of paranoid thinking in the general population. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 192(4), 258-263.
How To Avoid Choosing the Wrong Job or House: Fight the Distinction Bias
How can you actually quantify an interesting versus a boring job?Choosing the option that maximises our happiness is all about how we psychologically balance up options. For example, cheaper houses are usually in worse locations, highly paid jobs are sometimes more stressful. Unfortunately, when it comes to balancing up the pros and cons, there are reliable biases in the way we make comparisons that mean we don't always choose what maximises our future happiness.
Imagine this: you are offered two jobs. The first is an interesting job that pays $60,000 a year. The second is a boring job that pays $70,000 a year. For the sake of argument, imagine that everything else is equal - which do you choose?
Here's another common example: imagine you have to choose between two houses that will cost the same amount. One of them is 3,000 square-feet and you can walk to work, the other is 4,000 square-feet but it will mean you have to drive for an hour to get to work. Again, for the sake of argument, imagine that all else is equal - which one do you choose and how do you make your choice?
Being choosey
When we try to choose between the $60,000 and $70,000 job, we probably make some kind of assessment of costs and benefits. On one side we try to work out how much extra happiness the additional $10,000 will bring us. On the other side we try to compare the interesting job with the boring job. This turns out to be harder: how can you actually quantify an interesting versus a boring job?According to psychologists Professor Christopher K. Hsee and Jiao Zhang from the University of Chicago, this is exactly where we hit choppy waters in our decision-making (Hsee & Zhang, 2004). They argue that when we make quantitative comparisons, i.e. those involving clearly comparable numbers such as amounts of money, we are much more likely to overestimate the impact on our happiness.
In comparison, qualitative differences - like the difference between a boring job and an interesting job - are much more difficult for us to evaluate. As a result we are considerably less likely to overestimate their impact.
Quantitative predictions
This difference in the way we evaluate qualitative versus quantitative differences comes down to a gap between our powers of prediction and the vagaries of actual experience:- Prediction: When we are trying to predict how we will feel we usually assume there is a linear relationship between more of something and us feeling better or receiving more benefit. For example we imagine that $70,000 will make us feel exactly one-sixth better than $60,000, or that 4,000 square-foot house is one-third better than a 3,000 square-foot house.
- Actual experience: When we actually experience something we generally tend not to directly compare the $60,000 with having $70,000 or the 3,000 square-foot house with the 4,000 square-foot house. As a result, on average, we don't actually feel one-sixth better having the extra money or one-third better having the extra space.
So, when we are making quantitative comparisons we are likely to predict that we will experience more pleasure than, in reality, we do. This is what Hsee and Zhang call the distinction bias: when it operates we make an inflated prediction about the future utility of a choice because of how we distinguish between them.
Qualitative predictions
Compare this with how we make predictions about qualitative differences, like choosing between the interesting and the boring job, or the house that's close to work or far away. It's obvious the interesting job is better than the boring job, but because there is no clear scale we are much less likely to over-predict the advantage of the job being interesting when compared to how we actually experience it.To back up their theory, Hsee and Zhang carried out three experiments in which people were invited to make predictions about qualitative and quantitative differences. In each of these three experiments the researchers found that people did indeed over-predict their future pleasure when making a quantitative comparison but didn't make this mistake for qualitative comparisons.
How to avoid the distinction bias
The distinction bias is rooted in the fact that predictions about our future pleasure involving quantitative comparisons are the easiest to make, and the easiest to get wrong. These tend to occur when we evaluate one thing next to another: e.g. when trying to choose between the interesting job and the boring job it's easy to compare the two salaries. The exact salary, however, often turns out later to make less difference to our pleasure in life than we might imagine.The trick is to avoid comparing two jobs, or houses, directly.Hsee and Zhang argue that the trick is to avoid comparing two jobs, or houses, directly. It is better to consider each job, or house, individually. Try to make an overall assessment of each one on its own, and then compare your assessments. This way you are much more likely to make a choice that accurately predicts your future experience.
There is, though, one important caveat to this technique. In some cases the amount of pleasure you get from a choice in the future is closely related to how it compares to other choices. In other words: sometimes direct comparisons are accurate predictors of future pleasure. For example, if you are choosing a pair of shoes to wear to a wedding it is advisable to consider what other people will be wearing. Buying sneakers is not likely to make you feel good.
But while there are some exceptions, the distinction bias is often a serious problem for us in trying to predict our future happiness. Whether it's choosing a job, a car or a house, we are likely to overestimate the quantitative aspects of our choice (often, but not always, money) to the detriment of the qualitative aspects. Consequently we can end up making a choice that doesn't maximise our happiness. Combating this bias means focussing just on the pros and cons of each scenario individually rather than making comparisons.
Reference
Hsee, C., & Zhang, J. (2004). Distinction Bias: Misprediction and Mischoice Due to Joint Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 680-695.
Labels: Affective Forecasting
Guide to Psychology Blogs - Part 5
Best historical psychology blog
The Advances in the History of Psychology blog has been going strong for a while now and contains some real gems. Amongst these are a description of the famous Stanley Milgram obedience experiments by someone who resisted and videos of B. F. Skinner demonstrating operant conditioning. The main contributor is Christopher D. Green, Professor of Psychology at York University in Canada, who is also responsible for the fantastic site Classics in the History of Psychology.Best positive psychology blog
Improved Lives is a new blog about positive psychology which has already generated some interesting articles. You can find out if you're living in a happy country or explore which happiness boosting exercises work. Worth keeping an eye on.Best biopsychosocial blogging
If you prefer your psychology blogging with a biological bent then Brain Blogger is for you. Writers include neurosurgeons, psychotherapists and forensic psychologists and as a result there are a wide range of topics covered here.Best biological brain blogging
Deric Bownds' Mindblog also presents a biological view of the brain. And, as the author of the 'Biology of Mind' textbook and Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Zoology at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, you can bet he knows what he's talking about.Best proper-journalist-psychology-blog
Wray Herbert, who writes for Newsweek and Scientific American also posts at We're Only Human. As a former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today it's no surprise the articles are well-written and informative. I particularly enjoyed the neurology of stereotypes.Best err...
Dr Romeo Vitelli's brief bio reveals an intriguing past: 15 years as a staff psychologist at a Canadian maximum-security prison, then full-time practice, now also a disaster management volunteer with the Red Cross. I tell you this partly to shirk the tricky task of summing up his blog, Providentia. Why not just read about George Washington's medical care or clinical lycanthropy. Some fascinating and eclectic posts here.Best of the rest
- David Godot is blogging on positive psychology at Way To Go, Godot!.
- Dr. Robert Dobrenski tells you what it's like to be a clinical psychologist at Shrink Talk.
- Have a look through Michael Britt's Psych Files.
- Finally Ivo Quartiroli discusses the impact of technology and media on our psyche at Indranet.
» Now read part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.
[Photo by DogFromSPACE]
Labels: Psychology Guides
Guide to Psychology Blogs - Update and Call for Links
As ever I'm always on the lookout for accessible, fresh blogging in psychology and related fields. So if you'd like to suggest your own blog or someone else's work for inclusion then leave a comment below or drop me an email.
[Photo by DogFromSPACE]
Labels: Psychology Guides
13 Ways to Quickly Improve Your Decision-Making
In his new book Professor Gary Marcus of New York University likens the mind to a 'kluge' - an engineering term meaning a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem.
To combat the 'klugey' nature of our minds, Professor Marcus provides 13 quick techniques based on psychological research to help us combat its inherent flaws in decision-making.
1. Whenever possible, consider alternatives
Our brains are not good at evaluating evidence dispassionately. Force yourself to generate alternatives. Research has demonstrated the value of counter-factual thinking: thinking about the opposite helps us make better decisions.
2. Reframe the question
Our memories are highly contextual so the background to any issue we consider has a huge impact on how we view it. Politicians, advertisers and other influencers use framing extensively to persuade us of their point of view. You can fight back by reframing their propositions.
3. Correlation doesn't equal causation
An oldie but a goldie. There's a clear correlation between foot size and being richer, owning your own house and having a better education. On the other hand people with smaller feet are often still struggling with potty training. Guessed it yet? People with small feet are usually children, so of course they have less money, don't own their own houses and, haven't been to school yet. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
4. Never forget the sample size
When we think about someone and a few seconds later they call us, is that evidence of ESP? Consider the sample size. How many times have you thought about that person in the past year? How many times have they called you in the last year? What first seems like a freak occurrence soon starts to look inevitable. Sample sizes are easy to forget.
5. Anticipate your impulsivity
The best of intentions often break down in the face of vicious temptation. People find it difficult to predict just how far off course their emotions can pull them (e.g. the projection bias). Use any method you can to counter your impulsivity: cancel the credit card, join a Christmas Club, avoid the confectionary store. It's all about planning ahead.
6. Make contingency plans
Humans are better at concrete goals; abstract goals like 'read more' or 'lose weight' get lost in the mix. Substitute these with: 'read this book by next Tuesday' and 'don't buy any junk food on the weekly shop'.
7. Make important decisions when relaxed and rested
What, I need to explain this?
8. Weigh costs against benefits
Common advice but actually quite tricky to do. Research shows that our minds prefer to consider either costs or benefits; taking both into account takes considerable effort. Professor Marcus points out that one factor we often forget is the 'opportunity cost': when we do one thing, we can't be doing something else. When I watch TV the benefit might be relaxation and enjoyment but the cost is that I can't be reading that mind-improving book that's being lying around for weeks.
9. Imagine your decision will be spot-checked
When we think someone will check up on us we make more cognitive effort, leading to better decision-making. Even if no-one is checking up on you, imagine their reaction if they did: would you be proud of your decision?
10. Distance yourself
When making decisions we are influenced by whatever thoughts and emotions are swirling around in our heads at that moment. Help distance yourself by thinking about how this decision will affect you in the future. Big decisions are always better made after a night's sleep. Again, it's common advice but it can be surprisingly difficult to distance yourself.
11. Beware the vivid, personal and anecdotal
It's so easy for us to be swayed by vivid or personal stories that we may ignore more considered, scientific evidence. Remember that our minds are naturally fascinated and influenced by the sensational at the cost of quotidian. Look carefully at the information source - are you being manipulated?
12. All decisions are not equal
Some decisions are more important than others. Not all decisions warrant effortful deliberation: sometimes it's better just to choose and be done with it. The trick is knowing which is which - experience should provide strong clues.
13. Be rational!
Sounds vacuous, right? But Professor Marcus argues that research suggests just reminding ourselves to think rationally could help us make better decisions. Consciously trying to think rationally will also help activate all the other techniques described here. Our memories being what they are, this is no bad thing.
» Buy it now from Amazon.com.
» Kluge is released in the UK on the 5 June, you can pre-order from Amazon.co.uk.
Labels: Book Reviews, Decision-making
Why Familiarity Really Does Breed Contempt
"Hell is other people." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
"I only drink to make other people seem interesting" -- George Jean Nathan
"Fish and visitors smell in three days." -- Benjamin Franklin
Given how irritating other people sometimes are, it's surprising how many of us are eternal optimists about forming new relationships. Indeed people seem primed to like others: the 'mere exposure effect' is a robust social psychological finding demonstrating that just being exposed to someone causes us to like them more.
If the 'mere exposure' effect holds for developing social relationships then, as we come to know more about others, we should come to like them more.A good example of the 'mere exposure' effect is a study by Moreland and Beach (1992) who introduced four fake students to a large college course. Each of the fake students - chosen to be of similar appearance - attended the course to varying degrees, some going to many classes, others to few; but none interacted with the other students.
At the end of the course the one student most people preferred, despite never having talked to her, was the one who had attended the most classes.
If the mere exposure effect holds for developing social relationships then, as we come to know more about others, we should come to like them more. It seems familiarity should breed liking. A recent study by Michael I. Norton from the Harvard Business School and colleagues certainly suggests that this is most people's intuitive understanding (Norton, Frost & Ariely, 2007).
Norton and colleagues first surveyed members of an online dating site, asking them whether they generally preferred someone they knew little about, or who they knew more about. 81% said they would prefer the person they knew more about. In a second survey of undergraduate students fully 88% said they would prefer someone they knew more about.
So much for people's expectations, let's see how they really behave.
Familiarity breeds contempt
In the next part of the study by Norton and colleagues participants were given a list of traits about another person and asked how much they would like that person. In fact the traits were generated to be broadly representative and people were shown either 4, 6, 8 or 10 of these traits at random. The results showed that, contrary to their expectations, the more information people had about others the less they liked them.
The more information people had about others the less they liked them.Norton and colleagues hypothesised that the reason for this finding was that the more people find out about others, the more likely it is a trait will be uncovered to which they take a dislike. The researchers tested this with participants from the online dating site. This time, though, instead of using a pre-generated list of traits, each participant was asked to create a list of traits that described themselves - these were then pooled. Predictably most people chose relatively positive traits.
These traits were then mixed up and randomly allocated in varying numbers and varying orders to participants as though they described a real person. Effectively, then, people were looking at a random list of relatively positive traits that the group itself had generated. Again, even with a list of mostly positive traits, people tended to like the 'person' described by the shorter lists of traits, further supporting the idea that we like people more who we know less about.
Once we perceive a dissimilarity, it's all downhill from there. Even traits we might have liked, or been neutral about before, now get the thumbs down.But what the researchers were interested in this time was the effect of similarity on whether we like others. This is because much previous research has shown that we tend to like other people who are similar to ourselves. The results showed that what was driving the connection between knowledge and dislike was a lack of similarity. Effectively the more traits participants knew about another 'person', the more likely they were to find dissimilarities with themselves, and so the more likely they were to dislike them.
It gets worse. In a fourth study using a similar approach to those above the researchers found that our dislike for others cascades. This means that if we see a dissimilar (and therefore unlikeable) trait early on in our relationship with another, this tends to negatively affect the way we perceive the rest of their traits. So, once we perceive a dissimilarity, it's all downhill from there. Even traits we might have liked, or been neutral about before, now get the thumbs down.
Real-world test
Finally, in a fifth study researchers decided to test the evidence from their controlled studies in the real world. This time members of a dating site were asked either about a potential partner they had met online or someone they were about to meet.
After getting participants to complete a survey they found that, as expected, people knew more about their dates after having met them than before. For the vast majority of people, though, liking for their dates decreased substantially after they had met them. On average, knowledge of their date increased from 5 out of 10 pre-date to 6 out of 10 post-date, while liking dropped from 7/10 to 5/10 and perceived similarity dropped from 6/10 to 5/10.
Of course this wasn't true for everyone - some met other people who they liked more afterwards - but for the majority more knowledge led to apparent dissimilarity which led to less liking.
Hope springs eternal
Considering the results of this study it's a wonder we bother trying to make friends after the first few disappointments. The fact that we do is probably a result of an unrealistic level of optimism about how much we will expect to like others. This is confirmed by the study's finding that the vast majority of people expect that more knowledge about others will lead to liking.
Jean-Paul Sartre was right - on average - other people really are hell.And occasionally we do actually meet people who turn out to be similar to us, who end up as our close friends or even partners. It's these relationship hits that we tend to remember when meeting someone new rather than all the times we were disappointed.
As this study shows, on the vast majority of occasions the less we know about someone the more we are inclined to like them. It's like the fake student in Moreland and Beach's study, ambiguity allows us to imagine that other people share our world-view, our personality traits or our sense of humour. Unfortunately as soon as we start to find out more about them, we're likely to find out how different they are to ourselves and, as a result, to dislike them.
Jean-Paul Sartre was right, on average: other people really are hell. That is, most other people are hell. There are, of course, a few people we each hold dear, people who do not begin to smell after three days; but these people are the glorious exceptions, so hold on to them tight.
[Image credit: roboppy]
References
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 255-276.
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less Is More: The Lure of Ambiguity, or Why Familiarity Breeds Contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 97-105.
Labels: Social Psychology
Infant Memory Works From Very Early
What psychologists have done, though, is examine the emergence of memory in our first few years with a series of now classic experiments. If memories really can be laid down early in life then it is certainly possible in theory for adults to remember very early experiences.
Getting a kick out of kicking
One classic experiment, devised by Professor Carolyn Rovee-Collier (now at Rutgers University) and colleagues in the 1960s, provides us an insight into what infants can remember. This method has produced some great evidence about how and when infants' memories develops.
In their experiment, Rovee and Rovee (1969) had infants of between 9 and 12 weeks lay comfortably in their cribs at home looking up at a mobile covered with brightly coloured wooden figures.
The more the little kids kick, the more of a kick they get from the mobile.A cord was then attached to their foot connecting it to the mobile. This meant that if the infants kicked out the mobile would move. And, if they kicked out hard, the wooden figures would bump into each other and make a pleasant knocking sound. The more the little kids kick, the more of a kick they get from the mobile.
If you're starting to get a whiff of Pavlov and his salivating dog then you're on the right lines. This experiment is all about seeing if an infant can be conditioned to kick their foot to make the mobile move. Researchers first measure infants' baseline levels of kicking (with mobile unattached), then compare this to kicking that produces an exciting response (wow, the mobile is moving!).
What Rovee and Rovee (1969) found was that even infants as young as 8 weeks old could learn the association between kicking and the mobile movement. This learning was still evident over a 45-55 minutes period.
Early memories
While this initial finding is fairly modest, the use of this procedure has led to all sorts of new findings about infants' memories. For example, subsequent studies have later substituted a different mobile for the original to see if the infants can spot the difference, thereby testing whether or not they really remember.
In one experiment infants only 8-weeks-old were trained with the mobile over a period of 3 days for 9 minutes each day. Twenty-four hours later the infants only kicked at above their baseline levels when the same mobile was above their heads. This showed they remembered the particular mobile they had been trained with and not just any old mobile. It was an especially exciting finding because it had previously been thought that long-term memory (and 24 hours is long-term for psychologists) didn't emerge until as late as 8 or 9 months.
Our memory systems actually work quite well from very early on.Because of this experiment and others like it, we now know much more about infant memory. Our memory systems actually work quite well from very early on. Infants' memories also seems to work in much the same way as adult memories - it's just that infant memories are much more fragile.
Carolyn Rovee-Collier argues it is doubtful whether infantile amnesia really exists (Rovee-Collier, 1999). It certainly appears our brains can lay down long-term memories even in the first year of life. The reason it is unusual to retain memories from that time into adulthood is probably because of the limited capacity of our early memory systems and the intervening years during which we inevitably forget.
[Image credit: dolanh]
References
Rovee, C. K., & Rovee, D. T. (1969). Conjugate Reinforcement of Infant Exploratory Behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8, 33-39.
Rovee-Collier, C. (1999). The Development of Infant Memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 80-85.
Labels: Child Psychology
Why Your Future Self is an Emotional Mystery: The Projection Bias
Why should this be? After all, I know very well what sort of food I should buy; I've been hungry in the supermarket before and bought junk food and regretted it later. The reason is that in the moment, when I'm hungry at the supermarket, I'm out of touch with my future emotional self - something that psychologists have confirmed experimentally.
Empathy failure
Research has shown that we can have considerable difficulty predicting our future requirements because our current emotional states override them. This is called the projection bias and it occurs despite the fact that we have plenty of experience of the problem and its undesirable consequences.
So, what is it about the projection bias that means I choose junk food in the supermarket when I'm hungry? Well, what studies have shown is that when we are in a 'hot' emotional state - in this case hungry - we tend to start ignoring the long-term in favour of short-term self-gratification. We think that because we are desperate for a quick fix of calories right now, we'll always be desperate for a quick fix. This means that when I'm hungry I forget my commitment to eat healthily and concentrate on what will give me an immediate rush of calories and pleasure: junk food.
But this still doesn't fully explain why I'm not able to override my preference for buying junk food when I'm hungry. Why can't I just imagine my future self - after lunch - looking at the junk food I've bought and empathise?
...our present desires can suddenly override our long-term goals...Well, I can, but only a little. What studies have shown is that not only do we have this projection bias but we have what researchers have a called an 'empathy gap' - this gap is effectively a failure to empathise with our future selves. In the moment, driven by our emotions, our present desires can suddenly override our long-term goals and we no longer care about healthy eating or any other promises we have made ourselves.
Healthy or unhealthy snack?
This effect is neatly demonstrated in a study conducted by Read and van Leeuwen (1998). Office workers were told they could have a free snack in a week's time and were asked to choose between a healthy snack (e.g. an apple) or an unhealthy snack (a Mars bar). The trick is that they were either asked just after lunch or in the late afternoon. This meant they were either satiated or hungry. Before deciding they were also told at what time of day they would receive their free snack: either after lunch or late afternoon.
A week later experimenters returned at the time they stated, depending on which experimental condition each person was in. But this time participants were given the option to change their choice from a week ago. Again they were either asked after lunch when they were satiated or at the end of the day when they were hungry. This created four different experimental conditions.
Give me chocolate right now!
Predictably they found that people were much more likely to choose the healthy snack for consumption in a week's time, than a week later when the snack could be eaten right now. Overall people predicted that they would be considerable more health-conscious than they actually were.
But what the researchers were interested in was how big the empathy gap was depending on whether people were hungry or not at the two initial time-points. Exactly how much empathy did people have with their future selves, depending on whether they were hungry or satiated, and whether they imagined their future selves as hungry or satiated?
Results
To understand the results, let's compare two pairs of conditions. In the first pair of conditions participants were asked after lunch, when they were not hungry, which snack they would like in a week. But in one they were told they would be given their snack after lunch and in the other condition late afternoon. So people who were not hungry now were trying to predict their preference for firstly when they are satiated in the future and secondly when they are hungry in the future. 56% predicted their future self would choose an unhealthy snack while hungry, but when they were actually presented with the choice (when hungry), 88% chose the unhealthy snack.
In comparison, when they thought their futures self would NOT be hungry only 26% predicted they would choose the unhealthy snack, but at the actual time of choosing 70% chose the unhealthy snack.
People found it difficult to predict their future desires for food.There are two interesting things about this result. The first is that people found it difficult to predict their future desires for food, even when they weren't currently hungry. This suggests that the projection bias works both ways. It isn't just in our hot, emotional moments that we're poor at predicting our future desires, it's also when we're in a relaxed, neutral state as well.
The second interesting thing is that our empathy gap with our future selves seems to be about 30% (56% minus 26%). Here the empathy gap refers to the difference between the judgement we make when in the same state as our future selves and when in a different state. It's important to note that in defining the empathy gap the authors are comparing two different advance choices and not the advance choice with the actual choice. This means the results can't be explained by saying that people were just trying to make themselves choose the healthy option by predicting that's what they would have.
Similar results were seen when hungry participants tried to make predictions about their future selves, either when hungry or satiated. Of those who were hungry 78% predicted they'd go for the unhealthy snack, while 92% actually chose it. Of those who were satiated, 42% thought they'd go for the unhealthy snack while 82% actually chose it when hungry. The empathy gap for those who were hungry while making their prediction was about the same as the previous pair of conditions at 36% (78% minus 42%).
Our predictions, inaccurate as they may be, do have some control over our future behaviour.One positive to emerge from the results, however, is that our predictions, inaccurate as they may be, do have some control over our future behaviour. The researchers found that people whose intention was to eat healthily were less likely to change their mind than those whose intention was to eat unhealthily. So it's still better to promise yourself you will eat healthily because it gives you a better chance of resisting temptation when it comes along.
Summary and explanation
Overall this study demonstrates that people directly project their current emotional state (of hunger or satiety) into the future, forgetting they will probably feel differently when the future becomes the present. This is the projection bias. On top of this we seem to project both neutral or 'cold' emotional states into the future as well as 'hot' ones.
The exact nature of the projection bias depends on whether our current state is compatible with the future state we are imagining. If it is incompatible (actually hungry versus predicting satiety), we are consistently less accurate.
Despite this study's focus on hunger, these findings probably do extend to other domains, some of which, such as happiness, have already been documented.
We are each anchored in our current emotional and cognitive states.A useful way to think about how the projection bias works - and, actually, many other common biases such as the false consensus bias, the hindsight bias and the knowledge bias - is suggested by Loewenstein, O'Donoghue and Rabin (2003). They argue that these phenomena have an 'anchoring and adjustment' characteristic. We are each anchored in our current emotional and cognitive state and the only adjustments we can make are with respect to this anchor.
Consequently people tend to assume that others have the same knowledge as them, that other people tend to generally hold the same opinions as them and, that, broadly speaking, they will be in the same emotional state in the future as they are right now. And that is the projection bias and just one of the reasons why we tend to have trouble predicting exactly what it is that will make us happy in the future.
[Image credit: funadium]
References
Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection Bias In Predicting Future Utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1209-1248.
Read, D., & van Leeuwen, B. (1998). Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 189-205.
Labels: Affective Forecasting
Voters Choose Politicians by Similarity to Their Own Personality
Research examining people's perceptions of politicians suggests voters go for candidates with similar personalities to their own.
The evidence comes from studies of both American and Italian voters in recent presidential and prime ministerial elections. Perceived personality might even influence voters more than a politician's programs or policies.
The research, conducted by Professor Gian Vittorio Caprara and colleagues from the University of Rome and R. Chris Fraley at the University of Illinois, was published in the Journal of Political Psychology. It examined both American and Italian voters in Presidential and Prime Ministerial elections respectively:
- John F. Kerry versus George W. Bush in 2004: 6,094 American voters completed questionnaires on their own perceived personalities and those of the presidential candidates. The results showed that people perceived themselves as having more similar personalities to their preferred candidate.
Kerry was perceived by voters as more open-minded than Bush, and voters who voted for Kerry felt the same way about themselves. Bush was seen as particularly agreeable and conscientious although the results were less clear-cut than those for Kerry. The authors suggest Bush benefited from a 'positivity bias' because he was the incumbent. - Romano Prodi (centre-left) versus Silvio Berlusconi (centre-right) in 2006: The same personality survey of 1,675 Italian voters showed they perceived themselves as more similar to their preferred candidate.
Burlusconi was seen as more energetic and outgoing (extraverted), which is how those voting for him saw themselves. Prodi, however, was seen as more friendly and, similarly, his supporters saw themselves as more agreeable.
These findings are in line with previous studies that have found voters are, on average, less influenced by policies and programs than they are by their personal similarity to the candidates. Similarities in attitudes are particularly important in promoting liking, so that people vote for those who share similar attitudes to their own. This study extends these finding to personalities.
To social psychologists this makes perfect sense as there is a long history of research into how similarities promote liking. People are more inclined to like those who have similar values, beliefs and even share demographic variables with themselves.
How can candidates appear to be all things to all people?Of course politicians and their campaign advisors know very well that voters often choose on the basis of personality. The question for them is: how can the candidate appear to be all things to all people?
From their study the authors suggest that the most important personality characteristic for candidates to exude is agreeableness. This is because it is agreeableness that people are most likely to rate highly in themselves. If people's voting choices are really heavily swayed by perceived similarities in personality then it is agreeableness that should win out at the polls.
[Image credit: Barack Obama]
Reference
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Barbaranelli, C., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). When Likeness Goes with Liking: The Case of Political Preference. Political Psychology, 28(5), 609-632.
Labels: Political Psychology