How we change what others think, feel, believe and do

The ChangingMinds Blog!

Blog only:

Happiness, Busy-ness and Laziness

Have you ever been sat in a queue somewhere and felt irritated as some person or process steals minutes from your productive life? Maybe online, waiting for a service agent, or at the airport, waiting for your luggage. Our lives are filled with little queues (and sometimes not so little ones), which frustrate us as they drain our happiness. Yet we seldom do anything about it. We could, for example read a book, but instead we huff and puff as we stand in line, looking at the time just to get even more annoyed. As someone once said, we could all be happier, but most people are not unhappy enough to do anything about it. Perhaps also we like a good moan as we play the victim, unable to do anything about our situation.

Researcher Christopher Hsee and his colleagues gave subjects a choice between a 'busy' option, of delivering a package to a location that was a 15 minute round trip, or a 'lazy' option of delivering it just outside the room and then standing there for 15 minutes. He also varied the reward for this task, offering the same or a different chocolate bar. When the same confection was offered, 68% chose the lazy option, even though those who took the walk reported greater happiness. However if a different (but very similar) chocolate bar was offered for each delivery option, then 59% now chose to walk for 15 minutes. This was explained by the researchers that when they went for a walk, they were naturally happier as their time was filled productively and greater meaning was created for them. Yet we also have a tendency to laziness and having the same reward left many with the easiest option.

The bottom line is:

When given equal action choices, many will choose the path of least effort.
It only takes a small reward to nudge people into taking wiser, more meaningful options.
You should hence be able to persuade people to do things rather than be lazy by offering them a a small reward such as interest, meaning and benefit.

Reference:
Hsee C.K., Yang A.X. and Wang L (2010). Idleness aversion and the need for justifiable busyness. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 21, 7, 926-30

Sunday 12-May-13

The simple complexity of avoidant instructions

A lot of persuasion is about how to get people to do things you want them to do--but what if you want them to not do something? One of the big problems with this is that when you say 'Don't do X', you are talking about X, which means the other person has to think about X. In other words, you are implanting a suggestion to do the very thing you don't want them to do.

A way of handling this is to reword the instruction to avoid the 'don't'. For example, rather than tell a child carrying a fragile plate 'Don't drop it', it can be more effective to say 'Hold it tight' or 'Be careful with the plate'. This can still cause problems, for example that the child pays so much attention to the plate that they do not see a toy on the floor and consequently trip over it, breaking the plate. A typical adult example where things go wrong is in giving instruction for sports, such as golf, where whatever you say can cause distraction, over-compensation and other unwanted effects.

Researcher Christopher Russell and his colleagues got subjects to repeatedly use a computer mouse to trace an imaginary straight line between two on-screen dots. Some subjects were told 'do not move to the left'. The result for many was over-compensation, as they moved more to the right, and consequently making more mistakes in this direction. Others followed the suggestive effect and moved more to the left. This second group scored higher in anxiety in personality and current-state tests. This implies that anxious people are more suggestible and that others are more likely to over-compensate in the opposite direction.

A curious effect happened when the researchers provided a cognitive distraction by asking the subjects to keep a seven digit number in mind while repeating the experiment. Now, the effects were reversed! The anxious people now over-compensated to the right while the other people drifted to the left. A conclusion may be drawn from this that suggestion seems more effective either when the person is anxious or when they are distracted (and that perhaps anxiety itself is a distraction that makes suggestion more effective). But what of the reversal for the anxious people? Perhaps the task to remember the number served as a secondary distraction that pulled their attention away from the anxiety.

What perhaps this research shows is that the basic wisdom of positive language is not as straightforward as may seem, and for subconscious influence to be more effective, then distraction of conscious attention is important. And the corollary of this is that to reduce subconscious effects, distractions should be removed.

Reference
Russell, C. and Grealy, M. (2010). Avoidant instructions induce ironic and over-compensatory movement errors differently between and within individuals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 (9), 1671-1682

Sunday 05-May-13

Asking for the Truth

How do you get teenagers to tell the truth? Threatening them is usually a good way to banish truth altogether as teenagers are struggling to find their independence and are likely to react against any attempts to impose coercive control, especially if all it takes is blank denial.

Curiously, all you need to do, it seems, is to ask them to tell the truth. Evans and Lee gave over 100 eight to sixteen year olds a trivia test, including some impossible questions. They also asked them not to peek at the answers which were just beneath a flap. And guess what, 54% peeked. This actually seems pretty good considering there was a $10 reward for getting everything right. Yet it is still not good news for the truth.

The plot thickened when the researchers asked the teenagers if they had peeked. No surprise here: 84% of the peekers continued the deception and denied having looked at the answers. Then came the real trial: the researchers asked them to tell the truth in the next question, which was a repeat of whether they had peeked. Now the number was 65%. Still big, yet a significant drop. Remember that they had just lied twice so this was a big deal to admit.

Perhaps the most useful point from this is that all you have to do is explicitly ask for the truth and you are immediately more likely to get it. If the researchers had started with this request, I suspect the final lying would have been at a distinctly lower level again.

Reference:
Evans AD, and Lee K (2010). Promising to tell the truth makes 8- to 16-year-olds more honest. Behavioral sciences and the law, Brain Cognition, 74, 3, 210-24

Sunday 21-April-13

Blue Lights Behind

Have you ever been driving along and suddenly noticed blue flashing lights behind you? Most of us have. The first response is usually to assume that it could well be a police car and so we check our speed. We next will want to get out of the way, to let the vehicle past, as it may also be an ambulance or a fire truck.

In any case, we feel a sudden pang of panic and would far prefer the blue-flashing vehicle to be in front of us.

Now take the case of vehicle decoration. As well as paint jobs, some drivers like to decorate their vehicles with lights, under the body, in the grille, and so on. I experienced this recently when a lorry turned up behind us with a whole bunch of blue LEDs shining through its radiator grille. And guess what? I had a sudden urge to pull over and let it pass.

It seems the blue light effect still works even when the lights are not flashing. Cognitively, I knew it wasn't an emergency vehicle, so I knew there was no problem. I could see the pattern of LEDs and the shape of the truck. But my unconscious system had been triggered and somehow I just seemed to slow down and I then let the truck overtake me. Just in case, of course.

So how can I use this effect, I wondered?

I could try this on my car, but I'm not really the car decoration type. I also suspect I might find everyone in front of me dutifully slowing down. However, don't let this stop you. If your country allows blue lights on cars (and your police use blue lights), you could try it out. Do let me know what happens!

Sunday 14-April-13

What is winning?

As I write this, there's an article on TV about how Formula 1's Sebastian Vettel ignored team orders to not try to overtake team mate Mark Weber. He got past, nearly causing both cars to crash out, and won the race. It has caused a lot of angst and highlights a big dilemma when team and individual goals differ.

A similar thing happens in business when people are rewarded more for individual performance than business success, and as a result they will clamber over their colleagues, stealing credit and knocking others in order to look better. And this highlights the problem: if individual wins are rewarded more than team wins, then the team will lose.

This all is based on a wider culture of individual success, where people are judged by their personal wins. Winners are lauded and given high status, while team players who help teams to win are lost in the background. When winning is everything, everyone wants to win.

This s all based on the assumption that people do their best when they have their own interests at heart rather than a more altruistic, social interest. Yet soldiers sacrifice their lives for greater goal or just to save their colleagues. I spent many years working for HP when the key value of 'contribution' make helping the company more important than helping yourself. It's possible, yet continues to be uncommon. I suspect this is connected with human nature, where selfishness is more basic and altruism is a higher motivation that requires conscious and moral choice.

While I don't approve of Vettel's actions I can't blame him either. He is a product of his culture and his genes.

Sunday 07-April-13

The three Ls of a good marriage

A recent article on the BBC website offers a simple formula for a happy and lasting marriage: lust, laughter and loyalty. It's simple and, by my chalk, a fair stab at a difficult topic. I've been married to the same woman for 37 years and I don't think I could have found a better partner.

Lust

Lust, of course, is about eros, the passionate desire for consummation with a partner. A ready partner makes for convenient sex which ay lack the fire of a new relationship but yet still must be enough.

While the need for sex varies with the person and time, it is important that both partners each get enough for their personal gratification. A similar sexual appetite is hence important (lest one partner seek satisfaction elsewhere) and that the one who needs it less is willing and able to make up the difference. As men are less able to fake it, this commonly falls to the woman.

Without going into details of my own sex life, I can report that I am happy with it, and that I still find my wife to be gorgeous. It has always baffled me why she agreed to my college-boy stumbling proposal and I believe myself very lucky, which may be another sign of a good relationship.

Personally, I would replace lust with love, which includes affection and companionship as well as carnal desire.

Laughter

A good marriage is a happy marriage and laughter is a good sign of happiness. A shared sense of humour allows for much pleasure together. Laughter is a form of closure that relaxes and lets people safely come together and form bonds of friendship.

Humour in heterosexual relationships tends to be asymmetrical. Men laugh less but provide more fun for their women to enjoy. There is evolutionary sense in this. Power is the classic aphrodisiac as it promises status and protection, yet this is a two-edged sword as strong man can also harm the woman as well as competitors. Humour offers an alternative way to happiness that is harmless and fun.

This is certainly true for me. I enjoy creating language-based wit, and my wife, an English teacher, is very good at decoding my obscure observations. I delight in amusing her and love the sound of her laughter.

Loyalty

Loyalty means sticking together through thick and thin. It means helping one another through sickness, depression and hard times. It means defending them when others attack. It means not straying, avoiding sexual relationships with other people.

Loyalty engenders trust, and trust is the essential dimension of human bonding. Trust means exposing vulnerabilities and knowing the other will not take advantage. It means knowing the will help when you are in need.

How a person speaks to and about their partner is a good indicator of how they think about the other person. In particular speaking with respect and affection indicates a strong relationship while speaking with contempt is a good predictor of divorce.

I believe my wife and I have a strong, shared trust. While I still find other women attractive, I resist the urge to pursue opportunities. This is a clear choice as men have a polygamous tendency to spread their seed. I have always trusted her, too. As an attractive woman she would have no problem finding alternative company, but I know jealousy is a destructive and self-fulfilling route. I have also scared myself by wading in on the few occasions when my wife was threatened by another man, although she knows I would never harm her.

And...

Is that it? Are the three Ls all you need? While these are a sound base, good relationships can have confounding complexity that defy definitive decomposition. There is also something about balance.

My wife and I are not personality clones, though we have much in common. We have similar intelligence levels. We are both practical. We have a similar cultural background. Yet I am at root an engineer while she is an artist. I am analytic while she is expressive. I like studying new subjects while she remained an English teacher. I will talk business and psychology all day while she has an encyclopedic knowledge of literature and movies.

Similarity and difference work well together. Similarity gives a base for common interest and shared activity, while difference gives space for exploration and sustaining your own identity within the relationship.

It's not magic. There are distinct things you can think and do to sustain a relationship. Yet there is also magic, an undefinable spark that keeps it going.

All I can say is that it has worked for me and I'm grateful.

Sunday 31-March-13

Extremism and Anger

In life there is a spectrum of views we can take on a range of matters. There are some topics, however, which seem to attract extreme views, from football to climate change. And of course religion, politics and race.

Not everyone has extreme views and not everyone who has extreme views is an extremist. To be what may be called 'extremist' is to be consumed by a narrow topic to the point that it becomes an obsession. Thoughts about the topic crowd out much other thinking and become more of a compulsion than a point of discussion.

Extreme views are characterized by an unwillingness to see other viewpoints. If I an totally convinced that I am right, then it is obvious that others are wrong. The extremist amplifies this, making themselves always right and others always wrong. And the reason others are wrong is because they are either stupid or bad. Stupid people are inferior and may be ignored or used to help the extremist feel clever. Bad people must be opposed and punished, and this cause is central to the extremists life.

One of the defining characteristics of the extremist is anger. They seldom argue their views in a calm, reasoned way. They do not seek to understand other viewpoints or forgive mistakes. Arguing with anger has the basic message of 'Do as I say or I will hurt you.' Angry people attack rather than listen. They impose rather than accept. Even when they appear cool, anger is always simmering beneath the surface, ready to erupt at any moment. Trying to reason with an extremist is unlikely to be successful. They typically have a 'reason radar' and flip into anger as an escape. When extremists do use reason it is in attempts to persuade others to their cause, though they seldom have much patience and easily fall into using fallacies. To an extremist, their views are clear, reasonable and correct, while others are bad, wrong or deluded.

Extremists may not even seek to argue or convert. They just want to hurt their targets. In this way, they act as bullies or worse. When meeting others they draw them into discussion and then escalate and attack. Otherwise they attack from a safe distance, even hiding their true identity away from any response. If you find yourself at the sharp end of an extremist's tongue, the best thing is simply to say little and leave as soon as possible.

Extremists need opposing extremists. They see the world in black and white and take a 'with me or against me' position that creates a useful stream of opponents. While many may be unwilling victims of this manipulation, others revel in it as they take extreme opposite positions. Both sides then derive meaning and perverse pleasure in sustaining a never-ending battle where each dehumanizes the other as evil and so justifies harsh words (and perhaps even actions). Feuds operate like this.

So what does the extremist position do for the extremist? When we are angry, we feel powerful, which helps satisfy a deep need for a sense of control. Extremism is a refuge for those who are uncomfortable with difference and uncertainty. Anger is a way of coping with fear, and fear is a deep and corrosive cause. Inside, extremists are broken.

As with many things, extremism is a spectrum, a continuum from having strong views about something to spending every waking moment pursuing those views. It is hence difficult to identify just when a person becomes 'an extremist', just as it is difficult to diagnose exactly when a person's actions makes them a psychopath. Perhaps the decision is academic and perhaps subjective. The key thing we can know is that arguing with extremists, or even those with extreme views, is likely to be fruitless.

Sunday 24-March-13

The Cult of the Average

If you were asked to set the curriculum for school education in a country, what would you do? How would you decide what should be understood? Or how about if you were working on job descriptions in a company. How do you decide what is 'good work'? What should you look for when recruiting people? Or how about if you are designing and selling products? How do you decide what users and customers will understand? These can be difficult questions and much research is put into answering them.

Psychological and social research suffer from a problem that the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.) tend not to experience: people. People are variable. If you ask a person a question on two successive days, they will give you two different answers. Likewise, the same provocation will get a different response. This makes the development of social and psychological science a difficult problem. The laws of science are nice and exact, and often fall neatly into simple equations. Not so people.

Rather worryingly, most social research is determinedly average. Our statistics, in order to report significant results, are designed to eliminate variation and focus on people who do the same sort of thing. Outliers are a nuisance so we use statistics to drown them in the mass (which is what averaging does). Psychological research looks for patterns that can be generalized so we can say 'everyone acts like this'. And this research, because it is about how people behave, then feeds into work from instructional design to company motivation systems.

The capabilities and performance of people varies across a spectrum with a few at the low end, a few higher up and most people in the middle. So if you were working on the questions above, it makes sense to pitch to the majority in the middle. In fact dealing with the minorities is relatively expensive, so if you are interested in efficiency and reducing costs, then it is easier if you can ignore them. And this is what often happens. Schools, for example, pitch mostly at average kids, who of course get average results. Companies look for employees who will conform to strict rules and not think too differently. And society in general is set up to reward average people who do not rock the boat.

And so we end up with what Shaun Achor, in 'The Happiness Advantage' called 'The cult of the average', where outstanding performance and different thinking is rejected in preference for neat similarity to others and conformance to social and company rules.

Yet there is hope. We do also study differences, and companies try to find and develop talented people. Achor works in the field of positive psychology, where there is more focus on those who seem to found the secrets of good living, and figuring out how the rest of us can have a piece of this splendid pie. We can also each of us be vigilant about external and internal forces that lead us to the average.

Being average is accepting one's lot and not finding out just how far we can go and what we can really achieve. Somehow, the latter seems a better, more fulfilling journey.

Your comments

Heh, I'm not sure if you've seen it before and it's a slightly different concept from what you've been talking about but apparently "beauty" is also "average". When you measure a person's features beautiful people actually have "average" dimensions.

-- Richard Perfect

Dave replies:
Yes, Richard, your right in that beauty is a kind of 'average' and there's a norm for the dimensions and attributes of what is considered attractive (that seems fairly global). What is called 'ugly' is then just a matter of deviation from this.

So how do we cope when the beautiful people make off with other beautiful people (as then tend to do)? It appears that our skill in adaptation means we change our definition of beauty, for example finding that wonky nose characterfully attractive or that we really prefer inner beauty over the skin-deep variety.

Sunday 17-March-13

Being Welsh

Yesterday, after years of shouting at the TV, I went to my first rugby international. And what a fixture! In the European Six Nations tournament, Wales had lost only one game and England had won everything. But then it was set in Wales, in the massive Millennium Stadium, where countless thousands of Welsh voices would rise in song and joy, vigorously exhorting their red-clad champions to greater heights of Spartan prowess.

It was a proxy for an old, old battle. The English, led by the rampant Normans, annexed Wales in 1282, and we're still a bit unhappy about it. They declared Wales a principality, a mere plaything for a young Prince and continue the tradition to this day.

They have managed to annoy many other countries, but our beef is the oldest. It is something the English don't really understand, an attitude typified by their bafflement over the Welsh language and why anyone would want to speak it. Everyone speaks English, don't they? In fact an English person in Wales, hearing Welsh spoken may well feel rather alienated and perhaps affronted by a 'foreign language' being used in their own country. For in truth, the 'United Kingdom' is very England-centric.

This typifies a major aspect of what it is to be Welsh. The English these days are not unpleasant or unkind. They just know themselves to be naturally superior and so unconsciously look down on the Welsh as a handy foil to prove this. The Welsh are seldom militant about this, even though it rankles. But living in the shadow of a dominant neighbour is an important part of being Welsh.

Being Welsh also means loving the hills, beaches and open countryside. Life is a bit slower here though we know well the meaning of hard work (and working for English managers). We have a wry, self-deprecating sense of humour and have a deep love of music and poetry that goes back way before the Normans. We are social and passionate and enjoy a good argument, though we don't hold a grudge. This is important with respect to the English as it lets us live together without bitterness. While their unconscious arrogance could erode our confidence, it does not. Mostly, we don't mind them and get along fine. We just like to beat them in competition whenever possible, so we can feel a bit like David smiting Goliath.

So the rugby was loud and glorious. We bawled and sang as our champions tilted at the English favourites. And glory of glories, we not only beat the old enemy, we annihilated them. 30-3. I'll say it again, because it's hard to believe: 30-3. I expected a close match and feared defeat. And in the words of the BBC headline, to 'trounce' the invaders was indeed a truly historic victory. I yelled and cried and came out hoarse and deaf. Cardiff was teeming with revellers and the English, good for them, were magnanimous in defeat.

A chap next to me said 'It was better than the 70s', a time when Wales were hugely dominant. There's an old Max Boyce piece about Wales beating the almighty All Blacks back then. Now, in Max's words, I can say it.

I was there.

Sunday 10-March-13

The Purpose of Art

What is the purpose of art? Why do we like it? What does it do for us? It does not keep us alive or safe. It does not find us a mate or help us succeed. So why do we seem so enamoured by it? (Art in the question here may include a range of artistic productions including paintings, sculptures, plays, novels, photographs, etc.).

A simple response is that the purpose of art is to give pleasure, and this is partly right. Indeed we can stand in front of a grand master's painting or listen to Mozart and be delighted. Yet we may also weep at paintings of death or sorrowful dirges which are also, surely, art.

A better definition, perhaps, is that art should move us, stimulating emotions. Of course not everything that makes us happy or sad is art, but art and emotion are causally connected. Good art is reliable in this, while weaker art is not. If nobody likes a sculpture, is it art? What if most people consider it bland and boring?

In creating art, the artist is an important part of the equation and their intent seems important if they are to move us. Some artists just produce what they feel without further thought, and many manage to communicate well enough. Others use arcane symbolism that are codes for the initiated. Yet many also use standard techniques and devices that are known to have reliable effect.

We might also question some contemporary exhibits that seem to have been thrown together in a few minutes, so is effort by the artist important? Maybe, yet a wonderful photograph takes the click of a shutter. Sometimes luck is involved, though mostly it is the skill of the photographer in seeing the composition and capturing the right moment, just as the contemporary artist is also skilled in their own field.

If it does not cheer us, contemporary art may succeed in challenging us, making us wonder what it represents. Other forms of art may also stimulate thinking and even change minds, rather than just provoke transient emotion. Perhaps a broader definition again is needed. We have a basic need for arousal (which may be emotional, intellectual or even physical) that art seeks to satisfy. So is conversation art? It can certainly be intentional and skilful. True, there is no physical trace as with painting, but the same can be said in performing arts such as acting and dance.

Art suggests some degree of creativity. Copying another painting may require the skill of the artist, but surely is lesser art. Stimulation is far greater when there is novelty. A joke is not as funny the second time around and even the pleasure of good paintings fades. A characteristic of novelty is that it breaks rules, yet also follows enough other rules to be recognizable (which is perhaps why 'art for artists' is not appreciated by others).

Does art exist without the viewer? If arousal is required the answer must be no, not in the sense of the artwork's success. And if the viewer's opinion is a part of the process, then the art should create some kind of appreciation, mostly positive in tone but possibly also a grudging acknowledgement that the art made the person stop and think.

The purpose of art, then, is to stimulate arousal that is appreciated. Good art does this reliably, often in a novel way, and usually requiring deep skill.

For more, see the ChangingMinds Blog! Archive or the Blogs by subject. To comment on any blog, click on the blog either in the archive or in the column to the right.

Best wishes,

Dave

Click below to view & comment on any blog