collecting thoughts...

The optimism bias: why ‘rose tinted glasses’ means pointing out risks won’t necessarily change opinion

Caught this interesting discussion on the Optimism Bias from Tali Sharot’s lecture at the RSA (do listen to the full thing if you have a spare 25mins whilst tidying the house or save it to your smartphone for the commute).  Some thoughts to chew on for your campaigns and projects - we wear rose tinted glasses when predicting the future, we’re less likely to factor in information that suggests a more negative future than our own prediction and even being aware of our own optimism biases doesn’t stop us from believing this illusion (but it does help us plan better)!

• Underestimate chances of experiencing negative events: getting a divorce, developing skin cancer, being in an accident, being unemployed…
• Overestimate chances of experiencing positive events: financial security, achieving better than average results, having a long lasting relationship…

There are benefits to thinking this way…some psychologists even think that it may be crucial to our existence.  It gives us the hope and faith to persue our goals in the face of adversity

But the bias can also get us in trouble…read more below:

You can immediately see the policy implications of people thinking that they are less likely to be at risk than the average person from diseases, accidents, family breakdown…

There’s something around making things ‘real’ - if we can’t imagine something happening it’s hard to think it will actually happen.  So what happens when people are given information that contradicts their optimism bias (think behaviour change campaigns focusing on education and information) - Tali Sharot thinks it gets interesting here and that we are wearing rose-tinted glasses!

Can the optimism bias be challenged with ‘bad news’ - well, it seems maybe not.  An example Sharot gives in her RSA lecture goes something like the below (there also seems to be an anchoring effect going on here):  

• person A - How likely are you to suffer from cancer?
• person B - 10%
• person A - Actually, it’s more like 30%, what would you consider your chance suffering from cancer to be now that you know that?
• person B - about 11%

Interestingly, people are more likely to absorb information that is ‘optimistic’ and adjust their predictions accordingly

Brain scan studies suggest that when people learn, “their neurons faithfully encode desirable information that can enhance optimism but fail at incorporating unexpectedly undesirable information”.  Pessimists stand out against this set of behaviours - in fact, it could be argued that ‘pessimists’ are actually ‘realists’ as they have a much more accurate perception of future events!

So what does this mean for comms and policy?

• Well there seems to be some interesting food for thought for campaigns that focus on highlighting the danger and risk of partaking in certain activities - people have a tendancy to think: ‘It wont be me’ 
• Unfortunately in her lecture Sharot shied away from suggesting policy implications, maybe her book reveals more? She also highlights at the end of this article that they are exploring how to reduce and enhance the optimism using biological measures - so guess we’ll have to wait and see!
• Budget planning is being reconsidered by our government, ensuring that extra contingency is built into intiatives (think also about your wedding plans and diy budgets)
• A thought I’d like to explore more: I wonder if putting a positive spin on things would make any difference? So instead of ‘how likely do you think you are to develop skin cancer? would ‘how much do you think you could reduce your chance of skin cancer by wearing skin cream?’ and then a positive stat to reinforce the optimism bias….would be interested to know thoughts and knowledge of any research (plus other ideas for overcoming the optimism bias!)

Futher reading:

The optimism bias by Tali Sharot: Extract (Guardian)

The optimism bias - reasons to be cheerful (Guardian)

Feeling optimistic? It’s no suprise 

The optimism bias: RSA lecture

“We all know the secret of dieting - eat better, eat less, exercise more - it’s the application that’s challenging”

The Happiness Project - Gretchen Rubin

Does learning about behavioural economics change the way we think?

Well, it’s anecdotal, but as far as anecdotes go it comes from a pretty well respected source!

”It’s not a case of: ‘Read this book and then you’ll think differently,’” he says. “I’ve written this book, and I don’t think differently.”

Daniel Kahneman during an interview about his latest book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’

People are better at predicting other people’s behaviour than their own

In research, particularly qualitative research, we often make efforts to understand what that specific individual thinks.  If a participant starts to tell us what other people would do we often bring the participant back on course to find out what they would do to help ensure that we are really understanding them as individuals.

However, there seems to be 2 reasons that suggest deliberately asking participants what other people would do could actually be very beneficial!

Firstly - people are better at predicting other people’s behaviour than their own.  This interesting read over on the British Psychological Society Digest suggests that people are instinctually good social psychologists but at the same time poor self-psychologists.  When predicting our own behaviour we fail to take the influence of the situation into account (hence why researchers need to be careful not to assume that intentions turn into actual behaviour). By contrast, when predicting the behaviour of others, we correctly factor in the influence of the circumstances.  Psychologists in the above linked study found that students were better able to predict how other people would react in situations that involved helpful behaviour, charity donations and cheating compared with predictions on their own behaviour

Secondly - asking people what others would do can get you closer to understanding the perceived social norms.  Norms form an incredibly important part of the wider context in which behaviour occurs and therefore understanding how to change behaviour

So, maybe ask your participant what somebody else would do, you might discover something really interesting!

Mention of the word ‘loving’ doubles charitable donations

image via flickr

French researchers say that adding the text “donating=loving” to a charitable collection box almost doubled the amount of money they raised.  The researchers think that adding the word “loving” acts as a prime, activating related concepts such as compassion, support and solidarity, and thereby encourages behaviour consistent with those ideas.

For more information about the methodology and other research which explored behaviour ‘primes’ see this BPS Research Digest post

Crowds are not dumb?

Some interesting thoughts over on the ‘Intelligent Life’ blog from The Economist.  Are crowds actually frenzied and animalistic?  Some thoughtful comments underneath the article too.

Avoiding bystander apathy by telling people what they should do

How Tom Stafford from Mindhacks.com used psychology to overcome bystander apathy:

Psychology actually helped me come to someone else’s rescue once. One day, after lunch, I was heading back to the University of Sheffield Psychology department when I saw that a car had broken down in the middle of the road. Traffic was building up in both lanes, and I could see that the driver was a young mother, with her baby in the back seat. I wanted to help, even if it was just to push the car to the side of the road where it wouldn’t be in the middle of the busy traffic, but I knew I wouldn’t be able to it alone. As an academic I don’t have to use my muscles, except for the ones in my fingers for typing, so I knew there was no way I could push car and mother and child up the slight hill to safety without help. But, as a psychologist, I was also familiar with the classic studies on bystander apathy and the diffusion of responsibility that can stop people helping others out. I determined that I wouldn’t fall victim to this phenomenon. So, rather than standing by the car shouting for assistance from everybody and anybody, I identified two lads who looked like they’d be handy in pushing a car and pointed at them and said clearly “You - I need you to help me push this car”. Once identified and given a specific request, I knew that no diffusion of responsibility could prevent them helping out. We pushed the car safely to the side of the road and got on our respective ways. I never told the driver how psychology had come to her rescue.

Original article over here

Kids care about environment as ‘nature is living’ more so than why important to humans - creative implications?

This article over on the BPS discusses a study in which children rated different types of transgressions and mundane decisions (moral, against the person, against others, bad manners and against the environment).  Transgressions against other people emerged as the worst of all, followed by harms against the environment, and then bad manners.  

“Asked to justify their judgments about environmental harm, 74 per cent of the explanations given referred to “biocentric” reasons (e.g. “A tree is a living thing and, it’s like, breaking off your arm - someone else’s arm or something”); 26 per cent invoked anthropocentric reasons (e.g. “Because without trees we wouldn’t have oxygen”). The ratio of these categories of explanation didn’t vary by age, but did vary by gender, with girls more likely to offer biocentric reasons. This fits with a wider, but still inconclusive, literature suggesting that women tend to base their moral judgments on issues of care, whereas men tend to base their moral judgments on issues of justice.”

more info over here

image via flickr

Designing to create a more peaceful hospital emergency room

Interesting ideas to use design in emergency rooms to create a more peaceful environment, primarily focused on keeping patients informed