#32 Commitment Bias: Why you should shout it out loud

December 23, 2020 by Hardhat

Ever stuck to your guns even though you knew deep down you were wrong? In this episode, Mel and Dan unpack the Commitment Bias and how to make sure your New Years resolution actually sticks this time.

Mel (00:17):

Hi, and welcome to Bad Decisions.

Dan (00:19):

The podcast that helps us understand why we choose what we choose.

Mel (00:22):

Why we think what we think.

Dan (00:23):

And how to exploit this stuff for fun and commercial gain.

Mel (00:26):

I'm Dr. Mel Weinberg, I'm a performance psychologist.

Dan (00:29):

You also normally say, "Ethically," at the end of that intro, but I guess you've thrown caution to the wind.

Mel (00:33):

I've given up.

Dan (00:35):

Hey, I'm Dan Monheit, co-founder of Hardhat, ethically.

Dan (00:46):

So, Mel?

Mel (00:47):

Yes? I'm so suspicious.

Dan (00:50):

So patronizing. So hey, I've been thinking, you're not meant to date the shows, but we're going to date this show and say, "Look, we're heading into the end of 2020, it's been quite the year."

Mel (01:01):

It's been a different year.

Dan (01:03):

Interesting, different. As I cast my mind to 2020, one of the things that I think about that might sit right in that sweet spot between psychology and commerce, is this weird phenomenon of people making all sorts of resolutions, and what they're going to do next year.

Mel (01:21):

Ah, the old New Year's resolution.

Dan (01:21):

Yeah, and you know the one thing that I know to be true about New Year's resolutions?

Mel (01:24):

What's that?

Dan (01:25):

That they apply for maybe the first three days of the New Year, and then they are basically just vapor.

Mel (01:31):

Yeah, I think that's a pretty common phenomenon, isn't it? That people will make a New Year's resolution on January one, and it's pretty well known that by the end of the month, at least if not sooner, they have absolutely gone out the window.

Dan (01:42):

Yeah, which sucks because we probably make these things with the best of intentions, and we just don't seem to have this staying power. I thought it might be a nice idea as our last show for the year, to maybe think about why we have so much trouble sticking to our New Year's resolutions, and if there's anything we can do to maybe help.

Mel (02:03):

You know, it's an interesting one because in fact, if we look at the research, there's a whole bunch of information that would suggest that we actually have a tendency to stick with and commit to a claim that we make, or a resolution. So yeah, it's really odd that we don't when it comes to New Year's resolutions.

Dan (02:19):

So wait, is there a [inaudible 00:02:21] around this?

Mel (02:22):

Would you believe, there is. It's called, "The commitment bias." It's sometimes called, "The escalation of commitment," but I think the commitment bias is probably what we'll go with.

Dan (02:36):

Nice. Hey, you know what? That really sounds like something I would like to learn more about.

Mel (02:40):

Well, why don't we talk about it for the next 15 minutes or so?

Dan (02:44):

Well, I said I was going to, so we should totally do it. Let's do it. How does this work?

Mel (02:47):

Now that we've committed. So, the commitment bias is the idea that individuals have a tendency to get locked into a course of action, and that we'll actually persist with that action even in the face of negative consequences. So once we've made a commitment to something, and particularly via a verbal or written declaration of our commitment, we're extremely likely to continue to act or behave in ways that are consistent with that.

Dan (03:12):

Yeah, I guess we could figure out this as almost the double down bias, right? It's like, "Look, if I said I'm going to do it, then I'm going to do it. If I said I'm going to do it in front of a whole bunch of people, then I'm seriously probably almost definitely likely to probably going to do it."

Mel (03:25):

Yeah. You know, how we've talked about some heuristics where it's called one thing and then a researcher comes along and calls it something else, I think there's a big space for us to come in here and rename this, "The double down effect." Because that's what it is.

Dan (03:38):

I like it. So much catchier.

Mel (03:39):

Yeah. Would you mind writing a research article on that?

Dan (03:42):

Yes, I would very much mind writing a research paper on this, but maybe you write the research paper and I'll make an ad to tell people how good the research paper was.

Mel (03:50):

I'm not going to make any verbal or written declarations as to what I may or may not do at this point, especially in the context of this episode, but it might be an idea for us to consider. For future Mel and future Dan to think about.

Dan (04:00):

All right, well it's interesting that you're shirking your out loud commitments, given how prominent, out loud public commitments seem to be in our society. If I just think about people getting married or people being in court, or people joining strange cults. It seems like for anything momentous in life, we have almost ritualized this idea that you make a commitment, you write it down, you say it out loud, you hopefully get a bunch of witnesses there, so there must be some good psychological reasoning behind this, surely.

Mel (04:32):

Sure. There are some good reasons why we would engage in continued actions that reinforce our originally held beliefs. So once we've made a commitment to something, we're also then motivated to act in ways that support that. I mean, fundamentally, we all want to appear like rational people, and as good decision makers. So if I commit to doing something, and especially if other people know about that commitment, then yeah, I want to follow through with that. I want people to see that I can be trusted to do what I say, I will do, I want people to see that I'm predictable, that they can rely on me to do things. That's all going to serve me an advantage in a social system.

Mel (05:12):

You know what? The interesting thing is, and the thing about the commitment bias that I find really interesting, is the idea that even if my original commitment was not turning out well, according to the research, I'd be much more likely to escalate my commitment, to over commit, to double down even more so, even when things aren't working out so well. I'm so committed to looking like a trustworthy, reliable, predictable person, that I'll keep doing it even if it's not looking good.

Dan (05:44):

Okay, it's like being consistent is more important than being correct.

Mel (05:48):

100%.

Dan (05:49):

It's kind of weird.

Mel (05:49):

Yeah.

Dan (05:50):

So, you mentioned research. I can only imagine somebody, somewhere has done some sort of research to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Mel (05:58):

Well, of course they have or we wouldn't be here, right? I'll cite the original author of Escalation to Commitment, who I believe was Barry Staw back in 1976. However, I'm not going to talk about his actual research paper because it would probably take up the rest of the time that we actually have to talk about this topic as a whole. So what I'll do instead is let people know that we attribute this to Barry Staw, and his work in the late '70s and '80s, but I'll give you a more real life example of it.

Dan (06:34):

Yeah, I'm not going to lie, just the bit when I've got your back when we were prepping for this episode, Mel was trying to explain this piece of research to me, and the fourth time she tried explaining it to me I was like, "I just don't think we can do this on the show. It's past midnight now and I still don't understand what this guy did. I'm sure it was great, but have you got anything a little more contemporary?" So, what have we got?

Mel (06:53):

So, I'm going to give you an example, a much simpler example from the behavioral insights team in the UK. What they were doing was working with a Jobcentre organization who would look to support job seekers to find work.

Dan (07:08):

Hey, Mel?

Mel (07:09):

Yep.

Dan (07:09):

Sorry, it's worth noting, this is not your boring, stuffy, mothball, academic research. I think this is the first episode where we're talking about real, in the wild, in the field, live research, right? This is cool. This is good, this is mean, this is gritty.

Mel (07:25):

Yeah, personally I think that what you'd call ... what did you call it? Mothy and something else?

Dan (07:30):

Mothball.

Mel (07:30):

Academic research, I personally find that pretty cool, but you know, you and I are different and that's fine [crosstalk 00:07:35]-

Dan (07:35):

But this is real. Anyway, let's talk about the real world. What happened in Essex, hey? Oh God, that was terrible. [inaudible 00:07:41], please fix that in post-production.

Speaker 3 (07:49):

Booyakasha, check this out, yo.

Mel (07:51):

No, I think that needs to stay in there.

Dan (07:56):

In it.

Mel (07:57):

So, in the existing system that they had, what would happen is that advisors would ask the job seekers retrospectively to list three job search activities that they'd done in the previous fortnight. So in order to be eligible for the benefits, they'd need to report back on what they'd done over the last two weeks to try and find a job. What the behavioural insights team suggested is a little nudge involving the commitment bias, was that actually what they were going to do was that on the first day of that two week period when job seekers were eligible for the program, they actually had to lay out what they were going to do over the next two weeks to find a job. So it had to be quite specific and verbally declare what their actions would be in order to try and find a job over the next fortnight.

Mel (08:49):

What they found was that the job seekers who had to make that commitment at the start of the two week period were 15 to 20% more likely than those in the original condition, to be off the benefits 13 weeks after signing on. So they were able to get people actually back into work and out of the job seeker program, much more quickly just by making them commit verbally at the start of the period, as opposed to retrospectively.

Dan (09:17):

That is so much more exciting than getting an academic paper published, I've just got to say. I just want to make sure I get this, because you know, I'm a little bit slow. I just want to make sure I've got. So, the first condition is; you're unemployed, you go to the job seekers center and they're like, "Okay, it's been two weeks, if you want to get paid you need to say that you've applied for at least three jobs. Did you apply for at least three jobs?"

Mel (09:35):

Yeah, of course, yeah.

Dan (09:35):

Well, you know, people probably said yes. "Yeah." And then the second way it's like, "Okay, in two weeks time you need to have shown us that you've applied for at least three jobs, let's make a plan about how we're going to do it, and are you really going to do it?" And people said yes. Turns out, the first group didn't do as well at actually getting jobs, as the second group who made the commitment.

Mel (09:54):

Correct.

Dan (09:54):

Proactively, not retrospectively.

Mel (09:56):

That's it.

Dan (09:57):

Yeah. This proactive-ness as retrospective commitment is something that has just been bubbling around in my head for a long time. When I started thinking about it was in ... you know at the end of every year we have to fill out our tax forms?

Mel (10:09):

Yeah.

Dan (10:09):

Which I will just first of all go on the record and say, "My tax forms are squeaky clean, ATO don't look here, there is seriously nothing to see, keep rolling." But what I did think, as the curious individual that I am, is that what's kind of peculiar is that you go through this whole tax form situation where you fill in your income and all of your expenses and your deductions, and how much you used your car and all that other stuff. Then right at the end it's like, "Oh, and by the way, was all of this stuff true?" And you're like, "Yeah, of course it was true, and also there's no way I'm going back to re-read all of this and double check it. But I know it's true, because I've just wrote it."

Dan (10:43):

It just seems odd to me that they don't put the question at the start. At the start, if they said to you, "All right, you're about to start your 2021 tax lodgement, can you just confirm that everything you're about to tell us is going to be true?" I can't help but think, based on what we're about to learn about the commitment bias, that that would have a far better impact than asking people at the end when it's already all said and done.

Mel (11:06):

Well that's what it's all about really, right? Making people have that public declaration up front that says, "I'm going to do this," because people are highly motivated to then do what they said they were going to do. So yeah, intuitively makes a lot more sense.

Mel (11:21):

I think it's interesting to think about this idea that we persist with a course of action just because we're locked into it, even when things are telling us that it's not really the right thing to do. It makes me think of a popular psychological concept that you and I have talked about off the podcast, of grit. Right? This idea of grit and the idea that we should persevere and be persistent, despite whatever happens, just keep going and eventually the idea is that you will reach your goal.

Mel (11:54):

You and I have talked about how sometimes it actually might be more beneficial to actually cut your losses in the context of things like a sunk cost or in this case, the commitment bias, where doing so may actually be leading you towards making bad decisions, rather than a better option that might be to actually choose an alternate course of action that could be more favourable.

Dan (12:16):

Hey, so, what seems weird to me is that we do have this inherent bias, we have this wiring that means if we've made a commitment to something, we're more likely to do it. But we still seem to not be very good at keeping a lot of the commitments that we make. So maybe what we have is some problems in the environment, or some challenges in the environment that we could set up a different way to make people more likely to come good on the commitments that they desperately want to come good anyway.

Mel (12:43):

Yeah, well I guess one of the things that makes people a lot more likely to stick through with a commitment, is when they feel personally responsible for it, right? So if I'm entirely responsible for the thing that I'm committing to, then I'm more likely to stick with it and keep acting in pursuit of it than if it's somebody else's decision. This is where it's all about me as an individual, trying to save face, right? What we said before, that I'd rather be consistent, necessarily, than be right.

Mel (13:10):

That I want to persist with an action because I have said, I have committed, I'm a rational person and I don't actually want anybody to think of me, that I'm maybe not true to my word. That's an undesirable social trait, so if I'm responsible for it, I'm going to stick with it. Usually no matter what, and because I'm stubborn as hell.

Speaker 4 (13:28):

Big pharma ran millions of dollars of negative advertisements against me during the campaign, which I won, by the way, but you know, we'll find that out.

Dan (13:37):

I mean, it's interesting because you figure out in a business sense where you just realise at some point in your career that shared accountability is terrible. When you have a group of people responsible for delivering an outcome, it is far less likely that it's going to get delivered than if one person's head is on the chopping block, and it's going to live or die with them.

Mel (13:54):

Yeah, that leads us to another psychological concept that has to do with the diffusion of responsibility, right? Where nobody actually takes responsibility. When somebody does, things will get done.

Dan (14:05):

So, I guess what you're saying is; if you are a person who wants to be better at sticking to their commitments, making it out loud, writing it down is a good place to start. But being solely responsible for the outcome is going to make you stick to it whether you want to or not.

Mel (14:22):

Yeah, and you can think of this in terms of goal setting, a lot of the research that goes towards goal setting, and especially in the area I work in, in sports psychology, setting goals is a key factor that contributes to positive outcomes. One of the things that they make sure that you do when it comes to goal setting is that you write it down. According to commitment bias, you can make a verbal or written declaration but most of the time, at least when it comes to goal setting, a written declaration that is then put up somewhere where everybody can see it.

Mel (14:54):

So in sports teams they might put everybody's goals up on the wall in the changing room, somewhere where it's frequently seen, means that people are more likely to abide by it and to act consistently in pursuit of their goals.

Dan (15:08):

That's super interesting in a corporate sense, if people have development plans and they're writing goals as part of them, that often those goals are secret or maybe just between a person and their manager, and maybe there's something to be said for a sports club style wall of goals, unless your goal is to get rid of that bitch in finance or something similar, you probably don't want them to know that that's what you're scheming for. There's no bitches in finance, I'm sure they're all wonderful. But I'm just saying that you could have a goal that is not in line with what other people would like to see. But by and large, it might be good to have some sort of shared visibility over each other's goals, because then you feel the pressure of not just lying to yourself, but lying to everyone.

Mel (15:47):

You could put it that way. How is this going to help brands?

Dan (15:50):

Well there are so many ways that this can help brands, because really, as any brand, business, product, service, at the end of the day, the main thing we're asking for is some sort of a commitment from a person to exchange some time, money, effort for what we've got to offer. So there's a few different ways in on this, and some of them almost seem contradictory, but just roll with me on this.

Dan (16:11):

So the first thing you can do from a commitment bias perspective, is you can charge exorbitantly high prices. Now, this sounds weird. Let's say you sell pens, and you sell a pen for 50 cents, right? And that pen kind of sucks. It is way easier for somebody to say, "This 50 cent pen is actually a piece of crap, I never should have bought it." Than it is for them to say, "This $150 pen that I bought is a piece of crap, I never should have bought it." So it's like, by over paying for something, you're almost making yourself have to like it, compared to if you hadn't paid much for it at all.

Dan (16:47):

As a cyclist, I certainly see this, myself and all of my friends spend way too much money on overpriced cycling kit, and the fact that is expensive means we have to tell everybody else that it's really good, otherwise we're just big idiots. Which we're not, we're being very discerning consumers. So, charging lots of money is great.

Mel (17:04):

Oh, but as a marketer, basically what you're saying to the consumer is that, "Yeah, just price high because better for the brand." Is that what you're saying?

Dan (17:13):

No, what I'm saying is, if people have paid more for the product or service, they will be more inclined to believe that it was good, than if they have not paid very much for it. So if you have the opportunity to charge a lot for your overpriced cycling kit, which I do love a lot, just do it and I'll tell myself it was worth it. That's all I'm saying.

Mel (17:28):

Okay. So you're the consumer on this side.

Dan (17:31):

Just go with me. Anyway, moving on, we're moving on, we're moving on, we're moving on. Now, on the other side of the fence, there's also a really good argument to price cheaply. Not maybe [inaudible 00:17:43], but the idea of giving people really cheap, really easy ways to start getting involved with your brand. So, in the app world we might see this as freemium offerings, we have an ad supported version which you then grow to love and then you want to get the paid one.

Dan (17:59):

But we also see this with luxury goods, where they might do what we call, a diffusion line. So you've got the $7000 handbag which you probably can't buy right now, but there's $150 perfume, or a $110 phone case, or a key ring, which lets you get in, be part of the brand, tell yourself that you're a Louis Vuitton kind of person, or a Gucci kind of person or whatever it is, knowing that when you get a little bit more money to spend, because you're moving up the chain or you've got a bonus or whatever it is, you're already aligned with that brand and maybe when you want to buy your next piece of luggage, that's where you're going to end up.

Mel (18:35):

Right. So you're talking about essentially setting the scene for people to make that initial commitment, knowing that once they've actually made a commitment, the commitment bias means that they're much more likely to stick with it and continue to behave in ways, like purchase more goods associated with that initial commitment.

Dan (18:51):

Yeah, exactly. That's why you see weird things happen on eBay, why you see a [inaudible 00:18:57] that's clearly worth $1000, start on a 99 cent no reserve auction, because the person selling that thing knows if they can get people involved, bidding, making small commitments, that even when that item gets to a price that is probably above what that person was willing to pay, they feel like they've committed to it and if they didn't really want the item, why would they have just wasted all of this time bidding on it up until now? So they might as well keep going.

Mel (19:19):

Right.

Dan (19:20):

Another example of this getting small commitments early, is maybe relevant for charities where, it might seem like a pain in the arse to be getting really small donations from lots and lots of people, and there's an administrative overhead to that, but if you can get people ... especially early on in their career, to get in the habit of donating to your charity organisation, there is a good chance that as they progress in their careers and they start making more money, and they start giving bigger donations, that they're going to want to be consistent with what they've supported up until now and there might be a better pay off in the long run if you can let them buy in early.

Mel (19:50):

Good. Have you got any more examples?

Dan (19:52):

Yeah, so that's two, price high, price low, you basically can't go wrong, just don't price in the middle, right? The other two, I really quickly want to give you. One is from a personal experience, working with a university client a couple of years ago, and the way we really tried leading into this which was quite successful was ... I say this, it sounds dodgy but it's really not dodgy. It's the idea of trying to help people realize that the thing we're asking them to do is the thing they always wanted.

Dan (20:17):

So, if we're trying to promote a nursing course, and so one thing you can do is you can run advertising to tell people to choose nursing. Another thing you can do is you can run ads to remind people that nursing has already chosen them. To basically help them recall their memories of the school playground, where they were always the kid that ran to the hurt kid. They were always the person that was going for help, and being a nurse or being a teacher, or being a whatever vocation you're trying to promote, had always been within them, and coming and starting this course at this institution was just meeting a commitment that they'd already made for themselves at a time when they hadn't even realise that that's what they were doing.

Mel (20:56):

Right. So you're trying to draw out a subconscious commitment, or a subconscious way of behaving that is then consistent with further learning in that way.

Dan (21:05):

Exactly, you've always told yourself, this is the year you were going to get fit. You always told yourself, this was the year you were going to learn Spanish. So, this is the perfect time to do our Spanish-based fitness course, for example.

Mel (21:17):

You know, sometimes people say to me, "I don't like psychologists, they're deceptive or they're sneaky." But you marketers, you're worse.

Dan (21:30):

No, well we just put it out there, and if you didn't always think you were going to be a nurse, then you'll just ignore us like you ignore the other 10,000 ads you see a day. But if something in you as a 12 year old was like, "I really like helping sick people." We're going to wake it up and make sure you come and enroll with us. So, one is price high, one is price low, one is help people realize that the thing that you want them to do is the thing they always wanted to do anyway, and we're just really here to help you achieve all that you can be as marketers, that's all I [inaudible 00:21:55].

Mel (21:55):

Just helping people reach their potential.

Dan (21:57):

Exactly, through a hand picked mix of products and services sold by my clients.

Dan (22:04):

With the last one on this, is something called, "The Yes Set." This is a pretty well worn technique from sales people, a lot of agencies use this as well. It's the idea of getting people to say yes a whole bunch of times, to get incremental yeses as you lead up to the real thing you actually want them to say yes to. So, in a very B to C sense, if you walk into a store to buy a new TV, the person working there, before they take you to the TVs they might have a little chat, they might say things to you like, "It's always nice to be able to sit down and relax and enjoy a good movie from time to time." Right?

Mel (22:40):

Yes.

Dan (22:41):

I though so. And when you enjoy a movie, the thing that really makes a difference is you want a big screen and you want really vibrant colour, right? Because that's what makes it an outstanding experience, right?

Mel (22:53):

Oh yeah.

Dan (22:55):

Exactly. And you know what? While the vision is really important, the thing that really steps it up to a cinema level experience, we've got to have the pumping sound, right?

Mel (23:05):

Yes.

Dan (23:06):

Yeah, exactly. So you know what? I've got some TVs to show you. Guess what features those TVs are going to have? They're going to be big and they're going to be colorful, and they're going to have integrated sound because you've already just said yes to all this stuff, and it's very hard for you to now say, "Actually no, I don't want that. I want the small TV with the shitty color and no sound."

Mel (23:22):

Yes, give me the biggest, most brightest, loudest TV in the store.

Dan (23:26):

Exactly.

Mel (23:26):

Got me.

Dan (23:28):

One funny little technique that I've just found in my decade and a half of pitching, is when you meet a client and they're giving you a brief that you're then going to come back and present on, and often you don't know how to present the agency, as say, 45 people, are we big or are we small? It depends on who we're pitching against.

Dan (23:46):

So one of the things I've found is, often you can ask a prospective client what they're looking for in a partner beyond delivery of the thing that they've briefed you. So they're like, "Oh, we want to see three ideas for a new TV commercial." And you go, "Cool, cool, there's lots of agencies that can give you a new TV commercial. Beyond that, what else are you looking for?"

Dan (24:05):

And what is incredible is the clients will tell you. They'll tell you, do they want agencies with higher velocity and agility, and fast paced, and they just want to see ideas and energy? Or are they a client that says they really want to see their thinking, they want it stepped out, they want it methodical, they want to see all the research. There's no right or wrong answer, but what I find amazing is; if they ask a client, they'll tell you. Then when you come back and present, you can present in exactly the manner that they've said they want to see it and they almost have no choice but to be consistent with what they've told you they were looking for.

Mel (24:34):

Yeah, you guys are definitely more sneaky than psychologists.

Dan (24:37):

Please, don't use that if you're pitching against me, Dr. Mel.

Mel (24:41):

All right, so have we covered all of the commitment bias?

Dan (24:44):

Yeah, I feel like we said we would, and then we did, and we've gone full circle.

Mel (24:49):

Wow, so let's wrap it up. So the commitment bias is the idea that individuals have a tendency to get locked into a course of action, so once we say we're going to do something, we are very likely to then act in ways that are consistent with that. In terms of New Year's resolutions, one thing that you can do to make sure if you really want to commit to it, is actually not just say what you're going to do, but also write down why you want that, why do you want to do it? Almost write a defense for it, that's going to enhance your commitment to the course.

Dan (25:19):

Right, and the way I can help you make your New Year's resolutions is, number one; go and buy something really expensive. If you decide you're going to sign up to the gym this year, sign up to a really expensive gym and you'll just force yourself to go, maybe. Alternatively, do something really cheap just to start getting used to it, and get that buy in. The third thing you can do is think about how this was always your destiny, and every year you've told yourself that you were going to get fit, and this is the year you're absolutely going to do it. If none of that works, ask yourself a list of questions that all end with yes, where the last question is, "Are we going to go to gym today?"

Mel (25:51):

And make sure that whatever it is that you commit to, that you print it out, put it up on the fridge, tell everybody about it as much as possible so that everybody else keeps you accountable as well.

Dan (26:01):

Yeah, totally do that. Take the pledge, post it to social media, so that when you see people out, they're going to ask you, "Hey, how's gym going?"

Mel (26:07):

And you want to be able to say, "Oh yeah, it's going well."

Dan (26:11):

It's great. Hey, [inaudible 00:26:12], just before we wrap this up, I have a couple of very quick questions for you. Number one; are you enjoying recording these podcasts with me?

Mel (26:19):

Yeah.

Dan (26:21):

I knew you were. And are you enjoying the fact that we're really getting a good level of cadence now? As they're coming out, people are loving them, feels good.

Mel (26:30):

Yeah, that part's good.

Dan (26:31):

Yeah, so wouldn't it be good if next year, we were actually able to get more of these out than we did this year because it's good for everybody?

Mel (26:40):

Yeah.

Dan (26:41):

Come on, we didn't do that many this year. It'd be much better if we did more next year, so I think ... how would you feel about recording our next episode early in the new year? Let's do it before the end of January.

Mel (26:52):

I see what you've done, you sneaky [inaudible 00:26:53].

Dan (26:52):

Yes, we're doing it, we're doing it, we're doing it. I'm going to buy you a new microphone. You're going to love it.

Mel (26:59):

Now we're talking.

Dan (26:59):

It's going to be really expensive, yes. All right, so I think that's it. Commitment bias, say it and then do it.

Mel (27:04):

I think that's a wrap on commitment bias, and I think it's a wrap on 2020 for us.

Dan (27:07):

I know, say it and then do it, this could have been a 15 second episode. Anyway, that is a wrap on 2020. Mel, you've been a wonderful, wonderful co-host, thank you for enduring me for another 12 months.

Mel (27:18):

I just want to note that you just verbally declared that and publicly, that doesn't happen when we're not recording, but yeah. Thanks Dan, that's really lovely. You've been good, too.

Dan (27:27):

I was going to say, don't forget the reciprocity bias. Make sure you say something nice about me, too. Hey, if you guys want to find us, we're on the internet, you know what to do. Otherwise, we'll be back for a bigger and better 2021.

Mel (27:54):

See you then.

Dan (27:54):

Bye.

#31 Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why you might know just enough to be dangerous

November 04, 2020 by Hardhat

Ever notice how novices tend to be highly opinionated, while those with more experience are a little less sure? In this episode, Mel and Dan unpack the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and why your social media feed is often so infuriating.

Mel: 00:16 Hi, and welcome to Bad Decisions.

Dan: 00:18 The show that helps us understand why we choose what we choose.

Mel: 00:21 Why we think what we think.

Dan: 00:22 And how to exploit this stuff for fun and commercial gain.

Mel: 00:25 I feel like we've forgotten to say ethically. Ethically.

Dan: 00:27 I never forget ethically. It's hardwired in.

Mel: 00:30 Speaking of ethics, I'm Dr. Mel Weinberg. I'm a performance psychologist.

Dan: 00:34 What does that leave for me? And speaking of performance, I'm Dan Monheit, co-founder of Hardhat. And speaking of great tracks, here's Cops.

Dan: 00:49 All right. So we have got a, I think we've got a mega show today, a disproportionately large show today, not in length, but maybe in terms of insight. I'm overcooking this. Look, I'm just going to tell you what's up, Mel. Do you know what's up, Mel?

Mel: 01:02 What's up? I'm scared.

Dan: 01:05 This is show 31 and I think there's certain heuristics that you learn that reveal more of the world to you than others. And I think today's heuristic is one where once you see this, you're like, "Oh my god, so many things that didn't make sense, now makes sense." I feel like the licensing effect was one of these for me.

Mel: 01:23 Yeah. I feel like this is sort of the reason that we haven't gotten to this until this point. I think we've waited to episode 31 because we've sort of thought that this is just so big that we don't even know, it's going to blow your mind.

Dan: 01:37 Oh, well, I'm glad I'm not the only one overselling this. All right. So today we are talking about a heuristic that makes the idiots loud and proud, and the experts kind of quiet and not so sure. Dr. Mel, what are we talking about today?

Mel: 01:50 Most people may be familiar with this. It's probably one of the most famous heuristics out there. And it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Speaker 3: 01:59 Mr. Simpson, I'm afraid you have a crayon lodged in your brain.

Dan: 02:03 The what?

Mel: 02:05 That's right. The Dunning-Kruger effect named after, you guessed it, Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger.

Dan: 02:11 All right, let's do this, Dr. Mel. What do we got?

Mel: 02:13 Okay. So the Dunning-Kruger effect named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger, who wrote the seminal paper on this-

Dan: 02:19 Double D and JK. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Mel: 02:22 Back in 1999, the Dunning-Kruger effect basically has two parts to it. The first part is that it explains that people with low levels of ability tend to overestimate their performance on certain tasks. You know the idea that people who aren't very intelligent, aren't actually intelligent enough to know that they're not intelligent?

Dan: 02:47 Yeah. Yeah. It's like, "You're so stupid. You don't even know how stupid stupid is."

Mel: 02:51 Exactly. And so, I think that people can relate to this and people are familiar with this idea. The other side of the Dunning-Kruger effect and perhaps the more unfortunate side is that people who actually have high levels of ability tend to underestimate their performance compared to others.

Dan: 03:06 Oh, so, in the same way, like, "So stupid, you don't even know how stupid stupid is." It's like the smart people actually know so much that they realize how much they don't know, which makes them think they don't actually know very much at all, when relative to other people, they kind of do.

Mel: 03:18 Exactly. You got it.

Dan: 03:20 This is a continuum, right?

Mel: 03:21 Well, essentially that people fall along this continuum. I guess there's two dimensions to it. There's a dimension of your actual ability and there's a dimension of your perceived ability. And this is what Dunning and Kruger and then their buddies kept looking at in the series of studies and one in particular in 2003, where they asked the-

Dan: 03:39 Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you about to go into research?

Mel: 03:42 Yeah.

Dan: 03:43 Mel, you know what happens.

Mel: 03:45 Okay, play the music.

Dan: 03:52 You're welcome, Cops. Okay. Now, as you were saying.

Mel: 03:55 So in their 2003 study, what they did was they had 141 students in an exam. But on the way out of the exam, they asked people to say, "Hey, how'd you think you went compared to everybody else?" And what they actually plotted was people's actual performance on the exam and how they thought they went. And what they found, unfortunately, was that the students who didn't do particularly well on the test, certainly overestimated their ability compared to others. Whereas for people who actually were the high performers, they underestimated how they went compared to everybody else. So they showed this really neatly.

Dan: 04:31 Yeah. I totally remember this from school where it's like the dumb kids all think it's going to be fine. And the kids that are really smart, always came out of the test being like, "Oh, I'm not sure how well I did." And it's like, "Shut up. You know you did well."

Mel: 04:41 Yeah. And that's exactly what it is. And it's not only the case for sort of certain specific tests of ability or intelligence like this. We see this in other domains as well. So, one of their studies was on humor. People who aren't funny, don't know enough about what comedy involves, to know that they're not funny. So people who aren't funny think they're hilarious, and people who are really clever and witty will second-guess their jokes before they get up on stage. So the real comedians, I don't know if we're ever really getting to see them.

Dan: 05:14 So I think what's cool about what you're saying is that there's some interesting and very consistent graphs about how this works on the internet. And so if you imagine a normal sort of two-by-two axes, and on one side, you've got confidence, on the other side, you've got competence. At the start, you don't know anything about anything. And so, you're pretty much at zero for both. And then what seems to happen is we learn a little bit. So our competence goes up a touch, but our confidence goes through the roof because we've just caught our first wave surfing, or we've just driven the car around the block for the first time. And we feel like, "Oh my god, this is so easy. I can literally do this all day, every day. Everyone else is stupid."

Mel: 05:50 There is a term for this. Yeah, for people who have a little bit of competence, but a whole lot of confidence, this is called sitting on top of Mount Stupid.

Dan: 05:57 Right, it makes sense.

Mel: 05:58 Not my term.

Dan: 06:00 Because you've just shot straight up to it and we know what's happening next. Next is you take a very, very deep slide, basically off a cliff, into the trough of despair, because what happens is you get a little bit more knowledge. And you have to now overtake a car in the wet or do a hook turn or you're driving next to a tram or whatever it is. And you realize, "Oh my god, I just got a tiny bit more competence, but that has completely shot my confidence. And actually, oh my god, this is really hard. I don't know anything. I suck at this. I'm never going to be able to drive, surf, play golf, harmonica," whatever it is you happen to do. This trough of despair seems like it can go on for a while until, Mel, something happens.

Mel: 06:37 What happens next?

Dan: 06:38 Well, then we get to enjoy the slow gradual climb up the hill of enlightenment, where you do start getting more confident and also more competent at the same time, until you're basically at a point where you know a whole lot, but think there's actually so much more to know.

Mel: 06:56 Yeah. And I think this distinction between your level of confidence and your level of competence, that's critical to the Dunning-Kruger effect. That's essentially what it's all about.

Dan: 07:05 It's the whole thing. I think when we talk about it like this, what we realize is, as a person, you are not on the Dunning-Kruger line somewhere. You are somewhere on this journey in every facet of your life. Some aspect of confidence to competence, no matter what it is that you're doing. I think we all get to experience this in different ways.

Dan: 07:25 So we've all been through this in a very task level. So you learn a new skill, you learn a new task. So, as I said before, maybe it's driving or riding a bike or playing the flute. And you go through that thing of like, "Wow, this is really hard. Oh my god. This is so easy. Oh no, this is actually impossible. I'm okay at it now." But also at a more macro level. And I don't know if this happens for you guys in academia or psychology or all of the other wonderful things that you do. But I think this happens over the course of our career as well.

Mel: 07:54 What do you mean?

Dan: 07:55 It's probably like an unfair label that gets thrown on millennials or Gen Z or whatever up to now, but kids coming into the workforce and thinking that they know everything.

Mel: 08:02 Of the entitlement?

Dan: 08:02 Well, entitlement, and, "I know everything,"

Mel: 08:02 The arrogance.

Dan: 08:06 "I can do my boss' job." The arrogance. How dare they? But from their perspective, you can see that they're just at their... What's that thing called? The peak of... you're at the top of Mount, whatever you say.

Mel: 08:14 They're just sitting right at top of Mount Stupid, having a picnic up there.

Dan: 08:17 Yeah. Because you've just come out of uni. You've done pretty well. You've landed a job. Your confidence is sky high. And you're so stupid. You don't even know how stupid stupid is. You don't even realize all the things you don't know yet. And so, in our careers, I think it's easy for us to feel like we know everything so early on. And it is often not until we've been around the circuit a few times and maybe we're two or five or 10 or 15 or 20 years into our career that we actually appreciate how much there is to know. And not only how little do we know now, but, "Oh my god, how little did I know when I was in my first six months, thinking I could run this place."

Mel: 08:51 So, that makes me think, who's pitched a tent and has been camping on top of Mount Stupid for years?

Dan: 08:57 Who's that?

Mel: 08:58 All those people who try out for American Idol, who you see in the first few weeks of auditions.

Mel: 09:06 (singing).

Mel: 09:16 The people who are awful singers. And yet nobody's ever actually told them that they're awful. And they think that they're really good, but they're not good enough to know how bad they are.

Dan: 09:27 Yeah. It's like that. So stupid, you don't even know how stupid stupid is. It's like, not only are you bad at singing, but you're so bad at singing that you don't even realise all of the things that you suck at. There's so many different ways that you suck.

Mel: 09:39 This is called the double curse, right? The idea that not only are you bad at something, but you don't even know how bad you are. Shame.

Dan: 09:47 Shame. But you know what? I think if it wasn't for the Dunning-Kruger effect, probably nothing would happen. Because I think that false sense of security is enough to... or false sense of confidence is enough to get you to start. And if you really knew how hard it was going to be to learn the cello or Mandarin or whatever it is you want to do, god, we probably would never bother. So absolutely, we see this in reality TV shows. We absolutely see this with our politicians, who know not much about lots and are very happy to speak very confidently and proudly about the little bits that they know. What about in your world, Mel?

Mel: 10:23 I guess it makes me think, the idea of Dunning-Kruger is closely related to what's called the above-average effect, which is the tendency of the average person to believe that he or she is above-average. For example, I see this in my well-being research and psychology all the time that it is essentially pretty well-understood that about 75% of the population think that they're happier than everybody else. And I'm not sure how much people can figure it out. This is not complex statistics, but it doesn't quite make sense that the majority of people can feel that they're more competent or happier or better than everybody else.

Dan: 10:58 But what good can possibly come of telling people, "Don't but don't," but nothing good can come of telling people that they're not as happy as they think they are. Going to ruin everything.

Mel: 11:07 Yeah. It's such a killjoy, I know.

Dan: 11:08 I know. I'm sorry to inform you, but you're actually less happy than you think you are. Sorry.

Mel: 11:14 Yeah, you should go see somebody.

Dan: 11:17 Here's my card.

Mel: 11:18 Exactly.

Dan: 11:18 I see what you're doing, yeah.

Mel: 11:20 See? I do own marketing.

Dan: 11:22 Good, good, good segue. You know we practice ethical marketing on this show. Mel, I'm going to have to talk to you about this afterwards.

Mel: 11:28 Wow.

Dan: 11:31 It's a good transition point to talk about. If this is a thing that we just see in the world. People are dealing with the Dunning-Kruger effect as they go in and out of categories. What on earth are we meant to do about this as the brand that service these people? And I think, Mel, if it's okay with you, what I would love to do is talk very quickly about two different situations that we might find ourselves in as brands or as salespeople or as marketers. One is people right at the top of Mount Stupid. People who are rushing into a new category they don't know anything about. And then I've sort of got some thoughts on people right in that trough of disappointment. Is that all right?

Mel: 12:09 There's nothing I'd rather learn more about right now.

Dan: 12:12 So nice. All right. Finally, after all these episodes, finally a compliment. Mark that one up.

Dan: 12:17 When we talk about people at the top of Mount Stupid, this is a classic salesperson's dilemma. So let's say you are a salesperson working in a... I'll do something easy for me, like a high-end bike store. And you get somebody coming in who has been for one ride on their friend's bike. And now they have $12,000 to basically give you to buy a bike that is the same as the one that belongs to their friend that they've just ridden. And this is classic salesperson's dilemma, right? Because it's like, you know this person has no idea what they're doing. They are camping out at the top of that mountain, thinking they know everything. And they are about to purchase something that you know is going to end badly. It's probably not the right bike for them if it's their first bike.

Dan: 13:02 So you have two choices. One is just get out of the way, take their money, give them the bike, and wish them a nice day. Good short-term result. But the reality is if your time horizon is anything more than one day, there's probably a better long-term solution. And like as any good salesperson would tell you, rather than taking their money and running, if you accept that they are inevitably going to come crashing down off that hill, not on the bike, but off that competence curve. And eventually realize that that was probably not the right thing to have bought, you would be well-served to take it upon yourself to gently escort them down that cliff face, help maybe interrogate their purchase decision a little more, find out what they're interested in, share a little bit of information, not overwhelm them, but share enough information to start showing them some of the things they may not have considered, and perhaps guide them to a purchase that is more appropriate, which might mean less revenue in the immediate term, but will, without a doubt, result in better goodwill, a better long-term customer and probably better word-of-mouth as well.

Mel: 14:00 I think this is a really delicate situation to manage, right? You're right when you call it a dilemma, because you need to be really careful in how you pitch this to the customer. Because I imagined that if their level of knowledge about something is quite simple and you start to tell them about all the wonderful features of this $12,000 bike that they didn't even know they needed, then you're all of a sudden going to overwhelm them very quickly and they'll end up making no purchase at all.

Dan: 14:26 It is really delicate because the last thing you want to do is talk somebody out of spending $15,000 with you. It just went up from 12,000 to 15, but that's what happens with bikes. You just literally blink and now it's $3,000 more. So, it is really delicate and you certainly don't want to leave the person feeling like they can't give you their money. Because they'll just find someone else they can give it to.

Dan: 14:43 So, I mean, when this happens, in our sense, when a prospective client comes to me and wants to buy something that is just completely the wrong thing for them, I will always tell them, "You can absolutely give me money to do that. Of course, I will take your money and make that campaign, build that website, make that, produce that content, whatever you want. But before I do, let me just go through a couple of questions to make sure it's actually the right thing to do." And you can usually get them to come to their own conclusion that, "Okay, there might be a better way of directing my energy or budget."

Mel: 15:13 I love it when you talk about ethical principles of marketing.

Dan: 15:16 We're in it for a long time, not just a good time. So, that's once. I think it's the job of a good salesperson and maybe of a good ad to slowly escort somebody down the cliff face and give them what they need, not necessarily just what they want.

Dan: 15:31 I think when we consider people that are in that trough, people who actually do know quite a bit, but feel like they don't, that creates a whole different set of problems for us because their lack of confidence and their misplaced lack of confidence is actually a barrier to our sales. You are totally good enough to buy this baking kit or this bike or this better guitar, but your own mind is telling you that you're not. And so, I think really what the opportunity to do here is, is for brands and ads to use things like bridging language, to help people realize that the skills you have, the capabilities you have, are enough to take the next step. So to be able to do this course, all you need is an understanding of A, B and C. Or to be able to create this piece of art, all you need is the basic skills that are from the fields of X, Y, and Z. So basically dispelling the myths in people's own minds and letting them do a better job of convincing themselves that, "Yes, of course I can do that. It's not as hard as I think it would be." Basically doing the job that a good friend would or a supportive partner would do for somebody. "You've got this."

Mel: 16:35 Yeah. And I mean, I'm thinking about my own work in this space because it's these people that I'm, I guess in a way, more concerned about. These are people who are actually really competent, they actually really do have a lot of knowledge, but it's their confidence that holds them back from maybe sharing that with the world. And I think that's, in a way, a lot sadder than the people who are sitting on top of Mount Stupid.

Dan: 16:55 Yeah. Because the people sitting on top of Mount Stupid are usually screaming pretty loudly.

Mel: 16:59 Yeah. And they might be doing so through their social media platforms. Because-

Dan: 17:04 Oh, shots fired, Dr. Mel.

Mel: 17:06 Well, the thing with social media and an unfortunate sort of drawback of it is that it doesn't necessarily discriminate between those who do know what they're talking about and those who don't. And as we've established is that people themselves can't discriminate that well either. And so, what we find is that social media gives a platform to everybody. The problem is that the people who don't know are more likely to use that platform to express their opinion or their beliefs or their suggestions, when the people who actually do know and perhaps the people that we should be listening to, are going to be second-guessing themselves and hesitating before they click post and share it with the world.

Dan: 17:41 I know. Anybody that knows that the earth is actually round is too busy actually doing something productive with their time to bother posting a rant on social media. So that's why all you get is people saying, "The earth is flat." If you have time to post that the earth is flat, you're probably not smart enough to know the difference. I know we've just lost a hundred percent of our flat earth listeners, but I'm okay. I'm completely fine with that.

Dan: 17:57 So anyway, that's for brands. So, I think if you're dealing with somebody sitting on that peak, then escort them down. If you're dealing with somebody in the trough, then make it easy for them to convince themselves, make it less intimidating, help them bridge what they know definitely to what you want them to do.

Dan: 18:12 What about for peeps, Dr. Mel, what can the poor humble person do to overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Mel: 18:19 So, I guess for regular people, what it comes down to for me is that we're not always the best at evaluating our own competence at different tasks. And we're probably going to make mistakes when we attempt to self-evaluate. So there is value and merit in asking other people for feedback and listening to it. If you think you're really good at something and people suggest that you're not, it would be easy to dismiss it, but maybe it's worth a second thought. On the other hand, if you're doubting yourself and other people actually encourage you and say, "You really are good at it," then maybe they're right. Maybe you are better than you think.

Dan: 18:54 I think in '93, Ice Cube said it best. And I quote, "Check yourself before you wreck yourself."

Mel: 19:02 I think somebody may have said it better than Ice Cube.

Dan: 19:04 Better than Ice Cube? Come on.

Mel: 19:08 Let me give you a quote from Confucius.

Dan: 19:11 Oh, come on.

Mel: 19:12 Real date unknown. Confucius apparently said, "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."

Dan: 19:20 Wow. That is deep. Philosophy and ethics in one show. I take my hat off to you, Dr. Mel.

Mel: 19:26 I was going to say, we did say we'd blow people's minds.

Dan: 19:28 Well, okay. Well, consider my mind blown. What an episode.

Mel: 19:32 I think there was a lot in there. Lots of good takeaways.

Dan: 19:33 Yeah. I've also just realized that maybe it was actually nowhere near as good as we thought it was. Anyway, who knows? You can tell us.

Mel: 19:40 Please give us the feedback.

Dan: 19:42 Yeah, yeah. Check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. You can find me at Dan Monheit all over the internet. Where are you, Dr. Mel?

Mel: 19:50 At Dr. Melw in all the places you'd find at Dan Monheit.

Dan: 19:54 Yeah. You'll find Mel just like 30 seconds behind. See you next time.

#30 Pratfall Effect: Why you can afford to make a mistake

September 22, 2020 by Hardhat

People and brands often go to great efforts to manage the impressions others form of them, but what if we stopped trying to be perfect, and instead owned our flaws? In this episode, Mel and Dan explore the Pratfall effect, and why tripping up the stairs on your way to a presentation could be a winning strategy.

Mel: 00:16 Hi and welcome to Bad Decisions.

Dan: 00:18 The podcast that helps us understand why we choose what we choose.

Mel: 00:21 Why we think what we think.

Dan: 00:22 And how to exploit this stuff for fun and commercial gain.

Mel: 00:25 I'm Dr. Mel Weinberg. I'm a performance psychologist.

Dan: 00:27 And I'm Dan Monheit, co-founder of Hardhat.

Mel: 00:41 Dan, you know what? There's something very exciting today.

Dan: 00:45 It is Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday. It's Corona, I have no idea what day it is.

Mel: 00:49 It is our 30th episode.

Dan: 00:51 Woo-hoo, dirty 30. Woo-hoo. Yeah, really testing the levels.

Mel: 00:56 Yeah, we are 30-years-old again.

Dan: 00:59 First woo-ing on bad decisions. How do you like that, Kopel? Not so much.

Daniel Kopel: 01:04 Yeah, I'm not in the podcast.

Dan: 01:07 You should be. It's about time. A third voice. The third voice that makes the first two voices sound much better, which given we're 30 episodes in, we were having a lot of fun doing this. We now have listeners in over 90 countries. So what up, everybody out there, thank you all so much for tuning in. We think it is time that we level with you guys just a little bit.

Mel: 01:27 Go on.

Dan: 01:27 Go on. Okay. I'll be leveling. Mel will be spectating my leveling. Well, I mean, you guys just like open your podcast player and you see the new episode come up and you start listening and you get to the end of episode and you think, "Man, that is slick. These guys are just smooth." And I guess we want you guys to know that in between our recording and you're listening, there's actually a lot of editing that happens. Like a lot, a lot, a lot of editing that happens.

Mel: 01:53 Well, hang on, not the lot. Most of it's pretty good.

Dan: 01:55 Well, a lot of your stuff needs editing. Mine's pretty good. Yours... It's kind of like out with a weed whacker, just trying to get to the nuggets.

Mel: 02:03 Thanks.

Dan: 02:03 But it's important. It's important because we need to come across as professionals here and yeah, we've got to be silky smooth.

Mel: 02:11 It's true about like you said, we do make mistakes sometimes and it gives Kops our producer a lot of great content for bloopers. Right, Kops?

Dan: 02:21 There are no bloopers.

Mel: 02:26 This is the conundrum that brands have made... I can't, I'm just going to... Okay.

Dan: 02:27 Do you remember the definition?

Mel: 02:31 Course not.

Dan: 02:35 Where are you, Mel?

Mel: 02:37 @drmelw, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn.

Dan: 02:40 Instagram, that's the number one academic...

Mel: 02:41 Okay. I'll tell that one again. Fuck me. God, I'm sorry, I'm just like...

Dan: 02:48 The second thing... What the fuck have I written here. The show that helps.

Mel: 02:51 The podcast.

Dan: 02:54 Sorry. I'm slightly confused. Are you telling me what you're about to do or are you just actually recording for the show?

Mel: 02:59 Okay. Let me start again. Start again.

Dan: 03:03 What, all the way back from the start? Fuck. Mic check was better.

Mel: 03:07 It's not always so competitive. There are... Here we go. So... Fuck me.

Dan: 03:15 What did I miss?

Mel: 03:17 But also, sorry, I actually don't have a point to make. I was just going...

Dan: 03:23 Maybe I should be asking you... Oh, sorry. Kops had to see the microphone.

Mel: 03:26 Monheit calling me a bitch, or what'd you call me the other day?

Dan: 03:27 Bitch, please.

Dan: 03:35 They are no bloopers.

Mel: 03:36 So we thought this would be a good episode to really look at whether there's any heuristics out there that actually celebrate mistakes because I think it's important that we do that.

Dan: 03:46 Yeah. Because you know what's better than being awesome? Being flawsome.

Mel: 03:51 Haw-haw.

Dan: 03:53 Cut that out as well.

Mel: 03:54 I was going to say, is it too late for that to go into the bloopers?

Dan: 03:57 What do you got for us, Dr. Mel? What are we talking about today?

Mel: 04:00 We are talking about the pratfall effect.

Dan: 04:05 So the pratfall effect. I'm very excited to hear about the misadventures of Mr. And or Mrs. Pratfall. Enlighten me.

Mel: 04:12 I'm not sure who Mr. or Mrs. Pratfall are. I'm sure they're a lovely couple living a nice life somewhere, but the pratfall effect wasn't actually named after them. Let me tell you what the pratfall effect was and then I'll tell you what a pratfall is. The pratfall effect is the idea that people who are considered to be highly competent, intelligent, or otherwise superior in some way, actually become more likable after committing a blunder. And just in case you were wondering, and as promised, I will tell you what a pratfall is and what it was named after. The dictionary definition of a pratfall is literally a fall in which one lands on the buttocks.

Dan: 04:51 Who knew there was a specific term for falls which result in landing on one's own buttocks?

Mel: 04:55 Literally falling on your arse is the pratfall effect. And I think this is interesting because this is really specific. If you fall face-first, not a pratfall.-

Dan: 05:05 No, it's just a fall.

Mel: 05:06 ... It's a different type of fall.

Dan: 05:07 Stack, tumble.

Mel: 05:09 But there is a specific term for falling on your arse and I really like that.

Dan: 05:13 Yeah. I feel like it should be more widespread.

Mel: 05:15 So everybody, challenge for our audience, use the word pratfall in a sentence this week.

Dan: 05:20 Yeah. I like it. All right. So, hey, I mean, I think pratfalls, or showcasing flaws are a really interesting thing in the topic of brands because much like us two podcast hosts, a lot of brands go to a lot of trouble to make themselves pretty much perfect, pretty much flawless. And what this tells us is that might actually be slightly misdirected. If we think about what brands who show some flaws do is they come across as I guess more honest, or more credible, or more trusted because we know brands aren't perfect like we know people aren't perfect. And so by telling us what their imperfection is, it kind of stops us from guessing.

Mel: 05:53 Yeah.

Dan: 05:54 They're like, "I'll tell you what's wrong with me. It's right here."

Mel: 05:56 Hey, look, Dan, before we get too deep into it, I think it's really important that we look at the research.

Dan: 06:02 You know what, I'm always doing that. I'm so sorry. Yes, let's look at the research.

Mel: 06:11 So the pratfall effect was given its name back in 1966 by Elliot Aronson who presented his research in literally an article that was literally two pages long. And when I looked at this, I thought, "Wow. Research was so much easier in 1966 to publish." And if any of my students were to submit a piece of work like that, it would fail automatically today. However...

Dan: 06:36 Refer to the effort bias. I don't remember what episode that was, but she was real. So the lazy, lazy Aronson, what did he do?

Mel: 06:43 Aronson in 1966 conducted a study that involved 48 male university students who were involved in introductory psychology course. And basically what happened was all of these 48 students listened to a tape recording. Remember it was 1966. They listened to a tape recording of a fellow student who they were told was trying out to represent the university in a quiz contest, right? And so they were listening to this fellow student answer quiz questions. In two of these groups, the student performed really well. So they were getting 92% of the questions correct. So they gave the impression that they were superior and obviously really competent as a trivia person, the right person to represent the university.

Mel: 07:25 In the other two groups, the contestant only got 30% of the questions correct. And so they were considered the mediocre student if you will. And then within these two groups, there was another manipulation. So we've got the competent versus incompetent groups. And then within that, the other manipulation was that at the end of the recording, just before the tape ended, one of the groups in either the superior-competent or the inferior-incompetent group heard the student apparently accidentally spill a coffee on themselves and make a sort of claim aloud that said, "Oh my God, I've spilled my coffee all over my suit."

Dan: 08:00 "Oh, no."

Mel: 08:01 Yeah. "Oh, no. I spilled my coffee." Right? And two of the groups didn't hear that, they just heard the student answering all the questions. And so then afterwards, all of the subjects that participated were interviewed and they were asked to rate how likable the contestant, their fellow student was. And what the results showed was that those who listened to the contestant who performed really well, who got 92% of the answers correct. They actually liked that person. They rated them much more likable if they had heard him spill the coffee.

Dan: 08:32 Aw, because he's like a smart klutz. It's cute.

Mel: 08:34 Moral of the story is if you're good at something, spill your coffee all over yourself and get a new suit.

Dan: 08:39 I can't wait to be good at something and try this out.

Mel: 08:43 So this is the idea, the idea that when you're really competent when you're perceived to be really competent in something that actually making a mistake in an area that's really unrelated can actually make you more likable. And the idea behind it is that when somebody seems to be really superior or really competent or really perfect in some way, they're not particularly relatable, but when they show that they are vulnerable in a way that any of us are, we tend to sympathize more with them. And that makes us like them more.

Dan: 09:10 Yeah, I really like is how the kind of the klutziness doesn't make them more competent. It just makes the same competent person more likable. Where I think this is really good if you've sort of maxed-out on competence, everybody already thinks your brand or your person is really good at something, this is a nice way to start working on it on another attribute around likability by showing some sort of unrelated flaws.

Mel: 09:35 That's exactly what it is. Yeah. And look, now that I've had my research moment. Yeah. I can guide you back to talking about brands.

Dan: 09:42 Yeah. Well, I know that's what people are tuning in for, right? It's good to have the research, but let's build on that. And when I think about this pratfall effect, where I absolutely see it coming to life is in the whole growth of the discount airline space, right?

Mel: 09:54 Okay.

Dan: 09:54 So the thing with brands is, you don't want people guessing where your flaw is, especially if you are something like an airline, right? Where if you're going to come out and start offering flights at much cheaper prices, you think about a Ryanair who's advertising flights for £5 to different countries. You don't want people guessing that the way you're able to do that is by compromising on safety or they're just using one trainee pilot, or they don't really service the planes very often.

Dan: 10:20 So by pratfalling, right, by saying, "Look, we're really good at getting you there, but the service is going to be shit or there's no food, or you can't take any luggage with you. Or the seats are not going to be very comfortable." It helps people understand what the real value proposition is and prevents them from questioning stuff that you don't want them to question. You don't want them questioning your safety record, you want them questioning the comfort of your seats because at the end of the day, for most people that doesn't really matter on a short flight.

Mel: 10:47 It's interesting to think about what they're actually focusing on, which is it forces you to think, "Am I going on this flight to get from A to B, or am I going on this flight to get the best meal I've ever had?" And most people will realize I just need to get from A to B, willing to compromise on the food or go to a nice restaurant when I get there.

Dan: 11:03 Exactly. And so it takes a brave brand to lean into that. And I think about where this is really relevant. And I think it's most interesting in categories where there is a lot of bravado, right? Because what you want to do with advertising, you want memorability and part of memorability is standing out, saying something different to what the rest of the category is saying. So some categories are really notorious for swag. And for basically everybody saying how awesome they are. So that might be around performance cars, or it might be around luxury hotels, or it might be around beer. Where everybody's just trying to one-up each other. And it's very interesting in those categories where people come at and say, "Well, actually there's something kind of wrong with me."

Dan: 11:43 So a couple of really famous examples of this. If we look at the car rental space, one of the most successful campaigns of all time was Avis coming out and saying, "We're number two, so we try harder." Right? If we look at Guinness, where Guinness actually takes twice as long to pour as most other beers, and taking that old software adage that, "It's not a bug, it's a feature." Guinness beautifully transformed taking twice as long to pour into the line that it's worth the wait. So they're not compromising the quality of the beer, they're just saying that it's going to take a little bit longer to get it, which in the scheme of things shouldn't really matter.

Dan: 12:18 Guinness actually makes me think of a lot of the work we did a number of years ago for Little Creatures when they were still an independent brewer. So before they absolutely blew up and became sort of the monolith that they were. Working with that brand through the early stages of their growth, the thing that was on every brief for them, not written but it was kind of subtext for every brief, was everything needed to be a little bit shit, right? So whether you're making an ad or a new website or a EDM campaign, right, it kind of had to look a little bit shit because they didn't want people wondering whether they were any good at beer, right? They wanted people to know these guys are exceptional at making craft beer, so it makes sense that they're not that great at making a website, or they're not that great at designing a menu, or they're not that great at making an ad.

Mel: 13:01 Right. And I think you've really touched on a point that sort of, we need to emphasize in that, which is that this isn't a heuristic for everybody, right? This is not a universal one-size-fits-all type thing. You need to be really careful when you use this heuristic or if you try to use this heuristic because it really is only for the bravado-type brands. It really is only for the superior, the competent, and the perfect. And as you sort of mentioned, it's not about being better or being the best. It's about being more likable instead. It reminds me... The other side of the research article I thought... Can I go back to the research just for a minute? Would you allow me?

Dan: 13:35 Oh, fine. Let's go back to the research.

Mel: 13:37 Because there was another part of it, which is that in the-

Dan: 13:40 One second, do you want music to go back to the research? Or you just want to dive back into it.

Mel: 13:44 No, no, I'm fine to just go back into it. That's fine.

Dan: 13:45 I've already paused us now. I think we should get the music. Come on, Kops, let's get some music.

Mel: 13:54 The other side of that study that I didn't mention was that when participants were exposed to the mediocre-type contestant, who wasn't very good at answering quiz questions, so who was generally incompetent.-

Dan: 14:06 The 30% guy? Yeah?

Mel: 14:07 Yeah. When that guy spilled his coffee, he actually became less likable and less competent. It was like this guy is a moron and he can't even hold a cup of coffee.

Dan: 14:17 Yeah. Yeah. So you really can't understate that you need to be competent first. If you are not... If you're Little Creatures and you're not already making great beer, making shit ads is not going to help, right? But if you are highly competent, then maybe it's going to make people like you more. Is that fair?

Mel: 14:33 Yeah. I think that's fair. And remember, as we've said, this is all about likability, right? And not trying to be perfect, but trying to be more human and trying to be something that people can relate to.

Dan: 14:42 So I think if I was going to sort of sum this up as a recommendation for brands, the thing to do is to be brilliant at the thing that is important. You don't want to pratfall effect the core thing people are trying to buy from you. If you're an airline, don't make jokes about your safety procedures, right? You need to be brilliant about what's important and honest about what is not important.

Mel: 15:03 Yeah. I mean, the way that I think of it is that if you're a competent sportsperson and you miss a catch, it's probably not going to go well for you because that's the thing that you're supposed to be good at. You got to catch the ball, right? But if you're a competent sportsperson who isn't very good at drawing pictures of animals, then that makes you more likable, right? If you're a lousy sportsperson and you drop a catch, then you're probably just crap at what you do. You're just a lousy sportsperson.

Dan: 15:28 You should be here in the first place, let's be honest.

Mel: 15:30 I was going to say, and if you're a lousy sportsperson and you can't draw pictures of animals, then you're probably just a lousy person in general.

Dan: 15:35 Yeah. You need to find something else to do with your time.

Mel: 15:38 So Dan, obviously I, as a psychologist, I'm a huge fan of vulnerability. I encourage people to be vulnerable, right? I imagine that this could be a really helpful thing for competent brands to use. Why don't we see more of it?

Dan: 15:51 This is a wonderful question and I would love to see more brands doing this because it does make for interesting ads. Every ad is basically a brand talking about what they're great at. So there should be disproportionate payoffs for brands that don't do that. I think the biggest issue we have, and I certainly know when I've sort of tried to talk to some prospective clients about this. The biggest issue that we have is something called the principal-agent problem, where you have the principal, which is the brand, right? And you have the agent, which is the marketer, the person acting on behalf of the brand. And often the best outcome for each of those things is not the same.

Dan: 16:29 So for a brand, the best longterm thing might be to indulge in this pratfall effect to talk about some of its vulnerabilities to build likability over time. But it is a rare marketing director or marketing manager that's going to bet their next campaign and therefore, possibly the next phase of their career on an ad that tells people that their beer is really slow. It's a kind of perceived higher-risk strategy than it really is. And I think that explains why we don't see many marketers take it on, even though I would really encourage you to.

Mel: 17:01 Yeah. So it's one of those high-risk, high-reward possibly, the type of situations if you play it right.

Dan: 17:06 Yeah. And the thing with the high-risk is it's high-risk for the individual, but it's not high-risk for the brand. If you get it right, it's great for the brand. If you get it wrong, it doesn't really matter, you'll just switch and do some other campaign later. But for an individual, it's like you're only as good as your last campaign and you do not want to be the guy or girl that did the world's worst tasting yogurt campaign when you're actually trying to sell yogurt. It's just not going to go well for you.

Dan: 17:28 So with that in mind, I guess what I would say to brands is you got to try and find a way to do this, right? You got to try and find a safe way to do this. Maybe don't commit your whole next wave activity to it. Maybe there's one channel, or one market, or one audience, or one product line where you could just indulge in this idea of trying to be brilliant at what is important and honest about what is not. So find a safe space, give it a crack and we'd love to hear how you go. I'm sure it'll be fine. I'm sure your career will be great. And if not, you can always talk about the failure in your next interview as the thing that you messed up and that'll make you more likable.

Mel: 18:02 And I think it was really easy for me thinking about this to link this to sort of the human side of things. And as soon as I sort of started reading about the pratfall effect, it immediately reminded me of the structure of a TED Talk, right, where you've got somebody who is usually... I guess, the whole point of them doing it is that they're the expert, they're the most competent person in that area to be giving that talk. And the first instruction of a TEDTalk is to make yourself vulnerable. Nobody does this better, Dan than Brené Brown, right, who-

Dan: 18:31 Well, maybe Brené Brown's second best. I have seen your TEDTalk and it was magnificent, but following you, Brené Brown-

Mel: 18:36 TEDx, TEDx.

Dan: 18:38 TEDx, TEDx, TEDx. Following you though, Brené Brown does do a pretty good job of this.

Mel: 18:41 I was going to sort of segue Dan, that Brené Brown... I mean, you and I did share a stage with her last year, was it? At South by Southwest? Maybe not the exact same stage, her stage was a little bigger than ours.

Dan: 18:55 We shared some carpet. I think I walked over some of the same carpet that she walked over.

Mel: 18:58 But sure nobody does this better than her. Her actual TEDTalk is about being vulnerable. So it's really meta the way that she goes about it. And so she really plays that out. And I think it's part of making her who she is. Yes, she's a wonderful expert in that space and lots of people know her to be that, but she's also very vulnerable. She leaves herself very exposed on there and it's much easier to relate to her. And she's very likable for that reason.

Mel: 19:24 And I think, just thinking about people in general, we all strive for perfection, right? We all think that we want to be perfect, and we admire people who are perfect, and we want to be admired. But sometimes what we don't realize is that people don't actually like perfect. They might admire it, but they don't like it. People like people. And so it's not that we're saying that we want to see important people stuff up. That's not what this is about, but we want to be the type of person that others can relate to and nobody can relate to perfect because nobody is perfect.

Dan: 19:56 Very true. And the same goes for brands. So I'll tell you what, how about we... Do you want to put a slightly imperfect ribbon on all of this?

Mel: 20:03 Yeah.

Dan: 20:04 We'll wind it back. All right. So today we have talked about the pratfall effect, not named after a Mr. or a Mrs. but instead after the specific word for falling on one's buttocks.

Mel: 20:13 Correct.

Dan: 20:14 You want to hit us with a definition, Dr. Mel?

Mel: 20:16 I can.

Dan: 20:18 Please. Indulge us.

Mel: 20:22 The pratfall effect is the idea that people who are considered highly-competent or superior actually become more likable after they make some sort of mistake.

Dan: 20:29 Right, and the key thing for brands here is you've got to carve out a little space to do this. And when you do it, focus on being brilliant at what is important and honest about the rest of it, right? So make sure you're failing at something that is kind of tangential, doesn't really matter, it could be a little bit funny. And for peeps?

Mel: 20:45 The takeaway for people is that look, all we want as human beings ultimately is to love and to be loved by others. And so falling on your butt every now and then maybe a better play in the long-run than striving for perfection.

Dan: 20:56 Love it. Inspirational message. All right. That is a wrap for today. Episode 30. Thank you all so much. I might just take one quick moment to thank our very special producer extraordinaire, Kops in the booth on the wheels of steel making us sound-

Mel: 21:09 Does an excellent job getting rid of all of our bloopers all the time.

Daniel Kopel: 21:12 Except this episode.

Dan: 21:14 Just one time we're just going to publish the whole two-hour mess and you guys can sort it out for yourselves. Thank you guys all so much for your downloads, your listens, your ratings, reviews. If you guys have got questions, feedbacks, comments. Good feedback to me, bad feedback to Mel, she's working on her pratfall effect right now. We'd love to hear it. And Dr. Mel, thanks to you. This has been good. Let's do 30 more.

Mel: 21:35 Oh God. 30 more. You got 30 more heuristics for me?

Dan: 21:38 Yeah, we just have to make some. It's fine.

Mel: 21:40 The Weinberg-Monheit effect. Coming up in a future episode. Do you like how I put Weinberg first?

Dan: 21:47 Anyway, let's do it. If you've got ideas for what that effect could be, send them through and we'll see you next time.

Mel: 21:53 Bye.

#29 Reciprocity Bias: Why you should always buy the first coffee

August 25, 2020 by Hardhat

It might not always feel like it, but we’re wired with an inherent desire to cooperate and collaborate with others. That means when someone does us a favour, we can’t help but want to settle the score. In this episode, Mel and Dan consider how this social and emotional drive can direct people to pay for things they didn’t even know they wanted.

Dan: 00:15 Hey, and welcome to Bad Decisions, the podcast that helps us understand why we choose what we choose.

Mel: 00:18 Why we think, what we think.

Dan: 00:20 And how to exploit this stuff for fun and commercial gain. That right there is my co-host, Dr. Mel Weinberg, she's a performance psychologist.

Mel: 00:26 And that over there was my co-host, Dan Monheit co founder of Hardhat.

Dan: 00:30 I'm also the guy that tells Kops to play the music, play the music!

Dan: 00:41 All right. Yo Mel, hey, can I ask you a favour?

Mel: 00:44 Okay.

Dan: 00:45 Let's get right into this. Can you please introduce the heuristic that we are going to be talking about this episode?

Mel: 00:50 I could, what are you going to do for me?

Dan: 00:53 If you introduce the heuristic, I will make this podcast infinitely more fun and entertaining for our listeners.

Mel: 01:04 Sounds like a deal. All right.

Dan: 01:05 What do you got?

Mel: 01:07 The heuristic that we're going to talk about today is the reciprocity bias. The reciprocity bias is the tendency to reciprocate actions that others have done towards us. It's simple in its definition like that, you do something good for me, I'll do something good for you. It's simple as that.

Dan: 01:27 I like it. That's all we've got time for today. No, it's not all we've got time for. We have heaps of time. We have infinity time.

Mel: 01:33 Well, we can talk about the reciprocity bias in so much more detail.

Dan: 01:37 Yeah. It's a big and important one, because really it is the underpinning of most of what we would consider modern society, right?

Mel: 01:45 Yeah. I mean, there are two key reasons, I guess, why this reciprocity bias exists, right? Let me talk you through them. The first is that we have an inherent desire as human beings to cooperate with one another.

Dan: 01:56 Some more than others.

Mel: 01:58 Some more than others, but generally as part of a healthy functioning society, we need to have the system whereby I'll do good things for you and at some point you'll return those favours to me. So putting good things out into the world and expecting that at some point they will be returned, yeah?

Dan: 02:13 This is like the karma bias.

Mel: 02:16 Well, yeah, the whole idea of treat others as you would like to be treated. If I treat you nicely, the whole premise is that at some point in time, you're going to treat me nicely in return. That's part one. Part two, the other reason why we have this reciprocity bias has to do with this inherent desire for balance in our world. So I think about this as this idea of emotional harmony that we seek. Do you like that term? I've just created it.

Dan: 02:40 Emotional harmony, yeah I mean, sounds like a slightly awkward dating app, but we can go with that. What is we call it e-harmony for short?

Mel: 02:48 Oh God, maybe I'll think of something else. However, the idea is that when you do something nice for somebody else, if I do a favour for you, essentially I've put you into this state where you now owe me, right?

Dan: 03:04 Yeah. After watching Prison Break, I see how this works. Now I owe you, yeah.

Mel: 03:09 So I've induced essentially an unpleasant emotional state in you, whereby now you are indebted to me. And this is actually a really good place for me to be in, because I essentially have capitol with you, that if sometime in the future, I'm in trouble or I'm in a situation where I need help, I know that I can call on you because you owe me one. So here's the thing, you're in a situation, an emotionally unpleasant situation, because you feel indebted to me and so you're motivated to try and resolve that emotion, to try and create harmony or emotional balance. And so the only way to do that is for you to even the score and to repay me so that you no longer feel in debt.

Dan: 03:47 Yeah. So the perverse irony here is that you doing a favour for me is actually a real dog act because now I feel bad because you've done something and I've done nothing. Thanks Mel.

Mel: 03:56 This is where we realise the undoing of the human race, essentially is that there is no such thing as altruism. Nothing is for free. If I do nice for you, ultimately it's only because at some point I want to get something in return.

Dan: 04:09 Yeah. And this explains that uneasiness we've all had, whether it's like being out with a friend or going out, when you're grown up and then you go out for family dinners again, and you argue about who's going to pay. And on one hand, the person saying, "Nah, nah, I'll pay, I'll pay, it's fine." Is masquerading like they're doing a really nice thing. But by doing that, everybody else really feels like a loser or awkwardly indebted to this person. It's like, "No, seriously, can you actually just let me pay because I don't want to owe you, friend."

Mel: 04:34 Sometimes Dan, I don't know if you've ever done this and I'm not saying that I have, but what you might do to really take advantage of this situation, is that you might, if you happen to be going out for dinner with a group of people on your payday, when your bank account is all of a sudden is full, you might go, "You know what, I'll take this one." Because next week when you go out for dinner and it's not your pay week, it would actually be beneficial for somebody else to pick up the bill then. But I don't want to talk about manipulating people into-

Dan: 05:01 No, we're not doing that. But it does explain why we feel uncomfortable, if you go got with the same person often and they're constantly buying you coffee, at some point it just feels yuck and icky, which is irrational because you should just feel grateful and wonderful about it.

Mel: 05:15 Isn't it interesting that this whole thing relies on us trusting the other person's intentions. If I don't trust that you're doing something just out of the generosity of your heart, then I'm really going to feel indebted, hey?

Dan: 05:27 Absolutely. And I mean, we did talk about this as being a pretty core attribute of humans. And if I think about one of the biggest differentiators between humans and all other species, is our ability to cooperate with one another at scale and therefore organise ourselves into groups and civilisations and religions and companies and that is all just largely unspoken cooperation between people. And I imagine that the reciprocity bias has a lot to do with that because if you don't trust that other people are going to return your behaviour back to you, the whole thing's just going to fall in a heap.

Mel: 05:59 Well that's right. Nobody wants to be in a society or in a social relationship where they feel like they're being taken advantage of. So that's the downside, that if you continually trust and you don't get anything in return, then you're basically putting yourself out there at a disadvantage. So societies fall apart, relationships don't work, there is no trust in the world.

Dan: 06:16 Yeah. So this feels absolutely right, but I know that feeling is usually not good enough for you. There must be somebody who has done some research to prove that actually we all owe each other. So let's go dig into the archives. What have you got for us?

Mel: 06:28 All right. Hit the research music.

Dan: 06:32 No, I'm the guy that tells Kopel when to do the music. Okay, I thought we established this in the intro.

Mel: 06:36 Could you please?

Dan: 06:37 Kops, could we get some research music please?

Mel: 06:45 So in a study, a 2006 study by Strohmetz and friends/colleagues, they conducted an experiment in a restaurant in New York. And basically what happened was they manipulated participants. Well, I wouldn't say that, I would say that they introduced a manipulation into the study and it happened towards the end of the dining experience at the point where customers are presented with the bill. At random, some of the diners were given a piece of chocolate with the bill, you know that after dinner mint that sits with it.

Dan: 07:18 I'm so full, I'm not that full, I could eat that.

Mel: 07:21 I'll just have that.

Dan: 07:22 Small.

Mel: 07:24 And others weren't, so others were just given the check. And the results of the study suggested that those who were given the piece of chocolate, as long as there was one chocolate for each diner, so you don't just want to have one chocolate for the table, because that's going to make everyone fight over it. But if there were enough chocolates for everybody, then those who were given the piece of chocolate, tipped significantly more than those who were given nothing. And so the implication of that is that they felt the need to return the favour after having been the recipient of the kindness/the chocolate.

Dan: 07:53 Yeah. So I'm not going to lie because I heard about this and I thought this was quite interesting as well, I dived in as well. And when you say significantly more, what I saw that it was like almost 20% more that was tipped just for getting a little chocolate on the dish. Which says to me, if you're a restaurant not giving out chocolates, you got to get your shit together because you're leaving money on the table.

Mel: 08:12 Literally. So it's not just restaurants, we see this all over the place.

Dan: 08:15 All over the place. Yeah, it seems like many, many businesses have worked out that if you can just do a little favour for somebody, even though there is no legal or logical reason why they would have to return that favour, there absolutely feels like there is a moral one. So some of the places where we see this, if you've ever been to a cellar door experience. You go to a cellar door experience at a winery, there's absolutely no obligation for you to buy anything. But I pity the fool that spends half an hour, 45 minutes talking to the owners of the vineyard, learning about the different types of wine, tasting all of the different types of wine and then walking out with nothing. You can't do that, you're terrible person, you are not going to be able to sleep at night if you do that.

Dan: 08:59 We see this in new form retail stores, if you look at the best retailers in the world. So guys like Lulu Lemon who have free yoga classes happening in a lot of their retail spaces, or we see Apple stores putting on events with creators, talking about their work and showcasing films inside Apple stores. All of these create a sense of indebtedness for the person in there absorbing all of that value. And maybe the last example of this I'll give, is the last time I went to buy some running shoes, it was time to actually buy functional shoes, not just shoes that looked cool because I was actually going to use them to run quite a distance. So I thought I better go to one of those proper running shops where they have the real podiatrists and physios and stuff, actually fitting you for the shoes.

Dan: 09:42 And instead of going in and picking a nice pair off the wall, you go in, you have a little chat, they put you on the treadmill, they look at how you walk, they record it, they talk you through it, they give you a proper consultation, try a few different things. And eventually you whittled down hundreds of different shoes they've got into the ones that fit your gait, your heel strike, the way that you like to run. And you know at this point that I could buy these shoes right now, or I could walk out and find them on the internet and probably save $10. And rationally, if we were rational actors, that would be the right thing to do because the time I've just spent is a sunk cost, can't get it back and $10 is $10. But the moral obligation, the indebtedness, the reciprocity that we feel to reward the person who's just spent this time with you, is what keeps the world spinning around.

Mel: 10:25 Wow. Are you saying that people aren't always rational in their decisions?

Dan: 10:29 Occasionally it has occurred to me that people are not always rational in their decisions. In fact, some of the decisions that they make, are even bad.

Mel: 10:37 We should call the podcast after that.

Dan: 10:39 I said, I'd be doing the jokes. I'm doing the jokes.

Mel: 10:42 How about I'll stick with the research because I have another research study for you that speaks to a practical example.

Dan: 10:48 You do the research, I'll do the jokes and the bit where I tell Kops when to play the music.

Mel: 10:52 Right. Stay in your lane Mel, is the message I'm getting. Okay. So we've talked about some examples of where it would be what you call direct reciprocity, where there's a mutually beneficial relationship established where I can do something for you and you can do something for me and we can all work out even. But there are some instances where direct reciprocity isn't actually possible or perhaps appropriate and so there are some alternatives. So here's what we're going to do is we're going to hack the reciprocity bias and just level up a minute. Okay. And so I'm going to use the example in a research study that was done in hotel rooms. So you know when you go into a hotel room and you walk into the bathroom and there's that sign that says, "Help us save the environment, you can show your respect for nature, help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay." And so they're trying to push you to reuse your towels, but all they've really got to go on is the idea that it's really good for the environment, please do the right thing.

Dan: 11:43 Yeah. And this has always struck a strange chord with me because it's like, "Okay, you guys have got five swimming pools and lush gardens to maintain and you want me to reuse my towels, even though I'm paying you all this money to stay here?" So I see why this is a situation where this direct reciprocity doesn't really work because we've got established guard rails for this relationship. I'm paying you money, you're giving me a service, you can't come back now and try and discourage me from using the service that I'm paying you all this money for.

Mel: 12:07 Right. So some researchers wanted to see if they could apply the reciprocity bias, but in a slightly different way, to help increase the rate at which people would reuse the towels. And so they had three conditions, the first was this standard one, "Please help save the environment, show your respect, reuse your towels during your stay." Okay. The next situation they said, "Partner with us to help save the environment, in exchange for your participation in this program, we at the hotel will donate a percentage of the savings to a nonprofit environmental protection organisation." So they're saying if you reuse your towels, we'll do something good in return, by donating to this third party. And then in the third condition, they had a bit of a different message. The third group were told, "We're doing our part for the environment. We've actually already made a donation on behalf of the hotel and all of its guests. Thanks for playing along with us and reusing your towels during your stay."

Dan: 13:04 The old thank me for the thing I haven't done yet trick.

Mel: 13:08 And would you believe Dan, that when it came to actually looking at the rate at which guests were reusing their towels, they found that that third condition, that what they call reciprocity by proxy condition, they were 50% more likely to reuse their towels than people in the other groups.

Dan: 13:25 Wow. I mean, I love this. This is like when you walk into shops that have a sign that says, "Thank you for not touching the displays." Versus, "Please don't touch the displays." It's such a nicer way of putting it across and no doubt more effective. Because when it says, "Please don't touch the displays." That just tells me to touch the displays, it must be good otherwise, why would they put the sign there?

Mel: 13:45 Something worth touching.

Dan: 13:46 Seriously, I'm touching everything.

Mel: 13:48 And before you know it, you've knocked everything over.

Dan: 13:50 I know, I know.

Mel: 13:51 And then talk about feeling indebted, hey?

Dan: 13:53 They should have just thanked me first for not doing it.

Mel: 13:55 I think it's important that we also highlight that this doesn't always just work for positive actions, the same works in reverse. So we got to be careful with this because there's one thing to return a favour, but the flip side of this is the idea of an eye for an eye, that if you do something to hurt or if you do something negative, the instinct and the tendency is going to be to hurt somebody back to even the score.

Dan: 14:17 This is true. And I think that's a really good segue into getting onto what brands should do about this because I mean, the baseline stuff is pretty obvious. If you're a brand, do something good for people and they'll do something good back. And we see a lot of this, especially in times of crisis, brands going out of their way to do things for people who have suffered at the hands of natural disasters or in more recent times, seeing companies do free food or drinks or dry cleaning for NHS workers, which is fantastic. It seems obvious to just say, "Yeah, do nice things for customers and they will feel indebted to you." But I think there is more to it than that and if we analyse what it takes to make this thing really work, it seems like there are three conditions.

Dan: 14:58 So the first is the brand has to be the first to give. So you can't say, "Oh, if you do this, then we'll do that. If you reuse your towels, we'll make a donation." Because then it's not reciprocity, then it's just a commercial, rational arrangement that the person can decide if they want to participate in or not.

Mel: 15:12 But this is key, we talk about this in social relationships as well, that in order to develop trust, somebody has to be the first to put themselves out there. Somebody has to make themselves vulnerable and as the brand, better that be you.

Dan: 15:23 I guess, it's up to the brand to put it out there first and then tied in with that, is to make it unexpected, and with no stated expectation of return. So it's a thing that you're doing first, it is nice and unanticipated and you are making it very clear that for coming to this yoga class or for me fitting you with these shoes or for me putting on this presentation for your team, I really am not expecting anything back. I just do this purely out of the love of it. So first, it's got to be unexpected, I think the third thing that's really important is that it's got to be personalised. Where if it just feels like this is just a deal for everybody, the level of indebtedness and reciprocity that you feel is going to be far smaller than if it feels like this brand or this person has actually gone out of their way to do something specifically for me.

Mel: 16:10 Yeah. I think these are all really good examples and really key takeaways for how to ensure that you use the reciprocity bias effectively in positive situations. But there's also the idea that sometimes you're trying to balance out a negative emotion.

Dan: 16:23 Exactly. And so I think in the same way when the customer has gone first, and the customer has gone first because they've just been massively inconvenienced by your brand/product/service that has messed up, so they've ordered food to be delivered and the food hasn't turned up. The customer's gone first and this is why it is so infuriating when this happens to you and you call the service provider and they do not feel like they are responding in kind, where all they'll do is refund you for the food that didn't turn up. But what about all the time? What about the ruined occasion? What about all the stress? What about that half hour I've just spent on the phone with you, right? So I think it's really important for a brand perspective to return to a level that is perceived as at least the same indebtedness as the person has gone to for you, if not above and beyond.

Mel: 17:08 And this can be a really hard one to gauge because what you're trying to do is reestablish the emotional harmony, right? I'm going to keep saying that term until it sticks.

Dan: 17:16 E-harmony, for short.

Mel: 17:18 You're looking to reestablish that harmony and so you've got to, if the customer has already taken a hit, actually see where their emotions are at and you've got to gauge what it is that they need to overcome that emotion and to restore balance.

Dan: 17:32 For sure. So try not to get into that situation in the first place, but if you find yourself there, that's how to overcome it. So I reckon that's pretty much a wrap for the reciprocity bias. You got anything else you wanted to kick in Mel?

Mel: 17:42 I think, from the human side of things, that we talk about how you can fall victim to the reciprocity bias in a way and what to do in those situations. But I think it's important to realize that reciprocity is a thing that has continued to spur societies forward. So it's not the thing that we necessarily need to look to overcome so much, but if we recognize if we're feeling that sense of indebtedness, then we're in more of a position to go, "Do I actually want this product? Do I actually want to return the favour?" Or can I actually separate from and go, "You know what, I recognise that I have this instinct to want to buy that wine after having so much of it, but you know what, I don't need to."

Dan: 18:24 Don't be mean. Don't be mean, they've just spent an hour educating you. Anyway, you go your way, I'll go mine. I think the other interesting perverse take away from here, is if you really want to upset somebody, just do something nice for them and walk away.

Mel: 18:36 Create that emotional disharmony and then leave them to figure it out.

Dan: 18:39 You will never buy me a coffee.

Mel: 18:42 Okay.

Dan: 18:43 All right, reciprocity bias, let's put a ribbon on it. What is it?

Mel: 18:47 Reciprocity is the tendency for us to return somebody's positive or negative act with a similar act.

Dan: 18:54 Exactly. And if you're a brand, the ingredients for this, it's not just about being nice, it's about going first, making it unexpected and clear that you don't want anything in return and as personalised as you can. That's going to work wonders.

Mel: 19:08 You know what, Dan, actually remember the start of the episode when you asked me to do that favour for you?

Dan: 19:12 Yeah.

Mel: 19:13 I feel like it's really paid back. I feel like you've really paid back your part of the deal.

Dan: 19:16 Call it even then?

Mel: 19:18 We'll call it even.

Dan: 19:19 All right, see you next time.

Mel: 19:20 Consider the act reciprocated.

Dan: 19:21 Good. All right. Bye.

#28 Ostrich Effect: Why you really should just go to the doctor

July 03, 2020 by Hardhat

If information can help us make good decisions, why would we sometimes actively avoid it? In this episode, Mel and Dan discuss the ostrich effect, and how brands can overcome the tendency we have to bury our heads in the sand.

Mel: 00:20 Hi, and welcome to Bad Decisions.

Dan: 00:22 The show that helps us to understand why we choose what we choose.

Mel: 00:24 Why we think what we think.

Dan: 00:25 And how to exploit this stuff for fun and commercial gain.

Mel: 00:28 I'm Dr. Mel Weinberg. I'm a performance psychologist.

Dan: 00:30 And I'm Dan Monheit, co-founder of Hardhat. So Mel.

Mel: 00:45 Yes, Dan.

Dan: 00:46 Look, I know we usually start these shows with me having some ridiculous story, sounding like an idiot. And then you come in like the smart therapist that you are.

Mel: 00:54 I wasn't going to say that you sound like an idiot..

Dan: 00:56 And explain to me how I've been doing it all wrong, but I'm not doing that today. Because today, spoiler alert, we are talking about the ostrich effect. And in doing some work, some prep, some research for this show today-

Mel: 01:09 Which we do plenty of.

Dan: 01:10 Always. I have to let you know I'm furious. I'm outraged. Not since I learned that pigs don't sweat, despite the saying 'sweating like a pig' have I been so upset for one member of the animal kingdom.

Mel: 01:25 Dan, I hear you.

Dan: 01:28 Because ... I'm not finished. Let me tell you why I'm so mad. The ostrich effect. Obviously, people are going to go, "Oh, it's the ostrich effect. It's to do with people putting their heads in the sand." Right? Because that's what ostriches do. Right?

Mel: 01:41 That's what I understand.

Dan: 01:44 Wrong, they don't! Sorry. Wrong, Mel.

Mel: 01:47 Wow. Okay. This has taken a turn.

Dan: 01:49 Well, it's not like there's hundreds of things that the ostrich is known for. Tell me some of the things about the ostrich.

Mel: 01:55 I don't know much about the ostrich.

Dan: 01:57 You don't know much about the ostrich?

Mel: 01:57 No, I believe they bury their head in the sand.

Dan: 01:59 Yeah. The one thing that people know is completely fictitious.

Mel: 02:01 So they don't bury their heads in the sand?

Dan: 02:02 They don't bury their heads in the sand; they can stand up to nine feet tall; they can run 60 kilometers an hour. They can kill a lion with a single kick. And the only thing people know is that they put their head in the sand, which is wrong.

Mel: 02:13 I can hear your frustration. Your frustration seems valid.

Dan: 02:16 Yep. Shall we move on?

Mel: 02:19 Are we done? I don't mean to dismiss your emotions in any way.

Dan: 02:22 Yeah. I don't feel dismissed. I feel heard. Let's get on.

Mel: 02:24 Good good. I'm glad. I just hope that everybody listening also acknowledges that you have this anger.

Dan: 02:31 No, don't acknowledge that I have the anger. Acknowledge that this is an unfairness. It's a tragedy to members of the ostrich family. Let's get on with it. Let's talk about the ostrich effect.

Mel: 02:39 Look, I don't mean to blame anybody, but the term ostrich effect-

Dan: 02:44 Oh, here we go.

Mel: 02:45 Was actually given to us by Galai and Sade in 2005.

Dan: 02:50 Oh wait, let me just write them down. You guys are on my list.

Mel: 02:54 They were a couple of Israeli researchers who coined the term the ostrich effect. And they defined it as the tendency for people to avoid apparently risky financial situations by just pretending they do not exist. For lack of a better phrase, we bury our heads in the sand.

Dan: 03:12 Like birds do or don't do. Regardless, I understand the appeal of that.

Mel: 03:16 Now that we all understand a little bit more about ostriches Dan, and thank you for providing us with that really important information-

Dan: 03:20 You're welcome. Just doing what I can.

Mel: 03:20 May I provide some real science?

Dan: 03:26 Oh, don't trigger me, Mel.

Mel: 03:28 Let me give you some research.

Dan: 03:37 All right.

Mel: 03:37 So in 2016, Carlsson, Lowenstein and Sepi did some investigation into this idea of the ostrich effect and what they did was they compared behaviour of investors in both Sweden and the US. So what they're looking at really was how often do investors monitor their portfolios when the market's rising or falling, right?

Mel: 03:57 They wondered whether their behaviour will change in response to what the market's doing. And what they actually found was that when the stock market was down, investors would actively avoid looking at their portfolio.

Dan: 04:07 Yeah, of course.

Mel: 04:08 Of course?

Dan: 04:09 Yeah. It's not going down if I don't know it.

Mel: 04:12 That's exactly what the ostrich effect is all about. And this tendency to avoid is something that we see a lot. I mean, I see a lot, I guess, from a psychology perspective, it's common for us to avoid it. But I guess it's a problem when we think about what it does to our decisions, because traditionally, decision-making would tell us that in order to make the best decision for us, it would surely be helpful to us to have all of the information at hand, right?

Mel: 04:39 If we know everything, then we can the best place to make a decision about what's good for us and what's not. The problem is when it comes to the ostrich effect, is that in this instance we're actively avoiding information and that information could be helpful to us. So it doesn't quite make sense. Does it?

Dan: 04:53 I mean, we might make better informed decisions, but we might also be sad because there's a letter here from my bank, which I'm pretty sure is a credit card statement, but if I don't open it, I don't know about that. I've got other things to do.

Mel: 05:04 Yeah. And I mean, look, from a psychological perspective, there's a few things that come into this, that underpin why we might avoid information. For a start, it's probably worth considering the idea of selective attention, right? We can't just attend to every single piece of information that is available to us. It's too much, it's overwhelming to us. We don't have the capacity to deal with all of these things. And so we have to, to some extent, filter out information.

Dan: 05:30 Yeah, I hear you. But also, that feels like a poor excuse.

Mel: 05:33 Well, that's the thing.

Dan: 05:34 I don't really have time to be an adult.

Mel: 05:36 I've got too much to do. I can't attend to everything. Look, the concern with regard to the ostrich effect, as we've sort of said, is that we'd ordinarily filter out information that isn't relevant or helpful. The thing is that in this instance, we're actively avoiding information and filtering out information that could help us. We're just choosing to filter it out.

Mel: 05:56 When it comes to avoidance and this idea of avoiding particular information, there are a number of reasons why we might do it. So from a psychological perspective, avoiding things can have some benefits to us.

Dan: 06:08 Sure.

Mel: 06:08 Right? Sometimes, if we think about something that we know is going to make us uncomfortable, then we don't want to do it. So it would be much more helpful to us in some instances to just avoid thinking or feeling about things that are going to make us feel like crap.

Dan: 06:23 Yeah. So much happier. In fact, you know who probably has been a big contributor to this, knowingly or unknowingly?

Mel: 06:29 Who's that?

Dan: 06:30 Your mate, what's his name? Positive psychology guy, Martin Seligman. Is that his name?

Mel: 06:34 What about him? Not my mate, by the way.

Dan: 06:37 Your mate. The world of positive psychology is really just focused on the good stuff. Just ignore the bad things! Don't worry about addressing weaknesses, just focus on the strengths. Weaknesses: I have obesity, my credit card's due and I have a toothache that won't go away. I'm just not going to focus on those things because they are going to let me down. And instead, I'm just going to focus on everything that's good in life.

Mel: 07:01 So just in defence of all the positive psychologists out there who do some wonderful work that you probably misrepresented them a little bit.

Dan: 07:07 They do, they probably do. The thing is, if they're doing bad work, they don't want to know about it anyway.

Mel: 07:11 I'm going to leave that right there.

Dan: 07:12 Okay, yeah. Love your work everybody!

Mel: 07:15 But we're all very familiar with the idea of avoidance coping in, for example, the health industry. So I'm sure all of us have been in this situation where you might notice that there's something not quite right with you and you're feeling a little bit off, but you're like, "You know what? I don't need to go to the doctor for this."

Dan: 07:32 As a middle aged white male, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Mel: 07:35 You've never really thought, "Oh look, that's a strange thing on my skin."

Dan: 07:40 No.

Mel: 07:40 But no, I don't really want to know what it is. If I go to the doctor, they're going to tell me it's something bad. They're going to make me have some medicine. They're going to make me have some procedures that I don't want. So it's just easier to not know.

Dan: 07:50 Yeah. I think the last time I actually went to a doctor, the original series of Beverly Hills 90210 was still new.

Mel: 07:56 Great reference. And I appreciate that. And would like to talk about that further. However-

Dan: 08:01 But not for today's episode.

Mel: 08:08 There are all sorts of reasons why, as we've just discussed, why we might actually avoid certain bits of information or just not want to deal with them. If we don't deal with them, then they're not there, and then we don't get annoyed about them. We're not making any judgment call on avoidance per se, right? It's not the case necessarily that avoidance is always bad.

Dan: 08:24 Well, I would like to make a small judgment call, which is to say that I think part of adulting, becoming an adult is learning to stop avoiding stuff. There's nobody coming to pick up for you. And part of being an adult and a contributing member of society is meeting your obligations, like paying your taxes and paying your credit card bills. And generally, looking after yourself. So small judgment, if you are avoiding all of those things.

Mel: 08:47 Yeah. But all adulting responsibilities and commitments aside, I guess what I'm saying with regard to the idea of avoiding things is that it's not necessarily that avoiding is good or bad in itself. It's more that it's the outcome of it. So there are many instances in which avoiding something might actually be good for you, right?

Mel: 09:04 Like we said before, confronting something might actually introduce more distress than you're able to deal with. So in that sense, avoiding things or avoiding something in particular could be beneficial for you. We've talked about this with regard to the Choice Paradox, right? The idea that too much information can sometimes be overwhelming and can hold you back from actually making a decision.

Mel: 09:23 So in those cases, avoiding something or avoiding many things that could disrupt your decision making process is probably going to lead to you making a better decision and being more satisfied with it. But in a number of cases, intentionally avoiding information can lead us to a bad decision. And that's where we need to be careful.

Dan: 09:40 Yeah. And I think if we were to swing a marketing lens onto this now where I really think about this being a problem is if you are selling any sort of remedial product. So if you are selling a financial counselling service or weight loss or really any sort of health related products or service, people are ignoring their way out of becoming your customer. It's like if they knew how much trouble they were in or going to get in, they would gladly and willingly be your customer, but they've got their head in the sand like some unnamed bird, which may or may not do that.

Dan: 10:14 And they are not only blocking themselves from knowing about this, but they are blocking you from getting a customer. So working out how to circumvent this effect, the O effect, is ... I'm going to call it the ostrich effect, which is no endorsement of the term. But for the coherence of this episode, working on how to circumvent the ostrich effect is really important for a number of industries out there.

Mel: 10:35 I think of this with regard to the idea of ... Have you ever been in a car accident? Even just a little one.

Dan: 10:41 A little one.

Mel: 10:42 I have, I've been in a car accident. It wasn't my fault. Never is.

Dan: 10:45 Never is. That tree just jumped out of nowhere.

Mel: 10:48 I wasn't even driving, all right? But the intersection where it occurred, if I could, I'd rather just avoid it. That intersection triggers unpleasant memories for me, unpleasant thoughts. I don't like it.

Dan: 11:00 I think the official term is heebie-jeebies. It gives you the heebie-jeebies.

Mel: 11:04 I mean, I guess it's no surprise that I would use the term avoidance. However, in that instance, it's much more preferable for me to just avoid that intersection. And I'm sure many people can relate to this. The idea is this usually isn't an issue. The avoidance in that sense is helpful. It actually prevents you from actually feeling any of that distress.

Mel: 11:22 It usually only becomes a problem if, for example, you were to get a new job and the quickest and most efficient way to get to work is to drive directly through that intersection. Right? At that point, you've got a choice to make. Do you circumvent that discomfort by taking the scenic route to work, which might add an extra 30 to 40 minutes of travel time but you're going to avoid the distress of that intersection. Or do you just confront, make your way through that intersection, deal with the discomfort.

Dan: 11:53 This actually sounds like a good setup for Scooby Doo episode where there's a haunted intersection that everybody wants to avoid. And at some point, they realise it's just the owner of a shop that used to be there and missed having people around or something. Anyway, less intersections, more brands. So this is exactly what brands are dealing with that have to confront the ostrich effect.

Dan: 12:13 So the idea of people are avoiding becoming your customer because it's uncomfortable to think about the fact that they are more overweight than they'd like to be or in more financial hardship than they'd like to be. So I've actually got five things that I think brands can do to overcome this effect if they're confronted with it.

Dan: 12:29 So the first one is to make the discomfort from avoiding the issue greater than the discomfort of confronting it. So to do that, we need to dramatise, we need to extrapolate, we need to use emotion. We need to do everything we can to dial up how bad things are going to be if you don't actually deal with the thing you need to deal with, which is going to lend you to my product, business or service.

Mel: 12:47 Okay.

Dan: 12:48 So that's one. The second thing I think we could do is if we acknowledge that people are avoiding this because it's a negative and an icky thing to deal with, what we could do is reframe that negative into a positive, but the positive can't just be the bad thing's going to go away. The positive has to be awesome in its own right.

Dan: 13:06 So let's say if you're a financial counselling service, people just don't want to deal with that because I just don't want to think about how much debt I'm in and all those sorts of things. But if you actually targeted people by talking about how to start building a property portfolio or how to achieve true financial independence, all of a sudden, this is now an enjoyable, positive thing that I'm going to go explore and not an icky negative thing. But I'm pretty sure when you turn up to the first seminar about how to build a property portfolio, they're going to tell you to pay down your credit card bill. But you're there for a positive reason, not to alleviate a negative.

Mel: 13:37 So does that hark back to what you talked about before that if somebody is feeling bad, don't just say, "Oh, just be happy." That's not going to do the trick.

Dan: 13:43 No.

Mel: 13:44 Right, got you.

Dan: 13:44 Just be really, really happy.

Mel: 13:46 That'll fix you.

Dan: 13:48 All right. The third thing that I've thought about here is that people are uncomfortable dealing with something. And one of the ways that we can make people less uncomfortable with something is to make it more familiar.

Mel: 13:59 Definitely.

Dan: 13:59 And if you roll back to, I don't remember what episode it was, but we talked about the Mere Exposure Effect.

Mel: 14:04 I remember.

Dan: 14:05 Do you remember the definition?

Mel: 14:05 Of course not.

Dan: 14:09 You call yourself a doctor! With a laptop in front of you as well. So, the Mere Exposure Effect was the idea that things become more likeable just because we become more familiar with them because we're exposed to them more and more times. So I think about all of the options there, especially through digital and social channels, with subtle targeting and remarketing, to get people slowly more and more familiar and more and more comfortable with whatever it is we're trying to get them to confront, so that it's not such a huge leap to go and tackle it.

Dan: 14:38 And probably bundled in with that is giving people a really easy on ramp. So it's like just a 30 second survey or a two minute call or a 15 minute appointment, just to make it easier for people to get started back on the right path.

Mel: 14:50 Increased familiarity, reduced discomfort. Got you.

Dan: 14:52 Exactly. That's pretty much what I said in a less articulate format. So number four is the idea of trying to automate as much as you can for people. So you're basically making the trade off for them to think about it once and have it solved lots and lots of times.

Dan: 15:04 So obviously, signing up to personal trainers is one place where we see this, where you're sort of motivated to correct your lifestyle or your health wants. And a trainer is going to turn up to your door at 6:00 AM every Wednesday until you say stop. But another place where we've seen this really come to life is in the subscription meal kits. So whether that's with the Light and Easy's or the Marley Spoon's of the world, what these guys do is they take the notion that at some point in time, you have decided to try and eat better and they have automated the service of eating better by sending calorie-controlled, portion-controlled, ready to go meals basically until you tell them to stop.

Mel: 15:41 Nice. I like it.

Dan: 15:43 Yeah. And I think number five is the idea that our imagination is a pretty amazing thing. And I think often when we're avoiding something, we think that the cost of dealing with it is far greater than it is. And the impact of not dealing with it is far less than it is. So it's like, "Oh, I've got something weird, it feels weird somewhere on me. It's going to be such a pain in the ass to go to the doctor. I'm going to have to take half a day off work. I'm always going to get stuck waiting in the waiting room. I'm probably going to get sick while I'm there. And it's probably nothing anyway."

Dan: 16:13 And if we can start shredding through that with some real data that it's actually only going to take you a 15 minute online consultation and you could die! And if you could die, then you should probably deal with it now, not later. The notion of giving real data to remove people's imaginations about how good and bad things could be, I think would also massively help.

Mel: 16:35 That's good.

Dan: 16:36 Quite comprehensive.

Mel: 16:36 That's five strong tips. There's a lot there. That last one. It sounds to me like you're talking about the idea of when there's an emotion attached to something that if you can actually present them with the rational objective data and that should take people out of it, yeah?

Dan: 16:48 Should.

Mel: 16:49 That's sort of what I think about when I think about how people just in general can avoid ostriching, if we can use the term that way.

Dan: 16:57 Yeah, of course we can.

Mel: 16:57 How to avoid ostriching.

Dan: 16:59 It's completely factitious anyway. You can conjugate it however you want.

Mel: 17:02 So the idea that I think about is that if you're avoiding something, it's because you've got an emotional attachment to it. So from a psychological perspective, what I want to do is to distance you from that. So the way that I would do that or one way to create some psychological distance would be to say, "If this weren't happening to you at all, if this was happening to a friend-"

Dan: 17:21 The old asking for a friend technique.

Mel: 17:22 What would you tell your friend? What advice would you give to a friend who was in this situation? So it's the same sort of idea. I'm trying to take away that emotional attachment to it which can help people to see things in a different light.

Dan: 17:33 I would tell my friend to pay the damn credit card bill before they ruin their financial track record.

Mel: 17:38 Probably some good advice.

Dan: 17:39 Yeah. I don't need to take that advice because I haven't opened a credit card statement in years. But I'm fine.

Mel: 17:45 The other thing that I would suggest to people who may be ostriching would be, if you can identify, and it's not hard to identify for yourself when you're avoiding a task, right? I think we all know it. The whole point is we're doing it consciously. We're consciously avoiding it. Sometimes we can ask ourselves, what are we actually avoiding? In the case of going to the doctor that you mentioned, what am I actually afraid of? What am I avoiding? What am I afraid of? Oh, I'm afraid that this is actually really something bad.

Mel: 18:09 In that case, surely the best course of action is actually to do something about it. Early intervention would have to be better than letting it just sort of sit there and grow.

Dan: 18:17 Damn you and your rational arguments. That makes so much sense.

Mel: 18:23 So I think that's pretty much a wrap on the ostrich effect.

Dan: 18:25 Yeah. All right. I think so too. Do you want to give us the definition one more time? The ostrich effect is-

Mel: 18:31 Is the tendency to actively avoid information just by pretending it doesn't exist.

Dan: 18:35 Yeah. Which may or may not be named after a bird that does or doesn't do that.

Mel: 18:39 At your discretion.

Dan: 18:40 Yeah, and we talked about how avoiding information in its own right is maybe not bad, but it can lead to bad outcomes.

Mel: 18:48 Definitely if it leads to bad decisions and that's why you're here, really.

Dan: 18:51 And if pain persists-

Mel: 18:53 Please see your doctor.

Dan: 18:54 All right. And then we talked about very briefly, rapid fire succession, five things that brands can do about this. So that was about dialing up the discomfort from avoiding the issue; reframing the negative into a positive; making people more comfortable by repeated subtle exposure to what you want them to do; automate as much as possible and replace imagination with real data. And then you talked about what peeps can do.

Mel: 19:17 Just what you can do. What would you do if it was a friend in that situation? And really just identifying and acknowledging I'm avoiding something: what am I avoiding? What am I so afraid of?

Dan: 19:26 Yeah. And just get on with it.

Mel: 19:28 Confront it.

Dan: 19:28 You're probably going to be fine. Confront your demons. All right. Psychological advice provided to you by me.

Mel: 19:36 Oh dear.

Dan: 19:38 And often corrected by you. Don't do that. I'm not a therapist.

Mel: 19:42 He's really not.

Dan: 19:42 No, but I am on the internet. You can find me @danmonheit all over the place.

Mel: 19:47 And I'm @drmelw.

Dan: 19:49 All right, we'll see you all next time. Pull your head out of the sand, people.