by Dan Ariely
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
When it comes to job applicants, do we like people more or less when they’re hired from the outside compared to when they are promoted from within?
—JOHN
Jeana Frost, Mike Norton, and I carried out a set of studies sometime ago showing that when it comes to dating, knowing more about a person leads to less love—not more. The basic finding is that when we know very little about potential romantic partners, our imagination fills in the gaps in overoptimistic ways (if he likes music, he must like the kind of music I like and not seventeenth-century Baroque) and then we meet them for coffee and our high hopes are crushed. Oddly, we also found that this disappointment shows up time after time, and that online dating enthusiasts don’t seem to learn from their negative experiences, and don’t tame their overoptimistic expectations.
Plenty of lessons from the romantic realm apply to other areas of our lives, and job applicants is one of them. There is some evidence suggesting that CEOs hired from the outside get paid more than those hired from the inside and that they don’t perform as well. I suspect that the reason for this is the same heightened expectations that come with lack of knowledge—when someone is relatively unknown we tend to fill in the gaps in overoptimistic ways, we get more excited about their potential and as a consequence we are more likely to hire them and to pay them extra. But with hiring CEOs, the consequences of acting on the outline of our expectations is much more costly than a wasted hour and a cup of coffee.
Workplace, Relationships, Predictions
ON LEARNING TO BE BETTER DECISION MAKERS (MAYBE)
Dear Dan,
Given all your research on decision making, and the mistakes we all make, do you now find yourself making better decisions?
—ODED
Maybe. Possibly. Sometimes. I suspect that studying the dark side of how we all make decisions helps me reflect on human decision making in general, but I doubt that it has any positive impact on the quality of my gut intuition. This means that when I rely on my intuition and gut feelings for making decisions, I am just as prone to mistakes as everyone else.
Where I might do better is when I get to carefully consider my decisions. In these (rare) cases, the thought process is more deliberate, and under these conditions I might be able to avoid some of the decision traps that I know so much about. At least I would like to think that this is the case.
Another benefit of understanding failures in decision making comes from recognizing the importance of habits. Habits are automated ways of acting without thinking very much, which means that to the extent that we create good habits, they can facilitate better behaviors. Given this, I try to delegate some of the most challenging decisions (overeating, under-saving, texting while driving) to rules and habits and I think this has worked very well for me so far.
I should also point out that much of my research starts with my observations of my own irrationalities, so, without my own mistakes, I would have to look for a different career.
Decisions, Long-Term Thinking, Habits
ON THE POWER OF EXPECTATIONS
“I can’t decide if that was bad in a good way, good in a good way, good in a bad way, or bad in a bad way.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
A lot of research in social science has shown that when we expect an experience to be of a certain quality, the power of expectations can alter the experience and, indeed, make it comply with our expectations. For example, your own research has shown that a glass of wine will taste better after reading a positive review of it, and that when we think that a beer will taste disgusting because it has some balsamic vinegar in it, our expectations will make us hate that beer (when in a blind taste, balsamic vinegar actually makes it taste better). Well, these findings mostly fit with my own experience; however, what you didn’t mention is the possibility of a negative effect for expectations that are too good. In other words, is the effect the same when something is extremely overhyped?
My own observation is that when I passionately recommend a movie to my friends, sometimes their feedback is, “It wasn’t that good. I thought it would be really amazing.” I suspect that in those cases my friends are not experiencing the movie in the positive way that they should because I overhyped it. Do you think that overhyped expectations can backfire?
—OMID
My intuition is the same as yours. When I hype, or overhype something, my friends end up with very high expectations. These very high expectations become the standard from which my friends evaluate the experience—and when it inevitably falls short, their overall enjoyment of the experience is decreased.
Here is how I view the issue: Heightened expectations can change our experience by, let’s say, 20 percent. This means that as long as the increased expectations are within this moderate range, the expectations can “pull” the experience toward them and influence it accordingly. But, when the expectations are too extreme (let’s say by 60 percent or more), the gap between expectations and reality becomes too wide to bridge, and now, the contrast causes the expectations to backfire and reduce the enjoyment.
What I suggest is that if you want your friends to experience something as being better than it truly is, go ahead and exaggerate. But, not by too much.
Expectations, Happiness, Entertainment
ON COMMUNICATING SAFETY
Dear Dan,
I have sometimes found myself walking behind a woman at night in a somewhat unsafe place, going in the same direction. Even though there is some distance between us, I can feel the doubt and worry in her mind. How should I handle this situation? Should I say something? I also need to be somewhere, but I don’t want the woman to feel unsafe, so should I stop and wait?
—STEVE
No need to stop. Simply pick up your cell phone, call your mother, and talk to her in a slightly loud voice. In the world of suspicion, nobody who calls his mother at night could be considered a negative individual.
Other People, Emotions, Communication
ON THE PERFECT GIFT
“Even if they don’t like it, they’ll be flattered that we thought they’d like it.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Hi Dan,
Every year it’s the same problem: My husband and I struggle to get his dad a few perfect gifts, only to see them sit unused for eternity. These are expensive and high-quality gifts—specialty tools for his car, toolboxes, super-handy gadgets, etc. But years later, the tools sit there unopened and the toolbox accumulates dust. He still carries his broken wrenches and stripped screwdrivers around in a ripped plastic sack!
Since the objects were “ours” at one point, we feel that we still retain some residual interest in what happens to them. Is it because we invested so much thought and effort in acquiring them? Is it because not using the gifts seems wasteful? Is it because we feel that the lack of use reflects badly on us? And now to the main question: Would it be so wrong if we just took our gifts back? He clearly doesn’t want them and we could use them ourselves.
—VERONICA
No, you may not take the gifts back. (Note that I didn’t write “your gifts,” because I don’t think you should consider them yours.)
The sad thing is that you and your husband feel unappreciated because your thoughtful and expensive gifts are not bringing the dear old man the happiness that you hoped to give him. Instead of taking the gifts back, I would try to increase the likelihood that the tools will get used. First, I would take them out of their packaging (which in some cases is so difficult that you need special tools just to open the package), and replace the old tools in his plastic sack with the new ones—thereby making the act of using the new tools easier, and more likely. As for the old tools, just put them in the attic for now, ideally behind some large boxes.
If your father-in-law protests, I would restore his old tool kit and suggest spring cleaning, including a
donation of unused household goods to a local charity. He might be willing to give the new tools up for a good cause. And if that doesn’t work, stage a robbery and steal the tools, leaving cash and other valuables untouched. The added benefit of the robbery approach is that it might also show your father-in-law how valuable your gifts are—and he might view your future gifts with new eyes.
As for this year, buy him something that gets better over time, such as good whiskey or wine. That way, if he doesn’t use it, at least it will increase in value and bother you less.
Giving, Family, Relationships
ON EATING LESSONS AND KIDS
Hi Dan,
Let’s say you’re very hungry and you plan to eat two sandwiches. One is very delicious and the second isn’t as good. Which one should you eat first?
—PABLO
One of my college friends had kids many years before anyone else in our social group was even considering children, and he used to give the following advice (mostly unsolicited): “Think,” he used to say, “about how you like to eat. There are some people who like to eat reasonably good food three times daily, while others would prefer to save their money and eat mediocre food most of the time but occasionally have an amazing meal.
“If you’re the second type, go ahead and have kids, because life with kids isn’t all that fun for the most part, but from time to time they bring incredible joy. But, if you identify with the first type, you may want to rethink having kids.”
Now, I am not sure that anyone should use this metaphor when making decisions about having kids, but I do think that it works well for your question.
This thought experiment asks whether you are the type of person that focuses on the maximum amount of pleasure in any given experience, or if you are more concerned with avoiding the low points—the minimum levels—of your experiences.
One more element, and then we can get to your question: Let’s also consider diminished sensitivity, which means that for any given dish, the first bite (when you are hungrier) is the best, that the second bite is slightly less good, and that the last bite will give you the lowest level of joy. (As Cervantes wrote in Don Quixote, “Hunger is the best sauce in the world.”)
Now to your question: If you are the maximizer type, you should eat the better sandwich first so that the height of your initial joy comes from the combination of your hunger and the superior quality of the good sandwich. Of course, by taking this approach you will sacrifice the pleasure at the end of your experience but if you are the maximizer type, you should consider this a worthwhile trade-off. On the other hand, if you are of the avoiding-minimum type, and all you want is to get a more even experience—giving up the highs, but also eliminating low points—eat the so-so sandwich first. This way the initial part of the experience will be enhanced by your hunger rather than by the quality of the sandwich, and the latter part of the experience will benefit from the sandwich quality but take a hit from being late in the meal.
Personally, I prefer to focus on the most joyful part of the experience and eat the best sandwich first, ignoring folk wisdom to “save the best for last.” Plus, this way I might be less hungry by the time I get to the so-so sandwich and eat a bit less.
Food and Drinks, Experiences, Happiness
ON USEFUL COMPLAINING
“I thought we had the sort of relationship where ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ were implicit.”
{Illustrations © 2015 William Haefeli}
Dear Dan,
I recently met up with an old friend whom I hadn’t seen for a very long time. I had been eagerly looking forward to our lunch, but I left very disappointed. All she did for more than two hours was complain—mostly about her husband, with some breaks to complain about her kids. It was a negative and depressing meeting and I left feeling bad for her, myself, and the time we spent together. Why do people complain so much? Could she really imagine that this was a good way to spend time with an old friend?
—ANDREA
People complain for a few reasons, and it is interesting and useful to figure out the exact reasons that our friends complain. One main reason is that misery often makes us feel closer to one another. Imagine that you are meeting a friend and you either tell her how difficult your husband and kids were last night, or give her the same level of detail about how wonderful your family is and how lucky you feel about the familial bliss you experienced yesterday. Under which case would your friend like you more, under which case would she share more with you in return, and under which case would you feel closer at the end of the meeting? I am willing to bet that it is the complaining one.
Another important reason for complaining is that we often look for reassurance—hoping the person we complain to will tell us that everything is OK and that what we’re experiencing is just part of life. In fact, often what we really hope for is that the other person will share their own horror stories with us, that our experiences will pale in comparison and make us feel much better.
Now, let’s return to your friend and ask why she was complaining. If she was looking to reconnect through shared misery, perhaps you should have indulged her efforts to strengthen your social bond. Perhaps you could have assured her that your bonds are strong and not in any need of additional strengthening. On the other hand, if your friend was looking for an emotional boost, maybe you should have told her something like: “You think your husband is a schmuck? Let me tell you about my prize.” Thereby assuring her that her life is actually more normal than she might think.
Either way, complaining can actually be pretty useful. The next time a friend starts complaining, figure out the reason for it, and try to make the most of it.
Friends, Misery, Communication
ON PRICES AND BIDDING FRENZY
Dear Dan,
My parents are about to put their house on the market in Scotland. In the Scottish system the seller sets an asking price and interested parties make a one-time, sealed-bid offer. Once all the offers are gathered the seller picks one and the transaction is carried out. Any advice on how to get the highest sale price?
—MOSES
Sealed-bid auctions are simpler in many ways than live auctions, and they involve two basic forces: what the bidders think the house is worth for them, and how intense they think the competition will be. Establishing a high asking price has an opposite effect on these two forces.
If you set a high asking price, there’s a good chance that people will start thinking about the house in the price range of the asking price and offer a higher bid. On the other hand, if you set a low asking price, more people will participate in the auction, the competition will be fiercer, and the outcome is likely to be a higher final price. (By the way, have you noticed that in auctions—on eBay for example—the person who pays for the item at the end of the auction is called “the winner”? This suggests that competition is indeed a very strong driver in auctions.)
Now, the question is which of these two forces (starting perspective or competition) is stronger. I suspect that when the mechanism is a one-time, sealed-bid auction the most important element is the way people start thinking about the house, which suggests that you should go in with a high asking price. However, if you were in the United States, where the bidding mechanism involves multiple rounds, competition might be more important, which means that you would be better served by setting a lower asking price and getting more people to join the auction.
P.S. Last week I met with a friend who is house-hunting in San Francisco. He told me that the houses he has been bidding on had a very intense competition that ended up with selling prices that were about 30 percent to 40 percent more than the asking prices—a process that frustrates potential buyers. This brings me to my final point: A bidding frenzy might be good for a seller but since we are all going to be buyers and sellers at some point, it’s not clear that the overall market for housing is better off with intense bidding frenzy.
Decisions, Value, Other People
ON TRANSMI
SSION OF STRESS, AND CARING FOR THE OLD
Dear Dan,
As a university professor who has been teaching for a long time, what advice would you give to students who are starting their academic year?
—PETER
Simple: Cut all ties with your family—particularly your grandparents.
Here’s why: Most professors discover that family members, particularly grandmothers, tend to pass away just before exams. Deciding to look into this question with the kind of rigor that only academics are able to (and have the time for), Mike Adams, a professor of biology at Eastern Connecticut State University, collected years of data and concluded that grandmothers are 10 times more likely to die before a midterm and 19 times more likely to die before a final exam. Grandmothers of students who aren’t doing so well in class are at even higher risk, and the worst news is for students who are failing: Their grandmothers are 50 times more likely to die as the grandmothers of students who are passing the class.
The most straightforward explanation for these results? These students share their struggles with their grandmothers, and the poor old ladies prove unable to cope with the difficult news and die. Based on this sound reasoning, from a public policy perspective, students—particularly ones that are failing—clearly shouldn’t mention the timing of their exams or their academic performance to any relatives. (A less likely interpretation of these results would be that the students are lying, but this is really hard to imagine.)
Kidding aside, social relationships are very important for our health and happiness, in good times and bad. And fostering these bonds is a wise goal for anyone at any stage of life.
