Adaptation-Level Phenomenon

How many of us have thought "I'll be happy when {-insert_conditional_here-}," and how many of us were actually happy when that conditional happened?  

Welcome to the world of the adaptation-level phenomenon. The adaptation-level phenomenon is the tendency of people to quickly adapt to a new situation, until it becomes the new norm, and not being able to remember life without said situation. Once the new situation is the new norm, a new experience is craved - thus creating a never-ending process of continual growth and seeking that happiness.  Hopefully you are happy for a little bit.  

Taken in that light, the adaptation-level phenomenon is quite laughable and easy to dismiss.  But it is real, and has a very strong pull. For me, the classic example is smart phones - I don't know how I functioned without mine, and my adaptation was surprisingly quick. Another example is living without Netflix once you have tasted the convenience of their service. 

This explains how Apple has been able to grow and retain such a loyal customer base too.  Their customers are always looking for the new iPhone, iPod, iPad, whatever, and as soon as it comes out, their current iDevice has lost it's shiny place and are the new norm.  Now they must have the new experience.  Because, you know, heaven forbid you are the only one at work with an iPhone 5s.  

I think a lot of company's try to create some form of this phenomenon through running campaigns that say things like "Don't miss out!" or "Keep on the cutting edge of technology with our product."  That brand loyalty is some pretty sweet short-run security, to be sure! 

From a consumer's standpoint, I think the trick to avoid being trapped in that vicious cycle is like anything - recognize and admit that it is a problem.  Then, train yourself to enjoy your current "norm" as much as you would the new experience.  Then your happiness is not relied on something else that will never come, but instead is grounded in today. 

Gambler's Fallacy

If there's one thing I've never understood, it's the lottery.  

Like, I don't get it...The probability of you winning anything is so small, the opportunity cost of that lottery ticket is pretty darn high.  And yet, people still buy in.  And it seems a lot of that has to do with this little thing called the gambler's fallacy.  

Ladies and Gentlemen -
the Gambler's Fallacy

The basic idea is that you put more faith that something will happen because it is "bound to happen by now."  Say you roll a dice hoping for a four.  The first roll is a two.  The next, a three.  Then a one, a two, another two, and a five.  By now, you may be thinking that four is bound to show up soon.  It just has to.  But the thing is...is doesn't have to, and that's completely irrational logic. Mathematically it is still a 1/6th chance you'll roll a four - just like the other rolls.  

But some people don't see that.  All you have to do is look at the advertisements for the lottery - they all run off themes like "Lucky Day", or "Feel the Luck."  They are making money off the people's irrational decision making.  

The funny thing is that the people who are good at games that we typically think of involve luck to win, don't take into account any luck at all.  In fact, it's just the opposite.  The take into account the risks, and use mathematics and probabilities to make their decisions.  Look at any poker champion - they are good with numbers. 

Automatic vs Reflective

In Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein say there are two different cognitive systems - automatic and reflective

Automatic system is instinctive, unconscious, fast, and effortless.  It is what Farenheit is to most Americans. 

Reflective system on the other hand, is self-conscious and deliberate.  It is cognitive thought, and often slow. You can call it the rational side of humans - they call it the Mr. Spock.  It is what Celsius is to most Americans..

Automatic systems have their own inertia that often prevents us from doing something we’d want to do otherwise. In some ways it is the knee-jerk reactions we may want to get rid of, but are very difficult to.  

This explains why learning a new language is so difficult.  Our native language is automatic and comes out without us thinking about it. But a new language is reflective.  It is slow, thoughtful, and difficult.  Thus, bilingual implies both languages are automatic.

Heuristics could be seen as part of the automatic system, as they are rules of thumb that are almost instinctive to us.  

Thinking about Reflective vs Automatic is essential when you are trying to influence someone's behavior, and nudge them in a certain direction.  Obviously, tailoring your message to the Automatic system will be the most effective, as it has that inertia an they probably do not even realize they are thinking in that way. 

I wonder if that is related to the "Hot Decision making" principle, that people make different decisions when they are aroused (tested in a sexual context, but it could be any sort of arousal).  That's why infomercials always try to create some sort of urgency to their message, isn't it?  They want to communicate to the Automatic side of their customer, and make them buy the product before they put to much thought into it.  

And if that's true, than the best shoppers are the ones who take their time and do some good Reflective thinking on things.  So take that Schwartz - maximizers may be making better decisions than satisficers do, because they are not as subject to their automatic impulses.   

Jumping to Conclusions

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to jump to conclusions in our life.  We as humans like to generalize, and simplify things as much as possible (heuristics, anyone?) so we can understand it.  

What has surprised me this semester is how easy that is to do during the design process.

We were brainstorming the other day of ways to make the adjustment to adulthood easier for 18-25 year old people.  We started by writing all different types of problems down we could think of: things like finances, stress, and careers.  My team decided to hone in on self-actualization.  

Brainstorming at work

After doing some initial brainstorming, we came up with a service that would push you out of your comfort zone, through things like travel, classes, and other experiences.  The basic idea is that you learn the most about yourself when you are uncomfortable.

Well, this idea was so great, we had a hard time thinking of other ideas (even though we were supposed to come up with other possible solutions).  Even individually, most of ideas we came up with were in a very similar vein to the one discussed.  

Why was that? 

Was it laziness? 

Or was it just a darn-good idea?  

I wish I had the answer.  I came across similar problems in my other design class, Design Thinking for Our Community.  Often the ideas we ended up prototyping and testing were some of the first ideas that came to our mind.  

I guess there is nothing wrong with it, per say.  As long as you are able to put the idea through the tests, poke holes in it, and see where it needs improvement - and throw it away if necessary.

It is only a problem if you don't do any of that refinement.  If you think the idea is the best and needs no extra thought...well you should probably put some thought into the lives of some of the best inventors, like Thomas Edison or Walt Disney.  Just as genius is not born overnight, nor are good products.  They are the result of much hard work.  

Marketing Research and Behavior

One of the best pieces of advice I have gotten in my marketing classes is this: 

When you are doing marketing research, be careful of the data you gather, because sometimes the same people who say they will buy something are the same people who will lie to you. 

 For example, say you are designing a product, and you take the concept to your target audience to ask them how much they would pay for it.  Say the average person said they would pay $20 for this product.  Great.  You can work with that.  You go through all the development, with all its expenses and pains, and finally come back to the same people with the finished product in hand, ready to sell for $20.  But, they do not buy it.  

It makes things more difficult, but people will make different decisions when aroused or under pressure.  The decisions they say they will make are less likely to uphold.  

Thankfully, there are ways to control for these things statistically, to help mitigate that risk.  I just thought it is interesting and a worthwhile word to the wise.  

Nudging Us in Buildings

One of the nudges discussed in Nudge was something I've never thought about before - nudges in buildings. 

I'm sure this is "Good Building Design 101" for architects, but since I've never taken an architect class before, I found the idea quite interesting.  

So, I started paying attention, and asking "How are buildings designed to nudge us to do a certain things?"  

One of the first things I realized was bathroom locations.  Whenever I needed to use one, I always found myself needing to walk somewhere.  While walking, I'd run into a friend.  I'd remember to send that email to that professor as I walked by their door.  Overall, the need to walk to the nearest bathroom always seemed to provoke some level of interaction.  

Another came up while walking through Jabs, this time with eyes open and looking for the small nudges.  One thing I had noticed before but never thought about were the vending machines -- they are tucked away, almost hidden, by the emergency stairs, as far away from Sola Cafe as possible.  Had they been more accessible, how many sales would Sola loose to the cheaper vending machines?  It was a nudge to buy Sola.  

Then I did some quick Googling and came across this (an obvious nudge, but nonetheless):

How cool is that?  It's like a little nudge coach reminding you of why you should take the stairs!  Can't help but feel we need more of these types of nudges in our buildings.

If anything, I'll be keeping my eyes much more open over as I explore new and old areas. It certainly is interesting to think about how much thought is put into something as simple as where to put the bulletin board or where to put the bathrooms.  It never ceases to amaze me how much thought is put into the small things we often overlook - from building layouts to advertisements.  People are crazy. 

Don't know about you, but it makes me even more excited to build my own house someday ^_^ 

Availability Heuristic and Decision Making

We were talking in class about the different heuristics - or rules of thumb - we use to understand things faster.  One of them, the availability heuristic, I have especially been seeing almost everyday in people's decision making.  And it hurts sometimes, because it can lead them to make irrational decisions.  

But first, an example that explains the availability heuristic. Parents are more protective of their children now than they were fifty years ago.  And we can see why, right?  It seems almost everywhere you look you see horrendous stories about children being kidnapped, and goodness knows what else.  These are scary things!   So naturally, you being the informed citizen and loving parent, you protect your child.  You always keep them in your sight, to ensure nothing goes wrong.  You walked to school by yourself when you were a kid, true; but those were different times and today things are more dangerous. 

But here's the kicker - the probability of children being kidnapped is significantly less than is was fifty years ago.  And even then, it's a really (really) small probability. 

We just think it is a huge possibility, because we hear about these stories so often in our connected world full of a press that eats up any story that shocks and sells.  We remember the things that are the most accessible to us, and use those rules to make our decisions, even if it is not an accurate picture of reality.  In other words, we are using an availability heuristic.  

And this leads me a main thought that has been spinning around my mind over the past few months - what is the social responsibility of the press?  Are they actually doing us a disservice by covering all these stories?  Sure, they may think it is their "social duty" to cover these stories, or they may just be looking for a good story to get the hits they need on Google.  But regardless of intentions, are they creating a bigger problem in doing so?  

But, there is a counter argument as well -- maybe the decrease in kidnappings are due to better parent behavior because they are more aware of the terrible things that can happen to their children. Proving that causality would be, of course difficult.  But, still its interesting.  

I think it comes down to the classic economic test of benefits vs costs.  Sure, there is less kidnapping nowadays (and thank goodness).  But, what cost does that have?  Some would argue that sheltered children have a smaller probability of being kidnapped yes, but they are robbed of the essential skills that would have developed from the adventuring and being off on their own.  So, is the benefit of a smaller probability of being kidnapped worth the cost of losing those skills?  I wish I had the answer.  

But what I do know is we all must be careful not fall into the trap of the availability heuristic.  Think like a rational human being, be different, and lead by example.  Otherwise, you could be blind to the things you could help fix - as demonstrated below.