Scientists identify a new problem in human thought

Good news, everyone! Scientists at the University of California in Berkeley invented a new term to describe our stupid brain. In a recent study, they provide evidence of a distinct but common – cognitive bias – which makes us reluctant to take the easiest way in life if it means retracing our steps.

The researchers named the bias of “doubling aversion”. In several experiences, they have found that people often refuse to choose a more effective solution or path if that forces them to double the progress already made. The results suggest that the subjective fear of people to add more to their workload and to their hesitation in wiping the Clean slate contributes to this bias, say the researchers.

“The aversion of participants to feel their past efforts was waste encouraged them to pursue less effective means,” they wrote in their article, published this May in psychological sciences.

Psychologists have detailed all kinds of bias linked to the search of our feet in the face of new important information. People tend to stick to the status quo to choose dinner in a favorite restaurant, for example, even when someone recommends a potentially tastier option. There is also the flow jumping, or the reluctance to trigger a disastrous path and to choose another simply because they spent so much time or resources to continue it. The researchers argue that their newly named bias is certainly a cousin close to the cast cost error and similar biases, but that it ultimately describes a unique type of cognitive traps.

You go in the wrong direction!

In their article, they provide the example of someone whose flight from San Francisco in New York is very delayed very early, leaving them trapped in Los Angeles. In a scenario, the traveler can return home three hours earlier than their current route if he accepts the airline’s offer of a new flight that stops for the first time in Denver; In the second, the person rather offered a flight which will also shave three hours off, but they will first have to return to San Francisco. Despite the two flights that save the same time, people are more likely to refuse the one who requires returning to their previous destination, explains the newspaper (some people could even refuse the theft of Denver, but this would be an example of the status quo and / or the assault of cast costs, he notes).

To test their hypothesis, the researchers directed four different types of experiences. The experiences collectively involved more than 2,500 adults, some of whom were UC Berkeley students and others who were volunteers recruited by Amazon’s mechanical Turkish. In a test, people were invited to travel different paths in virtual reality; Another asked people to recite as many words starting with the same letter as possible. In the various tests, the researchers found that people regularly presented this aversion.

In an experience where people had to recite words starting with “G”, for example, everyone was invited halfway if they wanted to stay with the same letter or go to the recitation of words starting with “T” (a letter probably easier). In the condition of control, this decision was conceived as remaining on the same task, simply with a new letter, but in the other, we asked the people if they wanted to throw the work they had done so far and start on a new task. Above all, volunteers also received progress bars for the task, which allows them to see that they would do the same amount of work, regardless of the choice (although “T” would be easier). About 75% of participants made the choice to switch to the control condition, but only 25% did the same when the switch was presented as needing to double.

Backwards feel bad

“When I analyzed these results, I said to myself:” Oh, is there an error? How can there be such a big difference? “” Said the main author Kristine Cho, a doctoral student in behavioral marketing at the Haas School of Business of the UC Berkely, in a declaration to the Association for Psychological Science, of study publishers.

Of course, other researchers will have to confirm the results of the team. And there are still a lot of questions to answer this aversion, including the frequency to which we fall for it and if this is more likely to occur in certain scenarios than others. But for the moment, it is strangely comforting to know that there is something else that I can possibly blame so that my occasional stubbornness takes the faster metro train.