The latest in behavioural science from #ogilvychange.

1. O BEHAVE!
Issue 17 • August 2015

2. Are Video Games All Bad? 3
Bias of the Month 4
Optimism and Apathy about the Future 5
Making Bad Decisions Defensively 6
The Habit of Self-Control 7
Real Life Nudge of the Month 8
Upcoming Events 8
CONTENTS

3. ARE VIDEO GAMES ALL BAD?
“Study finds that violent video games may be linked to aggressive behaviour” claims the Independent’s headline on Monday
August 17th. The article goes on to say that, “Research from the APA task force concluded that a consistent relationship has
been found between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognitions and aggressive
affect, and decreases in pro-social behaviour, empathy and sensitivity to aggression”. Although the evidence does support
this and it is important information especially for parents to show why they should take the age guidelines for games
seriously, the media only ever focuses on the negative aspect of gaming.
In fact, there is also some extremely interesting research into computer games that induce the user to behave in prosocial
ways, showing that this can lead users to engage in helping behaviours in the real world after the game is over. Gentile and
colleagues (2009) helped to pioneer research on this topic with both children and adolescents from collectivist countries
(Singapore, Japan) and these from individualistic countries (US). In the first two studies the researcher looked firstly at games
the children reported they play most often and how often they hurt and help others in the games, along with a series of scales
assessing their aptitude for pro-social behaviour, and secondly video gaming habits and prosocial behaviour over 2-3 months.
Across both studies, a correlation was found between prosocial gaming and prosocial behaviour. It seems very likely that the
children who were playing prosocial games were prosocial in nature and therefore they were attracted to these games, rather
than these games making them prosocial, so the authors designed a third experiment to test causality.
Participants were randomly assigned to play either a prosocial or neutral
game for 20 minutes. They were then told to assign a partner 11 tangram
puzzles out of 30 (10 easy, 10 medium, 10 hard). They were told that if
their partner could complete at least 10 puzzles, the partner would win
$10. This allowed the partipants to either help the partner by giving easy
puzzles or hurt them by giving difficult ones. Results found a significant
effect of game type on behaviour, with those playing the prosocial games
more likely to help their partner. This is one of many studies showing the
positive impact of gaming. Gaming is here to stay, so instead of parents
getting worried about all the negative media surrounding it, perhaps focus
should be placed on how gaming can be used in a positive way.
Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Ming, L. K., ... & Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors:
International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5 (6), 752-763.

4. BIAS OF THE MONTH
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
In 1995, a man named McArthur Wheeler robbed two banks in one day. He was confident that he would not be identified
because he had covered his face in lemon juice, which, as it can be used as invisible ink and only become visible when
in contact with heat, he felt sure would make his face invisible to security cameras. The police played the surveillance
footage on the news that evening and, within hours, Wheeler was identified and arrested.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6), 1121-34.
This fantastic tale prompted David Dunning and Justin Kruger at Cornell
University to study the phenomenon of low-skilled individuals being
unaware of quite how unskilled they are, suffering from an illusory
superiority which leads them to believe their ability is far greater than it
actually is; a bias they called the Dunning-Kruger effect. In other words,
these people are too incompetent to realise how incompetent they are, and
they also tend not to recognise genuine skill when it is exhibited in others.
In a series of experiments, Dunning and Kruger tested participants’ logical
reasoning, grammatical skills and humour. Participants were then shown
their test scores, and asked to estimate their relative rank on that skill. As
hypothesised, participants who scored poorly tended to overestimate their
rank, and dramatically so; those ranking in the 12th percentile estimated
they were in the 62nd. Interestingly, high-skilled individuals often
underestimated their relative ability, assuming that everyone must have
found the task as straightforward as they did.
This bias is greatly reduced when those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect are given basic training in the relevant
skillset, even when this has very little impact on their ability, suggesting that a lack of exposure and feedback is to blame.
But of course, afflicted individuals won’t realise there is an issue at all, let alone take action; and if this doesn’t bring
anyone you know to mind, then it’s probably you.

5. OPTIMISM AND APATHY ABOUT THE FUTURE
Whether or not you’re following the Labour leadership contest or even the Republican presidential candidates in the US, the
chances are you believe it’ll work out fine, because we tend to think the world will change in line with our beliefs in the future.
This goes deeper than the optimism bias; Todd Rogers and Michael Norton at Harvard University have termed it the belief in
a favourable future, or BFF, and it is not a belief that the world will get better in general so much as that it will change in a
way that is favourable to us. This is also different to false consensus, where we project our views onto others in the present
and overestimate how many share them. For example, both liberal and conservative Christians believe that Jesus would
share their political views, despite being mutually incompatible.
In a series of experiments, Rogers and Norton (2014) surveyed people’s opinions on
topics including political ideology, abortion, same sex marriage, climate change, gun
control, phone operating systems and American Idol. As predicted, participants tended
to indicate that more Americans would share their views in 20 years’ time; 90% of those
who believed global temperatures are increasing also believed this view would be more
widespread in 2032, while 60% of those who believed temperatures are decreasing
thought more would share their view. Across all topics, this BFF was strongly correlated
with believing their view was logically derived and therefore objectively accurate, rather
than a subjective taste. Furthermore, the authors showed that this effect was distinct
from false consensus as they did not find that participants significantly overestimated the
number of others sharing their view in the present. A final manipulation supported the
hypothesis that this isn’t just general optimism: participants rated their best and worst
personality traits, and were asked whether they thought the prevalence of these traits
would increase or decrease in the future. Most thought their best traits would become
less common, and this would be advantageous as it would make them more special;
they also thought their worst traits would become more common, again beneficial to the
self as it makes them less noticeable, but worse for the world in general.
The BFF explains why people can be both apathetic and optimistic about politics. People are less likely to take action if they
believe the world will fall into line regardless; for example, someone might have been less likely to go to a pro-gay marriage
rally if they believed gay marriage would soon be legalised anyway. Clearly, if too many people do this, progress will not be
made in any direction – the objectively correct one you believe in, nor the subjective and wrong one many others do.
Rogers, T., & Norton, M.I. (2014). The Belief in a Favourable Future. Harvard Kennedy School Working Paper No. RWP14-048.

6. MAKING BAD DECISIONS DEFENSIVELY
Many charities survive solely on the donations of organisations and the public, who want to be sure that their money is being
spent how it was intended and not wasted. To reassure donors that their money is being put to good use and therefore
encourage them to continue donating, charities hire accounting firms to check and clarify their work. But which accounting firm
to choose? In one instance, the choice was between a small local firm with a reasonable price and was most knowledgeable
of the area, and a large international firm that charged more money had less knowledge but a big name. The best decision
seems obvious; hire the local firm and you will get better expertise for the better price, but this did not happen. The corporation
made the sub-optimal decision and chose the large international company with the big name. Why? A non-profit organisation
is accountable to its donors. If something went wrong, which it occasionally does, and the donors heard that a firm they had
never heard of checked the books, then alarm bells would go off. But if they had heard of the accounting firm, fewer questions
would be asked. This type of decision making is called defensive decision-making, in which “a person or group ranks option A
as the best, but chooses an inferior option B to protect itself in case something goes wrong”.
Defensive decision-making happens in a different areas. Reputation is very important in society, and therefore people
continually make decisions that will protect their reputation in case something goes wrong, instead of making the decision they
feel is the best. In a recent study, 33 of 36 top executives said they have practiced defensive decision-making and chosen the
second-best option in order to protect themselves.
In a world where it is so easy to sue others, an area where defensive
decision-making is rife is medicine. Many doctors fear their patients might
sue if a disease is overlooked or nothing aggressive is done and therefore
feel they have no choice but to order unnecessary drugs, tests or surgery,
even if they might actually hurt the patient, in cases where they wouldn’t
order these for a family member who are less of a legal threat. In
Switzerland, the rate of hysterectomy in the general population in 16%,
whereas among doctors wives and female doctors its 10%. In the US,
where litigation is much higher, 1 in 3 women undergoes a hysterectomy.
Next time you go to the doctor and want them to avoid defensive decision-
making, you can ask them “Would you recommend this to your daughter?”
Carlson, K. J., Nichols, D. H., & Schiff, I. (1993). Indications for hysterectomy. New England Journal of Medicine, 328(12), 856-860.

7. THE HABIT OF SELF-CONTROL
Self-control is typically thought of as the ability to resist temptation across time, repeatedly fighting off the lure of the
snooze button to go for a morning run, or whatever it may be. This is incredibly important, with higher levels of self-control
in children predicting greater earnings, better physical health, and even better relationships as adults. However, we know
that these impulses are incredibly effortful to suppress; willpower has been likened to a muscle which, though it can be
strengthened with training, will ultimately grow fatigued with sustained use. So how do these people maintain this level of
control over time?
New research by Galla and Duckworth (2015) suggests that rather than engaging in more effortful inhibition, people with
high levels of self-control actually do less of it, due to strong habits that make positive behaviour – like exercising, healthy
eating, sleeping, doing homework and practicing mindfulness – automatic. In three experiments, the authors found that
greater self-reported self-control was associated with stronger habits, which in turn led to better behavioural outcomes.
They also studied this phenomenon behaviourally in two subsequent studies, recording self-reported homework habits
and teachers’ records of classroom engagement, and tracking teenagers’ mindfulness habits five months after
participating in a meditation retreat. Consistently, self-control was correlated with positive habits, which means these
people were able to just automatically get on with the behaviour, rather than using time and energy trying to talk
themselves into or out of it.
Galla, B.M., & Duckworth, A.L. (2015). More Than Resisting Temptation: Beneficial Habits Mediate the Relationship Between Self-Control and Positive Life Outcomes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109 (3), 508-525.
Unfortunately for those not blessed with natural self-control, forming new habits
can be difficult. The claim that it takes 21 days to form a habit – based on Dr
Maxwell Maltz’s suggestion in the 1960s that it takes amputees 21 days to stop
experiencing ‘phantom limb’ syndrome after the limb has been removed – has
largely been debunked, and there is no firm consensus in its place. Lally, van
Jaarsveld, Potts and Wardle (2010) studied 96 people as they tried to adopt a
new behaviour in the same context each day, and found that the time taken for
the behaviour to come automatically ranged from 18 to 254 days. Taking these
two studies together, it seems likely that it takes a great deal of self-control to
be able to reach a stage where a behaviour becomes a habit and takes no self-
control, although future research to confirm this relationship – and to find some
hope for the weak-willed – is necessary.

8. Spotted: Salience in a box of Kleenex
We are exposed to a lot of stimuli in our environment, which all
competes for our attention. This is a limited resource, so we can
only pay attention to stimuli which is salient and seems novel
and relevant to us. Kleenex knows that when we use tissues, we
are paying more attention to why we need a tissue than to the
tissue itself, i.e. to cleaning up something or blowing our nose.
As a result, we rarely notice when we are nearing the end of the
box. Kleenex wanted to switch our attention from the event of
blowing our noses, for example, to the need to purchase a new
packet. They did so by turning the last few sheets of tissue blue,
so that when we pull out tissue expecting a white sheet our
attention will be caught by the unexpected blue sheet, making it
more likely Kleenex will be added to the shopping list.
REAL LIFE NUDGE OF THE MONTH
UPCOMING EVENTS
Behavioural Boozeonomics with the London Behavioural Economics Network
Tuesday 1st September, 5.00-9.00pm
Max Bazerman lecture at LSE, drinks at the Old Bank of England
Behavioural Exchange Conference 2015
Tuesday 2nd – Wednesday 3rd September
Park Plaza, Westminster Bridge
WBS Nudgeathon
Monday 14th – Tuesday 15th September
The Shard

9. Cíosa Garrahan
@CiosaGarrahan
ciosa.garrahan@ogilvy.com
BROUGHT TO YOU BY
Juliet Hodges
@hulietjodges
juliet.hodges@ogilvy.com