Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 9
Lesson 6: How well can we predict our feelings?How well can we predict our feelings?
In this wireless philosophy video, Laurie Santos (Yale University, The Happiness Lab podcast) draws on empirical research to challenge the widely-held assumption that we can trust our intuitive guesses about how being in certain hypothetical circumstances would make us feel.
View our happiness learning module and other videos in this series here:
https://www.wi-phi.com/modules/happy/. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
Video transcript
Hi, I’m Dr. Laurie Santos, professor of psychology and
cognitive science at Yale University, and in this video I’ll discuss research
challenging our assumption that we can trust our
intuitive guesses about how happy we’d feel
in imagined circumstances. Because often, we can’t. Like most of us, Maya works hard
to improve her circumstances, believing that this is
the path to happiness. So when Maya sees research showing
that materially successful people aren’t much happier than
people who have less, she takes it with a grain of salt. Maybe most people don’t get boosts
in happiness when they get great things, but she doubts that applies to her. After all, when Maya fantasizes about
getting the lucrative job or the true love she’s been seeking, she has a strong intuition that this
would make her so much happier. Maya recognizes that intuitions,
while often good guides, can sometimes be quite misleading. But shouldn’t we be able to trust our intuitions
about something as basic as how we’d feel if all our hopes and dreams came true? The process of guessing how
we’d feel in the future of what our affects would be if some particular situation
came to pass is what psychologists call
“affective forecasting". And research shows that
these intuitive predictions often significantly miss the mark. When we try to predict how a particular
event will impact our feelings, we’re susceptible to what’s
called an “impact bias". Take one study, for example. Assistant college professors were asked
to predict how happy they’d feel after finding out the result
of their tenure promotion: whether they’d been
accepted or rejected to the position
of full professor. These forecasters’ predictions were then
compared to the actual happiness of people who’d already been
through the tenure process. Forecasters predicted that they’d be
really happy if they got tenure. But, though people who’d gotten
tenure were generally happy, they were significantly less happy
than the forecasters had predicted. Forecasters were even more mistaken
about the impact of being rejected for tenure. They predicted that happiness would drop
dramatically after this decision. But people who were actually
rejected for tenure? They reported happiness levels just slightly
below the levels of people who got tenure. Many similar studies support
the existence of this bias: Fans of college football teams
overestimated how happy they’d be in the days after their
team won a game and how unhappy they’d be
in the days after their team lost. Voters in a U.S. presidential election overestimated how significantly
the election outcome would impact their happiness. And people getting an HIV test? Overestimated how much their test results
would affect their happiness. And, just as in that tenure study, the impact bias was always stronger when people were trying to predict how they’d feel if things went badly. Researchers have identified a number
of psychological mechanisms that make us susceptible to impact bias
in our affective forecasts. One of the most important of these
mechanisms is called “focalism". When we imagine how we’d feel after
going through a particular event, we have a natural tendency to focus
almost exclusively on that event, ignoring everything else that might be going on but might also be impacting how we feel. Another psychological mechanism
is called “immune neglect". Immune neglect is especially interesting because it helps explain
why our impact bias is so pronounced for negative events. Immune neglect describes our tendency to ignore the way our minds
pick us up emotionally after losses and failures. We overestimate how unhappy
we’ll feel after some bad event because we neglect the way our
psychological “immune systems” give us resilience during
emotional downturns. In one study, college students predicted that
they would be really unhappy if they didn’t get chosen
for a quick and easy job. But they neglected to realize that they’d
probably think the selection process was unfair if they didn’t get the role. Our minds use lots of tricks
for rebound from bad stuff. And one of those tricks
is to blame all our failures on external factors. So, when subjects had an easy explanation
for not being chosen for the job “that process was so unfair!” it was much easier for their
psychological immune systems to kick in. But subjects neglected to take
their immune system into account in their affective forecasting. And since immune neglect only comes into play
when dealing with negative events, our affective forecasts tend to be worse
for the bad events in life than the positive ones. Seeing this research has made Maya
more skeptical about her affective forecasts. The evidence about immune neglect
was especially eye-opening for her. Maya now wonders how often she’s shied away
from worthwhile opportunities just because she overestimated
how upset she’d be if things didn’t work out. She also wonders, though,
why seemingly obvious life improvements like earning a higher salary don’t end up boosting
our happiness very much. What’s going on? Is it that we get used
to those better circumstances and start taking them for granted? What do you think?