What do you think?
Rate this book
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
A fascinating journey into the hidden psychological influences that derail our decision-making, Sway will change the way you think about the way you think.
Why is it so difficult to sell a plummeting stock or end a doomed relationship? Why do we listen to advice just because it came from someone “important”? Why are we more likely to fall in love when there’s danger involved? In Sway, renowned organizational thinker Ori Brafman and his brother, psychologist Rom Brafman, answer all these questions and more.
Drawing on cutting-edge research from the fields of social psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior, Sway reveals dynamic forces that influence every aspect of our personal and business lives, including loss aversion (our tendency to go to great lengths to avoid perceived losses), the diagnosis bias (our inability to reevaluate our initial diagnosis of a person or situation), and the “chameleon effect” (our tendency to take on characteristics that have been arbitrarily assigned to us).
Sway introduces us to the Harvard Business School professor who got his students to pay $204 for a $20 bill, the head of airline safety whose disregard for his years of training led to the transformation of an entire industry, and the football coach who turned conventional strategy on its head to lead his team to victory. We also learn the curse of the NBA draft, discover why interviews are a terrible way to gauge future job performance, and go inside a session with the Supreme Court to see how the world’s most powerful justices avoid the dangers of group dynamics.
Every once in a while, a book comes along that not only challenges our views of the world but changes the way we think. In Sway, Ori and Rom Brafman not only uncover rational explanations for a wide variety of irrational behaviors but also point readers toward ways to avoid succumbing to their pull.
Why is it so difficult to sell a plummeting stock or end a doomed relationship? Why do we listen to advice just because it came from someone “important”? Why are we more likely to fall in love when there’s danger involved? In Sway, renowned organizational thinker Ori Brafman and his brother, psychologist Rom Brafman, answer all these questions and more.
Drawing on cutting-edge research from the fields of social psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior, Sway reveals dynamic forces that influence every aspect of our personal and business lives, including loss aversion (our tendency to go to great lengths to avoid perceived losses), the diagnosis bias (our inability to reevaluate our initial diagnosis of a person or situation), and the “chameleon effect” (our tendency to take on characteristics that have been arbitrarily assigned to us).
Sway introduces us to the Harvard Business School professor who got his students to pay $204 for a $20 bill, the head of airline safety whose disregard for his years of training led to the transformation of an entire industry, and the football coach who turned conventional strategy on its head to lead his team to victory. We also learn the curse of the NBA draft, discover why interviews are a terrible way to gauge future job performance, and go inside a session with the Supreme Court to see how the world’s most powerful justices avoid the dangers of group dynamics.
Every once in a while, a book comes along that not only challenges our views of the world but changes the way we think. In Sway, Ori and Rom Brafman not only uncover rational explanations for a wide variety of irrational behaviors but also point readers toward ways to avoid succumbing to their pull.
206 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,101 reviews
March 19, 2009
First you need to find yourself an interesting verb – Sway in this case, obviously, but Snoop is also good, as is Stick. It doesn’t have to start with ‘s’ – there’s Blink as well, of course. Then you need some really good stories about people at the end of their tether. Plane accidents are particularly good for this. Both Outliers and Sway both have plane crashes and both have you at the edge of your seat waiting for the inevitable.
Then you need ‘get-out-of-here’ psychology tests – honestly, who comes up with the ideas for these things and why, WHY, are they still allowed to out on the streets? Clearly these people are a danger to themselves, their families and the rest of the community. I mean, who would think to test how much more attractive you find a woman after crossing a rickety bridge? What sort of sociopath would you need to be for that to present itself as something that you might like to test?
If you do want to write one of these books it also seems to help if you are from Israel. I’m not going to pretend I understand this final connection – but that has been true of both this one and Predictably Irrational. Oh, and you might want to write the book with your brother. Not sure how this works either, but it does seem to. Made to Stick was also written by a pair of brothers.
I have read so many of these books lately and I’m currently also struggling my way through another called Nudge (again written by two people, but this time not brothers, or even related – although both male). Even if I feel I’m overdosing on this stuff, this one was a particularly fine example of the genre.
This was good not so much because all of the examples were new, but because they put an interesting twist on the interpretation of what these odd behaviours might ‘mean’.
I’m not going to go into the explanation of why the chief pilot in charge of safety for an airline might end up causing the worst plane crash of all time – although, this would be as good a reason to read this book as any other I can think of, nor any of the other seemingly endless examples of human irrational behaviour. But I do mean to talk about who wants to be a millionaire, because this has really made me think.
I really love the French. I know people don’t like them for some reason or other, generally involving some talk of arrogance, but I love their sense of humour and I love their sense of style. That whole stuff-the-rest-of-you-we’re-French thing or the, if we want to blast the b’Jesus out of some atoll in the South Pacific, well, it is our atoll. And if you want to stop drinking our wine to protest – what can we say, but you will only be punishing yourselves. I would love to have that level of self-confidence.
I was talking to someone the other week about the whole ‘Freedom Fries’ thing – but I had forgotten some of the details of this story. This is retold here in full and is probably worth the price of the book for that alone. I had missed the French reply to the proposal to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries simply because the French had the audacity to say that it might be dumb to invade Iraq. I hadn’t realised they had responded by saying something to the effect of, “This is much more important than potatoes”. Given that most rational people in the world would now agree with France probably means we should change the name again to Fickle Fries.
But I distract myself. The best bit of this book is the description of the French version of who wants to be a millionaire when the contestant turned to ask the audience the answer to what ought to have been a simple question of astronomy – what revolves around the earth and the audience effectively said ‘stuff you’. The Wisdom of Crowds points out that if you ever end up on this show and find yourself in difficulty you should rely on the answer given by the audience, as in the US the audience gets the right answer over 90% of the time. But in France or Russia this is not quite so simple a choice. In France if the audience thinks you are too thick to deserve to win they are just as likely on mass to give you the wrong answer. In Russia if they think you are stepping too far out of line they are also as likely to give you the wrong answer. Imagine that! Imagine that there are cultures that will decide whether to help you or not based on whether they think you deserve to win or not. This discussion really fascinated me.
I really liked that this one started each chapter with a whole series of what were virtually headlines and it was only as you got into the chapter that you began to understand that “We don’t even know where the tunnel is” might refer to LBJ.
But the bit of this book that will stay with me for months is the random attribution of ‘gradings’ to soldiers and how this got the soldiers to live up to how they were graded. If you ever needed some proof about why you should encourage your kids – this is it.
This is a wonderfully well written book and one that really could not fail to amuse. Yet another of the long line of books on the troublesome boarder between economics and psychology that have been providing me with so much joy lately.
Then you need ‘get-out-of-here’ psychology tests – honestly, who comes up with the ideas for these things and why, WHY, are they still allowed to out on the streets? Clearly these people are a danger to themselves, their families and the rest of the community. I mean, who would think to test how much more attractive you find a woman after crossing a rickety bridge? What sort of sociopath would you need to be for that to present itself as something that you might like to test?
If you do want to write one of these books it also seems to help if you are from Israel. I’m not going to pretend I understand this final connection – but that has been true of both this one and Predictably Irrational. Oh, and you might want to write the book with your brother. Not sure how this works either, but it does seem to. Made to Stick was also written by a pair of brothers.
I have read so many of these books lately and I’m currently also struggling my way through another called Nudge (again written by two people, but this time not brothers, or even related – although both male). Even if I feel I’m overdosing on this stuff, this one was a particularly fine example of the genre.
This was good not so much because all of the examples were new, but because they put an interesting twist on the interpretation of what these odd behaviours might ‘mean’.
I’m not going to go into the explanation of why the chief pilot in charge of safety for an airline might end up causing the worst plane crash of all time – although, this would be as good a reason to read this book as any other I can think of, nor any of the other seemingly endless examples of human irrational behaviour. But I do mean to talk about who wants to be a millionaire, because this has really made me think.
I really love the French. I know people don’t like them for some reason or other, generally involving some talk of arrogance, but I love their sense of humour and I love their sense of style. That whole stuff-the-rest-of-you-we’re-French thing or the, if we want to blast the b’Jesus out of some atoll in the South Pacific, well, it is our atoll. And if you want to stop drinking our wine to protest – what can we say, but you will only be punishing yourselves. I would love to have that level of self-confidence.
I was talking to someone the other week about the whole ‘Freedom Fries’ thing – but I had forgotten some of the details of this story. This is retold here in full and is probably worth the price of the book for that alone. I had missed the French reply to the proposal to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries simply because the French had the audacity to say that it might be dumb to invade Iraq. I hadn’t realised they had responded by saying something to the effect of, “This is much more important than potatoes”. Given that most rational people in the world would now agree with France probably means we should change the name again to Fickle Fries.
But I distract myself. The best bit of this book is the description of the French version of who wants to be a millionaire when the contestant turned to ask the audience the answer to what ought to have been a simple question of astronomy – what revolves around the earth and the audience effectively said ‘stuff you’. The Wisdom of Crowds points out that if you ever end up on this show and find yourself in difficulty you should rely on the answer given by the audience, as in the US the audience gets the right answer over 90% of the time. But in France or Russia this is not quite so simple a choice. In France if the audience thinks you are too thick to deserve to win they are just as likely on mass to give you the wrong answer. In Russia if they think you are stepping too far out of line they are also as likely to give you the wrong answer. Imagine that! Imagine that there are cultures that will decide whether to help you or not based on whether they think you deserve to win or not. This discussion really fascinated me.
I really liked that this one started each chapter with a whole series of what were virtually headlines and it was only as you got into the chapter that you began to understand that “We don’t even know where the tunnel is” might refer to LBJ.
But the bit of this book that will stay with me for months is the random attribution of ‘gradings’ to soldiers and how this got the soldiers to live up to how they were graded. If you ever needed some proof about why you should encourage your kids – this is it.
This is a wonderfully well written book and one that really could not fail to amuse. Yet another of the long line of books on the troublesome boarder between economics and psychology that have been providing me with so much joy lately.
July 1, 2008
I was not at all in the mood for another non-fiction book about human behavior when my husband asked if I wanted to read this one before he returned it to the library. I half-heartedly decided to scan a few pages before saying no, but I was quickly sucked in to a fictionalized re-creation of the last few hours in the cockpit of the KLM flight responsible for the 1977 Tenerife crash that claimed the lives of 583 people.
Though this book looks at research from social psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior in order to explain why humans often make highly irrational choices, it does so in a compulsively readable fashion. The authors are good storytellers who know how to engage the reader as they explain surprising findings from a whole host of diverse research.
Though I was already familiar with how fear of loss and commitment to a position can have devastating effects on investors, I enjoyed reading about how these in-built habits played out on the football field and on anthropological digs. People responsible for hiring others will benefit from the chapter explaining the flaws of the "first-date" style interview, and pretty much everyone would do well to read the stunning findings on how negative attitudes about aging can affect one's health.
The chapter in which the authors discuss how our innate capacity for altruism can be undermined by financial incentives is also fascinating, as is the authors' discussion with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on the impact of a lone dissenting voice on our highest court.
In the epilogue, the authors summarize their main points and offer a few hints on how to avoid being negatively impacted by some of the factors most likely to sway us to make questionable choices. Though I'm not certain how easy it will actually be to overcome the multiple evolutionary habits that cause us to make irrational choices, it was still terribly fun to read.
Though this book looks at research from social psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior in order to explain why humans often make highly irrational choices, it does so in a compulsively readable fashion. The authors are good storytellers who know how to engage the reader as they explain surprising findings from a whole host of diverse research.
Though I was already familiar with how fear of loss and commitment to a position can have devastating effects on investors, I enjoyed reading about how these in-built habits played out on the football field and on anthropological digs. People responsible for hiring others will benefit from the chapter explaining the flaws of the "first-date" style interview, and pretty much everyone would do well to read the stunning findings on how negative attitudes about aging can affect one's health.
The chapter in which the authors discuss how our innate capacity for altruism can be undermined by financial incentives is also fascinating, as is the authors' discussion with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on the impact of a lone dissenting voice on our highest court.
In the epilogue, the authors summarize their main points and offer a few hints on how to avoid being negatively impacted by some of the factors most likely to sway us to make questionable choices. Though I'm not certain how easy it will actually be to overcome the multiple evolutionary habits that cause us to make irrational choices, it was still terribly fun to read.
February 7, 2023
This was a pretty fun short book about he we are often much more irrational than we would like to think. If you’ve read some popular behavioral economics books, many of the case studies will be familiar to you. There’s the one about the great violinist who plays in the subway in scrappy clothes, the one about the Challenger disaster / O-Rings, the one about how selling hot dogs at a discount didn’t increase sales, etc. I imagine authors of these books at a market stall selecting some different combination of case studies + psychological effects (e.g. “loss aversion”, "diagnosis bias", "chameleon effect"...) + meta thesis (in this case it is something like “we are really irrational, but if we have some awareness of our biases you can make better decisions”), hoping their mixing and matching comes up with something new. I guess I’ve gotten a bit bored with these books, but overall there was still enough interesting stuff in this one to make it a worthwhile read.
The authors had an interesting thesis that was often well supported, but at times they seemed to shoehorn the case studies into their thesis. There was the case of teachers being compensated extra if the students have a higher rate of course completion. This backfired. When teachers focused on course completion, they watered down the rigor of the courses and just did more field trips and in-class parties. To me this seemed just like a classic case of “unintended consequences”, but the authors’ described it as “Without anybody realizing it, the lure of a salary bonus had pitted the teachers’ ‘pleasure centers’ against their ‘altruism centers’.”. There is a whole explanation of what the “pleasure centers’ and ‘altruism centers’ are, which admittedly was interesting. And it seems like a real thing, so it’s not that I think the psychological concepts don’t really exist. It’s just that the authors worked real hard to make this case study serve as a specific application of their pet psychological effect.
I did enjoy the story about the lines test and the power of conformity. If you haven’t heard it: researchers asked 8 people a question about which line in a picture matched the length of a separate “base” line. There was an obviously right answer. But when the first 7 responders are confederates of the researcher who answer incorrectly, the last person (who is the real subject of the study) is also likely to answer incorrectly. It’s an interesting example of how difficult it can be to speak out. The study offered even more interesting color: when just one of the confederates broke with the consensus view, the last responder was more likely to answer correctly. This was true even if the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer! Having just one dissenting voice in a group can have a powerful effect. So to end this on a less cynical note, I really do think this story is a great example that should inspire us to speak our minds, even when it seems like we are all alone.
The authors had an interesting thesis that was often well supported, but at times they seemed to shoehorn the case studies into their thesis. There was the case of teachers being compensated extra if the students have a higher rate of course completion. This backfired. When teachers focused on course completion, they watered down the rigor of the courses and just did more field trips and in-class parties. To me this seemed just like a classic case of “unintended consequences”, but the authors’ described it as “Without anybody realizing it, the lure of a salary bonus had pitted the teachers’ ‘pleasure centers’ against their ‘altruism centers’.”. There is a whole explanation of what the “pleasure centers’ and ‘altruism centers’ are, which admittedly was interesting. And it seems like a real thing, so it’s not that I think the psychological concepts don’t really exist. It’s just that the authors worked real hard to make this case study serve as a specific application of their pet psychological effect.
I did enjoy the story about the lines test and the power of conformity. If you haven’t heard it: researchers asked 8 people a question about which line in a picture matched the length of a separate “base” line. There was an obviously right answer. But when the first 7 responders are confederates of the researcher who answer incorrectly, the last person (who is the real subject of the study) is also likely to answer incorrectly. It’s an interesting example of how difficult it can be to speak out. The study offered even more interesting color: when just one of the confederates broke with the consensus view, the last responder was more likely to answer correctly. This was true even if the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer! Having just one dissenting voice in a group can have a powerful effect. So to end this on a less cynical note, I really do think this story is a great example that should inspire us to speak our minds, even when it seems like we are all alone.
August 29, 2008
Great book. Quick read, and you learn about about psychology that you can apply to life or business.
A few notes:
- All about first impressions. First impressions can sway our opinion of something for years to come regardless of subsequent performance.
- Labels matter. If you label someone as a higher performer, top of class, leader, having command potential, etc - it will translate into them actually having it. My high school motto was Principes Non Homines (leaders not men) - now I know why they thought that would work.
- When we brand or label people they take on the characteristics of the diagnosis.
- People are easily swayed when other people they deal with are decent or nice or fair to them. You enjoy a restaurant 10 times more if the waiter is really nice, regardless of the food (the product). Same goes for any service or business relationship.
- Heightened adrenaline levels lead to higher levels of romantic interest
- We have "two engines" running in our brain that don't operate simultaneously. So we usually approach things from either an altruistic perspective or a self-interested one. Money (self-interest) is not always the best motivator - sometimes pride (in your country, your city, what you do) will inspire people much more.
A few notes:
- All about first impressions. First impressions can sway our opinion of something for years to come regardless of subsequent performance.
- Labels matter. If you label someone as a higher performer, top of class, leader, having command potential, etc - it will translate into them actually having it. My high school motto was Principes Non Homines (leaders not men) - now I know why they thought that would work.
- When we brand or label people they take on the characteristics of the diagnosis.
- People are easily swayed when other people they deal with are decent or nice or fair to them. You enjoy a restaurant 10 times more if the waiter is really nice, regardless of the food (the product). Same goes for any service or business relationship.
- Heightened adrenaline levels lead to higher levels of romantic interest
- We have "two engines" running in our brain that don't operate simultaneously. So we usually approach things from either an altruistic perspective or a self-interested one. Money (self-interest) is not always the best motivator - sometimes pride (in your country, your city, what you do) will inspire people much more.
May 6, 2017
در موقعیتهای مختلف ممکنه تصمیمهایی بگیریم که با توجه به اطلاعات در دسترس و شرایط موجود غیرعقلانی باشه ولی گاهی این تصمیمهای غیرعقلانی خیلی جذاب و طبیعی به نظر میرسن. این تصمیمها که تحت نفوذ سوگیریهای خاصی هستند ما رو نسبت به دادههای موجود نابینا میکنن و ما رو به بیراهه میکشونن و این طور میشه که مرتکب اشتباه میشیم.
تعداد این سوگیریها زیاده. اما این کتاب تنها به چند مورد از سوگیریهای حوزه تصمیمگیری اشاره میکنه و برای هر کدوم نمونهای رو نشون میده که در دنیای واقع باعث تصمیمهای نابخردانه شدن و نتایج نامطلوبی رو به دنبال داشتن و یا آزمایشهایی رو نشون میده که محققها برای اثبات این قضیه به کار گرفتن. راهحلهایی رو هم ارائه داده تا به دام این سوگیریها نیافتیم. یا حداقل کمتر بیافتیم.
متن خوب و گیرایی داره منتها تعداد سوگیریهایی که بهشون اشاره کرده کمه.
البته برای من چیز جدیدی نداشت. هیچ کدوم از آزمایش ها هم کار خود نویسنده نیست. ولی بد نیست. اگه توی کار متقاعد کردن افراد هستین، بهتره کتاب رو بخونین
تعداد این سوگیریها زیاده. اما این کتاب تنها به چند مورد از سوگیریهای حوزه تصمیمگیری اشاره میکنه و برای هر کدوم نمونهای رو نشون میده که در دنیای واقع باعث تصمیمهای نابخردانه شدن و نتایج نامطلوبی رو به دنبال داشتن و یا آزمایشهایی رو نشون میده که محققها برای اثبات این قضیه به کار گرفتن. راهحلهایی رو هم ارائه داده تا به دام این سوگیریها نیافتیم. یا حداقل کمتر بیافتیم.
متن خوب و گیرایی داره منتها تعداد سوگیریهایی که بهشون اشاره کرده کمه.
البته برای من چیز جدیدی نداشت. هیچ کدوم از آزمایش ها هم کار خود نویسنده نیست. ولی بد نیست. اگه توی کار متقاعد کردن افراد هستین، بهتره کتاب رو بخونین
September 24, 2010
I wish I could recommend this book, as the topic is an interesting and important one, but I can't. It's simply not well written or organized.
Brafman treats the hot topic of cognitive biases and nonconscious factors that contribute to decision making, an area which has received enormous attention in recent years in cognitive and social psychology (Wegner, Wilson), and economics (Tversky).
I gather what he's trying to do is to present some of the basic findings to a lay audience. Either Brafman's wrong and he's dumbing it down WAYYYYY too much, or I'm wrong and we live in a nation of imbeciles.
His organization of the basic concepts is simplistic and reductive, and the basic facts of the research are concealed by several thick interpretive layers.
For readers who are not completely put off by scientific material -- who would be comfortable, say, with "A Brief History of Time" or Science Daily -- you will get much more from books like "The Illusion of Conscious Will" and "Strangers to Ourselves."
Brafman treats the hot topic of cognitive biases and nonconscious factors that contribute to decision making, an area which has received enormous attention in recent years in cognitive and social psychology (Wegner, Wilson), and economics (Tversky).
I gather what he's trying to do is to present some of the basic findings to a lay audience. Either Brafman's wrong and he's dumbing it down WAYYYYY too much, or I'm wrong and we live in a nation of imbeciles.
His organization of the basic concepts is simplistic and reductive, and the basic facts of the research are concealed by several thick interpretive layers.
For readers who are not completely put off by scientific material -- who would be comfortable, say, with "A Brief History of Time" or Science Daily -- you will get much more from books like "The Illusion of Conscious Will" and "Strangers to Ourselves."
April 9, 2019
Books are basically meant to be read (although some buy them for display purposes only). So you buy books because you intend to read them. But why buy more books if you already have so many books in your to-be-read pile that you can’t possibly finish reading them even if you live 150 years? IT is pointless, a waste of money and silly. Yet you keep on doing it. This book analyzes irrational behaviours like this.
It starts with a real life story, a tragic one. KLM Flight 4805 was piloted by Captain Jacob Van Zanten, the head of KLM’s safety program and known for his attention to detail, methodical approach and spotless record in flying. His flight was en route from Amsterdam to the Las Palmas Airport in the Canary Islands but was diverted to the island of Tenerife because of a bomb explosion at the Las Palmas Airport. Parked at the Tenerife airport, the airport authorities had told him to unload his passengers because it may take a long while before the plane could be given a takeoff clearance. Van Zanten must have known what this means: passengers which need to be given accommodations, late arrivals to their destinations, more cancelled flights, etc. There was also the matter of his mandated rest period (time when a pilot needs to rest, with a heavy penalty if he does not) and his reputation as a pilot who always brings his passengers to their destinations on time. So this pilot, a paragon of flight safety and prudence, flew the plane in the fog, hit a parked Pan Am and killed all 584 people in his plane, including himself. So why did he act so irrationally?
Would you buy 1,000 pesos for 1,100 pesos? You’d immediately think: “Why would anyone do that? Plain commonsense tells you that you’d incur a loss of 100 pesos if you buy 1,000 pesos for 1,100 pesos. So no, I definitely would not do that.” But there was a popular experiment, discussed in this book (though I tweaked it a little bit) where people would do such a purchase at a loss. A 1,000 peso bill is put on auction. The starting bid is 50 pesos, and successive bids can only go 50 pesos at a time. To the highest bidder goes the 1,000 pesos. But the second highest bidder will also pay the price of his bid and get nothing. So the first bidder places the initial 50 peso bid. If no one bids higher than that, he pays 50 and get 1,000. But someone bids 100. If no one bids higher, the 100-peso bidder pays 100 and gets the 1,000 AND the 50-peso bidder will have to pay 50 pesos and gets nothing (being the second highest bidder). The latter, of course, does not want to lose 50 pesos for nothing, so he places a bid of 150. This goes on and on until the highest bid goes 1,000. A no-gain-no-loss bid. However, the second highest bidder of 950 resents losing 950 for nothing. He reasons out: better to bid 1,050 pesos and lose 50, than not bid anymore and lose 950. So he bids 1,050. However, the other guy who had bid 1,000 reasons the same way: better to lose 100 by bidding 1100 than lose 1000 by not bidding anymore. So he bids 1100 for 1000 pesos.
All these examples demonstrates how people can be pushed into irrational behaviour because OF THE FEAR OF LOSS (just one of the many factors the book discusses which influence men to do irrational things). I still buy more books, especially they are at a bargain, because I FEAR I may never be able to find that book again, or even if I find it again, not in such a bargain anymore. Van Zanten feared the loss of his spotless record of punctuality and of satisfying his passengers. The bidder fear the loss if he remains the second highest bidder.
It starts with a real life story, a tragic one. KLM Flight 4805 was piloted by Captain Jacob Van Zanten, the head of KLM’s safety program and known for his attention to detail, methodical approach and spotless record in flying. His flight was en route from Amsterdam to the Las Palmas Airport in the Canary Islands but was diverted to the island of Tenerife because of a bomb explosion at the Las Palmas Airport. Parked at the Tenerife airport, the airport authorities had told him to unload his passengers because it may take a long while before the plane could be given a takeoff clearance. Van Zanten must have known what this means: passengers which need to be given accommodations, late arrivals to their destinations, more cancelled flights, etc. There was also the matter of his mandated rest period (time when a pilot needs to rest, with a heavy penalty if he does not) and his reputation as a pilot who always brings his passengers to their destinations on time. So this pilot, a paragon of flight safety and prudence, flew the plane in the fog, hit a parked Pan Am and killed all 584 people in his plane, including himself. So why did he act so irrationally?
Would you buy 1,000 pesos for 1,100 pesos? You’d immediately think: “Why would anyone do that? Plain commonsense tells you that you’d incur a loss of 100 pesos if you buy 1,000 pesos for 1,100 pesos. So no, I definitely would not do that.” But there was a popular experiment, discussed in this book (though I tweaked it a little bit) where people would do such a purchase at a loss. A 1,000 peso bill is put on auction. The starting bid is 50 pesos, and successive bids can only go 50 pesos at a time. To the highest bidder goes the 1,000 pesos. But the second highest bidder will also pay the price of his bid and get nothing. So the first bidder places the initial 50 peso bid. If no one bids higher than that, he pays 50 and get 1,000. But someone bids 100. If no one bids higher, the 100-peso bidder pays 100 and gets the 1,000 AND the 50-peso bidder will have to pay 50 pesos and gets nothing (being the second highest bidder). The latter, of course, does not want to lose 50 pesos for nothing, so he places a bid of 150. This goes on and on until the highest bid goes 1,000. A no-gain-no-loss bid. However, the second highest bidder of 950 resents losing 950 for nothing. He reasons out: better to bid 1,050 pesos and lose 50, than not bid anymore and lose 950. So he bids 1,050. However, the other guy who had bid 1,000 reasons the same way: better to lose 100 by bidding 1100 than lose 1000 by not bidding anymore. So he bids 1100 for 1000 pesos.
All these examples demonstrates how people can be pushed into irrational behaviour because OF THE FEAR OF LOSS (just one of the many factors the book discusses which influence men to do irrational things). I still buy more books, especially they are at a bargain, because I FEAR I may never be able to find that book again, or even if I find it again, not in such a bargain anymore. Van Zanten feared the loss of his spotless record of punctuality and of satisfying his passengers. The bidder fear the loss if he remains the second highest bidder.
March 29, 2014
We’ve all made irrational decisions: be it in work, love, or finances. The question is, why? What psychological drive causes this behavior? Brothers Ori and Rom Brafman explore these burning questions in, “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior”.
In “Sway”, Brafman and Brafman attempt to explore loss aversion, value attribution, and the diagnosis bias in order to explain human behavior which is either irrational or out of the norm. Sadly, they are not quite successful.
“Sway” is geared toward reaching the general reading audience in a pop psychology way but goes too far in that direction over-simplifying the topic. Instead of focusing on the psychology, biology, neurology, or similar fields; Brafman and Brafman instead offer chapter after chapter of case study after case study. Don’t get me wrong: the text is accessible, exciting, and well-written but the scientific element in lost in the mix.
Elaborating on this, the topics at hand are barely even mentioned when discussing a case study; with Brafman and Brafman then adding a line which basically says, “This was done because of so-and-so behavior” but failing to execute any back-up, proof, or experimentation. At least though, the text sounds professional in the sense that it isn’t simply opinionated.
A strong suit of “Sway” is that although there are co-authors; the writing is smooth and cohesive with one communal voice versus the disjointed narrative some books take when having multiple authors. “Sway” is an easy and light read.
Approximately half-way through, Brafman and Brafman finally begin to adhere more to scientific data and unique experimental results which turns “Sway” into a more compelling work. Much of the information is common sense and still just an introduction on the topic but it encourages further reading and exploration on the subject. It should also be noted that some of the experiments mentioned in “Sway” have been cited in other books on similar topics and none are primary, conducted by Brafman and Brafman.
The concluding chapters are the strongest in “Sway” as a whole with insightful information and a steady pace while the Epilogue provides a summary of what has been learned. Followed by a brief notes section; Brafman and Brafman do try to cover their bases.
Although “Sway” is not what I expected (which is a more heavy-hitting psych work); the text is an entertaining and readable introduction to the topic which sets the foundation for further research. “Sway” is a fast one-day read and is thus recommended for a brief but somewhat scientific foray into the psychological world of irrational behavior. However, if desiring a deep and multi-faceted scientific look; then this is not for you.
In “Sway”, Brafman and Brafman attempt to explore loss aversion, value attribution, and the diagnosis bias in order to explain human behavior which is either irrational or out of the norm. Sadly, they are not quite successful.
“Sway” is geared toward reaching the general reading audience in a pop psychology way but goes too far in that direction over-simplifying the topic. Instead of focusing on the psychology, biology, neurology, or similar fields; Brafman and Brafman instead offer chapter after chapter of case study after case study. Don’t get me wrong: the text is accessible, exciting, and well-written but the scientific element in lost in the mix.
Elaborating on this, the topics at hand are barely even mentioned when discussing a case study; with Brafman and Brafman then adding a line which basically says, “This was done because of so-and-so behavior” but failing to execute any back-up, proof, or experimentation. At least though, the text sounds professional in the sense that it isn’t simply opinionated.
A strong suit of “Sway” is that although there are co-authors; the writing is smooth and cohesive with one communal voice versus the disjointed narrative some books take when having multiple authors. “Sway” is an easy and light read.
Approximately half-way through, Brafman and Brafman finally begin to adhere more to scientific data and unique experimental results which turns “Sway” into a more compelling work. Much of the information is common sense and still just an introduction on the topic but it encourages further reading and exploration on the subject. It should also be noted that some of the experiments mentioned in “Sway” have been cited in other books on similar topics and none are primary, conducted by Brafman and Brafman.
The concluding chapters are the strongest in “Sway” as a whole with insightful information and a steady pace while the Epilogue provides a summary of what has been learned. Followed by a brief notes section; Brafman and Brafman do try to cover their bases.
Although “Sway” is not what I expected (which is a more heavy-hitting psych work); the text is an entertaining and readable introduction to the topic which sets the foundation for further research. “Sway” is a fast one-day read and is thus recommended for a brief but somewhat scientific foray into the psychological world of irrational behavior. However, if desiring a deep and multi-faceted scientific look; then this is not for you.
November 23, 2008
Quick read - 181 pages. I banged it out over two days. Sway is a social economic book from the same vein as Freakonomics and The Tipping Point. The authors descibe psychological forces that can "sway" people into irrational decision making. Several well stated examples are given to support the authors theories throughout.
Overall, Sway is entertaining. It falls short on meaningful substance, and some areas are fluff laden. However, there are several interesting points illustrated through engaging stories. The authors fall short describing tactics to counteract the psychological forces they write about in the book. They basically give you a phenomenon, support the phenomenon with insightful case studies, and then essentially say "you probably should not let that happen to you."
Overall, Sway is entertaining. It falls short on meaningful substance, and some areas are fluff laden. However, there are several interesting points illustrated through engaging stories. The authors fall short describing tactics to counteract the psychological forces they write about in the book. They basically give you a phenomenon, support the phenomenon with insightful case studies, and then essentially say "you probably should not let that happen to you."
July 20, 2010
Think of the the Brafman brothers as a poor man's Malcolm Galdwell. A very, very poor man. "Sway" covers interesting and important ground, but dumbs it down way too much.
This might be the right call when presenting this material to a half-day corporate retreat. But it makes for a maddening read. Instead of building up their case based on evidence and support, the authors simply assert their conclusions (or the conclusions of the researchers on which they rely? It's never made clear). Instead of showing us something surprising, they simply append that descriptor before every other assertion. They don't discuss or share the actual data (so that you might draw your own conclusion, or verify theirs); potential confounding factors are waived away or (even worse) left unaddressed; the statistical significance of various "findings" also goes unremarked. I could go on.
One of the authors claims to have studied "magical moments" but you would never know it because this book manages to generate none.
This might be the right call when presenting this material to a half-day corporate retreat. But it makes for a maddening read. Instead of building up their case based on evidence and support, the authors simply assert their conclusions (or the conclusions of the researchers on which they rely? It's never made clear). Instead of showing us something surprising, they simply append that descriptor before every other assertion. They don't discuss or share the actual data (so that you might draw your own conclusion, or verify theirs); potential confounding factors are waived away or (even worse) left unaddressed; the statistical significance of various "findings" also goes unremarked. I could go on.
One of the authors claims to have studied "magical moments" but you would never know it because this book manages to generate none.
January 8, 2018
In my working life, I have observed first-hand smart, capable executives making poor business decisions. Although the common thinking is that business decisions are based on logic, such as cost-benefit analysis and business cases, in my experience, the optimal solution is not always selected. This cogent, enlightening book provides explanations of the variety of influences that may have contributed to these questionable decisions. At the beginning of each chapter, the author provides an example of an irrational decision, such as a pilot taking off in fog without clearance, and proceeds to explore the factors that may have contributed to the resulting catastrophe. The author “peels the onion,” delving into the complexities, citing numerous studies and examples in an easily understood manner. This method spurred my curiosity, and resulted in devouring the book in one sitting. I found it both entertaining and educational. Recommended to those who enjoy learning about human behavior and psychology, and highly recommended to management consultants to help their clients avoid biases in decision-making.
November 20, 2016
There are two major flaws with Sway. One is that it does not tread any new ground. Most of what is conveyed has already been covered in other books. The other is the fact that the book has become more a collection of research citations than a solid idea structured book. I found the lack of summarizing sections at the end of each chapter annoying as well though that was somehow made up for by the Epilogue chapter.
If you are a new comer in the field of behavioral sciences, Sway may have much to offer. But if your are looking for something groundbreaking you should look elsewhere.
If you are a new comer in the field of behavioral sciences, Sway may have much to offer. But if your are looking for something groundbreaking you should look elsewhere.
June 1, 2008
This book is very readable and entertaining, and so engaging that I just kept reading and didn’t read the notes until after I’d finished the book, which is unusual for me. It’s fascinating knowlege for anyone who has an interest in universal human nature and/or group dynamics.
The authors take a bunch of existing studies and do a tremendous job of presenting a cogent thesis about why human beings can exhibit such irrational behaviors. I was familiar with many of the studies cited in the book; I was even a participant in a friend's version of the “different lengths of lines” study described.
I recommend this book to everyone, because it shows that even if we believe we’re logical and independent thinkers and reasonable in our decision making, and assume that we possess impeccable common sense, that there are factors at work that often make our assumptions not so. You may be surprised by the findings presented here re loss aversion, pull of commitment, value attribution, diagnostic bias, etc. Even if these concepts are not new to you, the way the information is presented here will make you think. Now that I’ve read this book, I’m confident that remembering the material presented will help me think before I act. I do think of myself as someone who thinks and makes decisions in a logical manner, although even though before I read this, I was very aware of my own aversion to loss, and also my tendency to be influenced by value attribution; the latter is something I’ve actually tried to work on with some success.
I’d like to see this book assigned as an adjunct text for many psychology, sociology, economics, business, and education classes. I also hope that it’s read by every person who is in a position of power, especially our elected officials and those such as airplane pilots and others in similarly responsible jobs. Also finding it helpful would be those who work with others, including HR people (although preferably not those who will interview me for jobs since historically I do “very well��� in job interviews, even though I’ve always thought they’ve had limitations.)
My favorite portions of the book were the part that described the brain centers of altruism vs. pleasure, because that research was brand new information for me, and also the part where Stephen Breyer describes his process doing his work as a Supreme Court Justice, just because I found his explanation so fascinating. I also was extremely entertained by the $20 bill story, and I assume that all readers will find this story enjoyable, unless they were ever one of the final two participants in this or a similar activity.
I appreciate that, while this is not a self-help book, reading the book isn’t an exercise in futility; having this information actually gives the readers tools to empower themselves.
The formatting of the chapter headings is very clever too, as it ties into the sway/pull theme of the book.
The authors take a bunch of existing studies and do a tremendous job of presenting a cogent thesis about why human beings can exhibit such irrational behaviors. I was familiar with many of the studies cited in the book; I was even a participant in a friend's version of the “different lengths of lines” study described.
I recommend this book to everyone, because it shows that even if we believe we’re logical and independent thinkers and reasonable in our decision making, and assume that we possess impeccable common sense, that there are factors at work that often make our assumptions not so. You may be surprised by the findings presented here re loss aversion, pull of commitment, value attribution, diagnostic bias, etc. Even if these concepts are not new to you, the way the information is presented here will make you think. Now that I’ve read this book, I’m confident that remembering the material presented will help me think before I act. I do think of myself as someone who thinks and makes decisions in a logical manner, although even though before I read this, I was very aware of my own aversion to loss, and also my tendency to be influenced by value attribution; the latter is something I’ve actually tried to work on with some success.
I’d like to see this book assigned as an adjunct text for many psychology, sociology, economics, business, and education classes. I also hope that it’s read by every person who is in a position of power, especially our elected officials and those such as airplane pilots and others in similarly responsible jobs. Also finding it helpful would be those who work with others, including HR people (although preferably not those who will interview me for jobs since historically I do “very well��� in job interviews, even though I’ve always thought they’ve had limitations.)
My favorite portions of the book were the part that described the brain centers of altruism vs. pleasure, because that research was brand new information for me, and also the part where Stephen Breyer describes his process doing his work as a Supreme Court Justice, just because I found his explanation so fascinating. I also was extremely entertained by the $20 bill story, and I assume that all readers will find this story enjoyable, unless they were ever one of the final two participants in this or a similar activity.
I appreciate that, while this is not a self-help book, reading the book isn’t an exercise in futility; having this information actually gives the readers tools to empower themselves.
The formatting of the chapter headings is very clever too, as it ties into the sway/pull theme of the book.
December 17, 2015
Thoroughly enjoyed this short and powerful read. It is about various forces that drive our decision making, forces that too often sway us in the wrong direction without us even realizing that they are happening. It gives you some new perspective and awareness of what those 'sways' are, why they influence behaviors of those around us and our own selves and finally what you could potentially do to not be victimized by them. Very interesting!
July 8, 2009
This book covers roughly the same behavioral economics territory considered in such recent books as Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational" (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/....) and "Nudge" by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/....) It had been stalking me on my Amazon recommendations queue for at least a year, but I had resisted it successfully until this weekend, when I came across it in the bookstore and finally succumbed.
I'm glad I did. I wasn't expecting to learn anything new, necessarily, but neither was I expecting a book as funny and engaging as this turned out to be. The Brafman brothers are whip smart, enthusiastic guides on this brilliant overview of recent research in behavioral science. As far as I can tell, throughout the book they are engaged in summarizing results of other people’s investigations (unlike Ariely or Sunstein & Cass, who are often reporting on their own, or colleagues’, work). They do it very well – clearly, succinctly, and with great examples. The book doesn’t discuss ways to trigger more honest behavior, as Ariely did in “Predictably Irrational”, neither does it contain the kind of discussion of implications for sensible public policy that was such a strength of “Nudge”. It does, however, provide a very lucid discussion of pitfalls to avoid in group decision-making.
My favorite story in the book has to be that of the French “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” audience who were apparently so disgusted by the contestant’s inability to answer the question “What revolves around the earth?” that they figured he deserved to be booted, so that 56% gave the answer “the sun”. It worked. Hapless Henri took the bait and was kicked off. (Russian audiences are apparently the worst on WWTBAM; regularly providing the wrong answer when polled. There is speculation that this stems from a broadly held Russian view that anyone trying to get ahead by amassing great personal wealth is, by definition, behaving anti-socially, and thus deserves to be cut down to size (the tall poppy syndrome at work)).
An interesting and well-executed book.
I'm glad I did. I wasn't expecting to learn anything new, necessarily, but neither was I expecting a book as funny and engaging as this turned out to be. The Brafman brothers are whip smart, enthusiastic guides on this brilliant overview of recent research in behavioral science. As far as I can tell, throughout the book they are engaged in summarizing results of other people’s investigations (unlike Ariely or Sunstein & Cass, who are often reporting on their own, or colleagues’, work). They do it very well – clearly, succinctly, and with great examples. The book doesn’t discuss ways to trigger more honest behavior, as Ariely did in “Predictably Irrational”, neither does it contain the kind of discussion of implications for sensible public policy that was such a strength of “Nudge”. It does, however, provide a very lucid discussion of pitfalls to avoid in group decision-making.
My favorite story in the book has to be that of the French “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” audience who were apparently so disgusted by the contestant’s inability to answer the question “What revolves around the earth?” that they figured he deserved to be booted, so that 56% gave the answer “the sun”. It worked. Hapless Henri took the bait and was kicked off. (Russian audiences are apparently the worst on WWTBAM; regularly providing the wrong answer when polled. There is speculation that this stems from a broadly held Russian view that anyone trying to get ahead by amassing great personal wealth is, by definition, behaving anti-socially, and thus deserves to be cut down to size (the tall poppy syndrome at work)).
An interesting and well-executed book.
August 4, 2008
That street musician might just be a musical genius - you never know! Beware of making assumptions about the value of something based on superficial appearances, or you may miss out on a masterpiece, like the stolen painting in a cheap frame, left out with the trash, and found on the streets of New York by a woman with a discerning eye.
Give yourself permission to go against the crowd, and question authority when you have legitimate questions. In other words, don't let yourself fall prey to being swayed into irrational behavior.
An easy reading scientific book along the lines of Stumbling On Happiness and Blink, Sway explains in easy to understand prose why we hang on to stocks as they tank, why people are often more willing to sacrifice out of altruism than for monetary reward, and why appearances can deceive.
I'm not sure there's anything that new or surprising here, but it was an enjoyable and very fast read.
Give yourself permission to go against the crowd, and question authority when you have legitimate questions. In other words, don't let yourself fall prey to being swayed into irrational behavior.
An easy reading scientific book along the lines of Stumbling On Happiness and Blink, Sway explains in easy to understand prose why we hang on to stocks as they tank, why people are often more willing to sacrifice out of altruism than for monetary reward, and why appearances can deceive.
I'm not sure there's anything that new or surprising here, but it was an enjoyable and very fast read.
April 29, 2018
I was torn between 2 and 3 stars for this book. It is entertaining at times, which is why I opted for the third star, but it’s really just a very lightweight entry into the pop psychology genre. The writing is too cutesy for my tastes, while the conclusions drawn are ambiguous and, most of the time, could be supportive of the exact opposite point the authors intended.
Since I listened to the audio version, I don’t know what sort of supporting detail the authors provided for their conclusions, but none of it was mentioned beyond such banalities as “a study was conducted by XYZ” or other anecdotal references.
If you’re looking for a well-researched work on decision making, I’d suggest something by Robert Cialdini (although it will likely be very dry) or Daniel Kahneman (I’ve not read any of his non-academic publications but I understand THINKING, FAST AND SLOW is very readable).
Since I listened to the audio version, I don’t know what sort of supporting detail the authors provided for their conclusions, but none of it was mentioned beyond such banalities as “a study was conducted by XYZ” or other anecdotal references.
If you’re looking for a well-researched work on decision making, I’d suggest something by Robert Cialdini (although it will likely be very dry) or Daniel Kahneman (I’ve not read any of his non-academic publications but I understand THINKING, FAST AND SLOW is very readable).
November 30, 2018
4.5/5 stars
I read this book three months after a painful breakup. Knowing the consequences of staying would be too costly, yet, I still hanged on, hoping an unfaithful person would change their behavior.
"To withdraw now is to accept a sure loss, and that option is deeply unattractive. When you combine this with the force of commitment, the option of hanging on will therefore be relatively attractive even if the chances of success are small, and the cost of delaying failure is high. Aversion to loss on its own is strong, but when it converges with commitment, the force becomes an even more powerful influence, and shapes our thinking and decision making."
I didn't want to accept a sure loss then, so the consequences grew and grew.
This book doesn't justify my stupidity, but it helps me understand why I acted the way I did.
I read this book three months after a painful breakup. Knowing the consequences of staying would be too costly, yet, I still hanged on, hoping an unfaithful person would change their behavior.
"To withdraw now is to accept a sure loss, and that option is deeply unattractive. When you combine this with the force of commitment, the option of hanging on will therefore be relatively attractive even if the chances of success are small, and the cost of delaying failure is high. Aversion to loss on its own is strong, but when it converges with commitment, the force becomes an even more powerful influence, and shapes our thinking and decision making."
I didn't want to accept a sure loss then, so the consequences grew and grew.
This book doesn't justify my stupidity, but it helps me understand why I acted the way I did.
December 1, 2013
Another one of those books that everybody should read. The authors take lots of separate examples of irrational behavior and counter-intuitive conclusions, and tie them all together with solid, scientifically satisfying explanations. Not only is it packed full of illuminating information, but it also contains lots of stories, which makes it very readable. I'd go so far as to say that the world would be a lot better off if everyone absorbed the lessons in this book, which should only take a couple days to breeze through.
September 14, 2016
For all those that have read Freakanomics!
Picks up on the latest theories in behavioural economics and shows through anecdotes and experiments how people can be swayed (hence the title) to pick or choose in certain ways.
Blows years of economic theories out the window that people are 'rational'. They are not and economic theory should assume that people do behave this way.
Picks up on the latest theories in behavioural economics and shows through anecdotes and experiments how people can be swayed (hence the title) to pick or choose in certain ways.
Blows years of economic theories out the window that people are 'rational'. They are not and economic theory should assume that people do behave this way.
December 12, 2017
An incredibly easy to read and insightful introduction to understanding the wonderful world of irrational behavior. Some great examples throughout. A tad "poppy" but I don't think that's a criticism. Rather, the accessibility of this book, and its short length means the chances of it being finished are higher, and that can only be a good thing when gaining knowledge.
November 26, 2013
يحوي الكتاب أهم الأخطاء التي نقع فيها أثناء التفكير واتخاذ القرار
ويذكر دراسات وقصص غاية في الجمال لتوضيح الأفكار
ويذكر دراسات وقصص غاية في الجمال لتوضيح الأفكار
October 15, 2019
Everyone acts irrationally sometimes; Sway explains why.
Quick, fun, insightful read.
Quick, fun, insightful read.
February 22, 2017
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior by Ori and Ram Brofman is a very broad overview of several sociological attributes that may affect behavior, causing people to react and behave in unexpected ways. The Brofmans provide a multitude of anecdotal evidence to explain these topics and to demonstrate how they might be observed in everyday life. While this book isn’t very effective at explaining how to combat irrational behavior, it does succeed in introducing the common attributes in an engaging way that might lead the reader to further research or study of these issues.
Initially, Sway focuses on three main processes that can trigger irrational behavior: loss aversion, commitment, and value attribution. Loss aversion relates to our tendency to persevere in situations to avoid additional loss, even if it might have made more sense to remove ourselves much sooner and suffer a minimal loss. For example, a dwindling stock should be sold right away for a small amount of loss, but people tend to hold on to the stock longer in case it possibly increases in value again. Commitment refers to our tendency to stick with a behavior or idea, even if something else might make more sense, just because we have committed to that path of action. You might see people in the workplace that have committed themselves to doing a task a particular way and refuse to change their process, even if it might take less time and effort. Value attribution relates to how valuable we perceive an item or service. For example, people tend to see designer bags and clothes as more valuable because they cost more than everyday clothing. Why wouldn’t you charge more if it is a better product? Value aversion can be used to blindside the public to an item’s true quality because we are conditioned to assumed high priced items equal higher quality and therefore, a higher value.
Sway soon transitions into more sociologically-focused attributes such as the diagnosis bias, altruism vs. self-interest, and fairness. Each of these attributes focuses on ideas and qualities that have become recognized in our society and how they are used to influence our behavior. For instance, labeling is very prevalent in our society. We label people by their defining characteristics and can’t seem to see them in any other way. The Brofmans used the NBA draft picks to illustrate this example; players picked as early draft picks almost always received more playing time than players picked later in the draft, even if their other player statistics were equal or worse. The coaches label the early draft picks as better players and continue to treat them as such even if their quantifiable statistics do not support it. In situations where we have a choice between altruism and self-interest, most people will act in a way that supports their self-interest. This is the basic idea behind why we do not work for free. One very good takeaway from this principal is that you should reward after a positive action or behavior has been completed, not before. Once you create the expectation of reward, people stop working for good work’s sake and instead begin working for the reward only. If you then take the reward away, the positive behavior will cease. Fairness is a fairly simple idea; people want to feel they are being treated properly and that their opinions and ideas are being valued. People want to be listened to and heard, even if nothing changes.
Group behavior is also touched on in the second half of Sway and is especially successful in covering the importance of group dissention. Our natural tendency to go with the group can be destructive overall. If someone has a valid point, or even an invalid point that might lead to questioning other more constructive issues, their reluctance to speak against the popular opinion hurts the group as a whole. The authors present research that shows even one other dissenter can cause bolster others in the group into offering their true feelings. These people no longer feel like they are standing alone and, even if their opinion differs from the dissenter, are more likely to provide their actual input to the group. Dissenters are important in group discussions because they open other avenues to communication and allow everyone to express their views.
The book closes with a short epilogue that is intended to provide advice for counteracting the discussed irrational behaviors; this is where the book tends to fall short. The strategies presented are too simplistic to be truly effective and the short page count did not allow the authors to go into any specific depth. Along these same lines, the stories that the authors chose to demonstrate their topics, while entertaining, were sometimes suspect. They have been presented in such an abbreviated form that it becomes difficult to see how the authors drew causation conclusions instead of correlation. Presenting more statistically-proven studies and fewer colloquial examples would strengthen the authors’ research and lend more creditability to their conclusions.
Sway succeeds as an introduction to irrational behavior and hopefully the reader will be better able to recognize these behaviors in their everyday lives. Unfortunately, it does the reader a disservice by not discussing potential problem solving strategies in more depth. That said, it is a quick read with a light narrative style that readers with little to no background in sociology/psychology should find engaging. This book would be perfect for the reader looking to begin learning about behavior patterns and societal impacts, with an eye toward more intensive study in the future.
Initially, Sway focuses on three main processes that can trigger irrational behavior: loss aversion, commitment, and value attribution. Loss aversion relates to our tendency to persevere in situations to avoid additional loss, even if it might have made more sense to remove ourselves much sooner and suffer a minimal loss. For example, a dwindling stock should be sold right away for a small amount of loss, but people tend to hold on to the stock longer in case it possibly increases in value again. Commitment refers to our tendency to stick with a behavior or idea, even if something else might make more sense, just because we have committed to that path of action. You might see people in the workplace that have committed themselves to doing a task a particular way and refuse to change their process, even if it might take less time and effort. Value attribution relates to how valuable we perceive an item or service. For example, people tend to see designer bags and clothes as more valuable because they cost more than everyday clothing. Why wouldn’t you charge more if it is a better product? Value aversion can be used to blindside the public to an item’s true quality because we are conditioned to assumed high priced items equal higher quality and therefore, a higher value.
Sway soon transitions into more sociologically-focused attributes such as the diagnosis bias, altruism vs. self-interest, and fairness. Each of these attributes focuses on ideas and qualities that have become recognized in our society and how they are used to influence our behavior. For instance, labeling is very prevalent in our society. We label people by their defining characteristics and can’t seem to see them in any other way. The Brofmans used the NBA draft picks to illustrate this example; players picked as early draft picks almost always received more playing time than players picked later in the draft, even if their other player statistics were equal or worse. The coaches label the early draft picks as better players and continue to treat them as such even if their quantifiable statistics do not support it. In situations where we have a choice between altruism and self-interest, most people will act in a way that supports their self-interest. This is the basic idea behind why we do not work for free. One very good takeaway from this principal is that you should reward after a positive action or behavior has been completed, not before. Once you create the expectation of reward, people stop working for good work’s sake and instead begin working for the reward only. If you then take the reward away, the positive behavior will cease. Fairness is a fairly simple idea; people want to feel they are being treated properly and that their opinions and ideas are being valued. People want to be listened to and heard, even if nothing changes.
Group behavior is also touched on in the second half of Sway and is especially successful in covering the importance of group dissention. Our natural tendency to go with the group can be destructive overall. If someone has a valid point, or even an invalid point that might lead to questioning other more constructive issues, their reluctance to speak against the popular opinion hurts the group as a whole. The authors present research that shows even one other dissenter can cause bolster others in the group into offering their true feelings. These people no longer feel like they are standing alone and, even if their opinion differs from the dissenter, are more likely to provide their actual input to the group. Dissenters are important in group discussions because they open other avenues to communication and allow everyone to express their views.
The book closes with a short epilogue that is intended to provide advice for counteracting the discussed irrational behaviors; this is where the book tends to fall short. The strategies presented are too simplistic to be truly effective and the short page count did not allow the authors to go into any specific depth. Along these same lines, the stories that the authors chose to demonstrate their topics, while entertaining, were sometimes suspect. They have been presented in such an abbreviated form that it becomes difficult to see how the authors drew causation conclusions instead of correlation. Presenting more statistically-proven studies and fewer colloquial examples would strengthen the authors’ research and lend more creditability to their conclusions.
Sway succeeds as an introduction to irrational behavior and hopefully the reader will be better able to recognize these behaviors in their everyday lives. Unfortunately, it does the reader a disservice by not discussing potential problem solving strategies in more depth. That said, it is a quick read with a light narrative style that readers with little to no background in sociology/psychology should find engaging. This book would be perfect for the reader looking to begin learning about behavior patterns and societal impacts, with an eye toward more intensive study in the future.
February 17, 2019
Well interesting read, but many of the facts presented seemed more than obvious and intuitive for me so I didn't learn too much. Still there were some interesting psychological experiments with some unexpected results, and overall it was a well-documented book and well-structured, covering most of what I expected. Nothing special anyway
April 27, 2018
Sway by, Rom Brafman and Ori Brafman, goes on to outstand us avid readers of psychology, by exposing why you bought those expensive pair of headphones when there were the exact same being sold for a lesser price. Why you got turned down your last job interview, and why we feel dumb when we’re called dumb. Sway utilizes the most interesting of experiments to uncover why we do, what we do, even if our choice was completely illogical. Placing doctors near a hotdog stand, a man boosted his sales through the roof, and through this experiment we are introduced to one of the most guileful thought processes of the human mind. I truly appreciate how, Sway, easily guides you down the path of exploring and explaining cognitive biases, human motivation, and plain foolishness while maintaining a eloquent yet understandable diction.
I recommend, Sway, to readers that read for the sake of education and understanding human nature, whilst also having some comedy incorporated into their learning. This comedy is not directly forced on to the reader rather than uncovered by the reader him/herself. By explaining the idiotic choices we humans make on a daily basis, we cannot help but to feel a little embarrassed, and this is where the comedy stems from.
I first came across Sway when browsing on Google Chrome searching for an interesting read that would fit my tastes. The alluring reviews, proclaiming Sway to be one of the best psychological expeditions possible, were truly beguiling. This charm induced though multiple positive reviews is soon revealed in Sway, to be the cognitive bias known as “Value Attribution.” From the moment I had checked out this book I knew that I had been swayed.
I recommend, Sway, to readers that read for the sake of education and understanding human nature, whilst also having some comedy incorporated into their learning. This comedy is not directly forced on to the reader rather than uncovered by the reader him/herself. By explaining the idiotic choices we humans make on a daily basis, we cannot help but to feel a little embarrassed, and this is where the comedy stems from.
I first came across Sway when browsing on Google Chrome searching for an interesting read that would fit my tastes. The alluring reviews, proclaiming Sway to be one of the best psychological expeditions possible, were truly beguiling. This charm induced though multiple positive reviews is soon revealed in Sway, to be the cognitive bias known as “Value Attribution.” From the moment I had checked out this book I knew that I had been swayed.
December 3, 2009
I didn’t check the NYT Bestseller list but I would assume that Sway must be doing well. It is brief enough to read over a weekend and there is just enough psychology that you can repeat and sound like you know what you are talking. It is sort of a little tree that grew in the ground broken by Freakonomics.
The book starts with a story of the mature, highly experienced, and well-trained head of safety at KLM airlines impulsively taking off without clearance, plowing into another plane and killing some 587 people. Why? The Brafmans chalk it up to the same reasons people will race to be on time for a meeting through heavy snow – loss aversion. They posit that people are hard-wired to make widely irrational choices to avoid perceived loss. They relate the story of a man who sold his biotech firm then stubbornly rode the stock from $47 to less than one dollar because he didn’t want to take the perceived loss at any point in the decline. Loss aversion is also proposed as the reason for a human tendency toward unreasonable commitment and here the Brafmans review the well-trodden retelling of the escalation of the Vietnam War. They relate a very interesting study on National Basketball players which does tend to support an unconscious commitment effect. The study found that regardless of performance, players chosen higher in the draft play more minutes, get traded less often and have a longer career. In other words, the commitment made in the draft directly affected the commitment made by coaches for as much as five years out despite the actual player performance. On a more hopeful note they relate a story on the success of Gordon Moore who was able to overcome the commitment bias by abandoning Intel’s dying but still profitable memory chip business to become the leader in microprocessors.
The second sway is the misleading effects of context. The Brafmans relate a story about a virtuoso violinist who was ignored in the DC subway as supposedly demonstrating how context irrationally affects perceived value; frankly, I think it is just an indicator of classical music’s popularity. There is a also a story about the acceptance in the archeology community of a fraudulent missing link skeleton called Piltdown man contrasted with the denial of real find of a missing link skeleton in Java. Again, the story doesn’t convincingly suggest that there is an irrational impulse at work but rather regular, old, politics. In this chapter there is also a discussion of job interviews and how they lack any predictive power which probably won’t come as much of surprise and again not sure this fact really indicates an irrational motivation at play.
Later the Brafmans take on psychiatry (maybe their Scientologists?) as an example of the sway of false authority. They relate an incredible rise of the diagnosis of bipolar disorder from its initial formalization based on little more than one doctor’s theorizing through direct popularization by drug companies. Children as young as two and dogs now can be diagnosed as bipolar. This same arc probably could be applied to Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and more recently autism. The book also reports on meta-analyses of psychiatric care outcomes and finds that the type of treatment or diagnosis has little to do with treatment success. Instead the idiosyncratic skill of the psychiatrist seems to be the only active ingredient.
The sway of cultural norms is discussed using the example of the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire. In the U.S., using the audience lifeline will get you the correct answer better than 90% of the time, in France, the audience is about 50/50 on helping you out and in Russia, fully 90% of the audience will deliberately try to deceive you. There is also cross-cultural research on sharing norms showing that in the U.S., people will walk away from anything less than a 50/50 split of money in an experiment where one person gets to decide the distribution and the other has to live with the decision. When the study was tried with a tribe with no contact to the West, the distributor would keep better than 85% on average and the receiver would accept whatever they were given which is actually the rationale thing to do.
The final chapters look at the sway of group thinking. The book relates a famous experiment which demonstrates that people will go along with obvious wrong answers in a line length comparison test rather than contradicting other members of the group (who were actually researcher confederates). This effect is applied to the Supreme Court where we learn that it takes a substantial amount of disagreement for a dissenting judge to write a dissenting opinion.
The Brafman’s book is lean, tells some interesting stories and keeps the words and ideas snappy. They introduce their chapters with a neat trick, they give little snippets of text from the chapter such as ”51 women waiting by the phone” or “only the Gators walk away”. It is a very good ”sway” as they use the term.
The book starts with a story of the mature, highly experienced, and well-trained head of safety at KLM airlines impulsively taking off without clearance, plowing into another plane and killing some 587 people. Why? The Brafmans chalk it up to the same reasons people will race to be on time for a meeting through heavy snow – loss aversion. They posit that people are hard-wired to make widely irrational choices to avoid perceived loss. They relate the story of a man who sold his biotech firm then stubbornly rode the stock from $47 to less than one dollar because he didn’t want to take the perceived loss at any point in the decline. Loss aversion is also proposed as the reason for a human tendency toward unreasonable commitment and here the Brafmans review the well-trodden retelling of the escalation of the Vietnam War. They relate a very interesting study on National Basketball players which does tend to support an unconscious commitment effect. The study found that regardless of performance, players chosen higher in the draft play more minutes, get traded less often and have a longer career. In other words, the commitment made in the draft directly affected the commitment made by coaches for as much as five years out despite the actual player performance. On a more hopeful note they relate a story on the success of Gordon Moore who was able to overcome the commitment bias by abandoning Intel’s dying but still profitable memory chip business to become the leader in microprocessors.
The second sway is the misleading effects of context. The Brafmans relate a story about a virtuoso violinist who was ignored in the DC subway as supposedly demonstrating how context irrationally affects perceived value; frankly, I think it is just an indicator of classical music’s popularity. There is a also a story about the acceptance in the archeology community of a fraudulent missing link skeleton called Piltdown man contrasted with the denial of real find of a missing link skeleton in Java. Again, the story doesn’t convincingly suggest that there is an irrational impulse at work but rather regular, old, politics. In this chapter there is also a discussion of job interviews and how they lack any predictive power which probably won’t come as much of surprise and again not sure this fact really indicates an irrational motivation at play.
Later the Brafmans take on psychiatry (maybe their Scientologists?) as an example of the sway of false authority. They relate an incredible rise of the diagnosis of bipolar disorder from its initial formalization based on little more than one doctor’s theorizing through direct popularization by drug companies. Children as young as two and dogs now can be diagnosed as bipolar. This same arc probably could be applied to Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and more recently autism. The book also reports on meta-analyses of psychiatric care outcomes and finds that the type of treatment or diagnosis has little to do with treatment success. Instead the idiosyncratic skill of the psychiatrist seems to be the only active ingredient.
The sway of cultural norms is discussed using the example of the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire. In the U.S., using the audience lifeline will get you the correct answer better than 90% of the time, in France, the audience is about 50/50 on helping you out and in Russia, fully 90% of the audience will deliberately try to deceive you. There is also cross-cultural research on sharing norms showing that in the U.S., people will walk away from anything less than a 50/50 split of money in an experiment where one person gets to decide the distribution and the other has to live with the decision. When the study was tried with a tribe with no contact to the West, the distributor would keep better than 85% on average and the receiver would accept whatever they were given which is actually the rationale thing to do.
The final chapters look at the sway of group thinking. The book relates a famous experiment which demonstrates that people will go along with obvious wrong answers in a line length comparison test rather than contradicting other members of the group (who were actually researcher confederates). This effect is applied to the Supreme Court where we learn that it takes a substantial amount of disagreement for a dissenting judge to write a dissenting opinion.
The Brafman’s book is lean, tells some interesting stories and keeps the words and ideas snappy. They introduce their chapters with a neat trick, they give little snippets of text from the chapter such as ”51 women waiting by the phone” or “only the Gators walk away”. It is a very good ”sway” as they use the term.
February 15, 2022
3,5/5
Very repetitive but I learned something new so :)
Very repetitive but I learned something new so :)
February 8, 2021
ReedIII Quick Review: Interesting, light, social psychology that attempts to present “surprising” ways that humans make decisions that are often irrational. Excellent discussions on 1) expectations affect on behavior, 2) how first impressions sway our opinions & 3) how lost aversion affects us.
November 8, 2022
Sway - The Irresistible Pull of Behavior
Preface
I feel like the writers who made this book really stretched out their examples to the point where it’s not the most relevant/concrete for the given psychological example. Or, the writers could have written this while they were high or something. Either way, there is a clear interruption of flowage in conscious thought, and you have to constantly switch gears in order to keep along with what the writers are trying to convey. The book does have a good amount of psychological and sociological examples that I haven’t read anywhere else though.
Overreacting to Potential Loss
Gives an example of how a reputable plane pilot crashed.
The more meaningful a potential loss is, the more loss averse we become. In other words, the more there is on the line, the easier it is to get swept into an irrational decision.
People overreact to potential loss
Commitment - IN too deep
Bidding example of how there is a free $20 bill and the last two bidders would have to pay the price of the bill.
The deeper the hole they dig themselves into, the more they continue to dig.
AVersion to loss, on its own, is strong. But when it converges with commitment, the force becomes an even more powerful influence in shaping our thinking and decision making.
Value Attribution
Example of how scientists didn’t believe a new discovery of neanderthals and subway riders didn’t react to yo yo ma playing in the subway
Value attribution, acts as a quick mental shortcut to determine what’s worthy of our attention. When we encounter a new object, person, or situation, the value we assign to it shapes our future perception of it, whether it's our dismissal of a curiously inexpensive antique we find at a flea market or our admiration of a high-priced designer bag in a chic boutique.
Value attribution kicked in when attendees received a discount ticket : regardless of the size of the discount, the patrons regarded the tickets and the productions as inferior.
The First Date Interview
A single word has the power to alter our whole perception of another person - and possibly sour the relationship before it even begins. When we hear a description of someone, no matter how brief, it inevitably shapes our experience of that person.
10 common interview(first date questions) and one only is useful.
Why should I hire you?
What do you see yourself doing five years from now?
What do you consider to be your greatest strengths and weaknesses?
How would you describe yourself?
What college subject did you like the best and the least?
What do you know about our company?
Why did you decide to seek a job with our company?
What did you leave your last job?
What do you want to earn five years from one?
What do you really want to do in life?
Semi insightful, self-evaluation questions where you get a real sense of the candidate
AT its core, these questions elicit prepackaged responses that don’t really tell us anything about the candidate’s actual skills
These require candidates to gaze into the future, and these questions carry little weight.
This turns the interviewer into a historian. When people revisit the past they often reconstruct it, and invite artful responses.
The idea is to focus on relevant data and squelch any questions that invite the candidate to predict the future, reconstruct the past, or ponder life’s big questions.
The ideal system is to use higher accuracy techniques up front to make your decision - things that test mental ability tests, work samples.
The Chameleon Effect
The molding process becomes self-perpetuating. When we take on characteristics assigned to us, the diagnosis is reinforced and reaffirmed.
Pygmalion effect (describing how we take on positive traits assigned to us by someone else)
Golem effect ( describing how we take on negative traits)
The Chameleon Effect - Catch all term that shows both
Interesting study on a group of 50 women who talked to a group of 50 men on the phone. The men were given bios on the women, and then pictures of either pretty or ugly women. Then, the recordings of the men were taking out and a 3rd group had to choose what the women were supposed to look like, and they chose the fake photos that were assigned to them.
Without knowing it, the jury members cut in on the mysterious dance that had taken place between the men and the women.
The women had unconsciously picked up on the beautiful opinion the men had of them and acted accordingly.
Who hadn’t walked a little taller or smiled a little brighter after being told how beautiful they are.
Negative and External feelings about old age can actually make people physically age faster.
Psychology and physiology are inextricably connected in many ways
IN the bridge study, men who crossed the rope bridge, anxiety and adrenaline translated into a heightened romantic interest in the assistant. Their physiological reactions affected their perceptions.
We’re constantly sending and receiving causes and subtle messages to and from one another - swaying and being swayed, even if our rational brain hasn’t been let in on the characteristics others ascribe to us.
Perceptions of Fairness
When it comes to fairness, it’s the process, not the outcome, that causes us to react irrationally. This is called procedural justice. We don’t expect a computer to be fair, but we expect people to be. They usually would want a 50/50 split.
It was recommended that all managers - regardless of industry - put greater “effort, energy, investment, and patience” into nurturing the relationship. As the car dealer study suggests, how we are treated - the fairness of the procedure - has as much to do with our satisfaction as the ultimate outcome.
VC’s believe also in outcome and process. Even though VC’s is all about the money, they still want to be overcommunicated with.
Study on a 50/50 split in Machiguenga.
Rather than viewing themselves as being treated unfairly by the offering partner, “they seemed to feel it was just back luck that they were responders and not proposers.
In the end, Machiguenga are no more rational than UCLA students.
They simply have a different perception of fairness
We don’t typically think of fairness as an irrational force, but it dramatically affects our perceptions and sways our thinking.
Incentive Compensation vs. Altruistic Motivation
Managers, parents and economists have long operated under the assumption that monetary incentives increase motivation. But psychologists are beginning to discover that the connection between the 2 is trickier than it first appears.
There is a paradoxical aspect of financial compensation, one that illuminates the strange relationship between monetary incentives and two very different parts of our brain.
Everytime there is money to be gained or lost, - a certain part of the brain lit up. This region, is called the nucleus accumbens
The nucleus accumbens is one of the most primitive parts of the brain, one that is associated with our wild side. It’s the area that associates with the thrill of going out on a hot date, sports fan’s when their team pulls out a last minute victory, and that seeks out the excitement of LV.
The Posterior superior temporal sulcus is the part of the brain responsible for social interactions - how we perceive others, how we relate, and how we form bonds.
The pleasure center and the altruism center cannot both function at the same time.
For the altruism center, all you need is a sense that you’re helping someone or making a positive impact
For the pleasure center, you need a lot more impactful incentives, otherwise it could be a turnoff
Study on High school teachers who were offered an incentive compensation for greater attendance, which resulted in higher attendance but a drop in GPA’s
The teachers didn’t give up on their values or lower their standards, they had the pleasure center sneak up, and veer off the path they had originally planned.
NOt only does our response to a monetary reward resemble our response to a drug like coke, but so does our drive to attain the reward
The prospect of a reward exited the pleasure center even more than the attainment of the reward itself.
Group Vs. Individual Mentality
Although the sway of group conformity is incredibly strong, it depends on unanimity for its power. The interesting thing is that the dissenting actor didn't need to give the right answer to inspire the real participant to speak up with the correct response; all it took to break the sway was for someone to give an answer that was different from the majority.
It’s important to note that the presence of a disenter - any dissenter, no matter how incompetent - still made it possible for a large segment of participants to deviate from the majority and give the right answer.
A dissenting voice - even an incompetent one - can often act as the dam that holds back a flood of irrational behavior.
Preface
I feel like the writers who made this book really stretched out their examples to the point where it’s not the most relevant/concrete for the given psychological example. Or, the writers could have written this while they were high or something. Either way, there is a clear interruption of flowage in conscious thought, and you have to constantly switch gears in order to keep along with what the writers are trying to convey. The book does have a good amount of psychological and sociological examples that I haven’t read anywhere else though.
Overreacting to Potential Loss
Gives an example of how a reputable plane pilot crashed.
The more meaningful a potential loss is, the more loss averse we become. In other words, the more there is on the line, the easier it is to get swept into an irrational decision.
People overreact to potential loss
Commitment - IN too deep
Bidding example of how there is a free $20 bill and the last two bidders would have to pay the price of the bill.
The deeper the hole they dig themselves into, the more they continue to dig.
AVersion to loss, on its own, is strong. But when it converges with commitment, the force becomes an even more powerful influence in shaping our thinking and decision making.
Value Attribution
Example of how scientists didn’t believe a new discovery of neanderthals and subway riders didn’t react to yo yo ma playing in the subway
Value attribution, acts as a quick mental shortcut to determine what’s worthy of our attention. When we encounter a new object, person, or situation, the value we assign to it shapes our future perception of it, whether it's our dismissal of a curiously inexpensive antique we find at a flea market or our admiration of a high-priced designer bag in a chic boutique.
Value attribution kicked in when attendees received a discount ticket : regardless of the size of the discount, the patrons regarded the tickets and the productions as inferior.
The First Date Interview
A single word has the power to alter our whole perception of another person - and possibly sour the relationship before it even begins. When we hear a description of someone, no matter how brief, it inevitably shapes our experience of that person.
10 common interview(first date questions) and one only is useful.
Why should I hire you?
What do you see yourself doing five years from now?
What do you consider to be your greatest strengths and weaknesses?
How would you describe yourself?
What college subject did you like the best and the least?
What do you know about our company?
Why did you decide to seek a job with our company?
What did you leave your last job?
What do you want to earn five years from one?
What do you really want to do in life?
Semi insightful, self-evaluation questions where you get a real sense of the candidate
AT its core, these questions elicit prepackaged responses that don’t really tell us anything about the candidate’s actual skills
These require candidates to gaze into the future, and these questions carry little weight.
This turns the interviewer into a historian. When people revisit the past they often reconstruct it, and invite artful responses.
The idea is to focus on relevant data and squelch any questions that invite the candidate to predict the future, reconstruct the past, or ponder life’s big questions.
The ideal system is to use higher accuracy techniques up front to make your decision - things that test mental ability tests, work samples.
The Chameleon Effect
The molding process becomes self-perpetuating. When we take on characteristics assigned to us, the diagnosis is reinforced and reaffirmed.
Pygmalion effect (describing how we take on positive traits assigned to us by someone else)
Golem effect ( describing how we take on negative traits)
The Chameleon Effect - Catch all term that shows both
Interesting study on a group of 50 women who talked to a group of 50 men on the phone. The men were given bios on the women, and then pictures of either pretty or ugly women. Then, the recordings of the men were taking out and a 3rd group had to choose what the women were supposed to look like, and they chose the fake photos that were assigned to them.
Without knowing it, the jury members cut in on the mysterious dance that had taken place between the men and the women.
The women had unconsciously picked up on the beautiful opinion the men had of them and acted accordingly.
Who hadn’t walked a little taller or smiled a little brighter after being told how beautiful they are.
Negative and External feelings about old age can actually make people physically age faster.
Psychology and physiology are inextricably connected in many ways
IN the bridge study, men who crossed the rope bridge, anxiety and adrenaline translated into a heightened romantic interest in the assistant. Their physiological reactions affected their perceptions.
We’re constantly sending and receiving causes and subtle messages to and from one another - swaying and being swayed, even if our rational brain hasn’t been let in on the characteristics others ascribe to us.
Perceptions of Fairness
When it comes to fairness, it’s the process, not the outcome, that causes us to react irrationally. This is called procedural justice. We don’t expect a computer to be fair, but we expect people to be. They usually would want a 50/50 split.
It was recommended that all managers - regardless of industry - put greater “effort, energy, investment, and patience” into nurturing the relationship. As the car dealer study suggests, how we are treated - the fairness of the procedure - has as much to do with our satisfaction as the ultimate outcome.
VC’s believe also in outcome and process. Even though VC’s is all about the money, they still want to be overcommunicated with.
Study on a 50/50 split in Machiguenga.
Rather than viewing themselves as being treated unfairly by the offering partner, “they seemed to feel it was just back luck that they were responders and not proposers.
In the end, Machiguenga are no more rational than UCLA students.
They simply have a different perception of fairness
We don’t typically think of fairness as an irrational force, but it dramatically affects our perceptions and sways our thinking.
Incentive Compensation vs. Altruistic Motivation
Managers, parents and economists have long operated under the assumption that monetary incentives increase motivation. But psychologists are beginning to discover that the connection between the 2 is trickier than it first appears.
There is a paradoxical aspect of financial compensation, one that illuminates the strange relationship between monetary incentives and two very different parts of our brain.
Everytime there is money to be gained or lost, - a certain part of the brain lit up. This region, is called the nucleus accumbens
The nucleus accumbens is one of the most primitive parts of the brain, one that is associated with our wild side. It’s the area that associates with the thrill of going out on a hot date, sports fan’s when their team pulls out a last minute victory, and that seeks out the excitement of LV.
The Posterior superior temporal sulcus is the part of the brain responsible for social interactions - how we perceive others, how we relate, and how we form bonds.
The pleasure center and the altruism center cannot both function at the same time.
For the altruism center, all you need is a sense that you’re helping someone or making a positive impact
For the pleasure center, you need a lot more impactful incentives, otherwise it could be a turnoff
Study on High school teachers who were offered an incentive compensation for greater attendance, which resulted in higher attendance but a drop in GPA’s
The teachers didn’t give up on their values or lower their standards, they had the pleasure center sneak up, and veer off the path they had originally planned.
NOt only does our response to a monetary reward resemble our response to a drug like coke, but so does our drive to attain the reward
The prospect of a reward exited the pleasure center even more than the attainment of the reward itself.
Group Vs. Individual Mentality
Although the sway of group conformity is incredibly strong, it depends on unanimity for its power. The interesting thing is that the dissenting actor didn't need to give the right answer to inspire the real participant to speak up with the correct response; all it took to break the sway was for someone to give an answer that was different from the majority.
It’s important to note that the presence of a disenter - any dissenter, no matter how incompetent - still made it possible for a large segment of participants to deviate from the majority and give the right answer.
A dissenting voice - even an incompetent one - can often act as the dam that holds back a flood of irrational behavior.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,101 reviews