Hidden Brain - Choose Carefully

Episode Date: January 4, 2022

All of us make choices all the time, and we may think we're making those choices freely. But psychologist Eric Johnson says there's an architecture behind the way choices are presented to us, and this invisible architecture can influence decisions both large and small. If you like this show, please check out our new podcast, My Unsung Hero! And if you'd like to support our work, you can do so at support.hiddenbrain.org. 

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantan. It was November 2004. Jeopardy Champion Ken Jennings kept winning and winning and winning. He now has $1,4,960. His chief seemed unbreakable. A total of 2 million 6,300 dollars. With Christmas approaching on his 75th appearance on the show, the champion seemed likely to win yet again. It was final jeopardy the last challenge of the episode.

If Ken got this one answer right, the streak would continue. Host Alex Trebek presented the question. The category is business and industry and here is the clue, ladies and gentlemen. Most of this firms, 70,000 seasonal white-color employees, work only four months a year. 30 seconds, good luck. Columbia University psychologist Eric Johnson describes what happened next. So Jennings thought and thought must be seasonal and must be something about Christmas.

So he was thinking maybe it's like someone who does delivery like FedEx or maybe it's people who put outside box-and-os, the Salvation Army. The other contestant with a chance to win, Nancy Zurg, went in a different direction. She picked the tax preparation company, H&R Block, which hires a lot of accountancy cheer, come tax season. Nancy, you wrote down your response rather quickly, I thought, I hope it's correct, let's take a look.

Let's take a look. What is H&R Block? You're right, you're a wager. 4,401, taking you up to 14,401. You have a one dollar lead over Ken Jennings right now and his final response was FedEx. His wager was 5,601. He winds up in second place with 87.99 and Nancy Zerf! Congratulations, you are indeed a giant killer! Our new dribbling champion, Fort 2000, 4 and 1! Ken Jennings knew that H&R blog hired lots of white collar workers during tax preparation season.

It's just that once his mind gravitated to companies that were especially active around Christmas, he couldn't pull himself out of that mental groove. And he claims later on, there was absolutely no way that came to his mind. It was just blocked by his initial thoughts. This is something psychologist call inhibition that when you think about one thing, you can't think about the other. This week on Hidden Brain, how our minds can be influenced by the way options are presented to us and how we can make choices more wisely.

As we move through life, we are constantly making choices. When we buy a car, choose a college, or pick a romantic partner, we think about the ramifications of different options. One thing we usually don't consider, how the way in which choices are presented to us, shapes what we decide to do. At Columbia University, Eric Johnson studies how the presentation of choices can influence people and how these insights can be used for both good and evil. Eric Johnson, welcome to Hidden Brain. Very glad to be with you, Shankar. Some years ago, Eric, a graduate student came

to you and said she could change the sofas that customers would buy by changing the background on a website selling the sofas. You were skeptical that this was the case, so she ran a lab experiment to convince you. Can you tell me what she did and what happened? What she suggested is that the background, what's called the wallpaper website, might influence people's choice. So she went out and designed several different website backgrounds. One, for example, would be clouds embedded on a blue sky.

And she showed that when you asked people what they thought of when they saw that, they would say comfort. Another one might be dollar bills embedded on a green page. And she asked people what they thought of, not surprising, they would say cost. She then gave people a task where they had to choose a couch. Uncouch was expensive and comfortable. The other couch was actually cheap and uncomfortable. And what she found is that people actually chose a couch that was more compatible with the background.

That is with the blue clouds, they would choose the comfortable but more expensive couch. With the green money, they chose a chief uncomfortable couch. You know, this reminds me of a similar situation. This one drawn from real life. The research at Karim Hagag looked at students at the US military academy at West Point. They were taking introductory classes in economics, calculus, chemistry, and other subjects. The students were assigned to these classes at various times of the day. Some took the class first thing in the morning, others took the same class later in the day. Kareem Hagag looked at how likely students were to later choose that subject as their college major. Here's what he found.

Students who were randomly assigned to the first period 730 AM section are about 10% less likely to choose the corresponding major, compared to a student who takes that class later in the day. We also compare two students who are sitting in the exact same classroom, but one of whom just had a free period as a break before, and the other came from one or more back-to-back classes. We find that each additional back-to-back class reduces the likelihood that that student enrolls in the major by about 12%.

It's not quite fluffy clouds and so far, but it's the same general principle, something that should not influence a consequential decision, like which major you select in college seems to be influenced by when the class was scheduled, or if you took that class right after a challenging class. What's interesting about that example is the decision is actually quite a while after you've taken the class. You're not sitting there at 9 a.m. in the Calculus class making a decision. Some day later you're given a form, what do you want as a major? And the memory of how awful you felt during that Calculus class or during that economics class

actually is what's influencing your choice. So it's not only that immediate environment, like the web pages, but it's also the memories of that environment that make a difference. One last idea along the same lines, you've asked volunteers how much they care about global climate change and global warming and what they would be willing to do to fix it. But you've also measured something curious. You've measured what the ambient temperature is as they're answering the question. Describe to me the setup of the study

and what you found Eric. So, hey, people come to our website. And one of the things we asked them about was what was the zip code. And my co-authors cleverly figured out they could actually figure out what the temperature that day was as they were answering the questionnaire. And so much like the website color might change choice, we're wondering whether the ambient temperature would change how concerned they were with global warming.

And in some studies, actually, how much they would donate for a global warming charity. And surprisingly, we found that on days that were warmer than average, people would give more money and be more concerned about global warming. Days that were colder than average, they were much less concerned about global warming and they gave us money. I understand that experiments have been run along the same lines where you can actually manipulate the temperature, you know, fiddle with the thermostat and you get similar results. Yeah, if the research we've done that actually come up with various more results at warmer temperatures, increase concern with global warming.

We've actually done something recently called a meta-analysis when we look at all the studies that have looked at this and there's a significant and reasonable effect of ambient temperature no matter how you manipulate it on people's concern for climate change. So what's interesting here are the kids that if you ask the people buying the sofas or you ask the college students deciding on the major or the volunteers in a hot room why they make the decisions they did, how many of them do you think would point to those hidden factors as the reason for that decision? I can tell you in our studies when we ask people, were you influenced by how warm it was today? Nobody says yes.

It's something that is actually sort of like a fish and water. It's something we don't see. And we're not aware of those external influences. So we've looked at how people can be blind to why they are making a certain choice. But the same blindness often affects people who are offering choices. Some time ago, the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania moved to introduce cheaper options for car insurance for consumers, but New Jersey inadvertently made it easier for customers

to select the cheaper plan Pennsylvania made it harder. We'll talk later on about what the state specifically did, but for now can you tell me what differences it actually make to consumers? You might say that current insurance costs a lot of money, people would take the time and trouble to figure out the best deal. You've studied what happened, did customers behave differently in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania? It's actually interesting because living there and getting the forms themselves, I saw it real time. In New Jersey, the JAPR policy was much more popular about three times as popular as in

Pennsylvania where the expensive policy was very popular. There was a very big difference in the kind of insurance people bought in the two states. So you and your colleague Dan Goldstein calculated the ultimate difference between the two states, and you found that customers in Pennsylvania spent $2 billion additional dollars that's billion with a B on current shores. I mean, that's just gigantic. And it's probably more now because we calculated that in 2003, and the differences still exist. I understand that you even wrote to the governors of the two states and published an op-ed

about your thoughts in a Pennsylvania newspaper, but people blew you off. Again, the idea that the way choices are presented to people could make a difference in how people made decisions, that idea seemed ridiculous to people. We didn't even hear anything from the governors, although actually eventually we did get a letter from Christy Whitman with the governor of New Jersey saying she'll give it to somebody, but it didn't have any immediate impact.

So in recent years, there's been increasing interest in how we respond to choices and how best to present choices to others. Research us call this field of study choice architecture. Can you tell me about the origins of that term? The term comes from actually rigid-thaler and cast sunsteen in the book Nudge. And what it means is that somebody is making a set of decisions about how to present the choice to you. They are what I'll call tools for choice architecture, deciding how many options to present to you,

deciding the order of the options, deciding how to describe the options. But the key to choice architecture is a little realization, and that realization is, well, maybe we can pick the way to present a choice that helps people make the best decision. In some ways, if you think about what an architect does when she's designing an actual building, the architects making choices, how big do you want the entry way to be?

Do you want a big grand entrance? Do you want a humble entrance? Do you want open spaces? Do you want close spaces? And presumably, each of those choices changes the way people will behave inside that building. And I think the inside here is that by modifying the choices or the way choices are presented to people, in some ways you're inviting them into your building to walk in a certain way, to behave in a certain way. It's absolutely true. We have a brand new business school building. And when we talk to the architects, they said,

the stairs are actually right up front and the elevators weigh in the back. So people actually take the stairs rather than the elevator. The other thing that's really important is that notice there has to be a decision about where the stairs are and where the elevator is. There's no architecture option. You have to decide where those go.

And so it's not as if somebody's not a choice architect. You can be a choice architect knowingly, mindfully, or you can be a choice architect without really realizing what you're doing. You cite a very interesting historical example from the from the actual world of architecture to illustrate how choice architecture works. On the night of the 10th of May 1941, our house to Commons once destroyed and we have now to consider whether we should build it up again and how. In 1943, there were plans to reconstruct the British House of Commons, which had been destroyed during the German Blitz in World War II. This led to an interesting

debate about how the building should be reconstructed. Tell me what happened, Eric. Yes, it turns out Winston Churchill really had been at that point in Parliament for three decades and he made a very impassioned speech saying he wanted the building rebuilt the same way. The quote that really attracted me to the story is he said, we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us. What he pointed out is that basically unlike the way, for example, Egos Congress is organized, it's also been the case that Parliament had two sides facing each other. In fact, historically, there were exactly two sword links apart, which is important because they were actually using that space as early as the 16th century. And his point is that because you paid attention to the other party,

you would pay less attention to what was going on in your own party. You presented more of a united front, and that actually made for much livelier debate and that was very important. He felt for the two-party system in Britain. The other thing he did was make sure the building was too small for everyone so it seemed like it was more intense and more exciting. We attach immense importance to the survival of Parliamentary democracy. We wish to see our parliament a strong, easy, flexible instrument of freedom. This is perfect and slow, train by and a sense of intimacy, our indistence. One of the more consequential examples of inadvertent choice architecture happened in

the year 2000, a Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush's name was listed first on the ballot in Florida ahead of the Democrat Al Gore. Now it wasn't because Bush came before Gore alphabetically, since the 1950s, the law in Florida was that the candidate belonging to the governor's party would be listed first on the ballot. Eric, what do we know about the effect of ballot order on voting, especially in closed elections? As you may recall, George Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, was the governor, and as you might remember, that was a very close election, about 500 votes separated the two. People spent a lot of

time looking at ballots, trying to recount them. There was a famous debate about hanging chads. Now, it turns out that some states actually randomize the order. That is, you go from county to county or precinct to precinct, and the order just differs. So, in half, then, Gore would be first, in the ref, but should be first. That allows us to estimate how big the effect is, and that effect is much larger than 500 votes. It probably is tens of thousands of votes. In fact, John Crosnick, who's a psychologist at Stanford, has argued that if it had been randomized in Florida,

Al Gore would have been president. In nearly every domain of our lives, smart marketers and county politicians are already using ideas from choice architecture to change what you buy, to manipulate you at the ballot box, and to influence how you think. When we come back, the psychological mechanisms behind choice architecture and how we can use these insights to help people lead better lives. You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam.

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. In his book, The Elements of Choice, the psychologist Eric Johnson explores the world of choice architecture. He studies why we fail to see that our decisions can be subtly biased by the way choices are presented to us. He also examines how we routinely present choices to others in ways that turn out to be counterproductive. Some years ago, Eric, a researcher presented visitors who wanted to sign up for a new social media platform with an online agreement. It was very long and buried deep inside the terms of service agreement was a very unusual clause. Here's how the researcher Jonathan O'Barr described

the clause to me. What we did is we went to the extreme and we included this first born clause suggesting that if you agreed to these policies that as a form of payment you'd be giving up a first born child and 98% of the participants that took the study didn't even notice this particular clause. So nearly every single person agreed to hand over their first born child in exchange for access to the new social media platform. Now obviously the researchers were not looking to steal people's kids, but it's an astonishing example of how people can be led to make bad decisions.

Erika want to look at the different mechanisms that play in choice architecture, and I want to start with the idea that when the right choice involves waiting through a lot of difficult material, people often make the wrong choice. I think that's true. In fact, a really important observation is that people make decisions early on when they're making a choice about how to make that choice. They actually are doing what I think is choosing a plausible path how to make the decision. When we do that, we often are very, very sensitive

to how much effort is involved, particularly at the beginning. So you go, you want to join this brand new media service, you're excited, and it says, first, read all this, and that can be 10,000 words, and then click here. It's not a surprise that most people don't do that long bit of reading and just click there. Something very similar happened with a rollout of the Affordable Care Act in 2013.

Here the stakes were really significant and they were real. Can you describe to me what happened when the website went public, Eric? One of the things that was interesting is there were a lot of decisions that a Troyser tech would have to make in designing the site. So for example, there were sites that had only eight options. Other states had sites that had 160 options.

The thing that's interesting is that it's a hard, hard, hard decision because you have three things you need to think about if you're interested in cost. The deductible, which is how much you pay every time you use the doctor. There is a copayment, and then there's a premium. People can't do the math of adding those three up. So we did a set of studies where we actually had people say, find the cheapest insurance, and almost everybody couldn't. They just can't do the math, and as a result, they were making choices that actually cost on average

hundreds of dollars more than they should. And of course, when you multiply this out over millions of people across an entire nation, the cost actually become quite astronomical. Your estimate was $9 billion of excess premiums being paid. So you talked a second ago about how people have a strong impulse to follow the path of least resistance. Another place where this affects us is when we go shopping. Can you paint me a picture of the lengths that companies go to to seek the right placement for their products in bookstores

and on grocery shelves? Not everybody knows this. There is actually payments that companies will give to supermarkets to put products in favorite positions. For example, it turns out just below eye level, you're much more likely to sell than if you're saying, for example, at knee level. And the mechanism seems to be people are very sensitive to the little bit of effort it might take to kneel down.

Imagine you have a child in your cart and you're rolling around, you wanna get done. The last thing you wanna do is read labels at levels that are very low, you grab and go. And this is true across all forms of commerce. So companies like Google, for example, pay other companies like Apple to come pre-installed on you know iPhones and iPads. Now anyone can navigate over to Google, but having it pre-installed

makes the choice a tiny bit easier, and this turns out to make a big difference. It turns out that in fact very very few people actually make the shift from Google Let's say to Microsoft Bing or any other website. And in fact, they stick with that. So that stickiness is because we don't want to spend the time to actually the three or four clicks or touches that would take us to change what this default search option is. I'm reminded of a study by Roluka Ursue at New York University, she looked at how people picked hotel accommodations on Expedia. You've cited this in your book.

Do you remember what you found? It was actually quite striking because it's one of the cases where we know the data that would have normally been known only to the company. I should point out that Expedia makes most of its money from hotel rooms. We think about this flights and rental cars, but a big part of its money from hotel rooms. We think of them as flights and rental cars, but a big part of their revenue is hotel rooms. And so they typically present, say, 30 hotel rooms to somebody. And there you can do it in lots of orders.

So the question that Reluca was looking at is how important it is to be in first, second, third, et cetera. And what she found was basically the first one actually got a share that was 50% more than if it was second. Wow. You know, we talked earlier about the current insurance options offered by New Jersey and Pennsylvania. I want to go back to that example in a little more detail to see why so many customers picked the cheaper insurance in New Jersey, but failed to do so in Pennsylvania.

Can you explain to me what they saw? What was different about that choices that prompted them to make the right decision in one state and the wrong decision in another? Well, I think one of the big things is ease. I mean, it turns out that the forms, I saw them because I was there, were in tiny print on onion skin paper.

And I would have to, in theory, read that to understand what's going on. Check a box and send it back in again. The effort, well, particularly the prediction of effort was large. The question is, what happened if you didn't make a choice? In New Jersey, if I didn't make a choice, I got a policy that was cheaper and didn't have quite as much coverage. In Pennsylvania, I got the more expensive coverage that was more complete. So we call that a default. It happens if you have no action. And those defaults made all the difference in

the world and those choices. When you talk about this idea of the default, it basically suggests that what happens to the person in the absence of their making a choice turns out to be really consequential. That's right. And it's easy to think about three reasons why that might be the case. One is, as we've been talking about, it's easier to take the default. I don't have to fill out a form. I don't have to find a stamp to send in the form. It's easier, but that's not all that's going on. It turns out defaults work best when that is accompanied by people thinking that the person posing the choice, the designer thinks that's the best option. So maybe I think New Jersey thinks

this is the best option. That is what we call endorsement. And finally, there's a third source and whether things that really makes defaults work is what we call endowment, which is basically thinking that I have this insurance policy, I can think of what's good about it. Therefore, I'm more likely to choose it. One of the more unusual ways in which choice architecture works is by taking advantage of how memory works. There's an entertainer named Darren Brown, who's known in the UK as a mentalist. He doesn't necessarily claim to have psychic

powers, but he does have an uncanny ability to seemingly read people's minds. In one trick, he brings two advertising executives into an office and gives them instructions on coming up with a slogan for a taxidermy shop Can you describe the setup of what he does and what happens next Eric? Yeah, these two executives Tony and Martin actually are taking to the office in a cab They're then brought up to the office and Darren asked them to create an ad campaign for an unusual business It's actually an animal taxidermy business. Now the idea is you've only got half an hour to do this. So you've got to really work with your

first instinct. So at the moment you've got no idea what you're going to do, correct? Yeah. He shows them a piece of taxidermy and a cat that's been stuffed and then he puts a piece of paper that has his ideas in an envelope and then puts underneath one of the stuffed cats and leaves a room, comes back in a half hour and they have drawn on the whiteboard what they think a good ad would be including a logo and a slogan. And they have a nice thing which is a bear playing a harp in front of the pearly gates. And they've named the business animal heaven and had the slogan, the best place for dead animals.

Now, round being a very theatrical musician says, very interesting. I do want to show you my own ideas from beforehand. Okay. The mentalist pulls out the envelope that has been sitting in the room the whole time. The logo was almost identical. It's a hot playing bear. The gas when he pulls it out.

It's called creature heaven. There's a harb, a bear, and clouds and gates. And the logo actually looks just like his. The slogan differed only in two words. So they are actually quite impressed. Well, this is scary really. Gobbsmacked I think is a better term one of them uses. And you have to ask how do you do this? Remember, there was a cab ride and Brown and his staff had basically rigged that cab ride.

For example, the cab came to the London Zoo. There's a huge set of iron gates and they stopped there. And as they were stopping for a bunch of kids crossing the road, the kids were all dressed in t-shirts that had a picture of the zoo. Finally, on the way in, they passed lots of images of harps, happened being storefronts. So what Brown was doing is actually making these ideas more accessible to AdExx. In fact, I argue he wasn't really a mind reader. He was much more a mind writer imposing these ideas in their heads. It's comforting to know that you're just as susceptible to subliminal persuasions as the rest of us. Thank you very much. Helping yourself. Thank you. Martin. Pleasure. Take us, thank you very much. I'll be in sound. So, thank you. Martin. Pleasure.

Take care. Thank you very much, and do well. Bye-bye. I'll be spelling you. Because you're mine. One curious aspect of choice architecture has to do with the order in which choices are presented to us. The National Bureau of Economic Research has an email newsletter where they round up interesting studies in the field of economics.

And these studies are listed in no particular order, and yet researchers found that some studies get clicked on and downloaded far more often than others. What was going on, Eric? I think it's actually quite an interesting example because the economists think that they are rational, and yet they found that the first option was actually much more likely to be downloaded. Researchers looked at actually if those papers were cited by other papers later on and found that order effect still lasted. So citations actually, what academics love, that's what gets them reputations. That's what can get them tenure. And it turns out even citations were affected by this random ordering of which paper was first. If being forced on a list can inadvertently communicate that

you're special, sometimes being last confers an advantage to. In competitions where judges are evaluating a series of performances, the final performers have a big advantage. Researchers call these twin patterns the primacy effect and the recency effect. When you have control over the list, you're going to get primacy being first is best. But when the choice architect has control over the list, you may well get recency. Think about the following example. You're in a restaurant.

It's probably the case if you get a paper menu. The first option will have an advantage. But imagine a fancy restaurant where they give you a verbal menu. They read things. You are likely to forget what the first option is and only remember the last one and that turns out to be an advantage. When we come back, how to apply these insights to improve our lives and the ethical questions that arise when you use psychology to manipulate people. You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanthan. Many of us go through life making choices,

or offering choices to others, without realizing that the manner in which choices are presented regularly shapes how people think. Columbia University psychologist Eric Johnson is an expert on the subject of what is called choice architecture. Eric, I want to look at some ways your insights might change the way we parent our kids, manage our employees, and serve our communities. One idea we explored was the power of the path of least resistance, when our streaming television channel automatically plays the next episode of the series we are watching, we are much more likely to binge episodes than if we had to do something as small as pick up the remote and hit play.

But some of this laziness can also be deployed for good. Doctors often prescribe brand name drugs, even though cheaper generics are available. This turns out to be costly for consumers, costly for the system, and makes it more likely patients will not take the medications they need. You cite an interesting story about how researchers at Cornell University were able to get doctors to prescribe generic drugs instead of brand name drugs by employing an insight from choice architecture. Can you tell me what they did, Eric? Sure, a former student of mine, it's actually quite gratifying to see this work applied. She actually had the insight that many of the things that had been tried failed because they were

the wrong diagnosis. It turns out that doctors, when they have a choice, have a name of a brand name drug, let's say his antihistamine, it's called Allegra. It turns out there's a generic drug called Fexafenedine Hydrochloride and that drug is actually cost 20 cents if an Allegra costs a dollar. But of course, that's very hard to remember, very hard to type and all she actually did was a very simple thing. When I started typing alegra, ALL, it put in effects of fennidine hydrochloride. And I could change it if I were a doctor. I just, there's a little button. I clicked it says to prescribe the brand name drug. But almost nobody did. It turns out the increase was from 40% to

over 90% in supplying the generic drugs. Simply by changing the interface, they had tried previously to pay doctors to do generic drugs. They actually had tried to, or I'll be them by putting up alerts, and all that did was get people annoyed. So this small change in the interface actually changed behavior radically. So doctors like the rest of us follow the path of least resistance and a related idea

that we explored when we talked about how people don't read complex legal documents when they sign up for online services is a value of keeping things simple. You sign in the book the famous story of Captain Chessley-Sullenberger, seconds after he piloted a US Airways plane after it took off from La Guardia airport. A flock of geese hit the plane and both engines went down and Captain Sully, as he's known, had to decide how and where to land the plane in just over three minutes. How did principles from choice architecture help Captain Sully safely land the plane in the Hudson River, Eric? That particular plane is interesting because it had what's called a glass cockpit.

It actually runs on electronics and if they lose power, they actually lose a set of gauges in front of them. So what Sully did was very early on within seconds of the collision is reach up and turn on or an auxiliary generator that kept the gauges running. This was important. There was one particular gauge that was very useful to him. It's called the green dot gauge or the air speed tape. And what that does is essentially say,

what is the angle which you have to fly to fly as far as possible? Now, he was an expert pilot. He had done this for many, many years. What that let him do is basically decide what angle to fly at, to fly as far as possible. He was actually going to try and land in the Hudson River near 42nd Street where it turns out they're ferry terminals. It was a very cold day. The air temperature was 19 degrees, the water temperature was 42 degrees, and he was very afraid that people would die of hypothermia. Soon after that, the plane splashed into the water

off Manhattan's west side. Captain Sally picked a spot on the river near the ferry terminal based on the idea that rescuers would be able to reach the plane quickly. Within minutes, several ferry boats arrived as well as rescue crews. Eventually, passengers made their way onto the wing and then to boats, moments later, land.

So the striking thing is that the gauges in Fender Captain Sally simplified his decisions. In some ways, you could argue that you could have provided him with more information. There could have been more gauges breaking down all these different things that told him in more granular detail what was going on, but by providing him with this single gauge that allowed him to find the simplified solution to the problem of how far he could fly, it freed up his mind to think about many other considerations, how cold it was, where to land, what happens if he hits someone in the water, whether the plane would float, all these other considerations that he had just three minutes to consider.

He talked about the idea of load shedding, and you talk about this idea in the book as well. What is that idea as it applies to choice architecture? As I was reading the transcripts and interviews with him, he had this wonderful line, which is I immediately decided to load shed in goal sacrifice. And load shedding was basically something he stole and pilots use from the electric power industry. If there's too much demand for power, they load shed. And so they made decide they're gonna shut down the factories and leave the power on the hospitals.

So what he was doing in the century is saying, what is the decision I can make at hand? And he quickly decided he was gonna be quite comfortable losing the airplane in order to save lives. So to make that trade off, the gauge actually enabled him to think about the things that were important and not about the things that were less important. And he was able to save all the lives of the entire crew and passengers.

One of the insights that I took away from the research on choice architecture, but also the specific story of what happened with Captain Sully, is the importance of trying to keep things as simple as possible. That in some ways, when things are simple, it frees up your mind to consider all the variables that might suddenly pop up unexpectedly. One of the things that I was really taken by is the fact that the cockpit design is not an accident. They actually use flight simulator so that you actually are training somebody to be a better decision maker.

The line I like a lot is one of the manufacturers said, we put the information there for their pilot exactly when they need it and only if they need it. Anything else is clutter. Let's look at another application of choice architecture. In this case, the power of defaults. The state of Oregon has used defaults to increase the likelihood that people get registered to vote. How do they do this, Eric?

If you go to Oregon, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and you register to get a driver's license, you're automatically a voter. You don't have to fill out another form. It's sometimes called the Motor Voter Registration Law and it turns out about 20 states have actually adopted a version of this registration by default. And it brings up a really important point, which is what should be the default? Every decision has to default. Do you want to fall people into not being voters?

Or want them to fall into voters? If someone is a citizen, why should they not be a registered voter? By simplifying decision making, we can speed up decisions and get to the best outcome. But there are sometimes when slowing things down can lead to a better result. Choice architecture can help you do this too. Think about the world of dating. Specifically, two dating apps, Tinder and coffee meets Beagle. The big difference between those sites among other things is that on Tinder you have almost an infinite number of potential mates. You can keep swiping as long as your energy left in your thumb. There's actually a phrase called Tinder thumb.

From the pain you get from doing too much swiping. At Kaufmeat Bangle was actually a site that was built by three women. They wanted to do it as a website that actually was better for women. And they made the decision early on to actually give you a limited number of options, and originally it was just one option a day. So think about what you're doing on Tinder. You're not looking carefully to each potential day.

You're probably looking at one easy to read attribute, easy not even to read, easy to look at, which is the picture. If you're only being matched once a day by contrast, you can slow down. Learn a little about your potential date. Maybe get beyond your first impression. When you have one person in front of you and you're not going to get another one for 24 hours, you might go beyond the picture and read the biography, read actually what they're looking for in a mate, and actually that leads to very different kinds of processes. Tinder based

you're picking on who has a cute headshot, you're thinking very differently if you're on coffee meets bagel. One of the things that I think this this work suggests is sort of a particularly thorny philosophical question, I think, which is that I think we generally have the tendency to assume that we should give people what it is they want. So in other words, that people actually know what it is they want. But of course, that was the case. Then people should be able to choose what it is they want, regardless of the dating site

they are using. What we often find when we look at certain dating sites is that people end up with mates, with partners who are very unlike the specifications that they themselves have laid out at the start of the search process. So someone might say, I want someone with characteristics A through C and it turns out that the person they actually like has characteristics D through F. And in some ways it speaks to the idea that even though we think we know ourselves, very often we don't. I think the basic idea is a very fundamental change in the way we think about choice.

Economist tend to believe we know what we want and we're simply searching for the right me. I think the reality of dating and the reality of most choice is that we're trying to figure out what it is we want. We're actually trying to assemble a set of preferences to predict who will make us happy. And that assembly process is actually very different and much more likely to be affected by the choice architecture. So we've lived at several ways in which people's choices can be influenced by the way in which choices are presented to them. Now that's great when it comes to helping people, you know, save more for retirement or to increase voter registration. But let's

look at a more complex issue. The researcher Scott Halpern once ran a study where he examined how people make decisions about their end of life care. Volunteers were given forms which had pre-checked boxes. Some got a form where the checkbox said they would receive comfort care like hospice. Others got a form which had the option for prolonged medical intervention checked as the default. What did they find Eric? It's actually an amazing study because every participant was actually terminally ill with lung cancer. They were actually making the decision that would actually describe how they would die. And the defaults were amazingly powerful.

Many more people chose the prolonged care when it was the default than when it was comfort care. What's really important about this study is one other fact, these are very ethical researchers. So they actually went back to each of the participants and said, by the way, you got that particular set of defaults randomly. We essentially flipped a coin to determine how you're going to actually face death. And what happened was only two of the subjects

actually changed what they chose. So, there's a couple of really complicated philosophical conundrums here. So comfort care was selected 77% of the time when it was the default, but only 43% of the time when life extension, when medical intervention was a default. Now I don't know about you Eric, but it makes me very uncomfortable that these tools are so powerful that they can influence our life and their decisions. And then secondly, even when we tell people

that we have used those tools, they will still stick to the choices they made even when they were not aware that the tools were being used on them. So I am similarly uncomfortable, but it's very important to realize that this is what we'll call an assembled preference, that is I'm actually trying to figure out what will be the thing that will make me the most comfortable. And that's a very hard decision,

particularly in the case of end of life care. But doesn't it raise questions about what actual individual choice is really about, because it actually suggests that that choice there isn't sort of some innate choice that's inside us that's waiting to be unearthed that we actually have inside us. It actually is all almost made up on the fly. That's right and it's not surprised to me that we don't have a innate preference for one outcome or the other because hopefully we have never made this as before and unfortunately we'll never get to make it again. We can think of both the pros and cons of both sides and what the default does is make us think about

one versus the other. It's a very troubling result and it's even more troubling when you realize the medical system tends to encourage life extension by the way their forms are constructed. Yeah, so the default for many hospitals and doctors is to actually ask, how can I prolong life? Yeah, I actually asked Scott about that and he says, yes, in fact, explicitly unless you make a choice, unless you opt into comfort care, you'll be given life extension care. And it's not just the good guys who are reading up on choice architecture. The bad guys are doing it too. We all know companies that, you know, sign us up to some subscription at an introductory

rate of $1 a month, but the fine print says your credit card will be automatically charged $50 a month after three months. And if you try and cancel, it's nearly impossible to find a phone number or if you do find a phone number, you get stuck on hole for two hours as you're trying to cancel. Choice architecture is being used against us all the time. There is a nice name in computer science for that. It's called dark patterns. And they're particularly concerned with the fact where it's easy to opt into something to chew like a subscription. And it's very hard to get out of it. In fact, they have a nice name for it.

It's called a Roach Motel. The customers come in, but they never leave. One of the things that I think is really important to realize is that that's a moral decision that is actually reflected in the choice architecture. I could lie, and that may not be moral, but I could also set the choice architecture up in a way that creates bad outcomes for people. but I can also set the choice architecture up in a way that creates bad outcomes for people. Mm-hmm.

So, you know, it makes people really angry when they feel like they are being manipulated. And I think this is true for all of us. And I think many people worry, justifiably, that there is something about choice architecture that is undemocratic. You're superficially giving people the choice to make a decision, but you've set things up

in such a way that they make the decision that you want them to make. Do you worry that choice architecture gives marketers, policymakers, politicians, even experts such as yourself, great power over people? Choice architecture is there whether we're using it to manipulate or not. Someone is deciding lots of things like what is the default, how many options. There's no such thing as no choice architecture. Just because you have your eyes closed doesn't mean it's not there. So what I think is the important thing to do is realize that it exists

and then to use it to help people make better decisions. Eric Johnson is the author of the Elements of Choice, why the way we decide matters. Eric, thank you for joining us today on Hidden Brain. It's been a huge pleasure, thank you. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our production team includes Brigitte McCarthy, Kristen Wong, Laura Quarelle, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes and Andrew Chadwick. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor. Our unsung hero today is Show Fan Lee Lee. Shofans are hidden brain listener and supports the show via our Patreon page.

As we heard in today's episode, our choices are affected by all sorts of factors, many of which are invisible to us. Choosing to support a podcast takes time, effort and a financial commitment. Thanks for making that decision, Shofan. We're really grateful. If you like Hidden Brain, be sure to check out our new podcast My Unsung Hero. Every episode will boost your faith in humanity in five minutes or less. I'm Shankar Vedanthantham. See you soon. Thank you. you