Behavioral Priming: Buy, Robot Human! | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW

Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a. production of iHeart. Radio. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh and there's Chuck, Charles W. Chuck Bryant, the best all-around boy. And there's Jerry Roland. And this is. stuff you should know. I really wish I. hadn't have told you that. I think I. think I've told you that before, though. So, you forgot the first time, so maybe. you'll forget again. I can't You know.

how people keep lists of like episodes. we say we should do or movies we've. mentioned or something like that? They. should keep a list of the different. things that we've talked about and then. completely forgot we talked about. because I'm sure it would be extensive. Yeah, big list. So, speaking of big lists, Chuck, um. we're talking today about priming, which. is the present tense of. primus. And what it refers to is a it's. a psychological term where you are.

prompted to um respond in a certain way, behave in a certain way, choose a. certain. selection based on some prompt that was. given to you without your knowledge. It. could either be so flashed so fast or. something on a computer screen that your. your conscious awareness didn't pick up. on it. or it could just be presented to you in. a way that you're not you're not aware. that it's actually related to the thing. that you're being say tested on. Yeah.

Exactly. Uh and this is a big uh big. thing in cognitive psychology and you. know we're going to kind of get into the. ins and outs of it. some of it there's a. there's a lot of. um for some of it there's a lot of. studies that sort of indicate that. there's a lot to it. There's another. part of this that we'll get to where. there's a lot of studies that aren't so. great or that have been uh fudged or. data has been massaged or completely.

fabricated where it seems like sometimes. they've been found out as far as. researchers go. Uh but it all comes down. to memory. And if you're if you're. talking to a cognitive psychologist, they'll say that you have a couple of. ways that you remember things. Uh one is. your explicit memory or your active or. conscious memory. Like if you're trying. to think of something and you're. actively engaged your memory to think of. a thing, that's what that is. Uh or like. if somebody asked like what was Chuck's. senior superlative in high school, I. would think back to a fact that I.

learned and I would say best all-around. boy. Is it going to be one of those? Uh, and then implicit memory is the. other one. And that's just what you. remember on an uh unconscious level. So. if someone asked me what was your senior. superlative, wouldn't even have to think. about it. Best run boy. Boom. It just. pops right out as if it were my name. Right? So those are and this is really. kind of like breaking it down to a. really rough basic level. It's much more.

complex than that, but we bring that up. because it's your um it's it's tapping. into the different ways that you access. memories that priming is based on. Yeah. And you said it falls under the the. rubric of um uh cognitive psychology. And that is true. Cognitive psychology. have sh has shown very clearly that this. actually works. that if you um give. somebody say a word and you show them a.

list of associated words, they're it's. going to just happen that they they're. able to pick out the associated word. faster than other words. They're um. well, we'll give you some examples. rather than just me mushing it all. together. Let's let's tease it out a. little bit like a ' 80s perm. Yeah. Oh, boy. Uh yeah, let's do that. So, because. I think if we give some of these. examples, it'll make a little more. sense. Um, for instance, this first. exercise that uh Dave helped us out with. this, Dave found this one. It's called. the lexical decision. And that is the.

idea that if you put a word up on a. screen for a couple of seconds as a. priming word, then you as the as the. subject uh will indicate the next word. on the screen if it's real word or if. it's a nonsense word, but that will be. influenced. That's your lexical decision. you're making, but that will be. influenced by that priming word that you. saw. So, in this case, Dave to use the. example, uh, doctor, you're sitting. there in the lab, Bill Murray's on the. other side, got the shocker already. Uh,

doctor pops up on the screen for a. couple of seconds. That's your priming. word. And then all of a sudden, uh, other words pop up after that, and our. job as the subject is to see is to say. whether that's a real word or a nonsense. word. And obviously you would think uh. if the word nurse pops up um you're. going to be recognizing that a lot. faster. So it's all about sort of the. speed at which you recognize this as a. real or nonsense word. Nurse would be a. much faster decision than if it was.

basketball, right? And it's it's basically words. that share a similar category. Yeah. Are. more easily accessed once you've been. primed. almost like the way that we sort. things is by putting them into large. categories like doctor, nurse, hospital, stethoscope, right? Um and then once you. open that that category by thinking of. doctor, you're going to be able to. access the other stuff in that category. much more easily than say something in a. totally different category like cheese.

in the same category is delicious, that. kind of stuff, right? Yeah. Or. basketball. That see that that seems. sure that seems like what it's tapping. into. um and and it actually seems to. reveal that that's kind of how we we. store memories. There's another um. another demonstration that was pretty. famous that um shows for sure, again, I. just want to get this across, cognitive. priming really works. If you give people. a a list of words and one of those words. has a letter missing, say a vowel that. could make multiple different words,

they're going to choose or they're going. to fill it in differently based on the. other words in the list. So, for. example, if you have a list of words, bread, milk, hot, and then the last word. is s o blank p poop. Sure. Or soup, I think, would be a good. one, right? And depending on whether. you're you uh know how to spell, you. might spell it with an O or a U. Doesn't. matter. You're still getting the point. across, right? Uh or in another example.

of the same um you know missing letter. uh if it was shower water wash s o blank. p you might say poop there too actually. uh soap would probably be the word so. you know it's just a very intuitive kind. of thing happening because your brain is. working in a very unconscious way. because or I guess non-concious because. it is primed by the words that precede. the one with the missing letter. Right? And then there's also another um another.

there's a number of different ways of. priming people cognitively, but one that. just makes total sense and I think we've. all run into is repetition priming. Yeah. To where if you are shown like say. a pair of words um maybe sometimes one. of which is a nonsense word and you have. to pick out the nonsense words. Um, if. you see like in a list over and over. again, doctor and nurse, doctor and. nurse, it comes up three times out of a. seven word pair list, you're gonna move. through through those much more quickly. because you're it's it's right there in.

the forefront of your mind. So, you're. it hasn't faded yet. So, you're just. going to pick it out faster and faster. the more it's repeated. That's a form of. priming, too. Yeah. And these are all. really super basic, you know, examples. of cognitive priming. Um but it does. show a lot about how our memory works. that we're not just computers uh where. we can just access a file by clicking on. it very easily. Um we develop shortcuts. in our brain. Uh we we take shortcuts.

when we see words relating them to other. words. And so it just makes sense. You. know you could access something much. much faster uh because you have been. primed. In other words, our implicit. memory can be tapped into a lot quicker. than our explicit memory. Right? At and. at the end of each of these um. experiments, it kind of quickly became. tradition where the the researcher would. stand up and point at the person and be. like, "You've been. primed." Maybe adding a booya once in a.

while. Yeah. And Deion Sanders just. moonwalks through the background. Right. So uh we know that this is true also not. just because study after study has shown. that this is actually correct but um. when you put somebody in the wonder. machine the fMRI got to do it. Um yeah. they found that like if you ask somebody. the name of. uh let's say Anya Taylor Joy say who was. the star of the witch but also the gorge.

which isn't that good. I I thought that. was fairly entertaining for a not great. movie. By the way, The Gorge. Yeah, it. was highly watchable on like a rainy not. feeling so great day kind of movie way. Agreed. Yeah, agreed. It just wow. It. takes a sudden turn. It's just really. surprising. But yes, I I agree. I think. that's a good way to put it. Um you. would stop and think like, oh, Anya. Taylor Joy. Um and by the way, the. Queen's Gambit is one of the best things. I've ever seen in my entire life. Oh. yeah. Yeah, the the chess one. Yeah,

that was great. Okay. But if you also. said um you know name a name a a animal. that you think of when we say the word. dog. What they found in the fMRI is that. different parts of your brain light up. So we do know that priming does have a. certain effect and it is different than. our normal kind of conscious recall. I. wonder if when they they go into the. fMRI wonder machine room now the person. running it just goes I'm telling you.

what's going to happen some a part will. light up and then another part will. light up and you'll all be super happy. right you've been primed you've been. primed and Dion just very slowly. moonwalks so okay that's cognitive. priming now imagine if you were a. psychologist and you said cognitive. priming is kind of boring what if we. could use that same stuff to get people. to eat more cheeseburgers. Yeah. Or to. vote for a particular candidate in a.

political. election. Like what if priming works for. that? Yeah. And that's, you know, it's. all fun in games to just sort of look at. these little experiments on a on a. campus somewhere, but if it has a real. world, um, use, uh, especially when it. comes to marketing and advertising and. stuff like that, you can bet. corporations are going to sink some. money into doing that. Yes. So, this is. the handoff right here between cognitive. psychology to social psychology. And. social psychology has studied priming in.

great detail. It was a huge hit. You. you'll remember back to um nudge. economics. We talked about it in our PR. live episode. Yeah. Like it was a big. deal in like the late as to about the. 2012 I think something like that. It's. just a big deal and it makes a lot of. sense like the it's the basis of of. things like ideas like McDonald's uses. red and yellow in its logo because those.

colors are associated with excitement or. energy or happiness or they call it a. happy meal because over time you'll your. your kid will associate McDonald's with. being happy or I'm loving it. Um it's. just a jingle or whatever and it it. makes sense. It's very catchy, but. there's some part of your mind that it. has been primed to later on associate. McDonald's with love, a positive. feeling. All of this is examples of. social social psychology um research.

supporting this idea that you can prime. human beings to behave in a certain way. just by using these same techniques that. cognitive psychologists prove work. Dog, cat, soup, soap, that kind of stuff. Yeah. as long as you beat them over the. head with it over and over and over. again because repetition is one of the. real keys here. Yeah. Uh your brain just. being repeatedly exposed to that stimuli. uh is going to, you know, strengthen. that association over time and and. brands know that and that's why it. drives you crazy during, you know,

especially like sports playoffs or. something when you see those same ads. over and over and over again. Yeah. It's. a it's big business. They're putting a. lot of money into into, you know, sort. of manipulating your brain essentially. Yeah. I I've said it before and I'll say. it again. For some reason, some ad exec. chose morning reruns of Murder She Wrote. on Start TV overtheair channel network. for the the Burger King terrible singing.

um ad. There had to be some research. into their viewership or something, right? It had to be. But the thing is, every single other ad is for like. Humanana life insurance or health. insurance or dental insurance because. you're you're you just retired and now. you have Medicaid. Like every other ad, it almost stood out. You know what I. mean? Well, you know, uh our our senior. uh friends in the world are very. concerned about their health and their. healthcare and they still love those.

cheeseburgers. That's two things we. know. I guess that's it. But it was it. really graded on my nerves because I. watch that almost every day. All right, why don't we take a break here? That's a. good table setting, I think. And we'll. get back to how this is used in media. and politics. Um, should be no surprise. right after this. [Music]. [Applause]. [Music].

Hey. [Music].

All right, so we're back. As promised, we're going to talk a little bit about. uh the media and politics. Hopefully in. a way that's just sort of quick and easy. and doesn't ruffle too many feathers cuz. uh what we've seen is the is media of. all stripes do this and politicians of. all stripes do this. So, it's not. singling anybody out. Uh but when the. media gets involved in this kind of. thing to shape public opinion um they do. so with sort of a threepronged uh fork.

uh which is uh agenda setting, framing. and priming. Uh agenda setting being. like hey what's what are we going to. focus on editorially maybe in today's. paper or every day until the election. Uh how are we going to frame this thing. to suit what we feel is probably our our. slant. Uh and then priming. Um it's. basically, you know, similar to the. first two, but this is the subconscious. things where we're going to repeat. things. We're going to use certain.

words, certain images, uh as to just. sort of reinforce how we framed it. Yeah. So, just for a quick example, let's say the news decides to focus on. um crime and that the framing they use. is that crime is on the rise. and you. hear about this over and over again, night after night on the news or you. read about it over and over again on. your favorite news site. Uh eventually. you're going to be primed to think that. crime is on the rise and you might even.

be a little scared of it. Or relating to. politics, a politician might latch on to. that and be like, "Crime's really hot. right now. We're going to make crime. like the the main point. Um, we're going. to use it to set the agenda of our. campaign and we're going to tap into. that fear that this person, this lack of. safety that the people out there. watching the news feel because they're. being told over and over again, crime is. on the rise. Whether it is or not is. irrelevant. Yeah. There's no data. They. feel that it is. Exactly. They feel that.

it that crime is on the rise. So, we the. a politician are going to tap into that. and use it to hopefully get an election. because now we can prime them to get. that emotional response out of them over. and over again until we finally move. them to the voting stations to uh to. vote for me, the politician. That's. right. I would vote for you, by the way. I would never ever run for public. office. Oh, of course you wouldn't. But. I would I would vote for you for like, you know, neighborhood watch or. something. Would you vote for me for.

best all-around boy? Oh man. I mean, you. got that one in the bag, buddy. You. don't need my vote. Thank you. Uh, dog. whistling is something that, you know, you've heard more and more as a sort of. a term used in, uh, you know, social. media, politics, on the news, stuff like. that. And that is uh when you use a word. or a phrase that um you sort of are in. not sort of you are very much. intentionally associating with a. negative racial stereotype but it's not.

explicit. So it it operates on the. unconscious level. Uh and this is where. they tap into um implicit bias something. that everybody has. and you you know. using these coded words basically. Uh. there are things that I I will never. take one of these. It scares me to. death. So I would never sit down for an. implicit bias test because I don't want. to know what my implicit biases are. It's absolutely terrifying because we. all have them. Um I guess that's.

probably cowardly and I should know what. my implicit biases are so I can try and. correct those. But uh it's basically. when they sit you down and you say um. all right respond very quickly as quick. as you can to a series of images or. words and anything within 200 and 600. milliseconds is your implicit memory. Anything after that you're thinking. about and they that's explicit memory, right? Um two things about that. One, if. every if if implicit bias is a universal.

thing and everybody has it, you're free. you don't have to feel as bad about it. I mean, it's definitely something you. should work to correct if you can, but. you don't have to feel like it's just. you, right? That's one thing. And then. the second thing, too, Chuck, is if it. is true that we all are um implicitly. biased, say like along racial lines. Mhm. I feel like you could explain it by. saying by it it's an example of our. evolutionary history not being caught up.

yet to our current social history. Like. when we formed modern societies, we. jumped light years ahead as far as. evolution goes and the the the the way. that we think and see the world just. completely just hit warp speed. But. evolutionarily there's still a big lag. catching up to it. So we're fearful of. people who don't look like us or have a. slightly different culture or live in a. different nation just evolutionarily.

speaking even though we know we. shouldn't feel that way that that's not. actually how things are. That that that. conflict between those two things is. what the real issue is. Yeah. Oh boy. And that really lets us all off the hook. I guess. Right. So, we don't have to do anything. about it. It'll work itself out in. 10,000 years. Well, here's the thing, though, is when they when people sit. down for these tests, they found that. even people who explicitly disagree with. any kind of racial stereotyping, like I. would never do that. I don't have those.

at all. They even well, I was about to. say fail those tests. They even chart on. those tests as showing implicit bias. Right. So, we've we've made it pretty. squarely into social psychology. territory by now. And there were some. there were some early uh experiments. trying to figure out how you can. persuade people using priming, right? This is like the 70s, right? Yeah. Late. 70s, early 80s. Um and so one of the. first ones came out of. 1979. And it was a social psychology.

experiment where you gave people. scrambled like a scrambled word list and. said, "Make a sentence out of this.". Right? And so you would get something. neutral like her found new I and uh I. knew her is a sentence you could make. out of that. Or you would give something. like leg break arm his. You could say. break his arm. And so one group was. given more hostile um word scrambles to.

make sentences out of. The other was. more neutral. And then that was part. one. After that, they were asked to um. to consider a hypothetical scenario in. which somebody's kind of ambiguously. responding or interacting with somebody. I think I saw that Donald is refusing to. pay rent until his landlord paints his. apartment. And the people who were given. the hostile um word scrambles rated. Donald as much more hostile than the. people who were given the neutral word.

scrambles. So, what they're showing is. that you can nudge people toward forming. an impression about someone they know. basically nothing about based on priming. them to feel one way or another about. them. And then that was like, if we can. do that, man, what else can we do? That. really opened the floodgates. Yeah. And, you know, we're about to tick through a. series of little things like that that. might be mind-blowing for you where. you're like, "Oh my god, I can't believe. that works." But just you know sort of.

put put that in your pocket for now. Uh. there was one study where it was again. it was um unscrambling sentences. Half. the people were given sentences that had. words that were you know like healthier. healthy and active lifestyle words. Um. the other half got neutral words and. afterward they said, "All right, you. guys are great. Uh you can go ahead and. leave there. you can uh you can, you. know, go up the stairs there and get out. of here to the uh parking deck up there. or you can take the elevator. And people.

who unscrambled the healthy words were. more likely to take the stairs. afterward. Uh so, you know, they're. like, "Hey, that's pretty much proof. right there." They had been primed with. these healthy words to make a healthier. decision afterward, right? uh and we'll. like we said we'll talk about some of. the more shocking or surprising studies. but the before that we need to mention a. guy named John Bar who um became. basically the rock star of this field. starting in the '9s he essentially um. wrote a a paper that said like all of.

this is possible like here's how you do. that here's how you take the findings of. cognitive priming and turn it into. social or behavioral priming and he was. very famous for a couple of studies, many studies, but there's two that. really stuck out to me that let me give. you an example. One is that he tested. whether um something as as random as. temperature could affect your impression. of another person. Yeah, I thought that. was interesting because it was like they.

had used words and finally like, hey, I. wonder if if words worked, if images. only alone could work. And then he was. like, hold my beer, right? What about. just temperature alone? Uh so in this. one he asked participants to hold a. something warm like a cup of coffee or. warm cup of soup or something or a. frosty cold beverage and then they bring. them in a room where they have a. conversation with a stranger and they. found that uh or he found he claimed to. find that people who were primed with.

that warm beverage had a warmer. impression of that stranger afterward. and people who had that cold beverage. frostier had a you know they felt. frostier toward that. Right. So that means that you can nudge. people to feel a certain way based on. metaphor priming using metaphor and not. even words or images but temperature. Yeah. Another one that he figured out. was this and this is the one he's really. famous for. I think this is the one that. came from his. 1996 paper but he um he tested to see.

how certain kinds of words affect. certain kinds of behavior. and he took. some uh 19, 20, 21 year old students and. had them do that famous word scramble. Um, priming researchers love word. scrambles. Yeah. And uh some had just a. normal neutral set of words that to to. pick out from. Another had sets of words. that um were associated with being old. but not so so um straight ahead that.

you'd be like these are all old people. words but they were like bingo or. Florida or wrinkles that kind of stuff. right that was part one and then the. students who were participating thought. that they were done at that point. Um, but he said, "Okay, now we're we've got. to do part two, but we're going to have. to go to the end of the hall and turn. right, and we're there's another lab we. need to go to for the second part of. this test." But the real thing he was. doing was clocking how long it took the. students to make it from one end of the.

hall to the other. And he found that the. people who had sc who had worked with. word scrambles that had age or old elder. related words walked slower than the. people who had the neutral words. And. this was the one, this experiment, Chuck, is what broke open. This is what. led to nudge economics. This is what led. to governments Yeah. saying like, man, we could use this to like move people in. a a way that we want them to that's.

healthier and happier. This is the study. that did that. Yeah. And here's my I. mean I hope I'm not giving anything away. for act three when we sort of rain down. our judgment upon this stuff but like. even when I was first going through this. I was like I even know there are so many. variables to account for in these. experiments that there's no way they're. accounting for them like the taking the. stairs or taking the elevator like who. was tired that day who had a a bum ankle. or who uh you know there's just so many.

different variables to account for on. why someone would take the stairs or an. elevator. or why somebody would walk slower down. the hall. Maybe they were super bored by. this experiment and so they walked a. little more sluggish or something like. that. And those types of variables, they're just they weren't accounting for. ever, it seems like. I think we can just. go ahead and and reveal now. What do you. think? Yeah, sure. So, I wish you had. been a luminary in the field of social. psychology and priming research back in. the late 90s, early 2000s because you.

could have derailed this whole thing. before it ever got started. Because if. that seemed ridiculous to you, that idea. that you could suggest um old related or. age related words to 20 year olds and. they're going to walk slower because. they were just thinking about being. elderly. Yeah. If that seems ridiculous. to you, you are 100% right. It's a. ridiculous study and it's ridiculous. that the entire field of social. psychology, economics, the politics paid.

attention to this and went all in on it. But what we have, what we're actually. talking about today is one of the. biggest black eyes in the history of. psychology that didn't involve torturing. human beings. Yeah. But, you know, let's. tick through a few of these that you. found kind of quickly because I think it. just illustrates though how a company or. a or a political party would really. latch on to this when they see stuff. like this, right, without kind of like. critically thinking on how they got.

there. Um, one study, exposure to fishy. smells would induce suspicion on. trustbased economic exchanges in a trust. game. In other words, like they smelled. something fishy, so they're going to. carry that over as in hm something. smells fishy. Can you imagine reading that in the. scholar scholarly journal and being. like, "Man, that's that's really crazy.". I would say, "This paper smells like. tuna, right?" Um, there's another one. Remember power poses? I specifically. remember John Hodgejman realizing that I.

was nervous backstage at the Bell House. once and telling me to do a power pose. Oh, really? To get over my stage fright. And I was like, "This isn't working.". The reason it doesn't work is because. that was a finding from priming. research. Oh, man. Did you Did you text him and say you're. full of crap? No, I'm gonna let him hear. this episode. Okay. Uh there's another. one. If you make a frowny face and. you're shown upsetting pictures, you. will self-report. That should be a red. flag in and of itself that you um were.

upset by pictures of starving children, people arguing, uh accident victims that. had been maimed um more than people who. weren't making a frowny face at the time. they saw the pictures. Yeah. Here's one. that's interesting to me. Uh money primed people are more selfish. So if you're I guess they did this. experiment with people who made a lot of. money and people who didn't. I think it. was they were winning money in like.

games. Oh, okay. Okay. But the long and. short of it is if if you were one of the. money people, quote unquote, then you. would not uh if someone spilled their. pencils like one of the researchers, like, "Oh, look at me. I spilled all. these pencils." They wouldn't pick up as. many pencils as someone who didn't have. the money. So, people without money are. kinder. Uh I can see where that's going. in a way, but there are also just so. many variables in that, you know. Right. Right. And also, if your study is is. supporting just a general moral judgment.

against a certain group, yeah, it may. have been biased in and of itself, right? That's a good point. Um, there's. another one. I love this. Oh, these last. two are great. If you think about. stabbing a co-orker in the back, metaphorically, you are more inclined when given a. choice to buy soap, detergent, or. disinfectant than you are to buy. batteries, juice, or candy bars. out damn spot. Yes, exactly. Why don't. you give him the last one, Chuck? Uh,

okay. If uh if you were in this. experiment, you were induced to lie to. an imaginary person uh either in an. email or a phone call and then in a test. that followed that uh of the. desiraability of different products. People who lied on the people who lied. on the telephone, they actually said the. lie out loud preferred. mouthwash over soap. And people who. typed it out and lied in the email. preferred soap to mouthwash. Yeah, the. first group preferred mouthwash to soap. unless the soap was life boy.

Um, so okay. Yes, we should probably. rein it back a little bit. Yeah, because. our bias is is showing. But for good. reason. I mean, we should say priming is. not just this point of ridicule. this. this it just comp the bottom fell out of. this really hot super sexy field of. research that everyone had bought into. like a a mudslide going down a mountain. like it just erupted. It was it went so.

south so fast that today. about almost 15 years on since the. everybody was like this is all made up. Um it's it's it's essentially a. discredited field. Like there's almost. no one working in this anymore because. most people are like this isn't true. Yeah. But that's not to say that there. like people didn't get a lot of like. legitimate recognition for this stuff. Like there were people won Nobel prizes. who worked on this stuff and wrote.

bestselling books who worked on this. stuff and made millions of dollars like. speaking to corporations, right, about. that how they can better, you know, take. advantage of their consumers. So it was. it was swallowed hookline and sinker. So. let's give you an example. Uh Daniel. Conorman, he was a Nobel already a Nobel. Prize winning um economist. Uh he wrote. thinking fast and slow and it was. essentially an introduction to um nudge. economics and priming for the for the.

the average person. And it was a huge. bestseller. I mean everybody was reading. that book back in the day. I think it. was 200. two. Okay. Yeah. In this book, he. says, this is a. quote, "Disbelief is not an option. The. results are not made up, nor are they. statistical flukes. You have no choice. but to accept that the major conclusions. of these studies are true. You have no. choice but to say that this is true. So,

just get on board." This was like a. Nobel Prize-winning economist who was a. psychologist himself who wrote that to. the rest of the world saying like don't. even question priming. This is true. Let's figure out how to use it to. persuade people to do what we want. Yeah. Uh there was another guy we talked. about the nudge earlier uh in 2008. Another Nobel economist named Richard. Thawer co-wrote a bestseller called. nudge colon improving decisions about. health, wealth, and happiness. And in. that book he talked about um social.

priming experiences uh benign. paternalism or that nudge that you know. you kind of mentioned earlier toward. making a better decision. Uh and then. there's this other economist named. they're all economists uh Daniel what's. his namely I think so. Yeah. And he. tested a lot of these uh supposed. nudges. In one experiment, he had kids. um students grade their own tests, but. before had half of them um write out as. many of the Ten Commandments as they. could remember. And what he found was.

that those students were less likely to. cheat on their self-graded testing. because they had just been primed to. sort of think of like, hey, what's the. right thing to do? Totally makes sense. Why even question it? Um he worked with. a car insurance company for another. study. um car insurance companies will. sometimes have you um say how many miles. you've driven in a year. Um and you can. just lie and your insurance rates will. be affected on whether you lie or not. So to find out if you could make people.

be more honest about that, um Eerily. introduced an honesty pledge that the. person would sign at the top of their. insurance agreement or contract saying I. won't fudge these numbers. And those. people fudged their numbers less than. people who didn't have that pledge to. sign. So if you prompt people to be. honest, whether it's the Ten. Commandments or pledging honesty or. whatever, they're going to be more. honest. And that's a perfect example of. the nudge economics that just swept the.

world at the turn of the 2000s to the. 2010s. Yeah. I wonder if they asked any. of the participants coming in, are you. honest generally or not? self-report. Uh maybe we should take a break here. It's good time for a break and we'll. come back and sort of talk about the big. problem with all this, which is, you. know, scientifically speaking, the rep. the replication of these studies right. after. [Music].

[Applause]. this. Heat. Heat. N. [Music].

[Music]. Okay, Chuck. So, we've talked about this. before, the replication crisis in. science. Um, I think it's it's in the. the physical sciences. It's all over. where you people have had these landmark. papers, groundbreaking papers that have.

changed the world, changed how people. act, changed where research dollars go. When somebody finally gets around to. trying to replicate that exact same. experiment, they come up with different. results, often negative results. They. can't replicate the results that that. study found. And like I said, that's. throughout science. This is a big. problem. But in psychology and more. specifically social psychology, the. replication crisis is shaking the. foundations of the field. And a reason.

why, let's do a little thought. experiment here. Imagine that you're a. social psychologist researcher, okay? Okay. And you're at the university and. you've come up with an experiment that. you believe the results of which will be. used at corporations, political. campaigns all over the place to persuade. everyday people to change their behavior. which will shape the world for years to. come. But you don't really feel like. leaving your office that day. So you.

just bring in a bunch of students, maybe. 15 of them, experiment on them and then. extrapolate those findings to a human. universality and then it gets packaged. and exported to corporations and. political campaigns. That in a nutshell. is social psychology. Yeah. I mean. that's what happened. Uh we have some. spec specific examples of like like real. malfeasants that happened in these. studies uh in some cases even um not. just like oh you know they they didn't. account for all the variables like in.

some cases they massage data that uh. Danielle guy that we were talking about. Yeah. Uh and his colleague Francesca. Gino um they were accused of massaging. the data just to fit their hypothesis. Uh it turns out that car insurance. company um came back and said that data. doesn't even match what we sent you and. what you published in that honesty. pledge situation. Yeah. Uh there was. another guy a Dutch guy named uh Dedric. uh Staple. Um he was a a a big sort of.

big name in this field. Um he fabricated. studies out of whole cloth. Yeah, for. sure. So, it's bad for psychology, bad. for social psychology, but priming. research, it was just this is like it. must have just felt like a bloodbath day. after day if you were in the field. Just. bad news after bad news. It got so bad. that um 10 years after he wrote thinking. fast and slow, Daniel Conaman wrote an. open letter, but it was actually. directed to John Bar saying like.

something this is really bad. he said. that that um priming research is the. poster child for doubts about the. integrity of psychological research. And. he warned of a coming train wreck and. was basically saying like, "Hey man, you. guys, I'm just a believer. I'm just a. fan. You guys screwed this up. You. better fix it." And there's actually I. found a really great website called. Replica Replicability Index. It's a blog. by Olrich uh Shemac at the University of. Toronto and they have a uh something.

called the the reconstruction of a train. wreck where they go through and pick out. like how Conoran sold this to the public. and misrepresented it all sorts of. different ways himself. So he's passed. on RIP. I don't like to speak ill of the. dead and everything leading up to that. from what I understand was a great. career but he just hitched his wagon to. the wrong thing and then tried to. distance himself from it as as much as. he could. Yeah. And you know the.

community uh that worked in that field. certainly woke up and they weren't just. like h no this is no big deal. They were. like all right this is a real problem. Uh so they tried have tried since then. to try and clean things up a bit and. address what they call QRPs or. questionable research practices uh of. which there are many uh we're going to. talk about some of them right now but uh. one obviously and you sort of mentioned. this was they're just really small. studies. You can't make these big huge. conclusions about human behavior when. you studied 12 you know college freshmen.

you know on a Saturday morning. Um, as. part of the open science movement, uh, and this is this is pretty cool. I. didn't know about this, but researchers. are now encouraged to register their. studies ahead of time, including what. their hypothesis is before they collect. the data. Uh, and that'll keep them from. what's called harking, hypothesizing. after results are known. So, basically. like, hey, here's what I think's going. to happen. Now, let's do the study. but. it's officially registered so I can't. sort of pick and choose what I what I.

look at right um there's another big. problem called P hacking which is um. taking data and then making it work. statistically so that these random. flukes suddenly became statistically. significant. that's a big problem um and I that I I. read that it's not so much that. researchers were sitting there. purposefully massaging their data over. and over and over again to tease out. some results that they could publish, but it was more like they were just.

falling for um flukes um being more. significant than they were. That's what. I read that that was really the big. problem that it wasn't like an entire. field of bad actors. Yeah. I mean, I I. sort of get it in a way and we've talked. about this in our scientific method uh. show and and other episodes too where. you know, you put all this time and you. want to you want to you want your thing. to pan out that you think is true. So, I. get the inclination, but you can't you. can't fudge numbers. You can't look at. stuff that just backs up your.

conclusion. You can't throw stuff in the. file drawer that doesn't. Um, you got. and this is one of the things they. talked about, the file drawer. Like, you. got to make all this stuff public. Um, and part of the problem is the media. because they want to write about. something splashy and super interesting, right? And so, like there's a lot of. things at play here that go into why. somebody would do this beyond just being. like, you know, you're a bad person. Yeah. And so you there's something. called publish or parish. Like you. basically are advancing your careers if. you get published in an academic. journal. The problem is academic.

journals they they're like the media. They want to be splashing and sexy. So. they don't really publish negative. results anyway. So even if you wanted. to, you'd have a hard time getting it. published in a legitimate journal these. days. So that's a big problem. Ultimately, Chuck, the biggest problem, and this is what really tripped up. social psychology. It's that drum that. you've been beating this whole time. Humans are not predictable computers who. will respond in a predictable way if you. give them a specific stimulus. That's.

just not how humans work. Even the same. person will react on a different day to. the same exact experiment depending on a. host of factors. Sure. So the same. person will respond differently. You. better believe different people will. respond differently to the same. stimulus. And then it also depends on. who's presenting the stimulus. Is it. being presented by a uh a grad student. who's posing as one of the participants. or is it like a professor wearing a a.

white lab coat for some reason? Um that. that's definitely going to shape the. information or the stimulus that's being. received. And that when you put all this. together, it's essentially impossible to. replicate a um priming study. And if you. get the same results, that's essentially. a statistical fluke from what I. understand. Yeah. I mean, we've talked. about the Stanford prison uh experiment. a few times. Um and looking back, like. especially when you see the movie, I.

talk about who's presenting the. experiment. It's like those guards. showed up, it's like you got you look. ridiculous, you know? You look like an. 18-year-old. I know. Who painted on a. mustache and put on some, you know, mirror aviator sunglasses trying to be a. prison guard. Yeah. And developed a. southern accent. That one always stuck. out to me. Yeah, exactly. So, one reason. why I mean when you're looking back, so. we should say that there are still. people I think I did say working in this. field earnestly, but they're essentially. going through and picking out what could.

be salvaged from it. And what they're. finding is that priming does work, but. it, like we said, it's going to work. differently for different people. There's very few universalities, if any. But one thing that they have figured out. that is legit with social or behavioral. priming is that you can be primed most. easily and most reliably if it's. pointing you in a direction you already. want to go. So let's say you want to. lose weight. Uhhuh. If you're given a. menu that has words like light or diet.

on it or something like that, you're. more likely to choose those items than. somebody who isn't interested in. dieting. Yeah, for sure. But that's. that's essentially what it got reduced. back to, which is just barely beyond. cognitive priming, but it's legitimate. and that's where they're starting out. from again. That's the current state of. social priming. But just one more thing. I wanted to talk about, Chuck, is why. everyone bought into this. Well, uh, why do you think everyone. bought into it? I'll tell you why. Thank.

you for asking. Um, because it reduces. humans to an understandable, predictable. state. Yeah. Which is very easy to. market and sell to. Yeah. And. understand, not feel threatened by, but. also to feel superior to. I ran across. um one explanation called NPC theory, non-player character theory, like. referencing background characters in. video games who don't think for. themselves. They're just kind of. automated. And something like social. priming underscores that idea that other.

people are like that. I'm not like that. I can think for myself. Nobody's going. to dupe me into eating a cheeseburger or. voting for them. Yeah. But other people. that happens to and that's what priming. research supported that that other. people are non-player characters which. elevates your sense of superiority and. your sense of intelligence while also. deflating that of other people in your. mind. I have to say though, we said the. word cheeseburger so many times. I can't. remember the last cheeseburger I had. All I want right now is a cheeseburger.

Is that right? Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll. get you one. What kind do you want? Well, D Oh, you know Dave said something. about nasty McDonald's cheeseburgers in. his article. I saw that. I was like, what are you talking about? McDonald's. It's a classic. It's the best of the. best. Yeah. Well, you know, Dave may not. like it. Maybe he's a a Hardies guy. Maybe he's one of those guys who eats. his cheeseburgers on a bos. Uh, you got anything else? I got nothing. else. The These are always fun. I like.

these. They are. We don't very. frequently tee off on something, but it. does feel good when we do once in a. while. Um, Chuck just said, "Yeah, and. as everybody who's ever listened to the. podcast knows, he just unlocked listener. mail." Hey guys, I listen to your. wonderful podcast about 3 hours a day on. my way to and from work. Want to say. thank you uh for all of that over the. years. Uh, I had a very funny incident. the other day listening to the Sea. Monkeys episode. I was coming home after.

a long day and that episode uh came on. I was really tired and uh when I. originally fell asleep against the. window, I I take it this person isn't. driving. I hope not. Uh when I. originally fell asleep, I was listening. to the history of sea monkeys. To my. surprise, though, I woke up and heard. white supremacists and the. KKK. I panicked and jumped out of my. seat, thinking I had missed my stop by a. long shot, and I had finished an episode. and started a completely different one. I was not expecting the Sea Monkey. episode to take that turn, you guys. I. was relieved to find out that not much.

time had passed, and I didn't miss my. stop, but also a little distressed to. find out the dark history of such an. innocent children's product. Yep. Uh I. live in Istanbul as a foreigner, and. your podcast gives me a little taste of. home. It's comforting on those days when. I want to tune in to two smart guys. talking about something interesting. Really appreciate you uh for all the. work you do and all the fun moments. you've given me on the bus. And that is. from Katie uh Sesanler. Katie knows how. to speak our language, doesn't she? Katie really knows. She knows how to. flatter. Thanks a lot, Katie. Have fun.

in Istanbul. That's very exciting and. thrilling and I'm glad you did not miss. your stop. Uh if you want to be like. Katie and let us know where you live and. some funny story about stuff you should. know. We love that kind of thing. You. can wrap it up, spank it on the bottom, and send it off to stuffpodcast@. iheartradio.com. Stuff You Should Know is a production of. iHeart Radio. For more podcasts, iHeart. Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple. Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your.

favorite shows. [Music].