13
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
13 points (81.0% liked)
Science
13257 readers
82 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It sounds counterintuitive at first, but if you think of real world examples, it makes a lot of sense. It's the entire principle that casinos and blind bag toys operate on: you do the requested action (like placing a bet or buying the blind bag), you get something you didn't want or expect, and you get a little mad that it didn't go the way you wanted, so you do the requested action again. When it does end up giving you what you wanted, all the times you did the requested action get reinforced, not just the ones where you got the optimal outcome, like a big, "HAH! I knew I was right, I just needed to keep going until my ship finally came in!"
I don't know what other psychology concepts have similar reliability, but another really interesting one is "diffusion of responsibility" or bystander effect in which the more people witness something terrible, the easier it is for everyone to stand around doing nothing because they assume someone else is taking charge. It's why pointing directly at someone and saying, "You, call 911!" helps.
Yup, I suspect the lack of consistency, especially for dependant animals and gamblers, drives anxiety, which is disproportionately relieved by a successful outcome, which is a recurring survival driver in the wild (again I blame evolution, where persistence can be rewarded by survival)
“Diffusion of responsibility” is a good one, guessing it's testable.
In that vein, we have the Stanford prison experiment, though it's repeatability seems to be questioned.