Mindless accumulation

[Felix]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/busin ... .html?_r=2&

They were told they could earn pieces of Dove chocolate when they listened to the white noise a certain number of times. Some participants had to listen fewer times to get each piece of chocolate, making them “high earners”; some had to listen more times, making them “low earners.”

All were told that there would be a second phase to the experiment, also lasting five minutes, in which they could eat the chocolate they earned. But they were told they would forfeit any chocolate they couldn’t consume, and they were asked how much they expected to be able to eat.

On average, people in the high-earner group predicted that they could consume 3.75 chocolates.

But when it came time to “earn” chocolates, they accumulated well beyond their estimate. On average, they listened to enough white noise to earn 10.74 chocolates. Then they actually ate less than half of that amount.

[Angelpie]

I have been someone who did that. I used to be addicted to thrift shopping. Even though I needed nothing, I would come home with bags full of stuff. When I had to move, it all went off for free on Craigslist. Now I never buy anything I don't have a use and a space for.

[Seneca]

Interesting idea for a study. I suspect there will be improved ones in the future.

I don't like their choice of the word "mindless" however. Look how hard it is for so many here to make the step away from jobs even with a plan and a framework and the ability to connect with people who have done it as often as they like on the forum.

[henrik]

If both the high and low earners were there for 5 minutes and it took the high earners less time per unit, the fact that they "bought" more probably has a lot to do with the lack of opportunity cost, doesn't it? It's not like they had anything better to do with the remaining time, or could "buy" anything else with the "currency" they were being paid in.

[saving-10-years]

@Felix Thanks for the article (also for your avatar pic which always makes me smile).

@Henrik Sounds like the opportunity cost was the option to listen to pleasant music (and gain relief from 'obnoxious-sounding white noise'). I wondered after reading this item who decided that the sound was obnoxious/pleasant?

I found this part interesting: 'The impulse seemed less pronounced, even mixed, with the low earners. They earned less chocolate than they predicted they could eat. But the high earners and the low earners listened to about the same amount of obnoxious noise in the five-minute period, which Dr. Hsee said strongly suggested that both groups were driven by the same thing: not by how much they need, but by how much work they could withstand. '

I'm presuming that if the noise session lasted longer than 5 mins and if the noise [work] were really obnoxious and the alternative sound [retirement plans] very pleasant you might get some of the high-earners deciding to forgo future chocolate [extra income] that they could not consume. Once it became very obvious that they have got beyond a sensible stash. (In real life you can usually find someone to give the extra chocolate to - family] and you might actually like the noise [job].

[Ian]

I would not have thought that people would work for something they predicted (accurately) they'd forfeit immediately. There are some potentially mitigating factors, but I'd have to see their precise methodology to be sure about the conditions.

[Felix]

@saving: Thanks! The avatar makes me chuckle everytime I post something, too.

In the article they say something curious:

"...both groups were driven by the same thing: not by how much they need, but by how much work they could withstand."

Could that be a hindrance to a happy life? An irrational motivation towards overwork?