The Misconception: You know why you like the things you like and feel the way you feel.
The Truth: The origin of certain emotional states is unavailable to you, and when pressed to explain them, you will just make something up.
Take a look at this piece of art:
It is one of the most popular pieces of art ever featured at DeviantArt.com.
Now, imagine you have to write an essay on why it is popular. Go ahead, think of a reasonable explanation. No, don’t keep reading. Give it a shot. Explain why this is a great photo.
Ok, moving on.
Is there a certain song you love, or a work of art? Perhaps there is a movie you keep returning to over the years, or book. Go ahead and imagine one of those favorite things. Now, in one sentence, try to explain why you like it. Chances are, you will find it difficult to put into words, but if pressed you will probably be able to come up with something. The problem is, according to research, your explanation is probably going to be total bullshit.
Tim Wilson at UVA demonstrated this with The Poster Test. He brought a group of students into a room and showed them a series of posters. The students were told they could take any one they wanted as a gift and keep it. He then brought in another group, and told them the same thing, but this time they had to explain why they wanted the poster before they picked. He then waited six months and asked the two groups what they thought of their choices. The first group, the ones who just got to grab a poster and leave, they all loved their choice. The second group, the ones who had to write out why, hated theirs. The first group, the grab-and-go people, usually picked a nice, fancy painting. The second group, the ones who had to explain their choice, usually picked an inspirational poster with a cat clinging to a rope.
This brings up a lot of concerns. It calls into question the entire industry of critical analysis of art – video games, music, film, poetry, literature – all of it. It also makes things like focus groups and market analysis seem like farts in the wind.
When you ask people why they do or do not like things, they must then translate something from a deep, emotion, primal part of their psyche into the language of the higher, logical, rational world of words and sentences and paragraphs. Also, when you attempt to justify your decisions or emotional attachments, you start worrying about what your explanation says about you as a person.
In the above example, most people truly preferred the lady over the cat, but they couldn’t conjure up the rational explanation why, at least not in a way which would make logical sense on paper. On the other hand, you can write all sorts of bullshit about a motivational poster.
In a similar experiment by the same psychologist who conducted the Poster Test, people were shown two small photos of two different people and were asked which one was more attractive. They then were handed a larger photo. They were told it was the one they picked, but it was actually a completely different person. They were then asked why they chose it. Each time, people dutifully spun a yarn explaining their choice.
Believing you understand your motivations and desires, your likes and dislikes, is called the Introspection Illusion. You believe you know yourself, and why you are the way you are. You believe this knowledge tells you how you will act in all future situations. Research shows otherwise.
Time after time, experiments show introspection is not the act of tapping into your innermost mental constructs, but is instead a fabrication, a construction, a fiction. You look at what you did, or how you felt, and you make up some sort of explanation which you can reasonably believe. If you have to tell others, you make up an explanation they can believe too.
When it comes to explaining why you like the things you like, you are not so smart, and the very act of having to explain yourself can change your attitudes. In this new era of Twitter and Facebook and blogs, just about everyone is broadcasting their love or hate of art. Just look at all the vitriol and praise being lobbed back and forth over “Avatar” or “Lost.”
When “Titanic” earned its Oscars, some people were saying it might just be the greatest film ever made. Now, it’s considered good but schmaltzy, a fine film, but decidedly melodramatic. What will people think in 100 years?
It would be wise to remember many of the works we now consider classics were in their time critically panned.
For instance, this is how one reviewer described “Moby Dick” in 1851:
This is an ill-compounded mixture of romance and matter-of-fact. The idea of a connected and collected story has obviously visited and abandoned its writer again and again in the course of composition. The style of his tale is in places disfigured by mad (rather than bad) English; and its catastrophe is hastily, weakly, and obscurely managed…We have little more to say in reprobation or in recommendation of this absurd book…Mr. Melville has to thank himself only if his horrors and his heroics are flung aside by the general reader, as so much trash belonging to the worst school of Bedlam literature — since he seems not so much unable to learn as disdainful of learning the craft of an artist.
- Henry F. Chorley, in London Athenaeum
Now, this book is considered one of a handful of great American novels and is held up as an example of the best pieces of literature ever written.
Chances are though, no one can truly explain why.
SOURCES:
- Haigh, E. A. P., & Fresco, D. M. (n.d.). Relationship of depressive rumination and distraction to subsequent depressive symptoms following successful antidepressant medication therapy for depression. Retrieved December 2010 from http://www.personal.kent.edu/~dfresco/Fresco_Papers/AABT_05_Rum_Haigh.pdf.
- Wilson T. D., Dunn D. S., Kraft D., & Lisle D. J. (1989). Introspection, attitude change, and attitude-behavior consistency: The disruptive effects of explaining why we feel the way we do. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 287–343.
- Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991, February). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 181–192.
Hmmm … verrry weak piece. The weakest that I have read. I guess it was your first blog entry ;-)
It kind of goes all over the place and generalizes awfully bad.
You had me hooked with your beginning lines and theory and then lost me because you added nothing after my listing ‘my points’ about why I liked the first Devianart poster. Thought I’d see people saying exactly the same things I was saying about why I liked the poster .. that would be something.
Next the ‘test’ with the grabbers and the explainers. WOW that really was quite puzzling for me .. I don’t know what else was on offer in the choice of posters that were there presented in the series for the two groups .. But I did a mental test about choosing just from the two you show .. that “tacky cat” one and the beautiful study of the woman at a table .. NO WAY IN HELL – whether to grab or to offer an explanation – would I have touched the cat poster with a barge pole.
What’s so tough about explanations that just say,”I have no idea. It just moves me to see this. I feel I have been that woman on somedays .. it resonates .. it captures for me what I have felt.”
Yes there is no art criticism or study or any kind of logical technical explanantion I can give .. I guess the ‘research’ that was mounted did not ask for ‘technical’ / pinpointed, pre-defined as correct, an answer. Did it?
So I don’t buy that MOST people are such “pseuds” that JUST to look hoity toity type will choose something that they do not like .. NO WAY. If given a choice to pick with explanation, and go .. they do usually first pick .. because they know it’s for keeps .. and then they try as best as they can to explain why .. and then go. They keep what they spend time picking – usually.
The second ‘test’ example of choosing the attractive face is also puzzling. HOW do you forget a face you choose? You must be spending some minimal time looking at the faces [I am guessing average looking faces were given as choice? Choosing a face with a Fibonacci layout of features with a smile vs one with with a hooked nose and mole and poke marks and grump would derail the whole experiment] – because they are faces you don’t know .. you spend time cooking a story in your head about what they might be like, do they resemble people you have met in life? Etc .. you spend enough time to figure out why you like a face before you choose. Unless the choice is as obvious as the mug of Monroe vs mug of Robin Williams in Mrs Doubtfire’s get-up .. the audience had never ever seen these iconic images ever.
How do you then forget that face .. so that when a blown up version is presented [unless it's so so blurry with GIANT PIXELS] that you can’t recognize that it’s not the same face and just pop up some explanation.
You CAN explain WHY this or ANY face could be attractive .. we are all scriptwriters and authors in our heads and can transform any face [ we don't know] into an attractive one or not .. Try that yourself .. and see. So like someone said .. when preseneted with a face people out of politeness will not argue that it’s the same face .. and just pop a reason. Not tough.
How do you forget the face in a photo you chose? Unless this experiment too covered SIX months .. well then of course you could dupe me into thinking I had said hello to him on my last visit to the lab LOL
Sorry if i made no sense .. I just found this piece so weak.
I do enjoy your pieces tho .. and continue reading .. the latest ones are quite sharp and insightful.
Cheers
Pingback: The Blind Spot « Grim Rhapsody
Pingback: Today’s cup: Egypt, a new NBC/Universal logo and the 25th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger - Life Politics The Morning Cup - Egyptian protests NBC/Uinversal logo Space Shuttle Challenger Tea Party caucus - Daily Cup of Jo
So, basically, me simply saying “Because I like it.” when asked about my choices in art or games is more honest than making some shit up? I’m already used to that, so this is pretty nice to know.
Has it EVER been considered that over such time as 6 months preferrances change? Many a relationship which began as “OMG THIS IS FAB!!!” are over in 6 months or less – so I’m not surprised your “poster test” found the same results, it’s only sensible after all.
Of course, and then too won’t being forced to look at the same image daily for months usually alter the perceptions of the image for the viewer?
That the culture of the time of Moby Dick was decidely different both internally (personally) and externally (socially and education wise) from what it is today and that (in particular referrence to Moby) perhaps he was simply “ahead of his time?”
Education; alters perceptions – time; changes perceptions – emotional states; change perception – many things change perceptions – being asked to explain the perception has always changed the outcome of the result the same way what you tell MOM about what you did and why is never the same as the rationale you provide a “BF” and will again be different from the explaination you provide a prof, a clinician, and so forth; this does not make these numerous and varied explainations any less VALID; but instead calls into question the RELIABILITY – and indeed if someone was going to DO some actual research into something tangible rather than blowing theory out their arse perhaps and MAYBE the issue which you have hit upon is the equation which looks into the variables in those perceptions, behavious, and stances taken in regards to the various and differing people/positions of authority which hold sway over both cognition, and verbal representation of such.
The most interesting part of your “article” you didn’t even LOOK into, and that was WHY no one said “um that’s not the face I chose” but instead went OBEDIENTLY right along and CONFORMED to your expectations and questions without ever asking one of their own – namely: why did you switch the pic? ASSUMING this was not asked because no one realized you switched pics this says you have a bunch of terribly damaged folk on your hands who have facial recognition issues OR people so eager to please you and get the test fee they don’t pressure you – OR – we’re back to the question I pointed out earlier and the fact you omit most groups of people from whom you would rather probably of GOT a better view from – ie best friend … which is to say should you of done this test in pairs of pals and asked them after choosing the poster to get together and chat about their choice and why it was made, and I’m betting the answers you would of obtained would not have matched that which was provided your “clinical tester” all in all the article is a waste of data and time, it’s without any strength and littered with weakness’ from a purely scientific point of view you tossed up how many words and in the end said absolutely nothing. Congrats – you win the “razzle dazzle award of the day” … baffle em with bullshit, and hope they never catch wise.
WHERE IS THE MEAT OF THIS ARTICLE?!? Where is YOUR explaination, your actual scientific as opposed to anecdotal tests? Other than anecdotal information and hypothesis I see no MEAT to go with your ketchup.
So I draw and paint and screen print and do sculpture and ceramics and stuff, like an artist (I think that term is weird)… So when I see a painting I feel like I really can describe how I see it and how I like it. Like that deviant art picture, I don’t really like it so I look to see all of the ways that I don’t like it. But then I start thinking about the small ways that I do like it, but I still generally don’t like it.
But is it also possible for the reverse of this? Like instead of me seeing something and describing my feelings, me having feelings about something then making it to something visual. . .
And that person who made the picture, don’t they having ideas and thoughts about their own picture?
Well now that I think about it a little I usually make a piece but don’t know why or how the idea happened. I’ll think of a weird like meaning for it after I finish the piece, and those explanations usually seem like a lie. But people still ask for a meaning or for me to describe my feelings of the piece anyway.
Well nonetheless I really enjoyed reading the article. I enjoy reading all of your articles actually. Thank you.
And if anyone reads this, I’m sorry for the poor grammar, spelling, and all that. And for everything that I’ve said to just be so poorly phrased
I wonder what would happen if the Poster experiment were run slightly differently. Both groups pick a poster, but then members of one group are asked to explain their choices after the fact. What does that do to their rating of their poster six months later?
Pingback: blog(s) of the week(s): you are not so smart & esther from the sticks « MetalFirecracker
Pingback: Commensuration « Jack-In-the-Brain
Agreed with everything except the last sentence.
“Chances are though, no one can truly explain why.”
Do not assume because research shows most people WON’T means nobody CAN. First of all, that’s a negative hypothesis, and secondly, it’s a logical fallacy called “hasty generalization.”
David, you are not so smart. :)
Don’t really agree with this one. It depends on who you’re asking.. some people can better articulate why they like something and others can’t – probably it’s because it’s something they’ve never thought about. But for those that understand art/design/music etc or have studied these things, it’s easy to articulate why we prefer one painting over another.
Also, I think people with higher IQ can better articulate why they like something than people of lower IQ. Basically comes down to how well you can communicate ideas/feelings/abstract concepts to another person.
Also, I would have picked the cat poster, it’s cuter.
Strongly agreed, Katie.
I subscribed to this comment thread and kind of wish I hadn’t, because every time I get an email about a new post I’m reminded of how much I don’t like what I said above. I think I was wrong. I think I even sounded like a butthead. So there’s that.
Thank you for writing this.
I plan on throwing the link to this page in the face of everyone who puts a hand on their hip and demands to know WHY I listen to metal music, or watch anime, or play video games, or like asian girls.
It’s so annoying that I can’t like what I like openly without people being so rude and telling me that I’m wrong for having preferences that aren’t “normal”.
Anyone who can’t explain why they liked the poster of the painting so they picked the cat is just a moron with minimal knowledge of verbal expression. And Moby Dick sucks.
I think people continue to like the first selection(unexplained) exactly for the reason that they can’t explain why they like it. It continues to provide pleasure because of the mystery of why they like it. The cat poster, easy to explain, loses its utility in short order. The same is true for long term relationships–a little mystery keeps the relationship fresher longer.
This probably has a lot to do with the fact that people believe it *should* be relatively easy to explain why you like something, so their answers are hastily and superficially cobbled together
Excellent article.
“Is there a certain song you love, or a work of art?
Perhaps there is a movie you keep returning to over the years, or book.
Go ahead and imagine one of those favorite things. Now, in one sentence, try to explain why you like it.
Chances are, you will find it difficult to put into words…”
This article is a complete generalization, you’ll get a different kind of answer from every person you ask. Some will say “just cuz” and others will easily go on for an hour about why they like a piece of art.
And then when you ask them again a month later they go on for an hour with totally different reasons though. I watch Aliens at least once a Month but I have no idea why , I just do . It is a generalization and he never claimed that his article was science incarnate anyways, but fact is… it’s still totally true !
“It also makes things like focus groups and market analysis seem like farts in the wind.”
Awesome :)
This reminds me of a section in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink. It talks about the difficulties that the artist Kenna had getting his music accepted by the record companies even though people really liked his music. To get the attention of these companies one had to get into the Top 10 list on Radio. When the radios surveyed people and asked them what they thought about Kenna’s songs, they could not explain why they liked his music. So Kenna did not get good radio reviews despite the fact people liked his music.
Pingback: Why are so many Christians fans of Ayn Rand? - Page 44 - Christian Forums
Pingback: Let’s Talk About Our Feelings « Fuck You Dopamine
I would hardly call this a conclusive finding; there are only three sources, two of which come from the same researcher. If I wanted to prove the exact opposite point, I could very easily do so with 3 of my own sources. A critical analysis of the research, corroborated with the scientific community to lead to a definitive explanation of this mental phenomenon and it’s validity is required. This article is, as is, merely a summary of a few data points, not anything resembling a unanimously agreed upon, established factual statement. I think there is too much of this, to be frank; while the researchers and scientists have a responsibility to be thorough in their studies, it is also the responsibility of journalists and writers to investigate the truth and, should the truth not yet be apparent due to the machinations of the scientific method and process, to not publish any work on it whatsoever. They should not just regurgitate the points of a paper or scientific journal in a nice way, regardless of what they say or if their contents are factual. This is all contingent, of course, upon the fact that there is only 3 sources. If there are other sources at your disposal to explain your viewpoint, I would be interested in seeing them.
That being said, it is quite a well written article. Grabbed my attention and kept it throughout; excellent work.
Hi, a bit late but just found this! I agree with a lot that you claim, but I am a 53 year old artist and have given up trying to “fit in” I find the tree image to be mundane and vapid, looking at, I keep hoping something will happen; lightening, wind, a fairy landing in it, anything. Its “pretty” but not interesting. Many websites tell you what others have viewed so most want to see it too. It could be that it has just gone “viral” which doesn’t always imply “good.” I have studied marketing/advertising/promo so I realize that some things can cause an emotional response that is inexplicable. But I do try to understand what I like and for what reasons. BTW, I hate the “In the Arms of the Angels” commercial about abused animals, I am sorry for the animals and I contribute to animal care locally and spoil my pets, but I don’t like the TV trying to illicit a response such as the one intended, (hurt animals, starving children, destroyed homes, pick one) when most of the charities are corrupt.
Pingback: All of the Time | passionately curious
Pingback: Warum eure rassistischen Witze mich Geld kosten « Dialog wird uns alle retten