Dr. Tajuddeen A. Williams

Psychology in the Media

· Personal Essays

I tend to be very biased about where I take my news. Even with the news and media covering just about everything from science to philosophy, there is still content out there that is not presented in the correct manner. Therefore, a lot of the news I take with a grain of salt unless certain criteria are present. When it comes to news, regardless who it’s from, it should be verifiable.

I pulled an article entitled, You Can’t Take It With You, but You Still Want More (Richtel, 2014). Unlike other articles with shock headlines, it was hard to infer what this article was about until I actually read it. I can’t say that I was skeptical about the findings. The author did several things that I consider “green lights” to a proper piece concerning research. After stating his topic, he linked directly to the research paper. In addition, there were several quotes from the research within the article. The author also goes out of his way to contact a professor at Harvard University who is familiar with the research and quotes him as well.

The source of the information was credible since it came from an academic journal, The Journal of Psychological Science. The research was done by people who have attained their academic credentials. One of the authors, Christopher Hsee, was linked by the author to the academic institution where he works. The author of the article also makes mention that Dr. Hsee is a professor of behavioral science and marketing at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Considering the scope of the research, it focused on human behaviorism. The premise of the article was about how we mindlessly accumulate things despite accumulating more makes us unhappy. Therefore, I do not feel that this piece was for monetary gain. There was no oversimplification of the research study whereas the research itself was very simple. The researchers had participants broken up in groups, including a high earners and a low earners group. There were two phases. The participants were given the option to listen to pleasant music or white noise. They could earn chocolate if they listened to white noise a certain number of times. On average, people in the high earners group consumed 3.75 chocolates. However, they earned 10.74 chocolates on average. They were instructed ahead of time that they would be able to eat the chocolate in phase 2 and that it would only last 5 minutes. They were also told that any chocolate they couldn’t eat within that time would be forfeit.

The impulse to accumulate chocolate was less pronounced with the low earners group. They earned less chocolate than they predicted they could eat. They listened to the same amount of white noise as the high earners. Dr. Hsee suggested that both groups were driven by the same thing. That is, not by how much chocolate they could eat, but by how much work they could withstand.

Though the article didn’t hint to the cause of this type of behavior, it’s something that’s evident in everyday life. We, as people, typically aim to get more when we can. As a result, we accumulate a lot of stuff even if we cannot use it. We want a higher paying job typically in order to by more things. As Dr. Norton of Harvard point out, the findings were great because it can enlighten people to an unconscious motivation that leads to short-sighted, even unhappy choices. Maybe if people were aware of how they unconsciously accumulate material items, they’ll cut back. Then again, maybe not.

References

← All posts