How to do it
- Pick someone who's just done it. Not someone selling it.
- Ask for one line. A rating is about what the study gave people.
- Trust it over the description, even when the description feels like more. People expected the opposite.
- Keep it for short things. A new job or a move is a bigger question.
Why their word beats the brochure
- The brochurefeels like enough
Most people expected a profile and photo to tell them more than one other woman's rating. They were wrong.
- Their reportpredicts it better
Women given a rating from someone who'd just had the date predicted their own enjoyment better than those who read his profile.
- Second testsame result
In a peer-evaluation task with 88 people, another student's report again beat the description.
- Youask before you go
That it carries over to a course or a trip is my guess. It was tested on short, uncertain things, not big decisions.
Why it works
Before something new, you read the description and imagine it. That feels like the thorough way. In a speed-dating study, women predicted how much they'd enjoy a date better from the rating of another woman who'd already had a date with the same man than from his profile and photo. Evidence: decent Most people expected the profile to serve them better. Evidence: decent
So a peer's word on how it went beat people's own picture built from the description. Evidence: decent Two small studies, both on short experiences. Evidence: decent
The long readEvery step of the chain, each study with its numbers, and what's still unproven. 2 min read.
What happens in your brain
This chain is behaviour, not brain areas. The first three stops are one paper; the last is mine.
The brochure feels like enough. Most people expected a profile and photo to tell them more than a single other woman's rating. Evidence: decent
Their report predicts it better. Women who got a rating from someone who'd just had the date predicted their own enjoyment better than women who read the profile. Evidence: decent
A second test, same result. In a peer-evaluation task with 88 people, another student's report beat the description again. Evidence: decent
You ask before you go. A course, a trip, a restaurant. That it carries over is my guess. Evidence: worth trying
The proof
- Gilbert, Killingsworth, Eyre and Wilson, 2009: 25 women predicting their enjoyment of a speed date did better from another woman's rating than from a profile and photo. Evidence: decent
- The same paper, a peer-evaluation task with 88 people: same result. Evidence: decent
- People wrongly expected the description to be the better guide. Evidence: decent
- I found no independent replication. Evidence: worth trying
How to do it
- Pick someone who's just done it, not someone selling it. Evidence: worth trying
- Ask for one line. A rating is about what the study gave people. Evidence: decent
- Trust it over the description, even when the description feels like more. People expected the opposite and were wrong. Evidence: decent
- Keep it for short, uncertain things. That's what was tested. Evidence: decent
Watch out
Two small studies, 25 and 88 people, and no independent repeat that I found. Evidence: decent The raters were fellow students, much like the people predicting. Evidence: decent It was tested on short, uncertain experiences: a date, an evaluation. Not a job, a move or anything you can't undo. Evidence: decent For those, ask anyway, but one line shouldn't decide it. Evidence: worth trying