How we predict we'll feel afterward can motivate us.

Humans are notoriously poor predictors of future emotional states. A study out of NYU demonstrated again our mental poverty. Subjects were asked before an event how they thought they’d feel after the event. Then they were polled after the event to see how their predictions held up. In every case (not just a few) they misremembered their previous prediction so as to make their prediction more accurately reflect how they felt at the time (after the event).

The study demonstrates that our emotional predictions are set to motivate rather than to be accurate. For example, football fans are more excited by their erroneous predictions of future emotional states (“I’ll hate it if my team loses”) than if they were to reflect beforehand their actual emotional state afterward (“So, they lost. It’s no big deal. I’m ok… I knew I would be…” etc.).

The results reveal a bias toward using current feelings to infer our earlier predictions. People don’t realize they made a mistake, so they don’t learn from that mistake — and keep making the same errors, said the researchers. “So, next time, Eagles fans will again expect to be devastated after their team’s loss,” Meyvis predicted. (Medical News Today)

Get the latest MP3s from Joseph Bennette.
Relax, prepare for birth, take the next step, or release your blocks to prosperity.

We can use this thinking error to our advantage. When you fear an outcome and that fear is keeping you from action toward a goal, remember the study and remind yourself that your feared emotional outcome is erroneous – that you’ll most likely feel differently than you predict you will. However, if you need motivation to accomplish something – like that morning exercise period – it’s probably best to trust your instincts about how good you’ll feel afterward.

Source: “Why Don’t We Learn to Accurately Forecast Feelings? How Misremembering Our Predictions Blinds Us to Past Forecasting Errors,” Tom Meyvis, PhD, New York University; Rebecca K. Ratner, PhD, University of Maryland; and Jonathan Levav, PhD, Columbia University; Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 139, No. 4.