Does happiness boost productivity?

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  


“Happiness economics” should not be just about whether macro-variables raise or lower well-being, we also need to look to the micro-level impact of happiness on behaviour. So far we know that happier individuals are more productive, the effect coming largely through increased effort, whether we consider a short-run shock induced in a laboratory or longer-run real-life shocks.

Source is Daniel Sgroi. For the pointer I thank Robert Cottrell at The Browser.

Join over 262,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

How To Get People To Like You: 7 Ways From An FBI Behavior Expert

New Neuroscience Reveals 4 Rituals That Will Make You Happy

New Harvard Research Reveals A Fun Way To Be More Successful

How an office is decorated affects well-being and productivity

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

Principles of lean management encourage managers to exert tight control over office space and the people within it. Alternative, design-led approaches promote the value of offices that are enriched, particularly by plants and art. On the basis of a social identity perspective, we argue that both of these approaches may compromise organizational outcomes by disempowering workers and failing to give them input into the design of their office space. This hypothesis is tested in two experiments (ns = 112, 47). The first was conducted in an interior office in a psychology department, the second in a commercial city office. In 4 independent conditions we examine the impact of space management strategies in which the office is either (a) lean, (b) decorated by the experimenter (with plants and art), (c) self-decorated, or (d) self-decorated and then redecorated by the experimenter. We examine the impact of these conditions on organizational identification, well-being, and various forms of productivity (attention to detail, information processing, information management, and organizational citizenship). In both experiments, superior outcomes are observed when offices are decorated rather than lean. However, further improvements in well-being and productivity are observed when workers have input into office decoration. Moreover, these effects are attenuated if this input is overridden. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. In particular, findings point to the need to question assumptions about the merits of lean office space management that have been dominant throughout the last century.

Source: “The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: An experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-being and productivity.” from Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol 16(2), Jun 2010, 158-172

Join over 190,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

How To Stop Being Lazy And Get More Done – 5 Expert Tips

How To Get People To Like You: 7 Ways From An FBI Behavior Expert

New Harvard Research Reveals A Fun Way To Be More Successful

Is money a lousy way to motivate people?

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

The paper studies the determinants of regular volunteering departing from previous literature on extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. It contributes to the literature investigating the role of monetary rewards to influence intrinsic motivation. Using a simple framework that allows me to study the effect of monetary rewards on intrinsic motivation, the paper shows, controlling for endogenous bias, that monetary rewards crowd-out intrinsic motivation.

Source: “Do monetary rewards crowd-out intrinsic motivations of volunteers? Some empirical evidence for Italian volunteers” from University of Naples, Department of Economics, Discussion Paper No. 3/2009

“Extrinsic motivations crowd out intrinsic motivations.” That’s economist-speak for: if someone loves doing something and then you start paying them, money undermines that natural desire.

A lot of studies have shown this to be the case but it’s something we have a hard time wrapping our head around because nobody needs reminding how wonderful money is but we seem to take passion and respect for granted every chance we get.

From that same study:

Raising the external rewards by one-standard-deviation increase regular volunteer labour by 29 percentage-points. The crowding-out effect reduces the continuative unpaid work by 58 percentage-points. Thus, the crowd-out effect dominates the relative price effect and increasing monetary rewards reduce regular voluntary labour by 29 percentage-points.

So, in English: Yes, it may be hard to believe at first but if you go from not paying someone to paying someone a little, volunteer participation drops dramatically. Want more help? Don’t give people any money.

It sounds crazy but you have to understand that just the very idea of money does whacky things to our brains:

Money plays a significant role in people’s lives, and yet little experimental attention has been given to the psychological underpinnings of money. We systematically varied whether and to what extent the concept of money was activated in participants’ minds using methods that minimized participants’ conscious awareness of the money cues. On the one hand, participants reminded of money were less helpful than were participants not reminded of money, and they also preferred solitary activities and less physical intimacy. On the other hand, reminders of money prompted participants to work harder on challenging tasks and led to desires to take on more work as compared to participants not reminded of money. In short, even subtle reminders of money elicit big changes in human behavior.

Source: “Merely Activating the Concept of Money Changes Personal and Interpersonal Behavior” from Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 17 Issue 3, Pages 208 – 212

In the immortal words of Cyndi Lauper, “Money changes everything.”

Want people to trust you more? Well then you sure as hell shouldn’t give them any money:

This paper reports on an experiment studying the effectiveness of two types of mechanisms for promoting trust: pecuniary and non-pecuniary as well as their mutual interaction. Our data provide evidence that both mechanisms significantly enhance trust in comparison to the standard investment game. However, we find that the pecuniary mechanism performs significantly worse than the non-pecuniary one. Our results also point to the fact that pecuniary mechanism, which depends on monetary incentives, can be counterproductive when combined with mechanism which relies primarily on psychological incentives.

Source: “Words Speak Louder Than Money” from Department of Economics, University of Canterbury, Working Paper No. 18/2008

How about apologies? Nope. Money doesn’t cut it:

After an unsatisfactory purchase, many firms are quick to apologize to customers. It is, however, not clear why they should do that. As the apology is costless, it should be regarded as cheap talk and thus ignored by the customer. In this paper, we test in a controlled eld experiment whether apologizing influences customers’ subsequent behavior. We find that apologizing yields much better outcomes for the firm than offering a monetary compensation.

Source: “The Power of Apology” from Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, Discussion Paper No. 2009‐12

How about for fostering creativity? Malcolm Gladwell reviewed Daniel Pink’s book “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us”:

Dan Pink is best known for a number of really insightful business books, including “A Whole New Mind.” In “Drive,” he tackles the question of what motivates people to do innovative work, and his jumping-off point is the academic work done over the past few decades that consistently shows that financial rewards hinder creativity. These studies have been around for a while. But Pink follows through on their implications in a way that is provocative and fascinating. The way we structure organizations and innovation, after all, almost always assumes that the prospect of financial reward is the prime human motivator. We think that the more we pay people, the better results we’ll get. But what if that isn’t true? What the research shows, instead, is that the great wellspring of creativity is intrinsic motivation—that is, I do my best work for personal rewards (out of love or intellectual fulfillment) and not external motivation (money). Pink does a good in tracing some of the implications of that for business organization. My only criticism of the book—and it’s a small one—is that he could have followed his thesis even more aggressively. What if we carried this thesis to Wall Street, for example? And what does it mean for things like tax policy? Does he think that we could have European levels of marginal taxation and not affect the creative underpinnings of our entrepreneurial class? I think I spent as much time thinking about what this book meant as I did reading it.

What about paying students to get good grades? Mixed results. What I found most interesting was that even if it did work it didn’t seem to get the real desired result, kids didn’t really try to learn more, they just tried to game the system:

The students were universally excited about the money, and they wanted to earn more. They just didn’t seem to know how. When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn’t talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. “No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher,” Fryer says. “Not one.”

Wanna punish people? (a negative motivation) Money might not always be the best way:

We study whether the use of monetary incentives might be counter-productive. In particular, we analyse the effect of fining owners of long-term care institutions who prolong length of stay at hospitals. Exploiting a unique natural experiment involving changes in the catchment areas of two large Norwegian hospitals, we find that hospital length of stay are longer in the hospital using fines to reduce length of stay compared with the hospital not using monetary punishment. We interpret these results as examples of monetary incentives crowding-out agents’ intrinsic motivation, leading to a reduction in effort.

Source: “Does monetary punishment crowd out pro-social motivation? A natural experiment on hospital length of stay” from Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

In Freakonomics Levitt and Dubner describe a similar scenario:

Imagine for a moment that you are the manager of a day-care center. You have a clearly stated policy that children are supposed to be picked up by 4 p.m. But very often parents are late. The result: at day’s end, you have some anxious children and at least one teacher who must wait around for the parents to arrive. What to do?

A pair of economists who heard of this dilemma – it turned out to be a rather common one – offered a solution: fine the tardy parents. Why, after all, should the day-care center take care of these kids for free?

The economists decided to test their solution by conducting a study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel. The study lasted twenty weeks, but the fine was not introduced immediately. For the first four weeks, the economists simply kept track of the number of parents who came late; there were, on average, eight late pickups per week per day-care center. In the fifth week, the fine was enacted. It was announced that any parent arriving more than ten minutes late would pay $3 per child for each incident. The fee would be added to the parents’ monthly bill, which was roughly $380.

After the fine was enacted, the number of late pickups promptly went … up. Before long there were twenty late pickups per week, more than double the original average. The incentive had plainly backfired.

Mom was right. Guilt works better than fines.

Is this not seeming universal enough for you, yet? Need more proof? Babies do it:

The current study investigated the influence of rewards on very young children’s helping behavior. After 20-month-old infants received a material reward during a treatment phase, they subsequently were less likely to engage in further helping during a test phase as compared with infants who had previously received social praise or no reward at all. This so-called overjustification effect suggests that even the earliest helping behaviors of young children are intrinsically motivated and that socialization practices involving extrinsic rewards can undermine this tendency.

Source: “Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in 20-month-olds.” from Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(6), Nov 2008, 1785-1788

Still don’t believe me? Okay, it’s true for dogs too:

Folks at the University of Vienna conducted a test in which dogs were asked to shake hands over and over and over again. If you have any experience with dogs, you will not be surprised to hear that they were absolutely delighted. And they didn’t care about being paid! The opportunity to perform the same trick endlessly with a stranger in a white coat was reward enough.

Then the researchers brought in new dogs that were given a piece of bread as a reward for every handshake. The uncompensated dogs watched, lost their innate love of mindless repetition and grew sullen.

“They get so mad that they look at you and just don’t give you the paw anymore,” said Friederike Range, one of the scientists.


Still need more proof? I wouldn’t dig up another study even if you paid me. In fact, I’d probably be less likely to.

Join over 185,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

How To Stop Being Lazy And Get More Done – 5 Expert Tips

6 Things The Most Productive People Do Every Day

New Harvard Research Reveals A Fun Way To Be More Successful

Should you get wasted the night before a big exam?

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

Sure, why not? Despite what I recently posted about drinking negatively affecting performance in college, this study says that binge drinking the night before a test doesn’t negatively affect grades:

In a first-of-its kind controlled experiment, researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) and Brown University have found that surprisingly, binge drinking the night before a test does not impact college students’ test performance – although it can affect their moods, attention and reaction times.

The study, which appears in the April 2010 edition of the journal Addiction, was conducted by Jonathan Howland, professor of community health sciences at BUSPH , and Damaris Rohsenow, research professor at Brown’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies.

The study found that intoxication in the evening did not affect students’ next day scores on academic tests requiring long-term memory, or on tests of recently learned material. Binge drinking did, however, slow participants’ attention/reaction times and worsen mood states – impacts that could affect safety-related behaviors, such as driving.

Howland said the research team was surprised by the test-taking results because some prior studies have found that occupational performance was impaired the day after intoxication. But, he explained, “We looked at one particular academic outcome. Test-taking is only one measure of academic success.”

The researchers also noted that binge drinking could affect other types of academic performance, such as essay-writing and problem-solving requiring higher-order cognitive skills.

“We do not conclude… that excessive drinking is not a risk factor for academic problems,” the researchers wrote. “It is possible that a higher alcohol dose would have affected next-day academic test scores. Moreover, test-taking is only one factor in academic success. Study habits, motivation and class attendance also contribute to academic performance; each of these could be affected by intoxication.”


The 4 Psychological Techniques That Increased Navy SEAL Passing Rates

standard post
Eric Barker  -  
Comments  -  

Ever since reading The Warrior Elite: The Forging of SEAL Class 228 I’ve been interested in Navy SEAL training, particularly the psychological aspects.

In his blog at Psychology Today, Bakari Akil covers a History channel documentary The Brain and what it revealed about the four techniques the Navy used to increase passing rates in the elite SEAL program:

Goal Setting

“With goal setting the recruits were taught to set goals in extremely short chunks. For instance, one former Navy Seal discussed how he set goals such as making it to lunch, then dinner.”

Mental Rehearsal

“With mental rehearsal they were taught to visualize themselves succeeding in their activities and going through the motions.”

Self Talk

“As far as self talk is concerned, the experts in The Brain documentary made the claim that we say 300 to 1000 words to ourselves a minute. By instructing the recruits to speak positively to themselves they could learn how to “override fears” resulting from the amygdala, a primal part of the brain that helps us deal with anxiety.”

Arousal Control

“And finally, with arousal control the recruits were taught how to breathe to help mitigate the crippling emotions and fears that some of their tasks encouraged.”

How successful were these techniques?

This very simple four step process increased their passing rates from 25 percent to 33 percent, which is excellent in a rigorous program as theirs. It demonstrates that achieving success doesn’t always have to be a complex process. A few minor additions and tweaks may be all that is needed.

Join over 135,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

How To Make Your Life Better By Sending Five Simple Emails

How To Stop Being Lazy And Get More Done – 5 Expert Tips

New Harvard Research Reveals A Fun Way To Be More Successful