To be aware of a single shortcoming in oneself is more useful than to be aware of a thousand in someone else.
14th Dalai Lama
1935 –
I don’t know about you, but I find it very frightening to think that someone else could exert control over my mind, even if only for a limited time or a specific activity. I suspect most of us associate this idea with hypnotism, a practice that the average person encounters rarely, if at all. So you might be surprised to learn that our minds can be manipulated in other situations as well, without our conscious consent.
In 2010, cognitive neuroscientist Reza Habib recruited twenty-two people for an experiment. Eleven were compulsive gamblers; the other eleven gambled socially but didn’t have a gambling problem. Each individual was placed in an MRI that scanned their brain activity while they watched a video simulation of a slot machine. If you aren’t familiar with a slot machine, they normally have three columns where various symbols or numbers scroll past; to win, you need three matching symbols on the “pay” line when the rotation stops.
In this experiment, the video was set to display three possible outcomes: a win, a loss or a near win. A near win was where the first two symbols matched and the third symbol was a fraction below or above the pay line, so it looked like it was almost a win. Remember, the participants weren’t going to win any money; they just observed the video while the MRI recorded the brain activity for each outcome.
The results were very interesting. For the social gambler, a win activated the reward area of the brain, but for a loss or a near win, that area wasn’t stimulated. But the compulsive gambler had quite a different reaction. For the compulsive gambler, only a loss failed to light up the reward area of the brain. The response to a win or a near win was the same: it activated the reward area of the brain.
In games of pure chance, there are only two real outcomes: you win or you lose. Being close doesn’t count — it’s still a loss. But the near win phenomena can be used to exploit individuals who are inclined to compulsive behavior. Near wins encourage that type of individual to continue playing; they almost won, so to them, the next spin is likely to be a win. This tactic also works with scratch off lottery tickets; the near win prompts the person to buy more tickets.
Researchers have learned that the optimum impact for near wins occurs when the number of near wins is between 20 and 40% of overall plays. When the rate is below 20%, the reward area of the brain isn’t stimulated enough. And when near wins occur more than 40% of the time, it usually has a negative effect; the gamblers start to question whether they’re actually going to win.
This is an isolated example, but you can see how casinos and state lotteries exert some control over people who are prone to compulsive behavior and who gamble. The casinos and lotteries understand how to compel more gambling with those individuals.
We all like to think that we have full control over our minds, but there are plenty of examples where our actions are triggered by others and we’re completely unaware of it. Grocery stores design their layouts to stimulate purchases of specific items. Radio stations “sandwich” certain songs between established hits to influence our acceptance of the new songs.
So what’s the lesson? Businesses and organizations are becoming much more adept at influencing our behavior. Awareness is the only defense. You need to be much more aware of what motivates your activities. When you act on impulse, you may be allowing someone to exert control over your mind.
Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.
Demosthenes
384 – 322 B.C.
Copyright © 2012 John Chancellor