Durability Bias in Affective Forecasting
People tend to overestimate the duration of their emotional reactions to future events, mistakenly believing that positive or negative experiences will influence their happiness far longer than they actually do.
THE IDEA
16. Durability Bias in Affective Forecasting
Daniel T. Gilbert, Elizabeth C. Pinel, Timothy D. Wilson, Stephen J. Blumberg, and Thalia P. Wheatley
I am the happiest man alive. I have that in me that can convert poverty into riches, adversity into prosperity, and I am more invulnerable than Achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me. — Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici (1642)
Imagine that one morning your telephone rings and you find yourself speaking with the King of Sweden, who informs you in surprisingly good English that you have been selected as this year's recipient of a Nobel Prize. How would you feel, and how long would you feel that way? Now imagine instead that the call is from your college president, who regrets to inform you that your department has been dissolved, your appointment revoked, and your books stored in little cardboard boxes in the hallway. How would you feel then, and how long would you expect that feeling to last?
People often expect such good or bad news to produce lasting changes in how they feel. We can be reasonably accurate about what we will feel: few of us fear chocolate or confuse gall bladder surgery with a weekend in Paris. Predicting the duration is harder. Durability bias is the tendency to expect an emotional reaction to last longer than it does. Adaptation and other events can change how we feel, even when the original event remains important.
Predictions about future feelings influence choices about relationships, careers, purchases, and habits. We consider both the immediate reaction and how long we expect it to last. An exaggerated forecast can give an event too much weight in a decision.
The studies reviewed by the authors include students, professors, voters, newspaper readers, test-takers, and job-seekers. They examine reactions to romantic disappointments, career difficulties, political defeats, distressing news, clinical evaluations, and personal rejections. Participants tended to overestimate the persistence of their reactions.
One proposed explanation is the psychological immune system: people may fail to anticipate how they will “explain away” setbacks, reinterpret failures, find meaning, or adapt. Those responses are easier to overlook before an event than to recognize afterward.
A forecast can allow for adaptation without assuming that everyone recovers quickly or completely. Emotional reactions and practical consequences are also different: feeling less distressed does not erase the financial or social effects of a job loss.
When to use it
When planning major life changes, consider that the emotional impact may not last as long as you think.
When reviewing advertising, examine whether a purchase is being presented as a source of lasting happiness and what supports that promise.
In counseling, compare a person’s forecast of future distress with their past experiences of coping and adaptation, while allowing for lasting difficulties.
When deciding whether to accept a job offer or pursue a new career path, consider not just the initial excitement but how long that feeling is likely to last.
Before making a major purchase (e.g., a house or a car), reflect on how long the hedonic boost of ownership typically endures.
In personal relationships, anticipate that the emotional impact of both positive and negative events may be shorter-lived than you initially predict.
A policy team can distinguish the expected emotional response to a change from its continuing material effects when explaining likely outcomes.
Predicting emotional reactions after a breakup or romantic disappointment
Forecasting the impact of a career setback or job rejection
Assessing how long you'll feel upset after a political defeat or distressing news
Planning for emotional recovery after a personal rejection or failure
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Exam Failure
A student predicts she will feel terrible for months after failing an important exam, but within a week she has adapted and feels much better.
Job Promotion
An employee expects to be ecstatic for a year after a promotion, but the positive feelings fade after a few weeks as new challenges arise.
Winning a Nobel Prize
The opening Nobel Prize call is a hypothetical prompt: how long would the recipient expect the excitement to last? It invites a forecast; it does not report a study showing how Nobel winners actually felt.
Losing One's Job
Someone forecasting a job loss may overlook coping responses and the effect of other events on their feelings. Their distress could ease sooner than predicted, even while financial and career consequences remain.
Job Rejection
After a job rejection, a person expects months of disappointment and sadness. However, they quickly generate reasons (e.g., 'That company wasn't a good fit') and find themselves feeling better much sooner than anticipated.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Recall a major positive event you anticipated. How did your actual emotional duration compare to your prediction?
Why might you overlook your ability to adapt when predicting how long a negative emotion will last?
How can awareness of durability bias improve your decision-making?
When making a major choice, which consequences would remain even if your initial excitement or disappointment faded?
Why might people overestimate how long they will feel devastated after a major negative event, such as a breakup or job loss?
How could you record an emotional forecast now and compare it with your experience later?
Recall a time when you expected a negative event to affect you for a long time but you recovered quickly. What explanations did you generate?
Which coping responses have helped you after past setbacks? Do your current forecasts allow for those responses?
Could focusing on a single future event make you neglect the everyday experiences that will also affect how you feel?
References
- Baron (1992) — Baron (1992)
- Herrnestein (1990) — Herrnestein (1990)
- Kahneman & Snell (1990) — Kahneman, D. & Snell, J. (1990)
- Loewenstein & Frederick (1997) — Loewenstein, G. & Frederick, S. (1997)
- Totterdell, Parkinson, Briner, & Reynolds (1997) — Totterdell, P., Parkinson, B., Briner, R. B., & Reynolds, S. (1997)
- Ainslie (1992) — Ainslie (1992)
- Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman (1996) — Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman (1996)
- Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley (n.d.) — Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P.0
- Studies on durability bias in affective forecasting — Gilbert, D. T., et al. (1998)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)