When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Switzerland

The "End Of History Illusion" - Why We Like Change, As Long As It's In The Past

A new Swiss study helps explain why we think that our important changes are behind us -- and how this false belief can drive us to make poor decisions.

Don't look back in anger, a change is gonna come...
Don't look back in anger, a change is gonna come...
Etienne Dubuis

LAUSANNE – Most people believe they have changed a lot in the past, but will change very little in the future. We are convinced that we will be the same in ten years as we are today. This “End of History Illusion,” as an international team of psychology researchers called it, has many consequences, including the tendency to push people to make poor decisions.

To study the phenomenon, the team of researchers surveyed 19,000 people aged 18 to 68. They were asked to reflect on how much they had changed over the past ten years, and to predict how much they would change over the next ten years. They then compared the predictions of those aged “x years” to the reports of people aged “x + 10 years.” This allowed researchers to compare predictions and reports in about 40 age brackets: 18-28, 19-29, 20-30…. To 58-68.

In their two first studies, the researchers tried to be as wide-ranging as possible in their questions, asking people about personality and core values. The first thing they found is that the older the participants were, the less personality change they reported or predicted. The second thing they discovered is that people aged x predicted they would change less over the next ten years than reporters aged x + 10 said they had changed over the same decade.

The study's full findings have been published in Science magazine.

Did the wide-ranging – and therefore abstract – questions affect the answers? Maybe they did. To make sure this wasn’t the case, the researchers carried out a third study using more specific questions. Instead of asking people about how extroverted they were or how much they valued honesty, they asked them to remember the name of their best friend or their favorite band. They had to assess if they still liked the same things they liked 10 years ago, and if they thought they would still like them 10 years from now.

Same best friend; same band – the third study only confirmed the results of the first two. It also corroborated the idea that we are less and less aware of change as we grow older and that we remember more change than we predict.

The issue isn’t simply theoretical. It’s also practical, since we often take decisions according to what future we have planned for ourselves. This study reveals that because of this, we regularly make mistakes, which are rarely without consequences.

To show this, the researchers conducted a fourth and final study interviewing 170 adults aged between 18 and 64. Some participants were asked how much they would be willing to pay to see their favorite bands perform in ten years – this was the “future concert” group. Another group, the “present concert” group, was asked to name their favorite band from 10 years ago and how much they would be willing to pay to see them perform in the coming week. However old they were, the first group was always willing to pay more than the second group – 61% more on average. People overpaid for a future concert with a band they like now, which shows how we underestimate our capacity for change, and how this affects our decision-making.

The possibility of future change

Why is change so difficult to predict? There is at least one major difference between prediction and retrospection, say the authors of the study. Prediction is a constructive process whereas retrospection is more of a reconstructive process. “If people find it difficult to imagine the ways in which their traits, values, or preferences will change in the future, they may assume that such changes are unlikely. In short, people may confuse the difficulty of imagining personal change with the unlikelihood of change itself,” says the study.

A second reason might explain this phenomenon. “Most people believe that their personalities are attractive, their values admirable, and their preferences wise and having reached that exalted state, they may be reluctant to entertain the possibility of change. People also like to believe that they know themselves well, and the possibility of future change may threaten that belief,” says the study.

“In general, stability has a rather positive connotation compared to change,” explains Alain Clemence, professor in social psychology at the University of Lausanne. “Stability is associated with a strong personality and personal balance. Past changes are usually considered beneficial because they have led us to where we are now and we usually have a rather positive opinion of our current personality."

But Clemence notes that changes in the future are much more difficult to imagine because they require a departure from the habits that we’ve grown accustomed to. "This helps explain why homeless people living in terrible conditions refuse help," he said. "They prefer to stay in the mental comfort that routine brings than the physical comfort that is offered to them.”

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Ideas

Joshimath, The Sinking Indian City Has Also Become A Hotbed Of Government Censorship

The Indian authorities' decision to hide factual reports on the land subsidence in Joshimath only furthers a sense of paranoia.

Photo of people standing next to a cracked road in Joshimath, India

Cracked road in Joshimath

@IndianCongressO via Twitter
Rohan Banerjee*

MUMBAI — Midway through the movie Don’t Look Up (2021), the outspoken PhD candidate Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence) is bundled into a car, a bag over her head. The White House, we are told, wants her “off the grid”. She is taken to a warehouse – the sort of place where CIA and FBI agents seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in Hollywood movies – and charged with violating national security secrets.

The Hobson’s choice offered to her is to either face prosecution or suspend “all public media appearances and incendiary language relating to Comet Dibiasky”, an interstellar object on a collision course with earth. Exasperated, she acquiesces to the gag order.

Don’t Look Upis a satirical take on the collective apathy towards climate change; only, the slow burn of fossil fuel is replaced by the more imminent threat of a comet crashing into our planet. As a couple of scientists try to warn humanity about its potential extinction, they discover a media, an administration, and indeed, a society that is not just unwilling to face the truth but would even deny it.

This premise and the caricatured characters border on the farcical, with plot devices designed to produce absurd scenarios that would be inconceivable in the real world we inhabit. After all, would any government dealing with a natural disaster, issue an edict prohibiting researchers and scientists from talking about the event? Surely not. Right?

On January 11, the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC), one of the centers of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), issued a preliminary report on the land subsidence issue occurring in Joshimath, the mountainside city in the Himalayas.

The word ‘subsidence’ entered the public lexicon at the turn of the year as disturbing images of cracked roads and tilted buildings began to emanate from Joshimath.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest