Firstly I should make it clear that I am not a psychologist, nor in the
truest sense of the word am I a scientist, although as an aviator I have a
broad understanding of a lot of science. My knowledge of this topic in
particular comes from extensive research into why pilots were flying approaches
to land - the ‘approach’ being the last part of the flight descending towards
the runway - when all of the available evidence indicated that the landing
could not be achieved either safely or in compliance with operating procedures.
The approach trajectory was either too steep or too shallow, the aircraft was
too fast or too slow or the landing gear and flaps were not in the correct
configuration. Pilots’ standard operating procedures required them to execute a
‘go-around’ in such circumstances, to abandon the approach, climb away safely
and start again but some were simply not complying. This ‘unstable approach’
phenomenon as it is known, has been one of the most common contributory factors
in commercial aviation accidents over the last 30 years or more but the
tendency to press on in spite of the evidence is not unique to pilots.
This brought me to the work of Bluma Zeigarnik, a psychologist and
psychiatrist born in Lithuania at the turn of the last century. She is probably
best known for studies inspired by her Professor’s observation that a waiter
appeared to have a much better recollection for orders that had yet to be paid
for, than those which had already been settled. The waiter’s workflow involved
taking the order, delivering the food and drinks and finally taking the money,
at which point the workflow would be finished. He stored the order in his
memory until the customer had paid and then subconsciously dumped it. In other
words an incomplete pattern of work held a much higher priority for retention
in the memory than one which was effectively completed.
Zeigarnik went on to study school children learning in class and found
that those who were interrupted in the course of their work remembered more,
and more accurately, than those who were allowed to finish without
interruption. In isolation that is interesting but doesn’t tell us a great
deal. However, Zeigarnik and her successors have shown that the increased
memory retention is attributable to a heightened level of cognitive arousal
whilst a task is being conducted, which is replaced by a more satisfied lower
arousal once the task is successfully completed. The heightened cognitive arousal
was in turn attributed to a degree of discomfort that the goal may fail,
discomfort that could only be assuaged by success. Nowadays we know this as the
‘Zeigarnik Effect’. To take it one step further, research suggested that humans
remember bad things more clearly than they remember the good things; perhaps
from a survival perspective this makes sense – we remember what has done us
harm so that we can avoid it in future.
So finally, the outcome of this ‘cognitive dissonance’, the disparity
between aspiration and reality during the conduct of a task, is that we humans harbour
a compelling desire to complete a task once we have commenced it. This can be
so compelling that we may press on although all of the indications, our
instincts and maybe even our own colleagues are telling us to stop and rethink
the strategy. This is what we found with the ‘unstable approaches’ continued to
landing – pilots had become so focused on achieving the goal that they were
able to ignore the evidence that it was failing – and it probably applies to
many other aspects of professional and personal life.
No comments:
Post a Comment