Why do many problems in life seem to stubbornly stick around – no matter how hard people work to fix them?
It turns out that a quirk in the way human brains process information means that when something becomes rare, we sometimes see it in more places than ever.
Think of a ‘neighbourhood watch’ made up of volunteers who call the police when they see anything suspicious. Imagine a new volunteer who joins the watch to help lower crime in the area. When they first start volunteering, they raise the alarm when they see signs of serious crimes, like assault or burglary.
If a neighbourhood watch worked – and crime went down – would volunteers then relax? Not exactly (Credit: Getty Images)
Let’s assume these efforts help and, over time, assaults and burglaries become rarer. What would the volunteer do next? One possibility is that they would relax and stop calling the police. After all, the serious crimes they used to worry about are a thing of the past.
But you may share the intuition my research group had – that many volunteers in this situation wouldn’t relax just because crime went down. Instead, they’d start calling things ‘suspicious’ that they would never have cared about when crime was high, like ‘jaywalking’ or loitering at night.
You can probably think of many similar situations in which problems never seem to go away because people keep changing how they define them. This is sometimes called ‘concept creep’ or ‘moving the goalposts’ – and it can be a frustrating experience. How can you know if you’re making progress solving a problem, when you keep redefining what it means to solve it?
My colleagues and I wanted to understand when this kind of behaviour happens, why, and if it can be prevented.
Looking for trouble
To study how concepts change when they become less common, we brought volunteers into our laboratory and gave them a simple task – to look at a series of computer-generated faces and decide which ones seemed “threatening”. The faces had been carefully designed by researchers to range from very intimidating to very harmless.
When they ran out of threatening faces to find, our participants started calling faces threatening that they used to call harmless
As we showed people fewer and fewer threatening faces over time, we found that they expanded their definition of “threatening” to include a wider range of faces. In other words, when they ran out of threatening faces to find, they started calling faces threatening that they used to call harmless.
Rather than being a consistent category, what people considered ‘threats’ depended on how many threats they had seen lately.
What people consider to be a threat hinges on how many other threats they’ve seen lately (Credit: Getty Images)
This kind of inconsistency isn’t limited to judgements about threat. In another experiment, we asked people to make an even simpler decision: whether coloured dots on a screen were blue or purple.
As blue dots became rare, people started calling slightly purple dots blue. They even did this when we told them blue dots were going to become rare, or when we offered them cash prizes to stay consistent over time. These results suggest that this behaviour isn’t entirely under conscious control – otherwise, people would have been able to be consistent to earn a cash prize.
After looking at the results of our experiments on facial threat and colour judgements, our research group wondered if maybe this was just a funny property of the visual system. Would this kind of concept change also happen with non-visual judgements?
To test this, we ran a final experiment in which we asked volunteers to read about different scientific studies, and decide which were ethical and which were unethical.
If problems or dangers never seem to go away, it may be because our brain keeps changing how we define them (Credit: Getty Images)
We were sceptical that we would find the same inconsistencies in these kind of judgements that we did with colours and threat. Moral judgements, we suspected, would be more consistent across time than other kinds of judgements. After all, if you think violence is wrong today, you should still think it is wrong tomorrow – regardless of how much or how little violence you see that day.
But surprisingly, this was incorrect. Instead, we found the same pattern. As we showed people fewer and fewer unethical studies over time, they started calling a wider range of studies unethical. In other words, just because they were reading about fewer unethical studies, they became harsher judges of what counted as ethical.
Why do people expand what they call threatening when threats become rare? Research from cognitive psychology and neuroscience suggests that this kind of behaviour is a consequence of the basic way that our brains process information – we are constantly comparing what is in front of us to its recent context.
Instead of carefully deciding how threatening a face is compared to all other faces, the brain analyses how threatening it is compared to other faces seen recently
Instead of carefully deciding how threatening a face is compared to all other faces, for example, the brain analyses how threatening it is compared to other faces it has seen recently – or compares it to some average of recently seen faces, or to the most and least threatening faces it has seen.
This kind of comparison could lead directly to the pattern my research group saw in our experiments: when threatening faces are rare, new faces would be judged relative to mostly harmless faces. In a sea of mild faces, even slightly threatening faces might seem scary.
Whether you see this face as ‘threatening’ or ‘harmless’ may depend more on what else you’ve seen recently, rather than on the face itself (Credit: Getty Images)
It turns out that for your brain, relative comparisons often use less energy than absolute measurements. Just think about how it’s easier to remember which of your cousins is the tallest than exactly how tall each cousin is. Human brains have likely evolved to use relative comparisons in many situations because these comparisons often provide enough information to safely navigate our environments and make decisions, all while expending as little effort as possible.
Relative judgements sometimes work just fine – such as when you're comparing fancy restaurants in different cities (Credit: Getty Images)
Sometimes, relative judgements work just fine. If you are looking for a fancy restaurant, what you count as ‘fancy’ in Paris, Texas, should be different than in Paris, France.
My research group is currently doing follow-up research in the lab to develop more effective interventions to help counter the strange consequences of relative judgement. One potential strategy: when you’re making decisions where consistency is important, define your categories as clearly as you can. So if you do join a neighbourhood watch, think about writing down a list of what kinds of transgressions to worry about when you start.
Otherwise, before you know it, you may find yourself calling the cops over dogs being walked without leashes.
But there are more problematic situations, like the neighbourhood watcher who, by making relative judgements, will keep expanding their concept of ‘crime’ to include milder and milder transgressions. As a result, they may never fully appreciate their success in helping to reduce the problem they are worried about.
From medical diagnoses to financial investments, modern humans have to make many complicated judgements where being consistent matters. How can people make more consistent decisions when necessary?
This article originally appeared on The Conversation, and is republished under a Creative Commons licence.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called “If You Only Read 6 Things This Week”. A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Capital, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.