WHO IS THIS ARTICLE FOR? The material in the article can be used by psychologists to analyze the behavior and thinking of clients. The material in the article will help each reader take a critical look at their thinking and decisions in standard life situations, and rethink their attitude to the choice of alternatives .Links in the text lead to the materials mentioned. Are human behavior and decisions rational? What influences us? We think that most of our decisions are dictated by logic, rationality, and the desire to maximize our satisfaction. Until recently, an influential school of economists argued that our decisions are based on rational considerations, we strive to maximize benefit in its economic and psychological sense. You can listen to this article and watch the presentation: Echoing economic views in psychological sessions, many psychologists persistently ask their clients: “ What is your benefit? - assuming that this question must have a logical-psychological answer. But today I will probably disappoint you, because the answer to the question of benefit is not always there and the question is not fair in every case. I will base my article on the work of scientific researcher Daniel Kahneman, who is 88 years old today. He lives in Israel. All my life I have been researching the psychology of human behavior as economic agents. He is the father of behavioral economics. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics and author of the “Prospect Theory”, known today to sociologists, psychologists, economists and marketers. This work is built on a number of interesting and informative studies that forced sociologists and psychologists to look differently at the psychology of human behavior and not always look for rationalism in people's behavior. So, people act illogically, contrary to the assumptions about the basic rationality of most of us. But it is especially interesting that such behavior is ordered and explained by certain principles associated not with logic, but with psychology. So I rightfully take this topic for myself. I will give some observations that were made during the study of people as economic entities and which I intuitively expanded in places to the area of ​​any human activity. Allowing irrational additional losses When we suffer losses, and they are not very significant for us, intuitively acceptable, we strive to record the loss and not aggravate the situation. When losses become significant, we tend to allow additional irrational losses. By losses we should understand not only financial, but any losses: trust in authority money property relationships opportunities patience time This phenomenon is easily explained from the point of view of the work of our psyche. To imagine the various states of the psyche and its reactions, the association with vessel. At every moment of time, our psyche is a vessel filled with emotions and thinking. In the normal state, the vessel is filled, but not overflowing with emotions and thinking. Thinking calmly processes information received through feelings, emotions - everything is in harmony and balance. The person is comfortable. When events occur that intensify emotions, thinking also intensifies for balance. All this is aimed at harmonizing the system. If you mentally simulate a situation of increasing events - emotions - and thinking, you can see four borderline levels of mental functioning: Normal is a state of peace, when sensations and emotions are enough for comfort, and the thought process is in balance with them .Medium level of threat - the vessel is filled with emotions so that thinking can balance the system and keep it normal. But any aggravation of the situation will cause an increase in emotions, and the volume of the psyche will be filled - more with emotions than with thinking, which is needed to process and flatten emotions. High level of threat / pre-affective state - emotions exceed the capabilities of thinking; there is not enough mental capacity for balancing thinking. Flooding is an affect, floodingvessel with emotions and the inclusion of an emergency, automatic instinctive-reflex system of salvation, not based on rational thinking. We are able to think rationally and make decisions that are beneficial to ourselves as long as our psyche is in the range from normal to an average level of threat. For example, in the case of acceptable losses, in response to an event, grief, annoyance, irritation, and superficial fear arise in the psyche. The volume of emotions does not overflow the cup of the psyche, it allows thinking to intensify to the required extent and take measures for self-salvation. This way we prevent the situation from getting worse. Let's take control of our emotions. We record losses. The greater our losses, the stronger the emotions - we begin to feel disappointment, anger, fear, guilt. There are more emotions than reason. Miscalculations, mistakes, chaos arise. The remaining shreds of thinking begin to throw up stereotypical explanatory schemes of what is happening - “to die, so with the music”, “it’s hit or miss”, “all or nothing”, “we have nothing to lose”, “so don’t let anyone get you”, “I’ll get by somehow” “somehow”, “not really necessary”, “it will sort out somehow”. In the agony of feelings, we are no longer guided by reason, but by pseudo-reason - we allow irrational expenses, additional losses, and aggravate the situation. To be fair, it should be said that this process occurs both in the case of negative events and against the background of positive emotions, which in the same way flood the vessel mental health and make us lose our minds. EXAMPLE: Having made a small or standard expense for ourselves, we tend to limit the following expenses. And after making a big purchase, we find ourselves much more prone to additional spontaneous, thoughtless expenses than before making a major expenditure. When we find ourselves in minor disagreements with someone, we tend to quickly restore the status quo and not aggravate the conflict. Having gone deep into emotions in a conflict, we are capable of any further aggravation of the conflict. Having lost a little time, we strive to level out the loss by increasing speed. Feeling seriously behind, we tend to give up and waste even more time. And this is in everything. So, the first principle of behavior, the discovery of which made Daniel Kahneman famous, is that we are prone to irrational losses, even when we have already suffered significant losses. Because when we are flooded with emotions, we lose rational control over the situation. BENEFITS2. It turns out that the majority of people, between a large but risky gain and a small but guaranteed gain, will choose the option of a small guaranteed gain. An option in which there are no risks and there is a guarantee of getting something. My friends and readers and I conducted a small survey on the Telegram channel, similar to what Daniel Kahneman conducted in his research. Our result confirmed the scientist’s conclusions. In our survey, 64% of voters preferred the option without risk, with little benefit. The statistics will likely change over time if anyone else decides to vote. The question was posed like this: you can be guaranteed to get 70 thousand rubles, or you can play roulette and get 100 thousand rubles. Probability of winning 90%. You can lose only 10% of the time. 64% of voters preferred to take less, but with a guarantee. Despite the fact that loss is unlikely. Likewise in life, most of us prefer a small but guaranteed income to a large non-guaranteed one. For example, he prefers hired labor and a limited salary, despite his personal high competence and the opportunity to earn a lot on his own. Prefers a bank deposit with a low interest rate, high-yield investments with an element of, albeit predictable, risk. A small number of us demonstrate a tendency towards truly rational thinking. We prefer guaranteed comfort, guaranteed results, guaranteed benefits. We avoid the slightest risks. So often we give up what is extremely desirable for ourselves, changes in behavior, in everyday life, in customs - in favor of familiar comfort and a risk-free guaranteed option for actions, decisions and choices.LOSS Let's change the context now. And we will begin to think not about benefits, but about losses. Let's say you are faced with the choice of losing more or losing less. Of course, it's better to lose less. Here the choice is always clear. But let us now assume that you have two choices - a small chance of 10% of not losing anything, or you lose the maximum - this is 100 thousand rubles. Otherwise, you can choose a guaranteed loss of 70 thousand rubles. This is significantly less than the first amount, but you must pay it guaranteed and immediately. What do most of us prefer? As Daniel Kahneman's research shows, most people choose the first option. That is, an option in which there is at least a small chance of avoiding losses. Our mini study did not confirm D. Kahneman's conclusions. However, there were only 7 people who voted, so the data from our private survey cannot cast doubt on the results of large-scale research by D. Kahneman.3. We prefer to believe the smallest probability of avoiding losses, which often leads us to increase real losses. This principle is clearly manifested in relationships between people. We try to find any way and hide our mistakes from prying eyes - sometimes hoping for a miracle, in the hope of saving face. In other words, we do not use rational thinking and knowledge of mathematics when making life decisions. AS A RESULT, SEVERAL features of the behavior of most people that contradict the principles of rational behavior have been noticed: We tend to increase losses and expenses as they grow - we increase them instead of stopping them. We tend to downplay the chance of getting a big benefit if we don't have a guarantee. And we clearly exaggerate the value of the small benefit packaged into the guarantee. We tend to exaggerate our chance of avoiding a loss, no matter how small that chance may be. Whenever there is the slightest chance of avoiding losses, most of us will experience it, despite the fact that real losses will most likely increase. It is also surprising that having discovered this in ourselves, we are in no hurry to correct irrational behavior. How can this be explained? Daniel Kahneman explains these features in his Prospect Theory with four circumstances or four phenomena that act on our emotions and, therefore, influence decisions. 1. Context effect We never make decisions in isolation from existing conditions. These conditions create an emotional background in us and the basis for emotional choice. An example for understanding: If the pharmacy has only one option for the medicine you need and it is unexpectedly expensive, you will take it reluctantly and try to limit other expenses - at least temporarily, to compensate for the unexpected high consumption. But if next to the desired medicine there will be 2-3 more expensive analogues, and the desired medicine will be offered at the same price as at the beginning, but the price tag will indicate that this price is on sale and therefore the medicine is cheaper than analogues - this will create a different shopping atmosphere. There will be a feeling not of cheapness, but of good luck and benefit. The psychological effect of a high price will be smoothed out. And you probably won’t limit your expenses, unless, of course, it’s your last bit of money before payday. Same fact: medicine-price, but different context. And now we are already considering the situation in polar planes - from “significant expense” to “successful acquisition”. Does our behavior depend on dry facts? - No. It is always related to context. Context gives rise to emotions. And only from emotions is born this or that chain of thoughts, which can hardly be called rational. Do you agree? If, for example, we unexpectedly receive a bonus, a large discount, or, even better, a win, we will be delighted with the benefit. But if this pleasure occurred after a great loss for us, the joy will be more than moderate. Rejoice or remain indifferent? – Depends on the context! You will come home and say: - Hurray, I won! Or - Of course, I won, but is this really so important when I lost so much before?In the preparatory period before this article, my friends and subscribers and I considered the situation of choosing New Year's leisure activities. The question was posed like this: Do you want to spend the New Year in a hotel with a spa complex and champagne. You find the only option suitable for dates, location and cost. In the absence of other conditions, there is only one rational decision - to go to the hotel. Isn’t that right? However, we tested the following context: on the hotel’s page we find two reviews about it. One of them is positive, and the second is strictly negative. And what? Half of those who voted changed their minds about going. Although, in essence, the review was not terrible. Yes, the man didn’t get what he wanted. But there were no fundamentally serious complaints against the hotel that could affect the atmosphere of the New Year's holiday. The context changes the attitude and decision. Here is the first element of prospect theory or the theory of our irrational behavior. Let us now consider the second element of prospect theory. 2. Loss aversion Let's return to our example, where two people visited the same hotel and left reviews. In this case, one review is positive, the second is negative. In our sample of voters, opinions were divided in half. But practice shows that in a large sample there is always a serious preponderance in the direction of refusing to visit such a hotel. The conclusion is simple. It is always the negative comment, review and opinion that always turns out to be more influential for us, all other things being equal. The attention of most of us primarily focuses on the dangerous, frightening, and negative. And only then on what is desirable, positive, profitable. According to Daniel Kahneman's research, it becomes clear that most of us tend not to maximize benefits, but to minimize risks and losses. In addition, scientists have calculated a specific figure: we perceive losses 2.5 times more actively than gains. This indicator is higher both in terms of the time course of emotional reactions and the strength of emotional experiences. For example, therapy for alcoholism and drug addiction is based on the predominant fear of losses, and not on the benefits of acquisitions. For what reason do you think a patient usually ends up in therapy? To get something - health, years of life, good prospects? Or so as not to lose your family, job, roof over your head? - Of course, the second one. Only the risk of loss will force most of us to act. And only a minority will act in pursuit of additional gain. We predominantly prefer inaction until losses become a real threat or tangible reality. Our own logic dictates: in order for the arguments in any dialogue to look convincing enough, it is always better to focus the attention of our interlocutor on what he can lose than on what he can gain. And if the arguments are chosen correctly, the likelihood of achieving our goal increases many times over. Here is a scientifically proven method of manipulation. Another component of prospect theory is also related to losses. 3. The illusion of insignificant losses Today, a very common practice is the practice of additional sales. You come to a store, purchase a product, and they offer you additional tools that can to some extent increase its functionality, usefulness, lifespan, etc. For example, you buy a car, and they additionally sell you a spoiler, covers, navigation, and full insurance. And so on. You buy boots, and in addition they sell you protective equipment, special brushes, insoles, heels... Etc. Sometimes additional costs can reach significant amounts, for example, up to a third of the cost of the main purchase. Why do we agree to this? After all, this is irrational... we went to buy a specific thing, we bought it. So why do we make additional expenses? From a psychological point of view, this is quite understandable. Firstly, let’s return to the beginning of our article: when buying expensive things, our mental vessel becomes filled with emotions. This turns off rational thinking. We become prone to.