Removing the Optimism Bias

Disrupting a small part of the brain with a magnetic field can reduce people’s prejudice towards good news.

By | September 24, 2012

Kalyan" > Flickr, Kalyan

Humans tend to embrace good news, while discounting bad news. We overestimate our odds of winning the lottery or living long lives, while underplaying our risk of cancer, divorce, or unemployment. Now, researchers from University College London (UCL) have found a way of removing these rose-tinted glasses, by aiming a magnetic field at a brain region called the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Their results are published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“So much of the work on psychological biases over the decades has been correlational,” said Dominic Johnson, a political scientist from the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. “Here we have a rare example of a direct manipulation experiment. This is a great step forward and promises to open up whole new avenues for research in this area.”

The optimism bias was recognised decades ago, and seems to exist across genders, nationalities, races, and ages. UCL’s Tali Sharot has been studying how the brain creates this bias since 2007. In an earlier study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), she had linked the IFG to people’s ability to update their beliefs with new information. “The left IFG was tracking information that was better than expected, and the right IFG was tracking information that was worse than expected,” she said, “and [the right IFG] wasn’t doing as efficient a job.”

“But fMRI only gives us a correlation,” Sharot added. “To show causation, we wanted to see whether manipulating these brain regions would alter how people learn from good and bad information.” She and UCL colleague Ryota Kanai used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)—a technique for temporarily shutting off part of the brain—to disrupt the right IFG, the left IFG, or an unrelated area in 30 volunteers. Five minutes later, the researchers asked the volunteers to estimate their chances of experiencing 40 different nasty fates, from Alzheimer’s disease to robbery. Sharot and Kanai then revealed the actual frequencies of each event and, later, asked the volunteers to recalculate their estimates.

Optimism bias was alive and well among volunteers receiving TMS to the right IFG or the unrelated region, who were more likely to update their beliefs when the bad events were less common than expected. But such bias vanished in the group whose left IFGs were disrupted who, on average, gave equal weight to statistics showing that events were either more or less likely than they had expected. Questionnaires revealed that TMS did not affect other traits that could have explained the volunteers’ changed behavior, such as emotional arousal or negativity. Nor did the treatment affect their memory—they were just as likely to remember the actual probabilities that they had been told, no matter where the magnetic fields were aimed.

Based on her earlier work, Sharot thought that disrupting the left IFG would reduce the optimism bias by reducing our ability to learn from good news, while disrupting the right IFG would boost a person’s inclination towards good news. Her results showed otherwise. In fact, with the left area shut down, people were just as likely to adjust their beliefs based on good news, but better at adjusting their beliefs based on bad news.

“There are many implications of such research, from potential mechanisms of depression at a personal level, to ignoring financial errors at a societal one,” said Daniel Bor, a neuroscientist from the University of Cambridge, who did not participate in the research. However, he added, “previous research in this area has more implicated the right, rather than the left, IFG. More research needs to be carried out to further validate and explore this intriguing finding.”

Sharot and Kanai also found some individual variations. Even though disrupting the left IFG negated optimistic tendencies on average, 40 percent of the volunteers still showed the bias. “This raises interesting questions about whether some people have a greater or lesser ability to resist cognitive biases,” said Johnson, although he noted that “some of this variation is likely due to noise or the treatment not working for whatever reason.”

Of course, it may not always be beneficial to suppress such natural biases. Unwarranted optimism can lead us to take unnecessary risks with our health or finances, but Sharot and Kanai noted that it could also be adaptive, by encouraging people to try new things or avoid the stress of potential illness or failure.

In certain cases, however, Sharot thinks that her work might have clinical relevance. Targeting the right brain area could, for example, help boost optimism in people who tend to lack it, such as those with depression. “If you start off in depressed individuals, my hypothesis would be that disrupting the right IFG would create a bias that isn’t there,” she said.

T. Sharot et al., “Selectively altering belief formation in the human brain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi:10.1073/pnas.1205828109, 2012.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


September 24, 2012

jews gonna jews.

Avatar of: bruceewilson


Posts: 1

September 25, 2012

I've hear of another mechanism for removing optimism bias - depression.

Avatar of: Robert Raithel

Robert Raithel

Posts: 1457

September 25, 2012

Cynicism also works nicely.

Avatar of: mort


Posts: 1

September 25, 2012

40% noise..? -_- and these people were just asked to regurgitate information..?

Avatar of: corrigible


Posts: 42

September 25, 2012

Good news is in the eyes of the beholder, and so is bad news. Psychopaths and con artists are keenly aware of this, and exploit it opportunistically. Politicians put lots of money and lots of energy into reframing the one as the other, depending upon what serves the particular agenda of each.
In a research setting, such distinctions can be controlled. Also, some categories of news are less reframable than others. Cancer, for example, can hardly be disguised as a blessing. A gift of money, by the same token, can hardly be made to appear deleterious.
Yet distinctions can become blurred, as when a cancer survivor genuinely perceives his/her life to have been enriched by having discovered from the close call who his/her real friends are, and what it means to live the remainder of a lifetime relishing things like sunsets and stars at night, in a new and different way.
To have watched a neighbor become enamoured of the "news" that a pyramid scheme opportunity would solve all his financial problems, take advice to do so and quit his job, only to fall flat on his face trying to work the scheme and finding thousands of others trying to get everybody they know to become one of his downstream purveyors of the scheme, is frightening. What he deemed to be the best news he had ever heard in his life, at first blush, turned out to be the worst financial mistake he ever made.
As for the "value" of altering a subject's perception of what is good news, versus what is bad news -- what leads to possible irrational exuberance or possible depressive pessimism relating to a given stimulus -- electrifying a subject's brain may be compared (in my respectful opinion -- to any other physical or psychological invasive technique.
What you get is, at best, a tampering with free will of the subject.
No doubt, however, those among us with "Big Brother" syndrome (a desire to control others by manipulating their brain's electrical or psychological state by intrusive means,
research into what techniques result in controlling others might appear as highly propitious.
No doubt those who interrogate prisoners of war, or those suspected of crimes, might see rendering a subject less resistant to control as a wonderful prospect, along with torture, use of psychoactive drugs or other intrusions.

Avatar of: funnythat


Posts: 2

September 25, 2012

I have always maintained that depressed people are the realists in society. But optimism is probably required for survival (and especially procreation) and has therefore been selected for over millennia. And the media always celebrate the few "risk-takers" who have been lucky (in business or art or science) and forget about the vast majority who have tried hard and failed.

Avatar of: corrigible


Posts: 42

September 26, 2012

The best we humans can do -- or any other bio-organism, for that matter -- is optimize our emotional intelligence and accordant coping responses. Coping is a scenario-specific guessing game, in which we must more often than not make poorly informed decisions on the spur of the moment, when he who hesitates may be lost, and he who does not look before he leaps may be the one lost.
If our emotional intelligence is dulled by any kind of enhancement or dulling -- be that by way of psycho-active drugs, electrical stimuli, pain, psychological manipulation -- the result will tend to shift the bias point. For some situations that might be advantageous, but for others disadvatageous.
We humans sometimes seek to fix things that aren't broken.
As a person who has enjoyed much success in stock market trading, I have learned that my worst-result decisions have been made when I have been EITHER extraordinarily confident in self or in market developments, or extraordinarily risk averse.
Perhaps the only human benefit of altering perception of good news or bad news, or good opportunity or dangerous pseudo-opportunity might be for persons whose discernment center, so to speak, is off center.
But if it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.

Avatar of: Int

Int'l Neuromod Soc

Posts: 1457

September 26, 2012

For patients with treatment-resistant depression, repetitive TMS (rTMS) is an approved therapy in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, and Israel.

Popular Now

  1. That Other CRISPR Patent Dispute
    Daily News That Other CRISPR Patent Dispute

    The Broad Institute and Rockefeller University disagree over which scientists should be named as inventors on certain patents involving the gene-editing technology.

  2. How Gaining and Losing Weight Affects the Body
    Daily News How Gaining and Losing Weight Affects the Body

    Millions of measurements from 23 people who consumed extra calories every day for a month reveal changes in proteins, metabolites, and gut microbiota that accompany shifts in body mass.

  3. Neurons Use Virus-Like Proteins to Transmit Information
  4. DOE-Sponsored Oak Ridge National Laboratory to Cut 100 More Jobs