Drunk Tank Pink

And Other Unexpected Forces that Shape How We Think, Feel, and Behav

By Adam Alter

In the late 1970’s, researchers discovered that a particular shade of pink – known as Baker Miller Pink – was particularly effective in calming down extremely agitated people.

One researcher noted: “Even if a person tries to be angry or aggressive in the presence of this color, he can’t.” Once their study became popularized, sheriffs across America had their holding cells – and in particular their drunk tanks – re-painted as a cheap and effective way of sedating their most troublesome prisoners. A few enterprising college football coaches even got in on the act by painting the visitors’ locker rooms pink, hoping to lull their competition before the game.

Over time, some researchers have questioned the true effect of color as a sedative, pointing to certain contradictory evidence. But there are still more than a few ardent believers out there. These include Dr. Adam Alter, of New York University – a

www.thebusinesssource.com All Rights Reserved

well-known marketing and psychology professor whose work has been featured in numerous popular publications, from The Huffington Post to The Economist.

Professor Alter is also the author of a new book, Drunk Tank Pink, which uncovers and dissects the role of colors, smells, temperature changes and dozens of other hidden forces that shape how we think, feel, and behave. Some of these forces – like the sedative effects of Baker Miller Pink on intoxicated prisoners – seem to emerge out of nowhere to reach the exalted status of urban legend. But other unseen forces, like the names we give our children, like to “hide in plain sight,” as Alter puts it, subtly shaping our thoughts as we blissfully go about our daily affairs.

According to Alter, these forces – or “cues,” as psychologists call them – tend to reside in three separate realms. First and foremost, they live

inside our heads, biologically hardwired into the way we humans process information. They also have a habit of manifesting themselves in the man-made culture that connects us. And, just like the colors of the rainbow, they often reside in the natural, physical world that surrounds us.

To mirror the format of Alter’s book, the summary that follows is divided into three sections, each one exploring the unique forces that operate across Alter’s three realms – i.e. the World Within Us, the World Between Us, and the World Around Us. The primary aim of each section is to chronicle the key forces, and identify the profound effects they have on us. Here and there, Alter also leaves us with little tidbits of advice

on how to mitigate their effects. Naturally, the first and most important step in each case is simply being aware that some hidden cue may be at work. From there, it may be possible to turn the

tide against the force in question, or perhaps even harness its power for our own ends; for example, by using it against an opponent.

So without further ado, let’s take a closer look at a few of the key hidden forces at play in our own heads, and consider how they shape our decision-making apparatus...

Part I: The World Within UsPart I of Alter’s book looks at the influential power of labels, beginning with the most ubiquitous label of all – our name. Alter shows how profoundly someone’s name can unconsciously shape our perception of them, and how appealing labels, even when arbitrarily assigned, can have the power to turn inferior products into highly desirable ones.

“People name their children using all sorts of rules and approaches,” writes Alter. “Sometimes they borrow names from historical or literary heroes,

sometimes they perpetuate ancestral naming traditions, and sometimes they just like that it reminds them of something appealing. In all cases, though, the otherwise meaningless name acquires meaning only because it’s associated with other concepts that are themselves meaningful.”

This power of association explains why Adolf, once a very common boy’s name that at one time was associated with ancient kings, plummeted in popularity during and after World War II. Likewise, parents stopped naming their sons Ebenezer in the 1840s when Charles Dickens penned A Christmas Carol, featuring the mean and miserly Ebenezer Scrooge.

Whether we realize it or not, people are apt to categorize us immediately based solely on our name. The reality is, someone who’s named Adolf is unfairly going to find himself associated with the hated Nazi dictator, and there’s nothing he

can do to help that (other than change his name, obviously). In their bestselling book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner explored these sorts of associations further by investigating the relationship, if any, between a mother’s education and the names she chooses for her children. As Levitt and Dubner rather controversially discovered, white boys named Ricky and Bobby are less likely to have mothers who finished college than are white boys named Sander and Guillaume. Similarly, white girls named Alexandra and Rachel tend to be wealthier than white girls named Amber and Kayla.

Of course, it’s important to note that the relationships between income, education, and naming preferences are not causal. Just because poorer children tend to have consistently different names from wealthier children doesn’t mean that girls named Alexandra are financially better off simply because they’ve been given an

upper class name. Instead, people from different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds tend to inhabit different cultural environments, which in turn shape their preferences for particular names. Thus the relationship between name and status is correlational, not causal.

But whichever factors may be at the root of mothers’ choices of names for their children, the dark side of these choices is that over time, people meet many more poor Bobbys than wealthy Bobbys, and many more wealthy Sanders than poor Sanders. So they start to form strong associations between the name and social class. Consequently, a seasoned recruiter who considers two job application folders – one submitted by Sander Smith and the other by Bobby Smith – will presume that Sander’s parents are wealthier and better educated than Bobby’s, even before she opens the folders. When we go on to consider that, because of sheer application volume, most

recruiters spend less than thirty seconds reviewing each application, the first impression conveyed by one’s name matters a lot.

Like names, many other commonly-used labels aren’t “born” dangerous. Just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with the name Ricky, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with labeling a person “right-handed” or “working class.” But as Alter explains, certain labels can become harmful to the extent that they’ve become associated – rightly or wrongly – with meaningful character traits. These associations will vary from label to label. At one end of the spectrum, for instance, the label “right handed” is relatively free of meaning. We don’t have strong stereotypes about right-handed people. In contrast, the term “working class” is laden with the baggage of associations, some of them positive, but many of them negative. Consequently, we need to be thoughtful about our use of labels.

Even the use of a simple label like “early bloomer” can have a profound, long-term effect on a child’s educational attainment and career development. Alter shares the findings of a study from 1964, which looked at the performance of third graders who’d been described as “bloomers” after second grade, relative to the other students who arrived at grade three with no such label attached to them. The teachers in this particular study knew very little about the students, except whether or not they carried the “bloomer” label. The thing was, in each case, the label had been applied randomly by the researchers. Some of the bloomers were in fact fairly bright kids, but others were mediocre performers at best.

Because they were chosen arbitrarily, the bloomers should have fared no differently from the remaining students during their grade three year. But that’s not what happened. The students who’d been arbitrarily labeled as bloomers outscored

their peers, on average, by ten IQ points. That’s a marked increase in IQ from one year to the next.

Naturally, many observers were stunned by these results, wondering how a simple label could elevate a child’s IQ score a year later. But the explanation was fairly straightforward: When the elementary school teachers interacted with the “bloomers,” they were primed to see academic progress. So each time the bloomers answered a question correctly, the answer seemed to be an early sign of academic achievement. And each time they answered a question incorrectly, the error was seen as an anomaly, swamped by the general sense that they were in the process of blooming. During the year, then, the teachers praised these students for their successes, overlooked their failures, and devoted lots of energy to the task of ensuring that they would grow to justify their promising academic labels. In other words, the teachers overlooked many of

the so-called bloomers’ mistakes, and provided them with extra help and coaching so they could succeed.

Again, the lesson here is to be aware of – and indeed to question – the value of the labels we encounter. Many labels aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Part II: The World Between UsJust beyond the world that exists within our heads is the world that exists between us – the world that’s populated by roughly seven billion other people. More than we may realize, the mere presence of other people in the room can shape how we think, feel, and behave.

According to Professor Alter, much of this has to do with innate biological processes. For example, men generally produce more testosterone – and consequently tend to become more showy and aggressive when surrounded by beautiful

women. Also, neonatal mothers unconsciously produce more of the hormone oxytocin when their newborns are near, which creates a profound bonding effect. So, while men may become more reckless in the presence of an attractive woman, mothers are likely to become fiercely protective of their babies, and at times even irrational in the face of perceived threats.

“Our hormone-driven sensitivity to the presence of other people – whether strangers or loved ones – is enough to change how we behave,” writes Alter. Part II of this book looks at how being alone differs from being surrounded by others, and how adding or subtracting people from the environment can change how we behave across a variety of situations.

One of those situations involves performing in the presence of a crowd. Research suggests that the mere fact of being watched can help

elevate certain types of people to greater levels of performance. While for others, being watched has the opposite effect.

This is certainly true of athletes. A recent study of U.S. college basketball players showed that strong players – defined as those who sank 70 percent of their shots while playing alone – actually made 80 percent of their shots in the presence of four onlookers. Meanwhile, weaker players who made only 36 percent of their shots while alone, sank just 25 percent when observed. The stronger players were somehow energized by the presence of onlookers, while having an audience distracted the already overloaded weaker players.

The lesson here, perhaps, is that when we set out to learn a new craft – such as playing the piano, or public speaking – we may be wise not to step out in front of a crowd too early on in our development. Until we’ve gained sufficient mastery of our new

craft, and the self-confidence that goes along with that, the presence of others could actually set us back.

In addition to our hardwired biology, our cultural background also has a strong influence on how we perceive the people around us. For example, Westerners are more likely to believe that we are profoundly distinct from other people; we tend to see ourselves as individuals first.

This philosophical belief, known as “individualism”, is very different from the East Asian belief in “collectivism,” which implies that everyone is interconnected, and our actions should benefit the group as a whole above any one individual. Although people from both cultural groups recognize that they’re at once individuals and members of a group, the individual component looms larger for Westerners, while the collective component carries relatively more weight for

Easterners.

Such cultural differences can play out in powerful, unseen ways. For example, while almost every advertisement in Korea promotes the values of tradition, conformity, and following trends, most advertisements in the United States will emphasize choice, freedom, and uniqueness. While a common Korean ad might claim: “Nine out of ten people are wearing this product,” such a statement would repel many American consumers, who would think “If everyone else is wearing it, I’m going to wear something different!” By contrast, an American ad might say, “This product isn’t for everybody. But then again, you aren’t everybody.”

“Culture is a powerful and pervasive ingredient of our thoughts,” writes Alter. “While we can’t help but live in a particular country or belong to certain groups, with practice we can become more conscious of the fact that our interactions

with others – and indeed our entire worldview – is profoundly shaped by a combination of distinct cultural norms and values.”

Part III: The World Around UsEven broader than the different cultures that exist between us is the expansive physical world that surrounds us. Because we humans are products of our natural environment, the physical world (e.g. colors, weather conditions, etc.) contributes to some of the most striking quirks in human thinking and behavior. But again, we are usually blind to these effects on our decision-making. Says Alter: The physical world often “hides in plain sight” precisely because it forms a constant backdrop against which we live our ever-changing lives.

Color, in particular, can have a profound effect on our mood, and how we react in certain situations. Many studies have confirmed, for example, that the color blue can have a calming effect on

people, while bright red has the opposite effect. In one such study involving college-aged white males, the participants were more anxious and hostile when exposed to red light, rather than blue or white, and their visual cortex—the part of the brain that responds to color—was also far more active under the red light. Their heart rate and blood pressure also escalated, showing that the red light can trigger strong physical effects.

“The effects of color aren’t just idly fascinating,” writes Alter. “They can profoundly influence how we experience our lives every day.” In other words, that very same red that agitates college kids in a scientific laboratory also agitates them when they load Web pages with red backgrounds. In one series of experiments, for example, people felt more agitated while waiting for a red or yellow web page to load than when the same page had a blue background. This agitation made them impatient, so they believed that the yellow and

red pages took longer to load than the blue page did, though both pages loaded at the same speed. Later they also claimed they would be less likely to recommend the site to a friend.

So, if you’re in the business of Web development, and your client suggests using a bold red background for some new real estate listing site, you might want to push back at him a little on that. But then again, if your client is looking to build a dating site, that may be a different story altogether. Consider another experiment cited by Alter to see how the strategic use of the color red can spark the romantic interests of young men, under certain circumstances.

In this experiment, five young women spent the day hitchhiking in Northern France (their safety monitored by several hidden observers). The women changed their shirts throughout the day, choosing randomly from a menu of black, white,

red, yellow, blue, and green. Female drivers weren’t particularly sympathetic, stopping only 9 percent of the time regardless of the color of the hitchhikers’ T-shirts. Male motorists, on the other hand, were more considerate – they stopped to help far more often. But the men were also far more discerning when it came to color: whereas only 12 percent of all male motorists stopped when the women wore black, white, yellow, blue, or green, 21 percent stopped when the women wore red shirts. Since only men were swayed by the color red – and rather dramatically so – the researchers concluded that red enhances sexual appeal.

For all their considerable power, colors are but one feature of the physical environments that we inhabit. Our senses can’t help but notice other factors as well.

For example, when we wander from a nice

neighborhood into one that is seemly dirty or in disrepair, our behavior can shift to match our environment. Where most of us might never consider littering while strolling down a well-maintained city block, rather amazingly when we find ourselves walking in a dirtier part of town, we suddenly become litterbugs. It’s this sort of phenomenon that’s at the root of the heavily-debated “broken windows” theory of crime (popularized by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani), which suggests that would-be burglars and vandals are encouraged to commit crimes in neighborhoods with broken windows, believing that residents who don’t care enough to maintain their property are less likely to call the police, or take other steps, to defend their property from threat.

In one experiment to test the effects of clean vs. unclean environments on people’s behavior, a group of psychologists placed flyers on 139 cars

in a large hospital parking lot. They were curious about whether the cars’ drivers would throw the flyers in the trash, or whether they would instead litter by leaving them in the parking lot. Before some of the cars’ drivers emerged from the parking lot elevator, the researchers scattered discarded flyers, candy wrappers, and coffee cups throughout the parking lot. At other times, they removed every last bit of trash from the parking lot floor, conveying the idea that littering was both unusual and inappropriate. Fifty percent of all drivers littered when the parking lot was already covered in litter (“What’s one more piece of trash atop a foundation of garbage?” they may have thought.) But only ten percent littered when the parking lot was spotless!

Temperature can also have a profound effect on our behavior and decision-making.

To illustrate his point, Alter points to the surprising

effects of weather conditions on civil uprisings in tropical countries. As we know, the tropical islands closest to the equator generally oscillate between two major climatic states, known as El Niño and La Niña phases (literally Spanish for “the boy” and “the girl”). El Niño years are characterized by warmer, dryer weather and unsettled stormy conditions, whereas La Niña years tend to be cooler, wetter, and more meteorologically stable. As it turns out, civil conflicts in tropical regions are twice as likely to erupt during warmer El Niño years as during cooler La Niña years.

Warm weather, which tends to occur during El Niño periods, can also spawn violence between individuals living just outside of tropical areas. Judges and police officers across the Southern United States have learned to be especially vigilant on hot days, as the rate of domestic violence in some States tends to mirror the temperature.

The same vigilance brought on by poor weather also affects the enthusiasm of stock brokers and other financial players, who tend to avoid investing on rainy days. In the early 1990s, an economist managed to gather data on weather conditions and stock exchange data in New York City between 1927 and 1989. Noting that stock traders, like all people, tend to be happier and therefore more optimistic on sunny days, the economist predicted that the stock markets would appreciate in value on sunny rather than cloudy days. The economist’s prediction turned out to be true. On gloomy days, traders tended to sit on their hands. But on sunny days, traders were far more bullish.

Just as smart politicians have learned to harness the power of these unseen physical effects – as Mayor Giuliani did with his Broken Windows agenda to fight crime in NYC – the rest of us can be more attuned to the impact that our physical environment may be having on our mood, plus the

moods of others, as we go about our daily lives. Perhaps, as some clever stock traders have already figured out, there may be a way to profit from it too.

ConclusionThe powerful, unseen forces chronicled by Adam Alter in Drunk Tank Pink affect us every day. They affect us when we’re at work, at play, when we’re alone, when we’re interacting with others, and when we’re making decisions that range from the trivial to the life-changing.

We’re now aware that our decisions are susceptible to subtle changes as we move from summer to winter; or from a blue-colored room to one that’s painted bright red. Because we’re more aware of these profound, hidden forces, we’re now better placed to capitalize on them when they stand to help us; and also better able to resist them when they might hurt us.