Explained: Why We Don't Like Change

Thinking about trying to shake things up at work? Brimming with new ideas and strategies? Hoping to get your organization to try a new way of doing things, or maybe just get your family to alter their holiday traditions a bit? Good for you. But if you are going to be an advocate for change, it might help you to start by understanding what you are up against, psychologically speaking.

It's not just that people fear change, though they undoubtedly do. It's also that they genuinely believe (often on an unconscious level) that when you've been doing something a particular way for some time, it must be a good way to do things. And the longer you've been doing it that way, the better it is.

So change isn't simply about embracing something unknown -- it's about giving up something old (and therefore good) for something new (and therefore not good).

A November 2010 study shows that people have a very reliable and tangible preference for things that have been around longer. In one study, students preferred the course requirement described as the status quo over a new version (regardless of whether the new version meant more or less coursework), and liked it even more when it had been around for 100 years rather than only 10 years. In another, people who were told that acupuncture had been in existence for 2,000 years expressed more favorable attitudes toward it than those who were told it existed for 250 years.

The bottom line is, unconsciously we all believe that longevity = goodness. There are, admittedly, plenty of instances where this is perfectly rational. When a particular product or way of doing things has stood the test of time, it is probably superior to alternatives in at least some respects.

The problem is that longevity and tradition aren't always accurate predictors of goodness -- inertia, habit, marketing prowess, market monopoly and fear of change can all be the real reasons why we haven't tried something new. Also, there are areas of life that really should be unaffected by this sort of bias -- in domains like art or cuisine, how long something has been around should have little to do with how aesthetically pleasing or delicious you find it.

And yet, it does. In one study, people who saw a painting described as having been painted in 1905 found it far more pleasing to look at than people who saw the same painting described as created in 2005. In another, they admired the appearance of a tree described as being 4,500 years old more than did those who thought the same tree just 500 years old.

In my favorite example, study participants were given a piece of European chocolate. It was described to them as having first been sold in its region either 73 years ago or 3 years ago. Guess which group rated the chocolate as better-tasting.

It's not impossible to overcome an unconscious bias, but if you want to succeed you need to start be realizing that it's there. Change and innovation requires that we not only convince others that new can be good, but that we address their (often unconscious) assumption that what's been around longer looks, works, and tastes better.

For more strategies you can use to motivate yourself and others, check out my new HBR eSingle 9 Things Successful People Do Differently.

 

 

 

Follow Heidi Grant Halvorson, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hghalvorson

Comments

[Scholastica8]

01:15 PM on 11/06/2011

This is difficult to parse. Yes, there is a tendency to view something older as better, but it's more complex.

There is something comforting about the old and established. It may not be that it's better in quality, but it may be that it simply "feels" safer.

No matter how daring a person is, there is still some part of that person's being that physically and emotionally needs a refuge. I think that "older" represents refuge.

[Endogenous Light Nexus]

06:08 PM on 11/05/2011

It seems likely that there is some variability as to how much people resist change. With everyone falling somewhere on a continuum of resistance from a maximum to minimum value. Of course it's likely to be more complicated than that, with different things and different classes of things being resisted with different intensities in any one person. And those intensities may be expected to vary highly with circumstances and time. But if we pick any one thing at any one moment in time and then grade a number of people on how much resistance they may have to it in the circumstances they are in at that time, they will all fall somewhere along a continuum from maximum to minimum resistance to change. Take politics for example. The more timid and fearful someone is, the more resistant to any kind of political change they are likely to be, and voila they end up on the conservative end of the scale as teabaggers and other types of reactionaries. Braver types will always be more willing to take risks, by definition, so would be more willing to accept change, e.g. liberals and progressives. Politics explained! Nice article!

[Randy Zeitman]

05:47 PM on 11/05/2011

I'm in complete agreement but I want to float what I think is an existential version of what you're saying, and that is the people don't like change because they fear dying. If one thinks of "me" as my habits, preferences, values, etc. then to ask me to change one of those who be 'killing off' part of me, and unless there's clear evidence it's worth it then it's not gonna happen (and one's word that it will be won't be accepted simply because they'll say 'but you're not me'.)

[djcrwdplza]

05:45 PM on 11/05/2011

Anything with longevity is assumed to be more popular and long-lasting for a good reason. Businesses that are around a long time must be providing a superior product or service. Traditions are held onto because they provide a sense of community, tribal or cultural connection. There are biological reasons we would be drawn to those items and events that have been long established. It's used as a marketing ploy for good reason, e.g., "Old Navy" - not old at all, really, and called that from day one. The name lends it some sort of gravitas.

[researcher]

02:22 PM on 11/05/2011

I taught transformational change seminars for 20 years and I still struggle with changes in my life.

guess we teach what we need to learn ourselves.

I taught something that required a 180 degrees paradigm shift in how they did their work processes. lecturing on it had little impact as they believed it was just another flavor of the month or a work faster program.

but I learned that doing a simulation was the key. when they saw it, touched it, and did it, then most accepted it as a better way and process.

a good video to view is the business of paradigms by joel barker. that paradigm effect has much to do with our resistence to any changes in our lives.

we can see this resistence to change the very best in politics and religion and interesting in science that has become a religion of materialistic scientism.