Partner News (e-Report)

Isentia - Eco trends in social media

Research First Why Everything Takes Longer Than You Expect

Aon - Professional Indemnity insurance


Eco trends in social media 

Can we really understand the mysterious and random virality of social media? In an immense sea of content, how do we predict which trends will generate enough movement to form a wave?

Some trends can be picked ahead of their time, however the explosiveness of a random tweet, call-to-action or cat video is almost impossible to pin-point.

While trends will mostly fade back and be replaced with another, the occasional and rare trend can have legitimate and measurable impacts on society. A recent example of this is the anti-plastic straw movement that took off in 2018.

It started with a terribly sad and visceral video of a straw being removed from the nose of a sea turtle – it’s likely you’ve seen it yourself. The internet is filled with images and videos relating to the impacts of pollution and climate change on the wildlife, however this video happened to stick in the social media sphere long enough to cause a stir.

In the context of environmental upset and helplessness, the plastic straw became the epitome of our harmful single-use plastic culture. In the space of a couple of months, plastic straws were disappearing from venues and public discourse stigmatised their use. Massive chain restaurants such as McDonalds and Starbucks announced plans to ban the plastic straw, as well as some cities and countries introducing bans or taxes on similar single-use products.

While this is ultimately a positive movement with good intention, rejecting the use of plastic straws is an easy and short-term relief to an overwhelming frustration with single-use consumer culture. This year we’ve been seeing similar trends emerge with the rise of keep-cup popularity and debates over plastic bags in super markets.

These trends may be tokenistic, however, they are telling of widespread sentiment and signify the public’s desire to be heard and responded too.

Research First

Why Everything Takes Longer Than You Expect

Rosabeth Moss Kanter, the Director of the Harvard University Advanced Leadership Initiative, once said that “the middle of every successful project looks like a disaster”. I’ve always loved that idea, but the view from social science tends to be that it’s the start of projects where the problems lie. When we estimate how long a project will take, it seems we’re wired to chronically underestimate the time needed. This is such a common problem that it is known as ‘The Planning Fallacy’. It’s expressed even better in Hofstadter’s Law. Named after the cognitive scientist, Douglas Hofstadter, this law states that “it always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law”.

The important part for our purposes is that ‘always’ part, because we fall into this planning trap over and over again. It’s not that we can’t see that projects tend to miss deadlines and budgets, just that we think the next one will work better.

This provides a wonderful lens into one of the most counteractive findings from psychology – that none of us is much good at predicting how we’re going to feel in future. Predicting future emotions is called ‘affective forecasting’ and all the research evidence shows that its rarely straightforward. The problem isn’t, as the Rolling Stones noted, that we can’t always get what we want, it’s that we rarely know what we need. This has real implications for your wellbeing because it shows that while right now you might think a new house, spouse, or waistline will make you happy, the chances are they won’t. Or at least not in the way you were hoping.

The gap between what we think we’ll feel when we make our predictions and what we actually end up feeling is called, imaginatively, ‘the impact bias’. This bias has two parts – intensity and duration. This describes how achieving our goals doesn’t make us as happy as we expected (the intensity of the emotion), and how that happiness doesn’t last as long as we anticipated (the duration of the emotion).

We fail to understand how we’ll feel in future, because, as Psychology Today put it, “we have trouble seeing through the filter of the now”. It’s the same with predicting how long projects will take. What seems to be at fault here is a cognitive bias known as ‘The Optimism Bias’. This describes how we overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes and underestimate negative ones. If you don’t think that sounds like you, it might surprise you to read that it is “one of the most consistent, prevalent, and robust biases documented in psychology and behavioural economics”. Given this, it’s no surprise that all of us at some point will get to enjoy “the whooshing noise” deadlines make as they go by.

As a result, at the start of every new project we manage to convince ourselves that, this time, the best-case scenario will be realised. When we ‘plan’ we tend to focus on the details of the project steps rather than simply reflecting on how long it took to do something similar previously. But with projects as with so much in life, thinking about past performances rather than best cases is usually the smarter bet.

Carl Davidson is the Chief Social Scientist at Research First


Discover how to use Behaviour Insights to ‘work smarter not harder’ at 2018 Senior Professionals Event. Senior Behavioural Strategist, Dan Bennett from Ogilvy Change (UK) will present a participative seminar designed specifically for senior PR professionals on ‘How to use Behavioural Insight to solve our biggest challenges’ in Auckland (10 Oct) and Wellington (12 Oct). View full details here



I’ve used the Kanter quote for years, and it’s all over the internet, but it’s not really clear to me where it comes from. It might be that the original is actually “everything feels like a failure when you are in the middle”. If any of you know the original and the source, please get in touch.

‘The Planning Fallacy’ is another brainchild of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. It’s covered well in Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux). It’s also worth reading Roger Buehler, Dale Griffin, and Michael Ross’s (1994) “ Exploring the Planning Fallacy" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 67, No. 3. 366-381.

You can read about Hofstadter’s Law in his wonderful (1980) Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid , Vintage Books Edition, p. 152 or find a great summary in Oliver Burkeman’s (2008) “Why everything takes longer than you think” ( The Guardian, August 2nd, 2008)

The best place to start reading about The Optimism Bias is Tali Sharot’s (2011) “The Optimism Bias”, Current Biology Volume 21, Issue 23, pages R941-R945. That is where I got the quote about “one of the most consistent, prevalent, and robust biases documented in psychology” from.

The line about deadlines whooshing by is, of course, a tribute the great and often missed Douglas Adams, from The salmon of doubt: Hitchhiking the galaxy one last time . London: Macmillan, 2002.


Professional Indemnity insurance

Aon offers PRINZ members a comprehensive package covering 8 different liability policies, underwritten by Vero Liability. Click here if you are considering Professional Indemnity insurance for 2018. To log in use login details below. 

Username: Guest 

Password: Guest123*