Want to predict a footie result? Don't even think about it

Imagine you've just paying an proficient good money for their verdict and they say to you: \"Can you secure on a pair of transactions whilst I don't conceive most this\". You'd be forgiven for intellection they've gone silly. They haw have. But added possibility is that you've chosen a shrewd proficient who's totally up-to-speed with the latest decision-making research: Ap Dijksterhuis and his colleagues hit just shown that people with skillfulness in football are better at predicting match outcomes when they spend instance not consciously intellection most their predictions.

In an initial experiment, 352 land undergrads were separated into football experts and non-experts, based on their self-ratings, and they were all asked to make predictions (home or absent win, or draw) most four forthcoming football matches in the crowning land association - the Eredivisie. The students were shown the four pairs of competing teams for note seconds, and then digit third of them were asked to make unmediated predictions; digit third were asked to conceive consciously for digit transactions before making their predictions; and a final third engaged in a distracting, numerical module duty for digit transactions before making their predictions.

For the non-experts, it didn't make some difference to their success whether or not they were able to spend instance considering their predictions - they were precise between forty and banknote per coin of the instance regardless. By contrast, the experts' predictions were significantly more faithful when they were inattentive for digit minutes, compared with when they prefabricated an instant or a considered prevision (approx 60 vs. 50 per coin accuracy). In other words, the experts were most faithful when they spent instance not consciously intellection most the problem at hand.

This haw seem freakish but it's all conformable with Dijksterhuis's Unconscious Thought Theory and with the folk wisdom that says it's a good intent to sleep on a problem. According to Dijksterhuis's theory, the head is sometimes less unerect to the biases that afflict the conscious mind, thus ensuring that an proficient gives cod coefficient to the most important factors.

This was borne out in a second experiment, such like the first, in which students predicted the outcomes of World Cup football matches. Again, inattentive experts prefabricated the most faithful predictions. This time, however, the researchers also asked participants to judge the teams' world rankings - ostensibly this is the most reliable soothsayer for the outcomes of World Cup matches. For experts who spent instance consciously considering their match predictions, there was no correlation between their noesis of team rankings and their prevision accuracy. By contrast, for the experts who spent instance not intellection most their predictions, there was a correlation between their senior noesis and predictive accuracy. Not consciously intellection most the problem at hand seemed to ensure that experts paying cod attention to the most important factor affecting match outcomes.

The researchers warned that head thought is not ever crack to conscious thought. But they concluded: \"Our results stingy that unconscious thought haw well be helpful in more situations than some people currently think.\"

_________________________________

Dijksterhuis A, Bos MW, van der Leij A, & van Baaren RB (2009). Predicting Soccer Matches After Unconscious and Conscious Thought as a Function of Expertise. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS PMID.