People Drive to Reach Round-Number Goals
Individuals will put in work to reach a round-number goal, such as a 1,300 SAT score rather than 1,290, that is not commensurate with the absolute amount of the improvement. Christopher Intagliata reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Ever been running the treadmill, exhausted, ready to quit—but you're at the 2.9 mile mark, so you run that last 10th to make it an even three? Why do you do it? Well it may be because round numbers are intrinsically motivating to us, even if there's no obvious reward for reaching them. That's according to a study in the journal Psychological Science. [Devin Pope and Uri Simonsohn, "Round Numbers as Goals: Evidence From Baseball, SAT Takers, and the Lab"]
Researchers studied three decades of Major League Baseball batting averages and play-by-play data. They found that players were four times as likely to end the season with a batting average of .300, rather than .299. And players purposely manipulated their averages, by choosing when to swing away or work out a walk, or when to be pinch-hit for.
Examining over four million SAT scores revealed a similar trend. Students with scores of, say, 1,290 rather than 1,300 were more likely to retake the test—even though admissions data showed that administrators didn't seem to favor rounded scores.
It’s not clear why these seemingly arbitrary goals are important to us. But they illustrate internal motivation that could confound some ideas in economics. Because some increments are apparently more equal than others.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
