If you’ve spent more than five minutes in a school building this year or have children in your home, you’ve heard it — “67!”

This completely meaningless phrase, often accompanied by a shrugging hand motion, is the current reigning champ of brain rot slang. Teachers have no clue why. Parents are baffled. But as a psychology teacher, I know that nothing humans do is truly random.

The “67” trend is a perfect, real-world case study for some of the biggest ideas in social and developmental psychology. This might be the dumbest blog post I’ve ever written – but here we go. This is my attempt to break down why this bit of nonsense has become Gen Alpha’s official language.

The Power of In-Groups and Belonging

The most powerful psychological driver of the “67” trend comes from the work of Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s social identity theory.

This theory states that part of our self-concept (the way we define ourselves) comes from the groups we belong to. We see the world in two camps: the in-group (us) and the out-group (them).

And we all want to be a member of an in-group. According to Abraham Maslow (see Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), human motivation is based on fulfilling certain needs, including the need to love and belonging. This means that we all have needs for friendship, intimacy, trust, acceptance, receiving and giving affection, and being part of a group.

Knowing what “67” is (and more importantly, knowing the specific, nonsensical context it’s used in) is a fast, audible, and visual signal that you are a member of the current, online youth culture. The in-group! And for a developing adolescent, meeting this need is crucial. Their entire social worlds are structured around forming and maintaining friendships and group affiliations. When a tween or teen adopts the “67” trend, they are actively seeking to satisfy this core psychological requirement.

Consider the opposite of belonging…psychologists have found that social exclusion can activate the same brain regions associated with physical pain. Even being excluded from something trivial like a new word fad, in a kid’s mind, can be consequential. The brain treats social pain (like being left out) with the same urgency as bodily harm.

Therefore, participating in viral trends like “67” is a powerful, low-effort mechanism teenagers use to reduce anxiety over potential social rejection and confirm their status within their peer group.

Because “67” is intentionally vague and resists any concrete definition, it creates an instant barrier to those outside the in-group (this includes anyone older than 18 years old). When an adult asks, “What does that even mean?”, the simple, accurate answer – “Nothing” – only increases their confusion. This makes the youth feel clever and reinforces their unique group identity. The confusion of the out-group strengthens the pride of the in-group. I mean, who doesn’t love an inside joke?

Conformity and Normative Social Influence

While the first person who said “67” may have done it creatively, everyone after them is engaging in the psychological process of conformity.

Specifically, this is something called normative social influence, the desire to gain approval and avoid rejection from the group. Solomon Asch famously demonstrated this when participants knowingly gave incorrect answers to simple line length questions just to agree with the majority.

You might not even find “67” that funny, but if everyone else in your peer group is saying it, using the slang is a simple, low-effort way to fit in. It’s an automatic social behavior that prevents you from being seen as “out of touch” or “uncool.”

Social media algorithms pile on. When a trend is pushed on TikTok and Instagram to millions of users, the perception of a group norm is amplified. You see enough people doing it that your brain perceives it as a universal, necessary social cue.

Cognitive Fluency: Nonsense as a Brain Break

Why this phrase and not another? Part of the answer can be found in our cognitive wiring.

Viral slang often requires low cognitive load. Phrases like “67” are short and rhythmic. It’s also easy to repeat. They don’t require deep thought or linguistic precision.

Compare this to other slang that requires specific knowledge (like using a quote from a movie or TV show). The barrier to entry for using those sentences is much higher and requires some background knowledge. “67” is a purely emotional/social placeholder. Using it lets your brain disengage from the constant flood of information that school is full of.

Add the fact that repetition increases a concept’s cognitive fluency (how easily the brain processes it). The more the phrase is heard on a loop in songs, videos, and in hallways, the “stickier” it becomes in your mind, making it an easy default word to grab when you just need to say something funny (enter the Michael Scott that’s what she said joke).

Generational Resistance and Individuation

Finally, “67” is a small act of rebellion. It’s a key psychological task for adolescents known as individuation.

Every young generation creates its own language to set itself apart from the one before. The flappers called things “the bee’s knees,” the hippies said “groovy,” Millennials called everything “swag,” and “yeet” had a good run with Gen Z.

In the 21st century, the fastest way to assert independence is to create a cultural artifact that adults simply cannot grasp. By embracing a completely undefinable word, Gen Alpha is trolling authority and defining their own space. They are subtly challenging the adults in their lives (teachers, parents) who value logical, precise language, and they are carving out a linguistic space on the internet that is uniquely their own, where they are the experts and the arbiters of cool.

So, the next time you hear “67,” don’t just roll your eyes. View it as a fascinating real-time experiment in social identity theory, conformity, and generational individuation.

It might not mean anything literally, but psychologically says differently. And if you try to explain the psychology behind the trend to a kid, you’ll be so uncool that you might just end it… until the next one comes along.

March Madness is here, and with it comes the annual ritual of filling out a bracket. It’s one of the few times a year where people who haven’t watched a single college basketball game suddenly have very strong opinions about mid-major Cinderella teams. But why do we get so invested in something we have almost no control over? The answer, as always, lies in psychology.

The Illusion of Control: You’re Not a Psychic, But Your Brain Thinks You Are

Even though the odds of filling out a perfect bracket are roughly 1 in 9.2 quintillion (yes, that’s a real number), we still convince ourselves we might have the magic touch this year. Sure, we know a perfect bracket is nearly impossible, but winning our bracket pool? That feels totally doable. Why? It’s all thanks to the illusion of control—the belief that we have more influence over random events than we actually do.

Maybe you pick based on team mascots, jersey colors, or because you once went on a college visit there. Or maybe you’ve done hours of research on KenPom rankings and adjusted efficiency margins. Either way, once those picks are locked in, your brain treats them like well-reasoned decisions. You own them. They’re yours.

The Endowment Effect: Your Bracket Becomes Your Baby

The second you submit your picks, something weird happens…you get way too attached to them. This is thanks to the endowment effect, which makes us overvalue things simply because they belong to us.

Picked a 7 seed to go to the Final Four? Now you’re suddenly their biggest fan, defending them against any doubters, even if you just learned their star player’s name 15 minutes ago. Your bracket isn’t just a sheet of paper anymore, it’s an extension of you, and that’s why every busted pick hurts way more than it logically should.

The Thrill of Being Right (Even If You’re Mostly Wrong)

Let’s be honest, no one remembers all the bad picks. But if you correctly predict one major upset? You’ll bring it up for years.

This is because of confirmation bias. It’s our tendency to remember information that supports our beliefs while conveniently forgetting the stuff that doesn’t. You might whiff on 80% of your bracket, but if you nail that one 14-over-3 upset? You’ll be reminding everyone about it until next March.

Self-Serving Bias: Wins Are Ours, Losses Are Just Bad Luck

And when we do get that pick right, it’s because we knew that team was going to win. When we get one wrong? Well, that was just a fluke, a bad call, or an upset no one could’ve seen coming. This is self-serving bias in action, our tendency to take credit for successes while blaming failures on external factors.

If you correctly pick a 12-over-5 upset, you’ll probably be reminding everyone that you called it for the rest of the tournament. But if your championship pick gets bounced in the first round? “No one could’ve predicted that,” you’ll say as you quietly rip up your bracket.

Hot Hand Fallacy: Riding the Momentum Train

One of the biggest psychological traps in bracket-making is the hot hand fallacy, or the belief that a team (or player) on a winning streak is more likely to keep winning. If a 10-seed won their conference tournament in dominant fashion, it’s easy to assume they’ll stay hot and pull off a big upset. But momentum in sports is notoriously unpredictable, and past performance isn’t always a reliable indicator of future results.

We see this bias in betting markets, too. When a team gets hot late in the season, public betting money floods in, artificially inflating their odds. But just like in blackjack, past wins don’t make the next outcome any more certain.

Case in point: The Auburn Tigers still pulled the number 1 overall seed despite losing 3 of their last 4 to close out the season. Should we bet against them?

Groupthink: The Bracket Herd Mentality

Filling out a bracket in an office pool or group contest? Get ready for some groupthink. Once a certain team becomes a trendy upset pick—say, a 12-seed everyone swears is a lock to take down a 5-seed, people start picking them simply because everyone else is.

Nobody wants to be the only person who picked a bust, so we subconsciously conform, assuming the crowd must be onto something. So what’s the downside? When everyone is zigging, it’s sometimes better to zag. One of the strategies to win a big pool is to not have the same picks as everyone else. Of course you’ll still want to pick the winners.

Informational Conformity: Trusting the 'Experts'

Every March, we turn to professional bracketologists (yes, that’s a real job), assuming they have some special insight we don’t. This is informational conformity, the tendency to defer to experts or the majority when we’re unsure of something.

Even though no one can truly predict the madness of March, we still let expert picks influence our own, believing they must know better. But at the end of the day, their brackets get busted just like ours. If you don’t believe me, I once participated in a bracket pool with 3rd graders and finished in the bottom half. The kid who won picked teams based on their mascots. Humbling to say the least.

The Madness Never Ends

So why do we keep coming back to this madness, year after year, knowing full well our brackets will be in shambles by day two? Simple: it’s fun. The unpredictability, the buzzer-beaters, the one shining moment where you feel like a genius, it’s all part of the experience.

And if you’ve learned anything from this, maybe next time you’ll think twice before blindly following the crowd, betting on a hot streak, or getting too attached to your picks. Then again, you’ll probably still fill out a bracket just like last year. Because, well, that’s just how our brains work.

I’ve been watching Running Point on Netflix. It’s a show about the daughter of an LA pro basketball team owner who suddenly finds herself in charge. It’s packed with quirky, low-stakes drama—the kind that somehow keeps you hitting “Next Episode.”

In Episode 6, The Yips, one of the players is struggling at the free-throw line. Desperate for a fix, the team calls in the coach of the Indian Women’s National Team, who introduces him to the most unorthodox (but effective) shooting technique of all time: the underhand “granny shot.”

In practice, it works like a charm. He’s draining every free throw. But come game time? He ditches it, goes back to his old shot, and, you guessed it, bricks it.

This storyline isn’t just TV drama. It’s psychology. And ditching the granny shot isn’t just for TV comedies. It’s based on a true story.

Why Do We Ignore What Works?

Humans crave social belonging more than logical decision-making. Even when faced with a clearly superior method, we often reject it if it makes us stand out too much. And that’s exactly what happened in real life with NBA legends Wilt Chamberlain and Rick Barry.

Rick Barry, a Hall of Famer, was one of the best free-throw shooters of all time. His signature was the granny shot. He sunk free throws at a crazy 89.3% because he wasn’t afraid to look a little goofy while draining shots from the line.

Then there was Wilt Chamberlain. On March 2, 1962, he dropped an unthinkable 100 points in a single game, partly because he shot his free throws underhand. In fact, he drained 28 of 32 from the line that game, an absolutely wild stat. And that season, he posted the best free-throw percentage of his entire career.

Then? He stopped.

Even though it worked, Chamberlain abandoned the granny shot because, as he admitted in his autobiography, he felt “like a sissy.” His free-throw percentage plummeted, and he never shot that well from the line again.

This wasn’t about ability. It was about psychology.

For years Rick Barry has offered to teach pro and college players the underhand shot and for years he’s been rejected by almost everyone. All because it makes you look silly. SMH.

The Spotlight Effect: We Think Everyone’s Watching

One of the biggest reasons players refuse to embrace the granny shot—or any unconventional tactic—is The Spotlight Effect. This cognitive bias makes people believe they’re being watched and judged far more than they actually are.

Think about the last time you spilled something on your shirt or pants. You probably felt like a walking disaster, convinced everyone around you was silently judging your clumsiness and sloppy outfit. But in reality? Most people were too caught up in their own Spotlight Effect, worrying about their own perceived embarrassments, to even notice.

For Chamberlain and countless other players, the fear wasn’t missing shots. It was looking uncool while making them. The irony was that most fans just care about points on the board, not the shooting form that gets them there. But to the player, that fear of embarrassment feels massive.

Groupthink: When Everyone Buys Into the Same Bad Idea

It’s not just individual players resisting change, it’s the entire culture of basketball. Enter Groupthink.

Coined by social psychologist Irving Janis, Groupthink occurs when a group prioritizes harmony over rational decision-making. In the NBA, this manifests as players, coaches, and analysts sticking to “normal” shooting mechanics even when the numbers show otherwise.

Take Shaquille O’Neal—one of the most dominant forces in NBA history. His free throws though…not even close to charity at the charity stripe. Opposing teams even designed an entire strategy around it they called Hack-a-Shaq. Since he was so unreliable at the line, defenders intentionally fouled him, forcing him to shoot free throws rather than allowing easy buckets in the paint.

Despite this glaring weakness, he refused to switch to the underhand shot.

Rick Barry, the underhand free-throw king himself, once offered to teach Shaq the technique. Shaq’s response? “I’d rather shoot 0% than shoot underhand.”

Yes, you read that right. He would rather miss every single free throw than risk looking silly at the line. That’s choosing conformity over effectiveness, even when the stakes were sky-high.

Solomon Asch and the Pressure to Conform

This reluctance to stand out isn’t just a sports phenomenon, it’s human nature. In the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a now-famous experiment on conformity.

Participants were asked to match the length of a line to one of three options—a pretty easy task. But here’s the twist: They were surrounded by confederates (actors who were in on the experiment) who intentionally gave the wrong answer. The result? A whopping 75% of participants conformed at least once, choosing an obviously incorrect answer just because everyone else did.

Chamberlain’s free-throw dilemma is a textbook example of normative conformity. He knew the underhand shot was better. He had proof it worked. But the desire to fit in or to avoid looking different overpowered logic.

The Lesson? Conformity Costs Us

The fear of standing out often overrides our best judgment. Whether it’s a struggling NBA player on Running Point, a real-life Hall of Famer leaving points on the table, or a participant in Asch’s experiment denying what’s right in front of them, the lesson is the same:

Sometimes, the best way to win is to ignore the crowd and do what works—even if it looks ridiculous.

The next time you hesitate to try something unconventional because you’re worried about how it looks, remember this: The people you think are judging you are probably too busy worrying about their own spotlight effect to care.

And if you ever find yourself at the free-throw line, go ahead and give the granny shot a try. I mean, I won’t (because, let’s be honest, I have an image to maintain), but you absolutely should.

Have you heard the myth about Pygmalion, the Greek sculptor who fell so in love with a piece of art he sculpted that it came to life? Pygmalion's expectations and beliefs manifested the transformation of his statue into a real person, or so the story goes.

Interesting, but what does that have to do with teaching?

The Pygmalion Effect: From Myth to Psychology

The Pygmalion Effect in psychology suggests that people perform better when others have higher expectations of them. In the 1960s, psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson put this theory to the test in an elementary school classroom. In their experiment, known as Pygmalion in the Classroom, teachers were informed that, based on test scores, some students in their classrooms were "academic bloomers." These kids, at some point, would make incredible strides; they just might not be there yet. The teachers were given the list of students and the year played out. What the teachers didn’t know is that, in reality, the students were classified randomly.

What do you think happened at the end of the year?

If you guessed that the "bloomers" demonstrated significant academic gains compared to their peers, you’d be correct. The key factor for these kids, according to Rosenthal and Jacobson, was the teachers' belief in their potential. This experiment highlighted the powerful connection between teacher expectations and student achievement and showcased the transformative influence educators can wield. In both cases, whether in the myth or the psychological phenomenon, the power of expectations plays a central role.

But this effect isn’t just limited to schools—it happens in workplaces, leadership, and even sports. A 1982 study in the Israeli Defense Forces found that trainees randomly labeled as having "high leadership potential" outperformed their peers. Why? Their instructors pushed them harder, gave them better training, and expected more from them. The key takeaway: expectations shape behavior, and behavior shapes outcomes.

The Four Factors of Expectation

So, what exactly makes up these expectations? Rosenthal identified four key factors that shape the way people treat others based on their beliefs:

1. Climate Factor - Teachers (or bosses) create a warmer, more positive environment for those they have higher expectations for. This warmth can be verbal praise, body language, or simply a more encouraging attitude.

2. Input Factor - People put more effort into teaching, training, or mentoring individuals they believe in. They give more detailed instructions, more in-depth explanations, and more learning opportunities.

3. Response Opportunity Factor - Those with high expectations are given more chances to respond, contribute, and showcase their abilities. They get called on more in class, receive more challenging tasks at work, and have greater room to develop.

4. Feedback Factor - High-expectation individuals receive more detailed, constructive feedback. They’re praised when they do well and given clear, actionable feedback when they don’t, instead of being dismissed or ignored.

So How Can We Use This to Help Students (or Employees) Thrive?

Reflect on Your Beliefs: Take a pause to reflect on your beliefs about each student or employee you work with. Do you have any preconceived notions influencing your expectations? These ideas might be shaped by factors like a person's appearance, background, attitude, or past performance. Recognizing and acknowledging these biases is a forward step toward creating a supportive learning or working environment. If you realize you might be treating some as "bloomers" and others as underachievers, it’s time for a conscious shift in perspective.

Set High Expectations: Aim high for everyone. Communicate your belief in their abilities and potential. When teachers or leaders frame challenges as opportunities for growth, they can reshape the way people think about themselves. Instead of viewing obstacles as insurmountable barriers, they learn to see them as stepping stones for development. As the saying goes, people rise (or fall) to the level of expectations set for them.

Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer feedback that reinforces the idea that improvement is possible. Acknowledge progress, guide them through areas that need development, but don’t forget to also focus on strengths. Commending progress, however small, serves as a motivational tool, encouraging perseverance. The positive reinforcement embedded in constructive feedback plays a big role in helping students and employees see challenges as opportunities for continual improvement and learning.

Create an Inclusive Environment: Foster a culture where everyone feels valued and included. Promoting a sense of belonging is crucial in cultivating a positive atmosphere that supports each individual. When people feel included, they are more likely to engage actively in learning or work. Here’s a simple idea: people tend to invest more effort for teachers or bosses whom they believe like and respect them, as opposed to those they think don’t.

The Bottom Line

The tale of Pygmalion serves as a metaphor for the power of expectations, especially in the realm of education and leadership. Recognizing this concept underscores the importance of setting high expectations in classrooms and workplaces alike. So, as you step into your classroom or office tomorrow, ask yourself—are you treating those around you like bloomers? Because the way you see them just might be the way they rise.

Well It’s Officially Mariah Carey Season

A few weeks ago a herd of students burst into my classroom, red Starbucks cups in hand, filled with holiday concoctions like caramel brûlée and chestnut praline lattes, peppermint mochas, and something called a salted pecan crunch cold brew with cinnamon and sugar cookie cold foam. It seems like the Christmas season starts earlier and earlier every year!

Now I’m firmly in the wait-until-after-Thanksgiving camp, but I have to admit—the smells had me rethinking my stance. Peppermint and cinnamon wafting through the room brought on thoughts of family gatherings, Christmas tree lights, and yes, the start of All I Want for Christmas on loop.

There’s real psychology at play when certain scents and flavors tug on our heartstrings and unlock memories. So, why do smells make us feel so much?

The Science of Scent and Emotion

Smell isn’t just a way to figure out if dinner’s ready—it’s one of our most powerful and primitive senses, and it plays directly into how we feel and remember. When you catch a scent, it shoots straight to the olfactory bulb. Unlike other senses like sound or sight, which take detours through the thalamus to be processed, scent has a direct line to the amygdala and hippocampus, part of your limbic system and your brain’s emotional and memory centers.

Why does this matter? Because these two areas run the show when it comes to feeling and remembering. Your smell sensation isn’t just intellectual—it’s visceral. 

Scent is actually one of the reasons theaters pump out fresh popcorn. The smell hits your limbic system, triggering nostalgia or comfort, making you crave it whether you’re hungry or not. In other words, our olfactory system is a fast-track to feeling. 

The History of Scent and Theater: Why Popcorn Became King

We’ll dive back into the science of smell in just a moment, but first, indulge me in a quick detour into the history of movie theater popcorn—it’s a story too irresistible for the history teacher in me to skip.

The smell of popcorn has been a theater staple for decades, and there’s actually a fascinating history behind it. Back in the early 1900s, when “moving pictures” were just taking off, theaters were fancy, almost stuffy places. They wanted to attract wealthy audiences, so food and snacks were not allowed. Theater owners didn’t want any crumbs on the red velvet seats. But as movies became more popular during the Great Depression, things started to shift. Tickets got cheap, and people from all walks of life flocked to cinemas for affordable entertainment and escape the monotonous dread of economic hardship.

Around this time, popcorn vendors began setting up stands just outside theater entrances. Popcorn was also cheap. It was filling, and smelled incredible, and the delicious, warm butter aroma wafted right into the theaters. It wasn’t long before theater owners realized that popcorn wasn’t just a snack; it could be a big moneymaker. So they allowed popcorn inside, realizing the smell itself helped draw in patrons.

Many of the movies in the early 1930s focused on escapism—90 minutes of getting away from suffering and entering a new universe. Popcorn, as it turned out, helped trigger feelings of comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment, lighting up the limbic system in ways that complemented the escapism of film. People soon associated the smell of popcorn with the fun of watching a movie, and over the years, it became almost inseparable from the experience.

By World War II, popcorn had become a movie theater essential. Sugar rationing made candy scarce, but good American corn was readily available, and popcorn machines were cheap to operate. By that point, theater owners didn’t just see it as a snack; they knew the scent of popcorn brought people into the theater with that familiar whiff of nostalgia, and it’s been a mainstay ever since.

Today, even in our era of at-home streaming, popcorn still brings that unique magic to movie theaters, reminding us that scent has a powerful pull. The smell might even be the reason you buy a bucket of popcorn every time you see a movie. It’s less about hunger and more about connecting with the comforting and memorable feeling of movie night itself. In psychology, we call this motivation for eating psychological, or convenient, rather than to fill a physiological need. 

Now, where was I? Oh yes, back to the science of smell…

Taste, the Sibling of Smell

Speaking of movies, remember that line from Mary Poppins, “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down”? I never tried that, but as a kid, I’d plug my nose, hoping to avoid the awful taste of medicine, and it actually worked! Without the smell, the taste wasn’t nearly as bad, because my brain wasn’t picking up the full flavor. By holding my nose, I was essentially muting the flavor. My tongue could still detect some bitterness, but without smell, the taste was way less intense. It’s a clever (and time-tested) way to make tough flavors a bit more bearable and also a great reminder of how taste and smell work together to shape our full experience of flavor.

Taste and smell share neural pathways in the brain and both engage the brain's limbic system. This shared neural real estate explains why a specific scent can evoke strong emotional memories. It’s all processed in the same neighborhood. When you chew food, your mouth detects basic tastes (sweet, salty, sour, bitter, umami). Meanwhile, aromas from the food travel up the back of your throat to your nose, stimulating the olfactory receptors. The brain combines these inputs, creating the rich experience we call flavor. Without your nose, what you perceive as “taste” becomes dramatically limited—this is why food tastes bland when you have a cold or a stuffy nose, or when you pinch your nose like I did as a child.

Because taste and smell are so interconnected, our brains engage in multi-sensory encoding, storing memories not just visually or emotionally but in full sensory "surround sound," so to speak. This is why scents often feel like instant portals to the past. But why do smell and memory have such a uniquely strong bond?

Why Scents Are the Ultimate Memory Hack

There’s a reason peppermint smells like holiday cheer or the scent of cranberry candles just feels like December. The magic lies in the brain’s ability to seamlessly link scents, emotions, and memories. Here’s how it all works:

Associative Learning

Every time we encounter a scent like peppermint during the holidays, it strengthens a connection in the brain between the scent and what we know about that season. This process, called associative learning, is a cornerstone of classical conditioning.

Classical conditioning occurs when two stimuli are repeatedly experienced together, causing the brain to form a bond between them. In this case, the scent of peppermint (the neutral stimulus) is paired with festive holiday experiences—family gatherings and gift exchanges (the unconditioned stimuli). Over time, peppermint becomes a conditioned stimulus, automatically triggering feelings of happiness without needing the actual event to happen.

Mood-Congruent and Context-Dependent Memory

There’s another reason we associate scents with positive and negative emotions, and it deals with the way we encode memories. Mood-Congruent Memory revolves around the emotional state you’re in when you encounter a stimulus, such as a scent or sound. When you’re happy, for instance, your brain is more likely to retrieve other memories associated with happiness. This happens because emotions act as a kind of filter or primer for memory retrieval, activating neural pathways in the limbic system, which are responsible for emotional processing and memory storage.

In contrast, context-dependent memory relies on external cues from the environment to unlock specific memories. When you form a memory, the brain encodes not only the central event but also the surrounding sensory details—like the smells, sounds, and sights present at the time. These contextual details become part of the memory's "retrieval code," stored by the hippocampus. This mechanism highlights how memories are more accessible when your current environment matches the one in which they were formed. It’s why returning to a childhood home or hearing a specific song can bring back a flood of detailed recollections. Context-dependent memory is particularly strong when multiple senses are involved, as the brain uses these sensory inputs to create a rich, multi-layered memory trace.

During the holidays, these two types of memory often work in tandem. The smell of pine or the sound of a favorite song taps into context-dependent memory, bringing you back to those nostalgic memories. At the same time, your joyful holiday mood triggers mood-congruent recall, reinforcing those warm feelings. Together, they transform simple sensory experiences into emotional anchors, making the holiday season feel uniquely magical year after year.

But these same mechanisms can also bring up bittersweet or painful memories. A familiar holiday scent might not just evoke warm gatherings; it can also remind you of someone who is no longer there. The brain, ever efficient, doesn’t just store joyful moments but also encodes loss, grief, and change. In such cases, the mood-congruent effect flips—if you're feeling sadness during the holidays, sensory triggers can pull forth memories that match that tone, such as missing a loved one.

This duality is what makes sensory memory so powerful: it weaves the highs and lows of our experiences into an emotional fabric, connecting us deeply to both joy and reflection as we navigate the seasons of our lives.

So as the season unfolds and the smells of peppermint and pine waft through the air, take a moment to savor not just the flavors of your favorite holiday drink but the memories and emotions they stir.

Black Friday has come and gone, and you know what that means: we’ll probably never see deals like that again… except today is Small Business Saturday, Cyber Monday is right around the corner,, and let’s not forget the Christmas sales, New Year’s doorbusters, and maybe even a Martin Luther King Day markdown.

But hey, nothing really beats Black Friday, right? Stampeding crowds, sleepless shoppers, and the thrill of scoring that $20 air fryer that somehow becomes a must-have.

Whether you’re braving the chaos in-store or scrolling deals online, one thing is clear: these sales aren’t just about discounts—they’re designed to make you spend.

Just how much? In 2023, U.S. shoppers shelled out a record $9.8 billion online on Black Friday, with 78 million braving the chaos in stores. Projections for 2024 suggest that number could hit $10 billion.

So why the frenzy? Turns out, shopping deals are a playground for behavioral economics. From scarcity mind games to split-second decision making, those “can’t-miss” offers are practically custom-built to exploit your brain’s wiring.

Let’s unpack it.

Seeing What You Want to See

You spot a TV marked down from $1,000 to $499. A deal so good, you’re practically stealing it. But wait—was that original price legit? Probably not. This is anchoring bias at work. Retailers show you a high starting price to make the sale look unbeatable. Your brain latches onto that anchor and calculates savings instead of asking whether the product was ever worth $1,000 in the first place. Can someone get Drew Carey on the line?

Now add confirmation bias: your desire to believe you’ve found the best deal pushes you to ignore contradictory evidence (like the fact that similar TVs are selling for $499 year round). It’s not your fault; our brains love stories that affirm we’re savvy shoppers.

And what’s the first thing we do after a purchase like this? Tell everyone about it. Because snagging a deal isn’t just about saving money—it’s about the bragging rights. You’ll casually drop into conversations, “Oh, this TV? $1,000 originally. Got it for $499 on Black Friday.” Your audience gasps, impressed. You feel like a deal hunting legend.

It’s the same reason we boast about finding something on clearance. The joy isn’t just in the savings, it’s in the story we get to tell, proving that we beat the retailer at their game.

The Pain of Missing Out

Ever bought something just because the sale ends at midnight? That’s something called loss aversion kicking in. We hate missing out. So much so that losses feel twice as painful as equivalent gains feel good, according to psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

Retailers know this all too well. That’s why Black Friday deals often come with countdown clocks or phrases like “final hours.” Your brain scrambles to avoid regret, and before you know it, you’ve justified buying a second Instant Pot “just in case.”

Pair that with the scarcity effect, and you’re in full-blown FOMO mode. Ever noticed how “limited stock” or “only 3 left!” sends you into a frenzy? Our brains associate scarcity with value—if it’s hard to get, it must be worth having. Add the time pressure of flash sales, and rational thinking takes a backseat.

Case in point: American Eagle recently emailed my wife a flash deal for jeans that lasted just two hours from the moment the email hit her inbox. I bet you can guess what happened next—new jeans arrived at our house a few days later.

This isn’t just anecdotal; it’s a proven formula that thrives on time-limited deals. Retailers expertly craft a perfect storm of scarcity and urgency, a psychological one-two punch designed to turn hesitation into impulse buys.

The Flashy vs. The Logical

The jeans deal got me thinking—what really sells us on those two-hour flash sales? Is it the practicality of updating our wardrobe, or something sneakier? Sales tactics often pull us in through one of two paths: the peripheral route or the central route to persuasion.

The peripheral route is the flashy stuff. Think neon “75% OFF!” signs, countdown timers, and Instagram influencers raving about deals with “🔥🔥🔥” emojis. It’s quick, emotional, and thrives in the chaos of a “holiday” like Black Friday, when we’re overwhelmed by options and primed to make snap decisions. Those jeans? The ticking clock in the email probably tipped the scales, signaling “buy now or regret it forever.”

The peripheral route doesn’t rely on the intrinsic merits of an argument, it uses celebrity spokespeople and athletes to endorse products. Ever wonder how these companies can afford to pay top tier talent to sell their products in television commercials? It’s because it works.

Then there’s the central route—where logic steps in… or at least pretends to. This approach appeals to reason, luring you in with spec sheets and five-star reviews. This technique uses facts and evidence of the merits of the product. You think you’re making a carefully considered choice about that new thing you’ve spent hours researching. But behind the scenes, biases like anchoring (that original $1,000 price tag) and scarcity (only 2 left in stock!) are still calling the shots.

In reality, most purchases are a mix of both. You’re reading the Amazon customer reviews, sure, but that red “SALE ENDS TONIGHT” banner isn’t exactly subtle. It’s the perfect cocktail of rational evaluation and emotional urgency, designed to make you click “Add to Cart” before it’s too late.

Sunk Costs Keep You Clicking ‘Buy’

Let’s say you’ve been scrolling deals for hours, carefully curating your cart. But as you hover over the “Buy” button, doubts creep in. Do you really need these items? Still, you click “Buy.” Why? The sunk cost fallacy. After investing so much time hunting down bargains, abandoning your cart feels like wasting your effort—even if the purchases don’t truly serve you.

Now I’m going to twist the knife a little farther. Was it ever really a deal? According to WalletHub, 41% of items will offer no savings compared to their pre-Black Friday prices this year. That means you might not just be spending money—you’re buying into the hype. So, before you hit “Checkout,” take a step back. Are you shopping smart, or falling for the illusion of savings?

Watch Out For The Decoy

Let’s wrap up with one more classic trick. Imagine you’re at a coffee shop deciding on what size you should get. The small is $3, the medium is $4.50, and the large is $5. Which size is the best deal? Maybe first glance tells you that the medium is the best choice—bigger than the small but not as indulgent as the large. But then you see that the large is only 50 cents more than the medium, and you get so much more, it feels like a no-brainer.

In this case the medium is the decoy. It exists to nudge you toward the larger, pricier option while making you feel like you’re still in control of the decision. But those last few ounces cost way less than 50 cents for the cafe.

We can take that same principle and apply it to big ticket items too. You’re choosing between a $700 laptop and a $1,200 laptop, and suddenly a third option appears: $1,800. You didn’t even want to spend $1,200, but now it seems like the “reasonable” choice. Just like with the coffee, the decoy (that $1,800 model) makes you feel like upgrading to the middle-tier is the smartest move—even if it wasn’t what you wanted or needed.

The moral? Whether it’s coffee or tech, the decoy effect is designed to steer your decision. Stay focused on what you actually need, not what feels like the better deal at the moment.

So, What’s the Real Deal?

Retailers are masters of persuasion, blending psychological tricks to turn us into eager buyers. Whether it’s emotional appeals or logical nudges, we’re wired to respond to the tactics they use.

The next time you’re staring at a “too good to be true” discount, take a moment. Ask yourself: Do I really need this, or is my brain just playing tricks on me? (But hey, if you’re reading this on your new $1,200 laptop, no judgment—it’s probably worth it.)

Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays. It’s the one day a year when it's socially acceptable to eat pie for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But beyond the football and mashed potatoes, Thanksgiving is a prime opportunity to flex one of psychology's most underrated superpowers: gratitude.

Turns out, being thankful isn’t just polite—it’s something that’s backed by research. Let’s carve into the psychology of gratitude and why it might just be the secret ingredient to a happier, healthier you.

The Rise of Positive Psychology

Studying things like gratitude has been a pretty recent development in the field of psychology, and it didn’t emerge from a vacuum. Its roots lie in a larger movement to rethink the goals of psychology as a discipline. From Freud’s psychoanalysis to behaviorism and humanism, psychology has evolved through many schools of thought, each addressing the human experience in different ways.

But by the mid-20th century, psychology had overwhelmingly become focused on pathology. After World War II, the field experienced a surge in funding for research on mental illness, leading to significant advances in diagnosing and treating conditions like depression, anxiety, and PTSD. While these efforts improved countless lives, they often focused solely on what was “wrong” with people, neglecting what could go “right.” And while this work was critical in alleviating suffering, it left an important question unanswered: What makes life worth living?

So in the late 1990s, Martin Seligman, then president of the American Psychological Association (APA), decided it was time for a shift. He argued that psychology had become overly preoccupied with fixing mental illness and needed to balance this approach with studying what makes life fulfilling. Seligman’s vision for positive psychology was simple but revolutionary: focus on understanding and promoting human strengths, virtues, and factors that contribute to a good life. And thus, we began studying things like thankfulness and gratitude from a scientific standpoint.

Seligman’s Gratitude Experiment

In one of his most well-known experiments (and no, not the one with the dogs and electric shocks), participants were asked to write a heartfelt gratitude letter to someone who had deeply influenced their lives in a positive way. This could be a teacher, mentor, family member, or friend—anyone whose kindness or support had gone unacknowledged. Participants then had to deliver the letter in person.

The act of writing and delivering these letters had a remarkable psychological effect. Participants didn’t just feel a temporary emotional lift; they reported a significant and measurable increase in their happiness levels. Even more impressive, the boost in happiness persisted for weeks after the exercise, far outlasting the immediate high of completing the task.

So why did this work so well? Seligman’s findings suggest a double-whammy of psychological mechanisms. Writing the letter encouraged participants to focus on the positive aspects of their lives and relationships, triggering a sense of appreciation and connection. And delivering the letter created an emotional exchange, reinforcing bonds and deepening relationships. Together, these actions not only improved participants' moods but also enhanced their sense of purpose and social support.

This experiment has since inspired countless follow-up studies and interventions, solidifying gratitude as a cornerstone of positive psychology. Whether it’s through a simple “thank you” or a thoughtfully written letter, expressing gratitude remains one of the simplest yet most effective ways to boost happiness and strengthen connections.

Gratitude makes sense—it gets us out of our own heads and allows us to think about someone else. But what’s really happening in our heads when we express thanks?

Gratitude 101: Your Brain on Thanks

When you feel grateful, your brain responds by releasing a cascade of chemicals, including dopamine and serotonin. These neurotransmitters play a key role in the brain’s reward system. Dopamine is associated with motivation and the sense of accomplishment, giving you a boost of satisfaction when you achieve a goal or complete a task. Serotonin, on the other hand, helps regulate mood and promotes feelings of happiness and contentment. Together, these chemicals create a positive feedback loop, reinforcing the sense of well-being that comes with practicing gratitude and encouraging the brain to seek out similar experiences in the future.

A 2017 study from the University of Oregon revealed that practicing gratitude is felt in your ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), the part of your brain that keeps life balanced and social interactions meaningful. Researchers asked participants to keep gratitude journals for three weeks, reflecting on what they were thankful for each day. Meanwhile, they scanned their brains using fMRI to measure what happened when participants observed others benefiting (e.g., charitable donations) versus when they benefited themselves.

Here’s the kicker: The gratitude group showed increased activation in their VMPFC—especially when they witnessed others benefiting from good fortune. Why does that matter? Because the VMPFC is your brain’s multitasking hub, and activating it comes with serious perks.

For starters, it’s a built-in stress manager. Your prefrontal cortex helps keep your amygdala—the brain’s alarm system—in check, preventing unnecessary cortisol surges that can leave you feeling stressed. So instead of mashing that panic button anytime you’re inconvenienced, your VMPFC tells you to slow down and stay calm.

But that’s not all. The VMPFC also powers empathy and connection, helping you build stronger relationships by tuning into the emotions and perspectives of others. Who couldn’t use a little extra connection in their life?

And here’s the real win: The VMPFC helps hardwire happiness. When you activate it through gratitude, you’re strengthening neural pathways for positivity and altruism, essentially rewiring your brain to make kindness and optimism second nature.

This process is called neuroplasticity—your brain’s ability to adapt and change based on what you do repeatedly. Think of it like forging a trail through a forest: the more you walk it, the clearer and easier it becomes. Over time, the pathways for gratitude, kindness, and optimism grow stronger, while those for negativity or stress fade into the background. In short, practicing gratitude is like forging a trail for a happier, healthier brain.

The Bottom Line

So this Thanksgiving, as you pile your plate high with turkey and stuffing, take a moment to flex your gratitude muscle. Whether it’s through journaling, writing a thank-you note, or simply pausing to appreciate the people around you, know that every act of thankfulness strengthens the pathways for happiness and resilience in your brain.

Because in the end, gratitude isn’t just about feeling good in the moment—it’s about creating a life that’s richer, more connected, and filled with meaning. And that’s something worth celebrating every day of the year.

Thursday night was a show-stopper for Joe Burrow and Ja’Marr Chase. Burrow put up a ridiculous 428 yards and 4 touchdowns, connecting with Chase for a career-high 264 yards and 3 of those TDs. The dynamic duo gave the Bengals every chance against a tough Baltimore Ravens team, fighting all the way to a final-seconds 2-point conversion for the win. But Burrow’s pass fell incomplete in the end zone. Game over. Ravens escape with a 35-34 win. Or so it seemed.

Replay told a different story. It wasn’t just a errant ball or the Ravens’ lockdown defense that sealed the Bengals’ fate. Nope—this loss has “missed calls” written all over it. On that critical play, Bengals’ tight end Mike Gesicki was clearly held, and Burrow took a late hit square to the facemask. Yet, somehow, no flags. No call. Just a “better luck next time” as Bengals fans watched their hopes and dreams for the playoffs vanish, courtesy of the NFL officiating crew.

If you’re a die-hard Bengals fan (like me), you probably saw red. Another game, another set of missed calls—and this one definitely cost us the win. “The refs sold,” as the kids say. But here’s the thing: there’s actually a psychological reason behind why every ref decision feels like it’s targeting your team. Let’s dig into why these missed calls get under our skin and mess with our minds, even if (just maybe) they were legit (just not in this case).

Seeing What We Want to See

Confirmation bias. This is our tendency to see things that confirm what we already believe and ignore what contradicts those beliefs. As football fans, we start the game with a clear side, the right side, which primes us to interpret calls through a lens that favors our team. So, when the ref makes a call against us, we’re primed to see it as wrong, but when it’s in our favor, we’re much more likely to see it as fair and justified. This skewed perspective means refs will always look biased… against our team. Confirmation bias isn’t just about football – it’s a mental trick that plays out in almost every aspect of our lives. It subtly reinforces our beliefs and skews how we interpret the world. For example, in politics, confirmation bias turns into a filter that leads us to seek out news and information that aligns with our beliefs, while we conveniently dismiss anything that contradicts them.

Disposition > Situation

It’s almost automatic: someone cuts us off in traffic—What a bad driver!—we immediately think. This quick judgment isn’t just a random reaction, it’s a psychological shortcut called the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE), and here’s how it works.

When we see someone’s actions, especially a negative one, we tend to assume it’s because of their character or disposition. They must be reckless, careless, clumsy, rude. This error stems from our tendency to focus on internal factors (like personality) and ignore external factors (like circumstances or the situation) when evaluating others. So, instead of thinking, maybe they’re late to get to work or they didn’t see me because I was in their blind spot, we jump straight to the conclusion that they’re just a lousy driver.

Are we always that harsh? Well, not when we make a similar mistake. If we accidentally cut someone off, we’re quick to justify it: I was distracted for a second, but I’m a good driver. This is the actor-observer bias, which lets us off the hook by attributing our own behavior to situational factors, while being quicker to blame others’ behavior on their disposition.

In sports, this means we see game officials as biased or incompetent, rather than considering that they’re making split-second decisions under intense pressure. It’s easier to believe that a ref made a bad call because they’re “clearly against us” than to consider they just had a tough angle on a fast play. This same bias makes it hard for us to see the game neutrally; we’re too focused on preserving our emotional investment to be objective. And that same bias can allow us to see the other team as dirty players or cheaters, while we view our own team as simply doing what it takes to stay safe in a violent game.

Outcome Bias: Judging the Call by What Happened Next

Outcome bias is a tricky psychological quirk that makes us judge decisions based on the outcome rather than on the quality of the decision itself. In football, if a referee’s call ends up costing your team the game, that call feels particularly egregious. The painful outcome makes us scrutinize the call more harshly and can even warp our memory of the event, as we focus on how it “unjustly” changed the course of the game. But if the same call happens earlier in the game, or if our team manages to win regardless, we’re likely to shrug it off as just part of the play. The same bias occurs when a coach goes for it on fourth down, or elects to go for two (or not) after a touchdown. If the team converts, the play looks genius; if they fail, why the heck did the coach make that risky call?

Outside of sports, outcome bias shows up all the time. If a company invests in a risky venture and it fails, we might criticize the executives for making a “poor decision,” even if they had good reasons to take the chance. Conversely, if the gamble pays off, we’ll likely praise them as visionaries. The quality of their decision-making isn’t what we’re assessing; we’re just focused on the final outcome. This tendency can lead us to unfairly judge people (and referees!) based solely on what happens afterward, instead of considering the circumstances they faced in the moment.

My Team Can’t Lose… Unless It’s the Ref’s Fault

Is my belief that the Bengals lost to the Ravens because of the missed calls self-serving bias? Maybe. Self-serving bias is our tendency to attribute positive outcomes to our own abilities and effort while blaming negative outcomes on external factors. In the case of sports fandom, it’s a way of protecting our attachment to the team. After all, if we believe in our team’s skill and effort, it’s easier to accept a loss by shifting the blame to an outside source. By zeroing in on the ref’s “bad calls,” we keep our idealized image of the team intact, and our emotional investment remains protected.

Self-serving bias is everywhere. If we study for a test and ace it, we’re likely to credit our hard work and intelligence. But if we fail, we might blame the test for being unfair, the teacher’s biases, or even just bad luck…anything but our own preparation. This mental trick helps us protect our self-esteem, just like blaming the ref shields our emotional investment in our team.

So Are the Refs Really Out to Get Us?

Probably not. They’re making real-time calls under intense pressure. But because of our biases and emotional investment, every yellow flag can feel like a personal attack. And even though I just walked through the psychology behind it all, let’s be honest: I still think those no-calls on that final play were a robbery.

Polls, polls, and even more polls—election season is reaching its peak, and with it comes a daily surge of fresh polling data, crowding every media channel. The numbers are everywhere, shaping the narratives and sparking discussions as we move closer to the final voting day. But after a few recent cycles of “surprise” election outcomes, many have come to see polling more like an unreliable weather forecast. But should we trust the polls? Do they actually provide valuable insights? The answer to these questions lie in a mix of statistical limitations and quirks of human psychology.

From Surveys to the Modern-Day Polling Machine

Believe it or not, election polling in the U.S. didn’t really become a thing until the 1930s. The earliest political opinion surveys were conducted by social scientists who believed that studying voter psychology could unlock secrets about national sentiment. Pioneers like George Gallup and Elmo Roper, for instance, introduced polling as a more scientific way to gauge public opinion. Instead of relying on hearsay or biased reporting, Gallup and others wanted quantifiable data on how people felt about key issues and candidates.

Fast forward to the 1960s, and psychological insights became central to understanding why people respond to polls the way they do. Psychologists began to examine how factors like social desirability bias—answering in a way that makes one look good—could distort poll results. These findings started a new era where pollsters weren’t just crunching numbers but were also trying to account for the oddities of human nature that make us tell pollsters what we think they want to hear. Today, this early marriage between psychology and polling is still present in how pollsters attempt to gather accurate, unbiased data.

How Modern Polling Works

Polling is still about capturing the nation’s vibe on any given day, but now with an evolved, psychology-backed strategy. Here’s how it goes:

1. Sampling the Population: Pollsters start with a representative sample that mirrors the voter population’s demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, income, etc.). Since polling every eligible voter would be impractical, pollsters rely on smaller samples, usually a few hundred to a few thousand people.

2. Random Sampling: Equal chances for everyone to be polled! Random Digit Dialing (RDD) is a go-to, where randomly generated phone numbers are dialed to gather responses. To adapt to today’s cell-phone-heavy world, pollsters also use online panels and text-based surveys.

3. Question Design: No trick questions here—wording is everything. Neutral, clear questions prevent steering respondents. Even small tweaks can impact responses, so pollsters test questions beforehand to minimize bias.

4. Weighting Data: Since some groups are harder to reach (looking at you, Gen Z), pollsters “weight” responses to balance out under- or overrepresented groups, aiming to match the real population breakdown. But too much weighting can also introduce bias, so it’s a balancing act.

5. Margin of Error: Every poll has a margin of error—around 3% is common—showing the potential difference between the poll result and the true sentiment of the population. This is why, if Candidate A has 51% support and Candidate B has 49%, it could still be anyone’s race.

6. Timing and Frequency: Polls get more reliable closer to Election Day since opinions can shift fast. Pollsters usually conduct multiple “waves” of polls to track these changes, but last-minute swings are still tough to pin down.

Polling isn’t perfect, but it’s an evolving mix of science, art, and psychology with the goal of catching public opinion as accurately as possible. With that baseline in mind, let’s dive into the psychological hurdles that make polls so tricky.

The “Nice Guy” Problem: Social Desirability Bias

Let’s start with social desirability bias—also known as the “Nice Guy” problem. People generally want to look good, even to a pollster they’ll never meet, so when asked who they support, some voters choose the “socially acceptable” answer over the honest one. This is especially true for polarizing candidates, leading polls to show a more favorable picture than reality might reflect.

Enter the spiral of silence, a phenomenon that happens when people stay quiet about opinions they feel are unpopular. In politics, this can mean voters keep their real preferences hidden if they think their views might be judged negatively. For some voters, even anonymously choosing a controversial candidate in a poll feels uncomfortable. As a result, these “silent” or undecided voters might only reveal their true choice in the privacy of the voting booth, surprising pollsters and distorting poll results.

Herd Mentality and the Bandwagon Effect

Humans are social creatures, and the bandwagon effect is one way we see this play out in polling—think of it like rooting for the team that’s winning. When people hear that a candidate is leading, they’re often drawn to support them, especially if they’re undecided. Just like how sports fans might jump on the bandwagon of a winning team, voters are inclined to side with the majority. This creates a feedback loop: a candidate who appears popular in polls might gain even more support just because they look like the “winner.”

But just like some “bandwagon fans” might not be as committed when the team falters, polling’s bandwagon effect can be fickle. The candidate who looks great on paper might not see all that support materialize at the polls, leaving some campaigns scratching their heads come Election Day.

Ingroup Bias: My Party, My Tribe

Ingroup bias—our tendency to align with people who share our identity—is strong in politics. Party loyalty can lead voters to support their party’s candidate, even if they have reservations. A Democrat or Republican may stick with their candidate even if they disagree with some policies, simply because group loyalty runs deep. This bias can create an exaggerated sense of polarization in polls, as people’s responses are often influenced by loyalty rather than genuine enthusiasm for a candidate.

Pollsters try to balance things out by polling a representative number of Republicans and Democrats, but just because someone leans toward their party doesn’t mean they’re automatically picking the party’s presidential candidate. For some voters, down-ticket races get their loyalty, but they’ll split from their party in the presidential race or simply abstain from that vote. This tendency can lead to polling errors and surprises, especially in tight races where the presidential vote doesn’t follow the expected party lines.

The Last-Minute Flip: Polling’s Final Challenge

As if that weren’t enough, pollsters face a final challenge: people can be indecisive and change their minds last-minute. The Dunning-Kruger Effect—the idea that people with limited knowledge tend to overestimate their certainty—helps explain why voters might confidently declare one choice in a poll and then flip once in the voting booth, realizing they were less sure than they thought. But it’s not just a handful of voters flipping their decisions. Research shows that in a typical major election, a striking 20–30% of voters make up or change their minds in the final week of the campaign, and about half of them, 10–15%, end up deciding on Election Day itself.

For some, that last-minute shift might mean casting a vote instead of abstaining, while others, although few, actually switch their candidate preference, making it tricky for polls to capture the full picture as Election Day approaches. Pollsters try to account for these shifts with “waves” of polls closer to Election Day, but they have a difficult job.

Can We Really Predict Election Outcomes?

Polling offers a glimpse of public sentiment, but it’s far from infallible. Despite technological advances, it’s still up against the ever-shifting currents of human behavior. Every voter carries with them a mix of social influences, personal biases, and private motivations that make predicting elections a moving target.

Will polls ever reach perfect accuracy? Probably not until we can fully understand the depths of human psychology, so it might take a while. Still, by understanding the biases behind polling responses, pollsters can inch closer to accurately capturing public opinion. For now, however, polls remain best understood as educated guesses—snapshots rather than certainties—when it comes to something as complex as democracy.

Ah, Halloween. The one night of the year when it’s socially acceptable to dress like a werewolf, fill up on Kit Kats, and scare the daylights out of everyone around you. But what makes this holiday such a major cultural phenomenon? There’s more going on here than just costumes and candy. Let’s get into the psychology of Halloween and why it taps into some of the most intriguing parts of our minds, from our obsession with fear to the comfort we find in traditions.

A Spooky History Lesson

Halloween’s roots go back over 2,000 years to an ancient Celtic festival called Samhain. Celebrated at the end of October, Samhain marked the end of the harvest season and the start of the darker half of the year. The Celts believed that on this night, the boundary between the living and the dead blurred, allowing spirits to roam the earth. To protect themselves from any mischievous or harmful spirits, people would light bonfires, wear costumes, and leave out offerings.

Fast forward to the 8th century: Pope Gregory III designated November 1 as All Saints’ Day, a day to honor saints and martyrs. Many Samhain customs, like bonfires and dressing up, were absorbed into this new Christian holiday. The evening before All Saints’ Day became known as All Hallows’ Eve—which, over time, morphed into Halloween. So, this spooky celebration has evolved across centuries, adapting ancient rituals into the Halloween we know today.

But why are we still hooked on Halloween?

The Thrill of Controlled Fear

At its core, Halloween lets us lean into something humans are wired to avoid: fear. But here’s the catch—it’s all about controlled fear. Evolutionarily, we’ve developed a lot of reasons to steer clear of dark woods and shadowy figures. Our brains are hardwired to avoid these because they’ve been, historically, signals of danger. And yet, on Halloween, we seek out these experiences in a completely safe way.

Here’s how it works: putting ourselves in scary (but controlled) situations on Halloween, like haunted houses, scary movies, or spooky corn mazes—activates the amygdala, the part of our brain responsible for processing fear. Normally, this little processing center in our brain would light up to alert us to life threatening situations, but since we know there’s no real danger here, it still activates just enough to trigger that thrill of fear. This is where the “optimal level of arousal” comes in, according to the arousal theory of motivation. The theory states that we each have an ideal arousal level, and for some, Halloween activities are the perfect balance of excitement without true risk. Some of us love haunted houses and horror movies, others, like me, prefer something a little tamer. But all of us love a little thrill, or controlled fear in our own way.

When we’re in this “sweet spot” of feeling scared but safe, the amygdala and other fear-processing regions release a flood of dopamine and adrenaline. This chemical rush feels exhilarating, a controlled dose of the same feel-good chemicals our brains pump out during roller coaster rides. In short, Halloween gives us a low-stakes way to flirt with fear, satisfying a bit of our curiosity about the dark side while keeping us safe.

The Comfort of Rituals and Community

Halloween presents an intriguing paradox: it's filled with eerie skeletons and ghouls, yet it's also woven with the warmth and coziness of pumpkin spice and family gatherings. Halloween’s rituals, like trick-or-treating and pumpkin carving, create a sense of community and belonging, making us part of something bigger. It’s a classic example of how shared traditions forge an in-group. A collective “us” that brings us all together under one spooky cause. This shared goal creates an almost superordinate mission: have fun, get scared, eat candy, and celebrate the weird and wonderful. Halloween also gives us a rare chance to connect with complete strangers as we go door-to-door asking for candy—something that would be really awkward on the other 364 days of the year.

One illustration of this communal spirit can be found in the story of the Big Pumpkin, a classic Halloween tale that captures the essence of teamwork. In the book, a large pumpkin grows in a garden, but it’s so big that no one can pick it by themselves. A series of characters, including a witch, a ghost, and a vampire, come together, each offering their strengths to help solve the problem. Their collective efforts showcase how individuals can unite to achieve a superordinate goal—harvesting the pumpkin—despite their differences.

Just as the characters in Big Pumpkin had to work together, so too do we bond over the shared rituals of Halloween, reinforcing our connections and creating lasting memories. Halloween rituals and a sense of community provide a sense of stability, especially when life feels uncertain. Psychologists find that collective rituals help people feel grounded and secure, giving them comfort in the familiar. So while it may look like a night of costume parties and spooky decor, Halloween is actually a celebration of togetherness, giving us a chance to bond, laugh, and feel part of a community—while enjoying a little thrill on the side.

Nostalgia: Trick-or-Treating Down Memory Lane

When I think back to Halloween memories, I remember library time as a kid, sitting on the carpet listening to Jerry Seinfeld’s Halloween book. He got it—Halloween wasn’t just about candy; it was a feeling. As Seinfeld said, 

"And that's when I realized, when you're a kid, you don't need a costume, you ARE Superman."

According to Seinfeld, that’s the magic of Halloween: every kid feels invincible, able to be anything they imagine. As adults, we remember that thrill of becoming anything we wanted on Halloween, and many of us dress up to recapture that same sense of magic we felt as kids. Nostalgia is powerful—it’s a way of reconnecting with the joy and excitement that Halloween once brought us.

And Halloween is steeped in nostalgia. For most of us, it’s a ticket back to childhood. Just think of those nights spent trick-or-treating, dressing up, and dashing from house to house with friends—Halloween traditions hold an irreplaceable place in our memories. And it’s not just about dressing up or going to costume parties; it’s also about the little rituals that were part of every October.

It’s no wonder Halloween is just as exciting for adults as it is for kids. Reliving those memories brings us back to a simpler time. Studies show that nostalgia isn’t just a fun trip down memory lane; it can actually boost mood, lower stress, and even create a sense of purpose. When we embrace Halloween traditions as adults, we’re reconnecting with the wonder and excitement of our younger selves. It’s a rare chance to tap into that joy and make new memories, even as we celebrate the old ones—a psychological win for everyone.

So What Is Halloween?

From our fascination with fear and thrill-seeking to the comfort we find in communal traditions, Halloween taps into psychological drives that are as old as, well, Samhain. So today, as you carve a pumpkin or jump at a horror movie, just remember: You’re indulging in a centuries-old tradition that speaks to some of the deepest parts of the human experience.

Enjoy the scares, the thrills, and the treats. And Happy Halloween!