Better Off Later: Our Preference for Improving Sequences (With George Loewenstein)

Katy Milkman (0:10)

Every day in California, tens of thousands of people stream into the original Disneyland and instinctively make their way toward Sleeping Beauty's castle.

Most of them have no idea they're following a trick Walt Disney borrowed from dog trainers. Disney called it a weenie. Hold up a sausage, and a dog will follow you anywhere. His idea? Give human beings something irresistible, off in the distance, and they'll be drawn to walk towards it. But the castle was never meant to be the final destination. The moment you reach that central hub, another landmark pulls your eyes towards the next big thing. The sails of a pirate ship, or the peak of the Matterhorn. An endless trail of visual breadcrumbs, carrying you deeper into this magical world. Disney's Imagineers, the designers behind the park, even incorporated this idea into waiting lines, with details like the haunted mansion's stretching room, made to build tension before you board the ride. All details building towards a sky full of fireworks at the end of the night.

In 1954, Walt Disney didn't just build a theme park. He engineered a living narrative, an experience carefully designed to ensure it feels like the best part is still ahead of you. In this episode, we look at why we're drawn to experiences that just like Disneyland, appear to improve over time.

I'm Dr. Katy Milkman, and this is Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. It's a show about the psychology and economics behind our decisions. We bring you true and surprising stories about high-stakes choices, and then we examine how these stories connect to the latest research in behavioral science. We do it all to help you make better judgments and avoid costly mistakes.

Jerald Podair (2:29)

You had to worry every day as to what you said. It could cost you your job, it could cost you a raise, it could cost you a promotion.

And that's before you start dealing with the students.

Katy Milkman (2:44)

Being a public school teacher in New York City in the 1950s was a demanding job.

It was also an unpredictable one. Everything from your classroom assignment to your raises to your chances for promotion could depend on one person, your school's principal.

Jerald Podair (3:02)

The principal had almost dictatorial control over everything that happened in the school He had control over the custodians. He had control over the administrative staff. And especially he had control over the teachers. This is a system where if for whatever reason as a teacher, you anger or offend the principal, he could really make your life miserable.

Hi, my name is Jerald Podair.

Katy Milkman (3:30)

Jerald is a professor of history, emeritus, at Lawrence University, and author of The Strike That Changed New York, a book about a historic walkout in 1968

But the book begins by explaining another strike that set the stage. And at the center of that strike was a young math teacher named Albert Schenker.

Jerald Podair (3:51)

Albert Schenker was a young teacher in the public schools in the 1950s.

He joined the Teachers Guild because he was a unionist, because he wanted to improve the lot of the classroom teacher. He would say, I have a college education and a master's degree, and I'm being treated like I'm working on an assembly line somewhere as a teacher. I want dignity. And I think that was the life of the New York City public school teacher in the 1950s.

Katy Milkman (4:25)

There was no standardized salary schedule teachers could count on, no formal grievance process, and very little protection from arbitrary decisions.

Advancing didn't depend on your education or seniority. It often depended on staying in your principal's good graces. Teachers even had a name for that.

Jerald Podair (4:45)

They used to call it gassing, and the acronym stood for Getting the Attention of Supervisors. That's how you moved up in the 1950s.

Katy Milkman (4:56)

For teachers who were skilled negotiators, well connected or favored by their principal, gassing had a clear upside. Immediate perks, better assignments, and personalized advancement.

But because the rules were completely unwritten, the rewards for gassing, and also for failing to, were far from equal.

Jerald Podair (5:16)

For women, they were confined largely to the elementary level. So, there was somewhat of a glass ceiling, because there was no established way to move up.

Katy Milkman (5:29)

Whether you were a woman, a teacher from an underrepresented minority group, or simply someone who didn't see eye-to-eye with leadership, the old system wasn't built for your advancement. But creating equal opportunities for everyone, meant high-performing teachers would have to give up their ability to negotiate individual perks. It was a meaningful trade-off. It required teachers in the 1950s to first agree on what they all wanted. And consensus was hard to come by.