Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: behavioral economics

Decisions Have An Opportunity Cost That Require Tradeoffs

In economics, sometimes psychology comes in handy…

If you were creating a wine list for a restaurant, which order would you select:

  • Alphabetize everything.
  • By price, start with the cheapest bottles.
  • By price, start with the most expensive bottles.
  • Group by wine type, and then select, from above, one of the first 3 choices.

If psychologists are right, first you should diminish our choices by grouping items. But not too much. Too many items and we might select none of them. Too few and we are dissatisfied. Recent research indicates that at fast food establishments we like 6 items in each category (chicken dishes, pasta, starters…) while in finer restaurants, we prefer selecting among 10 entres.

Next, a reference point is important. Where you start determines how you assess the subsequent selection. One analysis of a menu (below) at Balthazar, a NYC restaurant, explained that they listed a $155 seafood platter at the top right hand side and a $100 platter next to it to create a reference point or an “anchor.” Seen next to the $155 item, people happily select the $100 platter because it appears more reasonably priced. So, for the wine list, place the most expensive bottle first.

Finally, another study indicated background classical music can make a difference. In upscale restaurants, the music seemed to influence more expensive wine purchases. French music even appeared to generate a preference for French wine. Add in slow music and a hint of lavender and people linger more.

Fundamentally, when designing a menu, restauranteurs hope to attract us to their most profitable items, their “stars” and steer us away from popular items that are unprofitable, their “plow horses.” On the Balthazar menu below, their “stars” like the seafood platters and shrimp cocktail initially attract us. By contrast, I suspect they do not want us to order items at the bottom in their “menu Siberia.”

In the menu pdf, here, prices are easier to read than below.

Restaurant Psychology

You can see why, in 2002, Princeton psychology professor emeritus Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics (actually called the Sveriges Riksbank–Sweden’s central bank– Prize in Economic Sciences in honor of Alfred Nobel). I recommend his most recent book, Thinking Fast and Slow, as the perfect example of how behavioral economics is the intersection of psychology and economics.

Sources and Resources: This fascinating Guardian UK article describes menu psychology in greater detail while this one provides further analysis of the Balthazar menu.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16596_6.30_000005521931XSmall

Can a sibling’s success add to your self-esteem? It depends.

Sometimes you can feel better about yourself when your brother or sister does something fantastic. However, if your self-esteem relates to excelling at whatever your sibling does, then you might not feel so great.

And that takes us to the Harbaugh brothers.

With John the head coach for the 49ers and Jim the head coach of the Ravens, at today’s Super Bowl, each might be experiencing “self-evaluation maintenance.” Self-evaluation maintenance involves how good we feel about ourselves when someone close to us does something special. For siblings, the more similar their professions, the tougher it is to enjoy the other’s success. Why? Your own status gets relatively worse when a brother or sister gets better at something.

Summing up when siblings add to each other’s self-esteem, one NPR commentator referred to the three Manning brothers. For Peyton and Eli, both football players, one’s success might not elevate the other’s “self-definition.” However, Cooper Manning, a stockbroker, could be enjoying the reflected glory of every tackle and touchdown his brothers make.

The economic connection? Comparisons matter. In one study of a Chinese village and another in Great Britain, workers expressed more job satisfaction when their wage was relatively high in terms of co-workers. Indeed, how we judge ourselves frequently relates to reference points that are based on the people around us.

Sources and Resources: My thanks to NPR for their segment on sibling rivalry, the Manning example, and the great Smothers Brothers’s “Mom Always Liked You Best” dialogue. That took me to University of Georgia scholar, Abraham Tesser’s research on SEM in this book excerpt and finally to economic happiness research.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Decisions Have An Opportunity Cost That Require Tradeoffs

After reading Murder at the Margin, some of my students suggested in essays that we do not need a psychiatrist to explain human behavior. Instead, just ask a behavioral economist. Let’s give it a try…

Defaulting:

  • In life, we tend to take the default selection. So whether downloading software or selecting a spouse, be sure the default is best for you. And if you are the producer, know that a default will shape the response for your good or service.

Framing:

  • Be aware that what precedes a decision shapes its content. If a gallon of gas has gone down from $5.00 to 4.00 to $3.50, we are pleased with $3.50. However, when prices climb to $3.50, it sounds high. Similarly, told before a serious operation that 90 people out of 100 survive, most feel optimistic. Framed instead by the fact that 10 people out of 100 die, the prognosis alarms doctors and patients.

Automatic decisions:

  • Watch out for your automatic/nonthinking response. Making a decision, people typically have an instantaneous automatic response and one that involves more thinking. So, when faced with a “stop sign” that says, “go,” at first we stop although the sign instructs the opposite. With product design also, our automatic response counts. Take, for example, stovetop knob design. Shown by the first diagram below, many stovetops have a knob line-up that prevents us from responding automatically. The second diagram, below, represents a more functional design.


Our Bottom Line: Because incentives that are not always rational shape how we act at home, at work, and in response to government, behavioral economists can do a good job of explaining life and suggesting how to design policy.

Sources: For further behavioral economics insight, I not only recommend the source of all of my above examples, Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, but also Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely and Wait by Frank Partnoy. For a more academic look at the connection between incentives and behavior, this paper provides insight. And here, you can read more about Murder at the Margin, a mystery whose protagonist is an economics professor who solves a murder using  behavioral economics.

Stove top knob line-ups: In the bottom diagram, you can match the knob to the burner automatically but not with the first one.

Knob alignment does not imply which knob to use.

Knob alignment suggests which one to use.

 

Monday Behavioral Economics Posts

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Decisions Have An Opportunity Cost That Require Tradeoffs

Did you know that many college professors have encountered the dead granny phenomenon?

Discussing dishonesty, behavioral economist Dan Ariely tells us that before a college midterm, a student’s grandmother is 10 times more likely to die and before a final exam, 19 times. In fact, failing students experience even more “calamity” because their grandmothers are 50 times more likely to perish before a major exam.

Here, Ariely connects the fabrications to “depletion.” When we run out of energy, we also have less of the will power that preserves honesty.

The WSJ graphic, that follows perfectly illustrates how our “cognitive flexibility” can encourage or constrain dishonesty.

WSJ Interactive Graphic: Dan Ariely Explains Dishonesty

 

The graphic, can also take us to the former SAC Capital Advisors employee who was accused of alleged insider trading. First, some background on SAC:

  • SAC is a hedge fund that manages close to $13 billion.
  • Tough to precisely define, a hedge fund buys and sells, sometimes within milliseconds, countless types of securities and security products. When they sell short, they are benefiting from a stock price going down.
  • SAC’s average annual return for 18 years (but not 2008 when they were down 19%) has been publicized as an impressive 30%.
  • At approximately 100 million shares a day, their trading volume is massive.

The charges against the former SAC employee involved information he allegedly received about pharmaceutical test results. If indeed he did receive a secret phone call detailing disappointing results at Elan and Wyeth on which his stock trading decisions were based, then his transactions, involving hundreds of millions of dollars, were illegal.

The WSJ graphic, provides clues about why people might engage in insider trading. In a chapter from The (Honest Truth About Dishonesty, on “Collabrative Cheating,” Ariely says that sometimes, the social norms within a group encourage us to engage in “altruistic cheating.” We care about the group with whom we work. We realize that we want and need our supervisors to approve of our decisions. As a result, each group member might “bend the rules” to keep everyone happy. And furthermore, as he also points out, punishment is not necessarily a deterrent.

Indeed, whether on Wall Street or at school when we are exhausted, overwhelmed, and unprepared for the final exam, our “cognitive flexibility can lead to dishonesty. As economists, it leaves us pondering how incentives can be used to elicit the best behavior.

Sources and Resources: I do recommend this video discussion about dishonesty between Yale researcher Laurie Santos and Duke professor Dan Ariely. Ariey also describes his ideas in this WSJ article and his book, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty and for more on SAC, here is a 2010 Bloomberg article and a recent discussion of insider trading charges against a former employee.

Monday Behavioral Economics Posts

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Decisions Have An Opportunity Cost That Require Tradeoffs

A gift can be worth much more or less than its price tag. It just depends on whether you are the giver or the receiver.

One of the best gifts I have ever gotten was a book of car wash coupons. Happily, I used every one, each time feeling that I had gotten something for free. The value of the gift to me was equal to the value that the giver had paid to say thanks for driving her daughter to school every morning.

According to economist Joel Waldfogel, my experience was unusual. What we give rarely is worth as much to the recipient. As a result, he says that there is an “orgy of value destruction” during the holidays. If you are willing to pay only $25 for that $50 sweater your Aunt Minnie gave you, then $25 of value is destroyed. Called deadweight loss, Waldfogel estimates that 18 percent of the value of all gifts given during the December holidays disappears.

Is the answer cash? Not necessarily. Explained by behavioral economist Dan Ariely, the reason might be that we have market norms and social norms. A stranger asked to help someone move a sofa says no when offered a small amount of cash. However, when asked as a favor, more people willingly assisted. The former was a transaction. The second was an act of good will.

The good will takes us to gift giving. Even when value is lost on the recipient’s side, it might be gained with the giver. After all, if the pleasure of giving a $50 sweater could “add” $25 to its value and make it worth $75 to your Aunt Minnie, then that 18 percent deadweight loss is eliminated.

Maybe you think this behavioral analysis is ridiculous. But, the combination of gifts’ deadweight loss and the need to judge gifts with social norms might be why gift cards are so popular. It also explains why my car wash coupons were worth more to me than their price tag.

Sources and Resources: Joel Waldfogel conveys the academics behind his ideas in his paper, more informally explains his book, Scroogenomics, in this video, and summarizes his conclusions in this NPR segment. My top recommendation, though, is Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational in which I read about social and market norms (Chapter 4).

Past Monday Behavioral Economics Posts

Managing Risk: 11/12

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment