JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for AAHPN Archives


AAHPN Archives

AAHPN Archives


AAHPN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AAHPN Home

AAHPN Home

AAHPN  April 2013

AAHPN April 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Nudge and money

From:

Arlene Bierman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Arlene Bierman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:39:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (209 lines)

Fascinating exchange.

From Todays Globe and Mail
The best way to lose weight? The Biggest Loser may be on to somethingŠ
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/the-best-way-to-lose-weig
ht-the-biggest-loser-may-be-on-to-something/article11048768/

"Want to motivate your family members to lose weight? Forget pleading them
to do it for health reasons. Theyıre more likely to slim down if promised
some cold, hard cash.

Last month, The Hot Button noted that a study conducted on Mayo Clinic
employees showed people successfully shed extra pounds when money is at
stake. Now, new research suggests people are even more likely to reach their
weight-loss goals when they are pitted against one another for a share of
the winnings."

Arlene Bierman



On 13-04-12 1:10 PM, "Uwe E. Reinhardt" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> 
> This has been an interesting exchange, so far, and I hope it will continue, so
> that I may learn from it.
> 
> If, after 20 years of working in the field of behavioral economics, Adam still
> "hasn't mastered it by any stretch of the imagination," imagine the plight of
> a little country economist from rural New Jersey.
> 
> When asked at dinner parties what behavioral economics is, I try to get off
> the hook by explaining that one can think of behavioral economics as an
> academic seminar to which psychologists and other disciplines have been
> invited and at which at least some economists discard their century-old
> hauteur to listen to insights from other disciplines.
> 
> So a kindly psychologist might explain to us that people actually do not cope
> with uncertainty in the elegant and simple way imagined by the
> von-Neumann-Morgenstern algorithm. Or we learn that the reaction of people to
> probabilities depends strongly on how that probability is described to them:
> "out of 100 patients undergoing this procedure, 4 die" vs. "out of 100
> patients undergoing this procedure, 96 survive." We learn that "more choice"
> or "more options" is not necessarily better, something some standard
> economists have trouble grasping.
> 
> Thus educated, behavioral theorists then think of ways to structure the
> context in which decisions are made in a way that leads to choices that are
> somehow desired by the structurer. At least that is what I think of as the
> normative branch of behavioral economics.
> 
> Viewed in this way, behavioral economics is more than just an attempt to shore
> up standard economic analysis. It is an attempt to build models of systematic
> human behavior based on axioms and hypotheses that come closer to life here on
> earth rather than to life on planet Econ, as Tsung-Mei Cheng had put it so
> nicely at a talk at iHEA Toronto in the attached slide. It is an attempt to
> bring models of economic behavior back to earth from outer space, to where
> mathematical standard economics had blasted it.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Uwe
> 
> 
>    
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Michael Gusmano
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Nudge and money
> 
> Thanks for prompting this exchange! I appreciate Adam's work on this topic and
> think it is wonderful that you are discussing the normative implications of
> nudge strategies in particular, and behavioral economics generally. I have
> often had the same reaction as Tom regarding "present bias" and so-called
> hyper-discounting. If the extent to which we discount (at an individual or
> policy level) is value choice, the democratic theorist in me would like to
> encourage an explicit public deliberation about this. Indeed, if nudge
> strategies are supposed to work at a subconscious level, I think it is
> particularly important at the policy level to have debates about the direction
> we are pushing. As Tom suggests, the application of some nudge strategies seem
> to define behavior that deviates from the assumptions of mainstream economics
> as a problem that needs to be solved.
> 
> Michael
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of
> Adam Oliver [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 9:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Nudge and money
> 
> Dear Tom,
> 
> Behavioural economists fall into many camps, which I agree is messy, but
> there you go. I think you have summarised the position of one camp -
> that is, they identify systematic patterns of behaviour that deviate
> from the standard model, and consider these to be of descriptive rather
> than normative import (probably most behavioural economists sit here).
> Another camp believe that if the patterns are systematic, there must be
> something deliberate about them and therefore how can we say they are
> non-normative (i.e. that people should not behave in these ways). We can
> say that they should not behave in these ways if people ought to be
> expected utility maximisers, but many behavioural economists, including
> me, do not believe that people necessarily ought to be EU maximisers in
> all circumstances. Another camp of behavioural economists recognise that
> the systematic patterns exist, but feel that outcomes maximisation of
> any sort is too strong a position to take. They'd rather just maximise
> opportunity of choice, warts (i.e. anomalies) an' all.
> 
> A fundamental problem, as I see it, with the area of nudge and
> behavioural economics (loosely defined) is that many people who see
> themselves as having expertise in this area, don't. I've been studying
> behavioural economics since 1990, and I haven't mastered it by any
> stretch of the imagination.
> 
> You pose good questions, though.
> 
> Best,
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Tom Foubister
> Sent: 12 April 2013 14:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Nudge and money
> 
> Adam
> 
> Suppose that mainstream economics rests on a model of individual
> behaviour which fails to represent accurately, even adequately, how
> people actually behave. I believe this is a presupposition of
> behavioural economics.
> 
> Behavioural economics, in contrast, takes how people actually behave
> (using empirical observation and experiment to do so) as its practical
> starting point.
> 
> Like mainstream economics, behavioural economics rests on a pretty
> stable model of the economic individual - attributes such as present
> bias and so on being constants here.  Being economics it has to.
> 
> What I'm wondering is this:
> 
> The way behavioural economics structures the economic individual is
> essentially as a series of deviations from the mainstream economics
> model, a series of 'falling-shorts', or errors - all negative attributes
> given positive defining force by behavioural economics, and for whose
> positive and enabling equivalents we have the mainstream model to thank.
> 
> So behavioural economics, at bottom, starts from, shares, reproduces (in
> a shadow kind of way) and ultimately reinforces the mainstream model. It
> certainly doesn't challenge it as a normative model. The key difference
> is this: for mainstream economics the model reflects the reality (even
> if individual economists don't quite fully believe that); for
> policy-oriented behavioural economics reality needs to be helped to
> better reflect the mainstream model.
> 
> Perhaps the term 'present bias' itself says all that needs to be said.
> To call it present 'bias' is automatically to consider it a flaw
> relative to the un-flawed mainstream model, a model whose value is in
> consequence affirmed. But I wonder if, for instance, a Buddhist would
> see the 'bias' in it, or an Epicurean, or other worldviews.
> 
> Are there any implications to this? Probably not, it's just a thought.
> But I think we need to think carefully about the claim - implicit or
> stated - behavioural economics makes to present a challenge to the
> mainstream economics model; and we should also fully agree with you that
> mainstream economists really oughtn't to be dismissive of behavioural
> economics.
> 
> Tom
> -----Original Message-----
> From:         "Oliver,AJ" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender:       Anglo-American Health Policy Network
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:         Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:32:36
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To:     "Oliver,AJ" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Nudge and money
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If you are interested in the subject of paying people to make healthier
> choices, I've written a very short blog on the subject, relating it to
> nudge:
> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/healthandsocialcare/2013/04/12/nudging-with-money
> /
> 
> Best,
> Adam
> 
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager