Flying with a net, and without: Preventative devices and self-control

Excessive consumption of many vice goods (e.g., alcohol) has both possible immediate (e.g., a drunk-driving crash) and delayed (e.g., liver disease) negative consequences. This research models the consumption choices of a consumer population with heterogeneous impatience and varying degrees of sophistication in conjunction with both immediate and delayed consequences of excessive vice good consumption. We show that even when a preventative device (e.g., a designated driver) that could eliminate the immediate dangers is available for (almost) free, some consumers forgo it in order to try to use the immediate danger as a soft tool to regulate excessive consumption (e.g., “If I know I don't have a designated driver, then I won't drink too much.”). Surprisingly, this “flying without a net” is a successful strategy for some consumers, and we quantify when it is likely to be successful versus harmful. This counterintuitive result has many consequences; e.g., public policies that make the provision of preventative devices compulsory could increase consumer welfare under certain conditions but overall are not Pareto-improving. Likewise, advertising campaigns that exaggerate the likelihood of immediate dangers may be welfare decreasing despite their good intentions. In exploring the effect of our model on pricing of preventative device, we find that pricing is not monotonic in the probability of danger. We also show that consumer pessimism about self-regulation can induce consumers to experience a “boomerang effect” of overconsumption in the presence of a preventative device. Overall our research shows that the relationship between prevention and risk is not as simple as might be assumed in standard analyses and that marketers and public policymakers often need to consider the short-term and the long-term risks as well how prone the consumers are to temptation and how sophisticated they are in judging their temptation.