IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v177y2020icp1-18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advanced counter-biasing

Author

Listed:
  • Benscheidt, Kevin
  • Carpenter, Jeffrey

Abstract

Viewed through the lens of the prominent two-system model of decision making, much of behavioral economics is seen as studying the tension between impulses (System 1) and rationality (System 2). In this context, two strategies, “de-biasing,” informing agents of their biases and “counter-biasing,” using “nudges” to activate biases to positively influence choice, have improved the welfare of behavioral agents. We advance the notion of counter-biasing by demonstrating that one bias (present bias) can be pit against another (choking at high stakes) to counteract the ill effects of the second. Our results demonstrate the potential of counter-biasing as an effective policy tool.

Suggested Citation

  • Benscheidt, Kevin & Carpenter, Jeffrey, 2020. "Advanced counter-biasing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-18.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:177:y:2020:i:c:p:1-18
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.05.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268120301724
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.05.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    2. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Susanne Neckermann & Sally Sadoff, 2016. "The Behavioralist Goes to School: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Improve Educational Performance," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 183-219, November.
    3. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    4. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    5. Dan Ariely & Uri Gneezy & George Loewenstein & Nina Mazar, 2009. "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(2), pages 451-469.
    6. Gregory Besharov, 2004. "Second-Best Considerations in Correcting Cognitive Biases," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(1), pages 12-20, July.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    8. Saurabh Bansal & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Impact of Compound and Reduced Specification on Valuation of Projects with Multiple Risks," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 27-46, March.
    9. Sanders, Shane & Walia, Bhavneet, 2012. "Shirking and “choking” under incentive-based pressure: A behavioral economic theory of performance production," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 363-366.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bilen, Eren & Matros, Alexander, 2023. "The Queen's Gambit: Explaining the superstar effect using evidence from chess," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 307-324.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Benscheidt, Kevin, 2019. "Advanced Counter-Biasing," IZA Discussion Papers 12253, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    3. Kunte Sebastian, 2020. "The Regional Nudger: Wie Erkenntnisse der Verhaltensökonomie die Regionalpolitik und die politische Praxis auf Länderebene verbessern können," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 69(1), pages 69-87, May.
    4. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    5. Patterson, Richard W., 2018. "Can behavioral tools improve online student outcomes? Experimental evidence from a massive open online course," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 293-321.
    6. Laureti, Carolina & Szafarz, Ariane, 2023. "Banking regulation and costless commitment contracts for time-inconsistent agents," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    8. Gary V. Engelhardt & Anil Kumar, 2007. "Employer Matching and 401(k) Saving: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study," NBER Chapters, in: Public Policy and Retirement, Trans-Atlantic Public Economics Seminar (TAPES), pages 1920-1943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Damon Clark & David Gill & Victoria Prowse & Mark Rush, 2020. "Using Goals to Motivate College Students: Theory and Evidence From Field Experiments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 648-663, October.
    10. Choi, James J. & Haisley, Emily & Kurkoski, Jennifer & Massey, Cade, 2017. "Small cues change savings choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 378-395.
    11. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    12. Martin Binder & Leonhard K. Lades, 2015. "Autonomy-Enhancing Paternalism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 3-27, February.
    13. Gabriel D. Carroll & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2009. "Optimal Defaults and Active Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1639-1674.
    14. Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Sendhil Mullainathan & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "Getting to the Top of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving," Working Papers 988, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    15. Randall Ellis & Elizabeth Savage, 2008. "Run for cover now or later? The impact of premiums, threats and deadlines on private health insurance in Australia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 257-277, December.
    16. Howard Kunreuther, 2020. "Risk Management Solutions for Climate Change–Induced Disasters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2263-2271, November.
    17. Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Combining nudges and boosts to increase precautionary saving: A large-scale field experiment," Papers WP722, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    18. Louis Kaplow, 2010. "Targeted Savings and Labor Supply," NBER Working Papers 15656, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    20. Koch, Alexander & Nafziger, Julia & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2015. "Behavioral economics of education," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 3-17.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral economics; Counter-biasing; Present bias; Choking; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:177:y:2020:i:c:p:1-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.