IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/smo/raiswp/0293.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Behavioral Economics for All: From Nudging to Leadership

Author

Listed:
  • Julia M. Puaschunder

    (Columbia University, USA)

Abstract

Behavioral economics is an innovative applied science. In the 1950s economic rational choice models came under scrutiny. A theoretical critique emerged that not all human beings strive for efficiency and rationality all the time. Behavioral economics first drew attention to deviations from rationality and discussed the non-applicability of rational choice models for depicting the actual behavior of humans. During the 1970s, Amartya Sen formalized the rational choice critique and published powerful examples of how economics needs a reality check and backtesting of its core axioms of rationality, efficiency and time consistency for actual real-world relevancy and external validity of the standard rational choice claims. By 1979, the two psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky presented a line of laboratory experiments at universities that proved the rational choice theory to be inaccurate to explain the real-world decision-making patterns of individuals. The following behavioral economics revolution rewrote economics for accuracy and predictability for actual human day-to-day choices and behavior. Sociologists, political scientists, psychologists created a line of research to describe how individuals actually decide during the first decade of the 2000s. Behavioral insights were then used to find ways how to ‘nudge’ individuals, communities and leaders to help others make better choices in different domains, for instance such as finance, marketing, health and well-being. Around the world, governmental officials and governance experts adopted behavioral nudges and winks to create better choice architectures and decision-making patterns. This paper describes the history of behavioral economics with attention to North American roots and European interpretations in order to then prospect future trends in behavioral economics. First, given the enormous popularity behavioral economics has enjoyed in the most recent decades, a general knowledge has formed about behavioral nudges. Libertarian paternalism is – by now – limited when it comes to implicitly tricking people into making choices based on well-known insights. A common body of knowledge on behavioral aspects of choice patterns may lead to reactance if people notice manipulation. The general population should therefore be trained to make self-empowered choices that meet their individual principles, needs and wants based on their behavioral expertise. Behavioral economists should move from manipulating nudges to educating trainings of the layperson. Second, the field of behavioral sciences has experienced a deep replication crisis given major data cheating scandals and contemporary fraud allegations. General oversight mechanism between co-authors, backtesting of effects for validity and their general applicability is therefore warranted. he general population should be trained to be critical of behavioral insights presented to them and be encouraged by behavioral economists to feedback on the potential non-applicability of p-hacked results. Third, online searchplace distortion of behavioral economics results has become a sad reality for young behavioral economists in the strategic search engine results manipulation through Search Engine Disoptimization (SEDO). This implicit internet harassment calls for a democratization of information and whole-rounded inclusion of thoughts online. Behavioral economists should raise awareness for this negative competitive behavior and work together with global governance institutions, regulatory bodies but also industry professionals to curb negative internet search engine manipulation and empower the upcoming generation of behavioral economists to speak up when this is happening. Professional bodies should be informed to help those whose career has been hit by competitive internet manipulation. All these trends are speculated to lead to a revamped behavioral economics revolution that demands for behavioral economics for all. The future of behavioral economics is believed to lie in self-empowered leadership, not manipulation. A democratization of behavioral economics information leading to a general knowledge basis on actual behavioral patterns will guide a self-empowered decision-making cadre within the general population. Search for true and credible behavioral insights can lift the entire field to a more helpful stage to become a standing guidepost for wise quality decision-making. The digital millennium calling for fair internet use will hopefully prosper an inclusive and diversified information on behavioral insights to be accessible, useful and meaningful for all.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia M. Puaschunder, 2023. "Behavioral Economics for All: From Nudging to Leadership," RAIS Conference Proceedings 2022-2024 0293, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:smo:raiswp:0293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rais.education/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/0293.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    5. Sen, Amartya, 1993. "Internal Consistency of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 495-521, May.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1986. "The Failure of Armchair Economics," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 18-25, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    2. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    3. Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Richard Deaves, 2002. "Bubbles in experimental asset markets: Irrational exuberance no more," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2002-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    4. Lucy F. Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan K. Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "Margin, Short Selling, and Lotteries in Experimental Asset Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 419-436, October.
    5. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    6. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    7. Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Behavioral heterogeneity in dynamic search situations: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1719-1738, September.
    8. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    9. Edsel L. Beja, 2017. "The Asymmetric Effects of Macroeconomic Performance on Happiness: Evidence for the EU," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 52(3), pages 184-190, May.
    10. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.
    11. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424.
    12. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    13. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    14. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.
    15. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    16. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    17. Robert Bordley & Marco Licalzi & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Ugur Can (ed.), Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship, pages 659-671, Springer.
    18. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Xin Liu, 2023. "Fear to lose? An analysis of CEO successors’ decision-making regarding R&D intensity based on behavioral agency theory," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(1), pages 403-430, February.
    20. Jonathan Shalev, 2000. "Loss aversion equilibrium," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(2), pages 269-287.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral Economics; Behavioral Finance; Behavioral Insights;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:smo:raiswp:0293. 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: Eduard David (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://rais.education/ .

    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.