Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Nudging (HC2: Dual-process theories (two prototypical approaches (cogn…
Nudging
HC2: Dual-process theories
Behavioral science and policy making
Mark Whitehead: government uses insights creepy behavioral scientists to influence behavior (especially dual systems theory)
Sustein: government always influences bahavior, so what is wrong with using scientific insights if they serve the wellbeing of the population
Thinking Fast and Slow
bounded rationality - described harsh reality of human decision making
classic economic theories of rational decisionmaking: considering all options and their features to arrive at maximum utility
BlackBox
sys1 discovered after a long time of behavioral psychology
sys2; invented to tame/constrain/regulate irrational system2
systems 1 and psychology
resonates well w/ psychological insights that people seem to act irrational, not doing what they want to do and consider important (intent-behavior gap)
Dual system theories: not one but many
1; heuristic, experiential, intuitive, reflexive, hot, implicit, automatic, associative, impulsive, unconscious, holistic
2; systematic, analytic, deliberate, reflective, cold, explicit, controlled, rule based, conscious
william james: associative (reproductive) and true reasoning (for unexpected situations)
differences:
sys 1 = fast, unconscious and sys2 = slow and conscious
sys2 requires access to capacity-limited central working memory resource while system 1 does not
example: elaboration likelihood model
two routes to persuasion
central - thinking carefully, elaborating on info when moti and ability are high
peripheral - shortcuts to make a judgment
system 1 is default
sys1 = older: fast thinking is more adaptive than slow,
sys2 = associated w/ language, reflective consciousness, and capacity to think hypothetically about future
two prototypical approaches
social psych
sys1 leads to risky decisions
both systems compete: sys1 needs to be restrained by system 2
Strak & deutsch
“Both systems operate in parallel. However, there is an asymmetry such that the impulsive system is always engaged in processing whereas the reflective system may be disengaged”
sys1 rules behavior UNLESSimpulses are inhibited by sys2
assumption: impulses are bad, giving in to immediate wishes and neglecting long-term goals
but impulses not necessarily bad nor are reflective processes always good: fail to distinguish between process and outcome
xample: dieters who were provided with justification eat more
state of low selfcontrol: ppl are more responsive to social proof heuristic
cogn psych
sys1 is not inferior to system 2 but still error prone
both systems operate in concert (overleg)
Kahneman: many everyday decisions involve rapid intuitive decision making with little conscious effort, using mental shortcuts (heuristics)
stroop task: failing inhibitory capacity of system 2 or salience heuristic?
Sys2 is NOT designed to correct system 1
myth 2
dual sys under attack: they do not necessarily coincide (het eens zijn)
uncon
what is more problematic
sys1 as a whole resonates the idea of
bounded rationality
and emphasizes (unintentionally) that full rationality is standard
problematic for nudging: issues with autonomy, manipulation and patronizing: even for good purposes, it exploits fallacies in decision making
as long as we consider it as irrational biases
what about sys2 nudges?
empowering people, better decision making, correct impulsive choices
different from conventional education interventions?
issues for further consideration
nature of sys 1 decision: just fast an impulsive? or habitual? (habit may be harder to change)
how automatic (unconscious) is system 1 responding?
does nudge transparency interfere with effect?
do people experience act of choice?
do personal goals/motivation matter?
Terminology matters
irrational/unconscious makes ppl uneasy while
habitual/automatic/heuristic dont
ppl find nudging okay when u leave out unconscious
HC3 Heuristics
= mental shortcuts, rules of thumb, cognitive biases (related to sys1 thinking)
I when do we use heuristics?
what do we need to make a fully informed decision or judgment?
identify all relevant info
recall and store this information
assess weights of all information
consider all information on alternatives
select the right option
=
weighted additive rule
this takes effort, heuristics reduce this effort
examine less info
make recall and storage easier
simplify weighting of all information
consider less information on alternatives
select from fewer options
II how do we use heuristics
cognitive laziness heuristics - inevitable shortcuts given the limitations of the human brain
effort-accuracy trade-off: less effort = worse accuracy
effort investments depends on availibility of resources
attribute substitution - ppl substitute a complex problem with a more simple problem, without being aware -> biases
for important decisions, sys2 shoul be used or paternalistic defaults should be applied
fast and frugal - heuristics can be just as accurate (but faster) compared to deliberate strategies
less is more
when are heuristics ecologically rational?
III examples
cognitive
representativeness
neglect of base rates
global = local
50% is boy when born, if friend has 3 guys she must get a girl
availability
frequency/probability is judged by ease with which people can think of instances
what makes something more salient/easily retrievable?
recent
familliar
personal
important
anchoring
anchor and adjust, until a plausible answer is reached
anchor ''sets the tone''
frames, starting points, defaults
cognitive consistency
status quo
related to loss aversion (dont like to lose what i have), sunk costs (i already invested in this), mere exposure (i like the one i know)
prevents ppl from taking risks (can have positive or negative consequences
avoids costs of making decision
affect
loss aversion
social
social proof
ppl tend to conform to the majority (especially with strong identify
scarcity
group ID
social norms
authority
false consensus
illustration I
peter, 20% plays chess, 80% play soccer. likes to read. how likely one of the soccer players?
similar answers?!
representativeness heuristics
illustration II
which city more inhabitants?
american 2/3 en german 100% correct > availability
ppl believe an event will be more likely to occur if they can conjure up examples of memories of it
illustration III
a. pay 100.000 by insurance if you die abroad b. same as above buth with abroad terrorism accident
affect heuristic (substituting fear)
illustration IIII
distance between NY and SF? more or less than 1500/4000 miles?
anchoring
illustration V
company has new insurance plans, like to select?
new employees want to, existing dont want to
status quo bias
illustration IV
bias blind spot: ppl tend to think that biases are much more prevalent in others than in themselves
individual diff in susceptibility: cognitive reflection (ability to reason independently of prior belief)
within person differences
ppl more susceptible to heuristic thinking in hot states (sys1)
visceral states, cognitive load, ego-depletion
cafetaria experiment
stiated: more healthy choices than social proof
hungry: less healthy but yes with social proof
similar findings for:
other states of low self-control (sys1 is dominant)
other heuristics (scarcity)
other domains (consumer products)
heuristics can lead to favorable outcomes if heuristics are employed strategically
V. Application in nudging
how can we..
make desirable options come to mind more easily? (increase salience/availability)
make desirable options look like the most popular options
tune ppls cognitive starting points (anchors) towards desirable outcomes
anchor > give more (higher) options so ppl choose default
availibility - add first aid classs after documentary
social norms - give statistics
final remarks
many but not all nudges can be clearly traced back to heuristics
some nudges are based on fundamental processes of attention and perception
take home
heuristics are decisional shortcuts
ppl more likely to use heuristics when cogn capacity is (temporarily) low
heuristic-based decisions are not necessarily worse (and can even be better!) than more elaborate decisions
heuristics can be used to promote optimal choices in naturally different difficult circumstances
hc1
different about nudging: relies on different systems in way to think
take a lot of shortcuts
some to perceive the world
cheerleader effects
clustering illusion
some to peceive/judge ourselves
ikea effect
planning fallacy
biases a bad thing?
there are biases that lead to suboptimal choices, when changing these = NUDGES
nudge = any aspect of a choice architecture that alters ppls behavior in a predictable way
without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives
when to nudge? choices that are..
have a delayed positive effect
are difficult
are infrequent
have poor feedback
have an unclear outcome