Psychology, Behavioral Economics, and Public Policy

Abstract

Economics has typically been the social science of choice to inform public policy and policymakers. In the current paper we contemplate the role behavioral science can play in enlightening policymakers. In particular, we provide some examples of research that has and can be used to inform policy, reflect on the kind of behavioral science that is important for policy, and approaches for convincing policy-makers to listen to behavioral scientists. We suggest that policymakers are unlikely to invest the time translating behavioral research into its policy implications, and researchers interested in influencing public policy must therefore invest substantial effort, and direct that effort differently than in standard research practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Amir, O. and D. Ariely. (2004). “The Pain of Deciding: Indecision, Procrastination, and Consumer Choice Online.” Unpublished manuscript.

  2. Amir, O., D. Ariely, and Z. Carmon. (2005). “The Locus and Appropriateness of Monetary Evaluations: Why Monetary Assessments do not Reflect Predicted Utility,” Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Ando, A. and F. Modigliani. (1963). “The ‘Life Cycle’ Hypothesis of Saving: Aggregate Implications and Tests,”American Economic Review 53, 55–84.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ariely, D., B. Koszegi, and N. Mazar. (2004). “Price-Sensitive Preferences,” Unpublished manuscript.

  5. Ariely, D. and G. Loewenstein. (forthcoming). “In the Heat of the Moment The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

  6. Benartzi, S. and R. Thaler. (2004). “Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in Increase Employee Savings,”Journal of Political Economy 112(1), 164–187.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier. (1998). On the self-Regulation of Behavior. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Duflo, E., M. Kremer, and J. Robinson. (2005). “Understanding Technology Adoption: Fertilizer in Western Kenya, Preliminary Results from Field Experiments,” Working paper MIT

  9. Duval, Shelley and Robert A. Wicklund. (1972). A Theory of Objective Self Awareness. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Epley, N., L. Idson, and D. Mak. (2004). “Rebate or Bonus? The Impact of Income Framing on Spending and Saving.” Unpublished manuscript.

  11. Epley, N. and T. Gilovich. (2001, Sep). “Putting Adjustment Back in the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: Differential Processing of Self-Generated and Experimenter-Provided Anchors,”Psychological Science 391–396.

  12. Fish, S. (2004). Why We Built the Ivory Tower. The New York Times, May 21st.

  13. Huber, J., J. Payne, and C. Puto. (1982). “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,”Journal of Consumer Research (pre-1986) 9(1), 90.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Huberman, G., S. Iyengar, and W. Jiang. (2003). “Defined Contribution Pension Plans: Determinants of Participation and Contribution Rates.” Working paper, Columbia Business School.

  15. Iyengar, S. S. and M. R. Lepper. (2000). “When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire too Much of a Good Thing?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6), 995–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, E. J. and D. Goldstein. (2003, Nov 21). “Do Defaults Save Lives?”Science 1338–1339.

  17. Jolls, C. and C. R. Sunstein. (2004). “Debiasing Through Law”. Unpublished manuscript.

  18. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk,”Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Laibson, D. (1997). “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 62, (May), 443–477.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lindsay, R. C. L. and G. L. Wells. (1985). “Improving Eyewitness Identification from Lineups: Simultaneous Versus Sequential Lineup Presentations,”Journal of Applied Psychology 70, 556–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Loewenstein, G. (1996). “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 272.

  22. Loewenstein, G. F., C. K. Hsee, E. U. Weber, and N. Welsh. (2001). “Risk as Feelings,”Psychological Bulletin 267–286.

  23. Mazar, Nina, On Amir, and Dan Ariely. (2005). “Almost Honest: Internal and External Motives for Honesty,”MIT Sloan School of Management.

  24. Russo, E. J., V. H. Medvec, and M. G. Meloy. (1996). “The Distortion of Information During Decisions,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66(1), 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Samuelson, W. and R. J. Zeckhauser. (1988). “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1(March), 7–59.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Simonson, I. (1989). “Choice Based On Reasons: The Case Of Attraction And Comprom,”Journal of Consumer Research 16(2), 158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Simonson, I. and A. Tversky, (1992). “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,”Journal of Marketing Research 29(3), 281–295.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. (2002). “The Affect Heuristic.” In T. Gilovich (ed.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press pp. 397–420 .

    Google Scholar 

  29. Slovic, P., D. Griffin, and A. Tversky. (2002). “Compatibility Effects in Judgment and Choice,”In T. Gilovich (ed.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press pp. 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sunstein, C. R. (2000). Behavioral Law and Economics. (ed.), Cambridge University Press.

  31. Thaler, R. H. and H. M. Shefrin. (1981). “An Economic Theory of Self-Control,”Journal of Political Economy 89(April), 392–406.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Turtle, J. W., R. C. L. Lindsay, and G. L. Wells. (2003). “Best Practice Recommendations for Eyewitness Evidence Procedures: New Ideas for the Oldest Way to Solve a Case,”The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services 1, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,”Science 211(4481), 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science 185, 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tversky, A., S. Sattath, and P. Slovic. (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”Psychological Review 95(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wells, G. L., R. S. Malpass, R. C. L. Lindsay, R. P. Fisher, J. W. Turtle, and S. Fulero. (2000). “From the Lab to the Police Station: A Successful Application of Eyewitness Research,”American Psychologist 55, 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). The power and pathology of imprisonment. Congressional Record. (Serial No. 15, October 25, 1971). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner's Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to On Amir.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amir, O., Ariely, D., Cooke, A. et al. Psychology, Behavioral Economics, and Public Policy. Market Lett 16, 443–454 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5904-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • public policy
  • psychology
  • behavioral economics