Thoughts on Context and Attention

In understanding causes of human behaviour psychology has traditionally approached explaining them as determined by beliefs or aspirations. From that standpoint, the main driver to change behaviours is acting on what we think about things.

In their influential Econometrica’s paper Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky proposed that decisions regarding risk are taken with consideration of a “reference point” proposing that changes in it may change the preferences, and the final decision. (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Those changes may not be related to alterations of the real asset position, but to the way the individual perceives them, their expectations and beliefs. The reference dependence of the decision outcomes was further analysed in another widely influential paper of the same authors Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1986).

Kahneman and Tversky views offered a new way for understanding behaviours. Under both the standard psychological approach and the expected utility theory, individuals should not be systematically influenced by the context in which the decisions are made. Either their previous beliefs or their future utility should explain their choices regardless of the context that surrounds it.

Supporting Kahneman and Tversky’s views, numerous evidence has been gathered contradicting the deterministic views of the psychology and economics. People does not act in line with the standard predictions and systematic errors are observed.
Moreover, those systematic errors that conflict with the theory, can be replicated under specific conditions. By inserting cues in the context of one decision, researchers were able to trigger unconscious behaviours in individuals.
The evidence strongly suggests that in some situations context play a very important role in determining behaviour, despite contradicting previous beliefs or causing a loss in personal well-being.

Those cues in the context are not big noticeable things. They can be small factors that can have disproportionate consequences. The way a question is made, the order options are presented, the sensory information surrounding the place where the decision is going to be made, all those tiny aspects are consciously and unconsciously being absorbed and taking into account when deciding.
Judgements are made taking into account a state of mind that is permeable to automatisms (heuristics). Those automatisms are not necessarily aligned with our convictions or with our future well-being, and the fact that they are activated with low effort and without us noticing them, end up having a major role in our choices.
With the help of our innate human capacity of making stories, these automatic responses can end up having a negative impact in our well-being. We have an intrinsic need to bring order to chaos, and in our effort to explain seemingly “inconsistent” actions, we tend to construct personal narratives that fill the gap. Those narratives make even harder for us to notice when our decisions are the outcome of a rational and systematic process, or just a reaction to a cue.

What should be considered the “context” of a decision?
To understand the extension of the context, it is important to discuss the role of attention. Consumers make choices by comparing attributes of goods. They look at the facts and they weight each one according to their preferences. But in doing so they don’t follow a systematic and exhaustive process. Attention is expensive and scarce so they prioritize and they do focus this valuable and limited resource in some salient aspect. Those are the relevant context for their decision. The cues, in that salient elements will activate heuristics.
In addition, the context of a decision has many other aspects that go unnoticed for the consumer. The sound, the smell, the light, have an impact on an unconscious way, and induce the subject’s brain in specific states of mind. Moreover, the interaction with the salesman, and with the cab driver that took him to the store also elicited some emotions (sadness, disgust, happiness, anger) that will also play a role.
In that sense, the context of the decision is as wide and as narrow as the attention and the intensity and opportunity of the relevant cues.

When designing interventions to change behaviour, the policy-maker can try the “top-down” approach activating cognitive components and motivation, or rely on the context dependence taking advantage of the external contextual cues.
When going for this second mechanism, it is important to understand that cues are everywhere. People will not necessary fix their attention where we want, neither enter a decision with a neutral state of mind. Nevertheless, with the proper cues it is possible to increase the probability that specific responses are activated.
Clearly, this probability will increase if we understand the mental states people are in when they act.

In MINDSPACE Influencing behaviour through public policy, (Dolan, Halpern, Hallsworth, King, & Vlaev, 2010) nine key behavioural influences are defined taking into account dual-processing, social and cognitive psychology, and behavioural economics.


Dolan, P., Halpern, D., Hallsworth, M., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). Influencing behaviour through public policy (Mindspace Short Guide). The Institute for Government for the Cabinet Office. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00206.x
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk Daniel Kahneman; Amos Tversky. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4).