Understanding human behaviour should not be done by looking for a unique grand theory that have all answers and can make complete predictions about actions and decisions of humans. A non-deterministic and more humble view is required to approach to such task.
Psychology makes very relevant contributions by building categories that help us in understanding how people’s beliefs are built and interact in complex mind process. Economics brings a powerful model to capture how we look for the effect of our decisions in our future well-being. But some intriguing behaviours does not seem to fully fit in neither of those theoretical bodies. People’s decisions seem to be also influenced by small changes in the context of the decision in such a way that manipulation of that context may change the outcome.
The context dependence of our decision-making process comes as a useful addition to economics and psychology when understanding and predicting human behaviour. Our brain acts as it has two modes of processing information. On one side we enter into mental process that are rigorous, effortful and controlled, characteristics that we tend to see related to the intelligence. However, sometimes our mind follows a much fast and reflective process by which we can arrive to clear decisions regardless the complexity of the situation we face. This two system way of thinking has long been discussed in psychology and Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, fast and slow (Kahneman, 2011) provides a compelling description of how we can see our decision-making process in the light of such model.
The distinction between an intelligent and logical mode of thinking should not make as think as the other mode as dumb and random. Our automatic way of thinking, usually labelled as System 1, is far from a random black box that delivers decisions in an unpredictable way. Although under the rational normative perspective, decisions may seem unexplainable, a cause-effect relation can be modelled between the outcome and the context that activates it. Cues in the context activate automatisms (heuristics) that elicit specific responses. Those automatic responses are systematic and produce decisions that under the rational normative are biased errors.
The term error should be used with caution as by definition error means an “ideal” outcome with which to compare the “observed” outcome. The selected “ideal” imply a normative model that should be carefully questioned in order to understand the real nature of the decision.
Overeating, as a behaviour, is one of the behaviours that have been puzzling most behaviour scientists. Many people hold strong preferences and beliefs about their ideal weight, and that does not seem to be enough for them to behave as they would like to. Regret is a feeling that too often follow an abundant meal, a problem of self-control arises. Rich theories of self-control came from psychology and economics, but are far from the scope of this essay.
What makes humans overeat?
In some situations, people tend to ingest more food than needed according future energy consumption. Behavioural biology provides some interesting theories that relate this tendency with food scarcity. Biologist have found a relation between genetic markers and food behaviour that make them think that we do not decide how much to eat looking for a balance between energy consumption and energy reserves.
In fact, they saw that our food behaviour may be better explained by our “beliefs” on scarcity. If they are right, it may be the case that our problems of self-control are an adaptive response to the uncertainty of future food provision. Some evidence points to correlate obesity with populations that were in regions characterized with food provision uncertainty that had been solved. (Smith, 2009) Moreover, a relation can be established at the level of neurotransmitters between some environment triggers associated with food scarcity and food behaviours associated with fattening. Context seem to elicit some behaviour that may have been proper in the past and not anymore.
However, evidence of this context dependence can also be tracked in a more easily observable way. Brian Wansink use the term “mindless eating” to refer to “the finding that various cues associated with food non-consciously affect the amount and quality of people’s consumption” (Samson & Ariely, 2015). When we eat we are easily influenced by suggestive benchmarks like the size of the plate (that seems to matter even more than taste), and it is difficult for us to assess clearly how much calories we have consumed. (Wansink, Just, & Payne, 2009)
An interesting experiment brought evidence of how context dependent are our consumption decisions. A group of fifty-four students at a North American university where invited to complete a task and given a twenty cookie in one container. The group was divided in three conditions: one third received the cookies without partition (aggregate condition), one third with a white (wax paper) partition, and one third with partitions with different colours. The coloured partition group ate less cookies than the white partition group, and the latter group ate less than the aggregate condition. (Cheema & Soman, 2008). Cookie consumption is not neutral to partitions, and even more, the saliency of the partition matters.
People does not seem to be aware of how much they want to eat and decisions regarding food seem to be associated to other things than appetite. Context surrounding food influence in a great deal decisions of how much to eat. Taking advantage of this findings, many diet programs are including context architecture to help with the lack of self-control at the time of eating: use smaller plates, eat hot breakfast, eat fruit before snacking.
But overeating behaviour is not only related to the immediate context when eating. Many times, eating works as a way of gratification, thus detaching energy consumption and eating. Spill overs, as “subsequent independent behaviours that are linked by some underlying motive” (Dolan & Galizzi, 2015), may reflect food behaviours acting in a compensatory mode. After carefully choosing a healthy first course in lunch, people may reward themselves with a nice chocolate cake ending in a higher calorie ingest that was desired. This promoting, permitting or purging spill overs with eating as a gratification may end up feeding overeating behaviours.
Understand why people overeat requires integrating different perspectives and allowing complex answers. No linear deterministic view can capture the complex relation we have with food. Thousands of years of evolution engraved in us automatic responses conditioned by the uncertainty of future availability of food. At the same time, we seem to be particularly responsive to cues in the context that induce or refrain our preferences toward the amount of food to eat. Moreover, our feeding habits may sometimes be conditioned by things that have no relation at all with our needs regarding alimentation.
Our beliefs about food are very relevant when deciding how much to eat. Also is the expected utility that food will bring us. However, both driving forces behind our feeding routines are highly dependent on the context surrounding our choices. External benchmarks signalling how much we ate, are more relevant than how sated we feel. Needs for personal gratification in a compensatory mode may induce us to overate.
In all, context that are full of cues feed heuristics that play a critical role when we decide how much to eat.
Cheema, A., & Soman, D. (2008). The Effect of Partitions on Controlling Consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.665
Dolan, P., & Galizzi, M. M. (2015). Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.003
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking , Fast and Slow (Abstract). Book. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Samson, A., & Ariely, D. (2015). The behavioral economics guide 2015. White Paper, 134. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3623.2803
Smith, T. G. (2009). Reconciling psychology with economics: Obesity, behavioral biology, and rational overeating. Journal of Bioeconomics, 11(3), 249–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-009-9067-8
Wansink, B., Just, D. R., & Payne, C. R. (2009). Mindless eating and healthy heuristics for the irrational. American Economic Review, 99(2), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.165
miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017
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).
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).
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)