Cooke, Diop, Fishbane, et al. (2018) on Failure to Appear in Court

Brice Cooke, Binta Zahra Diop, Alissa Fishbane, et al., “Using Behavioral Science to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes: Preventing Failures to Appear in Court.” ideas42 and the University of Chicago Crime Lab, January 2018 [pdf].

• In NYC in 2014, about 41% of summons to appear in court for minor infractions went unheeded.

• Missed court hearings are costly to the court and to the defendants, who have a warrant issued for their arrest.

• But perhaps behavioral factors, not preferences, are at the root of many missed court dates; maybe people forget, or fail to plan to miss work, or don’t understand the consequences, or just aren’t paying adequate attention. (Court dates can be months after the offense.)

• Perhaps present bias leads to failures-to-appear (FTAs): the benefits of skipping a court date are immediate and the (uncertain) costs are in the possibly distant future.

• “Mental models” (such as the belief that minor offenses do not warrant a court appearance) and perceived social norms (a belief that most people don't show up at court for minor matters) might also lead to FTAs.

• The researchers redesigned the summons form, to: (1) increase the clarity of the message that the form constitutes a summons to court; (2) highlight date, time, location for the court appearance; and to (3) foreground the consequence (an arrest warrant) for failing to appear. 

• The researchers also instituted a series of text message reminders about the court date. Some reminders focus on consequences of a missed court date, and some on planning. The sample size for this intervention is about 20,000. 

• Both interventions are analyzed as randomized trials. 

• The new summons forms reduce FTAs by 13%. 

• The most effective text messages reduce FTAs by 26%; and, when a further text message is sent to those who miss their court dates, the end result is a 32% reduction in warrants issued. 

• The researchers estimate that the two interventions (redesigned form and text reminders), combined, could have reduced FTAs in 2014 by 20,000 to 31,000 or so. 

• Incidentally, text messages are really cheap to send, but most arrestees currently do not provide a cell phone number.

Sunstein (2018) on "Misconceptions About Nudges"

Cass R. Sunstein, “Misconceptions about Nudges.” Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy 2(1): 61-67, 2018.

• Professor Sunstein examines seven mistaken or misleading – but frequently voiced – complaints about nudges. 

• (1) “Nudges are an insult to human agency” But…compared to what?; how can the provision of information, for example, be such an insult?; try active choosing if defaults make you nervous – but people often prefer a default!

• (2) “Nudges are based on excessive trust in government” But…compared to what?; governments must nudge; nudges, by definition, have low “error” costs; the private sector engages in lots of nefarious nudging; nudges can (and should) be made transparent.

• (3) “Nudges are covert” But…aren’t GPS devices and warning labels transparent?; is this misconception based on concerns about randomized field experiments?; transparency doesn’t seem to undermine the effectiveness of nudges.

• (4) “Nudges are manipulative” But…how is a reminder manipulative?; maybe a graphic warning is a little manipulative, ok?; but in general, manipulation should be made of sterner stuff. 

• (5) “Nudges exploit behavioral biases” But…do GPS and other technologies that improve navigability exploit a bias in a nefarious way?; many nudges counteract behavioral biases, such as inertia; nonetheless, defaults might indeed work because of inertia.

• (6) “Nudges wrongly assume that people are irrational” But…well, let’s say boundedly rational; nudging is inevitable; we needn’t resolve every philosophical issue to make pragmatic progress. 

• (7) “Nudges work only at the margins; they cannot achieve a whole lot” But…millions of additional school meals consumed?; billions in increased savings?; sigh.

Damgaard and Nielsen (2018) on Nudgication

Mette Trier Damgaard and Helena Skyt Nielsen, “Nudging in Education.” IZA DP No. 11454, April 2018.

• Education decisions often involve current costs and greatly delayed benefits. Some decisions are made by “agents” – parents and teachers – on behalf of their “principals,” the students. 

• Many education decisions – such as whether to drop out of school or go to college – are not regular, everyday situations where feedback allows people to adapt to something tolerably optimal over time. 

• Can we be confident that education decisions are well-made? Evidence suggests high returns to more education. The list of potential behavioral biases influencing education decisions is long: self-control shortcomings, limited attention, loss aversion, default effects, social norms, underconfidence… Recall John Stuart Mill: "Those who most need to be made wiser and better, usually desire it least, and if they desired it, would be incapable of finding the way to it by their own lights."

• Perhaps people can be nudged in ways that will improve their choices – and improve them from their own point of view. 

• The targets of nudges can be young scholars, their parents, or their teachers. 

• The authors find 122 studies of field implementations of nudges in education. 

• Opt-in v. opt-out text messages to parents: only 7.8% opt-in, but only 3.5% opt out. Further, outcomes (grades, staying in school) improve with the opt-out default. 

• Framing financial aid as a tuition waiver versus a loan: the waivers steer a lot more law school grads to public interest work. Monetary transfers to families can be framed as being for education, and administered through schools. 

• Mixed results have been reported from framing grades as losses (as in Shrader, Wooten, White, et al., “Improving Student Performance through Loss Aversion”).

• Trying to take advantage of peer group effects is tricky, and sometimes counterproductive. Social comparison nudges can be both informational and motivational – and they can backfire.

• Intermediate assignments and deadlines seem to often raise grades. 

• Self-imposed specific task-based goals also seem helpful, along with reminders of the goal. Unrealistically high goals are demotivating. 

• Reminders to parents about their children’s education often seem helpful, too – likewise with providing informative updates to parents.

• Information provision about the returns to schooling seems to have some purchase in developing countries.

• “Boosting” skills like grit and goal-setting holds some hope for improved educational outcomes.

• Prizes: “The public can encourage the acquisition of those most essential parts of education by giving small premiums, and little badges of distinction, to the children of the common people who excel in them.” (Adam Smith) But the older the children, the less effective the prize nudge, and (like social comparisons), prizes can crowd out internal motivations. 

• Growth mindset and social belonging nudges seem to work OK…

• Nudging will only overcome a binding constraint for a (small?) subset of students. 

•  In general, the long-term effects of nudgication remain unknown.

Friese, Loschelder, Gieseler, et al., "Is Ego Depletion Real?" (2018)

Malte Friese, David D. Loschelder, Karolin Gieseler, et al., “Is Ego Depletion Real? An Analysis of Arguments.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, published online, March 29, 2018. 

• The ego depletion hypothesis maintains that self-control is a construct that applies across (essentially?) all domains… 

• …and the exertion of self-control increases the chance of a failure of self-control in a subsequent (temporally proximate) task. 

• The standard experimental test for ego depletion is to conduct two consecutive self-control tasks. Ego depletion holds that folks who were induced to exert more control on the first task will show relatively low self-control on the second task. 

• The ego depletion literature frequently goes beyond the “depletion” being induced by self-control; any effortful behavior, including IKEA shopping, might lead to a depleted state and lessened self-control. 

• Some meta-analyses of the ego depletion literature conclude that the average effect might be zero; a preregistered large-scale replication of a previous ego depletion study also found a zero average effect. 

• Standard depletion-inducing exercises include variations on “e-crossing” and the Stroop test. Do these manipulations really work? 

• Journals traditionally have not been as interested in publishing null results than publishing articles that find statistically significant results. Researchers presumably respond to this situation by not bothering to write up and submit experiments that produce null results. Are the hundreds of published articles that find ego depletion matched or overmatched by countless unpublished studies that found no impaired self-control? 

• Another way that researchers might respond to the (perceived?) difficulty in publishing null results is to ensure that they do not get null results. One way to do that is to run many different empirical specifications (of a regression, say), but only report the “best” one. If you do this, the usual tests for statistical significance are meaningless. (See Shiny Apps p-hacker.)

• We don’t see many studies with reverse depletion effects, and if the truth were that the effect is null, we might(?) see as many negative as positive studies. 

• The unpublished studies might have to be legion to completely “offset” the many positive studies: that is, the truth might well be a positive effect (but of what size?) 

• Don’t we see evidence of ego depletion in everyday life? 

•  The solution lies in better science! Pre-register studies; increase sample sizes; use improved controls; report all results; collaborate with your intellectual opponents; develop theoretical understandings; check the quality of manipulations.

• Friese et al. suggest that the burden of proof on the existence of ego depletion is now on the proponents of the phenomenon.

Simonson and Kivetz (2018) on Gal and Rucker (2018) on Loss Aversion

Itamar Simonson and Ran Kivetz, "Bringing (Contingent) Loss Aversion Down to Earth — A Comment on Gal & Rucker’s Rejection of 'Losses Loom Larger Than Gains,'" Journal of Consumer Psychology 28(3): 517-522, July 2018.

• The articles outlined in the two previous posts are part of a "Research Dialogue"; Simonson and Kivetz's reply to Gal and Rucker, outlined here, is an element of the same dialogue.

• Gal and Rucker are right in that loss aversion is neither as firmly established nor as universal as is typically thought. Nonetheless, their retention paradigm is not convincing evidence of an endowment effect sans loss aversion, and they underplay some of the strongest evidence in favor of loss aversion: people demonstrate significant aversion to a risky but highly favorable (in expected value terms) bet, when opposed to a riskless gain (or the status quo) that offers much less in expected value. People routinely turn down 50-50 bets that pay $200 if heads and lose $100 if tails. 

• “[T]he question relevant at the present time for our field is not whether loss aversion occurs on average (we think it does), but what factors moderate its presence and magnitude, and relatedly, what are its boundaries [page 518]?” 

• Much of the evidence for the endowment effect (like the unwillingness to trade mugs for candy bars or vice versa) is consistent with plausible, non-loss-aversion explanations, such as the awkwardness in coming to an agreement for trivial trades. But the retention paradigm is not very convincing as new evidence against loss aversion, because of the highly artificial settings that arise in trying to reframe the retention of something you own as an active choice. 

• In many circumstances, loss aversion does seem to be part of what is going on with endowment effects, even if other mechanisms, such as transaction costs, also are at play. Losses do tend to loom larger than gains, but this is a tendency, one contingent on other factors, and not a universal truth. 

• As Gal and Rucker (2018) note, the excessive commitment to loss aversion might crowd out research that can identify other factors that drive decision making.

Higgins and Liberman (2018) Reply to Gal and Rucker (2018) on Loss Aversion

E. Tory Higgins and Nira Liberman, "The Loss of Loss Aversion: Paying Attention to Reference Points," Journal of Consumer Psychology 28(3): 523-532, July 2018.

• The Gal and Rucker loss aversion article outlined in the previous post was part of a "Research Dialogue"; Higgins and Liberman's reply, outlined here, is an element of the same dialogue.

• Higgins and Lieberman agree with Gal and Rucker: the empirical support for loss aversion is not as strong as its reputation would suggest. Loss aversion is not universal. The more general (than loss aversion) notion of prospect theory – that “reference points increase people’s sensitivity to objective changes in value [p. 523]” – is still viable, however.

• Losses and gains in prospect theory are judged relative to some reference point, which often is taken to be the status quo. If the reference point is not the status quo, however, then gains (relative to the status quo) need not be less powerful than losses, even if that loss-aversion-style result would be case were the status quo the relevant reference point. Further, multiple reference points can be at play at any one time.

• Reference points tend to be outcomes which attract our attention. As a result, we are more sensitive to changes around those points than from changes elsewhere. But this increased sensitivity need not be asymmetric, need not involve loss aversion: sensitivity to either gains or losses or both can increase around references points.

• A second suggestion is that a relevant reference point when judging an outcome is what might have happened instead, the chief counterfactual; gains or losses relative to that alternative will take on intensified value. To just make a train is more enjoyable than making it easily, and to just miss it is more painful than to be much too late. Again, this approach does not suggest the sort of asymmetry that loss aversion requires.

• Reference points such as goals – 10,000 steps per day – might suggest loss aversion: step 10,000 is worth a lot more than step 10,001 – but, Higgins and Lieberman argue, goals as reference points need not involve loss aversion. Many market-based goals have built-in incentives that are more sensitive above the goal – for instance, an increased percentage of royalties from book sales – than below the goal.

• In long-term pursuits, dual reference points can be at play: the starting position might be most salient early in the process, but the ultimate goal takes on more prominence as the pursuit unfolds. Recall that Gal and Rucker suggest that what is taken to be evidence of loss aversion in the literature often can be explained by an inaction bias, where no loss aversion is at play. For long-term pursuits, the “action” alternative is the one for which this dual reference point view seems most apt, and the additional reference point (the goal) can be the source of a greater sensitivity in valuation from changes in the action alternative than in the inaction alternative. 

• Some people (the “promotion-focused”) might concentrate on progress, and others (the “prevention-focused”) might concentrate on avoiding losses. Even if the status quo is the same for both individuals, they compare it with different alternative reference points. For the promotion-focused, the status quo is a loss relative to the desired progress; for the prevention-focused, the status quo is a gain relative to the feared worsening. 

• If a prevention-focused person found herself below the status quo, she might choose risky strategies if they are her only hope of restoring the status quo. Promotion-focused people, alternatively, starting from below the status quo, will not feel all that motivated to regain the status quo (both are losses, given the reference points at work), but will be more motivated to go from the status quo to a better point. This story, for which there is empirical support, is not consistent with standard prospect-theory-style loss aversion. That is, Gal and Rucker are right, in that the psychological evaluation of negative events (losses) are not always greater than the evaluation of equivalent gains, and people are not always more motivated by the threat of losses than by the prospect of gains. 

Gal and Rucker (2018) on the Loss of Loss Aversion

David Gal and Derek D. Rucker, “The Loss of Loss Aversion: Will It Loom Larger Than Its Gain?” Journal of Consumer Psychology 28(3): 497-516, July 2018.

• Social scientists seem to all but universally believe in loss aversion, the notion that losses “loom larger” psychologically than do similarly-sized gains.

• Gal and Rucker claim that the actual evidence does not support any general tendency for losses to loom larger than gains: everything depends upon the context.

• There’s a bit of circularity in the promotion of loss aversion: some phenomenon (like the equity premium puzzle or the endowment effect) is “explained” by loss aversion, and then the existence of the phenomenon (the equity premium, the endowment effect) is taken to be evidence that loss aversion is pervasive. 

• The status quo bias might reflect a preference towards inaction – and such a preference can exist in the absence of loss aversion, due to the lack of a motive for action, or economizing on processing costs, or the tendency to regret errors of commission more than errors of omission. 

• When asked to trade their original good for an essentially identical one, loss aversion is not implicated – but people still show a large status quo bias. Action v. inaction confounds the loss-gain story. 

• Is the endowment effect just a case of a status quo bias, and therefore does not require loss aversion? 

• The “retention paradigm” recasts endowment effect experiments as willingness-to-pay (WTP) to obtain an item v. WTP to retain an item – so now the “inaction” choice is not to have the good in both cases. (That is, the confounding of loss aversion with inaction is sidestepped.) 

• If loss aversion is active, then in the retention paradigm, the WTP to retain will be higher than the WTP to obtain. But in the experiments, there was no premium to retain a good or service. For “mundane” goods – mugs, notebooks – obtaining tended to have a higher WTP than retaining. 

• One has to be creative to come up with reasonable “retain” scenarios! Fixing a broken phone, perhaps? 

• Analogous experiments ask if you would like to receive $0 for a good you own, or exchange it for another good. The second condition swaps the owned and alternative good. Mug v. $5 shows no endowment effect – even though the standard exchange paradigm (that is, not the "retention" paradigm) with these goods shows a significant endowment effect. 

• For the standard “loss aversion ratio” test, not accepting the bet is the status quo. This test, too, can be recast: Would you rather receive $0 with a probability of 1 or take a 50-50 bet with the possibility of winning or losing $15? People seem to have a slight preference for the risky alternative. 

• When stakes are higher, preferences shift toward the sure thing – but this could reflect risk aversion, not loss aversion. (And, loss aversion is generally taken to be independent of the stakes.) 

• When you ask people directly about the psychological impact of winning or losing something – you ask them how they feel about these events – losing doesn't dominate in terms of the magnitude of feelings. How do you feel about losing a mug versus winning a mug? 

• How do you feel about losing $3 versus winning $3? What about $100? At the low stakes, people seem to care more about the gain. 

• Loss “frames” are not generally more motivating than “gain” frames (despite some evidence to the contrary in certain domains). 

• Why is loss aversion so popular given its questionable evidentiary base? Perhaps in part due to a status-quo bias among researchers(!), or confirmation bias within Kuhnian “normal science.” 

• Loss aversion holds intuitive appeal: we all feel some losses acutely. And the name “loss aversion” itself is persuasive.