The behavioral economics of addiction: A comprehensive alternative

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 578-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund Fantino

AbstractHeyman's target article makes a strong case for a behavioral approach to addiction, yet some important assumptions require justification, and promising behavioral alternatives to the author's melioration approach should be considered. In particular, the behavioral economic approach to addiction appears well developed and comprehensive. How does the melioration approach complement or improve on a behavioral economic account?

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Andrew Westbrook ◽  
Todd S. Braver

AbstractIf cognitive effort indexes opportunity costs, it should be investigated like other cost factors including risk and delay. We discuss recent methodological advances in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics, highlighting our own work in measuring the subjective (economic) value of cognitive effort. We discuss the implications of Kurzban et al.'s proposal and how some of its predictions may be untestable without behavioral economic formalisms.


2020 ◽  
pp. 174569162095378
Author(s):  
Satoshi Kanazawa

I aver that standard economics as a model of human behavior is as incorrect in 2017 (after Thaler) as geocentrism was as a model of celestial behavior in 1617 (after Galileo). Behavioral economic studies that have exposed the paradoxes and anomalies in standard economics are akin to epicycles on geocentrism. Just as no amount of epicycles could salvage geocentrism as a model of celestial behavior because it was fundamentally incorrect, no amount of behavioral economic adjustments could salvage standard economics as a model of human behavior because it is fundamentally incorrect. Many of the cognitive biases exhibited by humans are shared by other species, so not only are human actors Humans (as opposed to Econs), but nonhuman animals as phylogenetically distant from humans as ants and locusts are also Humans. Evolutionary biology as a model of human behavior can explain many of the hitherto unexplained cognitive biases and provide a unifying model of human behavior currently lacking in behavioral economics.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 74-82
Author(s):  
Iñaki Aliende

The purpose of this essay is to help generate a framework to promote and refine further investigations and projects in the field of behavioral economics (BE). It leads to being useful for delimiting the phases of any investigation and defines the conditions and elements to be considered in a genuine behavioral study. It has been elaborated by reviewing the work of behavioral insight units (nudge units) of countries and international organizations during the last decade, as well as previous papers in the discipline, to offer a summary of the main steps in BE studies: a manageable shortlist of cognitive bias, feasible examples of application, a guide to know when to nudge, and a reminder of what nudge is not; in short, a process to nudge extracted from the practice of the specialists who applied the approach in the last decade. Particularly, it can result in useful steps for those researchers willing to apply the behavioral approach to their ongoing studies and projects, besides students who require familiarizing with the method.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-264
Author(s):  
Christoph K. Winter

AbstractThis Article analyzes the value of behavioral economics for EU judicial decision-making. The first part introduces the foundations of behavioral economics by focusing on cognitive illusions, prospect theory, and the underlying distinction between different processes of thought. The second part examines the influence of selected biases and heuristics, namely the anchoring effect, availability bias, zero-risk bias, and hindsight bias on diverse legal issues in EU law including, among others, the scope of the fundamental freedoms, the proportionality test as well as the roles of the Advocate General and Reporting Judge. The Article outlines how behavioral economic findings can be taken into account to improve judicial decision-making. Accordingly, the adaptation of judicial training concerning cognitive illusions, the establishment of a de minimis rule regarding the scope of the fundamental freedoms, and the use of economic models when determining the impact of certain measures on fundamental freedoms is suggested. Finally, an “unbiased jury” concentrating exclusively on specific factual issues such as causal connections within the proportionality test is necessary, if the hindsight bias is to be avoided. While it is of great importance to take behavioral economic findings into account, judicial decision-making is unlikely to become flawless based on natural intelligence. Despite bearing fundamental risks, artificial intelligence may provide means to achieve greater fairness, consistency, and legal certainty in the future.


2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-78
Author(s):  
David Austen-Smith

The standard economic approach to designing institutions for collective decision making recognizes individuals' strategically rational motivations for misrepresentation and asks how best, given an objective function, to design a set of incentives and constraints to internalize or negate such motivations. Securities Against Misrule offers, in the author's phrase, an “essay in persuasion” to the effect that such an approach is fundamentally misguided. Instead, Elster argues for a behavioral approach centered on designing institutions for good decision making, rather than good outcomes, by individuals whose actions are chronically subject to emotional, self-interested, and prejudicial distortions. (JEL D02, D71, D72, D82)


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lorraine Collins ◽  
Paula C. Vincent ◽  
Jihnhee Yu ◽  
Liu Liu ◽  
Leonard H. Epstein

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 755-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Caskey ◽  
E. Grace Sherman ◽  
Kera Beskin ◽  
Rebecca Rapport ◽  
Yinglin Xia ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Hursh ◽  
Justin C. Strickland ◽  
Lindsay P. Schwartz ◽  
Derek D. Reed

This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of public perceptions of vaccine safety and efficacy on intent to seek COVID-19 vaccination using hypothetical vaccine acceptance scenarios. The behavioral economic methodology could be used to inform future public health vaccination campaigns designed to influence public perceptions and improve public acceptance of the vaccine. In June 2020, 534 respondents completed online validated behavioral economic procedures adapted to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine demand in relation to a hypothetical development process and efficacy. An exponential demand function was used to describe the proportion of participants accepting the vaccine at each efficacy. Linear mixed effect models evaluated development process and individual characteristic effects on minimum required vaccine efficacy required for vaccine acceptance. The rapid development process scenario increased the rate of decline in acceptance with reductions in efficacy. At 50% efficacy, 68.8% of respondents would seek the standard vaccine, and 58.8% would seek the rapid developed vaccine. Rapid vaccine development increased the minimum required efficacy for vaccine acceptance by over 9 percentage points, γ = 9.36, p < 0.001. Past-3-year flu vaccination, γ = −23.00, p < 0.001, and male respondents, γ = −4.98, p = 0.037, accepted lower efficacy. Respondents reporting greater conspiracy beliefs, γ = 0.39, p < 0.001, and political conservatism, γ = 0.32, p < 0.001, required higher efficacy. Male, γ = −4.43, p = 0.013, and more conservative, γ = −0.09, p = 0.039, respondents showed smaller changes in minimum required efficacy by development process. Information on the vaccine development process, vaccine efficacy, and individual differences impact the proportion of respondents reporting COVID-19 vaccination intentions. Behavioral economics provides an empirical method to estimate vaccine demand to target subpopulations resistant to vaccination.


Author(s):  
Ignacio Palacios-Huerta

A wealth of research in recent decades has seen the economic approach to human behavior extended over many areas previously considered to belong to sociology, political science, law, and other fields. Research has also shown that economics can provide insight into many aspects of sports, including soccer. This book uses soccer to test economic theories and document novel human behavior, thus illuminating economics through the world's most popular sport. The book offers unique and often startling insights into game theory and microeconomics, covering topics such as mixed strategies, discrimination, incentives, and human preferences. It also looks at finance, experimental economics, behavioral economics, and neuroeconomics. The book provides rich data sets and environments that shed light on universal economic principles in interesting and useful ways. It is essential reading for students, researchers, and sports enthusiasts as it shows what soccer can do for economics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document