Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T00:55:02.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Influencing the financial behaviour of individuals: the mindspace way

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

By
Paul Dolan
Edited by
Adam Oliver
Paul Dolan
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Adam Oliver
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The question of how to improve population-wide financial capability is of increasing concern to policy-makers. This chapter is focused on how recent advances in behavioural economics can help us better understand financial decision-making and, ultimately, to design interventions that make it easier for us to behave in ways that improve our financial capability. Behavioural economics seeks to combine the lessons from psychology with the laws of economics (Kahneman, 2003). The basic insight of behavioural economics is that human behaviour is guided not by the dictates of rationality embodied in a super-computer that can analyse the costs and benefits of every action. Instead, it is led by our very human, sociable, emotional and sometimes fallible brain. Psychologists have been studying these characteristics for more than a century, and writers and thinkers for much longer (Triplett, 1898). In a nutshell, the mental shortcuts that serve us so well in much of life can also get us into trouble, both as individuals and as societies.

Consistent with these observations, two very general paradigms have emerged in recent years – models that aim to change cognitions (such as beliefs and attitudes), and models that change the context (environment or situation) within which the person acts. Most traditional interventions prompt changes in cognitions to bring about behaviour change (Webb and Sheeran, 2006). This may involve providing new information or changing the incentives. The presumption is that people will analyse the relevant pieces of information, the numerous incentives offered to them, and act in ways that reflect their best interests. In contrast, the second route relies mostly on contextual changes to bring about behaviour change, where the focus is on the more automatic processes of judgement and influence. The context model recognizes that people are sometimes seemingly irrational and inconsistent in their choices. As a result, it focuses more on changing behaviour without ‘changing minds’.

Type
Chapter
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , pp. 191 - 215
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adkins, N. and Ozanne, J. (2005). The Low Literate Consumer. Journal of Consumer Research 32: 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape our Decisions. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., and Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashraf, N., Karlan, D. and Yin, W. (2006). Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence from a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121: 635–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausubel, L. M. (1999). Adverse Selection in the Credit Card Market. Unpublished manuscript.
Benartzi, S. (2001). Excessive Extrapolation and the Allocation of 401(k) Accounts to Company Stock. Journal of Finance 56: 1747–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, B. D. and Garrett, D. M. (2003). The Effects of Financial Education in the Workplace: Evidence from a Survey of Households. Journal of Public Economics 87: 1487–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, M., Karlan, D., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. and Zinman, J. (2010). What’s Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 125(1): 263–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S. and Shafir, E. (2006). Behavioral Economics and Marketing in Aid of Decision Making among the Poor. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 25: 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beverly, S., Scheider, D. and Tufano, P. (2006). Splitting Tax Refunds and Building Savings: An Empirical Test. In Poterba, J. M. (ed.), Tax Policy and the Economy, vol. 20. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 111–61.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bonaccio, S. and Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice Taking and Decision-Making: An Integrative Literature Review, and Implications for the Organizational Sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101: 127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. B., Kling, J. R., Mullainathan, S., Wiens, G. R. and Wrobel, M. V. (2008a). Framing, Reference Points, and Preferences for Life Annuities. The Retirement Security Project, October.Google Scholar
Brown, J. B., Kling, J. R., Mullainathan, S. and Wrobel, M. V. (2008b). Why Don’t People Insure Late-Life Consumption? A Framing Explanation of the Under-Annuitization Puzzle. American Economic Review 98: 304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. and Metrick, A. (2004). For Better or Worse: Default Effects and 401(K) Savings Behavior. In Wise, D. A. (ed.), Perspectives on the Economics of Aging. University of Chicago Press, pp. 81–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. and Shastry, G. K. (2008). If You Are so Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich? The Effects of Education, Financial Literacy, and Cognitive Ability on Financial Market Participation. Working paper.
Cronqvist, H. and Thaler, R. H. (2004). Design Choices in Privatized Social-Security Systems: Learning from the Swedish Experience. American Economic Review 94: 424–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deelstra, J. T., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., Stroebe, W., Zijlstra, F. R. H. and van Doornen, L. P. (2003). Receiving Instrumental Support at Work: When Help is Not Welcome. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 324–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, P., Elliott, A., Metcalfe, R. and Vlaev, I. (2012). Influencing Financial Behavior: From Changing Minds to Changing Contexts. Journal of Behavioral Finance 13(2): 126–42.Google Scholar
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D. and Vlaev, I. (2010). Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy. London: Cabinet Office and Institute for Government.
Duflo, E. and Kremer, M. (2005). Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development Effectiveness. In Feinstein, O., Ingram, G. K. and Pitman, G. K. (eds.), Evaluating Development Effectiveness, vol. 7. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 205–32.Google Scholar
Duflo, E. and Saez, E. (2003). The Role of Information and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 815–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durantini, M. R., Albarracin, D., Earl, A. and Mitchell, A. L. (2006). Conceptualizing the Influence of Social Agents of Behavior Change: A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of HIV-Prevention Interventionists for Different Groups. Psychological Bulletin 132: 212–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinberg, R. A. (1986). Credit Cards as Spending Facilitating Stimuli. Journal of Consumer Research 13: 348–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gino, F. (2008). Do We Listen to Advice Just Because We Paid for It? The Impact of Advice Cost on Its Use. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 107: 234–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetzmann, W. N. and Peles, N. (1997). Cognitive Dissonance and Mutual Fund Investors. Journal of Financial Research 20: 145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, D. J. (2000). Soliciting Advice: The Role of Sequential Placement in Mitigating Face Threat. Communications Monographs 67: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, D. J. and Fitch, K. (1997). The Normative Context of Advice as Social Support. Human Communication Research 23: 454–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, D. B. and Souleles, N. S. (2002). Do Liquidity Constraints and Interest Rates Matter for Consumer Behavior? Evidence from Credit Card Data. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 149–85.Google Scholar
Hackethal, A., Haliassos, M. and Jappelli, T. (2009). Financial Advisors: A Case of Babysitters? CEPR Discussion Papers 7235.
Hossain, T. and Morgan, J. (2006). Plus Shipping and Handling: Revenue (Non) Equivalence in Field Experiments on eBay. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 6(2): article 3.Google Scholar
Hung, A. and Yoong, J. (2010). Asking for Help: Survey and Experimental Evidence on Financial Advice and Behavior Change. RAND Working Paper WR-714-1.CrossRef
Kahneman, D. (2003). A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. American Psychologist 58: 697–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. and Thaler, R. (2006). Anomalies: Utility Maximisation and Experienced Utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives 20: 221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47: 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D. (2007). Social Connections and Group Banking. Economic Journal 117: F52–F84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D. and Morduch, J. (2010). Access to Finance. In Rodrik, D. and Rosenzweig, M. (eds.), Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 4703–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D. and Zinman, J. (2009). Expanding Microenterprise Credit Access: Using Randomized Supply Decisions to Estimate the Impacts in Manila. Yale University, Dartmouth College, and Innovations in Poverty Action Working Paper.Google Scholar
Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G. and Seppi, D. J. (2005). The ‘Ostrich Effect’: Selective Attention to Information about Investments. Unpublished manuscript.CrossRef
Landry, C. E., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K. and Rupp, N. G. (2006). Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121: 747–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusardi, A. (2007). Household Saving Behavior: The Role of Literacy, Information and Financial Education Programs. NBER Working Paper 13824.
Lusardi, A., Mitchell, O. S. and Curto, V. (2010) Financial Literacy among the Young: Evidence and Implications for Consumer Policy. Dartmouth College Working Paper.
Madrian, B. and Shea, D. F. (2001). The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 1149–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, S. and Sprenger, C. (2008). Discounting Financial Literacy: Time Preferences and Participation in Financial Education Programs. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Public Policy Discussion Paper No. 07-5.
Miller, D. T. and Ross, M. (1975). Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction? Psychological Bulletin 82: 213–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donoghue, T. and Rabin, M. (1999). Doing It Now or Doing It Later. American Economic Review 89: 103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prelec, D. and Simester, D. (2001). Credit-Card Effect on Willingness to Pay. Marketing Letters 12: 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. In Strobe, W. and Hewstone, M. (eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, vol. 12. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Stewart, N. (2009). The Cost of Anchoring on Credit Card Minimum Repayments. Psychological Science 20: 39–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science 4: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental Accounting Matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 183–206.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving. Journal of Political Economy 112: S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Triplett, N. (1898). The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition. American Journal of Psychology 9: 507–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185: 1124–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vlaev, I. and Dolan, P. (2009). From Changing Cognitions to Changing the Context: A Dual-Route Model of Behaviour Change. London: Imperial College Business School.Google Scholar
Waber, R. L., Shiv, B., Carmon, Z. and Ariely, D. (2008). Commercial Features of Placebo and Therapeutic Efficacy. Journal of the American Medical Association 299: 1016–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Webb, T. L. and Sheeran, P. (2006) Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Psychological Bulletin 132: 249–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaniv, I. (2004a). The Benefit of Additional Opinions. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13: 75–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaniv, I. (2004b). Receiving Other People’s Advice: Influence and Benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaniv, I. and Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83(2): 260–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yanovitsky, I. and Bennett, C. (1999). Media Attention, Institutional Response and Health Behaviour Change: The Case of Drunk Driving 1978–1996. Communication Research 26: 429–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feelings and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist 35: 151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×