DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00407

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2019/51:4 PP.407-414

Using behavioral economics to cope with uncertainty: Expand the scope of effective nudging

Within a framework of "libertarian paternalism", the idea of nudge promotes the use of behavioral interventions to reduce irrational decisions that may collectively lead to "behavioral market failures" (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Sunstein, 2014). This approach has been criticized, however, for its lack of transparency in behavioral manipulations and for that nudging is not educating. In the current theory of nudging, whether a decision is judged as rational is largely based on a small number of neoclassic standards of expected utility theories under the assumption that all the expected consequences and their probabilities are available to the decision maker.
In this article, the author intends to expand the scope of effective nudging to include decisions under uncertainty where the probabilities associated with decision outcomes are unknown. The author explored behavioral strategies to reduce different types of uncertainty. From this perspective, reducing uncertainty is seen as an important way of behavioral nudging. A key for effective nudges is "less is more".
Based on an analysis of the "Bertrand Russel's Turkey", the author exemplified how probability-based calculations fail in a real world of uncertainty. Next, the author proposed a quintuple classification of uncertainty existing in the following stages of information processing in decision making, including uncertainty in the information source, information acquisition, cognitive evaluation, choice selection, and immediate and future outcomes. The author further examined behavioral and psychological mechanisms that help reduce each type of uncertainty:Reduce information uncertainty using simple heuristics and one-reason decision making, reduce cognitive uncertainty using intuition, reduce behavioral uncertainty by understanding values of decision makers, reduce outcome uncertainty by replacing probability estimates with prioritized decision reference points, and reduce future uncertainty using time-to-time exchanges to decrease delay discounting.
Many decision biases can be better understood in terms of the inconsistency between the modern market environment and the typical human evolutionary environment where behavioral adaptations evolved. Understanding functional reasons underlying decision biases will help improve the quality of human decision making. A new behavioral economics should ask questions of why in functional analysis to find psychological leverages for behavioral nudging.

Key words:behavioral economics,behavioral decision making,uncertainty,the Turkey's dilemma,choice preference

ReleaseDate:2019-04-26 01:28:03

Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Bargh, J. A. (2017). Before you know it:The unconscious reasons we do what we do. New York, NY:Touchstone.

Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference:A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401.

Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk Savvy:How to make good decisions. Penguin Books.

Gigerenzer, G. (2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 361-383.

Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Reviewer of Psychology, 62(1), 451-482.

Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R. (Eds.) (2001). Bounded rationality:The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge/MA:MIT Press.

Goodwin, T. (2012). Why we should reject ‘nudge’. Policy and Politics 32(2), 85-92.

Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Descriptive from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534-539.

Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York:Hart, Schaffner and Marx.

Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. (2015). Why a nudge is not enough:A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 81-98.

Pykett, J., Jones, R., Whitehead, M., Huxley, M., Strauss, K., Gill, N., … Newman, J. (2011). Interventions in the political geography of ‘libertarian paternalism’. Political Geography, 30(6), 301-310.

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138.

Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 1-19.

Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Why nudge? The politics of libertarian paternalism. New Haven:Yale University Press.[中译本:马冬梅译(2015). 为什么助推. 北京:中信出版社.]

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge:Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Wallace-Wells, B. (2010, May 11). Cass Sunstein wants to nudge us. The New York Times, Accessed 15.06.10.

Wang, X. T. (1996). Domain-specific rationality in human choices:Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31-63.

Wang, X-T. (2008). Risk communication and risky choice in context:Ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128(1), 78-89.

Wang, X. T. & Johnson, G. J. (2012). A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 141(4), 743-756.

Wang, X. T., & Lu, J. Y. (2015). Wisdom of evolution and rationalities of decision making. East China Normal University Press.

[王晓田, 陆静怡. (2015). 进化的智慧与决策的理性. 华东师范大学出版社.]

Wang, X. T., & Wang, P. (2013). Tri-reference point theory of decision making:From principles to applications. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(8), 1331-1346.

[王晓田, 王鹏. (2013). 决策的三参照点理论:从原理到应用. 心理科学进展, 21(8), 1331-1346.]