Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field

Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field Stefano DellaVigna UC Berkeley and NBER sdellavi@berkeley.edu Forthcoming, Journal of Economic Literature Abstract The research in Psychology and Economics (a.k.a. Behavioral Economics) suggests that individuals deviate from the standard model in three respects: (i) non-standard pref- erences; (ii) non-standard beliefs; and (iii) non-standard decision-making. In this paper, I survey the empirical evidence from the f eld on these three classes of deviations. The evi- dence covers a number of applications, from consumption to f nance, from crime to voting, from charitable giving to labor supply. In the class of non-standard preferences, I discuss time preferences (self-control problems), risk preferences (reference dependence), and so- cial preferences. On non-standard beliefs, I present evidence on overcon f dence, on the law of small numbers, and on projection bias. Regarding non-standard decision-making, I cover framing, limited attention, menu e f ects, persuasion and social pressure, and emo- tions. I also present evidence on how rational actors– f rms, employers, CEOs, investors, and politicians–respond to the non-standard behavior described in the survey. Finally, I brie F y discuss under what conditions experience and market interactions limit the impact of the non-standard features. I would like to thank Roger Gordon (the editor), three exceptionally careful referees, Dan Acland, Malcolm Baker, Brad Barber, Nicholas Barberis, Dan Benjamin, Saurabh Bhargava, Colin Camerer, David Card, Raj Chetty, James Choi, Sanjit Dhami, Constanca Esteves, Ernst Fehr, Shane Frederick, Drew Fudenberg, David Hirshleifer, Eric Johnson, Lawrence F. Katz, Georg Kirchsteiger, Je f rey Kling, Howard Kunreuther, David Laibson, George Loewenstein, Erzo F.P. Luttmer, Rosario Macera, Ulrike Malmendier, MichelAndre Marechal, John Morgan, Ted O’Donoghue, Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, Joshua Palmer, Vikram Pathania, Matthew Rabin, Ricardo Reis, Uri Simonsohn, Rani Spiegler, Bjarne Ste f en, Justin Sydnor, Richard Thaler, Jeremy Tobacman, Michael Urbancic, Ebonya Washington, Kathryn Zeiler, and Jonathan Zinman for useful comments and sug- gestions. Thomas Barrios, Charles Lin, and Anitha Sivasankaran provided excellent research assistance. I also want to thank the students of my Psychology and Economics graduate class who over the years helped shape the ideas in this paper. Finally, I would like to express all my gratitude to David Laibson and Matthew Rabin for their exceptional generosity in sharing their insights with the next generations of behavioral economists. This paper would not have been possible without them.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
1I n t r o d u c t i o n The core theory used in economics builds on a simple but powerful model of behavior. In- dividuals make choices so as to maximize a utility function, using the information available, and processing this information appropriately. Individuals’ preferences are assumed to be time-consistent, a f ected only by own payo f s, and independent of the framing of the decision.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/16/2011 for the course ECON 100A taught by Professor Woroch during the Spring '08 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 73

Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online