Limited Offer Get 25% off — use code BESTW25
No AI No Plagiarism On-Time Delivery Free Revisions
Claim Now

An introduction to Behavioral Economics

Recap of Market Failure and Government Intervention:
We previously discussed how healthcare market is associated
with ‘market failures’ and that governments often take a
paternalistic approach to correct the failures.
We also learned that governments often attempt to alter
patients’ and healthcare providers’ behaviour through
various means, such as taxes, redistributions, laws and
regulations.
2
This week’s topic:
We look at a more micro level, rather than at the societal level.
Just like social sub-optimal outcomes can arise from ‘market
failures’, private health outcomes can be sub-optimal due to
individual behavioural biases of both patients and health
providers.
Personal choices affect health, depending on the way an individual
allocates resources to its production.
Examples:
• The amount of TV time vs. jogging time, eat fatty vs. healthy
foods, water vs. soda, or to smoke or not.
• On the supply side, a doctor chooses whether to follow
established ‘knowledge’ or look for new evidence for
treatment. 3
This week’s topic
Also, note that the demand curve was derived on the basis of the
assumption that a consumer is ‘rational’ – that is s(he) will
accurately allocate resources to achieve the objective of
maximising his/her ‘benefit’ (or utility) function.
Then you may wonder why do people pay to smoke, ignore
medical advice, and drive drunk?
Are these choices rational?
In reality, the underlying classical assumption of ‘rationality’ is
violated all too often.
We will learn about some of these biases that are critical to
health decisions; and discuss an application.
4
You know which one is healthier food – but would you always choose to eat it?
Why is this topic important?
Behaviour is a principal factor in the current epidemic of
chronic diseases
Coronary heart disease, Cardiovascular disease and Cancers are
commonest causes of death in many countries. Most can’t be
cured, but a majority of cases could be prevented by changing
health behaviour, e.g., exercise, diet, smoking.
Behaviour is also crucial for control of infectious diseases, e.g., TB,
HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.
Growing antibiotic resistance is a result of human behaviour,
including that of doctors.
6
Lack of health knowledge  Unhealthy behaviour?
• Health knowledge, or education, refers to the knowledge and
understanding people have about health-related issues.
• Knowledge is the first step to changing behaviour.
• It is important that people understand the causes of ill-health and
recognise the extent to which they are vulnerable to, or at risk
from, a health threat.
• However, knowing something can affect your health and
perceiving a health threat are not the same.
• In other words, knowledge is a necessary component of
behaviour change, but on its own, it is not sufficient to bring
about behaviour change.
7
Why is Health Knowledge important?
To prevent disease people must change their hazardous behaviour.
Why do people behave in ways hazardous to their health?
Because most people don’t think of their health until it is
threatened.
Example: Even when smokers are shown the cancerous lungs of
other smokers removed postmortem, the decision to stop smoking
lasts only about 24-48 hours, after which the impact is not
noticeable in terms of their behaviour.
8
Knowledge alone is not enough
Plenty of information about healthy diet and lifestyle.
It is likely that many people are aware of ‘what they are supposed
to eat’
Survey in UK:
• 99% knew fruit and vegetables very or fairly
important
• 94% said eating less salt was important
• 92% said limiting foods high in saturated fat was
important
But, the high incidence of CHD and CVD belie this knowledge.
Source: Food Standards Agency, 2010 9
What factors influence behaviour? The COM-B system
Michie et al. 2011, Implementation Science 6:42
Physical Psychological
Includes knowledge & skills
Reflective
processes
(System 2)
Automatic
processes
(System 1)
Physical Social
10
Human behaviour shaped by TWO systems
(Dual Process model)
SYSTEM 2
Reflective, goal oriented system
• Driven by our values and
intentions
• Requires cognitive capacity or
thinking space
• Many traditional approaches to
health promotion target this
system, i.e. designed to alter
beliefs and attitudes
SYSTEM 1
Automatic, affective system
• Requires little or no cognitive
engagement
• Driven by immediate feelings
and triggered by
environments
Strack and Deutsch 2004, Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8:220-47. 11
Behavioural Economics: An introduction
The workhorse of economic
modeling is homo-economicus, an
agent who:

  1. Optimally maximises his
    expected utility
  2. Optimally updates his beliefs
  3. Is selfish and without emotion,
    or, more formally, does not get
    intrinsic utility from consumption
    and utility of others
    This approach has yielded fantastic insight, but…
    12
    The motivation behind Behavioural Economics
    • Do people behave like homo-economicus?
    • If not, what are the implications for economic theory and policy?
    13
    What Behavioural Economics does…
    It adds to the standard model of economics some reality about
    how humans behave. In particular, it adds among other things:
    • bounded rationality,
    • biases in interpreting information,
    • interdependent preferences,
    • emotions,
    • learning,
    ….
    14
    A sketch of history
    Behavioural economics naturally emerged with game theory in the
    50’s and 60’s. The likes of Vernon Smith, Kahneman and Selten
    showed its power.
     From the 80’s onwards Behavioural
    Economics has been the fastest
    growing area of economics. Partly
    due to dissatisfaction with the
    ‘standard model’.
     But note that Behavioural
    Economics is not new. The
    forefathers of economics, including
    Adam Smith, Keynes and Marshall
    talked a lot about behavioural
    tendencies more than 100 years
    ago. 15
    The methods of Behavioural Economics
    Experiments:
  • lab based
  • in the field
  • neuroscience
    Theoretical:
  • game theory
  • decision theory
  • evolutionary theory
    Simulation:
  • Agent based models
    16
    Some interesting behavioural biases
    Example 1: A Fine is a Price
    A problem for primary schools and nurseries is parents picking
    their children up late. The school must play the role of babysitter.
    • Suppose that we impose a fine on parents for picking their
    children up late?
    • However, in reality, more parents may leave their children late
    because the fine makes it ‘ok’ to put a burden on the school.
    • The ‘rational’ parents should avoid a fine – because increases
    in price/minute should lead to fall in quantity demanded
    17
    The results of an experiment: A Fine is a Price
    • Gneezy and Rustichini (J Legal Stud., 2000) report an
    experiment in day care centres in Haifa, Israel in 1998. In week
    4, a fine was introduced and in week 17 it was removed.
    18
    0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    0.5
    0.6
    0.7
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    Proportion late
    Weeks of trial
    Test group
    Control group
    Example 2: Fairness in Tipping
    How much would you tip?
    In a restaurant you visit frequently the mean
    amount suggested was $1.28.
    If you were rational, would you tip the same
    way in another city?
    In a restaurant in another city the mean
    amount suggested was $1.27 (Kahneman,
    Knetsch and Thaler, 1986)
    Some interesting behavioural biases (contd…)
    19
    What we observe
    • Reciprocity: Many people seem to
    desire reciprocity
    ‘If someone does good (or bad) to me then I want to do
    good (or bad) to them.
    • Fairness: people care about outcomes, relative to others
    ‘Why should I get less than him’, ‘Why should I get more
    than him?’
    • Why is this different to the ‘standard model’?
    20
    Fairness and reciprocity matter
    In the standard model, utility is a function of consumption, $10 is
    as good as $10 does.
     Behavioural economics emphasizes that it matters:
    o where the $10 comes from; $10 stolen induces guilt and
    shame while $10 earned induces pride.
    o how much others are getting; $10 when others are getting
    $20 might be annoying but $10 when others are earning $5
    might induce guilt.
     Note the important interaction between these two effects.
    21
    A neuroscience perspective
    • Unfair offers activate
    areas of the brain
    associated with
    emotion (Panel A); and
    activate areas of
    cognition (Panel B)
    relative to fair offers.
    22
    Applications and policy
    Fairness and reciprocity have wide-ranging applied and policy
    consequences.
    One area with important consequences is pricing of health
    plans, Medicare rebates, and wage-setting.
    23
    The Law of Small Numbers
    People exaggerate how closely a small sample will represent the
    population.
    • A model inference with the law of small numbers (Rabin, QJE
    2002)
  • A person observes a sequence of binary signals from some
    i.i.d. process.
  • The person believes that they are generated without
    replacement from an urn with N signals.
  • The urn is replaced every other period.
  • The smaller is N the larger the bias.
    24
    The Law of Small Numbers
    Suppose you know (from published medical data) that recovery
    rate from a disease is 80%.
    Now, if 5 patients report that they have contacted the disease, how
    many do you think would recover?
    Based on the 80% recovery rate, you are likely to say 4 out of 5
    patients will recover from the disease.
    If you do, you are biased due to the Law of Small Numbers.
    The actual probability of 4 out of 5 recovering from the disease is only
    41% (using Binomial probability distribution).
    25
    Consequences of the law of small numbers
    • We overestimate the importance of small samples.
    • We underestimate the importance of large samples.
    • We read too much into long streaks of success or failure.
    (There are no ‘hot hands’ in basketball).
    • Sequence matters beyond averages.
    26
    Confirmatory Bias
    People tend to be too inattentive to new information that contradicts their
    hypothesis. They can ignore contradictory evidence, and misread it as
    supporting their hypothesis.
    A model of confirmatory bias – Rabin and Schrag (QJE, 1999)
  • A person receives a series of signals a or b.
  • The person perceives each signal as α or β.
  • After each signal the person updates their belief about the hypothesis.
  • He currently believes in the hypothesis he perceives to have received
    more signals.
  • If he currently believes in hypothesis X then he:
  • correctly perceives a signal supporting the hypothesis
  • wrongly perceives a signal against the hypothesis with probability q >
    0 (correctly perceives this ‘contradicting’ signal with probability (1-q)<1)
    27
    Consequences of confirmatory bias
    Information contradicting a hypothesis can be ignored or missinterpreted.
    This is particularly the case if the information is
    ambiguous.
    Hypothesis based filtering. People can use filtered evidence
    inappropriately.
     A person who has recently
    changed his mind can be underconfident
    in a hypothesis.
     Confirmatory bias may not be
    eliminated by increasing
    information.
    28
    Relevance for Healthcare
    Both patient and practitioner must form hypotheses based on
    constantly changing information.
    The law of small numbers and confirmatory bias could cause
    biased decision making.
    The evidence is that we do observe such biases – Frank (NBER,
    2004).
    29
    Confirmatory bias among medical practitioners
    • Practitioners must choose drugs and referral services based on
    information about the drugs and services.
    • In treating conditions like Otitis Media, Diabetes, Depression
    and Asthma physicians regularly depart from evidenced based
    practice.
    • Doctors in Miami (Florida) have been observed to rely on drugs
    they become familiar with and not use newer more effective
    drugs or lower cost versions of older drugs. In 1999 Medicare
    spending in the US was $9,941 per enrollee in Miami and
    Florida compared to $4,886 in Minneapolis and Minnesota.
    • Risk adjusted mortality rates for Coronary artery bypass graft
    fell from 4.17% in 1989 to 2.45% in 1992. Despite this fall in
    mortality risk, there was no increase in demand.
    30
    Confirmatory bias among patients
    Patients must choose which doctor to see and, in some instances,
    which treatment to have.
    • The evidence suggests that patients do not use information
    available about doctors or treatments.
  • 70% do not according to one survey.
  • Instead, they are more comfortable with doctors who they are
    familiar with, they trust.
  • 76% would choose a doctor they are familiar with over one
    more highly rated by experts.
    • Choices are typically made on the basis of factors not really
    relevant to health care.
  • 70% rely on the advice of family and friends.
    31
    Getting rid of bias: ‘Learning’
    Many have suggested that biases should disappear with greater
    experience.
    This seems, however, to not be the case:
     In many instances there is no time to learn from
    experience.
     When there is time, the person may not realise
    that they are biased, so cannot correct.
     Even if people do learn about their biases, and its
    costs, they typically do not apply this learning.
    32
    Status-quo bias
    This bias arises when a person exhibits a preference for the current state of affairs, even
    when it would be beneficial to change the status-quo. This behaviour obviously can lead
    to bad decisions.
    o Example: People routinely fail to increase contribution to retirement saving, even after promising to do
    so at the ‘next pay raise’ (and even when the employer ‘match’ the individual contribution)
    • In healthcare, medical noncompliance may also stem from sheer inertia – the
    tendency to stay in the current state, even when that state is undesirable
    o Example: Suri et al. (2013): participants were told that the research would involve receiving electric
    shocks. One group was told that they were required to choose one of two options: They could press a
    button to stop the shock 10 seconds earlier, or press another button to keep the waiting time the
    same. As expected, most people opted to get the shock over with early. In contrast, those participants
    who were told that they could press a time-decrease button if they wanted to were more likely to stick
    with the status quo: Only about 40% chose to push the button in order to shorten the trial.
    Those participants who had to make a proactive choice to press the button opted to leave it
    untouched about half the time, even though it meant they had to withstand shocks they themselves
    rated as highly undesirable.
    33
    Loss aversion
    People tend to overvalue losses and undervalue gains. A heightened
    tendency to focus on avoiding losses, even if it makes them worse off.
    Due to this bias it becomes critical how choice is framed – in terms of
    gains or in terms of losses. The ‘framing’ influences people’s decisions
    in ways that cannot be accounted for by traditional economic theory.
    • In general, it costs less to self-insure against very likely events and/or when size of
    the loss is small, rather than purchasing full insurance. With insurance one has to
    pay not only the expected cost of the loss but also administrative costs (including
    profits) and ‘loading charges’ to the insurance company. If someone still buys
    insurance, paying a deductible should be preferable to full coverage. Nevertheless,
    people do buy insurance for high probability events.
    o One example in US health care is Medigap coverage for the cost of the Part B
    deductible, which is only $140 per year and is generally exceeded by seniors.
    Medigap purchasers are expected to avoid such plans and choose options that do
    not cover this deductible, but they do not.
    34
    Delay Discounting (time preference)
    • A related phenomenon relates to how decisions are made between
    the present and the future.
    • Discounting is a necessary adjustment to compare the value of
    future outcome with the current cost. More distant the future is
    lower should be its current value if discounting is applied. However,
    some people discount the future values excessively.
    • Choice of smaller, immediate rewards over larger distant rewards is
    generally driven by
    o Disproportioned priorities or present-orientedness (present-bias).
    o By lack of self-control – particularly when the present temptation
    (that chocolate mousse on the dessert tray) is so salient, whereas
    the future health implications are remote and incremental.
    35
    Excess delay discounting
    People seek immediate gratification at the expense of long-term gains
    Example:
    Drinking, Smoking, Illicit Drug Use, or Eating (overconsumption)
    These behaviours are “enjoyable” in the short-term. Avoiding these has longterm
    health benefits, the value of which is heavily discounted.
    36
    Excess delay discounting
    • People with overconsumption disorders know that larger
    delayed outcomes – physical health and vocational success – are
    very important to them
    • Nonetheless tend to persist and potentially make the problem
    worse.
    Why?
    • “Inability to delay gratification” (low self-control?)
    • Overvaluation of immediate rewards, or undervaluation (deep
    discounting) of the future benefits.
    37
    Delay discounting, impulsivity, and self-control
    You want to be a healthy body weight more than you want a piece
    of cake (in the long run) – but if cake is immediately available, it
    can be eaten without much effort, while maintaining a healthy
    body weight will take more effort. An impulsive person would eat
    the cake, a self-controlled one would resist temptation.
    You swore off cigarettes 2 months ago, but would rather smoke
    right now, than continue to maintain your non-smoking lifestyle –
    which takes more effort and isn’t as immediately rewarding to you
    as smoking. An impulsive person would smoke, a self-controlled
    person would not.
    38
    Research Findings
    Various Research found that substance abuse and
    overconsumption aren’t alone in regard to delay discounting.
    Other health behaviours fit too!
    Can anyone think of any other health behaviours?
    Also, how does delay discounting apply?
    39
    Thus,
    Overvaluation of immediate outcomes at the expense of future
    outcomes appears to play a role across a wide range of health
    behaviours.
    40
    Distorted risk perception
    • From Loss Aversion bias we think in terms of gains and losses
    with respect to our perceived and expected status quo. We fear
    losses more than we like gains.
    • But we also distort probability according to how a prospect is
    framed (in terms of gains and losses). Our choices are highly
    dependant on how ‘uncertainty’ is framed:
    o We overvalue probability (risk) when thinking in terms of loss (risk seeking).
    o We undervalue probability when thinking in terms of gains (risk averse).
    • These heuristics may lead to irrational health choices by patients
    and doctors alike.
    41
    Consequence of distorted risk perception
    42
    Fourfold pattern for risk aversion and risk seeking

The post An introduction to Behavioral Economics appeared first on My Assignment Online.

Plagiarism Free Assignment Help

Expert Help With This Assignment — On Your Terms

Native UK, USA & Australia writers Deadline from 3 hours 100% Plagiarism-Free — Turnitin included Unlimited free revisions Free to submit — compare quotes
Scroll to Top