A Practicum in Behavioral Economics 1 Miscalculations, Cognitive Illusions, Misjudgments, and ‘Effects'

CHAPTER . MISCALCULATIONS , COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS , AND We begin by considering some miscalculations that bedevil and typify Homo sapiens . RELATIVELY SIMPLE ) MISCALCULATIONS A baseball bat and ball together cost . The bat costs more than the ball . How much does the ball cost ?

If it takes machines minutes to make football helmets , how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 football helmets 100 minutes or minutes ?

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS All are . Some fade quickly . Thus , some fade quickly . Is this syllogism valid ?

In a lake , there is a patch of . Every day the patch doubles in size . If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake , how long would it take the patch to cover half the lake 24 days or 47 days ?

Answers Box The ball costs . Box It would take minutes . Box The syllogism is not valid . Box It would take 47 days . Homo would have scored a perfect four out of four . What was your score ?

RELATIVELY COMPLEX ) MISCALCULATION ( 1968 ) proposed the following test of formal operational thought . Suppose you are shown four cards 18 ARTHUR with the faces showing respectively , and , as displayed in the figure below . I ) You are told that a card with a number on one side ( or ) has a letter on the reverse side ( or ) You are then asked which of the cards you would need to over to test the hypothesis that If there is a on one side of any card , then there is a on its other Answer To test this hypothesis , you would need to the card . However , you would also need to over the card as well . If the letter on the opposite side of the card is , then the hypothesis would be false . COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS Ready to be weirded out ?

Which of the two horizontal lines is the longest ?

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 19 , by , in the Public Domain Are the sides of this cube bent inward ?

Which of the black circles is the largest ?

20 ARTHUR Do you see a rabbit or a duck in this drawing ?

Illusion , by i , in the Public Domain Answers . Take a close look . The two lines are identical in length . The sides of the cube are not bent inward . Neither . The black circles are identical in size . BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 21 . You can see both a rabbit and a duck in the drawing . Homo would provide correct answers to each question , no problem . How did you do ?

1972 ) and Palmer ( 1975 ) contend that our visual perceptions are affected by both our prior conceptual structures and the characteristics of the visual stimulus itself . This would explain why you may have struggled to answer some of questions correctly . A heuristic is a practical , method that is not guaranteed to lead to an optimal or rational solution but is nonetheless deemed sufficient by an individual or organization for obtaining a goal or approximation ( Myers , 2010 ) can lead Homo sapiens to misjudge situations that more reasoned thought or research would otherwise improve AFFECT HEURISTIC Have you ever based a decision upon your like or dislike of the object in question rather than on more objective information and logical reasoning ?

For example , maybe you ve based your decision of whether to purchase stock in a company based upon your like or dislike of the We will learn in Section , can , in some cases , lead to preferable outcomes . 22 ARTHUR company rather than whether the stock price is or ?

If you have ever made a decision like this , then as ( 2011 ) instructs us , you are guilty of an Affect Heuristic . The key to distinguishing this heuristic is the absence of any information or evidence that might otherwise be used to render judgment or make a decision . We might , therefore , call this the heuristic . AVAILABILITY HEURISTIC Have you ever judged the frequency of an occurrence by the ease with which instances of the occurrence have come to your mind or you have personally experienced it ?

For example , a judicial error that affected you personally has undermined your faith in the justice system more than a similar incident that you read about in the newspaper ?

If you have ever judged an occurrence like this , then you were guilty of using an Availability Heuristic . In an interesting study of the Availability Heuristic , et al . 1978 ) asked subjects participating in an experiment Whether they knew the likely causes of death in the US . The subjects were told that , on average , people die each year due to motor vehicle accidents . They were then asked to state how many people they thought died from 40 other possible causes , ranging from venomous bites or stings , to tornados and lightning strikes , to , to electrocution , to fire and . I think you get the grim picture . The authors found that subjects tended to overestimate the number of people who die from less likely causes and underestimate the number of deaths from more likely causes . For BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 23

example , the average number of deaths due to fireworks ( a less likely cause ) was estimated by the experiments subjects to be over 330 per year when the actual number is only six . And , the number of deaths due to electrocution ( a more likely cause ) was estimated by the subjects to be roughly 590 versus the actual number of over . Subjects also tended to believe that two different causes associated with a similar number of deaths were instead associated with markedly different numbers of deaths . For example , homicides and accidental falls account for roughly and deaths per year , respectively , while , on average , the subjects believed these two death tallies to be roughly and . While the actual ratio of deaths by homicide to deaths by accidental falls is only ( the corresponding believed ratio is ( Upon further questioning of the subjects , et al . discovered that this upward bias correlated with newspaper coverage and whether a subject had direct experience with someone who had died from a given very things that an Availability Heuristic . Needless to say , Homo would never deign to use such . She would be fully informed of the actual death statistics . EFFECTS DEPLETION EFFECT et al . 2011 ) studied the proportion of rulings made by parole judges in favor of prisoners requests for parole . Their results are depicted in the figure below . 24 ARTHUR

Proportion favorable decisions Ordinal position ( er et al . 201 Circled points in the figure indicate the proportions of first decisions made in favor of parole in each of three decision sessions . The first decision session began after morning break time . The second session began after lunch break , and the third session began after afternoon break time . Tick marks on the horizontal axis denote every third case heard by the judges , respectively , and the dotted lines indicate food breaks . Note that for each decision session , the rulings begin in favor of parole and then steadily decline as the end of each session is approached . Apparently , the judges get crankier as each session wears on . Their sympathies suffer what known as a Depletion Effect . We would expect no such pattern from ( judges from the Homo species ) But what exactly would that pattern be ?

PRIMING EFFECT Consider these two thought experiments . BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 25 Last night Sally and Bob went out to dinner together . They enjoyed a meal at Wai Wai Noodle Palace Last night came home from work feeling tired and sweaty from a long day of work . She took a long shower . If you chose the letter for the first box and a for the second box , then you are likely guilty of what ( 201 ) calls a Priming Effect . As these experiments demonstrate , priming Homo sapiens is rather easy . PRIMING EFFECT ( VERSION ) et al . 2006 ) examined the effect of an image of a pair of eyes on contributions made by colleagues to an honesty box used to collect money for drinks in a university coffee room . Suggested prices for the drinks were listed as follows ( stands for British pence ) 26 ARTHUR

Coffee ( with or without milk ) Tea ( with or without milk ) Milk only ( in your coffee or tea ) Full cup of milk Please put your money in the blue tin . Thanks , Melissa . The figure below presents the study results . In ' in us . In paid I Inn consumed ( et at 2006 ) BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 27

Relative to the week before , when a photo of a floral arrangement was shown , the week associated with human eyes staring back at Melissa colleagues resulted in more money contributed to the honesty box . All told , the authors report that their colleagues contributed nearly three times as much for their drinks when a pair of eyes were displayed rather than the arrangement . This result suggests the importance of the social cue of being watched ( and thus , concerns ) on cooperative behavior among humans . It is another example of a Priming Effect . Homo would not have been swayed by such cues and concerns . Instead , he would have exhibited what known as behavior , never or only rarely contributing to the honesty box , irrespective of whether a pair of eyes were glaring or blooming . PRIMING EFFECTS ABOUND Examples of the Priming Effect abound . For example , 2011 ) mentions research suggesting that people demonstrate more individualism ( more and selfish behaviors and a stronger preference for being alone ) Berger et al . 2008 ) find that support for ballot propositions to increase funding for public schools is significantly greater when the polling station is located in a school rather than a nearby location . Can you identify ways in which you are primed in your daily life ?

Of course , Homo would be compelled to answer no to this question . 28 ARTHUR MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT and ( 1969 ) ran an interesting field experiment on the campuses of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University . For a period of 25 days , an box appeared on the front pages of the student newspapers containing one of the following Turkish words , The frequency with which the words were repeated varied . One of the words was shown only once , and the others appeared on two , five , ten , or separate occasions . No explanations were offered to the readers of the papers . When the mysterious ads ended , the investigators sent questionnaires to readers asking for their impressions of whether each of the words means something good or something The words presented more frequently were rated much more favorably than the words shown only once or twice . This has come to be known as the Mere Exposure Effect . INTENTIONAL CAUSATION Consider the following thought experiment . Read this sentence After spending a day exploring beautiful sights in the crowded streets of New York City , Jane discovered that her wallet was missing . What comes to mind ?

Any chance that Jane was BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 29 pickpocketed ?

If so , then you have succumbed to what ( 201 ) calls Intentional Causation . JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS The website provides several examples of how we Homo sapiens jump to conclusions ( Have you ever made jumps like these ?

Immediately deciding that a restaurants food is bad because its windows are smudged . Believing someone is rich because she drives a fancy car . Believing you will fail a test because you struggled with some of the practice questions . Thinking someone does not like you because they were not enthusiastic when you said good morning . Thinking a house is on fire because you see smoke coming out of a window . Assuming that because you did not get along with one person from a certain social group , you will not get along with anyone else from that group either . If so , then join the proverbial club . jumping to conclusions is an easy thing to do . FRAMING EFFECT Consider the following thought experiment . 30 ARTHUR

Different ways of presenting the same information evoke different interpretations . Consider two car owners who seek to reduce their costs Sylvester switches from a of miles per gallon ( to a slightly less voracious guzzler that runs at . The environmentally virtuous Elizabeth switches from a 13 car to one that runs at 17 . Both Sylvester and Elizabeth drive their cars miles per year . Who will save more gas by switching ?

If you chose Elizabeth you have fallen victim to what is known as a Framing Effect . Guess again . Elizabeth saves ( 941 290 gallons per year , while Sylvester saves ( 533 gallons per year ! HALO EFFECT Consider the following thought experiment . Who do you think has more virtuous qualities , or Anne ?

intelligent , industrious , impulsive , critical , stubborn , envious BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 31 Anne envious , stubborn , critical , impulsive , industrious , intelligent Note that and Anne share the same qualities . The only difference is that the more virtuous qualities are listed first for and last for Anne . As a result , you are more likely to choose as having the more virtuous qualities simply because of a type of Framing Effect called the Halo Effect . Surely , Homo would have identified and Anne as equally virtuous individuals . In one of the earliest laboratory experiments designed to measure the Halo Effect , and Wilson ( 1977 ) had a group of students observe videotaped interviews with a professor who spoke with a pronounced foreign accent and then rate his As the authors point out , when we like a person , we often assume that those attributes of the person about which we know relatively little are also favorable . For example , a persons appearance may be perceived as more attractive if we like the person than if we do not . The subjects in and Wilson experiment ( roughly 120 University of Michigan students enrolled . This was by no means the first such experiment . For instance , an earlier experiment conducted by and ( 1974 ) found that evaluations of an essay ( written by an unknown author ) made by male college students were graded substantially higher when the alleged author was an attractive woman rather than an unattractive woman . This Halo Effect was pronounced , especially when the essay was of relatively poor quality . 32 ARTHUR

in an introductory psychology course ) were told that the investigators were studying the possibility that ratings of an instructor presented in such a brief fashion might resemble ratings by students who had taken an entire course with the instructor . The subjects were shown one of two different , videotaped interviews with the same instructor , a native ing Belgian who spoke English with a fairly pronounced accent . In one interview , the instructor presented himself as a likable person , respectful of his students intelligence and motives , in his approach to teaching , and enthusiastic about his subject matter ( he portrayed himself as a warm teacher ) In the other interview , the instructor appeared to be quite unlikable , cold and distrustful toward his students , rigid and doctrinaire in his teaching style ( portraying a cold teacher ) After viewing the videotaped interview , the subjects rated the instructors likability , as well as the attractiveness of his physical appearance , his mannerisms , and his accent . It was anticipated that the subjects would rate the instructor as having a more attractive physical appearance , more attractive mannerisms , and a more attractive accent when he was likable than when he was unlikable . A substantial majority of the subjects who observed the interview with the warm teacher rated his physical appearance as appealing , whereas a substantial majority of those who observed the interview with the cold teacher rated his appearance as irritating . Similarly , a majority of subjects viewing the warm teacher rated his mannerisms as appealing , whereas a majority of subjects viewing the cold teacher rated his mannerisms as irritating . Lastly , about half of the subjects viewing the BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 33

warm teacher rated his accent as appealing , while half rated the accent as irritating , whereas the overwhelming majority of subjects who viewed the cold teacher rated his accent as irritating . Hence , it appears that unlike Homo , who would not be swayed by inconclusive evidence such as a interview , Homo sapiens can indeed be by these types of first encounters and attendant impressions . We tend to fall prey to the Halo Effect . ORDERING EFFECT Hogarth and ( 1992 ) investigate what known as the Ordering Effect , which is associated with how Homo sapiens update their beliefs over example , how first impressions of an acquaintance are updated as you spend more time The authors consider three pertinent questions concerning this updating process . First , under what conditions does information processed earliest in the updating sequence have greater ( produce a Primacy Effect ) Second , under what conditions is later information more important ( produce a Recency Effect ) And third , under what conditions is order irrelevant ?

In general , Hogarth and consider order effects of the following type There are two pieces of evidence , A and . Some subjects express an opinion after seeing the . In Chapter we will learn how researchers discern differences like these on a more formal , statistical basis . Similar to how the Halo Effect represents a special case of a Framing Effect , you should recognize that the Ordering Effect is likewise a special case of a Framing Effect . 34 ARTHUR

information in the order others receive the information in the order . An order effect occurs when opinions formed after differ from those formed after . To test for Primacy and Recency Effects , the authors present subjects in their experiments with a set of four scenarios , each of which involves an initial description ( the stem ) and two additional pieces of information presented in separate paragraphs ( the evidence ) The content of the four stems consists of the following ( a defective stereo speaker thought to have a bad connection ( a baseball player named Sandy whose hitting has improved dramatically after a new coaching program ( an increase in sales of a supermarket product following an advertising campaign and ( the contracting of lung cancer by a worker in a chemical factory . Note that each stem consists of an outcome ( Sandy hitting has improved dramatically ) and a suspected causal factor ( a new coaching program ) After reading a stem , subjects are asked to rate how likely the suspected causal factor was the cause of the outcome on a rating scale from to 100 . For example , in the baseball scenario , subjects are asked , How likely do you think that the new training program caused the improvement in Sandy performance ?

In one experiment ( Experiment ) subjects are provided with both strong and weak positive evidence to nudge them toward a revised answer . Continuing with the baseball scenario , the positive evidence consists of two sentences The other players on Sandy team did not show an unusual increase in their batting average over the last five weeks . In fact , the teams overall batting average for these five weeks was about the same as the BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 35

average for the season thus The first sentence provides strong positive evidence and the second sentence provides weak positive evidence . Thus , the evidence is provided in a order ( weak and were randomized across subjects ) After reading the evidence , subjects are asked again to rate how likely the suspected causal factor was the cause of the outcome on a rating scale from to 100 . In Experiments and , the same procedures were followed except that in Experiment the two pieces of evidence consist of strong negative and weak negative information about the outcome , and in Experiment the two pieces of information are mixed , involving positive and negative information . An example of negative information in the baseball scenario is , The games in which Sandy showed his improvement were played against the last place team in the league . Pitchers on that team are very weak and usually allow many hits and Hogarth and hypotheses were that subjects participating in Experiments and should not exhibit an Ordering Effect since the evidence was either purely positive or purely ordering of strong weak should , therefore , not measurably impact a subject initial rating of the likelihood of the suspected causal factor having caused the outcome . However , the ordering of the mixed evidence in Experiment negative impact a subject initial rating . Each of the authors hypotheses was confirmed by the experiments . In Experiment they found statistically 36 ARTHUR

significant evidence of a Recency Effects Specifically , the order resulted in an average decrease in the subjects ratings of slightly more than , relative to the average initial judgment , and the order resulted in an average rating increase of slightly less than . Recency in this case is tied to the evidence provided in the second sentence as opposed to the first sentence . Had the result been reversed ( it was the first sentence that drove the average change in rating rather than the second sentence ) then Hogarth and would have instead found evidence of a Primacy Effect . Of course , we would expect neither recency nor primacy to affect Homo . ANCHORING EFFECT ( 2011 ) describes another effect known as the Anchoring Effect , whereby a subject answer to a question is anchored to information that is contained in the question itself . For example , suppose Individual is presented with Question below , and Individual is presented with Question . Assume that both individuals are so alike we can almost think of them as clones of one another . Neither of them actually knows how old Gandhi was at death . We explicitly define what we mean by statistically significant in Section . For now , think of statistically significant this way the result of an experiment is statistically significant if it is likely not caused by chance for some given level of confidence , typically 95 . BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 37

. Was Gandhi younger or older than 114 years at his death ?

How old was Gandhi at his death ?

Was Gandhi younger or older than 35 years at his death ?

How old was Gandhi at his death ?

If the two individuals each suffer from the Anchoring Effect , then Individual will answer a higher age than Individual . This is because Individual anchor age in his or her question , 114 years , is so much higher than Individual anchor of 35 years . Based on their disparate answers , an Anchoring Index can be calculated as ( Individual answer Individual answer ) 114 35 ) Of course , if the two individuals happen to be from the species Homo , they would both answer 78 years old , which was Gandhi actual age at death . And in this case , their Anchoring Index would equal zero ! In a classic test of the anchoring effect among Homo sapiens , et al . 2003 ) asked students in a laboratory experiment whether they would be willing to purchase a box of Belgian Chocolates for more money than the last two digits of their Social Security Numbers ( For example , if the last two digits of a participant were 25 , then was asked whether would be willing to pay ( more than 25 for the chocolates . The participants were then asked for the specific amount they would be . Because are assigned randomly , the authors hypothesized that there should be no relationship between the participants and their 38 ARTHUR

respective values . On the contrary , et al . 2003 ) found a positive relationship between the participants and values , suggesting that a Homo sapiens can induce an Anchoring Effect , particularly when it comes to our values for Belgian Chocolates . Yum ! In a separate experiment , et al . sought to answer the attendant question , do Homo sapiens from one anchor price to another , continually changing our values ?

Or does the first anchor price we encounter serve as our anchor over time and across multiple decisions ( do we exhibit what the authors call coherent arbitrariness ) For their experiment , the authors recruited approximately 130 students attending a job recruitment fair on the MIT campus . The experiment subjected each participant to three different sounds through a pair of headphones . Following each sound , the participants were asked if they would be willing to accept a particular amount of money ( which served as the experiments anchor price ) for having to listen to the sounds again . One sound was a , sound , mimicking someone screaming in a voice ( Sound ) Another was a , white ) noise , similar to the noise a television set or radio makes when there is no reception ( Sound ) The third was a oscillation between and sounds ( Sound ) et al . used these particular sounds due to there being no existing market for annoying sounds ( therefore , the participants were precluded from confounding their responses in the experiment with a market price ) For the first part of the experiment , anchor prices of BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 39

10 cents or 90 cents were randomly assigned to the participants . After indicating whether they would accept their anchor price for listening to Sound again ( yes or no ) each participant then indicated the lowest price they would willingly accept to listen to the sound again . Participants whose price was lowest won the opportunity to hear Sound again , and actually got paid for doing so . The remaining participants were not given the opportunity to listen to the sound again ( and thus , were not paid for this part of the experiment ) As expected , the authors found that those participants whose anchor price was 10 cents stated a lower willingness to listen value to Sound again ( 33 cents on average ) relative to those whose anchor price had been 90 cents ( 73 cents on average ) To test how the anchor prices of 10 cents and 90 cents were in determining future decisions , et al . then subjected each participant ( from both the and anchor price groups ) to Sound and asked if they would be willing to accept a payment of 50 cents to endure the sound again . Similar to the first part of the experiment , after indicating whether they would accept 50 cents for listening to Sound again , each participant stated the lowest price they would willingly accept to listen to the sound again . It turned out that the original group stated much lower prices than the original group . Although both groups had subsequently been exposed to the anchor price , their original anchor prices ( 10 cents for some , 90 cents for others ) In other words , Homo sapiens exhibit persistent Anchoring Effects . In the experiments final stage , participants were instructed to listen to Sound . This time , et al . 40 ARTHUR

asked each of the original group members if they would be willing to listen to this sound again for 90 cents . And et al . asked each of the original group members if they would be willing to listen to this sound again for 10 cents . Having the anchor prices , the authors could now discern which anchor first or the the greatest on the participants stated prices . Once again , each participant was then asked how much money it would take to willingly listen to Sound again . The final results were that ( those participants who had first encountered the anchor price stated relatively low prices to endure Sound again , even after 90 cents was stated as the subsequent anchor price , and ( those who had first encountered the anchor price demanded relatively high prices , even after 10 cents was stated as the subsequent anchor price . Therefore , et al . conclude that our initial decisions anchor future decisions over time . Or , to put it another way , first impressions are important . Anchoring Effects remain with us long after an initial decision is made . This is what explains , for example , the heuristic of brand loyalty . As ( 2008 ) points out , loyal Starbucks customers likely share the same story explaining their fealty . Following their first experience drinking a Starbucks coffee , they apply the following heuristic I went to Starbucks before , and I enjoyed both the coffee and the overall experience , so this must be a good decision for And so on . This can also explain how you might start with a small drip coffee ( your anchor ) and subsequently work your way up to a large . goes on to explain what likely attracted you to Starbucks in the first place . BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 41

SILO EFFECT A Silo Effect occurs when a system is not in place that enables separate departments or teams within an organization to communicate effectively with each other . Productivity and collaboration suffer as a result . A classic example of the Silo Effect is when two departments within a given organization are working on practically identical initiatives or projects but neither department is aware of what the other is doing ( Marchese , 2016 ) This phenomenon is also known as ( when contact occurs more often between similar than dissimilar departments ) Although conventional wisdom has suggested for some time now that breaking down silos and fostering partnerships to achieve public health outcomes has distinct advantages , and examples can indeed be found where the practice of collaboration is growing within the public health system , et al . 2015 ) set out to measure the extent to which disciplinary and organizational silos that have traditionally characterized public health still exist . In particular , the authors test for the persistence of Silo Effects in over 160 public health ( social networks comprised of diverse types of partners ( including law enforcement agencies , nonprofit advocacy groups , hospitals , etc . varying levels of interaction and multiple configurations designed to increase common knowledge and resource sharing . Interestingly , et al . find that as network size increases , a potential bias is observed among specific organization types in terms of their choosing to interact with similar organizations ( for law enforcement agencies to collaborate with other law 42 ARTHUR

enforcement agencies , with other , and public health organizations with other public health organizations , etc ) Thus , even in settings where reducing the impulse for is explicitly being targeted , Homo sapiens persist in occupying their silos . Given their ubiquitous understanding of the benefits of collaboration among dissimilar groups , Homo would never have built such silos in the first place . STUDY QUESTIONS . Describe two instances in your own life where you have adopted the Affect and Availability to help you in making decisions . What drove you to adopt these ?

Do you believe the served you well ?

Why or why not ?

Browse the internet for a challenge question that , like those presented in this chapter , instigate miscalculation and error in reasoning . Also , find a cognitive illusion that elicits the same sense of wonderment as those presented in this chapter . Can you think of another sector of society besides the judiciary where the Depletion Effect has potentially profound implications ?

Explain . BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 43 . The Honesty Box described in Priming Effect ( Version ) is an example of a public good funded by Voluntary contributions , and the human arrangement prompts are mechanisms designed to induce full payment by room attendees . Can you think of a contribution mechanism that might also induce full payment to the Honesty Box ?

How would this mechanism actually work ?

Suppose you have conducted a field experiment with a group of 50 adults to measure the incidence of a Mere Exposure Effect . You have them listen to the new Bruce Springsteen song Letter to You once per day over a period of eight consecutive days , and then register their Liking Score ( the extent to which they have enjoyed listening to the song ) after each listen . You summarize your results in the bar graph below . Are these results evidence of a Mere Exposure Effect ?

Exposures Mean Liking Score 44 ARTHUR . Warning This question concerns a politically charged event that occurred on January 18 , 2019 , at the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington , After reading thi account of what happened at the march , and viewing rig video of the event , which of the effects presented in this chapter do you think best describes this episode in our nations history ?

Think of a situation in your own life when you framed information ( either wittingly or unwittingly ) in such a way that helped determine an outcome . Describe the situation and how you framed the information . Was the outcome improved or worsened as a result of how you framed the information ?

After having learned about the Anchoring Effect in this chapter , do you think you will ever fall for something like again ?

When someone you not to judge a book by its cover , or as British management journalist Robert Heller once noted , Never ignore a gut feeling , but never believe that it enough , what heuristic ( is he unwittingly advising you to avoid using ?

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 45 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . Browse the internet for information about an effect that was not discussed in this chapter . Can you classify this effect as a special case of a Priming or Framing Effect ?

Explain . Browse the internet for a heuristic other than the Affect and Availability described in this chapter . Explain the heuristic . Its one thing to detect the existence of a Silo Effect and quite another to measure its negative impacts on relationships between organizations or individuals . Identify a setting or situation where a Silo Effect exists and design a field experiment to measure the impacts of this effect on an outcome of interest . The Halo Effect suggests that someone who is perceived as being physically attractive has an advantage in certain example , when applying for a job . Can you think of why the halo might have a reverse effect ?

Media Figure ( Chapter ) Arthur is licensed under a BY Attribution license 46 ARTHUR Figure ( Chapter ) Arthur is licensed under a BY Attribution license Figure ( Chapter ) David Eccles is licensed under a Public Domain license Figure ( Chapter ) Illusion is licensed under a Public Domain license Figure 12 Chapter 2021 National Academy of Sciences is licensed under a All Rights Reserved license Figure 12 Chapter 2006 The Royal Society is licensed under a All Rights Reserved license Figure 17 ( Chapter ) Arthur is licensed under a BY Attribution license BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS PRACTICUM 47