Score One for Tulsa Initiative

Not that my post had anything to do with it, but my picks for which recent research papers Early Ed Watch should cover were among the top 3 receiving votes. For refreshers, they are:

1. “Do Elementary School Characteristics Influence the ‘Fade Out’ of Preschool Cognitive Gains?” by Aleksandra Holod and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
2. “Early Academic Outcomes for Children in Family Day Care, Center-Based Care and Public Pre-K Programs,” by Jessica J. De Feyter, Henry Tran, Adam Winsler, Louis Manfra, Laura Bolzani Dinehart, Charles Bleiker, and Sabrina Sembiante

The poll elicited 53 comments compared to their usual one to three comments per post so good job on their part for the creative idea.

I’ll be sure to post links over to their page as soon as they start covering the winning papers.

Now if only there were winnings to be had on these sorts of pools…

Read Full Post »

Speaking of Behavior Change

This sign includes some interesting elements of behavior change:

Notice the top message. One lesson from behavioral research is that people can be convinced to do things when they know others are doing it. Who wants to be among the 2% of idiots that don’t pay their fare correctly? I wouldn’t, so I’ll “touch in and touch out” next time – whatever that means.

This seems pretty obvious (peer pressure and all that) but a lot of times we frame things badly by highlighting the negative behavior rather than the behavior we want. When we say 59% of low-income people don’t have a bank account (I just made that up), we make it seem socially acceptable not to have an account. But if instead we say 75% of Americans have a bank account, we highlight the desired behavior and make it seem desirable to be in that group.

The other thing this sign does is play off of people’s loss aversion. Research shows that people do more to avoid loss than they do for a potential gain. The sign doesn’t say “Touch in and touch out and you’ll save £2” – and that’s by design. It’s framed as a loss: if you don’t want to pay the “maximum cash fare” then “touch in and touch out.” I have no idea what the maximum fare is, but I’m willing to bet most Brits don’t know either. This uncertainty probably makes you even more loss averse. If the difference is £2, I might be willing to pay that. But if I don’t know – I’d rather not risk it costing me £5.

Read Full Post »

Behavior Change in the White House

Time ran an interesting article on how the Obama administration (and before that for his campaign) is being influenced and advised by the brightest minds in behavior change research.

We all know Obama won the election because he looked like change, sounded like change and never stopped campaigning for change. But he didn’t call for just change in Washington — or even just change in America… Obama called for change in Americans. …

In fact, Obama is betting his presidency on our ability to change our behavior. His top priorities — the economy, health care and energy — all depend on it. We need to spend more money now to avert a short-term depression, then save more money later to secure our long-term economic future. We need to consume less energy in order to reduce our oil imports and carbon emissions as well as our household expenses. We need to quit smoking, lay off the Twinkies and avoid other risky behaviors that both damage our personal health and boost the costs of care that are ravaging the nation’s fiscal health. Basically, we need to make better choices — about mortgages and credit cards, insurance and retirement plans — so we won’t need bailouts down the road.

The problem, as anyone with a sweet tooth, an alcoholic relative or a maxed-out Visa card knows, is that old habits die hard. Temptation is strong. We are weak. We’ve got plenty of gurus, talk-show hosts and celebrity spokespeople badgering us to save energy, lose weight and live within our means, but we’re still addicted to oil, junk food and debt. It’s fair to ask whether we’re even capable of changing.

But the latest science suggests that yes, we can. Studies of all kinds of human frailties are revealing how to help people change — not only through mandates or financial incentives but also via subtler nudges that preserve our freedom to make choices while encouraging us to make better ones, from automatic-enrollment 401(k) plans that require us to opt out if we don’t want to save for retirement to smart meters that warn us about how much energy we’re using. These nudges can trigger huge changes; in a 2001 study, only 36% of women joined a 401(k) plan when they had to sign up for it, but when they had to opt out, 86% participated.

According to the article, our friend Sendhil Mullainathan “is organizing an outside network of behavioral experts to provide the Administration with policy ideas.” In his spare time, Sendhil has been helping us think about how to use the science of behavior change to get parents to avoid costly financial decisions such as subprime loans, and he recently introduced the basic concepts of behavioral economics to staff from every division of CAP at one of our “Lunch n’ Learns”.

—

Image used under a Creative Commons license from flickr user russelldavies.

Read Full Post »