Nav: Home

Understanding decisions: The power of combining psychology and economics

April 18, 2017

Adolescents face many challenging decisions. So, do consumers.

A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows how collaborations between psychologists and economists lead to better understanding of such decisions than either discipline can on its own.

"Psychology and economics are both interested in how people make decisions, but have different theories and methods. In our work with economists at Northwestern, Michigan, the Federal Reserve and elsewhere, we have found ways to complement each other's expertise," said Wändi Bruine de Bruin, professor of behavioral decision making at Leeds' University Business School, who received her Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University, where she is collaborating professor in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy.

In two series of studies, focused on individuals' expectations for major life events, Bruine de Bruin and CMU's Baruch Fischhoff worked with economists to design survey questions that were simple enough for laypeople to answer but precise enough to inform economic models.

The first project examined adolescents' expectations for life events that would affect their psychological and economic development, such as finding work, being arrested and having children. Their colleagues in economics, led by Charles Manski, a former CMU faculty member, wanted to ask precise questions on a major national survey but were meeting resistance from survey researchers, who claimed that they were too hard for teens to answer.

Bruine de Bruin and Fischhoff supported the economists' concerns with studies showing that questions using seemingly simpler language were actually more difficult for respondents and less useful for researchers, because the simpler wording was more ambiguous. The team then developed questions that teens could understand and provide answers that economists could use. The process included asking for numerical probabilities (e.g., 70 percent), rather than verbal quantifiers, such as "very likely."

"We found that kids were better at judging their futures than people may have thought, that they could estimate with numerical probabilities just fine and their answers were generally sensible," said Fischhoff, the Howard Heinz University Professor in the Institute for Politics and Strategy and Department of Engineering and Public Policy at CMU.

The second project involved consumers' expectations of inflation, which play a central role in predicting financial decisions for the overall economy. Economists at the U.S. Federal Reserve worried that the questions that they had used for decades did not mean the same thing to consumers as they did for economists.

Bringing psychological methods to bear on economics problems, the team found that here, too, it was better to ask more precise questions.

"When you ask people directly about 'inflation,' it led to less confusion, and more accurate expectations, than when you use vague terms, like 'prices in general,'" said Bruine de Bruin.

Moreover, asking about 'prices in general' led people to think of prices for specific goods, bringing more extreme prices to mind. As a result, expectations for 'prices in general' were higher than expectations for 'inflation.'

Bruine de Bruin and Fischhoff point to four conditions that made such transdiciplinary research possible: having a shared research goal, which neither discipline could achieve on its own; finding common ground in shared methodology; sharing effort throughout, with common language and sense of ownership; and gaining mutual benefit from both the research process and its products.

"Successful collaborations across fields can be done. You need to find willing partners, and create trusted partnerships," Fischhoff said. "For people interested in decision research, you should look for work that combines both psychology and economics because neither can provide the complete picture."
-end-
The research was supported by grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation, Swedish Foundation for the Humanities and Social Sciences and the European Union Seventh Framework Program.

Related Article:

Terrorism Research Must Be Driven By Evidence, Not Political Agendas

Carnegie Mellon University

Related Decisions Articles:

Which COVID-19 models should we use to make policy decisions?
A new process to harness multiple disease models for outbreak management has been developed by an international team of researchers.
For complex decisions, narrow them down to two
When choosing between multiple alternatives, people usually focus their attention on the two most promising options.
Fungal decisions can affect climate
Research shows fungi may slow climate change by storing more carbon.
How decisions unfold in a zebrafish brain
Researchers were able to track the activity of each neuron in the entire brain of zebrafish larvae and reconstruct the unfolding of neuronal events as the animals repeatedly made 'left or right' choices in a behavioral experiment.
Best of the best: Who makes the most accurate decisions in expert groups?
New method predicts accuracy on the basis of similarity.
How do brains remember decisions?
Mammal brains -- including those of humans -- store and recall impressive amounts of information based on our good and bad decisions and interactions in an ever-changing world.
How we make complex decisions
MIT neuroscientists have identified a brain circuit that helps break complex decisions down into smaller pieces.
Opposites attract and, together, they can make surprisingly gratifying decisions
Little is known about how consumers make decisions together. A new study by researchers from Boston College, Georgia Tech and Washington State University finds pairs with opposing interpersonal orientations -- the selfish versus the altruistic -- can reach amicable decisions about what to watch on TV, or where to eat, for example.
Group decisions: When more information isn't necessarily better
Modular -- or cliquey -- group structure isolates the flow of communication between individuals, which might seem counterproductive to survival.
How do we make moral decisions?
When it comes to making moral decisions, we often think of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
More Decisions News and Decisions Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Processing The Pandemic
Between the pandemic and America's reckoning with racism and police brutality, many of us are anxious, angry, and depressed. This hour, TED Fellow and writer Laurel Braitman helps us process it all.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#568 Poker Face Psychology
Anyone who's seen pop culture depictions of poker might think statistics and math is the only way to get ahead. But no, there's psychology too. Author Maria Konnikova took her Ph.D. in psychology to the poker table, and turned out to be good. So good, she went pro in poker, and learned all about her own biases on the way. We're talking about her new book "The Biggest Bluff: How I Learned to Pay Attention, Master Myself, and Win".
Now Playing: Radiolab

Invisible Allies
As scientists have been scrambling to find new and better ways to treat covid-19, they've come across some unexpected allies. Invisible and primordial, these protectors have been with us all along. And they just might help us to better weather this viral storm. To kick things off, we travel through time from a homeless shelter to a military hospital, pondering the pandemic-fighting power of the sun. And then, we dive deep into the periodic table to look at how a simple element might actually be a microbe's biggest foe. This episode was reported by Simon Adler and Molly Webster, and produced by Annie McEwen and Pat Walters. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.