‘TIS THE SEASON TO GIVE
Eric Johnson and Dan Goldstein have voiced an opinion on defaults as they relate to organ donation in today’s Wall Street Journal.
Your Dec. 17 editorial “Wait-Listed to Death” fails to mention an alternative to paying organ donors. This alternative, common in Europe, eliminates costs while producing an appreciable increase in transplanted organs: Simply change the national default, so that people are in the organ donor pool by default, instead of out of it. Since most Americans support organ donation, why place the burden of opting in on the majority?
An enlightened view would ask only the minority who does not wish to donate to opt out.
Academic studies, including our research, show that changing the default produces a significant increase in life-saving transplantation operations. We do not object to Sen. Arlen Specter’s proposal for reimbursing donors for expenses. But a simple change, consistent with the beliefs of the majority of people, would also prevent unnecessary deaths and let those who would rather not donate easily state their preference.
Eric J. Johnson
Columbia Business School
Columbia University
New York
Daniel G. Goldstein
London Business School
London
(*) There’s nothing inherently Canadian about this post, but Decision Science News is generally fond of Canada and its vintage posters.
THE MILES PER GALLON ILLUSION CALCULATOR
In the US, 2008 was the year in which the results of bad decisions hit (the economy), the year people voted for change (the election) and the year that policymakers started to acknowledge that the effects of choice architecture are too strong to ignore.
Keeping with the theme of helping consumers make better choices, the wunderduo of Larrick and Soll have created an online calculator to help people easily see the monetary tradeoffs they are making when choosing one car over another. It all comes down to gas mileage (or should we now say mile gassage). Check it out here.
See also, the MPG illusion.
THE 2009 SUMMER INSTITUTE IN POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, JULY 12-31, 2009
Those interested in Political Psychology should read Andrew Gelman’s blog postings, and also consider attending this:
Stanford University is very pleased to announce that it will host the 2009 Summer Institute in Political Psychology, continuing an annual tradition that was started by Margaret Hermann at Ohio State University in 1991 and moved to Stanford in 2005.
The Summer Institute will offer 3 weeks of training in political psychology for up to 60 participants, including graduate students, faculty, professionals, and advanced undergraduates. The activities will include lectures by world-class faculty, discussion groups, research/interest group meetings, group projects, and an array of social activities.
Political psychology is an exciting and thriving sub-disciplinary specialty that explores the origins of political behavior and the causes of political events, with a special focus on the psychological mechanisms at work. The principal contributors to the field include political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, and other researchers who cross bridges between disciplines in efforts to enrich their scholarship.
For detailed information and to apply, visit this website:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sipp
For the best chance to be admitted, submit your application as soon as possible.
DEFAULTS IN BRUSSELS
Last week, Decision Science News spoke at a European Commission conference on “How Can Behavioural Economics Improve Policies Affecting Consumers?“, which was terrifying, as it meant addressing a large room of people with name cards and microphones and simultaneous translators behind glass walls.
The DSN editor tried to emphasize how one must consider the cause of default effects when setting policies that govern which defaults should be prohibited, as discussed in a recent HBR article (Goldstein, Daniel G., Eric J. Johnson, Andreas Herrmann, and Mark Heitmann (2008).
Nudge Your Customers Toward Better Choices. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 99-105.).
As he was checking into the Sheraton Brussels Airport Hotel, he received a brochure with his key card, stating that unless one opted out, a donation to UNICEF would be added to the hotel bill.
Would you please allow us to add an extra US $1 to your room bill in aid of UNICEF? If you agree, you need do nothing. A US $1 – or approximate equivalent in local currency – donation to UNICEF will be added to your room bill (if you wish to donate more, please tell us). If you prefer, however, not to take part in Check Out for Children, please inform our staff at reception and this donation will be removed
Since most people would probably not choose to make a charitable donation if asked, and since it inconveniences (and probably shames) people to stop by the reception to opt out, Decision Science News wonders if this is pushing things a bit too far. On the other hand, the program has raised $20 million so far …
OVERCONFIDENCE?
One of the most enjoyable types of academic exchange is that of type 17a, in which one group of scholars argues that a psychological tendency is irrational and another group argues that the same tendency is reasonable. It can be even more fun when the groups belong to different fields. If these two assertions are true, we are in for a treat this week as DSN has become aware of a working paper by economists Jean-Pierre Benoît (London Business School) and Juan Dubra (Montevideo) that finds nothing wrong with the idea that most people rate themselves above average.
ABSTRACT
Many studies have shown that people display an apparent overconfidence. In particular, it is common for a majority of people to describe themselves as better than average. The literature takes for granted that this better-than-average e¤ect is problematic. We argue, however, that, even accepting these studies completely on their own terms, there is nothing at all wrong with a strict majority of people rating themselves above the median.
LINK
Overconfidence? http://www.najecon.org/naj/cache/122247000000002148.pdf
It is interesting to see the term “nothing wrong” in the abstract. Decision Science News enjoys papers of type 17a, but it feels that there is too much focus on what is rational / irrational / right / wrong and too little focus on models that capture what people do: the overconfident, the underconfident, and the calibrated. After all, right or wrong are all defined with respect to normative standards, and such norms 1) change over time and 2) are often borrowed from fields (such as probability and statistics), that don’t speak with a single normative voice, but comprise multiple (often irreconcilable) views.
Figure credit: Pilot study by Lionel Page and Dan Goldstein
JDM PRE-CONFERENCE AT SPSP IN TAMPA
The 4th Annual Judgment and Decision Making Pre-Conference at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) will be held February 5, 2009 in Tampa, FL.
*Poster deadline has been extended until Monday, December 1st.* Poster presentation submissions are now being accepted via our website
http://www.socialthinking.org/jdm.html
Ten $200 Student Travel Awards are available to graduate students who are first authors on a poster.
The deadline to register for the conference is January 1st, 2009. For further information, please visit our website: http://www.socialthinking.org/jdm.html
The JDM preconference highlights the emerging nexus of social-personality, judgment, and decision making research. The program consists of invited addresses and a poster session.
Invited Speakers
Gretchen Chapman
Ayelet Fishbach
Chris Hsee
Arie Kruglanski
Rick Larrick
David Schkade
Leaf Van Boven
Kathleen Vohs
This year’s JDM Pre-Conference organizers are happy to field further questions.
Peter McGraw, University of Colorado, Boulder
Rebecca Ratner, University of Maryland
Neal Roese, University of Illinois
Kelly See, New York University
SOCIETY FOR JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING (SJDM) AND BRUNSWIK CONFERENCES 2008
It’s not too late to hit the SJDM conference in Chicago (reception Nov 14, conference 15-17th, 2008). If you’re in town early enough (Nov 13-14th, 2008), you may be able to get into the Brunswik Society.
Where:
The Chicago Hilton, Chicago, IL
720 South Michigan Avenue
Tel: 1-312-922-4400
Map
SJDM Conference:
Info
Program
Brunswik Conference:
Info
Program
As usual, Decision Science News will be there, covering all the decision-making action. (Ok, the “talking about decision-making” action).
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION
Think you know it all? A good deal of decision-making research centers around people’s abilities to make accurate estimates and inferences.
Those who like to test their knowledge might be interested in this fun video game / Web experiment put together by Decision Science News and Lionel Page.
In it, you get to enter your beliefs about the inequality of income in the USA, and at the end, you can find out how accurate you were. Fun!
Give it your best shot at: http://www2.decisionresearchlab.com/db/hi/
Filed in
Jobs
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)
OPT-IN TO OPIM
The OPIM Department at the Wharton School is home to faculty with a diverse set of interests in decision-making, information technology, information strategy, operations management, and operations research. We are seeking applications for tenure-track positions starting in the 2009-2010 academic year. Applicants must have the potential for excellence in research and teaching in the OPIM Department’s areas of concern. Rank is open. A Ph.D. is required.
Applications consisting of PDF files with (i) a one-page cover letter (ii) a resume or CV(iii) at least one research paper(iv) three contacts for letters of recommendation (v) a list of any upcoming conferences at which you plan to present your work should be entered at: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/home/recruiting.html.
The department will begin reviewing applications on November 17, 2008. To ensure full consideration, materials should be received by November 17th, but applications will continue to be reviewed until appointments are made.
The University of Pennsylvania is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Minorities, females, individuals with disabilities, and veterans are encouraged to apply.
