why do people do what they do

ByEyal Winter Many of us tend to think of decision making as a process in which two separate and opposite mechanisms are engaged in a critical struggle, with the emotional and impulsive mechanism within us tempting us to choose the wrong thing, while the rational and intellectual mechanism that we also carry inside us slowly and ploddingly promises to lead us eventually to make the right choice. This description, which was also shared by many scientists until several decades ago, is both simplistic and wrong. Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. In many cases a decision based on emotion or intuition may be much more efficientand indeed betterthan a decision arrived at after thorough and rigorous analysis of all the possible outcomes and implications. A study conducted at the University of California at Santa Barbara several decades ago indicates that in situations in which we are moderately angry, our ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant claims in disputed issues is sharpened. Another study that I coauthored reveals that our inclination to become angered grows in situation in which we can benefit from anger. In other words, there is logic in emotion and often emotion in logic. Social emotions such as anger, empathy, envy and shame shape strategic interactions, as they not only influence the behavior of those who experience them, but also of those who interact with them. This is the reason why even negative emotions can result in a desirable economic behavior. A vengeful attitude can induce cooperation more than self interested and perfect rational attitude.

Even when emotional reactions are detrimental to our economic behavior, and they often are, they almost always emerge for a reason. Very often the reason is evolutionary and can offer us guidelines regarding effective remedies. The new insights that have been obtained about the role of emotions are an outcome of a quiet revolution that has occurred over the past two decades in three important research disciplines: brain sciences, behavioral economics, and game theory. These three together have in recent years expanded our understanding of all aspects related to human behavior. If in the past emotions were studied mainly in psychology, sociology, and philosophy, while rationality was the preserve of economics and game theory, today both the study of rationality and the study of emotions are active research subjects for scholars in all those fields. Game theory and behavioral economics are rapidly expanding subjects within economics. Over the past two decades thirteen Nobel Prizes in economics were awarded to researchers in those two fields. Their influence is felt well beyond the gates of academia. Nudge co-author Cass R. Sunstein, for example, was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in US President Barack Obamas administration. His colleague Richard H. Thaler helped to build the Behavioral Insight Team set up by British Prime Minister David Cameron in his Cabinet Office to serve as an in-house consulting board using behavioral tools. However, behavioral economics focuses primarily on the limitations of our cognitive mind, leaving our emotional mind largely out of the picture.

It seeks remedies to biases without determining, or even hypothesizing first, where these biases are coming from. Many of the biases that most of us believe are driven by limited cognitive ability are in fact driven by emotions. Here are two examples: Herding behavior is often believed to be a result of cognitive laziness. Instead of figuring out the right thing to do we choose the simpler option of following the crowd. This is a wrong explanation for this bias. We often follow the crowd because we fear regret. Taking a wrong decision hurts less when everyone else was wrong. After all sorrow loves company. The second example concerns the reluctance to sell assets trading at loss. Most economists attribute this phenomenon to false beliefs in mean reversion. But regret seems to be the main drive here as well. The mental cost of admitting to have made a wrong financial decision can be enormous. But such a decision is stamped as wrong only when the losing asset has been sold. So long as it is held the decision to buy might turn out to be a great decision. Ill economic behavior requires diagnosis before remedies are prescribed. Shooting in the dark for nudges cannot be an effective strategy to improve economic behavior. Theoretical and empirical research that puts in the forefront the question of why people behave the way they do is urgently needed if the amazing achievements that behavioral economics has already accomplished are to grow further.
The next time youre in a tricky negotiation, whether for a raise, a contract, or a better price on a new car, try this.

If the other party leans back in her chair, wait a few seconds, then lean back in yours. If he runs his hand through his hair, do the same not blatantly, but discreetly enough that the other person doesnt notice, writes Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger in Invisible Influence: The Hidden Forces That Shape Behavior. This might seem silly, he adds. It isnt. People who subtly mimicked their opponent were five times more likely to get what they wanted in negotiations than people who didnt, according to one of the hundreds of research studies Berger drew on for his new book (which, tellingly, ends with 16 pages of densely-packed footnotes). Mimicry, which seems to be hard-wired in primates, has been proven effective in other contexts, too, like dating and job interviews. Ever wonder why some servers in restaurants repeat your order back to you word for word, instead of just saying something like Okay or Got it? You might assume its for accuracys sake, and maybe it is. Or maybe your server has noticed what research has found: Repeating customers orders precisely yields tips that average 70% bigger. Bergers point is that we all imitate each other, and react to being imitated, all the time whether we realize it or not (and we usually dont). For marketers, this is a crucial insight. It explains why the more information consumers have about how many other people are buying something, the more likely they are to try it themselves a notion Berger illustrates with examples from publishing (why a J. K. Rowling book, written under the pen name Robert Galbraith, flopped) to pop music (how did Britney Spears get so wildly popular, anyway? ).

Some marketers are so convinced of mimicrys power that theyre willing to pay to prevent it. Consider, for instance, the $900 Gucci handbag, covered in Guccis famous interlocking G pattern, that Nicole Polizzi got in the mail a few years ago. Better known as Snooki on the MTV reality show Jersey Shore, Polizzi hadnt ordered the bag. It was sent for free not by Gucci, but by one of Guccis competitors. Another cast member, Michael The Situation Sorrentino, got an even sweeter deal. Abercrombie Fitch offered him a substantial payment to wear an alternate brand of clothing on the show, an Abercrombie press release said, in order to preserve its own brands aspirational nature. Invisible Influence is that rare business book thats both informative and enough fun to take to the beach. Some of Bergers ideas might be controversial see, for example, his analysis of why can actually benefit luxury brands but theyre never boring. You might even put some of his suggestions to use at home. Getting kids to eat more vegetables, for instance, could be as simple as showing more enthusiasm for them yourself, even if you have to fake it. If broccoli is the first thing on their parents plate, and the first thing their parents eat, kids will do the same, he writes. Even better if theres a mock argument over which parent gets to eat the last piece.

  • Views: 53

why does even a free market need some government intervention
why do we have to make choices
why do we behave the way we do psychology
why do we behave the way we do
why do we act the way we do
why do we need to make choices
why do we act the way we do