Tag: Behavior

Choosing your Choice Architect(ure)

“Nothing will ever be attempted
if all possible objections must first be overcome.”

— Samuel Johnson

***

In the book Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein they coin the terms ‘Choice Architecture’ and ‘Choice Architect’. For them, if you have an ability to influence the choices other people make, you are a choice architect.

Considering the number of interactions we have everyday, it would be quite easy to argue that we are all Choice Architects at some point. But this also makes the inverse true; we are also wandering around someone else’s Choice Architecture.

Let’s take a look at a few of the principles of good choice architecture, so we can get a better idea of when someone is trying to nudge us.

This information can then be used/weighed when making decisions.  

Defaults

Thaler and Sunstein start with a discussion on “defaults” that are commonly offered to us:

For reasons we have discussed, many people will take whatever option requires the least effort, or the path of least resistance. Recall the discussion of inertia, status quo bias, and the ‘yeah, whatever’ heuristic. All these forces imply that if, for a given choice, there is a default option — an option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing — then we can expect a large number of people to end up with that option, whether or not it is good for them. And as we have also stressed, these behavioral tendencies toward doing nothing will be reinforced if the default option comes with some implicit or explicit suggestion that it represents the normal or even the recommended course of action.

When making decisions people will often take the option that requires the least effort or the path of least resistance. This makes sense: It’s not just a matter of laziness, we also only have so many hours in a day. Unless you feel particularly strongly about it, if putting little to no effort towards something leads you forward (or at least doesn’t noticeably kick you backwards) this is what you are likely to do. Loss aversion plays a role as well. If we feel like the consequences of making a poor choice are high, we will simply decide to do nothing. 

Inertia is another reason: If the ship is currently sailing forward, it can often take a lot of time and effort just to slightly change course.

You have likely seen many examples of inertia at play in your work environment and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Sometimes we need that ship to just steadily move forward. The important bit is to realize when this is factoring into your decisions, or more specifically, when this knowledge is being used to nudge you into making specific choices.

Let’s think about some of your monthly recurring bills. While you might not be reading that magazine or going to the gym, you’re still paying for the ability to use that good or service. If you weren’t being auto-renewed monthly, what is the chance that you would put the effort into renewing that subscription or membership? Much lower, right? Publishers and gym owners know this, and they know you don’t want to go through the hassle of cancelling either, so they make that difficult, too. (They understand well our tendency to want to travel the path of least resistance and avoid conflict.)

This is also where they will imply that the default option is the recommended course of action. It sounds like this:

“We’re sorry to hear you no longer want the magazine Mr. Smith. You know, more than half of the fortune 500 companies have a monthly subscription to magazine X, but we understand if it’s not something you’d like to do at the moment.”

or

“Mr. Smith we are sorry to hear that you want to cancel your membership at GymX. We understand if you can’t make your health a priority at this point but we’d love to see you back sometime soon. We see this all the time, these days everyone is so busy. But I’m happy to say we are noticing a shift where people are starting to make time for themselves, especially in your demographic…”

(Just cancel them. You’ll feel better. We promise.)

The Structure of Complex Choices

We live in a world of reviews. Product reviews, corporate reviews, movie reviews… When was the last time you bought a phone or a car before checking the reviews? When was the last time that you hired an employee without checking out their references? 

Thaler and Sunstein call this Collaborative Filtering and explain it as follows:

You use the judgements of other people who share your tastes to filter through the vast number of books or movies available in order to increase the likelihood of picking one you like. Collaborative filtering is an effort to solve a problem of choice architecture. If you know what people like you tend to like, you might well be comfortable in selecting products you don’t know, because people like you tend to like them. For many of us, collaborative filtering is making difficult choices easier.

While collaborative filtering does a great job of making difficult choices easier we have to remember that companies also know that you will use this tool and will try to manipulate it. We just have to look at the information critically, compare multiple sources and take some time to review the reviewers.

These techniques can be useful for decisions of a certain scale and complexity: when the alternatives are understood and in small enough numbers. However, once we reach a certain size we require additional tools to make the right decision.

One strategy to use is what Amos Tversky (1972) called ‘elimination by aspects.’ Someone using this strategy first decides what aspect is most important (say, commuting distance), establishes a cutoff level (say, no more than a thirty-minute commute), then eliminates all the alternatives that do not come up to this standard. The process is repeated, attribute by attribute (no more than $1,500 per month; at least two bedrooms; dogs permitted), until either a choice is made or the set is narrowed down enough to switch over to a compensatory evaluation of the ‘finalists.’”

This is a very useful tool if you have a good idea of which attributes are of most value to you.

When using these techniques, we have to be mindful of the fact that the companies trying to sell us goods have spent a lot of time and money figuring out what attributes are important to you as well.

For example, if you were to shop for an SUV you would notice that there are a specific number of variables they all seem to have in common now (engine options, towing options, seating options, storage options). They are trying to nudge you not to eliminate them from your list. This forces you to do the tertiary research or better yet, this forces you to walk into dealerships where they will try to inflate the importance of those attributes (which they do best).

They also try to call things new names as a means to differentiate themselves and get onto your list. What do you mean our competitors don’t have FLEXfuel?

Incentives

Incentives are so ubiquitous in our lives that it’s very easy to overlook them. Unfortunately, this can influence us to make poor decisions.

Thaler and Sunstein believe this is tied into how salient the incentive is.

The most important modification that must be made to a standard analysis of incentives is salience. Do the choosers actually notice the incentives they face? In free markets, the answer is usually yes, but in important cases the answer is no.

Consider the example of members of an urban family deciding whether to buy a car. Suppose their choices are to take taxis and public transportation or to spend ten thousand dollars to buy a used car, which they can park on the street in front of their home. The only salient costs of owning this car will be the weekly stops at the gas station, occasional repair bills, and a yearly insurance bill. The opportunity cost of the ten thousand dollars is likely to be neglected. (In other words, once they purchase the car, they tend to forget about the ten thousand dollars and stop treating it as money that could have been spent on something else.) In contrast, every time the family uses a taxi the cost will be in their face, with the meter clicking every few blocks. So behavioral analysis of the incentives of car ownership will predict that people will underweight the opportunity costs of car ownership, and possibly other less salient aspects such as depreciation, and may overweight the very salient costs of using a taxi.

The problems here are relatable and easily solved: If the family above had written down all the numbers related to either taxi, public transportation, or car ownership, it would have been a lot more difficult for them to undervalue the salient aspects of any of their choices. (At least if the highest value attribute is cost).

***

This isn’t an exhaustive list of all the daily nudges we face but it’s a good start and some important, translatable, themes emerge.

  • Realize when you are wandering around someone’s choice architecture.
  • Do your homework
  • Develop strategies to help you make decisions when you are being nudged.

 

Still Interested? Buy, and most importantly read, the whole book. Also, check out our other post on some of the Biases and Blunders covered in Nudge.

The Fundamental Attribution Error: Why Predicting Behavior is so Hard

The Fundamental Attribution Error refers to a logical fallacy: our belief that the way people behave in one area carries consistently over to the way they behave in other situations.

We tend to assume that the way people behave is the result of their innate characteristics and overrate the influence of their personality. We underrate the influence of circumstances and how they can impact people’s behavior.

In this post, we’ll look at how the Fundamental Attribution Error works, how it misleads us, and how we can avoid this fallacy. We’ll draw upon the work of noted psychologists and experts in the field and consider what ‘character’ really means in this context.

Read on to learn more about one of the biggest reasoning errors you might be making.

***
“Psychologists refer to the inappropriate use of dispositional
explanation as the fundamental attribution error, that is,
explaining situation-induced behavior as caused by
enduring character traits of the agent.”
— Jon Elster

***

Think of a person you know well, perhaps a partner or close friend. How would you define their ‘character’? What traits would you say are fundamentally them? 

Now try imagining that person in different situations. How might they act if their flight to a conference was delayed by six hours? What would they do if they came home and found a sick stray animal on their doorstep? What would they do if they dropped their phone down a gutter?

You can probably imagine with ease how the person you have in mind would behave. We all do this; we make assertions about a person’s character, then we expect those things to carry over to every area of their lives. We label someone as ‘moral’ or ‘honest’ or ‘naive’ or any of countless labels. Then we expect that someone we label as ‘honest’ in one area will be honest in every area. Or that someone who is ‘naive’ about one thing is naive about everything.

Old-time folk psychology supports the notion that character is consistent. As social and political theorist Jon Elster writes in his wonderful book Explaining Social Behavior, folk wisdom suggests that predicting behavior is easy. Simply figure out someone’s character and you’ll know how to predict or explain everything about them: 

“People are often assumed to have personality traits (introvert, timid, etc.) as well as virtues (honesty, courage, etc.) or vices (the seven deadly sins, etc.). In folk psychology, these features are assumed to be stable over time and across situations. Proverbs in all languages testify to this assumption. “Who tells one lie will tell a hundred.” “Who lies also steals.” “Who steals an egg will steal an ox.” “Who keeps faith in small matters, does so in large ones.” “Who is caught red-handed once will always be distrusted.” If folk psychology is right, predicting and explaining behavior should be easy.

A single action will reveal the underlying trait or disposition and allow us to predict behavior on an indefinite number of other occasions when the disposition could manifest itself. The procedure is not tautological, as it would be if we took cheating on an exam as evidence of dishonesty and then used the trait of dishonesty to explain the cheating. Instead, it amounts to using cheating on an exam as evidence for a trait (dishonesty) that will also cause the person to be unfaithful to a spouse. If one accepts the more extreme folk theory that all virtues go together, the cheating might also be used to predict cowardice in battle or excessive drinking.”

Believing that a single action can ‘speak volumes’ about someone’s character is a natural and tempting way to approach understanding others. If you’ve spent much time dating, you’ve probably received advice concerning small things that could be indications a prospective partner is not a great person, like how they speak to wait staff or even how they speak to their Alexa. Yet in reality, this advice doesn’t translate into reality. It’s impossible to know if someone will be a good partner based on a single action. 

The problem is, we’re often wrong when we think we know someone’s character and can use it to make predictions. Character, as a concept, is hard to pin down in any area.

***

Appearances can be deceiving

In fact, our tendency to pick up on small details as indicators of someone’s character can backfire. We see someone seems good in one area and assume that carries across. Imagine you’re interviewing a financial advisor. He shows up on time. He’s wearing a nice suit. He buys you lunch. He’s polite and friendly. 

Will he handle your money correctly? You might think, based on the aforementioned factors, that he will. But in reality, his ability to manage his time or pick out a well-fitting suit has no relation to his money management skills. The shiny cuff links are not a sign of overall ‘good character.’

Appearances can be deceiving. The study of history shows us that behavior in one context does not always correlate to behavior in another. Our actions are as much the product of circumstances as of anything innate. 

Case in point: US President Lyndon Johnson. He was a bully and a liar. As a young man, he stole an election. But he also fought like hell to pass the Civil Rights Act, thereby outlawing discrimination based on race, religion, sex and other factors. Almost no other politician could have done that. Clearly, we cannot categorically say Johnson was a good or bad person. He had both positive and negative attributes depending on the context he was in. 

Another powerful and complex man was Henry Ford, of Ford Motors. We owe him a lot. He streamlined the modern automobile and made it affordable to the masses. He paid fairer wages to his employees and treated them better than was standard at the time. But Ford was also known for his antisemitism. 

Jon Elster goes on to give some examples from the music industry regarding impulsivity versus discipline:

“The jazz musician Charlie Parker was characterized by a doctor who knew him as “a man living from moment to moment. A man living for the pleasure principle, music, food, sex, drugs, kicks, his personality arrested at an infantile level.” Another great jazz musician, Django Reinhardt, had an even more extreme present-oriented attitude in his daily life, never saving any of his substantial earnings, but spending them on whims or on expensive cars, which he quickly proceeded to crash. In many ways he was the incarnation of the stereotype of “the Gypsy.” 

Yet you do not become a musician of the caliber of Parker and Reinhardt if you live in the moment in all respects. Proficiency takes years of utter dedication and concentration. In Reinhardt’s case, this was dramatically brought out when he damaged his left hand severely in a fire and retrained himself so that he could achieve more with two fingers than anyone else with four. If these two musicians had been impulsive and carefree across the board — if their “personality” had been consistently “infantile” — they could never have become such consummate artists.”

***

Once you notice the fundamental attribution error, you can see it everywhere. Hiring is difficult because we cannot expect a person’s behavior in an interview to carry over to their behavior on the job. An autistic person, for instance, might struggle to explain themselves in an interview but be incredible at their work. Likewise, a parent may refuse to believe their child acts out at school because they are well behaved at home. A religious teacher may preach honesty while cheating on their spouse.  

Jon Elster describes a social psychology experiment that demonstrates how our sense of the right way to behave in one situation can evaporate in another:

“In another experiment, theology students were told to prepare themselves to give a brief talk in a nearby building. One-half were told to build the talk around the Good Samaritan parable(!), whereas the others were given a more neutral topic. One group was told to hurry since the people in the other building were waiting for them, whereas another was told that they had plenty of time. On their way to the other building, subjects came upon a man slumping in the doorway, apparently in distress. Among the students who were told they were late, only 10 percent offered assistance; in the other group, 63 percent did so. The group that had been told to prepare a talk on the Good Samaritan was not more likely to behave as one. Nor was the behavior of the students correlated with answers to a questionnaire intended to measure whether their interest in religion was due to the desire for personal salvation or to a desire to help others. The situational factor — being hurried or not — had much greater explanatory power than any dispositional factor.”

The people involved in the experiment no doubt wanted to be good samaritans and thought of themselves as good people. But the incentive of avoiding being late and facing the shame of people waiting for them overrode that. So much for character!

As Elster writes “Behavior is often no more stable than the situations that shape it.” We can’t disregard any notion of character, of course. Elster refers to specific tendencies that do not carry from situation to situation. General ones might. We need to understand character as the result of specific interactions between people and situations. We should pay attention to the interplay between the situation, incentives, and the person instead of ascribing broad character traits. The result is a much better understanding of human nature

Want More? Check out our ever-growing database of mental models.

 

Our Genes and Our Behavior

“But now we are starting to show genetic influence on individual differences using DNA. DNA is a game changer; it’s a lot harder to argue with DNA than it is with a twin study or an adoption study.”
— Robert Plomin

***

It’s not controversial to say that our genetics help explain our physical traits. Tall parents will, on average, have tall children. Overweight parents will, on average, have overweight children. Irish parents have Irish looking kids. This is true to the point of banality and only a committed ignorant would dispute it.

It’s slightly more controversial to talk about genes influencing behavior. For a long time, it was denied entirely. For most of the 20th century, the “experts” in human behavior had decided that “nurture” beat “nature” with a score of 100-0. Particularly influential was the child’s early life — the way their parents treated them in the womb and throughout early childhood. (Thanks Freud!)

So, where are we at now?

Genes and Behavior

Developmental scientists and behavioral scientists eventually got to work with twin studies and adoption studies, which tended to show that certain traits were almost certainly heritable and not reliant on environment, thanks to the natural controlled experiments of twins separated at birth. (This eventually provided fodder for Judith Rich Harris’s wonderful work on development and personality.)

All throughout, the geneticists, starting with Gregor Mendel and his peas, kept on working. As behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin explains, the genetic camp split early on. Some people wanted to understand the gene itself in detail, using very simple traits to figure it out (eye color, long or short wings, etc.) and others wanted to study the effect of genes on complex behavior, generally:

People realized these two views of genetics could come together. Nonetheless, the two worlds split apart because Mendelians became geneticists who were interested in understanding genes. They would take a convenient phenotype, a dependent measure, like eye color in flies, just something that was easy to measure. They weren’t interested in the measure, they were interested in how genes work. They wanted a simple way of seeing how genes work.

By contrast, the geneticists studying complex traits—the Galtonians—became quantitative geneticists. They were interested in agricultural traits or human traits, like cardiovascular disease or reading ability, and would use genetics only insofar as it helped them understand that trait. They were behavior centered, while the molecular geneticists were gene centered. The molecular geneticists wanted to know everything about how a gene worked. For almost a century these two worlds of genetics diverged.

Eventually, the two began to converge. One camp (the gene people) figured out that once we could sequence the genome, they might be able to understand more complicated behavior by looking directly at genes in specific people with unique DNA, and contrasting them against one another.

The reason why this whole gene-behavior game is hard is because, as Plomin makes clear, complex traits like intelligence are not like eye color. There’s no “smart gene” — it comes from the interaction of thousands of different genes and can occur in a variety of combinations. Basic Mendel-style counting (the sort of dominant/recessive eye color gene thing you learned in high school biology) doesn’t work in analyzing the influence of genes on complex traits:

The word gene wasn’t invented until 1903. Mendel did his work in the mid-19th century. In the early 1900s, when Mendel was rediscovered, people finally realized the impact of what he did, which was to show the laws of inheritance of a single gene. At that time, these Mendelians went around looking for Mendelian 3:1 segregation ratios, which was the essence of what Mendel showed, that inheritance was discreet. Most of the socially, behaviorally, or agriculturally important traits aren’t either/or traits, like a single-gene disorder. Huntington’s disease, for example, is a single-gene dominant disorder, which means that if you have that mutant form of the Huntington’s gene, you will have Huntington’s disease. It’s necessary and sufficient. But that’s not the way complex traits work.

The importance of genetics is hard to understate, but until the right technology came along, we could only observe it indirectly. A study might have shown that 50% of the variance in cognitive ability was due to genetics, but we had no idea which specific genes, in which combinations, actually produced smarter people.

But the Moore’s law style improvement in genetic testing means that we can cheaply and effectively map out entire genomes for a very low cost. And with that, the geneticists have a lot of data to work with, a lot of correlations to begin sussing out. The good thing about finding strong correlations between genes and human traits is that we know which one is causative: The gene! Obviously, your reading ability doesn’t cause you to have certain DNA; it must be the other way around. So “Big Data” style screening is extremely useful, once we get a little better at it.

***

The problem is that, so far, the successes have been a bit minimal. There are millions of “ATCG” base pairs to check on.  As Plomin points out, we can only pinpoint about 20% of the specific genetic influence for something simple like height, which we know is about 90% heritable. Complex traits like schizophrenia are going to take a lot of work:

We’ve got to be able to figure out where the so-called missing heritability is, that is, the gap between the DNA variants that we are able to identify and the estimates we have from twin and adoption studies. For example, height is about 90 percent heritable, meaning, of the differences between people in height, about 90 percent of those differences can be explained by genetic differences. With genome-wide association studies, we can account for 20 percent of the variance of height, or a quarter of the heritability of height. That’s still a lot of missing heritability, but 20 percent of the variance is impressive.

With schizophrenia, for example, people say they can explain 15 percent of the genetic liability. The jury is still out on how that translates into the real world. What you want to be able to do is get this polygenic score for schizophrenia that would allow you to look at the entire population and predict who’s going to become schizophrenic. That’s tricky because the studies are case-control studies based on extreme, well-diagnosed schizophrenics, versus clean controls who have no known psychopathology. We’ll know soon how this polygenic score translates to predicting who will become schizophrenic or not.

It brings up an interesting question that gets us back to the beginning of the piece: If we know that genetics have an influence on some complex behavioral traits (and we do), and we can with the continuing progress of science and technology, sequence a baby’s genome and predict to a certain extent their reading level, facility with math, facility with social interaction, etc., do we do it?

Well, we can’t until we get a general recognition that genes do indeed influence behavior and do have predictive power as far as how children perform. So far, the track record on getting educators to see that it’s all quite real is pretty bad. Like the Freudians before, there’s a resistance to the “nature” aspect of the debate, probably influenced by some strong ideologies:

If you look at the books and the training that teachers get, genetics doesn’t get a look-in. Yet if you ask teachers, as I’ve done, about why they think children are so different in their ability to learn to read, and they know that genetics is important. When it comes to governments and educational policymakers, the knee-jerk reaction is that if kids aren’t doing well, you blame the teachers and the schools; if that doesn’t work, you blame the parents; if that doesn’t work, you blame the kids because they’re just not trying hard enough. An important message for genetics is that you’ve got to recognize that children are different in their ability to learn. We need to respect those differences because they’re genetic. Not that we can’t do anything about it.

It’s like obesity. The NHS is thinking about charging people to be fat because, like smoking, they say it’s your fault. Weight is not as heritable as height, but it’s highly heritable. Maybe 60 percent of the differences in weight are heritable. That doesn’t mean you can’t do anything about it. If you stop eating, you won’t gain weight, but given the normal life in a fast-food culture, with our Stone Age brains that want to eat fat and sugar, it’s much harder for some people.

We need to respect the fact that genetic differences are important, not just for body mass index and weight, but also for things like reading disability. I know personally how difficult it is for some children to learn to read. Genetics suggests that we need to have more recognition that children differ genetically, and to respect those differences. My grandson, for example, had a great deal of difficulty learning to read. His parents put a lot of energy into helping him learn to read. We also have a granddaughter who taught herself to read. Both of them now are not just learning to read but reading to learn.

Genetic influence is just influence; it’s not deterministic like a single gene. At government levels—I’ve consulted with the Department for Education—I don’t think they’re as hostile to genetics as I had feared, they’re just ignorant of it. Education just doesn’t consider genetics, whereas teachers on the ground can’t ignore it. I never get static from them because they know that these children are different when they start. Some just go off on very steep trajectories, while others struggle all the way along the line. When the government sees that, they tend to blame the teachers, the schools, or the parents, or the kids. The teachers know. They’re not ignoring this one child. If anything, they’re putting more energy into that child.

It’s frustrating for Plomin because he knows that eventually DNA mapping will get good enough that real, and helpful, predictions will be possible. We’ll be able to target kids early enough to make real differences — earlier than problems actually manifest — and hopefully change the course of their lives for the better. But so far, no dice.

Education is the last backwater of anti-genetic thinking. It’s not even anti-genetic. It’s as if genetics doesn’t even exist. I want to get people in education talking about genetics because the evidence for genetic influence is overwhelming. The things that interest them—learning abilities, cognitive abilities, behavior problems in childhood—are the most heritable things in the behavioral domain. Yet it’s like Alice in Wonderland. You go to educational conferences and it’s as if genetics does not exist.

I’m wondering about where the DNA revolution will take us. If we are explaining 10 percent of the variance of GCSE scores with a DNA chip, it becomes real. People will begin to use it. It’s important that we begin to have this conversation. I’m frustrated at having so little success in convincing people in education of the possibility of genetic influence. It is ignorance as much as it is antagonism.

Here’s one call for more reality recognition.

***

Still Interested? Check out a book by John Brookman of Edge.org with a curated collection of articles published on genetics.