scholarly journals Dynamic Inconsistency in Food Choice: Experimental Evidence from Two Food Deserts

2019 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 1954-1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Sadoff ◽  
Anya Samek ◽  
Charles Sprenger
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Food Choice ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Food Deserts ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Control Problems ◽  
Dynamic Inconsistency ◽  
Welfare Consequences ◽  
Utility Measures

Abstract We conduct field experiments to investigate dynamic inconsistency and commitment demand in food choice. In two home grocery delivery programs, we document substantial dynamic inconsistency between advance and immediate choices. When given the option to commit to their advance choices, around half of subjects take it up. Commitment demand is negatively correlated with dynamic inconsistency, suggesting those with larger self-control problems are less likely to be aware thereof. We evaluate the welfare consequences of dynamic inconsistency and commitment policies with utility measures based on advance, immediate, and unambiguous choices. Simply offering commitment has limited welfare (and behavioural) consequences under all measures.

Self-Control Problems Measure

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. King ◽  
Charles B. Fleming ◽  
Kathryn C. Monahan ◽  
Richard F. Catalano
Keyword(s):  
Self Control ◽  
Control Problems

scholarly journals Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
SAMULI REIJULA ◽  
RALPH HERTWIG
Keyword(s):  
Goal Attainment ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Control Problems ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scope Of Application

Abstract This article argues that nudges can often be turned into self-nudges: empowering interventions that enable people to design and structure their own decision environments – that is, to act as citizen choice architects. Self-nudging applies insights from behavioral science in a way that is practicable and cost-effective, but that sidesteps concerns about paternalism or manipulation. It has the potential to expand the scope of application of behavioral insights from the public to the personal sphere (e.g., homes, offices, families). It is a tool for reducing failures of self-control and enhancing personal autonomy; specifically, self-nudging can mean designing one's proximate choice architecture to alleviate the effects of self-control problems, engaging in education to understand the nature and causes of self-control problems and employing simple educational nudges to improve goal attainment in various domains. It can even mean self-paternalistic interventions such as winnowing down one's choice set by, for instance, removing options. Policy-makers could promote self-nudging by sharing knowledge about nudges and how they work. The ultimate goal of the self-nudging approach is to enable citizen choice architects’ efficient self-governance, where reasonable, and the self-determined arbitration of conflicts between their mutually exclusive goals and preferences.

Learning to cooperate: Reciprocity and self-control

2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Danielson
Keyword(s):  
Prisoner's Dilemma ◽  
Prisoner’S Dilemma ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Strong Sense ◽  
Control Problems ◽  
Essential Difference ◽  
Parallel Learning ◽  
Learning Agent

Using a simple learning agent, we show that learning self-control in the primrose path experiment does parallel learning cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma. But Rachlin's claim that “there is no essential difference between self-control and altruism” is too strong. Only iterated prisoner's dilemmas played against reciprocators are reduced to self-control problems. There is more to cooperation than self-control and even altruism in a strong sense.

scholarly journals Roscas as financial agreements to cope with self-control problems

2007 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Ambec ◽  
Nicolas Treich
Keyword(s):  
Self Control ◽  
Control Problems

Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Ariely ◽  
Klaus Wertenbroch
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Performance Enhancement ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Control Problems ◽  
Maximum Performance ◽  
The Third ◽  
And Performance

Procrastination is all too familiar to most people. People delay writing up their research (so we hear!), repeatedly declare they will start their diets tomorrow, or postpone until next week doing odd jobs around the house. Yet people also sometimes attempt to control their procrastination by setting deadlines for themselves. In this article, we pose three questions: (a) Are people willing to self-impose meaningful (i.e., costly) deadlines to overcome procrastination? (b) Are self-imposed deadlines effective in improving task performance? (c) When self-imposing deadlines, do people set them optimally, for maximum performance enhancement? A set of studies examined these issues experimentally, showing that the answer is “yes” to the first two questions, and “nO'’ to the third. People have self-control problems, they recognize them, and they try to control them by self-imposing costly deadlines. These deadlines help people control procrastination, but they are not as effective as some externally imposed deadlines in improving task performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document