Changing the habit by changing the context
Perilaku Berkelanjutan: Mengubah kebiasaan dengan mengubah konteks
copy paste from: http://blog.sustainability.colostate.edu/?q=node/59 23 Sept 2014
Sustainable behavior: Changing the habit by changing the context
Ditulis oleh Liesel Hans , SoGES 2013-2014 Sustainability Leadership Fellow, and PhD Candidate in the Department of Economics
Habits make life easier in a hectic, fast-paced world. It’s hard to fight routine and convenience. There are actions taken everyday that we probably would acknowledge as something we could, to our own benefit, do differently (candy dish, anyone?). We unfortunately aren’t the perfectly rational or consistent decision-makers suggested by traditional economic theory.
However, behavioral economics, a field gaining popularity and credibility, seeks to apply the evidence from behavioral psychology to improve economic models of decision-making. There’s been a recent burst of popular non-fiction titles surrounding behavior and psychology like Predictably Irrational, Nudge, and Thinking, Fast and Slow, (all great reads!) and the President officially established a Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (a.k.a. “The Nudge Squad”), modeled after the success of the UK government.
This line of research is being applied to the design of public policy related to health, diet, finance, savings, retirement plans and the environment. Environmental behavioral economics sets out to find what influences decisions that have an impact on the environment. For example, which method might get the most people to bike to work: pro-environmental messaging, pro-health messaging, improving/expanding the bike lanes and routes of a community, offering an individual a tax rebate on the purchase of a bike, or telling people how many of their coworkers bike to work?
Behavioral economics focuses on two channels of change, in addition to the tried-and-true price incentives. First, we can change behaviors and habits directly: “changing minds”. Or, we can change the architecture of the decision-making environment: “changing context”. We all have the ability to process information, critically weigh the options and change our behavior (for example when I learned that butter was the second largest ingredient of my favorite granola). However, it’s often our subconscious, automatic reflexes that dictate many of our choices. These choices may be based on emotions and associations rather than objective, rational processes. If this is how people make the majority of their choices, how can we encourage people to make better decisions when it comes to their impact on the environment?
Richard Thaler, one of the behavioral economists who authored Nudge, argues that “the solution is to apply the single most useful bit of psychology one can ever learn: If you want to encourage people to do something, make it easy -- or even better, automatic.”
The following are a few examples that highlight how behavioral economic research and concepts influences (via “nudges”) how we impact the environment. Nudges are ways of changing the context in which we make decisions to potentially reach different outcomes, while not limiting consumer choice.
Let’s start small with plastic bags at the grocery store. Here we invoke a concept called loss aversion (sometimes called framing). Loss aversion is the notion that people will react differently if a decision is framed as a loss than as a gain. Furthermore, people tend to be swayed more by a loss than by a gain of the same amount. In some U.S. grocery stores you can earn a 10-cent rebate for each reusable bag you bring. You get rewarded for doing something ‘good’. However, in Europe (and perhaps soon in more U.S. cities), you get charged for any plastic bag you need to tote your groceries home. You get punished for something ‘bad’. These are seemingly the same incentive schemes, but result in very different outcomes. Framing the situation as paying for the bag results in far more people bringing their own bags (or not using a bag at all), whereas ‘getting’ money to not use a bag doesn’t actually encourage many to consistently use reusable bags.
One example from the White House is the website fueleconomy.gov, which lets consumers compare the total fuel costs of a car over five years, rather than only by the traditional metric of miles per gallon (MPG). MPG doesn’t easily or quickly convey the true fuel costs of a vehicle. This is an example of the behavioral economics concept called salience. The fuel costs over the lifetime of a vehicle are often not salient to a consumer the way the price tag on the car window is. By doing the math for consumers and make the information easy to find, the overall fuel costs have a better chance of playing a role in a car purchasing decision.
Salience is a concept that similarly applies to household water and energy use. When someone purchases a home, they’re more likely to think about the price of the home rather than the additional monthly cost of living in the home (e.g. energy and water bills) and thus are less likely to consider the efficiency of the home (e.g. insulation, appliances). These additional costs of being a homeowner are less salient than the sticker price of the house.
Defaults, which relates to the physics concept of inertia, are another concept that’s getting a lot of attention in behavioral economics. People tend to go with the flow and often stick to the default option. Policies can be designed to offer the same options to consumers, but changing the default option to the one that is expected to maximize benefits is an easy way to improve well being without restricting choice. For example, having to request a change of sheets or towels at a hotel vs. these automatically getting changed for you each day you stay. This is one example of changing the decision-making environment from “opt-in” to “opt-out” (i.e. organ donation, retirement plans). Another example: some utilities offer the voluntary option for consumers to pay a bit more for their electricity but then amp up the use of renewable energy sources. If you make this an “opt-in” program, few would participate, but setting it up as an “opt-out” program results in more households who stay enrolled.
Continuing with home efficiency, research finds that informational campaigns (think utility bill inserts) improve knowledge, but don’t actually change energy use behavior. However, social norms reports, like what the company OPower provides, show how much energy a household is using compared to similar neighbors. This nudge does have a significant impact on changing household energy use. As a result of this social norms driven program, households reduce energy use in the short run (e.g. changing light blubs or actually program the programmable thermostat), and in the long term (e.g. improving insulation or HVAC systems). Telling people what other people do has a strong impact on what we do. The concept of norms also ties in with the concept commitment where we seek to be consistent with public promises and try to reciprocate other’s actions, as well as the concept of ego where we tend to act in ways that make us feel better about ourselves. The Opower report includes a smiley face if you’re doing better than your average neighbor. This simple positive reinforcement is typically enough to keep the most efficient households from increasing their energy use when they learn they’re using less than most of their neighbors. Check out Allcott (2011) to learn more.Behavioral economics seeks to find ways to nudge people in the right direction without limiting choice. Small reminders and small changes to the context of the decision-making environment are often easier, more cost-effective means to improve individual well-being and the environment. The following are some visual examples of behavioral economics in action. E-mail me with examples of nudges you see!
==============
Habits make life easier in a hectic, fast-paced world. It’s hard to fight routine and convenience. There are actions taken everyday that we probably would acknowledge as something we could, to our own benefit, do differently (candy dish, anyone?). We unfortunately aren’t the perfectly rational or consistent decision-makers suggested by traditional economic theory.
However, behavioral economics, a field gaining popularity and credibility, seeks to apply the evidence from behavioral psychology to improve economic models of decision-making. There’s been a recent burst of popular non-fiction titles surrounding behavior and psychology like Predictably Irrational, Nudge, and Thinking, Fast and Slow, (all great reads!) and the President officially established a Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (a.k.a. “The Nudge Squad”), modeled after the success of the UK government.
This line of research is being applied to the design of public policy related to health, diet, finance, savings, retirement plans and the environment. Environmental behavioral economics sets out to find what influences decisions that have an impact on the environment. For example, which method might get the most people to bike to work: pro-environmental messaging, pro-health messaging, improving/expanding the bike lanes and routes of a community, offering an individual a tax rebate on the purchase of a bike, or telling people how many of their coworkers bike to work?
Behavioral economics focuses on two channels of change, in addition to the tried-and-true price incentives. First, we can change behaviors and habits directly: “changing minds”. Or, we can change the architecture of the decision-making environment: “changing context”. We all have the ability to process information, critically weigh the options and change our behavior (for example when I learned that butter was the second largest ingredient of my favorite granola). However, it’s often our subconscious, automatic reflexes that dictate many of our choices. These choices may be based on emotions and associations rather than objective, rational processes. If this is how people make the majority of their choices, how can we encourage people to make better decisions when it comes to their impact on the environment?
Richard Thaler, one of the behavioral economists who authored Nudge, argues that “the solution is to apply the single most useful bit of psychology one can ever learn: If you want to encourage people to do something, make it easy -- or even better, automatic.”
The following are a few examples that highlight how behavioral economic research and concepts influences (via “nudges”) how we impact the environment. Nudges are ways of changing the context in which we make decisions to potentially reach different outcomes, while not limiting consumer choice.
Let’s start small with plastic bags at the grocery store. Here we invoke a concept called loss aversion (sometimes called framing). Loss aversion is the notion that people will react differently if a decision is framed as a loss than as a gain. Furthermore, people tend to be swayed more by a loss than by a gain of the same amount. In some U.S. grocery stores you can earn a 10-cent rebate for each reusable bag you bring. You get rewarded for doing something ‘good’. However, in Europe (and perhaps soon in more U.S. cities), you get charged for any plastic bag you need to tote your groceries home. You get punished for something ‘bad’. These are seemingly the same incentive schemes, but result in very different outcomes. Framing the situation as paying for the bag results in far more people bringing their own bags (or not using a bag at all), whereas ‘getting’ money to not use a bag doesn’t actually encourage many to consistently use reusable bags.
One example from the White House is the website fueleconomy.gov, which lets consumers compare the total fuel costs of a car over five years, rather than only by the traditional metric of miles per gallon (MPG). MPG doesn’t easily or quickly convey the true fuel costs of a vehicle. This is an example of the behavioral economics concept called salience. The fuel costs over the lifetime of a vehicle are often not salient to a consumer the way the price tag on the car window is. By doing the math for consumers and make the information easy to find, the overall fuel costs have a better chance of playing a role in a car purchasing decision.
Salience is a concept that similarly applies to household water and energy use. When someone purchases a home, they’re more likely to think about the price of the home rather than the additional monthly cost of living in the home (e.g. energy and water bills) and thus are less likely to consider the efficiency of the home (e.g. insulation, appliances). These additional costs of being a homeowner are less salient than the sticker price of the house.
Defaults, which relates to the physics concept of inertia, are another concept that’s getting a lot of attention in behavioral economics. People tend to go with the flow and often stick to the default option. Policies can be designed to offer the same options to consumers, but changing the default option to the one that is expected to maximize benefits is an easy way to improve well being without restricting choice. For example, having to request a change of sheets or towels at a hotel vs. these automatically getting changed for you each day you stay. This is one example of changing the decision-making environment from “opt-in” to “opt-out” (i.e. organ donation, retirement plans). Another example: some utilities offer the voluntary option for consumers to pay a bit more for their electricity but then amp up the use of renewable energy sources. If you make this an “opt-in” program, few would participate, but setting it up as an “opt-out” program results in more households who stay enrolled.
Continuing with home efficiency, research finds that informational campaigns (think utility bill inserts) improve knowledge, but don’t actually change energy use behavior. However, social norms reports, like what the company OPower provides, show how much energy a household is using compared to similar neighbors. This nudge does have a significant impact on changing household energy use. As a result of this social norms driven program, households reduce energy use in the short run (e.g. changing light blubs or actually program the programmable thermostat), and in the long term (e.g. improving insulation or HVAC systems). Telling people what other people do has a strong impact on what we do. The concept of norms also ties in with the concept commitment where we seek to be consistent with public promises and try to reciprocate other’s actions, as well as the concept of ego where we tend to act in ways that make us feel better about ourselves. The Opower report includes a smiley face if you’re doing better than your average neighbor. This simple positive reinforcement is typically enough to keep the most efficient households from increasing their energy use when they learn they’re using less than most of their neighbors. Check out Allcott (2011) to learn more.Behavioral economics seeks to find ways to nudge people in the right direction without limiting choice. Small reminders and small changes to the context of the decision-making environment are often easier, more cost-effective means to improve individual well-being and the environment. The following are some visual examples of behavioral economics in action. E-mail me with examples of nudges you see!
==============
Kebiasaan membuat hidup lebih mudah dalam sibuk, dunia yang serba cepat. Sulit untuk melawan rutinitas dan kenyamanan. Ada tindakan yang diambil sehari-hari yang kita mungkin akan mengakui sebagai sesuatu yang kita bisa, untuk kepentingan kita sendiri, lakukan secara berbeda (hidangan permen, anyone?). Kami sayangnya bukan pengambil keputusan sangat rasional atau konsisten disarankan oleh teori ekonomi tradisional.
Namun, perilaku ekonomi , lapangan mendapatkan popularitas dan kredibilitas, berusaha untuk menerapkan bukti dari psikologi perilaku untuk meningkatkan model ekonomi pengambilan keputusan. Sudah ada ledakan baru-baru ini judul non-fiksi populer perilaku dan psikologi sekitarnya seperti diduga irrasional, Nudge , danBerpikir, Cepat dan Lambat , (semua besar membaca!) dan Presiden resmi membentuk Sosial dan Ilmu Perilaku Team (alias " Nudge The Squad "), model setelah keberhasilan pemerintah Inggris.
Baris ini penelitian sedang diterapkan pada desain kebijakan publik yang berkaitan dengan kesehatan, diet, keuangan, tabungan, rencana pensiun dan lingkungan. Ekonomi perilaku Lingkungan menetapkan untuk menemukan apa yang mempengaruhi keputusan yang berdampak pada lingkungan. Sebagai contoh, metode yang mungkin mendapatkan sebagian besar orang untuk bike to work: pesan pro-lingkungan, pro-pesan kesehatan, meningkatkan / memperluas jalur sepeda dan rute dari sebuah komunitas, menawarkan individu potongan pajak atas pembelian sepeda, atau memberitahu orang-orang berapa banyak sepeda rekan kerja mereka untuk bekerja?
Ekonomi perilaku berfokus pada dua saluran perubahan, selain insentif harga mencoba-dan-benar. Pertama, kita dapat mengubah perilaku dan kebiasaan langsung: " mengubah pikiran ". Atau, kita dapat mengubah arsitektur lingkungan pengambilan keputusan: " mengubah konteks ". Kita semua memiliki kemampuan untuk memproses informasi, kritis mempertimbangkan pilihan dan mengubah perilaku kita (misalnya ketika saya belajar bahwa mentega adalah bahan terbesar kedua granola favorit saya). Namun, hal ini sering bawah sadar kita, refleks otomatis yang mendikte banyak pilihan kita. Pilihan ini mungkin didasarkan pada emosi dan asosiasi daripada obyektif, proses rasional. Jika ini adalah bagaimana orang membuat sebagian besar pilihan mereka, bagaimana kita bisa mendorong orang untuk membuat keputusan yang lebih baik ketika datang ke dampaknya terhadap lingkungan?
Richard Thaler, salah satu ekonom perilaku yang menulis Nudge , berpendapat bahwa "solusinya adalah untuk menerapkan bit tunggal yang paling berguna psikologi yang pernah bisa belajar: Jika Anda ingin mendorong orang untuk melakukan sesuatu, membuatnya mudah - atau bahkan lebih baik , otomatis. "
Berikut ini adalah beberapa contoh yang menyoroti bagaimana perilaku riset ekonomi dan konsep pengaruh (melalui "dorongan") bagaimana kita mempengaruhi lingkungan. Dorongan cara mengubah konteks di mana kita membuat keputusan untuk berpotensi mencapai hasil yang berbeda, sementara tidak membatasi pilihan konsumen.
Mari kita mulai kecil dengan kantong plastik di toko kelontong. Di sini kita memanggil sebuah konsep yang disebut loss aversion (kadang-kadang disebutframing ). Keengganan Rugi adalah gagasan bahwa orang akan bereaksi berbeda jika keputusan dibingkai sebagai kerugian daripada sebagai keuntungan.Selain itu, orang cenderung terpengaruh lainnya kerugian daripada keuntungan dari jumlah yang sama. Dalam beberapa toko kelontong AS Anda bisa mendapatkan 10 sen rebate untuk setiap tas dapat digunakan kembali Anda membawa. Anda mendapatkan imbalan untuk melakukan sesuatu yang 'baik'.Namun, di Eropa (dan mungkin segera di lebih banyak kota AS), Anda mendapatkan dikenakan biaya untuk setiap kantong plastik yang Anda butuhkan untuk tote rumah belanjaan Anda. Anda dihukum untuk sesuatu 'buruk'. Ini tampaknya skema insentif yang sama, tetapi menghasilkan hasil yang sangat berbeda. Framing situasi seperti membayar untuk hasil tas dalam jauh lebih banyak orang membawa tas mereka sendiri (atau tidak menggunakan kantong sama sekali), sedangkan 'mendapatkan' uang untuk tidak menggunakan tas tidak benar-benar mendorong banyak orang untuk secara konsisten menggunakan tas dapat digunakan kembali.
Salah satu contoh dari Gedung Putih adalah fueleconomy.gov situs, yang memungkinkan konsumen membandingkan total biaya bahan bakar mobil lebih dari lima tahun, bukan hanya oleh metrik tradisional mil per galon (MPG). MPG tidak mudah atau cepat menyampaikan biaya bahan bakar sebenarnya dari kendaraan. Ini adalah contoh dari konsep ekonomi yang disebut perilaku arti-penting . Biaya bahan bakar selama masa kendaraan sering tidak menonjolke konsumen dengan cara label harga pada jendela mobil. Dengan melakukan matematika bagi konsumen dan membuat informasi yang mudah untuk menemukan, biaya bahan bakar secara keseluruhan memiliki kesempatan yang lebih baik memainkan peran dalam keputusan pembelian mobil.
Arti-penting adalah konsep yang sama berlaku untuk air rumah tangga dan penggunaan energi. Ketika seseorang membeli sebuah rumah, mereka lebih cenderung berpikir tentang harga rumah daripada biaya bulanan tambahan hidup di rumah (misalnya tagihan energi dan air) dan dengan demikian cenderung untuk mempertimbangkan efisiensi rumah ( misalnya isolasi, peralatan). Biaya-biaya tambahan menjadi pemilik rumah kurang menonjoldibandingkan dengan harga stiker rumah.
Default , yang berkaitan dengan konsep fisika inersia , adalah konsep lain yang mendapatkan banyak perhatian dalam ekonomi perilaku. Orang-orang cenderung mengikuti arus dan sering menempel pada standar pilihan. Kebijakan dapat dirancang untuk menawarkan pilihan yang sama kepada konsumen, tetapi mengubah standar pilihan untuk salah satu yang diharapkan untuk memaksimalkan manfaat adalah cara mudah untuk meningkatkan kesejahteraan tanpa membatasi pilihan. Misalnya, harus meminta perubahan dari lembaran atau handuk di sebuah hotel vs ini secara otomatis mendapatkan berubah untuk Anda setiap hari Anda tinggal. Ini adalah salah satu contoh dari perubahan lingkungan pengambilan keputusan dari "opt-in" untuk "opt-out" (yaitu donor organ, rencana pensiun). Contoh lain: beberapa utilitas menawarkan pilihan sukarela bagi konsumen untuk membayar sedikit lebih untuk listrik mereka tapi kemudian amp up penggunaan sumber energi terbarukan. Jika Anda membuat program "opt-in", beberapa akan berpartisipasi, tapi pengaturannya sebagai "opt-out" hasil program lebih banyak rumah tangga yang tetap terdaftar.
Melanjutkan dengan efisiensi rumah, penelitian menemukan bahwa kampanye informasi (berpikir sisipan tagihan utilitas) meningkatkan pengetahuan, tetapi tidak benar-benar mengubah perilaku penggunaan energi. Namun, norma-norma sosial laporan, seperti apa perusahaan OPower menyediakan, menunjukkan berapa banyak energi rumah tangga yang menggunakan dibandingkan dengan tetangga yang sama. Ini dorongan memang memiliki dampak yang signifikan terhadap perubahan penggunaan energi rumah tangga. Sebagai akibat dari hal ini norma-norma sosial program yang didorong, rumah tangga mengurangi penggunaan energi dalam jangka pendek (misalnya mengganti blubs cahaya atau benar-benar program termostat diprogram), dan dalam jangka panjang (misalnya meningkatkan isolasi atau HVAC sistem). Memberitahu orang apa yang orang lain lakukan memiliki dampak yang kuat pada apa yang kita lakukan. Konsep norma juga mengasosiasikan diri dengan konsep komitmen di mana kita berusaha untuk konsisten dengan janji-janji publik dan mencoba untuk membalas tindakan lain, serta konsep ego di mana kita cenderung untuk bertindak dengan cara yang membuat kita merasa lebih baik tentang diri kita sendiri. Laporan Opower termasuk wajah tersenyum jika Anda melakukan lebih baik daripada tetangga rata-rata. Penguatan ini positif sederhana biasanya cukup untuk menjaga rumah tangga yang paling efisien dari peningkatan penggunaan energi mereka ketika mereka belajar mereka menggunakan kurang dari sebagian besar tetangga mereka. Lihat Allcott (2011) untuk mempelajari ekonomi more.Behavioral berusaha untuk menemukan cara untuk menyenggol orang di arah yang benar tanpa membatasi pilihan. Pengingat Kecil dan perubahan kecil pada konteks lingkungan pengambilan keputusan sering lebih mudah, lebih berarti biaya-efektif untuk meningkatkan kesejahteraan individu dan lingkungan. Berikut ini adalah beberapa contoh visual ekonomi perilaku dalam tindakan. E-mail saya dengan contoh-contoh dorongan yang Anda lihat!
Sebuah contoh visual yang beberapa perilaku ekonomi di tempat kerja:
Menjalankan norma-norma sosial untuk mengurangi sampah sembarangan di ruang publik
Pengingat Rumah Tangga gambaran yang lebih besar ketika datang untuk membalik saklar
Pilihan sampah Whole Foods '
Komentar
Posting Komentar