Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 223

Richard Thaler: Nobel economist changing our behaviour

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences has been awarded to Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, "for his contributions to behavioural economics". He has introduced the study of human irrationality into a discipline that prides itself on rationality.

This is an excellent choice that reflects an important shift in economics during the past three decades, to take human psychology seriously when thinking about economic decision-making. The work has implications for everything from basic individual choices, to retirement savings, to the operation of financial markets. (Disclosure: I was a colleague of Thaler's at Chicago Booth.)

Outside the teaching rooms at Chicago Booth there are a number of large posters of various luminaries and their contributions, including other Nobel Laureates. On his, Thaler perhaps summarised his own approach best. His quotation reads:

"I think it is possible to strengthen economics by incorporating the idea that some people behave like humans, at least some of the time."

Witty, but also deep. And, beginning in the 1980s, Thaler did just that. In a first set of contributions, Thaler showed that people systematically deviate from the standard ‘expected utility theory’ of von Neumann and Morgenstern that is the workhorse economic model of how people make choices.

Dramatic difference between ‘buying’ and ‘selling’ 

A now classic example is the so-called ‘endowment effect’:

"(a) Assume you have been exposed to a disease which if contracted leads to a quick and painless death within a week. The probability you have the disease is 0.001. What is the maximum you would be willing to pay for a cure?

(b) Suppose volunteers would be needed for research on the above disease. All that would be required is that you expose yourself to a 0.001 chance of contracting the disease. What is the minimum [amount of money] you would require to volunteer for this program? (You would not be allowed to purchase the cure.)"

A typical answer from respondents is about $200 for (a) and $10,000 for (b). Yet the standard model says the answer should be precisely the same. People, it seems, are willing to pay a relatively small amount to ‘buy health’ compared to what they require to be paid to ‘sell health’.

This turns out to be a pervasive phenomenon. Thaler showed it is consistent with people valuing losses and gains differently (‘loss aversion’) as in the Prospect Theory of former laureate Daniel Kahneman and his collaborator Amos Tversky.

And he showed that firms take advantage of this commercially, as they often frame things as ‘cash discounts’ rather than ‘credit card surcharges’. Moreover, it holds in experiments with real stakes, not simply survey questions.

A recent meta-study showed that in more than 337 estimates in 76 different experiments the willingness to accept is more than triple the willingness to pay.

Implications for financial markets

Thaler's concept of ‘mental accounting’ holds that people put expenditures into distinct categories (such as food, housing, clothing, etc). This also has strong empirical support, and far-reaching implications. When people behave like this they do not take advantage of the ability to smooth decisions across categories, and they can behave in ways that are not optimal.

One well-documented example is that taxi drivers routinely set a target amount of earnings and stop once they have reached it. This ‘satisficing’ behaviour – rather than optimising – has broad implications for the labour market generally.

Now, one might think that all these defects in individual decision-making wash out in large markets. Indeed, this was the routine critique of behavioural economics in seminars in the early 2000s. A huge body of scholarship in behavioural finance has shown that this is not the case.

Psychological factors and limits to arbitrage can have huge implications for the operation of financial markets, creating mis-pricing and excess volatility.

Thaler also pioneered the concept of ‘social preferences’ where people care about fairness. In an elegant experiment – the ‘dictator game’ – one subject is given $20 and can propose a split with the other subject. If the other accepts the offer then that's what they both get. If they reject, both get nothing. Subjects routinely reject an $18/$2 split – or often even $15/$5 – and prefer to get nothing.

This both contradicts the standard model, and shows that fairness can be a vital consideration in economic settings.

Finally, the self-control problems Thaler documented in other work mean that individuals can benefit from a kind of ‘soft paternalism’ in everything from quitting smoking to managing their retirement savings.

With Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (co-author Cass Sunstein), Thaler has been the driving force behind designing public policy in a way that recognises and remedies this. Default options in retirement savings are a good example.

From the US to Britain and now Australia ‘behavioral insights units’ have been set up in government to guide public policy in diverse areas on the basis of Thaler's work.

Thaler has enriched our understanding of economics by introducing psychological factors within a coherent and tractable framework. And his work continues to have far-reaching implications for how we get people to make better decisions.

 

Richard Holden is a Professor of Economics and AGSM Scholar at the UNSW Business School. A version of this article appeared in The Conversation. Cuffelinks is an alliance partner of the Business School.

3 Comments
SMSF Trustee
October 19, 2017

Interesting. People didn't need a price of $2.00 to bet on Black Caviar in most of her races and they haven't needed it to bet on Winx for a while now either. (Essentially the same possibility set - the horse either wins or it doesn't; if it does you get paid the odds, if doesn't you lose your outlay.)

Does that mean that people don't really reveal such a significant degree of 'loss aversion' as behavioural economics believes? Does this mean that the empirical research on which a Noble Prize has been awarded is flawed?

Probably not. People betting on BC and Winx didn't/don't look at it as a 50/50 random outcome, but more like a sure thing.

Doubt that answers your question Graham, but I hope it's an entertaining contribution!

Graham Hand
October 19, 2017

Yes, SMSF Trustee. Never having placed a bet on Winx, I'm only guessing at the motivation, but it's probably that if the horse pays $1.10 for $1 outlay, they see it as a sure thing. Certainly not a coin toss. People are also paying to participate, to be part of the fun, and no doubt seeing your $1 turn into $1.10 is a lot more exciting than watching a coin toss (except 2Up). Just hope the oats were good that morning.

Graham Hand
October 19, 2017

My favourite Thaler (and others) example is loss aversion. Many studies have asked people to bet on a coin toss, where heads means they win $x but tails means they lose $100. Most people require around $200 to take the bet. They need $200 to offset the risk of losing $100. Do you need this much?

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Investing is like water, but what the hell is water?

Retirement changes everything: a post-retirement investing framework

There’s a lot more to retirement incomes than super

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

How to enjoy your retirement

Amid thousands of comments, tips include developing interests to keep occupied, planning in advance to have enough money, staying connected with friends and communities ... should you defer retirement or just do it?

Results from our retirement experiences survey

Retirement is a good experience if you plan for it and manage your time, but freedom from money worries is key. Many retirees enjoy managing their money but SMSFs are not for everyone. Each retirement is different.

A tonic for turbulent times: my nine tips for investing

Investing is often portrayed as unapproachably complex. Can it be distilled into nine tips? An economist with 35 years of experience through numerous market cycles and events has given it a shot.

Rival standard for savings and incomes in retirement

A new standard argues the majority of Australians will never achieve the ASFA 'comfortable' level of retirement savings and it amounts to 'fearmongering' by vested interests. If comfortable is aspirational, so be it.

Dalio v Marks is common sense v uncommon sense

Billionaire fund manager standoff: Ray Dalio thinks investing is common sense and markets are simple, while Howard Marks says complex and convoluted 'second-level' thinking is needed for superior returns.

Fear is good if you are not part of the herd

If you feel fear when the market loses its head, you become part of the herd. Develop habits to embrace the fear. Identify the cause, decide if you need to take action and own the result without looking back. 

Latest Updates

Economy

The paradox of investment cycles

Now we're captivated by inflation and higher rates but only a year ago, investors were certain of the supremacy of US companies, the benign nature of inflation and the remoteness of tighter monetary policy.

Shares

Reporting Season will show cost control and pricing power

Companies have been slow to update guidance and we have yet to see the impact of inflation expectations in earnings and outlooks. Companies need to insulate costs from inflation while enjoying an uptick in revenue.

Shares

The early signals for August company earnings

Weaker share prices may have already discounted some bad news, but cost inflation is creating wide divergences inside and across sectors. Early results show some companies are strong enough to resist sector falls.

Property

The compelling 20-year flight of SYD into private hands

In 2002, the share price of the company that became Sydney Airport (SYD) hit 80 cents from the $2 IPO price. After 20 years of astute investment driving revenue increases, it sold to private hands for $8.75 in 2022.

Investment strategies

Ethical investing responding to some short-term challenges

There are significant differences in the sector weightings of an ethical fund versus an index, and while this has caused some short-term headwinds recently, the tailwinds are expected to blow over the long term.

Investment strategies

If you are new to investing, avoid these 10 common mistakes

Many new investors make common mistakes while learning about markets. Losses are inevitable. Newbies should read more and develop a long-term focus while avoiding big mistakes and not aiming to be brilliant.

Investment strategies

RMBS today: rising rate-linked income with capital preservation

Lenders use Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities to finance mortgages and RMBS are available to retail investors through fund structures. They come with many layers of protection beyond movements in house prices. 

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.