Search results

The use of behavioral insights and experimental methods has recently gained momentum among health policy-makers. There is a tendency, however, to reduce behavioral insights applications in health to “nudges,” and to reduce experiments in health to “randomized controlled trials” (RCTs). We argue that there is much more to behavioral insights and experimental methods in health economics than just nudges and RCTs. First, there is a broad and rich array of complementary experimental methods spanning the lab to the field, and all of them could prove useful in health economics. Second, there are a host of challenges in health economics, policy, and management where the application of behavioral insights and experimental methods is timely and highly promising. We illustrate this point by describing applications of experimental methods and behavioral insights to one specific topic of fundamental relevance for health research and policy: the experimental elicitation and econometric estimation of risk and time preferences. We start by reviewing the main methods of measuring risk and time preferences in health. We then focus on the “behavioral econometrics” approach to jointly elicit and estimate risk and time preferences, and we illustrate its state-of-the-art applications to health.

This paper describes how financial professionals' behavioral biases influence their financial forecast and decision-making process. Most of the earlier studies are focused on well-developed financial markets, and little is researched about financial professionals, such as institutional investors, portfolio managers, investment advisors, financial analysts, etc., in emerging markets.

An expert-validated questionnaire measure four prominent behavioral biases and Indian financial professionals' rational decision-making process. The final sample consists of 274 valid responses using the purposive sampling technique. IBM SPSS and AMOS structural equation modeling (SEM) software are used to build measurement and structural models, multivariate analysis including regression, factor analysis, etc.

The results provide empirical insights into the relationship between behavioral biases and the decision-making process. The results suggest that the structural path model closely fits the sample data. The presence of behavioral biases indicates that financial professionals' forecasting and decision-making is not always rational but bounded rational or irrational due to these factors. Furthermore, these biases (except overconfidence bias) have a markedly significant and positive relationship with irrational decision-making.

It is critical to eradicate these psychological errors, but awareness and attentiveness toward behavioral biases may help financial professionals to make informed decisions. Investors can improve their portfolio decisions and investments by recognizing their judgment errors and focusing on specific investment strategies to mitigate the impact of these biases. It is necessary to incorporate behavioral insights while developing training techniques for financial professionals. Rules of thumb, visual tools, financial coaching and implementing social-cultural elements in training programs enable financial professionals to develop simple, engaging, appealing and customized approaches for their clients.

This novel study is the first of this kind of research that examines the relationship between financial professionals' behavioral biases and rational decision-making process. This study significantly and remarkably provides insights into irrationality in financial professionals' decision-making.

This commentary argues that social marketing and the application of behavioural sciences to policy constitute two converging paths towards better policies. It highlights points of convergence and divergence between both disciplines and the potential benefits of further embedding social marketing principles and methods within the recent trend of applying behavioural sciences to policy.

The commentary relies on a review of the behavioural sciences and social marketing literatures and on an analysis of institutional reports reviewing cases of behaviourally informed policies.

Behavioural sciences are increasingly informing policies to promote societal well-being. Social marketing has seldom been explicitly considered as being part of this phenomenon, although it is de facto. Both disciplines share similar end-goals, inform similar policy applications and are rooted in behavioural analysis. They diverge in their theoretical frameworks, their relative emphasis on behaviour change and the span of interventions they generate. Several benefits of embedding social marketing principles and methods within the current way of applying behavioural sciences to policy are identified.

Scholars applying behavioural sciences to policy are encouraged, when appropriate, to use the insights and methods from social marketing. Social marketing can engage in a dialogue with behavioural sciences to explore how to pilot the convergence of both approaches in practice.

The novelty of this contribution lies in providing the first comparison of the application of behavioural sciences to policy with social marketing, and in using the policy-making cycle framework to map the contributions and complementarities of both disciplines.

The paper draws on the key themes raised at a Round Table discussion on behavioural finance attended by academics and practitioners. The paper provides a background to the key aims of behavioural finance research and the development of the discipline over time. The purpose of this paper is to indicate some future research issues on behavioural finance that emanate from the financial crisis and highlight areas of mutual benefit to both behavioural finance academics and the finance industry so as to encourage a creative cross‐fertilisation.

The paper draws on a Round Table discussion on behavioural finance that was organized by the Behavioural Finance Working Group, the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation and Financial Services Knowledge Transfer Network.

The paper highlights numerous benefits that behavioural finance research can contribute to the financial industry, but at the same time there is an evident discrepancy between the academic and the professional world when it comes to utilising behavioural finance research.

The paper highlights several areas where behavioural finance can contribute significant benefits to a wide array of aspects of the finance industry.

The paper seeks to inform behavioural finance issues so as to encourage collaboration between the academic world and finance practitioners. In so doing, the paper aims to encourage a greater awareness of individual decision‐making frames and heuristics and how industry can apply these concepts to improve the allocation of finance products to society.

The paper brings together a wide array of finance professionals and academics to encourage greater collaboration and mutual respect of each others interest in and uses for behavioural finance.

This study aims to identify the origins, mechanisms and outcomes of applying behavioral insight in public policy research.

The authors conducted a systematic literature review to answer three research questions. The authors identified 387 primary studies, dated from January 2000 to April 2021 and coded them through a thematic analysis. Related studies were obtained through searching in Emerald, ScienceDirect, Sage, Springer, Wiley and Routledge.

The results identified eight themes for origins, 16 themes for mechanisms/techniques and 13 outcome-related themes. Through the thematic analysis, the major mechanisms of behavioral approach were found to be social marketing, information provision, social norms, incentives, affect, regulation design, framing, salience, defaults, simplification, networking, environment design, scheduled announcements, commitments, attitude-preference-behavior manifestation and combining behavioral and nonbehavioral mechanisms.

The findings of this review help policymakers to design or redesign policy elements.

This review provides the first systematic exploration of the existing literature on behavioral public policy.

This paper aims to explore the relevance of bounded rationality to the practice of institutional investors in Malaysia. Understanding institutional investor behavior is important, as it can determine the asset prices and consequently the market behavior.

A set of questionnaires is used to solicit information regarding the understanding and practical application of behavioral finance theories and strategies among fund managers in the Malaysian investment management practice. In the process, bounded rational theory is aimed to be validated. Fund managers’ possible bounded rational behavior is assessed with reference to their investment management approaches and strategies right from individual beliefs and acquisition of information, as well as investment management and strategies used.

The findings lend support to the notion that institutional investors too, being normal human beings, are expected to think and behave in a boundedly rational manner as postulated in bounded rational theory. The sources of bounded rationality are individual, institutional and social forces. Thus, portfolio trading and investment management strategies are exposed to wide varieties of behavioral risks. Despite the notions that behavioral risks are real and the impact on fund performance could be pervasive, fund managers’ self-awareness regarding control and institutional readiness to govern behavioral risks in investment practices is still low.

Empirical evidence drawn in the current paper is subjected to small sample size and specific focus on Malaysian context. Despite this limitation, the sample is statistically sufficient and provides a fair representation, as well as quality opinions, of fund manager’s investment management behavior in Malaysia. This research provides valuable implications to practitioners (fund managers) and regulators (investment management and capital market policymakers). In practice, the current study draws some practical ideas, especially for buy-side institutional investors, on the source and impact of behavioral biases on fund management practices and performance. For regulators, this research highlighted the needs and possible ways to regulate these behavioral risks.

The current paper provides new insights on the theory and practice of the institutional investor. In theory, this research provides evidence of bounded rationality of institutional investor behavior, practicing in the asset management industry in the emerging markets of Malaysia. This evidence lends support to the validity of the bounded rationality theory in explaining institutional investor behavior. In practice, thisresearch provides new insights on the relevance of behavioral finance perspectives and strategies in the asset management industry practice and policy.

This paper aims to review the theory and empirical evidence of institutional investor behavioral biases in the lenses of behavioral finance paradigm. It surveys the research specifically focusing on behavioral biases among institutional investors in investment management activities worldwide.

A literature survey is done to gather and synthesize evidence on behavioral biases of institutional investors.

The survey and analysis reveal the following findings. First, the theoretical underpinning of investors’ irrational behavior has been neglected in behavioral finance research. Second, the behavioral heuristics and biases are dynamic and complex. Third, understanding behavioral biases’ origin, causes and effects requires interdisciplinary perspectives from the fields of psychology, sociology and biology.

The analysis and alternative perspectives drawn in this paper provide new insights into the field of behavioral finance and aims to suggest researchers, practitioners and regulators on the next course of actions.

This chapter incorporates gender consciousness into critiques of the rational actor model by revisiting Carol Gilligan's account of moral development. Economics itself, led by the insights from game theory, is reexamining trust, altruism, reciprocity, and empathy. Behavioral economics further explores the implications of a more robust conception of human motivation. We argue that the most likely source for a comprehensive theory will come from the integration of behavioral economics with behavioral biology, and that this project depends on the insights from evolutionary analysis, genetics, and neuroscience. Considering the biological basis of human behavior, however, and, realistically considering the role of trust, altruism, reciprocity, and empathy in market transactions requires a reexamination of the role of gender in the construction of human society.

First, we revisit Gilligan, and argue that her articulation of relational feminism faltered, in part, because she could not identify the source of the stereotypically feminine. Second, we consider the ways in which the limitations of the rational actor model meant that law and economics could also not resolve the relational concerns that Gilligan raised. Third, we discuss the rediscovery of gender that is emerging from the gendered results of game theory trials and the new research on the biological basis of gender differences. Finally, we conclude that incorporating the insights of this new research into law and the social sciences will require a new methodology. Instead of narrow-minded focus on the incentive effects in the marginal transaction, we argue that reconsideration of stereotypically masculine and feminine traits requires an emphasis on balance.

This study aims to review the expanding use of different aspects of behavioral science in the corporate environment.

This study presents an examination of the academic literature and media reporting on behavioral science in the corporate environment, including risk management, recruiting, employee rewards and group decision-making.

While there are some ethical risks in the application of behavioral science in the corporate environment, many aspects of corporate decision-making and corporate culture would benefit from behavioral science insights.

While there have been numerous pieces written about individual aspects of behavioral science in the corporate environment, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is one of the first to look at the application of the discipline from a comprehensive perspective.

George Loewenstein, a prominent behavioral economist, recalls thatIn 1994, when Thaler, Camerer, Rabin, Prelec and I spent the year at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, we had a meeting to make a kind of final decision about what to call what we were doing. Remarkably, at that time, the name behavioral economics was not yet well established. I actually advocated “psychological economics,” and Thaler was strong on behavioral economics. I'm kind of glad that he prevailed; I think it's a better, catchier, label, although it creates confusion due to association with Behaviorism. (G. Loewenstein, personal email to author, June 16, 2008)