Is Attention Produced Rationally?

E. Bronchetti, Judd B. Kessler, Ellen B. Magenheim, Dmitry Taubinsky, Eric Zwick
{"title":"Is Attention Produced Rationally?","authors":"E. Bronchetti, Judd B. Kessler, Ellen B. Magenheim, Dmitry Taubinsky, Eric Zwick","doi":"10.3386/w27443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A large and growing literature shows that attention-increasing interventions, such as reminders and planning prompts, can promote important behaviors. This paper develops a method to investigate whether people value attention-increasing tools rationally. We characterize how the demand for attention improvements must vary with the pecuniary incentive to be attentive and develop quantitative tests of rational inattention that we deploy in two experiments. The first is an experiment with an online education platform run in the field (n=1,373), in which we randomize incentives to complete course modules and incentives to make plans to complete the modules. The second is an online survey-completion experiment (n=944), in which we randomize incentives to complete a survey three weeks later and the price of reminders to complete the survey. In both experiments, as incentives to complete a task increase, demand for attention-improving technologies also increases. However, our tests suggest that the increase in demand for attention improvements is too small relative to the null of full rationality, indicating that people underuse attention-increasing tools. In our second experiment, we estimate that individuals undervalue the benefits of reminders by 59%.","PeriodicalId":224430,"journal":{"name":"Decision-Making in Economics eJournal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision-Making in Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3386/w27443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

A large and growing literature shows that attention-increasing interventions, such as reminders and planning prompts, can promote important behaviors. This paper develops a method to investigate whether people value attention-increasing tools rationally. We characterize how the demand for attention improvements must vary with the pecuniary incentive to be attentive and develop quantitative tests of rational inattention that we deploy in two experiments. The first is an experiment with an online education platform run in the field (n=1,373), in which we randomize incentives to complete course modules and incentives to make plans to complete the modules. The second is an online survey-completion experiment (n=944), in which we randomize incentives to complete a survey three weeks later and the price of reminders to complete the survey. In both experiments, as incentives to complete a task increase, demand for attention-improving technologies also increases. However, our tests suggest that the increase in demand for attention improvements is too small relative to the null of full rationality, indicating that people underuse attention-increasing tools. In our second experiment, we estimate that individuals undervalue the benefits of reminders by 59%.
注意力是理性产生的吗?
越来越多的文献表明,注意力增加的干预措施,如提醒和计划提示,可以促进重要的行为。本文开发了一种方法来调查人们是否合理地重视注意力增加工具。我们描述了提高注意力的需求是如何随注意力的金钱激励而变化的,并在两个实验中对理性注意力不集中进行了定量测试。第一个实验是在一个在线教育平台上进行的实地实验(n= 1373),在这个实验中,我们随机分配完成课程模块的激励和完成模块的计划激励。第二种是在线调查完成实验(n=944),我们随机分配三周后完成调查的激励措施和完成调查的提醒价格。在这两个实验中,随着完成任务的动机增加,对提高注意力的技术的需求也会增加。然而,我们的测试表明,提高注意力的需求的增加相对于完全理性的零来说太小了,这表明人们没有充分使用提高注意力的工具。在我们的第二个实验中,我们估计人们低估了提醒的好处59%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信