评估商议能力:一种应用于财务选择的简单方法

Sandro Ambuehl, B. Bernheim, A. Lusardi
{"title":"评估商议能力:一种应用于财务选择的简单方法","authors":"Sandro Ambuehl, B. Bernheim, A. Lusardi","doi":"10.5167/UZH-205562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine methods for evaluating interventions designed to improve decision-making quality when people misunderstand the consequences of their choices. In an experiment involving financial education, conventional outcome metrics (financial literacy and directional behavioral responses) imply that two interventions are equally beneficial even though only one reduces the average severity of errors. We trace these failures to violations of the assumptions embedded in the conventional metrics. We propose a simple, intuitive, and broadly applicable outcome metric that properly differentiates between the interventions, and is robustly interpretable as a measure of welfare loss from misunderstanding consequences even when additional biases distort choices. (JEL D83, D91, G51, G53)","PeriodicalId":121231,"journal":{"name":"CEPR Discussion Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Deliberative Competence: A Simple Method with an Application to Financial Choice\",\"authors\":\"Sandro Ambuehl, B. Bernheim, A. Lusardi\",\"doi\":\"10.5167/UZH-205562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examine methods for evaluating interventions designed to improve decision-making quality when people misunderstand the consequences of their choices. In an experiment involving financial education, conventional outcome metrics (financial literacy and directional behavioral responses) imply that two interventions are equally beneficial even though only one reduces the average severity of errors. We trace these failures to violations of the assumptions embedded in the conventional metrics. We propose a simple, intuitive, and broadly applicable outcome metric that properly differentiates between the interventions, and is robustly interpretable as a measure of welfare loss from misunderstanding consequences even when additional biases distort choices. (JEL D83, D91, G51, G53)\",\"PeriodicalId\":121231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CEPR Discussion Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CEPR Discussion Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-205562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CEPR Discussion Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-205562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

我们研究了评估干预措施的方法,旨在提高决策质量,当人们误解他们的选择的后果。在一项涉及金融教育的实验中,传统的结果指标(金融素养和定向行为反应)表明,即使只有一种干预措施可以降低错误的平均严重程度,但两种干预措施同样有益。我们将这些失败归结为违反了嵌入在传统指标中的假设。我们提出了一个简单、直观、广泛适用的结果度量标准,可以适当地区分干预措施,并且即使在额外的偏见扭曲选择的情况下,也可以作为误解后果造成的福利损失的衡量标准。(凝胶d83, d91, g51, g53)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Deliberative Competence: A Simple Method with an Application to Financial Choice
We examine methods for evaluating interventions designed to improve decision-making quality when people misunderstand the consequences of their choices. In an experiment involving financial education, conventional outcome metrics (financial literacy and directional behavioral responses) imply that two interventions are equally beneficial even though only one reduces the average severity of errors. We trace these failures to violations of the assumptions embedded in the conventional metrics. We propose a simple, intuitive, and broadly applicable outcome metric that properly differentiates between the interventions, and is robustly interpretable as a measure of welfare loss from misunderstanding consequences even when additional biases distort choices. (JEL D83, D91, G51, G53)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信