"Irrationality during the Pandemic" - by Panagiotis Paris Hiotis - Final paper in
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Final paper in:
Pandemics in an Unequal World: Learning from COVID19
On the subject:
“Irrationality during the Pandemic”
by Panagiotis Paris Hiotis
Professor: Sakiko Fukuda-Parr
Fall 2020Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Introduction 2
The dual system theory 4
1. Action bias 5
2. Affect heuristic 6
3.Choice overload/Decision fatigue/Ego depletion 6
4. Confirmation bias 8
5. Framing effect 8
6. Halo effect 10
7. Messenger bias 11
8. Optimism bias - Overconfidence 12
9.Present bias 13
10. Social proof – Herding 14
11. Scarcity heuristic 15
12. Status quo bias 16
Nudges 17
Conclusion 19
Bibliography 20
1Abstract
In this paper, I will be examining the most common cognitive biases that are responsible for the
many irrational behaviors that have taken place during the Covid-19 pandemic. I will be
discussing irrationality during the pandemic, through the lens of the following biases and other
heuristics: Action bias, affect heuristic, choice paralysis, confirmation bias, framing effect, halo
effect, messenger effect, optimism bias - overconfidence, present bias, social proof – herding
behavior, scarcity, status quo bias and defaults. I will also be mentioning the importance of
nudges as well as how people take advantage of dark nudges (sludges) during these times of
uncertainty. Examples will be given for irrational behavior caused by each of the following
behavioral economics concepts, with some information on how to overcome these cognitive
biases.
Introduction
In the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic has claimed many lives, and we have all faced many
challenges. Amidst the chaos, certain actions gained attention and were labeled as “irrational”,
examples including the hoarding of toilet paper1, increased spending and panic buying of
products2, or simply not adhering to the protective measures and having large concerts and
1
https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/elviadiaz/2020/11/11/another-toilet-paper-shortage-hoarding-
wont-save-you-covid-19/6250934002/
2
https://voxeu.org/article/spending-dynamics-and-panic-buying-during-covid-19-first-wave
2gatherings without any usage of masks and with no implementation of social distancing3. This
behavior seems illogical, but with the help of behavioral science and behavioral economics, we
have the necessary tools to dissect it, explain what causes it, and discuss how we can avoid
similar irrational acts. In 1950s, Herbert Simon, utilized the term “bounded rationality”, by
explaining that the human brain has a limit in terms of thinking capacity, information storing and
processing. Forcing us to use certain heuristics, or mental shortcuts, to make some of our
decisions. Heuristics4 are mental shortcuts, or commonly known as “rules of thumb”, that we
utilize in order to simplify our decisions and take out some of the cognitive load of everyday
thinking. Some of these heuristics include the availability heuristic, the affect heuristic and
representativeness. Even though the aforementioned heuristics help with simplifying our
decision-making process, they often are responsible for leading us to what is known as a
cognitive bias. Cognitive biases are systematic errors in thinking that deviate from the rational
perspective of formal norms. These can affect how we make decisions and judgements. The field
of behavioral economics studies these heuristics and biases in order to explain economic decision
making. The case behavioral economics makes is that humans are less rational and selfish than
the traditional economic theory suggest (e.g., homo economicus5) due to being limited by
bounded rationality and self-control issues.
3
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/une-fete-de-la-musique-sans-trop-de-precautions-pour-
oublier-le-coronavirus_4017437.html
4
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235
https://www.oecd.org/economy/homo-economicus-an-uncertain-guide.htm
5
3The dual system theory
In his 2011 bestselling book, “Thinking, fast and slow”, Daniel Kahneman, makes the distinction
of two systems of thinking in the human mind. Kahneman makes the case of a “fast”, intuitive
system 1 that makes simple and easy decisions, with little thinking involved and utilizes
impressions, intuitions, and a “slow” and deliberate system 2 that makes calculating informed
decisions, by taking into account different data and options.
An accurate example of the use of system 1 and 2 would be that of driving a car. The first few
times we drive, our brain painstakingly stresses over every detail and deliberately focuses on
every decision we make, using system 2. After we familiarize ourselves with the task, it becomes
automatic and effortless, meaning it now utilizes system 1. System 1 is also the source of the
aforementioned heuristics and biases discussed above, as the brain makes certain automated
thoughts, and forms impressions instinctively through the utilization of the intuitive system 1.
This is done to avoid cognitive strain and to leave space for what our brain considers more
important mental tasks. Many of the biases and heuristics we will be analyzing shortly, are all
products of such unconscious thinking that derives from system 1, while in order to recognize the
bias and make a more informed and rational decision, we would have to use our system 2. We will
now begin our detailed examination of the different biases and heuristics that are responsible for
the irrational behavior during the pandemic. The effects will be presented in alphabetical order.
41. Action bias
This bias refers to the belief that performing an action gives people a certain amount of control
over a specific situation. This bias is the opposite of another form of bias we will be discussing
later on, the status quo bias that takes into account inertia and focuses on people’s tendency to stay
in a certain situation and not act. Action bias takes the opposite approach and focuses on the
illusion of control that such an action would create. An example of irrational behavior during the
Covid-19 pandemic would be the tendency to stockpile on food and supplies, despite reassurances
from experts that there is no danger of shortage. People choosing to over exaggerate, and stockpile
food, medicine and other products deemed necessary during the pandemic such as masks and
disinfectant gel, believe that by their action they will be better prepared against the unknown
dangers of the pandemic, even though in reality the excessive queuing at supermarkets and other
stores is putting them at further risk of contracting the disease. Fighting the action bias is
challenging, as the sense of security and reassurance provided by hoarding and stockpiling food
and other useful resources is an evolutionary trait that has existed in humans since their inception.
At the same time, it is important to realize that scarcity of certain products is only going to be self-
created, as more and more people fall prey to this bias and thus create shortages (e.g., toilet paper).
By being a more rational consumer, while listening to the experts ensuring that there will be no
shortage under normal conditions, such effects can be mitigated.
52. Affect heuristic
The affect heuristic represents a relation between a reaction and the feelings caused by the said
reaction. These feelings are quick and impulsive and thus dominated by our system 1 thinking.
People tend to consider benefits of a behavior they like as high and the risks as low, whereas for a
behavior they dislike they consider the benefits as low and the risks as high. The affect heuristic
is dependent on a quick decision with little to no information or supplementary research on a
subject. This behavior can affect the way that people react to medical procedures and treatments.
In relation to Covid-19, the affect heuristic can have major influence on the adherence of Covid-
19 related measures such as mask-wearing, social distancing and hand washing. The association
for example of not adhering to the Covid-19 related measures with contracting the disease can
create a negative affect towards not adhering, thus pushing more people to comply with the
necessary health measures. In the same light, creating a positive feeling in regard to being at home
with family, can cause an increase in people staying indoors to help reduce the spread of the virus.
Taking advantage of the affect heuristic and creating negative or positive emotions towards certain
measures or behaviors, can prove of vital importance in fighting the virus.
3.Choice overload/Decision fatigue/Ego depletion
In this section, we will be looking at choice overload, decision fatigue and ego depletion, as these
three phenomena can justify the information overload that occurs as a result of the many
information campaigns for Covid-19. Choice overload is based on studies that show how the
existence of many difference choices, often paralyzes the consumer (decision paralysis) where
6they choose to not take any action instead. In his book “The paradox of choice”, Barry Swartz
mentions the “jam experiment”6 where consumers were more likely to make a purchase when
there were 6 kinds of jam offered to them, than when there were 24. Certainly, the condition with
24 different kinds attracted more consumers, but fewer decided to finalize the purchase of a
product.
Decision fatigue refers to the psychological cost of making decisions and how long sessions of
decision making can have a negative effect and produce bad choices. In the same vein, ego
depletion, makes a case of a limited amount of self-control that works in the same way a muscle
does. Tiring out the muscle can weaken our ability to exercise self-control, make safer choices and
stay away from impulse. Studies conducted by the Behavioral Insights Team show the impact that
too much information can have on Covid-19 related behavior. A randomized controlled trial (RCT)
7
in Bangladesh monitoring proper hand washing techniques, clearly reflects that information
overload can have a negative effect on Covid -19 safety measures. With all of the information
above, it is clear how at a time of uncertainty and anxiety such as during a pandemic, people’s
mental exhaustion is at its limits. Multiple health guidelines are presented to them daily and new
measures are being implemented constantly, presenting a case of information overload that can
have the opposite of the desired effect. It is clear, that information campaigns need to be cautious
not to overburden people with information and statistics, thus bringing them to a state of decision
fatigue and ego depletion.
6
https://hbr.org/2006/06/more-isnt-always-better
7
https://www.bi.team/blogs/covid-19-prevention-too-much-information/
74. Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias has a major and impactful role during this pandemic. It is the tendency of people
to seek information that confirms their hypotheses and preconceptions, while at the same time
ignoring any other evidence of the contrary. Again, a bias related to system 1 and intuitive thinking,
with little to no informed research in order to formulate a more balanced opinion of both sides of
the equation. During the pandemic we witness the aforementioned bias in the massive amounts of
misinformation and fake news that spread daily on social media and all around the internet. People
tend to favor only the facts that support their own opinion, possibly one that was formed with very
limited amounts of research and little deliberate thought. Confirmation bias prevents many of us
from obtaining a more holistic view of an issue, by examining data from both sides of an argument,
as we quickly discard any evidence that our opinion is flawed or illogical. At the same time, we
make every effort possible to strengthen our point of view, even if that means distorting the
information, we receive in order for it to better fit our narrative and justify our argument. To avoid
falling prey to this cognitive bias, we need to be more open to different opinions and diligently
research what we see and hear, checking multiple sources and making an effort to also check both
sides of the coin, further inspecting the argument against our beliefs, while fact checking our own
position, and accepting criticism.
5. Framing effect
The framing effect refers to how certain information can be made more, or less attractive by
highlighting different aspects of it, and whether it is framed as a loss or a gain. The framing effect
8refers to the context and the way that data are presented. Much like with a painting, by altering the
frame around it, we can change the impression it creates, even though we have not altered the
painting itself. The idea of framing information in a way that presents them as a loss or a gain,
comes from one of the founding papers of behavioral economics by Daniel Kahneman and Amos
Tversky called “prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk” (Econometrica, 47, 263-291)8
where gambles are framed in terms of losses and gains, leading to the loss aversion theory,
explaining that people are significantly more sensitive to losses than they are to gains, giving
further strength to loss framing proposals, as they would have a bigger psychological impact.
In an example of the framing effect, one could say that a burger has “10% fat, or is 90% fat free”,
essentially presenting the same information in a different light or “frame”. The power of framing
can be seen in many experiments over the years and has been used for medical purposes, for
example stating that a medical procedure has a 90% survival rate (gain frame) as opposed to it
having a 10% mortality rate (loss frame). The framing effect has also been seen utilized by
politicians over the years, emphasizing the loss of certain actions, or the danger of losing
something and the impact it would have. For Covid-19, we have seen the impact of framing both
on the political field, highlighting deaths and case numbers, in negative or positive framing, in
accordance with the end goals, as well as in the health department. A significant implication of
framing, as far as combating the virus spread would be the studies9 that show how loss-framed
messages can increase disease detection behavior. In the case of Covid-19, this can be utilized by
8
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185?seq=1
9
https://academic.oup.com/abm/article-abstract/43/1/101/4563944?redirectedFrom=fulltex
9signifying the losses, one could endure by not taking a Covid-19 test for example. On the other
hand, gain-framed messages and campaigns have shown to be more successful in promoting
disease-preventing behavior, thus making gain-framed messages ideal to promote behaviors such
as social distancing, mask-wearing and staying at home for the case of the pandemic.
6. Halo effect
This particular bias comes from social psychology and refers to how one characteristic of a person
can often cause us to judge the person’s whole character. An example would be someone donating
to charity and thus being regarded as an appealing personality overall. This causes an irrational
belief that certain people’s actions are always correct and with good intentions, based on certain
character traits they have shown in the past. This also applies during the pandemic as it is a clear
system 1 bias, that is based on little information and impulsive decisions. For our brain to avoid
information overload (see bias no3), we tend to assume that information of said person would be
correct and well informed, without stopping to reflect on the opinion stated. This bias works well
in conjunction with the messenger effect which we will be mentioning later in the paper. During
this pandemic, our minds are bombarded with information, and thus, people rely on quick
decision-making techniques to judge information presented to them more than ever. Similar to
other cognitive biases of the same nature, we must be aware of our system 1 operating against us
and causing us to react irrationally to new information. We have to look past the imaginary halo
that our mind has created for this person and judge the information we receive comparably to
data from other sources.
107. Messenger bias
The messenger bias, or messenger effect has some characteristics that go hand in hand with the
halo effect and can work in conjunction with it. The messenger bias refers to the fact that we value
a message such as feedback or an indication, differently depending on who is conveying the
message (therefore the messenger). If we receive for example praise from someone who is well
respected in his field, said praise is more valuable to us than the same praise from someone that is
less accomplished. In the same way, receiving information from someone of high respect and
authority, such as a president or a high ranked epidemiologist for the case of Covid-19, makes us
value that information more, sometimes accepting it blindly and without any thought. Similarly
to the halo effect, these two biases can work in cooperation. If we receive a piece of information
from someone that we have created a halo effect with (mentioned above), then we will hold him
at a higher standard, thus making his information, advice, or praise seem more important and
valuable to us. The messenger effect also brings into light a significant influence in regard to the
opinions of authority figures, known as the authority bias10. We often tend to believe the word of
experts without second guessing their statements or conducting any substantial research of our
own regarding the scientific validity of said statements. We have seen the irrationality created by
the messenger bias during the pandemic. From the consumption of fish tank cleaner containing
chloroquine to prevent a possible Covid-19 infection, to people’s tendency to put on pedestals high
10
https://productiveclub.com/authority-bias/
11ranked epidemiologists, turning to their advice like gospel, and then just as easily discrediting
them, if they take even the smallest misstep.
8. Optimism bias - Overconfidence
These two biases are grouped together since they both have to do with the overestimating of
probabilities or abilities. To be more precise, optimism bias is the tendency we have to
overestimate the probability of positive outcomes, while underestimating the probability of
negative ones. Overconfidence on the other hand is the tendency we have to overestimate our
abilities, in relation to our actual performance (e.g., The vast majority of drivers believe they
possess above-average driving skills11).
It is quite clear how the above biases relate to the Covid-19 pandemic, as people often believe they
have a much lower chance contracting the virus, and that is also the case even if their peers chose
to adhere to contagion preventing behaviors. In order to bypass overconfidence and optimism bias,
the risks of the pandemic need to be communicated more clearly and precisely, while presenting
cases of people’s peers contracting the virus would possibly reduce the bias appearing in younger
adults.
11
https://www.farmerclinecampbell.com/blog/2018/09/studies-show-drivers-are-often-overconfident/
129. Present bias
Present bias, or time discounting refers to the tendency of valuing rewards that are closer in the
present higher than rewards that are further in the future12. Present bias is a form of impatience
and a seek for immediate gratification, while rewards that are further down the line are not viewed
as important. Examples would include working out or taking care of our diet. Since physical fitness
is regarded as a future payoff, eating the delicious but more dangerous for our waistline treats that
await in our fridge, would provide us instead with an immediate gratification that is hard to pass
by. Similar examples would include procrastinating instead of studying or completing a paper on
irrationality during the pandemic. Health-related examples would include smoking, with short
term benefits such as stress relief, versus long term costs in the form of increasing the risk of lung
cancer. As far as the Covid-19 pandemic is concerned, Individuals who suffer from this bias would
prefer the short-term benefits of not adhering to social distancing measures and going out with
their friends, not wearing a mask and not staying indoors versus the uncertain cost of contracting
the disease in the future. In order to combat present bias, there needs to be an effort to make the
negative effects of not adhering to Covid-19 prevention measures more prevalent. To compliment
information, there needs to be a reward to balance the short-term benefit of not adhering to the
measures. Some efforts of this kind have already been implemented, but incentives such as free
internet usage for people staying at home, unemployment benefits, or benefits for people
working remotely and online events that people can participate in from their homes are all
12
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/002205102320161311
13examples of efforts that can help make adhering to preventing measures more appealing.
10. Social proof – Herding
Social proof is a bias regarding how the behavior of other people influences our own behavior.
People change their behavior to conform to the social norms and the actions of their peers. This
is often the case where we see what is referred to as herding behavior. Herding is mimicking the
behavior of others because it is considered good or socially acceptable, as would be the case
within a herd of animals. Instead of making their own decisions and being independent actors,
they prefer to do what others are doing. This idea has deep roots in the psychology of crowds, as
mimicking the behavior of the “Alpha” or leader of the group has been a part of human
psychology and history since the very beginning. Social proof and herding apply during the
pandemic, as people tend to do what other people, close to them are doing and follow their
behavior. Thus, if their close environment is not adhering to the preventive measures, they will
choose to do so as well. A possible tactic that can be used to increase adherence to the measures
would be to make known in a community that their friends or neighbors are also practicing
13
preventive measures, as seen with a similar experiment in Minnesota that increased tax
compliance. Therefore, a message along the lines of “The majority of your neighbors are
practicing social distancing” could contribute to an increase in adherence of preventive measures.
13
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5820/1/MPRA_paper_5820.pdf The experiment told Minnesotans that more
than 90% of their neighbors had paid their taxes. Herding behavior and social influence are best used by
highlighting actions and behaviors of the majority, rather than the minority.
1411. Scarcity heuristic
The scarcity heuristic appears when an object or a resource is at a limited availability. The
scarcity effect makes the consumer think that the object or resource being scarce means that the
demand for it is high, so the utility and quality of the object or resource must be high as well.
Furthermore, scarcity is often seen as a sign of rarity. Limited availability means that owning
the object will make the consumer more unique and provide the consumer with a sense of pride,
for owning this limited product. We see this effect regularly in advertising and marketing. For
example, airlines and hotels advertising limited availability to seats in a flight or hotel rooms
respectively and car manufacturers and shoe companies, making limited editions of certain
models. In his book “Influence”14, Robert Cialdini goes into detail on how scarcity is used to
create the effect described above, on many industries. During the pandemic, scarcity is ever-
present and can be observed by the irrational behavior of hoarding toilet paper and food supplies,
as well as other medical and covid-19 related supplies. In this case, the scarcity is self-created
because of panic buying, as there have been many instructions and statements, clearly telling
people that supplies are available. The way to combat scarcity is to stop and think clearly, using a
more coherent thought process (system 2) of the utility that the scarce item is truly going to offer
us and if the opportunity cost is worth it. Most of the time scarcity is artificially created, in order
to boost sales, as a marketing trick.
14
Cialdini, R.B. (2008). Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson. A more updated version of Cialdini’s
influence where he highlights the 6 principles of influence: Reciprocity, consistency, social proof, authority,
linking, scarcity
1512. Status quo bias
A bias that relates to many previously stated phenomena, the status quo bias is that of inertia. The
belief that doing nothing and taking no action is safer than taking action. Possibly related to loss
aversion, the notion that losses are felt more severely than gains (see footnote 8). People seem to
fear taking action, opting instead for the status quo. One can argue that sticking with a previously
made choice, or not making a choice at all could be considered the rational option, especially in
case of choice overload – see bias number 3 - or limited information. Most of us have gone
through the painful Netflix session where we just cannot seem to decide on a movie, and finally
we chose to either not watch anything, or watch our favorite film for the fifth time. In order to
combat choice paralysis, in that case we opt for something familiar, the status quo, not an entirely
irrational choice, as it helps keep at bay the choice overload.
At the same time, companies take advantage of our predisposition to inertia and the status quo, in
order to gain from our inaction. How many times have we forgotten to cancel our subscriptions,
free trials, or simply do not have the time to go through the painful and time-consuming procedure
of unsubscribing from various sources?
During this highly stressful and uncertain period of the covid-19 pandemic, status quo bias is
extremely prevalent. The world all around us is changing, yet we tend to cling to old and possibly
dangerous ways of living. Remote work, reduced face to face social interactions, and the total
abandonment of certain social norms for several countries e.g., kissing on the cheek or hugging
between friends, are all changes that we were forced to make in order to survive the spread of the
virus. Inability to adhere to such behaviors as well as the new preventive behaviors of mask
16-wearing, social distancing and repeated hand washing, shows signs of status quo bias. Below we
will examine how to use status quo bias and our tendency to stick to the default option, to our
benefit in examining one of the most commonly known tools of behavioral economics: Nudges.
Nudges
A nudge is defined by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their 2008 book “Nudge: Improving
decisions about health, wealth and happiness15” as the following: “any aspect of the choice
architecture that influences individuals’ decision making in a predictable way without forbidding
any options or changing economic incentives.”
Nudges are not a bias, and do not create irrational behavior, but are a tool of behavioral economics
to control said behavior and try to achieve desired behaviors with choice architecture.
Choice architecture is the practice of changing the environment where people make decisions, in
order to promote specific behaviors and make them easy to do, without taking away other options.
An example would be, positioning food in a school cafeteria where the healthier options are closer
and at eye level, and the least healthy ones are farther away and require effort to get to.
The most commonly used and successful nudge is the default nudge, which takes advantage of the
Status quo bias we spoke of above and the natural human tendency for inertia and thus changes
the default options on forms for better results. For example, in organ donation forms or pension
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and
15
happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17plan enrollments or vaccinations16 the default would now be to opt-in, and an action would be
necessary in order to opt-out. The opt-in plan that took advantage of human tendency to go for
default option or the status quo, had extremely positive results in many different usages throughout
the world. A variety of different nudges have been used to combat smoking, promote recycling,
and in many different aspects of public policy around the world.
Nudging can be utilized to combat covid-19 in different ways. Something similar to the experiment
with the installation of low-cost soap dispensers in homes in India, to improve hand
hygiene is possible17. Furthermore, at a hospital in Israel, face recognition technology was used to
nudge people to wear a mask, by identifying individuals not wearing masks and giving feedback
such as “no mask kills my vibe”, while complementing those wearing one correctly18. A similar
nudge was done in Turkey, where special mirrors at bus stops would identify people not wearing
a mask and the mirror image of the person would have its face covered, thus reminding them to
wear a mask while waiting for public transport.
At this point, a note needs to be made about sludges, the dark side of nudging that focuses on bad
intentions and exploiting human biases for personal gain. These kinds of tactics use friction and
other methods, to maximize personal benefit, misleading people to take actions not in their best
16
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/186162
17
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33934862/18-030%20big.pdf?sequence=1
18
https://www.timesofisrael.com/face-recognition-tech-nudges-visitors-to-wear-masks-at-sheba-
hospital/?utm_sq=gk20vfd7bx&fbclid=IwAR2pqQihtJMFTWwg65lWhvkPhEVXokBTwpkdBuR9hE2RxcB6ieeNto4TBs
0
18interest, while taking advantage of methods meant to be used to help others and to promote positive
behavior change.
Examples of Sludges would include subscriptions that make it extremely difficult for a person to
unsubscribe, as well certain gym memberships that even though due to the pandemic were closed,
kept charging their customers, stating that they needed to be at the gym in person to request for
their membership to be canceled, even though their offices were closed.
Conclusion
To summarize, it is only natural that during a period of such stress, change and uncertainty,
irrationality would be abundant. In this paper I used insights from behavioral economics and
behavioral science to pinpoint the most common biases during the pandemic and establish how
they cause our irrational behavior. Furthermore, I discussed certain measures for the covid-19
pandemic, that could synergize with these biases, together with nudging and choice architecture,
to create desired behaviors. Cognitive biases are always part of our decision making and thought
process, and always trick us into certain beliefs and conclusions. It is of paramount importance
that during these difficult times, we take a step back, breathe, and try to not rush into uninformed
and impulsive decisions. Such behavior however will not always be possible, as irrationality is
truly what makes us human.
19Bibliography
A Paris, une Fête de la musique sans trop de précautions, pour oublier le coronavirus. (2020, June 22).
Retrieved from franceinfo:: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/une-fete-
de-la-musique-sans-trop-de-precautions-pour-oublier-le-coronavirus_4017437.html
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. Harper Collins.
Austad, S. (2018, September 15). You think you're a pretty good driver, don't you? Retrieved from AL
Alabama: https://www.al.com/living/2018/09/you_think_youre_a_pretty_good.html
Chapman, G. B., Li, M., Colby, H., & Yoon, H. (2010). Opting In vs Opting Out of Influenza Vaccination.
Jama.
Cialdini, R. (2008). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Cohen, D. (2013). Homo Economicus: an uncertain guide. Retrieved from OECD:
https://www.oecd.org/economy/homo-economicus-an-uncertain-guide.htm
Coleman, S. (2007). The Minnesota Income Tax Compliance Experiment: Replication of the Social Norms
Experiment. Metropolitan State University. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
DÍAZ, E. (n.d.). Why are we hoarding toilet paper again? It won't save you from COVID-19. Retrieved
from azcentral.: https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/elviadiaz/2020/11/11/another-
toilet-paper-shortage-hoarding-wont-save-you-covid-19/6250934002/
20Dominic, B. (2020, December 2). The behavioural barriers that covid vaccines must break. Retrieved
from mint: https://www-livemint-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/the-behavioural-barriers-
that-covid-vaccines-must-break/amp-11606926268116.html
Dsouza, M. (n.d.). Authority Bias – Why You Assume the Expert is Always Right. Retrieved from
Productive Club: https://productiveclub.com/authority-bias/
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time Discounting and Time Preference: A
Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351-401.
Fung, F. M. (2020, July 8). These errors in our thinking explain irrational behaviour that occurs during a
crisis. Retrieved from World Economic Forum:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/covid19-cognitive-bias/
Gladwell, M. (2007). Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Back Bay Books.
Hribernik, U. (2020, April 21). How behavioral science can help with ‘normal’ after coronavirus. Retrieved
from lit-transit: https://lit-transit.com/insights/how-behavioral-science-can-help-with-normal-
after-coronavirus/
Hussam, R. N., Rabbani, A., Reggiani, G., & Rigol, N. (2017, September). Habit Formation and Rational
Addiction:. Harvard Business School Working Paper, pp. 18-30.
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
21Kolod, S., Drescher, J., & Tene, W. (2020, March 24). Irrationality in the Time of Coronavirus. Retrieved
from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychoanalysis-
unplugged/202003/irrationality-in-the-time-coronavirus
Landucci, F., & Lamperti, M. (2020, October 27). A pandemic of cognitive bias. Retrieved from
SpringerLink: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-020-06293-y
Menon, T., & Blount, S. (2003). Menon, Tanya & Blount, Sally. (2003). The messenger bias: How social
relationships affect the valuation of knowledge. ....137-187. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 25, 137-187.
O'Connell, M., De Paula, Á., & Smith, K. (2020, November 4). Spending dynamics and panic buying during
the COVID-19 first wave. Retrieved from voxeu: https://voxeu.org/article/spending-dynamics-
and-panic-buying-during-covid-19-first-wave
Perera, D., Brown, D., & Kettle, S. (2020, August 7). COVID-19 prevention: Too much information?
Retrieved from The Behavioral Insights Team: https://www.bi.team/blogs/covid-19-prevention-
too-much-information/
Simon, H. (1990). Bounded Rationality. In Utility and Probability (pp. 15-16). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Solomon, S. (2020, September 2). Face recognition tech ‘nudges’ visitors to wear masks at Sheba
hospital. Retrieved from The Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/face-recognition-
tech-nudges-visitors-to-wear-masks-at-sheba-
22hospital/?utm_sq=gk20vfd7bx&fbclid=IwAR2pqQihtJMFTWwg65lWhvkPhEVXokBTwpkdBuR9hE
2RxcB6ieeNto4TBs0
Sunstein, C. R. (2016). The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. Harvard
University, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Swartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice. Harper Perennial.
Thaler RH, S. C. (n.d.). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. . New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Voyer, B. (. (2020, September 8). How behavioural science can help us understand human behaviour
during a pandemic. Retrieved from THE CONVERSATION: https://theconversation.com/how-
behavioural-science-can-help-us-understand-human-behaviour-during-a-pandemic-143028
23You can also read
