140 likes | 413 Views
New Commitment Devices. Jon Zinman Dartmouth College (joint work with Dean Karlan) AEA 2010. Terms of Engagement. “Commitment” and “commitment device” can mean many things Here, arrangements that: Voluntarily restrict a consumer’s future choice set by changing prices
E N D
New Commitment Devices Jon Zinman Dartmouth College (joint work with Dean Karlan) AEA 2010
Terms of Engagement • “Commitment” and “commitment device” can mean many things • Here, arrangements that: • Voluntarily restrict a consumer’s future choice set by changing prices • Are taken primarily with aim of changing one’s own future behavior (goal attainment) • Are not taken strategically to influence the behavior of others
Quick Motivation • Commitment contract for smoking cessation (Gine, Karlan, and Zinman 2010): • “Committed Action to Reduce Smoking” = “CARES” • Smoker posts money with bank (= contract provider) • Bank administers urine test after 6 months • Smoker gets money back if passes, forfeits money (to charity) otherwise • Large intention to treat effects: offering the contract increases quit likelihood by 3-4pp (40%) • This effect persists in surprise tests 6 months later
Motivation:Some Puzzles in CARES Results • Given large treatment effects, why is takeup rate only 11%? • Among takers, why is success rate only 34%? • Some explanations have little to do with commitment features • Learning about new product • Quit dynamics: trying to quit is itself a good • And/or… sub-optimal features of the contract?
New Commitment Devices:Some Issues and Thoughts • My approach • Issues with contract/program design • Thoughts on how to improve • Caveat: all speculative • More theory needed • More empirics needed
Issue 1.Framing, Given Other Biases • Commitment typically thought of as a solution to time-inconsistent preferences • But what if people have other biases as well? • Limited awareness • Limited attention • Cued consumption (the Pavlov Problem) • Also (won’t talk about today): • Loss aversion • Projection bias • Exponential growth bias (how much would you save on cigs over lifetime if stopped smoking?)
Issue 1a.Limited Awareness Limited awareness of: • Nature of self-control problem will depress takeup (“naifs”) • Extent of self-control problem will lower success rate, conditional on takeup (“partial sophisticates”)
Issue 1a.Dealing with Limited Awareness Convert naifs, partial sophisticates into sophisticates? • By providing information at signup: : “Most people of your age, who smoke as much as you, require a stronger commitment to succeed. How about increasing $, or adding your spouse?” • By debiasing at signup: • Get people to think about past (failed) quit attempts • “Have you considered a stronger commitment” Provide stronger defaults re: contract terms? • I.e., not clear that encouraging customization is optimal, even if there is consumer heterogeneity
Issue 1b. Limited Attention • What we often think of as self-control problem may be inattention to future • Reminders for making savings deposits more effective for “hyperbolics” (Karlan, McConnell, Mullainathan, Zinman) • “A goal is not a plan” • Psychologists find that people think more normatively, and not sufficiently instrumentally, about the future • (Delivering/discussing papers)
Issue 1b.Dealing with Limited Attention • How convert daily struggle for commitment into a smaller set of key decisions? • Auto-enroll • Buy a patch • Solutions here: • Process commitment (wealth habit: commit to sign up; commit to wear patch) • Bundle with reminders
Issue 1c.Dealing with Cues • Debiasing and planning at takeup? • “Are there situations that make you want to smoke? How do you plan to deal with those situations?” • “Have you thought about how you might avoid those situations?” • Smart defaults based on intake questions? • “Would you like to make another commitment to [not smoke at work]?”
Issue 2.Substitutes or Complements? • Can commitment make standard treatments more effective? • Nicotine replacement therapy • (Financial planning/counseling)
Issue 3. Building a Mass Market • Market providers: tension between over-the-counter approach and binding enforcement. • How well do self-reports or peer-reports work? • I.e., how costly is it to lie, or get your friend to lie, to the intermediary? • Large employers may have strong incentives: commitment → better health → lower insurance costs, higher productivity? • Focus so far on health, with bonuses rather than commitment contracts (Volpp et al) • Expand to financial health? (Carrell and Zinman) • Possible that commitment is even more effective than conditional cash transfers? • Due to loss aversion
Summary • Preliminary evidence that commitment devices can be a useful tool • Preliminary evidence that we’ve only scratched the surface on optimal: • Design • Framing • Bundling • More R&D needed • Interplay between theory and fieldwork