This blog contains an eclectic array of tidbits of my life. As a behavioral economist, I write about preferences, beliefs, gender gaps, persuasion, and other topics. I also post about my other passions: Taekwon-do, food, fashion, and travel. Finally, as a working mom, I am forever seeking that elusive balance between parenthood, career, and hobbies.
Find me on Twitter @OlgaShurchkov and Instagram @_olgas
Search This Blog
How choices change behavior
Finally, a relaxing mini-vacation! Just Mike and I in Aruba –
a place that holds many nostalgic memories for us, including one very special
marriage proposal 14 years ago (can it be that long ago???). With all the
tranquil beauty of the sea, the beach, the perfect sunsets, one naturally
reflects on … optimality of choices? Yes, when the “one” is an economist.
Here is a dilemma for you. Upon arrival at our hotel, the front
desk clerk makes us an offer to upgrade to the club level. The freebies include: continental breakfast,
light lunch, hors d’oeurves and desserts in the evening, unlimited wine and
top-shelf liquor throughout the day, and a daily spa “activity” which no one
could explain to us. There is also some less exciting stuff like daily laundry
and pressing, concierge service, and free internet (which is already free for
all guests J).
The cost at face value: $300 per day for the two of us (a “discount” from the
normal rate of $400 per day). What would
you do? Well, let me add another piece
of information that perhaps shouldn’t be relevant if you are totally rational,
but might matter for everyone else: if we don’t do the club upgrade, our hotel
stay is free. That’s right: we are staying here on points, and with our status we
also already got a sweet upgrade to a suite with ocean views.
Here is the rational approach. Breakfast at the hotel would cost around $20
per person, lunch around $60 per person, and excluding dinner (which we planned
to eat off the resort) drinks and dessert around $50 per person. That gives
$260 total value, which doesn’t include the spa treatment whose value is uncertain,
but probably more than $40 for two people. Sounds like the $300 price tag might
actually be worth it. Also, once paid, the $300 becomes a “sunk cost” and
should not affect subsequent decisions. For example, if we had already decided
to do dinners at restaurants off the resorts, the fact that we paid for the
club level should not change our mind to eat there.
But Mike and I are rational enough to know that we aren’t
actually rational. The choice to upgrade to the club level would change our
in-the-moment behavior. Firstly, we typically don’t eat breakfast, but having
committed to the club level would be “forced” to go. Now I love breakfast food,
so I would definitely get extra enjoyment from the experience in the moment.
But then would come the regret from overeating.
We would also probably end up overindulging in desserts and drinks
because we would be similarly trying to extract maximum value from our club-level
upgrade. This might actually decrease our enjoyment we would get from exploring
different restaurants and local bars.
The second consideration is that paying for the upgrade messes
with the feeling that we are getting our vacation “for free.” This also is a
thoroughly irrational way of thinking. Of course, without the club upgrade, we
are still going to pay for all our meals.
But because we obviously have to eat whether or not we are on vacation,
paying for those meals doesn’t feel so painful. On the other hand, paying for
the club is dissociated from regular meals and feels like an “extra” expense. Furthermore,
at the moment of the decision to upgrade to the club level, those payments feel
remote – in a distant future – while paying $300 a night for the club is in the
present. In behavioral economics, we
call this “present bias” which distorts intertemporal decision-making.
So, we didn’t upgrade. And that decision set us on a
completely different path to actions relative to the path we would have taken were
we to pay for the club. I am still
happily caffeinated in the morning with the free in-room coffee, but we are
sticking to the no-breakfast rule. Instead of sending a wrinkly dress to the
overpriced pressing service, we hung it up in the shower and the humidity
successfully took the wrinkles out. We
are also getting enjoyment from the idea that our vacation is still “free”
(which is awesome, despite the fact that, of course, it is not because we’re
still paying for pricey food and drinks).
And yesterday night we visited a favorite restaurant of ours from the
trip when we got engaged, Papiamento, without any regret that we were forgoing
free food at the club lounge!
Standing in the fourth row of black belts at the 116thITF Taekwon-do International Instructor Course in New York, I witnessed a
real-life representation of the gender leadership gap. Women were well-represented in the ranks of 1st
Degrees, showed up to a lesser extent among 2nd and 3rd
Dans, could be seen here and there in my line of 4th Dans, but only
one or two stood in the front three lines. I literally got goose bumps when a woman
was promoted to Master (7th Degree), joining just one other female
Master in the room. It made me want to ask them: How? What’s the secret?
The decrease in female representation with seniority is not
unique to martial arts, of course. One
of the best visualizations of the leadership gap in business appears here. Similar trends had shown up in academia
and in politics. The reasons for these gaps remind me of the reasons why
there aren’t more female Taekwon-do Masters.
Taekwon-do (ITF) was founded by General Choi Hong Hi
on April 11, 1955. Fo…
Today marks 3 weeks since Mike and
I “went off the deep end” – out of the blue, we decided to try “the keto diet.”
In some ways, it’s just one among many fad diets, like paleo or 5:2. But, it
also provides enough science (well, probably pseudo-science) to make sense to
the skeptics like us. Neither of us has ever been on a strict diet before, as we truly are food-obsessed bon vivants. Yet somehow, for some crazy reason, keto got
us to stick to the plan. Maybe it’s the meticulous
record-keeping or the competition with oneself to stay within the allotted 20
grams of net carbs a day? These are certainly both features that appeal to our Type A personalities and therefore got us through the
first oh-so-miserable few days.But I think that in the longer run it was something else.For me, it has to do
with loss aversion – the very human trait that describes an individual’s
desire to avoid losing. Loss aversion is
associated with a related behavioral phenomenon known as the sunk cost bias. …