Behavioral economics enhancers

Eldad Yechiam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2024.12

2024-01-01

Judgment and decision making

Abstract:Abstract Recent meta-analyses suggest that certain drugs act as cognitive enhancers and can increase attentional investment and performance even for healthy adults. The current review examines the potential of behavioral economics enhancers (BEEs) for similarly improving cognitive performance and judgments. Traditionally, behavioral economics theory has adopted a skeptical approach regarding the notion of whether individuals can overcome judgment biases through variables that increase cognitive effort. We focus mostly on the effects of two BEEs: incentivization and losses. Summarizing results from different meta-analyses, we find a small but robust positive effect size for BEEs, with comparable effect sizes to those found in studies of pharmacological cognitive enhancers.

psychology, multidisciplinary

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper attempts to explore the potential of Behavioral Economics Enhancers (BEEs) in improving cognitive performance and judgment biases. Specifically, the paper mainly focuses on the impact of two BEEs: incentivization and losses on cognitive performance. By summarizing the results of different meta - analyses, the paper finds that BEEs have a small but robust positive effect on cognitive performance and judgment biases, and the effect size is comparable to the research results of pharmacological cognitive enhancers.

### Core issues of the paper
1. **The role of cognitive enhancers**:
- Recent meta - analyses have shown that certain drugs, as cognitive enhancers, can improve the attention investment and performance of healthy adults. These drugs are not only effective for people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), but also have similar effects on healthy individuals.
- For example, the effect size of methylphenidate in healthy adults is approximately 0.28, while it is 0.22 in ADHD patients.

2. **The potential of behavioral economics enhancers**:
- Traditionally, behavioral economics theory is skeptical about whether individuals can overcome judgment biases by increasing cognitive effort.
- This paper mainly explores two BEEs: incentivization and losses. By summarizing the results of multiple meta - analyses, it is found that BEEs have a small but robust positive effect on cognitive performance and judgment biases.

### Incentivization
- **Early research**: Early research has shown that incentivization has a positive impact on the performance of cognitive tasks, but negative or no significant impacts have also been found in some studies.
- **Meta - analysis results**:
- Condly et al.'s meta - analysis (in 2003) reported an effect size of 0.60 for incentivization in cognitive tasks and 0.88 in motor tasks.
- Garbers and Konradt's meta - analysis (in 2014) reported a slightly smaller effect size of 0.34.
- Cerasoli et al.'s meta - analysis (in 2014) also found that incentivization has a small positive effect size (β = 0.29).
- **Effects in judgment tasks**:
- Although Brañas - Garza et al.'s meta - analysis (in 2019) did not find a significant incentivization effect in the Cognitive Reflection Test, a re - analysis found that incentivization has a small but significant positive effect (d = 0.14).
- Other meta - analyses also support that incentivization has a small but significant positive impact on judgment biases (such as the conjunction fallacy and the anchoring effect).

### Losses
- **Two perspectives**: Losses are regarded as a bias (such as loss aversion) or a variable for enhancing attention in behavioral economics.
- **Meta - analysis results**:
- Ferraro and Tracy's meta - analysis (in 2022) showed that losses have a positive impact on productivity in economic experiments, with an effect size of 0.33 in laboratory studies and 0.12 in field studies.
- Some experiments have shown that even in the absence of loss aversion, small losses can enhance performance.
- **Effects in judgment tasks**:
- In the Cognitive Reflection Test, Carpenter and Munro (in 2023) found that the positive impact of losses on cognitive reflection exceeds that of gains.
- In decision - making tasks, losses increase the frequency of choosing favorable options, even if these choices actually lead to more losses.

### Conclusion
By synthesizing the results of multiple meta - analyses, the paper shows that BEEs (especially incentivization and losses) have a small but robust positive impact on cognitive performance and judgment biases. These findings support the potential value of BEEs in improving cognitive performance, especially in cases where it is necessary to overcome fast and simple heuristic biases.