BROAD BRACKETING INDUCES UTILITARIAN DECISIONS 1 Broad Bracketing Induces Utilitarian Consumer Decisions
Elizabeth B. Kim,D. Ariely
Abstract:In this digital age, over 2 billion people are making increasingly important financial and health decisions on digital interfaces of computers and mobile devices. Yet we know people fail to have enough self-control to resist temptations time and time again. How can we help people make better decisions in a digital environment? We hypothesize that using broad bracketing to present decisions will increase utilitarian decision making by decreasing the licensing effect. In 2 experiments, we used the context of choosing videos to watch, which we presented in two conditions: a broad or narrow bracket. The broad bracket shows all 7 days on one page whereas the narrow bracket shows each day separately on 7 different pages. Participants chose whether they would choose to watch a hedonic or utilitarian video on each day. In Experiment 1, each day was labelled generically (ie. Day 1, Day 2...etc). Participants in the broad bracketing group chose more utilitarian choices than did those in the narrow bracketing group. To increase relevance, Experiment 2 showed the days of the week instead (ie. Monday-Sunday). Participants in the broad bracketing group chose more utilitarian choices; however this effect was only seen during the weekdays. There was no effect of broad bracketing on the weekends. Findings from these 2 experiments indicate that broad bracketing can help people make better self-control related decisions. BROAD BRACKETING INDUCES UTILITARIAN DECISIONS 3 Broad Bracketing Induces Utilitarian Consumer Decisions Our self-control determines the quality of our everyday decisions. Over time, these decisions add up to significantly influence the trajectory of our lives. However, people consistently fail to exert self-control in times of temptation. How can we help people increase their levels of self-control? In this article, we propose using choice bracketing to present decisions on digital interfaces to increase utilitarian decision making. We explore this mechanism in the context of choosing videos to watch because the accumulated value from watching them is concrete and quantifiable (i.e. the number of facts learned). Based on previous research, we hypothesize that presenting decisions in a broad as opposed to a narrow bracket will lead people to make more utilitarian over hedonic decisions by enhancing their self-control. Imagine planning to watch either a lowbrow reality TV show or a highbrow educational video for just one day versus every day for an entire week. These two scenarios showcase the same decision but in broad versus narrow choice brackets, which can elicit very different selfcontrol decisions from people (Read, Loewenstein, Rabin, Keren, & Laibson, 2000). This article examines how a choice is visually bracketed on a mobile device can affect peoples’ decision making. Specifically, we propose that presenting choices in broad brackets can help people make better self-control decisions in the context of digital interfaces. Overview of the Effects of Narrow Versus Broad Bracketing Choice bracketing affects decision making in various ways depending on the scope of the bracket (Read, Loewenstein, Rabin, Keren, & Laibson, 2000). A broad bracket causes people to consider their actions in aggregate while a narrow bracket induce an isolation view of an action. The contrasting nature of a broad and narrow bracket influences peoples’ attitude towards risk tolerance (Moher & Koehler, 2010; Thaler, 2004), their judgment (Simonsohn & Gino, 2013), BROAD BRACKETING INDUCES UTILITARIAN DECISIONS 4 and their decision making (Read et al., 2000). Moreover, broad bracketing can help people make more ethical decisions because it allows people to examine the consequences of all of their actions at once (Fishbach & Woolley, 2015). Benartzi and Thaler (1998) and Samuelson (1963) tested a theory on the “fallacy of large numbers” through a coin flip gambling game. The researchers offered people either 1 (narrow bracket) or 100 trials (broad bracket) and found that people were more likely to take the gamble in multiple trials than a single trial. Samuelson (1963) contends wanting to partake in multiple trials of a gamble people did not want with just one trial is irrational. Moher and Koehler (2010) also ran a similar experiment using a virtual gambling task. Participants were given a certain amount of virtual money for each trial of the task, which they could use to make a risky investment. The narrow bracket group was shown one trial at a time while the broad bracket group was shown three trials at a time. They found that participants were more risk tolerant in the broader bracket and, thus, more likely to make larger investments (Moher & Koehler, 2010). Effect of narrow bracketing on judgment. Simonsohn and Gino (2013) analyzed the effect of narrow bracketing on the judgment of admissions officers and how it can lead to assessment of applicants. Most admissions officers have had years of experience and, therefore, are able to anticipate a certain expectation of what the outcome from a given pool of applicants should look like. After analyzing interviews by MBA applicants spanning over 10 years, this study found that, on a given day, if the average score for previous applicants showed an increase, the expected score of future applicants on that day decreased. The researchers argued that since admission officers reviewed each applicant in isolation, they were thinking in a narrow bracket and were unwilling to deviate from what they believed to be the expected result from a pool of BROAD BRACKETING INDUCES UTILITARIAN DECISIONS 5 applicants. This is because in a narrow bracket, people tend to disregard the effects of the choices they have made in the past or will make in the future (Simonsohn & Gino, 2013). When making decisions between utilitarian and hedonic options, overcoming temptation is a critical step in being able to make optimal decisions. Myrseth and Fishbach (2009) posit that simply facing the temptation is not enough to be able to act against it. The ability to overcome temptation lies in first identifying a self-control conflict in the first place. They confirmed their hypothesis that presenting a decision in an interrelated versus isolated choice frame can help people identify self-control conflicts. At the time, the researchers did not use the term “choice bracketing”; however, the researchers’ definitions of an interrelated and isolated choice frame directly parallel broad and narrow brackets. Myrseth and Fishbach (2009) devised an experiment in which participants were made to decide how many chips to eat in one sitting. However, all participants had to look at a calendar before making their decisions. In the “narrow frame” group, participants were shown a calendar with clear grid lines surrounding all the days. The current day was clearly marked on the calendar. In the “wide frame”, participants were shown a calendar with no grid marks and no special marking to indicate the current date. Participants in the “narrow frame” consumed more chips than those in the “wide frame” group. If people frame the temptation as one action among many others as opposed to a one-shot opportunity, they are more likely to overcome it. The researchers contend that the narrowly framed calendar induced participants to think that the current date was separate from the rest of the days that month whereas the widely framed calendar did not visually separate the current date. Choice Bracketing and decision making. Seminal works have explored how bracketing influences decision making behavior in a variety of contexts (eg. Read, Lowenstein, and Rabin 1999). Read and Lowenstein (1995), it was found that broad bracketing leads to people making BROAD BRACKETING INDUCES UTILITARIAN DECISIONS 6 more diverse choices, a phenomenon they termed the diversification bias. Read, Lowenstein, and Rabin (1999) discussed the effects of bracketing in other situations, some of which include scheduling, risk tolerance and habit formation. One of their results, which is of particular interest to our present research, was that people considering in broader brackets tend to make higher utility choices when compared to people in a narrower bracket. Broad brackets make the cumulative effects of a combination of choices more salient, whereas in a narrow bracket people consider the consequences of a choice in isolation, which may lead to suboptimal decision making. For example, the damage caused by one cigarette may seem trivial, but assessing the consequences of a lifetime of smoking may lead someone to quit smoking (Read, Lowenstein, & Rabin, 1999). Another study by Myrseth and Fishbach (2009) shows how choice bracketing affects peoples’ self-control related decisions. One of their experiments measured potato chip consumption after all participants were presented with one of two calendar types. In the “narrow frame” group, participants were shown a calendar with clear grid lines surrounding all the days. The current day was clearly marked on the calendar. In the “wide frame”, participants were shown a calendar with no grid marks and no special marking to indicate the current date. Participants in the “narrow frame” consumed more chips than those in the “wide frame” group. Myrseth and Fishbach (2009) contend that the narrowly framed calendar induced participants to think that the current date was separate from the rest of the days that month whereas the widely framed calendar did not visually separate the current date. Though the authors did not use the term choice bracketing to describe this phenomenon, the concept directly connects. BROAD BRACKETING INDUCES UTILITARIAN DECISIONS 7