Archive for the ‘Social Norms’ Category

The Blond Not-So-Bond, or Why Women Laugh When I Call Myself “Dangerous and Edgy”

Bob Nease, PhD — Chief Scientist; Express Scripts — is a leader in the convergence of behavioral economics and healthcare; at Express Scripts, he is responsible for advancing the understanding of consumer behavior. To this end, he closely follows emerging science around human behavior and decision making, then works to develop tools and communications that help plan sponsors enable better health and value.

I recently had the chance to speak briefly to our account management team, the hundreds of people who work daily to support the needs of our clients.  They provide excellent consultation, solve problems, and are our heroes in the trenches who help the folks back at HQ understand the evolving, unspoken needs of the market.

Many of the faces were new to me (and only in part due to my spotty memory); gobs of talented people joined Express Scripts from NextRx over the past couple of months.  Clambering onto the stage in my black slacks, blue shirt, sweater vest, and tweed jacket, I introduced myself: “I’m Bob Nease, Chief Scientist at Express Scripts.  Based on what I’m wearing, I know that’s hard to believe; most people mistake me for a professional athlete or a secret agent.”

I was simultaneously pleased and hurt at the reaction: lots of laughter.  (And I know what you’re thinking… when was the last time I heard the phrase “secret agent”?) Over the next couple of days, I got lots of ribbing: “Hey, don’t you play for the Cardinals?” or “Hey, Bob… James Bob!”  Cute.

Which man would you trust more?  (In case you’re confused, I’m the one on the right.)

A recent study suggests that it might be my narrow face rather than the tweed jacket that’s to blame.  In a series of experiments, researchers at the University of St. Andrews found that men with broad faces were less trustworthy in economic exchanges, and that women tended to judge them as both less attractive and less trustworthy.  They summarize their findings (so I don’t have to):

Experiment 1 showed that the ratio of facial (bizygomatic) width to height predicts male reciprocation behavior in trust games such that wider faced males are more likely to exploit trust than are slimmer faced males. In Experiment 2, participants were less likely to trust male counterparts with wide rather than slim faces (independent of their attractiveness). Moreover, in Experiment 3, manipulating face width with computer graphics controlled attributions of trustworthiness, particularly for subordinate female evaluators. These results clearly demonstrate that facial width-to-height ratio is used as a valid cue to trustworthiness.

In other words, nice guys may not always get the girl, but neither do the Neanderthals.  And take that, Daniel Craig!  (But don’t beat me up.)

The Authority of Oscar

As an editor for the Corporate Database team, Eric Ferguson is responsible for writing and editing strategic language for Express Scripts' Sales & Marketing department.

In case you were too busy reading actual news to notice, the Oscar nominations came out this week. I’m embarrassed to admit that of the 10 Best Picture nominees, I’ve seen just one — and it was a cartoon.

Maybe I’ll have to check out some of the others. I certainly wouldn’t be the only person watching a movie based purely on Oscar’s seal of approval. Research by Randy Nelson, professor of economics and finance at Colby College, found that a best picture nomination can significantly boost a film’s ticket sales. As Nelson tells it:

[W]e compared box office data for every film nominated for Best Picture, Actor/Actress and Supporting Actor/ Actress from 1978 to 1987 with data for 131 “non-nominated” movies released in the same weeks as the lauded films. … Our results indicate that on average a nomination for Supporting Actor or Actress is worth $147,131; a nomination for Lead Actor or Actress, $476,617; and for Best Picture, $4,799,118.

If you ask me (and why wouldn’t you?), what we have here is a case of social norming — specifically, moviegoers responding to messages from the authority figures at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. After all, who knows movies better than the Hollywood elite?

There might also be a little “keeping up with the Joneses” thrown in. Would you rather say you’ve seen four or five of the Best Picture nominees or just one (or none)? Only a philistine would take pride in such cultural ignorance.

That’s why I’m slapping on some blue face paint and going to Avatar.

NATO, Facebook, and Social Persuasion

Julie Adelsberger — Senior Manager; Express Scripts — As senior manager of knowledge management, Julie Adelsberger is responsible for translating scientific research into accessible communications for plan sponsors and other healthcare stakeholders.

I logged onto Facebook last night to find that Bob had posted the following as his status update:

India foxtrot yankee oscar uniform charlie alpha november uniform november delta echo romeo sierra tango alpha november delta tango hotel india sierra charlie oscar papa yankee alpha november delta papa alpha sierra tango echo tango oscar yankee oscar uniform romeo sierra tango alpha tango uniform sierra

For the uninitiated, that’s the NATO phonetic alphabet, used to ensure letters and numbers can be understood over radio and phone connections. The first letter of each word represents the letter of the alphabet. Once decoded, the above says: “If you can understand this, copy and paste to your status.”

A few moments later, my boyfriend logged in, saw Bob’s Facebook status, and did just that. Then my brother followed suit. I don’t know how many of their friends jumped on board, but comments on their statuses filled up with NATO alphabet speak in minutes — all written by folks more familiar with, IDK, texting.

That’s the power of social persuasion: A couple folks make it cool to get your geek on (or drive SUVs, or get spray-on tans), and suddenly everybody’s doing it.

Haitian Disaster + Behavioral Sciences = Lollapalooza Sized Relief

Bob Nease, PhD — Chief Scientist; Express Scripts — is a leader in the convergence of behavioral economics and healthcare; at Express Scripts, he is responsible for advancing the understanding of consumer behavior. To this end, he closely follows emerging science around human behavior and decision making, then works to develop tools and communications that help plan sponsors enable better health and value.

As noted at LiveScience, the ability to contribute to Haitian relief via text messaging is blowing the doors off previous donations:

Text-message donations, also called SMS donations, are becoming increasing[ly] popular with charities because of their convenience for donors and the ability to spread the word quickly via social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

This is a nifty way to skirt procrastination (make it super-easy to donate) while leveraging social norms (friends donating publicly and nudging you to do the same push the donation into the future), and loss aversion (bundle the donation into the existing mobile phone bill).

Charles Munger (close associate of Warren Buffet and behavioral economics afficionado) referred to the coupling of psychological principles the “lollapalooza” effect, and if you look at the results it’s easy to see why: The White House reports that as of today, the third day into the Haitian disaster, Americans have raised more than $8 million for the Red Cross through text message donations of $10 each.

Groupon Dynamics

Julie Adelsberger — Senior Manager; Express Scripts — As senior manager of knowledge management, Julie Adelsberger is responsible for translating scientific research into accessible communications for plan sponsors and other healthcare stakeholders.

Groupon.com is a website that uses the power of social norms to encourage people to buy, and buy now.  Like some other retail sites, Groupon offers a daily deal.  Here’s the twist: The deal is good only if a minimum number of people sign up to buy the item.  If the minimum isn’t reached, the deal is canceled and those who signed up for the item aren’t charged.

So if you like the deal and sign up, there’s a good chance you’ll forward it on to friends, family, colleagues — maybe even near-strangers — to help meet the minimum.  There’s also a little loss aversion working here.  After you’ve clicked “buy,” you’ve mentally made that item yours, so you’re likely to put some effort into making sure the deal doesn’t fall through.

And if you’ve loved a deal and lost, could it make you more likely to buy future Groupon items you’re on the fence about, just to help a brother (or sister) out?

Holiday Thoughts on Getting Fat

Bob Nease, PhD — Chief Scientist; Express Scripts — is a leader in the convergence of behavioral economics and healthcare; at Express Scripts, he is responsible for advancing the understanding of consumer behavior. To this end, he closely follows emerging science around human behavior and decision making, then works to develop tools and communications that help plan sponsors enable better health and value.

I know it’s rude to bring this up during the holidays, but it’s not that dress or those pants that make our collective rumps look big.  We all know we’ve gotten fatter, and it’s happened remarkably fast.

Although many reasons have been offered, the epidemic of obesity remains a bit of a puzzle.  As Cutler and colleagues note in their excellent analysis of why we’ve gotten so chunky, our collective weight gain is consistent with an average daily increase of 150 calories.  Such a dinky number could be the result of any number of causes, which is part of the reason we’re still a bit in the dark about what’s up with our fat.

Cutler et al rule out a number of factors as likely causes of the obesity surge:

  • The cost of calories has dropped. True enough; food inflation has lagged behind non-food inflation.  However, obesity is negatively associated with income (especially for women), and has increased significantly among the poorer groups despite a relatively flat income.
  • Fast food. Studies in this area go both ways; for example, a 2003 Yale study concluded that kids who visit fast food restaurants eat about 187 more calories daily.  This sounds bad, but we have to remember that it’s extremely likely that families that eat more are overrepresented among fast food clientele.  In other words, it’s possible that fat people cause fast food. Other clever studies have failed to find an association between access to fast food restaurants and obesity, and the most recent thorough review of the literature concluded that the question remains open.  Cutler et al use food diaries to show that increases in consumption of fast food are pretty much offset by decreases in calories of food prepared elsewhere.  Tellingly, those diary studies show whopping increases in snacking, however.
  • Inactivity. Kids these days, right?  Cutler and team looked at activity diaries and poo poo this one as well.  Although overall energy expenditure (calories burned) dropped between 1965 and 1975, it’s been pretty much flat since then.  We do watch more TV (and surf the web), but we also sleep less and engage in more sports and walking.  (By the way, this doesn’t let you off the hook for exercise — it just means that a sedentary lifestyle may not be the main cause of obesity in the US.)

So if it’s not access to cheaper, faster food by sedentary, lazy people, what’s making us fat?  Here are some possibilities:

  • Meal preparation is easier than ever. This is Cutler’s main argument; as the cost associated with food preparation drops, the number of meals (i.e., snacks) increases and the type of meal shifts.  (I wrote about this earlier this year.)  Microwave ovens make it easier to eat popcorn (or worse), so we do.  Frozen tater tots are a snap as a side dish with that meat loaf but not worth the effort if you have to make them from scratch.  If you think this is hooey, consider this: nature’s ready-made snacks are fruits and veggies.  Better food preparation technologies have made it just as easy to open a bag of chips as to peel a banana.
  • Fat is the new black. Okay, that’s an overstatement.  But as the prevalence overweight and obesity increases, the chance your weight makes you the outlier in your social group drops.  In other words, the social cost of being heavy has decreased over time.  Christakis and Fowler’s network analysis of the Framingham data suggest that having an obese friend is a bigger risk factor for obesity than having an obese wife or sibling.  This is exactly the kind of effect that could explain changes in rates of overweight and obesity that look like an epidemic: you “catch” it from your friends.
  • An unhealthy lifestyle is cheaper than ever. The widespread use of medications to treat hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, and heartburn have fundamentally changed how we manage these conditions.  And the ability of these medications to prevent heart attacks, stroke, kidney failure, and other serious problems is a godsend.  But these medications also make it possible to achieve better health outcomes without relying on better diet and more exercise.  It’s quite possible that we’ve unintentionally made unhealthy lifestyles less of a problem, and that weight gain is a side effect.

So what can we do?  The basic in-out equation still holds: if you want to lose weight, you need to decrease calories in and/or increase calories out (i.e., activity).  So watch what you eat and exercise more (check with your doctor about what’s right for you).

Beyond that, consider the following:

  • Cook more meals from scratch. I know this takes time and effort… that’s the point.  Increase the cost (i.e., time and effort) of the meals you eat, and you will eat fewer meals.
  • Load up on nature’s snacks. You’re wired to minimize upfront costs.  Don’t fight it; make sure you have fresh fruits and ready-to-eat veggies on hand.  Make them easier to get to than prepared snacks such as chips and cookies.  (And consider stapling those bags of chips and cookies shut - anything you can do to create a hesitation factor is to your advantage.)
  • Get rid of your microwave oven. I know, you only use it to heat water for your organic chai tea and to defrost your frozen edamame.  But do you remember how awesome you looked in the late 70s?  Back then, only 8% of American households had microwaves; in 1999 that number had risen to 83%.  Obesity is far less common in Italy than in the US and the UK; less than 14% of Italian households have microwave ovens, but 66% of British households do.
  • Hang out with people who look the way you want to look… especially if it’s awkward. Do what you can to increase the social costs of being overweight.  Be careful not to overdo this; your happiness and sense of belonging are worth a lot.  But consider getting a bit outside your comfort zone.  (By the way, all of my social interactions are awkward, so I shouldn’t have a problem here.)
  • Use your medications as one of several tools, not a shortcut. ALWAYS take your medications as prescribed by your physician: better to be a bit chunky and avoid the heart attack than to be thin and dead.  But take seriously your role in managing any health conditions you might have using all the tools at your disposal: better diet, more exercise, less booze, better sleep habits.  Ask your doctor about whether and how healthier behaviors can work to your advantage.  I bet you find you’ll drop some weight in the process.
  • Do whatever it takes to make exercise as fun as possible. Buy a Wii Fit.  Get rid of the TVs in your house except for the one in front of your treadmill.  Watch mindless drivel but only when you’re working out.  Find a guilty (but calorie-free) pleasure and figure out how to embed it into your workout.  Not a treat you give yourself afterward; something you can include as part of the workout.
  • Lower your exercise goals. Actually walking one mile four times a week is much better than planning on walking three miles every day.  Lower the bar: you’ll find you’re more likely to get going, and once you’re going you can always do a little more.
  • Admit that this will take time. You’ll feel all the costs of your discipline upfront and the benefits will come a lot more slowly.  There’s no way around this.  We’re wired for an environment of scarce calories and an uncertain future, which means we tend to eat as though there’s no tomorrow.  You’ll try, you’ll succeed, but you’ll also fail.  Keep at it, and I swear you’ll lose some weight.

Happy holidays.  And here’s to a wonderful 2010 for you and your loved ones!

If All Your Friends Ran a Marathon, Would You?

As an editor for the Corporate Database team, Eric Ferguson is responsible for writing and editing strategic language for Express Scripts' Sales & Marketing department.

I had a Chipotle burrito for lunch yesterday. That’s only half-true: I had two. If you haven’t had one before, just imagine a burrito with a gravitational pull roughly equivalent to that of Jupiter. The burritos were delicious, but they were filling.

Complicating matters was the fact that I had planned to run at work in the afternoon*. As we know, it’s easy to say “I’ll work out today” at 7 a.m., but it’s a different story when 3 p.m. rolls around … especially when you’ve pulled off the “Chipotle double play.”

Defeated and ashamed, I called off the day’s run.

Then a funny thing happened: A coworker said that she was heading down to the cardio room to work out, plunging me into a perfect confluence of competitiveness, gender politics, and good old-fashioned guilt. How could I back out of exercise in the face of such strong social proof?

I muscled up and hit the cardio room. They weren’t the best three miles I’ve ever run, but I ran them.

Sometimes your own motivation and good intentions aren’t enough to actually get you on the treadmill. A little peer pressure, intentional or otherwise, isn’t always a bad thing.

* It’s my theory that exercising on company time is more enjoyable than working out during your free time … it feels like you’re just goofing off rather than suffering through a workout. More research is needed.

Eye Heart Soap

Bob Nease, PhD — Chief Scientist; Express Scripts — is a leader in the convergence of behavioral economics and healthcare; at Express Scripts, he is responsible for advancing the understanding of consumer behavior. To this end, he closely follows emerging science around human behavior and decision making, then works to develop tools and communications that help plan sponsors enable better health and value.

One of the single most effective methods for reducing nosocomial infections (that’s doctor-talk for an infection obtained accidentally as a result of being treated, usually in a hospital) is for caregivers to regularly wash their hands.  Despite simple tricks to help nurses and physicians to wash amply (sing “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” and scrub until you’re done), adherence to hand washing remains suboptimal.

Enter a group of undergrads involved in UCLA’s Measuring to Achieve Patient Safety (MAPS) program.  As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the students keep an eye on physicians and nurses when it comes to handwashing and other safety maneuvers.  The results are pretty nice: a near doubling in the rate of adherence, from 50% to 93%.

In some sense this shouldn’t be a surprise: We’re social creatures and are sensitive to whether our actions are being observed by others.  But the magnitude of this sensitivity is surprising; the effect is so strong that our actions can be affected by simple reminders of being watched… even if no one is actually watching.

Bateson and colleagues, for example, alternated images of flowers and pairs of eyes on a sign reminding people to contribute money to the office “honor box” whenever they drank tea or coffee.  They found that people paid 2.76 times more when the sign included the pair of eyes:

socialnorm_eyes

Where else can we use this inclination to nudge better behavior?  Here’s looking at us.

The Market Value of Social Norms

Bob Nease, PhD — Chief Scientist; Express Scripts — is a leader in the convergence of behavioral economics and healthcare; at Express Scripts, he is responsible for advancing the understanding of consumer behavior. To this end, he closely follows emerging science around human behavior and decision making, then works to develop tools and communications that help plan sponsors enable better health and value.

Tim Harford takes us on a tour of trust, which turns out to be one of the most valuable side effects of social norms. Some economists believe that trust – defined broadly – fully explains the difference between per capita income across countries. The implication is that 99.5% of our economic output is due to trust, with the remaining 0.5% due to hard work. (I don’t know where alimony fits into that equation.)

Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth.

Center for Cost-Effective Consumerism board member David Laibson makes an appearance as well, describing a laboratory experiment in which trust increases based on some simple social cues (e.g., having a partner).

Who Wants Popcorn?

As an editor for the Corporate Database team, Eric Ferguson is responsible for writing and editing strategic language for Express Scripts' Sales & Marketing department.

As the beef jerky wrappers in my car would indicate, I’m not a man with particularly high standards when it comes to food. Still, when my absolutely adorable nephews hit me up for their fundraiser, I couldn’t help but be disappointed that they were hocking assorted flavors of popcorn.

Of course, I couldn’t say no. Whichever evil entity lurks behind this fundraising racket (I suspect it’s the same organization that invented the Snuggie), it seems to have taken its cues from those cookie-pushing masters of behavioral economics known as the Girl Scouts.

Consider the order form: You can’t ignore the donations of others when they’re presented to you in a handy little spreadsheet. Imagine if such a system existed at Target or Best Buy – would you be more likely to spend $50 if you knew that the previous five customers had topped that amount? I know I would.

I couldn’t even use the old “I left my wallet in my other pants” routine – I could simply pay when they delivered the popcorn. With payment still way off in the future, the natural decision was to pledge a donation to the cause.

Which cause exactly? You know, I couldn’t tell you. When a couple kids ask you for a donation, you give one. As Robert Cialdini writes in Influence, “we most prefer to say yes to the requests of people we know and like,” which means that I will continue to fall prey to my nephews’ requests … at least until they hit that obnoxious teenager phase. 

In the meantime, I’ll keep ordering stuff I don’t want to support causes that may or may not deserve my money. Either that, or I’ll figure out how to say “no.”

Yeah, like that will ever happen …