Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:50:33.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Insights From Behavioral Economics to Strengthen Disaster Preparedness and Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

Sebastian Linnemayr Open the ORCID record for Sebastian Linnemayr [Opens in a new window] ,
Claire O’Hanlon Open the ORCID record for Claire O’Hanlon [Opens in a new window] ,
Lori Uscher-Pines ,
Kristin Van Abel  and
Christopher Nelson
Sebastian Linnemayr
Affiliation:
RAND CorporationSanta Monica, California
Claire O’Hanlon
Affiliation:
RAND CorporationSanta Monica, California Pardee RAND Graduate SchoolSanta Monica, California.
Lori Uscher-Pines
Affiliation:
RAND CorporationSanta Monica, California
Kristin Van Abel
Affiliation:
RAND CorporationSanta Monica, California
Christopher Nelson*
Affiliation:
RAND CorporationSanta Monica, California
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Chris Nelson, PhD, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90407 (e-mail: cnelson@rand.org).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Behavioral economics is based on the idea that individuals’ decisions are affected by systematic and predictable cognitive biases and that these same biases can be leveraged to change behavior and improve decision-making. Insights from behavioral economics have been used to encourage a range of desired behaviors but have rarely been used in disaster preparedness and response, though traditional efforts by public health practitioners have failed to increase adoption of key preparedness behaviors. In this work, we aim to show how some of the key concepts in the behavioral economics literature are applicable to behaviors related to disaster preparedness and response, and we present ideas for behavioral economics-based interventions that we vetted with public health officials. Two of the best-received interventions were applications of social norms approaches, which leverage social influence bias, and commitment devices, which leverage present bias and loss aversion. Although the current evidence base for the applications of concepts from behavioral economics in disaster preparedness and response is weak, behavioral economics has achieved positive results in similar decision-making contexts. The low cost and potentially high impact of behavioral economics-based interventions warrant further investigation and testing. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;page 1 of 7)

Keywords

behavioral economicsdisastersdisaster planningemergencies
Type
Concepts in Disaster Medicine
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 10 , Issue 5 , October 2016 , pp. 768 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Uscher-Pines, L, Chandra, A, Acosta, J, Kellermann, A. Citizen preparedness for disasters: are current assumptions valid? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2012;6(2):170-173.Google Scholar
2. Thaler, R, Sunstein, C. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
3. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: MacMillan; 2011.Google Scholar
4. Kahneman, D, Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979:263-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Toward a 21st Century Health System: the Contributions and Promise of Prepaid Group Practice. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2004.Google Scholar
6. Mullainathan, S, Thaler, RH. Behavioral Economics. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2000.Google Scholar
7. Green, L, Fristoe, N, Myerson, J. Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychon B Rev. 1994;1(3):383-389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Samson, A. The Behavioral Economics Guide 2014 (With a Foreword by George Loewenstein And Rory Sutherland). http://www.behavioraleconomics.com. 2014.Google Scholar
9. Dolan, P, Hallsworth, M, Halpern, D, King, D, Vlaev, I. Mindplace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy. http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf.Google Scholar
10. Bonner, C, Newell, BR. How to make a risk seem riskier: the ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgm Decis Mak. 2008;3(5):411-416.Google Scholar
11. Tversky, A, Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453-458.Google Scholar
12. Mileti, DS, Bandy, R, Bourque, LB, et al. Annotated bibliography for public risk communication on warnings for public protective actions response and public education (revision 4). Natural Hazards Centre, University of Colorado at Boulder. 2006.Google Scholar
13. Goldstein, NJ, Cialdini, RB, Griskevicius, L. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Cons Res. 2008;35(3):472-482.Google Scholar
14. Gerber, AS, Rogers, T. Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: everybody’s voting and so should you. J Polit. 2009;71(1):178-191.Google Scholar
15. Berkowitz, AD. An overview of the social norms approach. In: Lederman LCS, Lea P, eds. Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Health Communication Campaign. New York: Hampton Press; 2005:193-214.Google Scholar
16. Meeker, D, Knight, TK, Friedberg, MW, et al. Nudging guideline-concordant antibiotic prescribing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):425-431.Google Scholar
17. Schultz, PW, Nolan, JM, Cialdini, RB, Goldstein, NJ, Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci. 2007;18(5):429-434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Bryan, G, Karlan, D, Nelson, S. Commitment devices. Annu Rev Econ. 2010;2(1):671-698.Google Scholar
19. Giné, X, Karlan, D, Zinman, J. Put your money where your butt is: a commitment contract for smoking cessation. Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2010;2(4):213-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Milkman, KL, Beshears, J, Choi, JJ, Laibson, D, Madrian, BC. Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(26):10415-10420.Google Scholar
21. Stickk. 2015. http://www.stickk.com/. Accessed August 21, 2015.Google Scholar
22. Rothman, AJ, Salovey, P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Fischhoff, B, Brewer, N, Downs, J (eds.). Communicating Risks and Benefits: an Evidence Based User’s Guide. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Department of Health and Human Services, August 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM268069.pdf.Google Scholar
24. Sheppard, B, Janoske, M, Liu, B. Understanding Risk Communication Theory: a Guide for Emergency Managers and Communicators. START, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland; 2012.Google Scholar
25. Wood, MM, Mileti, DS, Kano, M, Kelley, MM, Regan, R, Bourque, LB. Communicating actionable risk for terrorism and other hazards. Risk Anal. 2012;32(4):601-615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Johnson, E, Goldstein, D. Do defaults save lives? Science. 2003;302(5649):1338-1339.Google Scholar
27. Dale, A, Strauss, A. Don’t forget to vote: text message reminders as a mobilization tool. Am J Polit Sci. 2009;53(4):787-804.Google Scholar
28. Nickerson, DW, Rogers, T. Do you have a voting plan? Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(2):194-199.Google Scholar
29. Loewenstein, G, Asch, DA, Volpp, KG. Behavioral economics holds potential to deliver better results for patients, insurers, and employers. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(7):1244-1250.Google Scholar
30. Jachimowicz, JM, McNerney, S. Should governments nudge us to make good choices? Scientific American. Vol 26: Nature America; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar