In the wake of all this public anger over bankers’ salaries, and within weeks of taking office, Barack Obama is proposing “common sense” executive pay guidelines—at least in companies receiving government money. These measures call for executive salaries not to exceed $500,000; any further compensation could only be in the form of stocks, which can’t be sold until the government is paid back. No doubt this makes us feel better to some extent, but the question is, will it work?

I think not, and here’s why: if we were designing the stock market from scratch and offering people $500,000 a year plus stock incentives, I’m sure we would get lots of qualified people who would kill for this job, and not only for the salary but also as an important civil service to maintain the financial system on which we depend. But this is if we started from scratch, which we are most assuredly not. Instead we’re dealing with existing bankers who are accustomed to millions a year plus millions in stock options. These people have made up, over the years, a multitude of reasons why this is the least that they deserve for their efforts and skills (how many people can admit to being paid much more than they’re worth?). This is a problem of relativity. To these bankers, in view of their “normal” pay, it looks like an offensive and irresponsible offer. My guess is that they will not accept these conditions, or if they do, they’ll find other tricks to pay themselves what they think are “right” and fair wages, which is what they earned heretofore.

What would I have done if I’d been the financial czar in this situation? I would try to turn over a new leaf; incentivize the creation of new banks with a new pay structure; promote the idea that bankers are not greedy bastards but have a crucial social responsibility so that a whole new generation would take this approach and want these positions. The “old bankers” who feel they needed millions of dollars to do their jobs well could try and compete in this new market, but we’d see who actually wanted to bank with them when the alternative is a new bank with more idealistic underpinnings and a better, more realistic, and more transparent, salary structure.

Today I am working on an expanded version of my book — I am going to include some ideas about the stock market and some other random ideas

Given Valentine’s Day and the state of the market, let’s consider which approach to finding love is better: 1) the free market system where everyone can find their own date and figure out who and what is best for themselves; or 2) a regulated market where your parents, family, or perhaps some kind of matchmaker have a say. This may be an impractical question these days (how many people let their mothers set them up?), but this is still a complex problem that’s been discussed for millennia, without any apparent solution. But here’s a boon for anyone who is starting to lose hope of finding love: a study that shows the importance of commitment to happiness.

The world of dating has grown increasingly complex, we have online dating, speed dating, casual dating, traditional dating (I think it’s still around anyway), and so on. The problem is, that with so many options, commitment to a relationship becomes difficult—you never know if there’s someone more perfect for you just around the corner. In a world where switching partners is difficult, people are likely to hang on and attempt to work things out. But in a world where it’s easy, or seems easy, to switch partners, people are likely to give up when things first go wrong. And yet, the ever-present temptation that there is someone out there who is better can be incredibly devastating to our personal happiness.

So we have to wonder then, how important is commitment? Dan Gilbert and Jane Ebert conducted a study with this question in mind using photography. In their experiment, they gave students a short course in taking black and white photos and taught them how to develop their pictures in the darkroom. Half the people were told that they could pick one of their pictures to be professionally enlarged and developed, which they could then keep. The other half were told to pick two pictures to keep, and that they could change their minds until the minute that the film was sent off. These people had a continual temptation to change their choices, so they had time to consider and reconsider which of their prints were the best.
Later, each participant was asked to rate their level of happiness with their prints. Guess who was happier, those who chose a photo and stuck with it, or those who had flexibility and time to make the perfect selection? As it turned out, the people who could alter their choices were much less happy than the first group. The principle behind this is that when we have to deal with a certain reality, we get used to it and often come to prefer it. But if we think we can change it, we don’t force ourselves to cope, so inevitable imperfections—whether in people or in pictures—can drive us to distraction. And the same thing happens with marriage. If we think of marriage as an open market and always have half an eye on other options, we’ll be less likely to be happy.

We just got result from a new study — it seems that people who wear counterfeit products end up cheating more when they have the chance.

There’s a phrase we hear all the time, and one that suggests something about our psychological makeup: we’re not just concerned with actions, but with their attendant mens rea – or lack thereof – as well. If it wasn’t intentional, then it’s not as painful.

And, as it turns out, that is quite literally true: Harvard researchers Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner recently found that we experience greater pain when we perceive it to be deliberately inflicted, rather than by accident.

In their clever experiment, they had volunteers perform a variety of tasks, including an assessment of discomfort. This involved receiving electric shocks and then rating them on a 1 to 7 scale. When participants thought their “study partner” (who was actually a research accomplice) had selected the task for them to complete, they rated their perceived pain as higher (Mean ratings = 3.62) than when they were told the selection was computer-generated the pain was lower (Mean ratings = 3.00).

What’s more, deliberate pain was not just more acute, it also lasted longer: whereas participants rated the unintentional shocks less and less unpleasant as the experiment progressed, the intentional shocks remained just as painful.

So next time you are at the doctor try to think that he or she really cares about you.

HBR just came out with their Breakthrough Ideas for 2009.

One of my projects was selected to this list in 2008, and another was selected this year.

Here is the writeup of the project ….

Labor is not just a meaningful experience – it’s also a marketable one. When instant cake mixes were introduced, in the 1950s, housewives were initially resistant: The mixes were too easy, suggesting that their labor was undervalued. When manufacturers changed the recipe to require the addition of an egg, adoption rose dramatically. Ironically, increasing the labor involved – making the task more arduous – led to greater liking.

Our research shows that labor enhances affection for its results. When people construct products themselves, from bookshelves to Build-a-Bears, they come to overvalue their (often poorly made) creations. We call this phenomenon the IKEA effect, in honor of the wildly successful Swedish manufacturer whose products typically arrive with some assembly required.

In one of our studies, we asked people to fold origami and then to bid on their own creations along with other people’s. They were consistently willing to pay more for their own origami. In fact, they were so enamored with their amateurish creations that they valued them as highly as origami made by experts.

We also investigated the limits of the IKEA effect, showing that labor leads to higher valuation only when the labor is fruitful: When participants failed to complete an effortful task, the IKEA effect dissipated. Our research suggests that consumers may be willing to pay a premium for do-it-yourself projects, but there’s an important caveat: Companies hoping to persuade their customers to assume labor costs – for example, by nudging them toward self-service through internet channels – should be careful to create tasks difficult enough to lead to higher valuation but not so difficult that customers can’t complete them.

Finally, the IKEA effect has broader implications for organizational dynamics: It contributes to the sunk cost effect, whereby managers continue to devote resources to (sometimes failing) projects in which they have invested their labor, and to the not-invented-here syndrome, whereby they discount good ideas developed elsewhere in favor of their (sometimes inferior) internally developed ideas. Managers should keep in mind that the ideas they have come to love, because they invested their own labor in them, may not be as highly valued by their coworkers – or their customers.

Here’s a very interesting piece from the New York Times’ Review of Books: “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.”

The basic story is that whereas only a few decades ago physicians generally lacked any lucrative ties to pharmaceutical companies, these days such conflicts of interest permeate the field, and debase it.

Take the example of Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, the psychiatry department chair at Emory University. He received a NIMH grant to study drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline AND at the same time he also got $500,000 in fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Talk about a conflict of interest!

That’s not the only egregious case – there are many.  As it turns out a recent survey found that about two thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution… And here is another one:  Of the 170 contributors to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies.  The top dogs aside, many physicians accept hefty salaries to consult for drug companies, and most accept pharmaceutical gifts like pens and free lunches.

So the medical profession is teeming with conflicts of interest – but it doesn’t stop there. Look at politics, wall street, consulting — it is everywhere and I worry that unless we  understand just how big this problem is,  we are not going to deal with it.

This American Life had a show a few months ago that I just discovered.  In my mind this is the best description of the financial fiasco I’ve heard.  it is worth listening to.
You can also download the transcript as a PDF.
It is just amazing to see what we end up doing to ourselves.

Irrationally yours

Dan

A few days ago there was lots of happiness and excitement in the street and you must have wondered what was the source of this excitement.

Well, it was the publication of Peter Ubel‘s new book on behavioral economics — Free Market Madness

To celebrate, here is a web interview with Peter and you are all welcome to join in on the conversation.

Dan: You are a physician writing a book about politics and behavioral economics.  Not to get all Blagojevichy on you, but what the f%^# qualifies you to write about this topic?

Peter: I am a big fan of yours too!

Dan: But seriously.

Peter: I conduct research on the irrational forces that influence people’s medical decisions.  In addition, I take care of patients in clinic every week whose health problems arise, in large part, from their own decisions and behaviors — people with diabetes who cannot lose weight despite their best efforts, smokers who can’t kick the habit despite covering their body with nicotine patches.

Dan: What does that have to do with politics?

Peter: It means that when we leave people to fend for themselves in the free market, we can predict that they will hurt themselves by making bad decisions.  Starting from this perspective I try to expose the unconscious forces that influence our behaviors.  And then I try to show people what that means for the kind of debates we have about whether unfettered free markets deserve some, um, fettering.

Dan: All this looks a bit too general to me.  Can you give me an example of one disease, one mistake that patients make, and one policy recommendation?

Peter:  Diabetes.  We have an epidemic of adult onset diabetes in developed countries now, because people are gaining so much weight.  And the obesity that causes diabetes is a direct result of the market:  capitalism has spurred on innovation in food production, so that people now can eat tasty, calorie dense food without having to spend much time preparing or cleaning up the food (open the bag of chips, insert in mouth, yum . . .).   

What’s the mistake here?  Well, people’s appetites are influenced by unconscious forces. Change the size of my dinner plate and I’ll eat 24% more calories; tell me the food is made of “healthy fat,” and I’ll tell you it doesn’t taste good (even though, as experiments have shown the same cracker will “taste great” if I convince you it is made out of unhealthy fat.)  How much food we eat, then, and how that food tastes is far less rational than most of us believe.

Dan:  So, does this mean that the fault is with capitalism and innovation in food production?  And if this is the case what policies would you try to implement to overcome this problem?

Peter:  We need to experiment on a whole slew of policies to combat obesity: New York is requiring restaurants to post calories on their menus, a good start, but one that is likely susceptible to biases.  For example, if I was trying to sell Big Macs now, I’d add a new line of “Bigger Macs”–add a couple slices of bacon, 3 more kinds of cheese.  I’d proudly label this new burger’s calories: 50% more than the original Big Mac.  And I’d expect two things to happen:  first, some people would be drawn to this meal — risk takers, contrarians, Homer Simpson wannabees and so on; second, most people would not want this new burger, but they’d look at the Big Mac and think, “Wow, that burger is pretty darn healthy!”

I’d like to see someone try to label unhealthy food with emotive pictures, signaling that people should consider trying out another entrée.  Maybe a profile of people in varying stages of obesity?  

Ok, maybe some other symbol.

Dan: Your book is actually not much about medicine and medical related mistakes and it is largely about individuals and markets.  It seems that you believe that markets are efficient in the way that they operate, but that the outcome they arrive at is not optimal.  Can you explain this?

Peter:  Hmm, efficient wouldn’t be on my short list of words to describe markets.  Efficient sounds so uncontroversially good.  

I am a fan of capitalism. Very happy I grew up in the USA rather than the USSR.  But that doesn’t make capitalism, or free markets, perfect.  Look at all the people who bought mortgages they shouldn’t have bought, or SUVs that they mistakenly thought were safer than other cars.  (SUVs are more dangerous than minivans and even sedans, because they have a nasty habit of rolling over–very inconsiderate of them!)

Our brain can tell us that a long commute isn’t a big deal, or an adjustable rate mortgage isn’t a big risk, and the market efficiently provides us with suburban homes and fancy mortgage packages.  That doesn’t mean we picked the right home at the right price.

Confession: I live in the suburbs (barely), drive a sedan (because I don’t feel manly enough for an SUV), based the last decade of my savings and spending behavior on the assumption that my stock holdings (retirement accounts in mutual funds) would grow at 10% a year, and that my house’s value would grow faster than inflation.

At age 46, I have lots of time to rejigger my retirement plans.  But my fingers are crossed that my kids don’t get into college!!

Dan: So now that we know we should not take any advice from you, what are you hoping is the main thing that readers will learn from your book?

Peter:  This may be too personal but if they can go home at Christmas armed with good arguments to take on their insanely libertarian older brother, who really does think the market can solve all the world’s problems (“we need more free market in medicine, schools . . .”), then I will be happy.  

So — here is the summary of 2008 honors for Predictably Irrational

1) “New York Times Best Seller” for Non-fiction

2) Amazon Best Books of 2008, Customers’ Bestsellers: #23

3) Amazon Best Books of 2008, Customers’ Bestsellers in business category: #1

4) Hudson books — #1 book in business category

5) Business Week: The Best Business Books of 2008

6) 100 Notable Books of 2008 (NYT)

7) BNET’s Best Business Books of 2008

8) One of the top 8 Books of 2008 for Church Leaders!

9) Barnes And Noble: Best books of 2008 on Our Modern World

10) Seed Magazine, Book picks for 2008

— not a bad list….

Best

Dan