econlife - What a Behavioral Economist Says About Exercise by Elaine Schwartz

From the Wall Street Journal:

A behavioral economist knows about incentivizing exercise. But we need to start with my dishes.

Incentivizing Exercise

For several years, I’ve listened to “page-turner” mysteries when I do the dinner dishes. In fact, the 14 novels in the Maisie Dobbs series were so good that I actually looked for extra dirty plates. Somewhat similarly, one reason I walk four miles each day is a late night (big) scoop of high-fat super premium coffee ice cream.

Temptation Bundling

Combining dishes with novels and walking with ice cream, I’ve been temptation bundling. Done alone, each activity has less utility (satisfaction or pleasure). I won’t enjoy the dishes and I feel guilty spending an hour or two with Maisie Dobbs.

You can see that an enjoyable activity initially has a bump in utility but then creates a long term cost:

For a beneficial activity, quite the opposite happens. First we have the pain, and then the benefits:

Together though, the cost and benefit change. Because I experience less guilt, the long-term cost curve is no longer as low on the utility axis. Correspondingly, the “pain of execution” diminishes. For both, there is less cost and more benefit.

But, does it really work?

The Experiment

To see if temptation bundling had academic resilience, researchers divided 151 people who wanted to exercise into two groups. One group received iPods loaded with tempting page-turner novels that could be accessed only at the gym. The second group didn’t have the book incentive.

The results confirmed most of what we would expect. Group 1’s workouts exceeded the control group by 27%. So yes, temptation bundling did increase the frequency of the undesirable activity—the “should.” However, we should note that it didn’t kickstart a permanent workout regimen. After a temporary Thanksgiving break, neither group displayed “staying power.”

Our Bottom Line: Complementarities

As economists, we could say that we have been looking at demand complementarities. When the price of peanut butter decreases, our demand for jelly goes up. If I purchase a home, I will need new furniture. Similarly, temptation bundling creates demand complementarities between wants and shoulds. Each can incentivize more demand for the other.

So, returning to where we began, the answer to the WSJ question is to temptation bundle. Just figure out what guilty pleasure you want to combine with more exercise.

My sources and more: In The Washington Post, Penn Professor Katherine Milkman takes us to several commitment devices. Much drier, the academic formula for health interventions is described in this paper. Then, for a fast read, here is a brief summary of a flossing study. However, the best source that combined the academics and some fun was this Freakonomics podcast.

Please note that we’ve previously published sections of today’s post and our featured image is from Pixabay.

Ideal for the classroom, econlife.com reflects Elaine Schwartz’s work as a teacher and a writer. As a teacher at the Kent Place School in Summit, NJ, she’s been an Endowed Chair in Economics and chaired the history department. She’s developed curricula, was a featured teacher in the Annenberg/CPB video project “The Economics Classroom,” and has written several books including Econ 101 ½ (Avon Books/Harper Collins). You can get econlife on a daily basis! Head to econlife.

econlife - The Two Best Ways to Keep Your New Year’s Resolutions by Elaine Schwartz

For several years, I’ve listened to “page-turner” best-sellers when I do the dinner dishes. As Tom Hanks read Ann Patchett’s The Dutch House, I actually looked for extra plates to wash. Somewhat similarly, I get myself to lift weights regularly by leaving 6- and 10-pounders on my closet shelf.

The page-turners and the closet shelf are commitment devices. Called temptation bundling and piggybacking by behavioral economists, they can help us keep our New Year’s resolutions.

New Year’s Resolutions

Temptation Bundling

With temptation bundling, we combine our “wants” and “shoulds.” Temptation bundling limits the time used for your indulgent wants while encouraging a distasteful activity that will be good for you. You wind up with less of the “wants” and more of the “shoulds.” Done alone, each activity has less utility. Done together they create a value boost.

The Experiment


To see if temptation bundling had academic resilience, researchers divided 151 people who wanted to exercise into two groups. One group received iPods loaded with tempting page-turner novels that could be accessed only at the gym. The second group didn’t have the book incentive.

The results confirmed most of what we would expect. Group 1’s workouts exceeded the control group by 27%. So yes, temptation bundling did increase the frequency of the undesirable activity—the “should.” However, we should note that it didn’t kickstart a permanent workout regiment. After a temporary Thanksgiving break, neither group displayed “staying power.”

Piggybacking

With piggybacking, we “attach” a new task to one that we habitually do. The result is a cue. After accomplishing what we usually do, we have something that is supposed to come next.

The Experiment


In one study, researchers looked at flossing. Wondering what could get us to floss our teeth regularly, they used when as the key variable. The experiment had two groups of flossers. One was supposed to floss before brushing their teeth and the other, after. The power of the piggyback was confirmed by the experiment. The “after” group not only flossed more during the test period but more of them did it in the 8-month follow-up.

Our Bottom Line: Commitment Devices

Temptation bundling and piggybacking are two of many commitment devices. Defined by behavioral economists, commitment devices are incentives that encourage us to stick with an activity.

Other devises?

The New Yorker called it the Ulysses Strategy. When graduate students opted for a monetary punishment if they did not buy healthy food, the incentive had an impact among those who committed:

In addition, smaller plates at a buffet can make us take smaller portions. Another possibility is placing money into a deposit contract that requires forfeiture if you don’t carry out your end of the bargain. Also, those year-long gym memberships are an example (unless you’re one of those typical individuals who still doesn’t go).

For me, temptation bundling (the dishes) and piggybacking (the weights) so far work. I guess we each can choose the commitment device that perpetuates our New Year’s resolutions.

My sources and more: In The Washington Post, Penn Professor Katherine Milkman takes us to several commitment devices. Much drier, the academic formula for health interventions is described in this paper. Then, for a fast read, here is a brief summary of a flossing study. However, the best sources that combined the academics and some fun were Freakonomics and The New Yorker.

Our featured image is from Gerd Altmann at Pixabay.

This was an updated version from last year. I hope you enjoyed it.

Ideal for the classroom, econlife.com reflects Elaine Schwartz’s work as a teacher and a writer. As a teacher at the Kent Place School in Summit, NJ, she’s been an Endowed Chair in Economics and chaired the history department. She’s developed curricula, was a featured teacher in the Annenberg/CPB video project “The Economics Classroom,” and has written several books including Econ 101 ½ (Avon Books/Harper Collins). You can get econlife on a daily basis! Head to econlife.

econlife - The Easiest Way to Keep a New Year’s Resolution by Elaine Schwartz

Whenever I do the dinner dishes, I listen to a “page-turner” mystery. In fact, listening to the 13 novels in the Maisie Dobbs series, I actually looked for extra dishes. Now, it turns out that my dishes/mystery “complementarity” was a research topic. Wharton professor Katy Milkman called the phenomenon temptation bundling.

Where are we going? To our New Year’s resolutions.

Temptation Bundling

With temptation bundling, we combine our “wants” and “shoulds.”

The Experiment

To see if temptation bundling had academic resilience, researchers from Penn and Harvard set up three scenarios at a campus workout facility. All three groups got iPods. But the first group’s iPod was loaded with tempting page-turner novels that could be accessed only at the gym. The second group also got the good books on their iPods. However, they were not required to listen at the gym. Then, acting as a control, the third group got iPods, a $25 Barnes & Noble gift certificate, and a sample workout with a reminder that exercising is good for your health..

The results confirmed most of what we would expect. Group 1’s workouts exceeded the control group by 51 percent and for Group 2, 29 percent. So yes, temptation bundling did increase the frequency of the undesirable activity—the “should”– but after a temporary Thanksgiving break, its impact on all groups diminished precipitously:

 

Utility Streams

Temptation bundling creates added value. It limits the time used for your indulgent wants while encouraging a distasteful activity that will be good for you. You wind up with less of the “wants” and more of the “shoulds.” Done alone, each activity has less utility. Done together their synergy is more valuable.

The Penn/Harvard research team summed up the value boost with two utility streams. Our wants have less cost at first because they are so pleasant. But then the guilt and wasted time kick in. Meanwhile, the “should” starts out really painful. But then as time goes on, its benefits surface.

Graphed (below) the “wants” curve sinks over time but the “should’ curve ascends:

Temptation bundling is really just about cost and benefit. By combining a want and a should, the wants become less of a minus and the shoulds, more of a plus.

We also just waded into the waters of behavioral economics.

Our Bottom Line: Commitment Devices

Temptation bundling is one of many commitment devices. Defined by behavioral economists, commitment devices are just what you would expect. They are incentives that encourage us to stick with an activity.

Here are some commitment devices:

Most of us need commitment devices to keep our New Year’s resolutions. Maybe temptation bundling is the one.

My sources and more: I first learned about Dr. Milkman’s work on temptation bundling in a Freakonomics podcast. (My speedy 4 mile walks and good podcasts are another temptation bundle!) The podcast took me to Dr. Milkman’s co-authored paper and then to a broader look at commitment devices.

Please note that this post is an updated version of a 2015 econlife.

Ideal for the classroom, econlife.com reflects Elaine Schwartz’s work as a teacher and a writer. As a teacher at the Kent Place School in Summit, NJ, she’s been an Endowed Chair in Economics and chaired the history department. She’s developed curricula, was a featured teacher in the Annenberg/CPB video project “The Economics Classroom,” and has written several books including Econ 101 ½ (Avon Books/Harper Collins). You can get econlife on a daily basis! Head to econlife.