Behavioral Economics vs. Traditional Economics: What is the Difference?

Behavioral Economics vs. Traditional Economics: What is the Difference?


Time to Read: 5 Min

Vicki Bogan

New York Times best-selling books like Nudge and The Undoing Project have brought the subject of behavioral economics to the forefront of popular discussion and debate. However, as this subject has infiltrated our popular culture, a few misconceptions have begun to be propagated.

A big misconception is that behavioral economics is about controlling people’s behavior, but it is not. Behavioral economics is about understanding common decision mistakes that people make and why they make them. In particular, a large aspect of behavioral economics is concerned with the gap between intention and action. For example, your client may intend to save a lot for retirement, but things happen and your client never gets around to taking action.

Another big misconception is that behavioral economics is about irrationality. This misconception stems from the fact that traditional economic theory assumes all people are rational, while behavioral economics does not make this assumption. Acknowledging that people are not always fully rational does not mean that they are irrational or crazy. It just means that people make systematic mistakes and that they do not always make choices that consistently maximize their own happiness or success.

Traditional economic theory is predicated on three fundamental assumptions: 1) all people are rational, 2) individual choices are consistent with expected utility theory, and 3) people correctly update their opinions and beliefs based upon new information that is received. However, these assumptions do not always hold in the real world. In a seminal paper, Kahneman and Tversky lay the foundation for behavioral economics by proffering that psychological phenomena affect decision-making and must be incorporated in economic and financial models.1 Specifically, psychological phenomena like biases, heuristics, and framing effects should be incorporated into these models. Two of the foundational principles of behavioral economics are: 1) people make systematic mistakes due to psychological blind spots that most people have, and 2) the context in which a decision is made has an enormous effect on the decision.

Behavioral economics is about understanding common decision mistakes that people make and why they make them.

Biases (Decision-Making Blind Spots)

A good example of a bias that affects financial decisions is over confidence. Overconfidence is not a rational behavior. Overconfidence is a situation in which people believe that they are better in terms of skill or ability than they actually are. It is not saying that they are bad at something; it is just that they overestimate their abilities. For example, if you take any room of adults and ask individuals to raise their hand if they are an above average driver, almost everyone will raise their hand. Similarly, each semester when I anonymously survey my behavioral finance class of students and ask them who believes that they are of above average intelligence relative to the group of students in the class, over 90% of them say they are when in fact only 50% of them can be above average.

Overconfidence has been shown to influence decisions that are more significant than assessments of driving or intelligence. Barber and Odean propose that overconfidence influences trading and investment behavior in a way that causes monetary losses.2 They find that overconfident men think that they know more about financial markets than they actually do. Consequently, they churn their investment portfolios more than women, and as a result earn lower overall returns after trading commissions and fees are taken into account.

Context and Framing

With regard to the importance of framing, suppose the S&P 500 is currently at the 2,200 level and consider two different market scenarios:

(1) The market surges up by 25% over the next year to get to 2,750 before falling by 40%.
(2) The market is stagnant for the next year and then falls 25%.

Which scenario is worse for your client? Which scenario would your client prefer?

In fact, both scenarios end up with the same exact result for your client. However, the first scenario would probably be considered more painful by your clients because it was framed in terms of your client experiencing gains that do not get locked in and then your client experiencing a huge loss. In the second scenario, there is a much smaller market correction, so your client experiences less of a loss. In both scenarios, the S&P 500 ends up at 1,650. However, the different manner in which the scenarios are framed can influence how your client would feel about the situation.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Behavioral economics differs from traditional economics by incorporating insights from psychology. By combining concepts from these two different disciplines, we can obtain a more realistic picture of what people actually do.
  2. Behavioral economics takes into consideration that people make systematic mistakes due to psychological blind spots that most people have.
  3. Behavioral economics assumes that the context in which a decision is made has an enormous effect on the decision or preference.

1Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica, 47 (2), pp. 263-291.

2Barber, Brad & Odean, Terrence. (2001). “Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence and Common Stock Investment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (1), pp. 261-292.

Lewis, M., & Boutsikaris, D. (2016). The Undoing Project: A Friendship that Changed Our Minds. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Thaler, Richard H.,Sunstein, Cass R. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dr. Vicki Bogan

Professor and Director of the Institute for Behavioral and Household Finance (IBHF) at Cornell University

The mission of the IBHF is research and education in the areas of behavioral finance and household finance with the goal of better understanding and modeling financial behavior.

View all articles by Vicki »


The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author, who is not affiliated with Hartford Funds. The information contained herein should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation of any product or service nor should it be relied upon to, replace the advice of an investor’s own professional legal, tax and financial advisors. Hartford Funds Distributors, LLC.

 

Receive human-centric insights by email:

Hartford Funds is not responsible for, and does not validate, any information, opinions, assertions, or statements expressed within these articles, or the identity or credentials of the individuals communicating through the site. Some of the articles may contain links to information created and maintained by other, unaffiliated organizations and individuals. Hartford Funds does not control, cannot guarantee, and is not responsible for the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or the continued availability or existence of this outside information or the information presented herein. This material is intended for use by financial professionals or in conjunction with the advice of a financial professional.

Check the background of this firm/individual on FINRA's BrokerCheck.

202903

The material on this site is for informational and educational purposes only. The material should not be considered tax or legal advice and is not to be relied on as a forecast. The material is also not a recommendation or advice regarding any particular security, strategy or product. Hartford Funds does not represent that any products or strategies discussed are suitable for any particular investor so investors should seek their own professional advice before investing. Content is current as of the publication date or date indicated, and may be superseded by subsequent market and economic conditions.


All investments are subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. Investors should carefully consider a fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. This and other important information is contained in the mutual fund or ETF prospectus and summary prospectus (if available), which can be obtained from a financial professional and should be read carefully before investing.



Hartford Funds refers to Hartford Funds Management Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including the mutual funds' and active ETFs' investment manager, Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (HFMC), the mutual funds' distributor, Hartford Funds Distributors, LLC (HFD), Member FINRA/SIPC as well as Lattice Strategies LLC (Lattice), a wholly owned subsidiary of HFMC, which serves as the investment adviser to strategic beta exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Certain funds are sub-advised by Wellington Management Company LLP or Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. Schroder Investment Management North America Ltd. serves as a secondary sub-adviser to certain funds. All ETFs are distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc. (ALPS). Hartford Funds is not affiliated with any fund sub-adviser or ALPS. The funds and other products referred to on this Site may be offered and sold only to persons in the United States and its territories.

© Copyright 2017 Hartford Funds Management Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Not FDIC Insured | No Bank Guarantee | May Lose Value