Economists have not explicitly denied the existence and significance of visceral factors but have traditionally left them out of their analyses, whether because their influence is perceived as transient and hence unimportant, or because they are seen as too unpredictable and complex to be amenable to formal modeling. An attempt is made to show that both of these assumptions are false. Visceral factors have important, but often underappreciated, consequences for behavior. Moreover, both the determinants of visceral factors and their impact on behavior are not only systematic, but amenable to formal modeling.

The authors present survey data challenging the assumption implicit in analyses of labor supply that, all else being equal, workers prefer declining over increasing wage profiles. The authors test several explanations for their results, including that (1) there is something special about wages (e.g., their association with productivity), as opposed to other types of payments, that induces the preference for increasing wages; (2) utility depends not only on absolute levels of consumption, but also on changes in consumption over time; and (3) respondents who prefer increasing wage profiles are irrational and would change their behavior if the rationale for preferring declining wages were explained.

Attention is an important resource in the modern economy and plays an increasingly prominent role in economic analysis. We summarize research on attention from both psychology and economics with a particular emphasis on its capacity to explain documented violations of classical economic theory. We also identify promising new directions for research, including attention-based utility, the recent proliferation of attentional externalities introduced by digital technology, the potential impact of artificial intelligence on the economics of attention, and the significant role that boredom, curiosity, and other motivational states play in determining how people allocate attention.

This paper discusses the discounted utility (DU) model: its historical development, underlying assumptions, and "anomalies" - the empirical regularities that are inconsistent with its theoretical predictions. We then summarize the alternate theoretical formulations that have been advanced to address these anomalies. We also review three decades of empirical research on intertemporal choice, and discuss reasons for the spectacular variation in implicit discount rates across studies. Throughout the paper, we stress the importance of distinguishing time preference, per se, from many other considerations that also influence intertemporal choices.

Policymakers have recently embraced Behavioral Economics as an alternative approach which recognizes the limits and consequences of human decision-making. Early applications of BE (“nudges”) produced notable successes and helped to set the stage for more aggressive applications aimed at the deeper causes of policy problems. We contend that policies that aspire to simplify products and incentives, rather than choice environments, aggressively protect consumers from behavioral exploitation, and leverage BE to enhance the design and implementation of traditional policy instruments offer solutions commensurate with contemporary challenges. Case studies in health insurance, privacy, and climate change illustrate the application of these ideas.

We examine the impact of relative wages on labor supply in a laboratory experiment. We test the hypothesis that, ceteris paribus, making a given wage high (low) relative to other wage levels will lead to an increase (decrease) in labor supply. We find that labor supply does respond significantly to relative pay, and in the expected direction. However, when a strong enough reason for the relative low pay is given, this difference disappears.

We review evidence from our published and ongoing research that disclosing conflicts of interest has unintended consequences, helping conflicted advisors and harming their advisees: With disclosure, advisors feel comfortable giving more biased advice, but advisees do not properly adjust for this and generally fail to sufficiently discount biased advice. Disclosure also increases pressure on advisees to comply with advice; following disclosure, advisees feel more uncomfortable in turning down advice (e.g., it signals distrust of the advisor's motives). Finally, we examine the effectiveness of policy interventions aimed at reducing these unintended consequences and discuss how to realize potential benefits of disclosure.

Between 1960 and 2004, the proportion of Americans meeting standard criteria for obesity increased from 13 percent to 31 percent (Katherine M. Flegal et al. 2002), and it has been proposed that, if this trend is not reversed, obesity may soon overtake smoking as the leading preventable cause of death (Ali H. Mokdad et al. 2004). Consequently, obesity is now one of the major causes of rising health care costs (Eric A. Finkelstein, Christopher J. Ruhm, and Katherine M. Kosa 2005). Empirical analyses suggest that an increase in caloric intake, rather than a change in calorie expenditure, is responsible for much of the trend (David M. Cutler, Edward L. Glaeser, and Jesse M. Shapiro 2003). The main policy response to what is often referred to as the “obesity epidemic” has been to enhance access to information. The most prominent example of such a policy is the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (United States Food and Drug Administration 1994), but, recently, the tactic has been receiving more attention after New York City required restaurants with 15 or more outlets to post the caloric content of each food item next to its price on menu boards. Lawmakers and independent companies alike are now following New York City’s lead (Kim Severson 2008). However, there is little evidence that information alone does much to improve diet (Jayachandran N. Variyam and AQ 1 The Psychology of food consumPTion †

We examine the health plan choices that 23,894 employees at a U.S. firm made from a large menu of options that differed only in financial cost-sharing and premium. These decisions provide a clear test of the predictions of the standard economic model of insurance choice in the absence of choice frictions because plans were priced so that nearly every plan with a lower deductible was financially dominated by an otherwise identical plan with a high deductible. We document that the majority of employees chose dominated plans, which resulted in excess spending equivalent to 24% of chosen plan premiums. Low-income employees were significantly more likely to choose dominated plans, and most employees did not switch into more financially efficient plans in the subsequent year. We show that the choice of dominated plans cannot be rationalized by standard risk preference or any expectations about health risk. Testing alternative explanations with a series of hypothetical-choice experiments, we find that the popularity of dominated plans was not primarily driven by the size and complexity of the plan menu, nor informed preferences for avoiding high deductibles, but by employees’ lack of understanding of health insurance. Our findings challenge the standard practice of inferring risk preferences from insurance choices and raise doubts about the welfare benefits of health reforms that expand consumer choice.