Essays on Timing and Economic Behavior

Economic activities unfold over time. How does timing influence our choices? How do we control our timing? Economic agents are considered to satisfy their preferences in an optimal fashion subject to constraints. Each chapter in this thesis tackles a different one of these three elements where the timing of behavior is central. In the first chapter, I study the impact of loss aversion on preferences for labor versus leisure. In a real-effort lab experiment, I show that a worker's willingness to persevere in a task is influenced by information about task completion time. To directly assess the location and impact of reference dependence, I structurally estimate labor-leisure preferences with a novel econometric approach drawing on computational neuroscience. Once participants exceed an expectations-based reference point, their subjective values of time rise sharply, and they speed up at the cost of reduced work quality and forgone earnings. In the second chapter, I propose and implement a method to test the optimality of individual deliberative time allocation. I also conduct experiments to study perceptual decision making in both simple decisions, where the difference in values between better and worse choices is known, and complex decisions, where this value difference is uncertain. The test reveals significant departures from optimality when task difficulty and monetary incentives are varied. However, a recently developed model based on optimality provides an improvement in fit over its predecessor. In the third chapter, I investigate the effects of memory constraints on choice over sequentially presented options. In a study that combines experimental paradigms used to analyze memory and judgment separately, I find a close link between order effects in choice and in memory. I show that cognitive load stemming from either an externally-imposed distractor or naturally-occuring fatigue substantially weakens primacy effects. Thus disrupting memory encoding and consolidation can potentially alleviate bias in judgment.</p

Improving mental healthcare access and experience for people from minority ethnic groups: an England-wide multisite experience-based codesign (EBCD) study

Background Long-standing ethnic inequalities in access and mental healthcare were worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives Stakeholders coproduced local and national implementation plans to improve mental healthcare for people from minority ethnic groups. Methods Experience-based codesign conducted in four areas covered by National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts: Coventry and Warwickshire, Greater Manchester, East London and Sheffield. Data were analysed using an interpretivist–constructivist approach, seeking validation from participants on their priority actions and implementation plans. Service users (n=29), carers (n=9) and health professionals (n=33) took part in interviews; focus groups (service users, n=15; carers, n=8; health professionals, n=24); and codesign workshops (service users, n=15; carers, n=5; health professionals, n=21) from July 2021 to July 2022. Findings Each study site identified 2–3 local priority actions. Three were consistent across areas: (1) reaching out to communities and collaborating with third sector organisations; (2) diversifying the mental healthcare offer to provide culturally appropriate therapeutic approaches and (3) enabling open discussions about ethnicity, culture and racism. National priority actions included: (1) co-ordination of a national hub to bring about system level change and (2) recognition of the centrality of service users and communities in the design and provision of services. Conclusions Stakeholder-led implementation plans highlight that substantial change is needed to increase equity in mental healthcare in England. Clinical implications Working with people with lived experience in leadership roles, and collaborations between NHS and community organisations will be essential. Future research avenues include comparison of the benefits of culturally specific versus generic therapeutic interventions

Chimpanzee choice rates in competitive games match equilibrium game theory predictions

The capacity for strategic thinking about the payoff-relevant actions of conspecifics is not well understood across species. We use game theory to make predictions about choices and temporal dynamics in three abstract competitive situations with chimpanzee participants. Frequencies of chimpanzee choices are extremely close to equilibrium (accurate-guessing) predictions, and shift as payoffs change, just as equilibrium theory predicts. The chimpanzee choices are also closer to the equilibrium prediction, and more responsive to past history and payoff changes, than two samples of human choices from experiments in which humans were also initially uninformed about opponent payoffs and could not communicate verbally. The results are consistent with a tentative interpretation of game theory as explaining evolved behavior, with the additional hypothesis that chimpanzees may retain or practice a specialized capacity to adjust strategy choice during competition to perform at least as well as, or better than, humans have

Preferences for descriptiveness and co-explanation in evaluating explanations

Good explanations can be distinguished from bad ones in different ways, for instance by how much of the available information they can explain (i.e., maximise the likelihood of) the available data. Here, we consider two different components of likelihood: descriptiveness (the likelihood of the individual data points) and co-explanation (the likelihood of the specific subset of data under consideration). We consider whether people prefer explanations that are high in descriptiveness vs. coexplanation. Moreover, we consider whether people who endorse conspiracy theories prefer explanations for either quality. In a medical diagnosis task, participants make binary choices between two fictional disease variants: one higher in descriptiveness versus another higher in co-explanation. Overall, participants displayed a weak preference for descriptiveness. This preference, however, did not vary across increasing levels of descriptiveness. Moreover, such preferences were unrelated to conspiracy mentality. Thus, both explanatory virtues may play a role in the appeal of likely explanations

Improving mental healthcare access and experience for people from minority ethnic groups : an England-wide multisite experience-based codesign (EBCD) study

Background Long-standing ethnic inequalities in access and mental healthcare were worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives Stakeholders coproduced local and national implementation plans to improve mental healthcare for people from minority ethnic groups. Methods Experience-based codesign conducted in four areas covered by National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts: Coventry and Warwickshire, Greater Manchester, East London and Sheffield. Data were analysed using an interpretivist–constructivist approach, seeking validation from participants on their priority actions and implementation plans. Service users (n=29), carers (n=9) and health professionals (n=33) took part in interviews; focus groups (service users, n=15; carers, n=8; health professionals, n=24); and codesign workshops (service users, n=15; carers, n=5; health professionals, n=21) from July 2021 to July 2022. Findings Each study site identified 2–3 local priority actions. Three were consistent across areas: (1) reaching out to communities and collaborating with third sector organisations; (2) diversifying the mental healthcare offer to provide culturally appropriate therapeutic approaches and (3) enabling open discussions about ethnicity, culture and racism. National priority actions included: (1) co-ordination of a national hub to bring about system level change and (2) recognition of the centrality of service users and communities in the design and provision of services. Conclusions Stakeholder-led implementation plans highlight that substantial change is needed to increase equity in mental healthcare in England

The impact of reduced routine community mental healthcare on people from minority ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic : qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

Background: Enduring ethnic inequalities exist in mental healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic has widened these. Aims: To explore stakeholder perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic has increased ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare. Method: A qualitative interview study of four areas in England with 34 patients, 15 carers and 39 mental health professionals from National Health Service (NHS) and community organisations (July 2021 to July 2022). Framework analysis was used to develop a logic model of inter-relationships between pre-pandemic barriers and COVID-19 impacts. Results: Impacts were largely similar across sites, with some small variations (e.g. positive service impacts of higher ethnic diversity in area 2). Pre-pandemic barriers at individual level included mistrust and thus avoidance of services and at a service level included the dominance of a monocultural model, leading to poor communication, disengagement and alienation. During the pandemic remote service delivery, closure of community organisations and media scapegoating exacerbated existing barriers by worsening alienation and communication barriers, fuelling prejudice and division, and increasing mistrust in services. Some minority ethnic patients reported positive developments, experiencing empowerment through self-determination and creative activities. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic some patients showed resilience and developed adaptations that could be nurtured by services. However, there has been a reduction in the availability of group-specific NHS and third-sector services in the community, exacerbating pre-existing barriers. As these developments are likely to have long-term consequences for minority ethnic groups’ engagement with mental healthcare, they need to be addressed as a priority by the NHS and its partners

Order effects in choice are selectively modulated by cognitive load

The order in which options are presented influences choice in ways that parallel primacy and recency effects in memory, but the depth of this connection remains underexplored. I present sequences of art to experimental participants who select their favorite pieces, and find evidence that cognitive load can selectively weaken choice primacy or recency depending on its timing, analogous to established findings in memory research. The data suggests that primacy is reduced by an externally-imposed distractor task in between each option or by natural fatigue, while recency is reduced by an extra delay containing a distractor after the last option is presented. Thus, order effects in choice may be predictably modulated by the targeted disruption of processing