Abstract

We examine methods for evaluating interventions designed to improve decision-making quality when people misunderstand the consequences of their choices. In an experiment involving financial education, conventional outcome metrics imply that two interventions are equally beneficial even though only one reduces the average severity of errors. We trace these failures to violations of the assumptions embedded in the conventional metrics.

We propose a simple, intuitive, and broadly applicable outcome metric that properly differentiates between the interventions, and is robustly interpretable as a measure of welfare loss from misunderstanding consequences even when additional biases distort choices.

Materials

PDFAppendixPublished versionReplication packageReplication report Media Financial Times Plain text version

Machine-Readable Metadata

This page includes Schema.org ScholarlyArticle JSON-LD and alternate links in the HTML head for Markdown, LaTeX source bundles, Word-source text, and plain text when available.