Do people believe that they are in control of their future outcomes? And how do expectations of what can be achieved affect behaviour? And can we influence this? As the first speaker in the new season of the weekly CSAE Lunchtime Seminar, Stefan Dercon from DFID and Oxford University presented the first exciting results of a field experiment that addresses these questions. The study, conducted in 64 villages in rural Ethiopia, is joint work with Tanguy Bernard (IFPRI), Kate Orkin (University of Cambridge), and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse (IFPRI). Their first results show that a simple intervention has an impact on people’s aspirations and behaviour, and that interaction with peers plays an important role in this. This research is part of the iiG research programme, funded by DFID, and was supported by CSAE and the IFPRI Development Strategy and Governance and Markets, Trade and Institutions divisions. Funding for the documentaries was provided by Seven, as part of the Open Enterprise Solutions to Poverty.
Self-image, hopes and dreams matter, not only as part of well-being, but also for the choices that people make. The authors present results from earlier surveys that seem to suggest that a substantial number of poor people tend to choose the fatalistic options when asked whether they think each person is primarily responsible for his or her own success or failure in life or that success or failure is determined by destiny or fate. Furthermore, several studies have shown people fail to invest even though returns are sometimes very high. Aspirations and expectations seem to matter in whether the poor make the most optimal choices. But can aspirations and expectations be influenced?
This study tries to answer this question with a simple field experiment. As part of the experiment, six households in each of the 64 villages were shown four inspirational fifteen minute documentaries. These documentaries showed success stories of people with a similar background as the audience and a crucial element in each of these documentaries was that people made a choice that led to success. To control for effects associated to just viewing a movie on a projector screen (and the associated excitement), six households were shown an ordinary (less inspirational) soap instead as a placebo treatment. Finally, in each village six households that were not shown anything were surveyed as well, functioning as the control group. In the first two cases, participants received a bag of sugar after the screening, as an incentive to participate. In half of the villages, 18 extra households were selected to watch either the inspirational video or the placebo video, to assess the effect of having a larger group of peers that have watched the video.
Do people believe that they are in control of their future outcomes? And how do expectations of what can be achieved affect behaviour? And can we influence this? As the first speaker in the new season of the weekly CSAE Lunchtime Seminar, Stefan Dercon from DFID and Oxford University presented the first exciting results of a field experiment that addresses these questions. The study, conducted in 64 villages in rural Ethiopia, is joint work with Tanguy Bernard (IFPRI), Kate Orkin (University of Cambridge), and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse (IFPRI). Their first results show that a simple intervention has an impact on people’s aspirations and behaviour, and that interaction with peers plays an important role in this. This research is part of the iiG research programme, funded by DFID, and was supported by CSAE and the IFPRI Development Strategy and Governance and Markets, Trade and Institutions divisions. Funding for the documentaries was provided by Seven, as part of the Open Enterprise Solutions to Poverty.
Self-image, hopes and dreams matter, not only as part of well-being, but also for the choices that people make. The authors present results from earlier surveys that seem to suggest that a substantial number of poor people tend to choose the fatalistic options when asked whether they think each person is primarily responsible for his or her own success or failure in life or that success or failure is determined by destiny or fate. Furthermore, several studies have shown people fail to invest even though returns are sometimes very high. Aspirations and expectations seem to matter in whether the poor make the most optimal choices. But can aspirations and expectations be influenced?
This study tries to answer this question with a simple field experiment. As part of the experiment, six households in each of the 64 villages were shown four inspirational fifteen minute documentaries. These documentaries showed success stories of people with a similar background as the audience and a crucial element in each of these documentaries was that people made a choice that led to success. To control for effects associated to just viewing a movie on a projector screen (and the associated excitement), six households were shown an ordinary (less inspirational) soap instead as a placebo treatment. Finally, in each village six households that were not shown anything were surveyed as well, functioning as the control group. In the first two cases, participants received a bag of sugar after the screening, as an incentive to participate. In half of the villages, 18 extra households were selected to watch either the inspirational video or the placebo video, to assess the effect of having a larger group of peers that have watched the video.
The results of the experiment are surprising: an intervention that looks perhaps small and insignificant on paper, does seem to have a significant effect on expectations, aspirations and behaviour, according to the preliminary results. On most measures the impact of watching an inspirational movie is significant from not watching anything. In this case we could speak of a reverse couch potato effect: watching a movie could actually activate people. In case of savings and hypothetical demand for credit watching an inspirational movie is also significantly different from watching a presumably less inspiring regular soap (the placebo). Peer effects seem to matter and it would be great to see a further analysis of these in a future version of the paper.
Simon Quinn, the discussant at the seminar, welcomed the paper and raised some questions about the theoretical distinction between aspirations and expectations, and how this can be reconciled with the traditional microeconomic distinction between beliefs and preferences. Stefan Dercon answered that we should see aspirations as an aspect determining the choice set that people consider. Another more practical point raised was the question whether it is useful to increase expectations and aspirations (are people’s expectations and aspirations actually too low?) and whether we should be concerned about Hawthorne Effects: people being overly optimistic, hoping that this will lead to an increase in donor funding. The inclusion of the placebo treatment means that Hawthorne Effects are at least partially controlled for.
The authors have just put up a new version of the paper, in which some of the comments from the seminar have been incorporated. This version can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment