About: Behavioral engineering is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 32 publications have been published within this topic receiving 283 citations. The topic is also known as: Deinoostrics.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors model two forms of bounded rationality in a newsvendor setting: the tendency to err and tendency to anchor, and apply their model to contract optimization, finding that coordinating contracts do not always behave as the normative theory predicts.
Abstract: Recent behavioral studies have demonstrated that decision makers may not always optimize their performance, and several modeling approaches have been proposed to explain this boundedly rational behavior. In this paper we model two forms of bounded rationality in a newsvendor setting: the tendency to err and the tendency to anchor. Our model is motivated by observations under several types of commonly used supply chain contracts in the laboratory. Our experiments show that the behavior of newsvendors follows some multi-modal distribution that responds to contract structures and incentives. Moreover, we discover heterogeneity in decision makers’ tendencies to err and anchor. Applying our model to contract optimization, we find that the coordinating contracts do not always behave as the normative theory predicts. Furthermore, our analysis shows that contract performance can be sensitive to behavioral differences. Thus, this study establishes the importance of incorporating individual heterogeneity into incentive mechanism design. Our research approach also suggests how historical data can be used to calibrate contracts for empirical retailers.
TL;DR: This first SCS transparency analysis suggests that socio-technical systems applying a scoring mechanism might use different degrees of transparency to achieve particular behavioral engineering goals.
Abstract: China's Social Credit System (SCS, 社会信用体系 or shehui xinyong tixi) is expected to become the first digitally-implemented nationwide scoring system with the purpose to rate the behavior of citizens, companies, and other entities. Thereby, in the SCS, "good" behavior can result in material rewards and reputational gain while "bad" behavior can lead to exclusion from material resources and reputational loss. Crucially, for the implementation of the SCS, society must be able to distinguish between behaviors that result in reward and those that lead to sanction. In this paper, we conduct the first transparency analysis of two central administrative information platforms of the SCS to understand how the SCS currently defines "good" and "bad" behavior. We analyze 194,829 behavioral records and 942 reports on citizens' behaviors published on the official Beijing SCS website and the national SCS platform "Credit China", respectively. By applying a mixed-method approach, we demonstrate that there is a considerable asymmetry between information provided by the so-called Redlist (information on "good" behavior) and the Blacklist (information on "bad" behavior). At the current stage of the SCS implementation, the majority of explanations on blacklisted behaviors includes a detailed description of the causal relation between inadequate behavior and its sanction. On the other hand, explanations on redlisted behavior, which comprise positive norms fostering value internalization and integration, are less transparent. Finally, this first SCS transparency analysis suggests that socio-technical systems applying a scoring mechanism might use different degrees of transparency to achieve particular behavioral engineering goals.
TL;DR: The risk assessment is used to determine the measures that need to be taken to control the management or completely eliminate the risks that arise as a consequence of hazards, and suggestions on their minimization and elimination.
Abstract: An important aspect of risk assessment in construction is the development of a method by which the results of a risk analysis can be converted into recommendations for the admissibility of complex systemic risk. And also the degree of expediency of taking measures, the safety, necessary to reduce this risk in the construction industry. The Behavioral Engineering Model (BEM) developed by Gilbert provides us with a way to systematically and systemically identify barriers to individual and organizational performance. The BEM distinguishes between a person’s repertory of behavior (what the individual brings to the performance equation) and the environmental supports (the work environment factors that encourage or impede performance). By means of the Gilbert model this article will consider the risk criteria, determine the most significant risks of losses in the construction industry, and give suggestions on their minimization and elimination. In essence, the risk assessment is used to determine the measures that need to be taken to control the management or completely eliminate the risks that arise as a consequence of hazards. Qualitatively conducted engineering risk assessment and implementation of measures to prevent and minimize risks at the enterprise allows to reduce the probability of occurrence of dangerous events, thereby increasing security, and to reduce unprofitability. Engineering risk assessment can become one of the key links in the formation of the enterprise’s risk management system in construction.
TL;DR: Some of what science can tell us about the problems in psychological publishing and how to best address those problems are outlined.
Abstract: Here I outline some of what science can tell us about the problems in psychological publishing and how to best address those problems. First, the motivation behind questionable research practices is examined (the desire to get ahead or, at least, not fall behind). Next, behavior modification strategies are discussed, pointing out that reward works better than punishment. Humans are utility seekers and the implementation of current change initiatives is hindered by high initial buy-in costs and insufficient expected utility. Open science tools interested in improving science should team up, to increase utility while lowering the cost and risk associated with engagement. The best way to realign individual and group motives will probably be to create one, centralized, easy to use, platform, with a profile, a feed of targeted science stories based upon previous system interaction, a sophisticated (public) discussion section, and impact metrics which use the associated data. These measures encourage high quality review and other prosocial activities while inhibiting self-serving behavior. Some advantages of centrally digitizing communications are outlined, including ways the data could be used to improve the peer review process. Most generally, it seems that decisions about change design and implementation should be theory and data driven.