quinta-feira, fevereiro 18, 2016

Correr atrás do prejuízo, não é português é humano

Interessante este exemplo prático da aversão à perda:
"When it comes to getting people to participate in workplace weight loss programs, financial rewards may not be much of an incentive. Penalties, on the other hand, work great.
For three months, 281 employees at the University of Pennsylvania participated in a step challenge. The goal was to walk at least 7,000 steps a day. Researchers used different incentives: One group got $1.40 for each day they met the goal, while another got $42 up front each month, and lost $1.40 for each day they didn't finish. Also participating in the study, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was a group that got to enter a lottery to win $1.40 each time the goal was reached, and a control group that got no money at all.
Rewarding people with money, it turns out, didn't inspire more people to achieve their goal. About 30 percent of people who got no money performed their 7,000 steps, compared with about 35 percent of those with a potential reward, a statistically insignificant difference, according to lead researcher Dr. Mitesh S. Patel.
The people who faced a penalty for failure, however, reached their goal 55 percent of the time."
A velha lição, nós humanos, somos satisficers não maximizers. Por isso, tantas vezes, só mudamos quando nos retiram da nossa zona de conforto. Por isso, só agimos a correr em resposta a um "prejuízo" em vez de actuar proactivamente.
Trechos retirados de "Why Pay Employees to Exercise When You Can Threaten Them?".

Sem comentários: