IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12772.html

Treatment Targeting by Scaled Behavioral Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Bauer
  • Andreas Grunewald
  • Florian Hett
  • Johanna Jagow
  • Maximilian Speicher

Abstract

We study how behavioral economics and machine learning can jointly construct effective treatment-targeting rules. In a large field experiment at an online fashion retailer with approximately 500,000 consumers, we test a loss-framed discount message. We elicit individual loss aversion in a nested incentivized behavioral measurement experiment (N=582) and use machine learning to impute it from digital footprints. Targeting based on scaled behavioral measurement yields statistically significant revenue gains and outperforms causal forests. The results show how scaling behavioral measurement can improve algorithmic treatment assignment relative to purely data-driven approaches, especially when pilot data are unavailable, noisy, or costly.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Bauer & Andreas Grunewald & Florian Hett & Johanna Jagow & Maximilian Speicher, 2026. "Treatment Targeting by Scaled Behavioral Measurement," CESifo Working Paper Series 12772, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12772.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drew Fudenberg & Jon Kleinberg & Annie Liang & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2022. "Measuring the Completeness of Economic Models," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(4), pages 956-990.
    2. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2024. "Machine Learning as a Tool for Hypothesis Generation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(2), pages 751-827.
    3. Maria Apostolova-Mihaylova & William Cooper & Gail Hoyt & Emily C. Marshall, 2015. "Heterogeneous gender effects under loss aversion in the economics classroom: A field experiment," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 980-994, April.
    4. Michal Krawczyk, 2011. "Framing in the Field. A Simple Experiment on the Reflection Effect," Natural Field Experiments 00690, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    6. Miruna Oprescu & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Zhiwei Steven Wu, 2018. "Orthogonal Random Forest for Causal Inference," Papers 1806.03467, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    7. Heiko Karle & Dirk Engelmann & Martin Peitz, 2022. "Student performance and loss aversion," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(2), pages 420-456, April.
    8. Stephan Meier & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Present-Biased Preferences and Credit Card Borrowing," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 193-210, January.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    11. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    12. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Corina Paraschiv, 2007. "Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1659-1674, October.
    13. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    14. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    15. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    16. Ned Augenblick & Muriel Niederle & Charles Sprenger, 2015. "Editor's Choice Working over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1067-1115.
    17. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    18. Maria Apostolova‐Mihaylova & William Cooper & Gail Hoyt & Emily C. Marshall, 2015. "Heterogeneous gender effects under loss aversion in the economics classroom: A field experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(4), pages 980-994, April.
    19. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    20. James Andreoni & Michael Callen & Karrar Hussain & Muhammad Yasir Khan & Charles Sprenger, 2023. "Using Preference Estimates to Customize Incentives: An Application to Polio Vaccination Drives in Pakistan," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(4), pages 1428-1477.
    21. Tobias Berg & Valentin Burg & Ana Gombović & Manju Puri, 2020. "On the Rise of FinTechs: Credit Scoring Using Digital Footprints," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(7), pages 2845-2897.
    22. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    23. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie W. Wang & Colin Camerer, 2022. "Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample," NBER Working Papers 30243, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Sendhil Mullainathan & Ziad Obermeyer, 2022. "Diagnosing Physician Error: A Machine Learning Approach to Low-Value Health Care [“The Determinants of Productivity in Medical Testing: Intensity and Allocation of Care,”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 137(2), pages 679-727.
    25. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    26. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    27. Drew Fudenberg & Annie Liang, 2019. "Predicting and Understanding Initial Play," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(12), pages 4112-4141, December.
    28. Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Goette, 2007. "Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 298-317, March.
    29. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    30. Toru Kitagawa & Aleksey Tetenov, 2018. "Who Should Be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 591-616, March.
    31. Moritz von Zahn & Kevin Bauer & Cristina Mihale-Wilson & Johanna Jagow & Maximilian Speicher & Oliver Hinz, 2025. "Smart Green Nudging: Reducing Product Returns Through Digital Footprints and Causal Machine Learning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 954-969, July.
    32. Sebastian O. Schneider & Matthias Sutter, 2026. "Risk Preferences and Field Behavior: The Relevance of Higher-Order Risk Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 116(1), pages 88-118, January.
    33. Annie Liang, 2025. "Using Machine Learning to Generate, Clarify, and Improve Economic Models," Papers 2508.19136, arXiv.org.
    34. Hema Yoganarasimhan & Ebrahim Barzegary & Abhishek Pani, 2023. "Design and Evaluation of Optimal Free Trials," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3220-3240, June.
    35. Athey, Susan & Keleher, Niall & Spiess, Jann, 2025. "Machine learning who to nudge: Causal vs predictive targeting in a field experiment on student financial aid renewal," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 249(PC).
    36. Sendhil Mullainathan & Ashesh Rambachan, 2024. "From Predictive Algorithms to Automatic Generation of Anomalies," Papers 2404.10111, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
    37. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Statistical Treatment Rules for Heterogeneous Populations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1221-1246, July.
    38. Michał Krawczyk, 2011. "Framing in the field. A simple experiment on the reflection effect," Working Papers 2011-14, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    2. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    3. Pau Balart & Lara Ezquerra & Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz, 2022. "Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple-choice tests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1268-1297, September.
    4. Simon Gaechter & Eric Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Individual-Level Loss Aversion In Riskless And Risky Choices," Discussion Papers 2007-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Walasek, Lukasz & Mullett, Timothy L. & Stewart, Neil, 2024. "A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Martin Koudstaal & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2016. "Risk, Uncertainty, and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2897-2915, October.
    7. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Lachlan Deer & Ashraf Galal Eid & Peter McGee & Daniel Schoch & Hrvoje Stojic & Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 171-184, October.
    8. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    9. Per Engström & Katarina Nordblom & Henry Ohlsson & Annika Persson, 2015. "Tax Compliance and Loss Aversion," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 132-164, November.
    10. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    11. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2013. "On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 214-235, May.
    12. Sang Lee & Myung J Lee & Byoung W Kim & Jodi M Gilman & John K Kuster & Anne J Blood & Camelia M Kuhnen & Hans C Breiter, 2015. "The Commonality of Loss Aversion across Procedures and Stimuli," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    13. Avram, Silvia, 2015. "Benefit losses loom larger than taxes: the effects of framing and loss aversion on behavioural responses to taxes and benefits," ISER Working Paper Series 2015-17, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    14. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    15. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    16. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    17. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    18. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Griebenow, Malte & Kifmann, Mathias & Then, Franziska, 2022. "Rewards for information provision in patient referrals: A theoretical model and an experimental test," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. Epper, Thomas & Ibsen, Kristoffer & Koch, Alexander & Nafziger, Julia, 2026. "Predicting University Dropouts: Evidence on the Value of Student Expectations and Motivation," IZA Discussion Papers 18439, IZA Network @ LISER.
    20. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2020. "Double Debiased Machine Learning Nonparametric Inference with Continuous Treatments," Papers 2004.03036, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • C55 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Large Data Sets: Modeling and Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12772. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.