Advertisement

Consumer Protection in Energy Markets: Selected Insights from Behavioural Law and Economics and Regulatory Practice

  • Mariusz J. Golecki
  • Piotr Tereszkiewicz
Chapter
Part of the Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship book series (EALELS, volume 5)

Abstract

This paper discusses how biases and heuristics , e.g. the anchoring effect, affect consumer choices on the energy market. The first part is devoted to analysing the Dyson judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which concerned the EU vacuum cleaner energy label. It is submitted that the Dyson case provides a powerful illustration of how consumers’ choices can be affected by anchoring effect. The paper’s second part discusses, at a more abstract and theoretical level, in what manner biases and heuristics affect consumer choices. In particular, the paper analyses several strategies of categorisation, which are discernible in consumer decision-making.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The paper has been prepared within the framework of the research project 2015/17/HS5/00495 financed by the National Science Centre, Poland.

References

  1. Alexy R (1989) A theory of legal argumentation. The theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Shahar O, Schneider CE (2014) More than you wanted to know. The failure of mandated disclosure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Christine J, Sunstein Cass R, Thaler R (1998) A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Rev 50:1471–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Craswell R (2006) Taking information seriously: misrepresentation and nondisclosure in contract law and elsewhere. Va Law Rev 92:565–632Google Scholar
  5. Estes WK (1994) Classification and cognition. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans J (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabaix X, Laibson D (2006) Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Q J Econ 121:505–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer G (2007) Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Glöckner A, Betsch T (2008) Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgm Decis Mak 3:215–228Google Scholar
  10. Golecki MJ, Romanowicz M, Wojciechowski J (2016) Nudging in tax law? Eyetracking research on limits of efficacy of legal definitions. In: Mathis K, Tor A (eds) Nudging – possibilities, limitations and applications in European law and economics. Springer, Cham, pp 289–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ (2000) Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev 86:777–892Google Scholar
  12. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ (2007) Blinking on the bench: how judges decide cases. Cornell Law Rev 93:1–43Google Scholar
  13. Guttel E, Harel A (2008) Uncertainty revisited: legal prediction and legal postdiction. Mich Law Rev 107:467–499Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58:697–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Korobkin RB, Ulen TS (2000) Law and behavioral science: removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. Calif Law Rev 88:1051–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nosofsky RM (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. J Exp Psychol Gen 115:39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nosofsky RM, Palmeri TJ, McKinley SC (1994) Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychol Rev 101:53–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Posner R (1992) Economic analysis of law, 4th edn. Little Brown and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Preston IL, Richard JI (1986) Consumer miscomprehension as a challenge to FTC prosecutions of deceptive advertising. J Marshall Law Rev 19:605–635Google Scholar
  22. Russo E, Metcalf BL, Stephens D (1981) Identifying misleading advertising. J Consum Res 8:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sloman SA (2002) Two systems of reasoning. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith EE, Sloman SA (1994) Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Mem Cogn 22:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith EE, Patalano AL, Jonides J (1998) Alternative strategies of categorization. Mem Cogn 65:167–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sunstein CR (ed) (2000) Behavioral law and economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Sunstein CR (2005) Moral heuristics. Behav Brain Sci 28:531–573Google Scholar
  28. Sunstein CR (2011) Empirically informed regulation. Univ Chicago Law Rev 28:1349–1429Google Scholar
  29. Sunstein CR, Thaler R (2009) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Tereszkiewicz P (2016) Neutral third-party counselling as nudge toward safer financial products? The case of risky mortgage loan contracts. In: Mathis K, Tor A (eds) Nudging – possibilities, limitations and applications in European law and economics. Springer, Cham, pp 169–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariusz J. Golecki
    • 1
  • Piotr Tereszkiewicz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Legal Theory and Philosophy of Law, Faculty of Law and AdministrationUniversity of ŁódźŁódźPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Law and AdministrationJagiellonian University of CracowCracowPoland

Personalised recommendations