Dan Acland is a behavioral economist whose research spans the intersections of Behavioral Economics, Benefit-Cost Analysis, and Economic Philosophy. Topics of his past research include the implications of Behavioral Economics for government paternalism, the boundary between policy impacts that do and do not belong in benefit-cost analysis, and the implications of Behavioral Economics for the value of cash transfers in benefit-cost analysis. His current work includes a study of the implications of Behavioral Economics for the social discount rate in benefit-cost analysis, and a novel justification for excluding existence value from benefit-cost analysis.
Professor Acland teaches graduate courses in Economics for Policy Makers and Benefit-Cost Analysis, and a pair of undergraduate courses in Behavioral Economics. In addition, he leads a section of the Advanced Policy Analysis thesis seminar in the MPP program.
Contact and Office Hours
Office 2465 LeConte (GTU), Room 210
Office Hours
By appointment
About
Areas of Expertise
- Benefit-Cost Analysis
- Behavioral Economics
- Economic Philosophy
Curriculum Vitae
Research
Selected Publications
What’s In, What’s Out? Towards a Rigorous Definition of the Boundaries of BCA
Acland, D. (2021). Economics & Philosophy, 1-17.
Poverty, irrationality and the value of cash transfers
Acland, D. (2021) Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 1-31.
An Investigation of Flow Theory in an Online Game
Acland, D. (2020), Review of Behavioral Economics, 7(4), 317-336.
I use data from a short, repetitive online game to explore the role of Flow Theory in motivation and game play. For each player, the Flow-Theory channel in which they are most likely to continue playing the game is identified, and players are categorized into types accordingly. Control, Boredom and Relaxation types are most common. Flow types are among the least common, making up 11% of players. Flow types have the lowest skill level, but challenge themselves the most, and are most likely to make use of self-control devices available within the game. Control types play most frequently and over a longer period of weeks. Apathy types are high skill but seek out low challenges and are least likely to make use of self-control devices. Flow and control types are more likely to play during the workday. Relaxation, boredom and apathy types are more likely to play during workday evenings.
Self-control and Demand for Commitment in Online Game Playing: Evidence from a Field Experiment
Acland, D., Chow, Vinci (2018) Journal of the Economic Science Association, 4(1), 46-62.
We conduct an experiment on an online game, exploring the effect on
gameplay behavior of voluntary commitment devices that allow players to limit their gameplay. Approximately 25% of players use the devices. Median and 75th percentile device users use devices approximately 60 and 100% of the time, respectively. Players who chose to use the device were those who had previously played longer and more frequently than those who chose not to use the device. Offering the commitment devices decreased session length and session frequency by 2.8 and 6.1%, respectively, while increasing weeks of play by 5.5%. Our results are consistent with some players having self-identified self-control problems, leading to longer and more frequent play than they would prefer, and to demand for commitment, and also with commitment devices creating a more rewarding experience, leading to longerlasting involvement with the game. Our results suggest incentivizing or requiring commitment devices in computer games.
United in States of Dissatisfaction: Confirmation Bias Across the Partisan Divide
Acland, D., Lerman, A. (2018), American Politics Research
Party polarization is a central feature of American political life, and a robust literature has shown that citizens engage in partisan-confirmation bias when processing political information. At the same time, however, recent events have highlighted a rising tide of anti-government populism that manifests on both sides of the aisle. In fact, data show that large proportions of both Democrats and Republicans hold negative views of government. Using an original set of survey experiments, we examine the psychology of public-sector evaluation. We find that citizens engage in a process of confirmation bias when they encounter new information, which is driven not by party and ideology but by beliefs about the quality and efficiency of government. Taken together, our findings suggest important limitations to citizens’ capacity to learn about public administration, and expand our understanding of what drives confirmation bias with respect to public and private service provision.
Courses
List of Courses
Last updated on 03/14/2024