StickK To Your Commitments

Back when I was an undergraduate, I took a class from the future Nobel Laureate Tom Schelling. One day in class, he was talking about commitment problems: when you want to achieve a goal, but lack the self control to do it. As I recall, he offered two pieces of advice for those trying to lose weight. The first was to clean out the refrigerator and throw away anything you might want to eat in a moment of weakness. The second was to write a check for a substantial amount of money to the American Nazi Party, seal it up in a stamped envelope, and vow to drop it in the mail if you break your diet.

If you really do intend to mail that letter after cheating on your diet, it serves as a commitment device. Not only does the diet pay off in terms of lost weight, but it also keeps you from subsidizing a cause you despise. I’ve always wondered whether anyone would actually mail the check. If they won’t do it, the whole exercise is likely to be a waste of time.

That is where the new Web site StickK.com comes in. Launched this week by economists Ian Ayres (also a Freakonomics guest blogger) and Dean Karlan, StickK is there to facilitate commitment contracts. Want to quit smoking? Go to StickK and sign a legally binding contract that requires you to donate a specified amount of money to charity if you fail. (You can set it up so that you admit to StickK when you have failed, as in Schelling’s example, or else you can appoint a friend to be responsible and admit it for you.)

Missing from StickK, at least as far as I know, is the ability to give money to pro-Nazi groups or the Klan. All the charities they partner with seem pretty wholesome.

Ayres, for one, seems to be benefiting from StickK — he has lost 25 pounds using a commitment contract.

I am immensely curious to see how this project plays out. I think there is little doubt that commitment contracts of this type help us accomplish our goals. People find it much easier to stick to a diet after a heart attack scare, or to quit smoking after a cancer scare. Whether people are willing to impose costs on themselves remains an open question. In part, it comes down to whether people really want to change, or whether they are just faking it.

I would not bet against Yale economists when it comes to an entrepreneurial venture. When Barry Nalebuff started a company to make bottled tea in 1998, I never would have guessed a decade later that Honest Tea would be available almost everywhere.

Reader Alon Nir also brought another form of commitment contract to my attention: the SnuzNLuz alarm clock. Every time you hit snooze, the clock donates $10 of your money to a charity that you hate. [Correction: Thanks to a reader for informing us that the SnuzNLuz is, alas, just a prank, and not a product on the market.]

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 27

View All Comments »
  1. bob tollison says:

    The Ayres approach can be applied to addictive behaviors. See Goff and Tollison, The Market for Addiction Control services, Public Finance Review, 1999.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. John says:

    If you donated to the Nazi party, you’ll probably end up on some unpleasant government lists that you’ll wish you weren’t on.

    Best to stick to a mainstream party you disagree with (Democratic or Republican.)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. bgd says:

    I had a friend that did something similar– he wrote a large check on Jan. 1 to the general scholarship fund at Texas A&M University, placed it in the hands of a friend with instructions to mail it to them on July 1 if he had not lost the extra 35 pounds he was carrying. You see, being a graduate of the University of Texas, that’s the WORST place he could think of to donate money. Needless to say, he dropped the weight. Maybe something similar will work for you– whether a rival school, political party, or another group you have an issue with.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Mo says:

    I’ll be interested to see how much traffic this company gets over time. Certainly there is a segment of the population who it appeals to. That said, I think most Americans (esp. those with eating issues or addictions) would just see this as a dumb idea an academic economist would come up with (and, btw, I am an academic economist!). I think most of these people would think as follows: “I am unhappy and fat now, so, if I use this I will be unhappy, fat, and poor.” The people who REALLY need what this site offers will never use it which should also make us reconsider all the programs our govt puts out there to help people who don’t want to help themselves.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Len says:

    If you have read Ian’s new book you know he probably set up this site more so he could have some interesting data to crunch than to really start a business. cleaver.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Not_a_dr says:

    Would you please explain the distinction between correlation and causation to the medical community?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/health/21caffeine.html?hp

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. burger flipper says:

    Tyler Cowen predicted Stickk would fail and added this,which still perplexes me:
    “It’s not exaggerating to say that human nature is on the line here, and that if I am wrong this is probably the most important idea you will ever encounter.”
    Love some further explanation on that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Pete says:

    I don’t see this working for people over a long term period. You have to want to change your life style to lose weight and keep it off or to quit smoking. If someone does stick with it to their July 1st goal or whatever date they set, what keeps them from reverting back to the bad habits after that? I quit smoking 7 times before I actually quit, I don’t think writing a check to a political party would have helped with that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0