ThinKynd

Asymmetrical Consequence Weighting (ACW) is a behavioural framework that explains why early disappointments carry more weight than later improvements in decision environments. It draws from concepts such as mental accounting(Thaler, 1999), loss aversion (Kahneman, 2011), and bounded rationality to show how individuals budget cognitive and emotional effort in anticipation of value. When that value is not immediately met, the discrepancy is processed as a loss — even if the situation later improves.

Core Principles:

• Timing Matters: Early negative experiences outweigh later positive ones
• Mental Budgeting: People track ‘value for effort’ like an internal ledger
• Perception vs. Delivery Gap: Delays in feedback or adjustment trigger cognitive overdrafts
• System Relevance: Small course corrections early on prevent loss spirals and disengagement

Mechanics in Action:

• Lightweight surveys/check-ins are administered at key moments
• If results exceed a misalignment threshold, a behavioural nudge is triggered via a dashboard prompt
• The prompt is framed positively and non-punitively
• Nudges are used as calibration tools, not compliance mechanisms
• Both individual (I-Frame) and system-level (S-Frame) drivers are assessed to identify where misalignment originates (Chater & Loewenstein, 2023)
• Actors (teachers, managers, service designers) can adjust delivery, tone, or framing
• This creates a feedback loop that restores alignment without formal evaluation or reputational risk

Context:
New employees often feel overwhelmed, under-supported, or unsure whether they’re on track. Traditional post-training surveys are too late to course-correct.

ACW Application:

• Micro-checks at Day 3, Week 2, and Month 1 gauge perception vs. expectation
• Dashboard prompts alert trainers or P&C leads when target of responses indicate mismatch
• Low-friction prompts suggest support adjustments, resource clarification, or peer check-ins

Outcome: Real-time recalibration increases retention, engagement, and training ROI

Game Framing:
A repeated coordination game between trainer and trainee

• Best payoff: Mutual engagement and timely support (6,6)
• Worst payoff: Feedback ignored or delayed (2,1)

Context:
In health systems, patients are often reluctant to speak up, and dissatisfaction grows silently. Once trust is broken, it’s hard to recover.

ACW Application:

• Simple check-ins post-appointment or post-care phase ask: “Was this experience what you expected?”
• When trust thresholds are breached, a dashboard cue notifies clinic managers
• Responses are anonymous, action optional, but designed to spark empathy-driven adaptation

Outcome: Builds visibility and responsiveness without blame; protects long-term trust

Game Framing:
A trust-based feedback loop between provider and patient

• Best payoff: Iterative transparency and trust (6,6)
• Worst payoff: Silent disengagement, no follow-up care (2,1)

---

Context:
Public service programs often miss critical perception gaps until exit surveys or media backlash. Citizens feel unseen; systems appear unresponsive.

ACW Application:

• Early program-phase nudges check alignment between expectations and delivery
• If target percentage misalignment is reported, service designers are prompted to reassess communication, access, or responsiveness
• Prompts are built into the digital service flow or community check-in systems

Outcome: Faster corrections, higher legitimacy, and adaptive governance

Game Framing:
An iterated coordination game between government and citizen

• Best payoff: System perceived as listening and learning (6,6)
• Worst payoff: Participation drops, narrative shifts negative (2,1)

Want to know more?

Kyndly get in touch