This research has been marketed by the FCA as “behavioural economics exploring how people make financial decisions”, but like similar work on collecting fines and taxes conducted by the Cabinet Office's Behavioural Insight Team, it is simpler and more pragmatic than that. There is no behavioural theory at play here, and nor do we really gain any insight into why consumers are reacting the way they do. But that's fine. Simple, pragmatic research is a sensible thing for a regulator to be doing - and the cost of this kind of experiment is tiny relative to the potential gains.

金融市场行为监管局称，该研究是一次“探索人们如何做出财务决策的行为经济学”实验，但更粗浅和实用——与内阁办公室(Cabinet Office)行为研究小组(Behavioural Insight Team)关于罚款和税收的研究类似。该研究并没有运用行为学理论，我们也没有真正了解消费者的行为方式为什么是这样。但这没关系。进行简单、实用的研究对于监管机构来说是明智的，而相对于潜在的收益来说，这类实验的成本是微不足道的。

True, the results are unsurprising: say what you mean; be brief; ask for action; follow up if you hear nothing. But this is important. It's important because it shows a regulator with an interest in learning and improving, and it's important because while the advice is common-sense, it's advice that many people - and even more bureaucracies - fail to heed.

【如何让邮件回复率大增】相关文章：

★ 如何写英语求职信：模板（四）

★ 面试英语：如何回答工作习惯与方式

★ 如何打造完美的简历

★ 怎样让你的简历不再石沉大海

★ 英语面试：如何回答关于“五年职业规划”(视频）

★ 面试英语：如何巧妙回答离职的原因

★ 如何准备实习面试：了解公司和行业

★ 面试英语：如何回答工作经验

★ 如何应对英语电话面试

★ 面试中如何巧妙回答离职的原因