“Many a slip between the cup and the lip”: The effects of default-based nudges on pro-social behavior and attitudes

7/26/2019 Many a slip between the cup and the lip: The effects of default-based nudges on pro-social behavior and attitudes.

1/33

Many a slip between the cup and the lip:The effects of default-based nudges on

pro-social behavior and attitudes.

Alexia Gaudeul1 & Magdalena Kaczmarek2

Georg-August-Universitt, Gttingen

Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy,University Hospital Jena

May 24, 2016Kassel


2/33

The Nudger

The Nudge

The Nudgee

Wealth,

Health, andHappyness!!!

Any aspect of the choicearchitecture that altersbehavior in a predictable waywithout forbidding any options

or significantly changing theireconomic incentives (Thaler &Sunstein, 2008)

Supposedly in a way thatpeople, after careful

consideration, would considerto be in their best interest (proself vs. pro social?)

Nudges

KASSEL 2016 AFTER THE NUDGE - GAUDEUL & KACZMAREK 2


3/33

Gap between long term goals and short term behavior

System 2 (Reasoning, Explicit):

Goal oriented & reflective

Requires cognitive engagement

Driven by values and intentions

Intervention

Changing Mind:

Alter beliefs and attitudesthrough information

Motivate with prospect of futurebenefits

Results: Modest effectiveness

Nudges and why they are needed

System 1 (Intuitive, Implicit):

Automatic and affective

Requires no or little cognitiveengagement

Driven by immediate feelings andtriggered by our environment

Intervention

Altering social and physicalenvironments to make certain

behaviors more likely Social norm feedback (taxes)

Changing defaults (organdonation

Altering physical environments(Ikea, supermarkets)



4/33

Nudging Make non-smoking more visible

through mass media campaigns

communicating that the majority

do not smoke and the majority of

smokers want to stop

Serve drinks in smaller glasses

Make salad rather than chips thedefault side order

Make stairs, not lifts, more

prominent and attractive in public

buildings

Legislation Ban smoking in public places

Increase price of cigarettes

Regulate pricing through duty or

minimum pricing per unit

Ban industrially produced transfatty acids

Increase duty on petrol year on

year (fuel price escalator)

Smoking

Alcohol

Diet

Physical

Activity

Nudges Many domains of applications



5/33

Nudges Examples



6/33

Nudges Examples



7/33

The nudgee might rebel!

What about the nudgee?



8/33


Limited research from the perspective of the nudgee (the personbeing nudged).

Do they prefer overt or covert nudges? (Felsen et al., Public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges,

Judgment and Decision Making, 2013) People prefer conscious decisional enhancements

What do they think about the nudge?

(Gunnlaugsson, Informed Nudges, 2014)

Revealing manipulation neg. affects acceptance of the intervention



9/33


Who wants to be nudged? (Pedersen et al , Who wants paternalism?, Bulletin of Economic Research,

2012)

Attitudes towards nudges are not linked to self- control, but attitudestowards strong paternalism are.

What do they think about the nudger? (Kataria et al, Paternalism with Hindsight , Social Choice and Welfare,

2014)

Consequential stand on paternalism, punishment when outcome is bad

Do nudgees stop thinking about their choices? (de Haan & Linde, Good Nudge Lullaby , 2011)

Do nudgees start ignoring or avoiding nudges? (Damgaard & Gravert, The effect of deadlines on charitable giving , 2016)



10/33

Research questionsand hypotheses



11/33

How does the nudge affect peoples perception of charities andof the nudged behavior?

Can a one-time nudge change peoples mind about thedesirable action?

or do they react to it mechanically, i.e. once the nudge is gone, thebehavior is also gone?

Research questions



12/33


In this case, the nudge leads to a change in attitude

possible longer term effect.

Nudge Change in attitude

cdf attitude

Threshold for contribution

People

Attitude

Nudge


13/33


In this case, the nudge works by making it easier to contribute

less likely to survive

Nudge Pressure to contribute

cdf attitudeThreshold for contribution

People

Attitude

Nudge


14/33

H1: The default option is more likely to be chosen at the time ofapplication

H2: Attitudes towards or against the charity and the nudginginstitution will be shaped by resisting or yielding to a nudge.

H3: Pledges in the second phase will reflect attitudes generatedin the first phase.

H4: People who are nudged towards charity giving will be lesscommitted to actually donate than people who decided to do

so against the nudge.

Hypotheses



15/33

The experiment



16/33


1st Phase People are offered 2 to fill a survey.

Four treatments:

Nudge to pledge.

Nudge to keep. Nudge to pledge with choice.

Nudge to keep with choice.

2nd Phase: Free choice to pledge or keep 2 again.

3rd Phase: Collect money (4) and contribute.

The experiment

Pledge

Pledge

Donation


17/33


The experiment

Randomized

emails to 3762

subjects

(Max Planck

Orsee database)

Questionnaires and Filler Tasks

Demographic variables, Questions

regarding attitudes to risk, fairness

and trust, Big Five, CRT.

Manipulation

1. No nudge (n=210)

2. Nudge (n=190)

3. No nudge with choice (n=191)

4. Nudge with choice (n=195)

5. Control (n=202)

Attitude Measures

towards charity

towards the nudger (MPI)

towards the nudge

Questionnaires and Filler Tasks

Demographic variables , Questions

regarding attitudes to risk, fairness

and trust, Big Five, CRT.

Manipulation

1. No nudge (1&2; n=346)

2. No nudge with choice (3&4;

n=330)

Attitude Measures

towards charity

towards the nudger (MPI)

towards the nudge

Payout

(N=460)

3 days 2 weeks 3 days 2 weeks


18/33

1. I would like to know more about the charity (+)

2. I think the work of the charity is important (+)

3. I am interested in the work of the charity (+)

4. I am indifferent about the work of the charity (-)

5. I think the work of the charity has got meaning (+)

6. There should be more charities like . . . (+)

7. The charity makes good use of its money (+)

8. The charity wastes its money (-)9. My opinion of the charity is positive (+)

10. The charity contributes in an important way (+)

Attitude to the charities



19/33

1. I would like to have the opportunity to contribute in futureexperiments (+)

2. I would contribute money to charities in future experiments (+)

3. I felt forced to contribute (-)

4. I am happy with my decision (+)

5. I do not like this campaign for donations (-)

Attitude to the nudge



20/33

The sample



21/33

Demographics and consistency in answers

First periodSecond period

consistency

Age 24 99%

Female 65% 100%

German 95% 100%

Education56% Abitur

22% Bachelor

96%

98%

Parents

education

34% Both Abitur

27% One Abitur

96%

97%

Environment

26% Village

36% Town

33% City

92%

82%

89%



22/33

Findings



23/33


Pledges and donations


24/33


Pledges and donations


25/33


Result 1: Participants who were nudged to pledge were almosttwice more likely to pledge donations to charities in the firstphase of the experiment. This confirms hypothesis 1.

In treatments with a choice of charities: 37.9% of 190 participantspledged in the treatment with a default to pledge vs. 19.8% of 212participants if the default was to keep.

(two-sample test of proportions, z-statistic=-4.02, p


26/33


Result 2: Nudges did not affect attitudes of pledging or nonpledging participants. This goes against Hypothesis 2.

Index of attitude to charities with a Cronbach's alpha taking values from0.86 to 0.92 depending on the charity.

Whether with choice of charities and whether pledged or not, nodifference in attitude to charities depending on if there was a nudge topledge or a nudge to keep.

Effect on attitudes


27/33


Result 3: Participants who were nudged to pledge in the firstphase were neither more nor less likely to pledge in the secondphase. This confirms hypothesis 3.

Without choice of charities, 21.6% of participants who were nudged topledge in the first phase pledged in the second phase, compared with20.1% if they had been nudged to keep

(z-statistic=-0.33, Pr(Z


28/33

Pledged 4 Pledged 2 Pledged 0

Nudge to keep 28,0% 42,9% 56,4%

Nudge to pledge 29,4% 46,2% 67,3%

Nudge to keep

Choice of charities

43,3% 35,3% 60,7%

Nudge to pledge

Choice of charities

22,2% 47,1% 64,9%

Total 30,4% 43,2% 61,9%


Note: Good correspondence between pledges, recall of pledges and actualdonations

Commitment to pledges

% of participants coming to collect


29/33


Result 4: Nudging participants to pledge to a charity did notmake those who pledged less likely to collect. This contradictshypothesis 4. However, nudging to pledge did make non-pledging participants less likely to collect.

Subjects who pledged in the nudge to pledge treatments were notless likely to come collect the money than those who pledged in thenudge to keep treatments.

But subjects who did not pledge in the nudge to pledge treatments

were more likely to come collect the money than those who did notpledge in the nudge to keep treatments.

Commitment to pledge


30/33

Summary, discussionand conclusion



31/33


Strong impact of default nudges on individual pledgingbehavior,

but neither do those pledges predict long-term commitment,

nor do they translate into actual giving.

Yielding to a nudge was not associated with better attitudes tocharities but neither did not yielding lead to hardening in theattitudes of participants.

because the nudged behavior did not generate significant cognitivedissonance to be compensated for by changes in attitudes?

Nudges worked only at the margin, on people close toindifference? no long-lasting effect of the nudge.

Summary and discussion


32/33


In terms of actual donations, pledging default does not lead to morecommitment to pledge among pledging participants, but to morecommitment not to pledge among non-pledging participants.

revealed effect of nudges on attitudes?

Summary


33/33


Decisions can be guided towards the preferred outcome forthose people who do not hold strong preferences against it.

Those who resist a nudge may become more committed to thatresistance.

Nudges are better accepted if there is some leeway in how torespond to the nudge.

Default nudges are effective for specific and limited alterationsof behavior, but are not enough for transformational changes in

values and attitudes needed for long-term success.

Conclusion

Documents

“Many a slip between the cup and the lip”: The effects of default-based nudges on pro-social behavior and attitudes