Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The effect of paternalistic alternatives on attitudes toward default nudges
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för beteendevetenskap och lärande, Psykologi. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för beteendevetenskap och lärande, Psykologi. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Klagenfurt University, Klagenfurt, Austria.
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för ekonomisk och industriell utveckling, Nationalekonomi. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.ORCID-id: 0000-0002-8159-1249
Vise andre og tillknytning
2019 (engelsk)Inngår i: Behavioural Public Policy, ISSN 2398-0648Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Nudges are increasingly being proposed and used as a policy tool around the world. The success of nudges depends on public acceptance. However, several questions about what makes a nudge acceptable remain unanswered. In this paper, we examine whether policy alternatives to nudges influence the public's acceptance of these nudges: Do attitudes change when the nudge is presented alongside either a more paternalistic policy alternative (legislation) or a less paternalistic alternative (no behavioral intervention)? In two separate samples drawn from the Swedish general public, we find a very small effect of alternatives on the acceptability of various default nudges overall. Surprisingly, we find that when the alternative to the nudge is legislation, acceptance decreases and perceived intrusiveness increases (relative to conditions where the alternative is no regulation). An implication of this finding is that acceptance of nudges may not always automatically increase when nudges are explicitly compared to more paternalistic alternatives.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Cambridge University Press, 2019.
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161462DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2019.17OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-161462DiVA, id: diva2:1367219
Tilgjengelig fra: 2019-11-01 Laget: 2019-11-01 Sist oppdatert: 2019-12-12bibliografisk kontrollert
Inngår i avhandling
1. When are nudges acceptable?: Influences of beneficiaries, techniques, alternatives and choice architects
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>When are nudges acceptable?: Influences of beneficiaries, techniques, alternatives and choice architects
2018 (engelsk)Doktoravhandling, med artikler (Annet vitenskapelig)
Alternativ tittel[sv]
När är nudges acceptabla? : Påverkan av mottagare, teknik, alternativ och beslutsarkitekter
Abstract [en]

Interventions aimed to change behavior (so called nudges) are becoming more and more popular among policymakers. However, in order to be able to effectively use nudges, it is important to understand when and why people find them acceptable. The objective of this thesis is therefore to improve the understanding of when nudges are judged to be acceptable. The thesis focuses on a model for behavioral change. The model contains two parts, nudge technique and acceptance of nudges. Nudge technique refers to how the nudge is designed to function in regard to psychological mechanism and functionality.

The nudge technique part of the model is expanded and problematized from an ethical perspective in the first part of this thesis, by exemplifying psychological mechanisms behind different techniques and explaining why they might be intrusive to individuals’ freedom of choice. In the second part of this thesis it is discussed why acceptance is an important component of making nudging legitimate and effective. This is followed by a discussion of how acceptance is empirically measured. The empirical part of the thesis is based on four papers which all use a quantitative online survey approach to study the judgements of nudges from the general public.

Paper 1 was a first attempt to measure whether nudges which are common in the nudge literature are acceptable interventions according to the general public. We found that the nudges that were categorized as pro-self were more likely to be rated as acceptable and less likely to be perceived as intrusive to freedom of choice compared to pro-social nudges. Furthermore, the effect of decision styles and worldview on acceptance was explored. In paper 2, we explored whether the difference between acceptance found for pro-social nudges and proself nudges could be increased by framing nudges as beneficial for society or individuals. The framing had no effect on acceptance but, as in paper 1, pro-social nudges were found to be more intrusive to freedom of choice compared to pro-self framed nudges. Moreover, different nudge techniques had different rates of acceptance even with the same explicit goal for the nudges. In paper 3, we examined whether the alternative to nudges affects the perceived acceptability and intrusiveness of default-changing nudge techniques. The alternatives given to the nudges were either to enforce the intended behavioral change with legislation or to do nothing at all in order to change the behavior. We find no difference in aggregated acceptance, however, the judgements vary depending on individuals’ worldview. Paper 4 explored if the choice architect’s (the creator/proposer of the nudge) political affiliation affects acceptance rating for proposed nudge interventions and legislation. We find that acceptance of both nudges and legislation increases with the level of matching between people’s political orientation and the choice architect’s political affiliation.

Taken together, the findings suggest that there is more to creating an acceptable nudge than to merely take a nudge technique that was acceptable in one context and apply it in another. Moreover, nudges that are rated as more beneficial towards individuals compared to society at large are in general more likely to be found acceptable and less intrusive to freedom of choice. It is important to have knowledge about the target population (e.g. their decision styles, world-views, and political orientation) to avoid backfires when implementing nudges.  

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2018. s. 69
Serie
Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences, ISSN 0282-9800 ; 759Linköping Studies in Behavioural Science, ISSN 1654-2029 ; 213
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-152788 (URN)10.3384/diss.diva-152788 (DOI)9789176851609 (ISBN)
Disputas
2018-12-14, I101, I-huset, Campus Valla, Linköping, 10:00 (engelsk)
Opponent
Veileder
Tilgjengelig fra: 2018-11-22 Laget: 2018-11-22 Sist oppdatert: 2019-11-20bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

fulltext(339 kB)20 nedlastinger
Filinformasjon
Fil FULLTEXT01.pdfFilstørrelse 339 kBChecksum SHA-512
532fd446961bcc36c5bc642a22998b831029db12eab782afbaed130a55402bcfe7f9d3a83080f13348b93f78cd8013fa36006d688491313374a0d78b14043df7
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekst

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Hagman, WilliamErlandsson, ArvidTinghög, GustavVästfjäll, Daniel
Av organisasjonen

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Totalt: 20 nedlastinger
Antall nedlastinger er summen av alle nedlastinger av alle fulltekster. Det kan for eksempel være tidligere versjoner som er ikke lenger tilgjengelige

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 62 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf