Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The effect of paternalistic alternatives on attitudes toward default nudges
Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Psychology. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Psychology. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Klagenfurt University, Klagenfurt, Austria.
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Economics. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8159-1249
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Behavioural Public Policy, ISSN 2398-0648Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge University Press, 2019.
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161462DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2019.17OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-161462DiVA, id: diva2:1367219
Available from: 2019-11-01 Created: 2019-11-01 Last updated: 2019-12-12Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. When are nudges acceptable?: Influences of beneficiaries, techniques, alternatives and choice architects
Open this publication in new window or tab >>When are nudges acceptable?: Influences of beneficiaries, techniques, alternatives and choice architects
2018 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Alternative title[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.  

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2018. p. 69
Series
Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences, ISSN 0282-9800 ; 759Linköping Studies in Behavioural Science, ISSN 1654-2029 ; 213
National Category
Work Sciences Applied Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-152788 (URN)10.3384/diss.diva-152788 (DOI)9789176851609 (ISBN)
Public defence
2018-12-14, I101, I-huset, Campus Valla, Linköping, 10:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2018-11-22 Created: 2018-11-22 Last updated: 2019-11-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(339 kB)12 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 339 kBChecksum SHA-512
532fd446961bcc36c5bc642a22998b831029db12eab782afbaed130a55402bcfe7f9d3a83080f13348b93f78cd8013fa36006d688491313374a0d78b14043df7
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hagman, WilliamErlandsson, ArvidTinghög, GustavVästfjäll, Daniel
By organisation
PsychologyFaculty of Arts and SciencesEconomics
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 12 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 45 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf