IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/grt/bdxewp/2021-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why do Social Nudges Actually Work? Theoretical and Experimental Elements from a Randomized Controlled Trial with Bordeaux Winegrowers

Author

Listed:
  • Yann Raineau
  • Éric GIRAUD-HÉRAUD

Abstract

Nudges, known to bring about behavioral change, are today a controversial public policy tool. Grievances most often concern their ephemeral scope or legitimacy, but these complaints are rarely based on a detailed understanding of how they work, which considerably limits their critical analysis. In this paper, we mobilize Akerlof’s (1997) model of social distance to better understand the effectiveness of informational nudges. We then show how implicit cognitive biases remain the main source of performance, leading us to renewed ethical considerations. We illustrate our conjectures with a randomized controlled trial in the context of pesticide use in agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Yann Raineau & Éric GIRAUD-HÉRAUD, 2021. "Why do Social Nudges Actually Work? Theoretical and Experimental Elements from a Randomized Controlled Trial with Bordeaux Winegrowers," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2021-22, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    • Handle: RePEc:grt:bdxewp:2021-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://bordeauxeconomicswp.u-bordeaux.fr/2021/2021-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    2. Eva Schmidtner & Christian Lippert & Barbara Engler & Anna Maria Häring & Jaochim Aurbacher & Stephan Dabbert, 2012. "Spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany: does neighbourhood matter?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(4), pages 661-683, September.
    3. Bartke, Simon & Friedl, Andreas & Gelhaar, Felix & Reh, Laura, 2017. "Social comparison nudges—Guessing the norm increases charitable giving," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 73-75.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    5. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    6. Martin Jones & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 59-99, February.
    7. A.F. Espinoza & A. Hubert & C. Franc & E. Giraud-Heraud & Yann Raineau, 2018. "Resistant grape varieties and market acceptance: An evaluation based on experimental economics," Post-Print hal-03116620, HAL.
    8. Whittaker, Gerald W. & Lin, Biing-Hwan & Vasavada, Utpal, 1995. "Restricting Pesticide Use: The Impact On Profitability By Farm Size," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    10. Hunt Allcott & Todd Rogers, 2014. "The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3003-3037, October.
    11. Drew B. Cameron & Anjini Mishra & Annette N. Brown, 2016. "The growth of impact evaluation for international development: how much have we learned?," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 1-21, March.
    12. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    13. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    14. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    15. Steven Wallander & Paul Ferraro & Nathaniel Higgins, 2017. "Addressing Participant Inattention in Federal Programs: A Field Experiment with The Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(4), pages 914-931.
    16. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    17. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    18. George A. Akerlof, 1997. "Social Distance and Social Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1005-1028, September.
    19. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    20. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    21. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    22. Paul J. Ferraro & Juan Jose Miranda & Michael K. Price, 2011. "The Persistence of Treatment Effects with Norm-Based Policy Instruments: Evidence from a Randomized Environmental Policy Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 318-322, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rita Abdel Sater, 2021. "Essays on the application of behavioural insights to environmental policy [Essais sur l’application des connaissances comportementales aux politiques environnementales]," SciencePo Working papers tel-03450909, HAL.
    2. Rita Abdel Sater, 2021. "Essays on the application of behavioural insights to environmental policy [Essais sur l’application des connaissances comportementales aux politiques environnementales]," SciencePo Working papers Main tel-03450909, HAL.
    3. Vu, Ha Thu & Tran, Duc & Goto, Daisaku & Kawata, Keisuke, 2020. "Does experience sharing affect farmers’ pro-environmental behavior? A randomized controlled trial in Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    4. Takanori Ida, Kayo Murakami, and Makoto Tanaka, 2016. "Electricity demand response in Japan: Experimental evidence from a residential photovoltaic power-generation system," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    5. Sylvain Chabé-Ferret & Philippe Le Coent & Arnaud Reynaud & Julie Subervie & Daniel Lepercq, 2019. "Can we nudge farmers into saving water? Evidence from a randomised experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 393-416.
    6. Dietrich Earnhart & Paul J. Ferraro, 2021. "The Effect of Peer Comparisons on Polluters: A Randomized Field Experiment among Wastewater Dischargers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(4), pages 627-652, August.
    7. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Paul J. Ferraro & Nicholas Janusch & Christian A. Vossler & Kent D. Messer, 2019. "Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research: Methodological Challenges, Literature Gaps, and Recommendations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 719-742, July.
    8. Takanori Ida & Kayo Murakami & Makoto Tanaka, 2015. "Electricity demand response in Japan:Experimental evidence from a residential photovoltaic generation system," Discussion papers e-15-006, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    9. Céline Nauges & Dale Whittington, 2019. "Social Norms Information Treatments in the Municipal Water Supply Sector: Some New Insights on Benefits and Costs," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-40, July.
    10. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.
    11. Denis Hilton & Nicolas Treich & Gaetan Lazzara & Philippe Tendil, 2018. "Designing effective nudges that satisfy ethical constraints: the case of environmentally responsible behaviour," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 17(1), pages 27-38, November.
    12. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.
    13. Jason Delaney & Sarah Jacobson, 2016. "Payments or Persuasion: Common Pool Resource Management with Price and Non-price Measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 747-772, December.
    14. Holladay, Scott & LaRiviere, Jacob & Novgorodsky, David & Price, Michael, 2019. "Prices versus nudges: What matters for search versus purchase of energy investments?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 151-173.
    15. Daniel A. Brent & Corey Lott & Michael Taylor & Joseph Cook & Kimberly Rollins & Shawn Stoddard, 2020. "What Causes Heterogeneous Responses to Social Comparison Messages for Water Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 503-537, November.
    16. Andor, Mark A. & Fels, Katja M., 2018. "Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation – A Systematic Review of Non-price Interventions and Their Causal Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 178-210.
    17. Matilde Giaccherini & David Herberich & David Jimenez-Gomez & John List & Giovanni Ponti & Michael Price, 2020. "Are Economics and Psychology Complements in Household Technology Diffusion? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00713, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.
    19. Kurz, Verena, 2018. "Nudging to reduce meat consumption: Immediate and persistent effects of an intervention at a university restaurant," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 317-341.
    20. Tonke, Sebastian, 2020. "Imperfect Procedural Knowledge: Evidence from a Field Experiment to Encourage Water Conservation," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224536, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nudges; RCT; farmer behavior; social norms; ethics of public interventions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:grt:bdxewp:2021-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ernest Miguelez (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifredfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.