IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/z2vwb.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Costly Distractions: Focusing on Individual Behavior Undermines Support for Systemic Reforms

Author

Listed:
  • Hagmann, David

    (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

  • Liao, Yi-tsen
  • Chater, Nick
  • Loewenstein, George

Abstract

Policy challenges can typically be addressed both through systemic changes (e.g., taxes and mandates) and by encouraging individual behavior change. In this paper, we propose that, while in principle complementary, systemic and individual perspectives can compete for the limited attention of people and policymakers. Thus, directing policies in one of these two ways can distract the public’s attention from the other—an “attentional opportunity cost.” In two pre-registered experiments (n = 1,800) covering three high-stakes domains (climate change, retirement savings, and public health), we show that when people learn about policies targeting individual behavior (such as awareness campaigns), they are more likely to themselves propose policies that target individual behavior, and to hold individuals rather than organizational actors responsible for solving the problem, than are people who learned about systemic policies (such as taxes and mandates, Study 1). This shift in attribution of responsibility has behavioral consequences: people exposed to individual interventions are more likely to donate to an organization that educates individuals rather than one seeking to effect systemic reforms (Study 2). Policies targeting individual behavior may, therefore, have the unintended consequence of redirecting attention and attributions of responsibility away from systemic change to individual behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Hagmann, David & Liao, Yi-tsen & Chater, Nick & Loewenstein, George, 2023. "Costly Distractions: Focusing on Individual Behavior Undermines Support for Systemic Reforms," OSF Preprints z2vwb, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:z2vwb
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/z2vwb
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/644352a640b2c125abe8fb0d/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/z2vwb?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tiefenbeck, Verena & Staake, Thorsten & Roth, Kurt & Sachs, Olga, 2013. "For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 160-171.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    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. Alexander K. Koch & Dan Mønster & Julia Nafziger, 2023. "Nudging in complex environments," Economics Working Papers 2023-06, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    2. Mette T. Damgaard, 2020. "A decade of nudging: What have we learned?," Economics Working Papers 2020-07, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    3. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    4. Ingo Balderjahn & Dennis Appenfeller, 2023. "A Social Marketing Approach to Voluntary Simplicity: Communicating to Consume Less," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Ohler, Adrienne M. & Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2014. "Does environmental concern change the tragedy of the commons? Factors affecting energy saving behaviors and electricity usage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Guibentif, Thomas M.M. & Patel, Martin K. & Yilmaz, Selin, 2021. "Using energy saving deficit distributions to assess calculated, deemed and metered electricity savings estimations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    7. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. C. Yiwei Zhang & Jeffrey Hemmeter & Judd B. Kessler & Robert D. Metcalfe & Robert Weathers, 2023. "Nudging Timely Wage Reporting: Field Experimental Evidence from the U.S. Supplemental Security Income Program," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 1341-1353, March.
    11. Julian House & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Nina Mazar, 2022. "Nudging the Nudger: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Performance Feedback to Service Agents on Increasing Organ Donor Registrations," CESifo Working Paper Series 10012, CESifo.
    12. Christoph Bühren & Maria Daskalakis, 2015. "Do not incentivize eco-friendly behavior - Go for a competition to go green!," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201534, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    13. Lisette Ibanez & Sébastien Roussel, 2022. "The impact of nature video exposure on pro-environmental behavior: An experimental investigation," Post-Print hal-03847453, HAL.
    14. Syon P. Bhanot, 2021. "Good for you or good for us? A field experiment on motivating citizen behavior change," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 4(1).
    15. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Joshua Dalton, 2023. "Book Review: List, J. (2022). The Voltage Effect: How to Make Good Ideas Great and Great Ideas Scale. New York, NY: Penguin Random House. pp. 288. $28.00. ISBN 9780593239483 (hardcover)," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 68(1), pages 163-165, March.
    17. Magnus Bergquist & Andreas Nilsson & Emma Ejelöv, 2019. "Contest-Based and Norm-Based Interventions: (How) Do They Differ in Attitudes, Norms, and Behaviors?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    18. Lars Behlen & Oliver Himmler & Robert Jäckle, 2023. "Defaults and effortful tasks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(5), pages 1022-1059, November.
    19. Panzone, Luca A. & Ulph, Alistair & Zizzo, Daniel John & Hilton, Denis & Clear, Adrian, 2021. "The impact of environmental recall and carbon taxation on the carbon footprint of supermarket shopping," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Chen, Chien-fei & Nelson, Hannah & Xu, Xiaojing & Bonilla, Gregory & Jones, Nicholas, 2021. "Beyond technology adoption: Examining home energy management systems, energy burdens and climate change perceptions during COVID-19 pandemic," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    More about this item

    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:osf:osfxxx:z2vwb. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.