IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v10y2026i1p127-150_7.html

Nudges can be both autonomy-preserving and effective: evidence from a survey and quasi-field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • van Roekel, Henrico
  • Giurge, Laura M.
  • Schott, Carina
  • Tummers, Lars

Abstract

Nudges are widely employed tools within organizations, but they are often criticized for harming autonomy and for being ineffective. We assess these two criticisms simultaneously: can nudges be both autonomy-preserving and effective in changing behavior? We developed three nudges – an opinion leader nudge, a rule-of-thumb and self-nudges – to reduce a particularly sticky behavior: email use. In a survey experiment of 4,112 healthcare employees, we tested their effect on perceived autonomy and subjective effectiveness. We also tested traditional policy instruments for comparison. Next, to assess objective effectiveness, we conducted a quasi-field experiment in a large healthcare organization with an estimate of 1,189 active email users. We found that each nudge in isolation, but especially when combined, was perceived to be both autonomy-preserving and effective, and more so than traditional policy instruments like an access limit or a monetary reward. We also found some evidence that the combination of all nudges decreased actual email use. This paper advances the literature by showing how innovations in nudge design improve nudges’ ability to be autonomy-preserving and effective.

Suggested Citation

  • van Roekel, Henrico & Giurge, Laura M. & Schott, Carina & Tummers, Lars, 2026. "Nudges can be both autonomy-preserving and effective: evidence from a survey and quasi-field experiment," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 127-150, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:10:y:2026:i:1:p:127-150_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X23000180/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:bpubpo:v:10:y:2026:i:1:p:127-150_7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    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.