IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v42y2022i4p615-636_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchor management: a field experiment to encourage families to meet critical programme deadlines

Author

Listed:
  • Moore, Ryan T.
  • Gan, Katherine N.
  • Minnich, Karissa
  • Yokum, David

Abstract

Many families, despite need and eligibility, struggle to meet programme deadlines to retain critical benefits. When families fail to complete programme recertification on time, they lose needed support. While scholars have tested behavioural theories like chunking, implementation intention, and loss framing to promote programme uptake, less is known about how well-designed communications can promote continuity through successful recertification, especially where recertification entails a significant administrative burden. Further, scant evidence guides how best to frame recertification deadlines. In a randomised trial with government partners (n = 3,539), we find that sending a reminder letter informed by these behavioural theories increased the number of families maintaining participation by 14 per cent. Further, anchoring people to a deadline month may suffice to thread the motivational needle: overcoming procrastination without lowering self-efficacy by anchoring them to a specific day. Adopting the most effective letter in Washington, DC, would lead 766 more families to participate uninterrupted each year.

Suggested Citation

  • Moore, Ryan T. & Gan, Katherine N. & Minnich, Karissa & Yokum, David, 2022. "Anchor management: a field experiment to encourage families to meet critical programme deadlines," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 615-636, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:42:y:2022:i:4:p:615-636_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X21000131/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:jnlpup:v:42:y:2022:i:4:p:615-636_1. 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/pup .

    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.