IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v106y2023ics2214804323000733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates

Author

Listed:
  • Bruns, Hendrik
  • Perino, Grischa

Abstract

Scholars, policymakers and decisionmakers sometimes criticize behavioral public policies, such as nudges, for undermining behavioral autonomy. We provide evidence from an experiment where participants encountered a recommendation, default value, or mandatory minimum contribution accompanied by varying information on the source, before contributing to climate protection and answering an autonomy-related questionnaire. We find that decisionmakers perceive defaults as more freedom threatening than recommendations and less threatening and angering than mandatory minimum contributions. Intrinsic motivation to protect the climate moderates these differences. An expert, but not the political source reduces threat to freedom and anger. Findings improve our understanding of decisionmakers’ perceptions of nudges relative to other interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000733
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.102047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804323000733
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102047?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000733. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.