IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jdm/journl/v11y2016i1p62-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

American attitudes toward nudges

Author

Listed:
  • Janice Y. Jung
  • Barbara A. Mellers

Abstract

To successfully select and implement nudges, policy makers need a psychological understanding of who opposes nudges, how they are perceived, and when alternative methods (e.g., forced choice) might work better. Using two representative samples, we examined four factors that influence U.S. attitudes toward nudges – types of nudges, individual dispositions, nudge perceptions, and nudge frames. Most nudges were supported, although opt-out defaults for organ donations were opposed in both samples. “System 1†nudges (e.g., defaults and sequential orderings) were viewed less favorably than “System 2†nudges (e.g., educational opportunities or reminders). System 1 nudges were perceived as more autonomy threatening, whereas System 2 nudges were viewed as more effective for better decision making and more necessary for changing behavior. People with greater empathetic concern tended to support both types of nudges and viewed them as the “right†kind of goals to have. Individualists opposed both types of nudges, and conservatives tended to oppose both types. Reactant people and those with a strong desire for control opposed System 1 nudges. To see whether framing could influence attitudes, we varied the description of the nudge in terms of the target (Personal vs. Societal) and the reference point for the nudge (Costs vs. Benefits). Empathetic people were more supportive when framing highlighted societal costs or benefits, and reactant people were more opposed to nudges when frames highlighted the personal costs of rejection.

Suggested Citation

  • Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15824a/jdm15824a.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15824a/jdm15824a.html
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abadie, Alberto & Gay, Sebastien, 2006. "The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 599-620, July.
    2. Clee, Mona A & Wicklund, Robert A, 1980. " Consumer Behavior and Psychological Reactance," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 389-405, March.
    3. Fitzsimons, Gavan J, 2000. " Consumer Response to Stockouts," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 249-266, September.
    4. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    5. Gidon Felsen & Noah Castelo & Peter B. Reiner, 2013. "Decisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 202-213, May.
    6. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    7. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    8. Hazel Rose Markus & Barry Schwartz, 2010. "Does Choice Mean Freedom and Well-Being?," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 344-355, August.
    9. James F. M. Cornwell & David H. Krantz, 2014. "Public policy for thee, but not for me: Varying the grammatical person of public policy justifications influences their support," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 433-444, September.
    10. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. " Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    11. Jessica Wisdom & Julie S. Downs & George Loewenstein, 2010. "Promoting Healthy Choices: Information versus Convenience," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 164-178, April.
    12. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    13. Nikhil Dhingra & Zach Gorn & Andrew Kener & Jason Dana, 2012. "The default pull: An experimental demonstration of subtle default effects on preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 69-76, January.
    14. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    15. Gavan J. Fitzsimons & Donald R. Lehmann, 2004. "Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 82-94, September.
    16. Ganzach, Yoav & Karsahi, Nili, 1995. "Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 11-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:jfpoli:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:kap:revaec:v:32:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11138-018-0414-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. repec:spr:inrvec:v:65:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s12232-017-0281-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:jdm:journl:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:26-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:jdm:journl:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:40-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:jdm:journl:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:11-25 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:kap:pubcho:v:178:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-018-0607-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Lucia A. Reisch & Cass R. Sunstein, 2016. "Do Europeans like nudges?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 310-325, July.
    10. repec:spr:inrvec:v:65:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s12232-017-0280-9 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:jdm:journl:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.