IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v37y2014i3p423-435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Active and Forced Choice for Overcoming Status Quo Bias: A Field Experiment on the Adoption of “No junk mail” Stickers in Berlin, Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Georg Liebig
  • Jens Rommel

    ()

Abstract

Consumers around the world are burdened by large amounts of unaddressed junk mail. Attaching “No junk mail” stickers to mailboxes offers a simple solution for protecting against unwanted ads. Presumably, the use of such stickers can be increased if consumers deliberately decide either for or against receiving junk mail. This conjecture of status quo bias was tested in a field experiment run with more than 900 households in Berlin, Germany. In one treatment, stickers were put into mailboxes, facilitating active choice. In a second treatment, stickers were attached halfway onto the outsides of mailboxes, forcing consumers to either remove or fully attach them. It was found that roughly a fifth of the sample attached a sticker after treatment. With uptake of more than 21, as compared to 16%, the forced choice was more effective than the active choice treatment. The findings highlight the importance of green nudges and defaults for promoting pro-environmental behaviour. Implications for landlords of the presented interventions are discussed. The field of social norms is identified as a promising area for extending the scope of the present study. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Georg Liebig & Jens Rommel, 2014. "Active and Forced Choice for Overcoming Status Quo Bias: A Field Experiment on the Adoption of “No junk mail” Stickers in Berlin, Germany," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 423-435, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:37:y:2014:i:3:p:423-435
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-014-9264-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10603-014-9264-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    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. Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Sendhil Mullainathan & Jonathan Zinman, 2016. "Getting to the Top of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3393-3411, December.
    3. Kallbekken, Steffen & Sælen, Håkon, 2013. "‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 325-327.
    4. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    5. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    6. Karlan, Dean S. & McConnell, Margaret & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Zinman, Jonathan, 2010. "Getting to the Top of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving," Center Discussion Papers 92001, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    7. Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch, 2013. "Green by Default," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 398-402, August.
    8. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    9. Ximena Cadena & Antoinette Schoar, 2011. "Remembering to Pay? Reminders vs. Financial Incentives for Loan Payments," NBER Working Papers 17020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    11. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2003. "Libertarian Paternalism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 175-179, May.
    12. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    13. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    14. Fleiter, Tobias & Fehrenbach, Daniel & Worrell, Ernst & Eichhammer, Wolfgang, 2012. "Energy efficiency in the German pulp and paper industry – A model-based assessment of saving potentials," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 84-99.
    15. Maria Lissowska, 2011. "Overview of Behavioural Economics Elements in the OECD Consumer Policy Toolkit," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 393-398, September.
    16. Steffen Kallbekken & Håkon Sælen & Erlend Hermansen, 2013. "Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: A Field Experiment on Lifetime Energy Costs and Household Appliances," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-16, March.
    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:joreco:v:29:y:2016:i:c:p:12-21 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Greer Gosnell, 2017. "Be who you ought or be who you are? Environmental framing and cognitive dissonance in going paperless," GRI Working Papers 269, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    3. Gabriela Michalek & Georg Meran & Reimund Schwarze & Özgür Yildiz, 2015. "Nudging as a new 'soft' tool in environmental policy. An analysis based on insights from cognitive and social psychology," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 21, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).

    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:kap:jcopol:v:37:y:2014:i:3:p:423-435. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.