IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0293036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nudging policymakers on gendered impacts of policy

Author

Listed:
  • Lindsay Blair Bochon
  • Janet Dean
  • Tanja Rosteck
  • Jiaying Zhao

Abstract

Despite the proliferation of nudge research in the last few decades, very little published work aims to nudge the behavior of policymakers. Here we explore the impact of a well-established nudge on policymakers in the Northwest Territories of Canada. In a pre-registered randomized controlled trial, we emailed an invitation to policymakers (N = 263) to attend an online briefing on gendered impacts of policy. In the treatment condition (N = 133), the invitation contained personal stories of two women whose lives were disproportionally impacted by public policies more than men. In the control condition (N = 130), the invitation did not contain such stories. After the briefing, we sent all participants in both conditions a link to a public pledge that they could sign. The pledge was to lead and advocate for equity-oriented policymaking. Contrary to our prediction, there was a small backfiring effect where policymakers in the treatment condition (3.0%) were less likely to attend the briefing than the control condition (7.7%). However, two policymakers (1.5%) in the treatment condition signed the public pledge compared to one (0.8%) in the control condition. The current findings reveal the limits of using personal stories as a nudge to influence policymakers. We discuss insights gained from this experiment and follow-up debriefings with policymakers on how to improve future behavioral interventions designed to nudge policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindsay Blair Bochon & Janet Dean & Tanja Rosteck & Jiaying Zhao, 2023. "Nudging policymakers on gendered impacts of policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0293036
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293036
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293036&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0293036?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais, 2021. "Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    3. Paul Cairney & Richard Kwiatkowski, 2017. "How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Penelope Beynon & Marie Gaarder & Christelle Chapoy & Edoardo Masset, 2012. "Passing on the Hot Potato: Lessons from a Policy Brief Experiment," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 68-75, September.
    5. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jay L. Caulfield & Catharyn A. Baird & Felissa K. Lee, 2022. "The Ethicality of Point-of-Sale Marketing Campaigns: Normative Ethics Applied to Cause-Related Checkout Charities," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 799-814, February.
    3. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    4. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    5. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    6. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    7. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    8. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic, 2016. "Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Pellegrin, Claire & Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel & Napoleone, Claude, 2018. "Does the Identifiable Victim Effect Matter for Plants? Results From a Quasi-experimental Survey of French Farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 106-113.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:60-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Cameron Brick & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Steven Wooding & William J. Skylark & Theresa M. Marteau & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2018. "Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. André Mata, 2016. "Proportion dominance in valuing lives: The role of deliberative thinking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 441-448, September.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:5:p:458-466 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Tehila Kogut & Ilana Ritov & Enrico Rubaltelli & Nira Liberman, 2018. "How far is the suffering? The role of psychological distance and victims’ identifiability in donation decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 458-466, September.
    16. Kim, Joonkyung & Zhao, Min & Soman, Dilip, 2023. "Converging vs diverging: The effect of visual representation of goal structure on financial decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 362-377.
    17. Heyes, Anthony & Lyon, Thomas P. & Martin, Steve, 2018. "Salience games: Private politics when public attention is limited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 396-410.
    18. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    21. Georges Dionne & Paul Lanoie, 2002. "How to Make a Public Choice About the Value of a Statistical Life: The Case of Road Safety," Cahiers de recherche 02-04, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    22. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    23. Sudeep Bhatia & Lukasz Walasek & Paul Slovic & Howard Kunreuther, 2021. "The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 179-203, January.
    24. Lowes, Richard & Woodman, Bridget, 2020. "Disruptive and uncertain: Policy makers’ perceptions on UK heat decarbonisation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).

    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:plo:pone00:0293036. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.