Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T10:59:46.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are ‘nudges’ getting a fair shot? Joint versus separate evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2018

SHAI DAVIDAI  and
ELDAR SHAFIR
SHAI DAVIDAI*
Affiliation:
The New School for Social Research, New York, NY, USA
ELDAR SHAFIR
Affiliation:
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
*
*Correspondence to: The New School for Social Research, 80 5th Ave, Room 708, New York, NY10011, USA. Email: shaidavidai@newschool.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The most effective behavioral policies are often also the most contentious. Psychologically informed interventions that promote non-deliberative behaviors (‘nudges’) are often more effective than ‘traditional’ policies (like informational and educational campaigns) that target more deliberative processes. Yet, precisely because of their deliberative nature, people are often said to prefer the latter over the former. In contrast, we provide evidence that people's preferences regarding nudges are malleable and influenced by the method of evaluation – whether the policy alternatives are evaluated separately or jointly. We show that while people exhibit a strong preference for more traditional public policies in joint evaluation, this preference is significantly attenuated in separate evaluation. We find that people perceive nudges as less paternalistic when judged on their own merits, that they are more likely to endorse nudges in separate than in joint evaluation, and that, provided with relative effectiveness information, people are willing to endorse nudges even in joint evaluation. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, policy-makers, and the general public.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 273 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allcott, H. and Rogers, T. (2014), ‘The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation’, The American Economic Review, 104(10): 3003–3037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arad, A. and Rubinstein, A. (2018), The People's Perspective on Libertarian-Paternalistic Policies. Unpublished manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, M. H., Moore, D. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., Wade-Benzoni, K. A. and Blount, S. (1999), ‘Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39(1): 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J. and Galing, S. (2017), ‘Should governments invest more in nudging?’ Psychological Science, DOI: 10.1177/0956797617702501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. H. (1999), ‘Risk aversion or myopia? Choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments’, Management Science, 45(3): 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, C. J., Walton, G. M., Rogers, T. and Dweck, C. S. (2011), ‘Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(31): 12653–12656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, R. M. and Galak, J. (2012), ‘The effect of inequality frames on support for redistributive tax policies’, Psychological Science, 23(12): 1467–1469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornwell, J. F. and Krantz, D. H. (2014), ‘Public policy for thee, but not for me: Varying the grammatical person of public policy justifications influences their support’, Judgment and Decision Making, 9(5): 433–444.Google Scholar
Damgaard, M. T. and Gravert, C. (2017), ‘Now or never! The effect of deadlines on charitable giving: Evidence from two natural field experiments’, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, S., Levav, J. and Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011), ‘Extraneous factors in judicial decisions’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17): 6889–6892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidai, S. and Gilovich, T. (2018), How should we think about Americans’ beliefs about economic mobility? Manuscript accepted for publication.Google Scholar
Davidai, S. and Gilovich, T. (2015), ‘Building a more mobile America—One income quintile at a time’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1): 60–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidai, S., Gilovich, T. and Ross, L. D. (2012), ‘The meaning of default options for potential organ donors’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38): 15201–15205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dayan, E. and Bar-Hillel, M. (2011), ‘Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders’, Judgment and Decision Making, 6(4): 333–342.Google Scholar
Dunt, I. (2014), Nudge nudge, say no more: Brits’ minds will be controlled without us knowing it. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/05/nudge-say-no-more-behavioural-insights-team.Google Scholar
Felsen, G., Castelo, N. and Reiner, P. B. (2013), ‘Decisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges’, Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3): 202–213.Google Scholar
Grüne-Yanoff, T. and Hertwig, R. (2016), ‘Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory?’, Minds and Machines, 26(1–2): 149–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. and Griskevicius, V. (2008), ‘A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels’, Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3): 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagman, W., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D. and Tinghög, G. (2015), ‘Public views on policies involving nudges’, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3): 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R. and Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017), ‘Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Hsee, C. K. (1996), ‘The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3): 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1998), ‘Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107–121.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S. and Bazerman, M. H. (1999), ‘Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 125(5): 576–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsee, C. K. and Zhang, J. (2004), ‘Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5): 680–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, J. R., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. and McClelland, G. H. (1993), ‘Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6(1): 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jachimowicz, J. M., Duncan, S., Weber, E. U. and Johnson, E. J. (2018), When and Why Defaults Influence Decisions: A Meta-Analysis of Default Effects. Unpublished manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. J. and Goldstein, D. (2003), ‘Do defaults save lives?’, Science, 302(5649): 1338–1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, J. Y. and Mellers, B. (2016), ‘American attitudes toward nudges’, Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1): 62–74.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, fast and slow, New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Miller, D. T. (1986), ‘Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives’, Psychological Review, 93(2): 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Ritov, I. (1994), ‘Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9(1): 5–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., Ritov, I. and Schkade, D. A. (1999), ‘Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues’, Journal of Risk Uncertainty, 19, 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D. and Rajpal, S. (2015), ‘Warning: You are about to be nudged’, Behavioral Science & Policy, 1(1): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. and Madrian, B. C. (2011), ‘Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(26): 10415–10420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickerson, D. W. and Rogers, T. (2010), ‘Do you have a voting plan? Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making’, Psychological Science, 21(2): 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of the Press Secretary, (2015), Executive order – Using behavioral science insights to better serve the American people. Retrieved on December 28th, 2016 from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american.Google Scholar
Reisch, L. A. and Sunstein, C. R. (2016), ‘Do Europeans like nudges?’, Judgment and Decision Making 11(4): 310–325.Google Scholar
Rozin, P., Scott, S., Dingley, M., Urbanek, J. K., Jiang, H. and Kaltenbach, M. (2011), ‘Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake’, Judgment and Decision Making, 6(4): 323–332.Google Scholar
Shafir, E. (1999), ‘Philosophical intuitions and cognitive mechanisms’, in DePaul, M. R. and Ramsey, W.M. (eds.), Rethinking intuition: The psychology of intuition and its role in philosophical inquiry, Lanham, MD, US: Rowman & Littlefield, 59–73.Google Scholar
Shaw, T. (2017), Invisible manipulators of your mind. The New York Review of Books. Retrived from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/04/20/kahneman-tversky-invisible-mind-manipulators/.Google Scholar
Steffel, M., Williams, E. F. and Pogacar, R. (2016), ‘Ethically Deployed Defaults: Transparency and Consumer Protection Through Disclosure and Preference Articulation’, Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5): 865–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2016a), ‘Do People Like Nudges?’, Administrative Law Review.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2016b), ‘People prefer System 2 nudges (kind of)’, Duke Law Journal, 66(1): 121–168.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, D., Fox, C. R. and Rogers, T. (2017), ‘On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions’, Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Benartzi, S. (2004), ‘Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving’, Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1): S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thorndike, A. N., Riis, J., Sonnenberg, L. M. and Levy, D. E. (2014), ‘Traffic-light labels and choice architecture: Promoting healthy food choices’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46(2): 143–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Zant, A. B. and Moore, D. A. (2015), ‘Leaders’ use of moral justifications increases policy support’, Psychological Science, 26(6): 934–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldron, J. (2014), It's all for your own good. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/10/09/cass-sunstein-its-all-your-own-good/.Google Scholar
Walton, G. M. and Cohen, G. L. (2011), ‘A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students’, Science, 331(6023): 1447–1451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wansink, B. (2006), Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think, New York, NY: Bantam Dell.Google Scholar