Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T17:23:07.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of perceived effectiveness on the acceptability of choice architecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2018

H. MIN BANG ,
SUZANNE B. SHU  and
ELKE U. WEBER
H. MIN BANG*
Affiliation:
Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
SUZANNE B. SHU
Affiliation:
Anderson School of Management, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
ELKE U. WEBER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
*
*Correspondence to: H. Min Bang, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC27708, USA. Email: hb71@duke.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The success of choice architecture, including its adoption in government policy and practice, has prompted questions of whether choice architecture design decisions are sufficiently transparent and publicly acceptable. We examined whether disclosing to decision-makers that a particular choice architecture is in place reduces its effectiveness and whether an understanding of the effectiveness of choice architecture design decisions increases their acceptability. We find that disclosure of the design decision does not reduce its effectiveness and that individuals perceive the effectiveness of specific designs to be higher for others than for themselves. Perceived effectiveness for self increases when individuals have actually experienced the effect of a design decision rather than having it simply described to them. Perceived effectiveness for oneself and others increases the acceptability of the designs. We also find that the intentions of the source matter more than who the source actually is. Important for policy-makers, then, is that disclosure of design decisions does not reduce their effectiveness, and their acceptability depends on their perceived effectiveness and the inferred motivations of the design architect.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 50 - 70
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.)

References

Braun, K. A., Gaeth, G. J., and Levin, I. P. (1997), ‘Framing effects with differential impact: The role of attribute salience’, Advances in Consumer Research, 24: 405–11.Google Scholar
Bruns, H., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Klement, K., Luistro Jonsson, M., and Rahali, B. (2016), ‘Can Nudges Be Transparent and Yet Effective?’ Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816227.Google Scholar
Bovens, L. (2009), ‘The Ethics of Nudge’, In Grüne-Yanoff, T. and Hansson, S. O. (eds), Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology, (pp. 207–220). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M. C. (1999), ‘“Why did you do that?” The important role of inferred motive in perceptions of price fairness’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(2): 145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M. C., and Kirmani, A. (2000), ‘Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent’, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charry, K., Pelsmacker, P., and Pecheux, C. L. (2014), ‘How does perceived effectiveness affect adults’ ethical acceptance of anti-obesity threat appeals to children? When the going gets tough, the audience gets going’, Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2): 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. L. (2003), ‘Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 808–822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davison, W. P. (1983), ‘The third-person effect in communication’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 47: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., and Holzberg, A. D. (1989), ‘Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6): 1082–90.CrossRefGoogle 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): 202–13.Google Scholar
Gunther, A. C., and Thorson, E. (1992), ‘Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains’, Communication Research, 19: 574–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, P. G., and Jespersen, A. M. (2013), ‘Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behavior change in public policy’, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1: 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., and Weber, E. U. (2010), ‘A dirty word or a dirty world?: Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory’, Psychological Science, 21(1): 86–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsee, C. K., and Weber, E. U. (1997), ‘A fundamental prediction error: Self-others discrepancies in risk preference’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(1): 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. J., Hassin, R., Baker, T., Bajger, A. T., and Treuer, G. (2013), ‘Can consumers make affordable care affordable? The value of choice architecture’, PloS one, 8(12): e81521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E. J., Shu, S. B., Dellaert, B. G. C., Fox, C., Goldstein, D. G., Haeubl, G., Larrick, R. P., Payne, J. W., Schkade, D., Wansink, B., and Weber, E. U. (2012), ‘Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture’, Marketing Letters, 23: 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., and Harris, V. A. (1967), ‘The attribution of attitudes’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, J. Y., and Mellers, B. A. (2016), ‘American attitudes toward nudges’, Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1): 62–74.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2013), Thinking fast and slow, New York, Farrar: Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect Theory: An analysis of decisions under risk’, Econometrica, 47: 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBoeuf, R. A., and Shafir, E. (2003), ‘Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(2): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D., and Rajpal, S. (2014), ‘Warning: You are about to be nudged’. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2417383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, C. R. M., Liersch, M. J., and Finkelstein, S. R. (2006), ‘Recommendation implicit in policy defaults’, Psychological Science, 17(5): 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, B., Pauker, S., Tversky, H. Jr., and Sox, A. (1982), ‘On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies’, New England Journal of Medicine, 306: 1259–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014), Behavioural Insights and New Approaches to Policy Design, viewed 23 January 2014. http://www.oecd.org/naec/NAEC_Behavioural-Insights-Programme_23-Jan.pdf.Google Scholar
Pronin, E. (2009), ‘The Introspection Illusion’, In Zanna, M. P. (ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 41, pp.1–67). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., and Ross, L. (2004), ‘Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others’, Psychological Review, 111(3): 781–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y. and Ross, L. (2002), ‘The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3): 369–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raihani, N. J. (2013), ‘Nudge politics: Efficacy and ethics’, Frontiers in Psychology, 4: 972–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., and Ross, L. (1995), ‘Actual versus assumed differences in construal: ‘‘Naı¨ve realism’’ in intergroup perception and conflict’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., and West, R. F. (1998), ‘Individual differences in rational thought’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2): 161–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971), A theory of justice, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2015), ‘Do people like nudges?’ Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2604084.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, D., Fox, C. R., and Rogers, T. (2016), ‘On the misplaced politics of behavioral policy interventions’. Working paper.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
Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. R. (2003), ‘Libertarian paternalism’, American Economic Review, 93: 175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treuer, G. A., Appelt, K. C., Goll, A. E., Crookes, R. D., and Weber, E. U. (2012), ‘Weathering the storm: Status quo adjustments explain successful policy implementation’. Working paper.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981), ‘The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice’, Science, 211: 453–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U. (2015), ‘Climate change demands behavioral change: What are the challenges?’, Social Research: An International Quarterly, 82: 561–81.Google Scholar
Wilkins, T. M. (2013), ‘Nudging and manipulation’, Political Studies, 61: 341–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bang et al. supplementary material

Bang et al. supplementary material
Download Bang et al. supplementary material(File)
File 306.9 KB