Lecture 4 (nudging Part 1) Flashcards
What can we do if the traditional means of interventions do not work? List three trational interventions and the new path.
The traditional interventions:
- Regulation
- Monetary incentives
- Information
The new tool:
- Nudging
What system does the traditional intervention not work on?
System 1. The fast intuitive system responds badly to traditional regulation, monetary incentives and information.
How is nudging defined?
Re-designing the decision making context to change behavior:
- Changing behaviour without limiting choice or changing economic incentives
- Designing the context based on insights from behavioral science.
What is choice architecture?
A choice architect designs the choice environment so as to encourage the
chooser to select a preferred choice, while maintaining the chooser’s
freedom to select other choices.
So they would not force people to do anything, they will encourage to do a preferred thing. For example pissing in the middle of the pissoir.
Choice architecture is about choice context, which can be cut down to two things:
- Psychological context refers to the mental processes and biases that people bring into decision-making. Human beings do not always make purely rational decisions. Our minds are influenced by various cognitive biases, such as anchoring, framing, and loss aversion. Choice architects design environments that take these mental shortcuts (heuristics) into account. For example, framing a message as a potential loss (“If you don’t recycle, you’ll lose money”) is often more powerful than framing the same message as a gain (“If you recycle, you’ll save money”).
- Physical context involves the actual layout or arrangement of options in the environment. However, this is designed with human psychology in mind to influence choices.
Physical placement, like putting healthier foods at the front of a buffet or near the checkout counter, influences decision-making without restricting options. This is based on the understanding that people often make impulsive choices based on convenience or ease. The Homer Simpshon example.
Explain me the key understandings of the Behavioral intervention matrix? Figure 4
Different categories of nudges - Our professor said that there were other matrixes, but. this one was per reviewed.
REFRAME:
Anchoring: This nudge refers to giving a reference point or starting value for students to make judgments. For example, starting a lecture with a compelling statistic can anchor students’ perceptions of the topic.
Order Effects/Salience: How information is sequenced and made noticeable can change the decision-making process. Presenting the most important concepts at the beginning or end of a lecture to take advantage of the primacy or recency effect is an example.
Framing: This is about how the same information is presented in different ways to influence perception. For example, presenting a concept as “you’ll miss out if you don’t participate” versus “you’ll benefit if you participate” can change student engagement.
- ENCOURAGE:
Social Proof: Showing students how others are behaving (e.g., mentioning that a majority of students submit assignments on time) encourages similar behavior.
Reminders/Notifications: Gentle reminders to complete assignments or engage in learning activities.
Feedback: Regular feedback helps students stay on track and recognize their progress.
Implementation Intentions: Encouraging students to set clear intentions or plans for actions can increase the likelihood that they follow through.
Commitment/Pledge: Getting students to make a public or private commitment to a goal can increase their motivation.
Goal Setting: Helping students set specific, achievable goals can enhance their performance. - FACILITATE:
Defaults: Making certain beneficial behaviors the default option. For example, automatically enrolling students in certain online resources or study groups, while still giving them the freedom to opt out.
Active Choice: Rather than passive decisions, students are prompted to actively choose. For instance, asking them to actively decide whether or not to participate in an extra credit assignment.
Simplification: Reducing complexity to facilitate easier decision-making. For example, simplifying course structures or guidelines for assignments.
Physical Environment: Adjusting the physical or virtual environment to promote certain behaviors, such as making educational resources more accessible. - INCENTIVIZE:
Symbolic Rewards: Non-monetary rewards that can still have a motivating impact, like praise, recognition, or badges.
Incentives: Offering small rewards for achieving certain milestones or behaviors, such as extra credit for attending office hours.
Key Insights:
Reframe focuses on changing how information is presented to guide behavior without changing the actual choices.
Encourage uses behavioral prompts like social cues, feedback, and commitments to motivate students.
Facilitate is about making beneficial choices easier through simplifying or defaulting to the best options.
Incentivize leverages rewards, whether symbolic or tangible, to motivate desired behaviors.
This matrix provides a framework for applying various types of nudges in educational settings to improve student outcomes.
Who can we nudge? Figure 5
Not everyone!
We can not by theory change peoples mind who have very strong opinions. If you drive way to fast in populated areas, then you are not the ones who will be affected by alternative road sign nudges. Instead fines would be more likely. Or if you love meat or are vegan than you will not be affected by the nudge. In contrast people who are mostly indifferent are the ones who will be affected by nudges. If the buffet does not have meat the indifferent will just eat what is there, where a meatlover would possibly go for something else and not eat in the buffet.
Which gamblers should/can we nudge? Figure 6
Based on the theory of the indifferent, then we are able to nudge the recreational gamblers and maybe the at-risk gamblers. We can not nudge the non-gamblers and problem gamblers. They are to extreme in there own way.
Why does nudges work best when there is an intention-to-action gap?
Sometimes people have…
* … the right information
* … the right incentive
* … the right attitude
But they still don’t act in a
way that reflects their long-
term best interests
fx. Babbel, Babbel - you have downloaded the app, wishing to learn spanish for going abroad on exchange. But you only visit it one or few times, the rest it just lay around collecting money.
Therefore the intention to action gap means that sometime people have good intentions but they just do not do it. The gap.
Giving out free bicycles at work so people don’t take the car. Is that a nudge?
Not a nudge. changing economic incentives
Why?: This is more of an incentive or subsidy than a nudge. A nudge works by subtly guiding choices without changing incentives significantly or removing options. In this case, giving away a free bicycle is a strong incentive that changes the economic equation, rather than merely influencing choice through framing or environmental cues. It’s an external reward to shift behavior, rather than a subtle behavioral cue.
Adding a pop-up window at checkout to confirm whether you want free cutlery with your take-out
Nudge or not?
Yes, a nudge.
Why?: This is a classic example of choice architecture where the decision-making process is influenced without restricting choices. The pop-up serves as a reminder or prompt, encouraging users to make a conscious choice rather than automatically receiving cutlery. It’s a gentle nudge towards reducing waste, making users aware of the decision without limiting their options.
A lottery to win 1000 DKK when using the pant station at Netto – a ticket with every returned bottle
Nudge or not?
Not a nudge. changing economic incentives.
Why?: This is an incentive rather than a nudge. A nudge subtly alters how choices are presented or framed, while a lottery introduces a clear external reward. People are motivated by the chance to win money, which is a tangible and significant incentive that directly changes the cost-benefit balance of returning bottles, rather than subtly guiding behavior.
How is the classic definition of nudging not fitting all nudges? Define the nudge and give examples of those who does and does not fit.
The classic definition of nudges:
A nudge is a change in any aspect of the choice
architecture that alters people’s behavior in a
predictable way without forbidding any options or
significantly changing their economic incentives (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2009).
* “make choosers better off, as judged by themselves “
(Thaler and Sunstein, 2008).
* the nudge “[…] creates large benefits for those who
make errors, while imposing little or no harm on those
who are fully rational.
” (Camerer et al., 2003).
* ”Liberitarian paternalism” are approaches that preserve
freedom of choice, but steer people towards choices
that promote their welfare .
Some nudges who fulfill the classic definitions:
* Medication adherence: Reminders to take medication
(among others, Yoeli et al. 2018), implementation
intentions to get a flu shot (Milkman et al. 2011)
* Savings: Default enrollment into pension plans (Thaler
and Benartzi 2004)
* Health behavior: reminders to go to the gym (Ekström
et al. 2018), menus that display health food at the top
(Kurz 2018, Kurz and Gravert 2017) or calorie labels
(Wisdom et al. 2010)
These nudges help people reach their goals such as staying healthy, losing weight or saving for retirement.
Dommen nudges that don´t fulfill these criteria
But fx. does the fly in the urinal, footsteps to a trashcan, making glasses easier accessible than plastic cups not fulfill these criteria.
- These nudges focus on reducing externalities. They are primarily based on the choice architect´s preferences (which can be in line with individual preferences).
Social norms to pay a tax on time or to save energy.
- Instead of correcting errors they change behaviors by imposing moral disutility on the decision maker.
Vegetarian days at the university canteen. Nudge or not?
It is not a nudge, because it restricts our choice set. If we instead had had a vegetarian dish together with the meat dishes, and we then reallocated the dishes in a way that would spike people buying vegetarian. Then it would have been a nudge. But because we completely take out the meat option, then it is not a nudge.
Posters across the city telling people that smoking causes cancer. Nudge or not?
Both Yes and No
No, it is not a nudge, because it is a public information campaign, which is one of the three traditional incentives.
Yes, it is a nudge, if we by changing the way the city looks like affect people to think in a specific way. It encouragement, more visible side effects of smoking.
Why does it matter to distinguish common nudges that fulfill and don’t fulfill the traditional criterias?
- Ethical considerations will be different depending
on whose utility the policy instrument is aiming to maximize - If we are reducing externalities, then it does not matter what the individual preferences of the
decision makers are
What is the effect of nudges on decision utility?
We have two types of nudges: Pure and Moral
Pure nudge: Corrects for inattention, bias, internality. Nudges could be simplification, defaults, changes in physical environment, reminders.
Moral nudge: Uses moral (dis)-utility to influence choice. Social proof, social preferences, commitment and goal setting, reminders.
How do pure and moral nudges work? give an example.
Pure nudges:
* Are typically not consciously
noticed by the decision maker
* Reduce friction
* Less prone to backfiring
Example: Nordic choice hotels reduced the size of their breakfast buffet plates to reduce food waste. People were still full and the food waste fell with a lot. They only changed the size from 24 cm to 21, so it was not the case that the guest notice it, why it also made it less prone to backfiring.
Moral nudges:
* Are meant to be
consciously noticed by the
decision maker
* Reward doing the right
thing with psychological
utility
* More prone to backfiring
example: Social proof to promote towel reuse, Goldstein, Cialdini and Griskevicius, 2008. They made a test looking into towel reuse, where group 1 got the information ”Think about the environment” and group 2 got the information
”Most of the hotel guest choose to reuse their towels”. For Group 1 it had no effect, but for group 2 with the social proof nudge it made them reuse their towels 26% more. This is a very visual nudge, which also made it more prone to backfiring if people got angry about the message.
Can you think about a combined example of pure and moral nudges?
Menu example, Gravert, C. & Kurz, V., (2021), Nudging a la carte
We want people to eat more vegetarian. How can we do that.
Pure nudge, re-ordering the menu card, where the meat dishes was before on the menu card and the vegetarian option was a note in the bottom saying “We have vegetarian options” the authors changed the system putting the vegetarian dishes up and the meat option in the note. That decreased the amount of people choosing meat with 30% points.
We could furthermore introduce a moral nudge with some kind of meter showing if the dish is in the green or in the read end. What it is equivalent to in light bulb minutes. This would use peoples guilt (emotions) to change behavior.
Do nudges work better when they are non-transparent?
* If the nudge is transparent, will the ones being nudged “see the trick” and
then not react?
* What if it is a pure nudge, should choice architects let people know about
the nudge to make it transparent?
- Bruns et al. (2018) ran a laboratory experiment where participants were
endowed with €10 and asked to donate a portion of it to a “climate
protection fund.” - In each treatment, the participants could either donate a predetermined
amount of €8 or manually insert the value they preferred. - In addition, they were exposed either to a message explaining that the
“preselected value might have an influence on your decision,” or that “the
preselected value is meant to encourage higher contributions for the
climate protection fund,” or a combination of both. - Results showed no statistically significant differences with respect to the
final contribution across treatments.
