ST socialproof Flashcards
What is a social proof nudge?
“Informing people that their behavior deviates from what most others do, that can trigger a change in behavior in the direction of the descriptive social norm” (Dur et al 2021, p. 1)
Where does it fit in the REFINE matrix?
Encourage.
Social Proof is a psychological effect that leads us to copy other people’s behavior.
example: If your friend jumped off a bridge, would you?
What biases is it addressing?
Multifaceted, encompasses multiple: reference dependent
preferences, overconfidence, other regarding preferences and bounded self control
What are the mechanism through which the nudge is working?
Imitation behavior and conformity preferences / identity preferences (Dur et al 2021, p. 2)
Uncertainty(Conformity)-One study found that when evaluating a product, consumers were more likely to incorporate the opinions of others through the use of social proof when their own experiences with the product were ambiguous, leaving uncertainty as to the correct conclusion that they should make.
Similarity(Imitation)-When a person perceives themselves as similar to the people around them, they are more likely to adopt and perceive as correct the observed behavior of these people.
How can you reduce biases?
- Slow down
- Identify the goal
- Process your emotions
- Recognize all or nothing thinking
*Dur, R., Fleming, D., van Garderen, M., & van Lent, M. (2021). A social norm nudge to save
more: A field experiment at a retail bank.
a) Summarize the research question and the experimental design of the main study in this paper.
b) Explain the results presented in figure 7
c) Why did the nudge not work?
Question a)
Research Question
The study investigates whether a social norm nudge can encourage households with low savings to increase their savings. The core question is whether informing individuals that their savings are lower than the median savings of other clients in their neighborhood influences their savings behavior.
Experimental Design
Field Experiment Context: Conducted at ING Netherlands, a retail bank, in January 2018.
Target Group: Households with a savings buffer below the median of ING clients in their neighborhood.
Intervention: A social norm nudge was embedded in an email stating:
“You have a lower buffer with us than most other ING clients in your neighborhood.”
Randomization:
40,000+ households received emails.
Half received the treatment email (including the social norm nudge).
Half received a control email (identical but without the nudge).
Data Collection:
- Clicks on the link to a personal web page for setting up an automatic savings plan.
- Bank account data to measure changes in actual savings behavior over 9 months (before and after the intervention).
Secondary Survey Experiment:
A smaller preliminary survey tested if the nudge was noticed, how it affected savings intentions, and whether it was perceived as intrusive.
Main Findings
- The nudge increased clicks on the savings link but did not lead to actual increases in savings.
- The survey experiment showed that the nudge increased intentions to save, but also caused annoyance.
- No long-term effect on savings was found, suggesting that social norm nudging may not be effective in this context.
Question b)
The figure shows average buffer savings in euros of household in the treatment and control group. The black vertical line denotes the time the email was sent.
Those who receive email including the nudge click more often on link to their personal page where they can adjust savings (3.4% vs 2.7%) and are more motivated to save more but nudge has no effect on actual savings transactions. We see that by the increase in savings pr household, but we also see that there is almost no difference between the control and treatment group, which arguably mean that the nudge have no effects what so ever. The social proof nudge did not have the attended effect, which could have increased savings.
Take away: intentions are not always followed up by substantive change of behavior
Question c)
The authors ran extra tests to figure out why the social norm nudge didn’t work. They checked if it worked better for certain groups (like those with more savings flexibility or in homogeneous neighborhoods) but found no differences. They also tested if neighbors influenced each other, but no spillover effects were detected. Finally, they used a survey experiment with eye-tracking to confirm that people noticed the nudge and it boosted savings intentions, but it also caused annoyance. In the end, the nudge failed not because people ignored it, but likely because they didn’t act on their intentions—possibly due to decision fatigue or frustration.
Bicchieri, Cristina and Dimant, Eugen, Norm-Nudging: Harnessing Social Expectations for
Behavior Change (April 13, 2023).
a) Summarize the research question and the experimental design of the main study in this paper.
Research Question
The study by Bicchieri and Dimant explores norm-nudging, a behavioral intervention that leverages social expectations to influence decision-making.
Specifically, the authors investigate:
- How social norms influence individual behavior, particularly in contexts where actions are interdependent.
- When and why norm-nudging is effective, identifying conditions where it successfully changes behavior.
- The risks and limitations of norm-nudging, including possible unintended consequences.
The key idea is that people often align their behavior with what they believe others do (empirical expectations) or approve of (normative expectations). The study examines how providing information about social norms can nudge people toward desirable behaviors.
Experimental Design
The paper discusses several experimental studies that evaluate the effectiveness of norm-nudging. Some key features of their approach include:
Manipulating social information: Participants receive different types of messages, such as:
- Descriptive norms (what most people do).
- Normative norms (what people approve of).
Testing different reference groups: The experiments measure whether people are more influenced by close peers or broader social groups.
Behavioral outcomes: The studies analyze how different types of norm messages affect actions in areas like:
-Energy conservation (e.g., comparing household energy use to neighbors).
-Tax compliance (e.g., informing taxpayers about high compliance rates).
-Water conservation (e.g., showing comparisons to community usage).
Measuring unintended effects: The study also explores potential backlash, such as:
- “The boomerang effect”, where people already performing better than the norm regress.
- Resistance due to perceived manipulation or coercion.
What is the difference of social pressure and social proof?
Social pressure is in the word, that we have a group who use their combined power as a group to give a curtain direction, which an outside person can choose to compile with or not. But if they choose to not compile with the groups direction, then they become outsiders, which can be painful to many.
Social proof on the other hand, tells the individual what most people have done, without directly asking you to do the same.
Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation.
a) Summarize the research question and the experimental design of the main study in this paper.
b) How does profiling help lower cost of future interventions?
Question a)
Research question:
In the study “Social Norms and Energy Conservation” by Hunt Allcott (October 2009), the research investigates whether providing households with information about their energy consumption relative to their neighbors can effectively reduce energy usage. The study evaluates a pilot program by OPOWER, which mailed Home Energy Reports to residential utility consumers. These reports included energy conservation tips and social comparisons between a household’s energy use and that of its neighbors.
Experimental Design:
Participants: Approximately 80,000 households in Minnesota were involved in the study.
Randomization: Households were randomly assigned to either the treatment group, which received the Home Energy Reports, or the control group, which did not receive any reports.
Intervention: The treatment group received reports that featured:
Action Steps Module: Tailored energy conservation tips specific to each household.
Social Comparison Module: Information comparing the household’s electricity consumption to that of its 100 nearest geographical neighbors with similar house sizes.
Frequency: Some households received monthly reports, while others received them quarterly.
Data Collection: The study measured changes in energy consumption over time, comparing the treatment and control groups to assess the impact of the reports.
The study found that the program led to a reduction in energy consumption by 1.9 to 2.0 percent relative to baseline. In households receiving quarterly reports, the effects diminished between letters but increased again upon receipt of the next report, suggesting that consumers’ attention and motivation are malleable and non-durable. The study also explored the potential for “profiling,” or targeting the program at households whose observable characteristics predict larger treatment effects, to improve cost-effectiveness in future programs.
Question b)
Profiling involves using observable household characteristics to predict which households are more likely to respond to interventions, thereby allowing for targeted program implementation.
Key Findings on Profiling:
Heterogeneous Treatment Effects: The study found that households with higher baseline energy consumption exhibited more substantial reductions in energy use when subjected to the Home Energy Reports. This suggests that high-consumption households are more responsive to such interventions.
Cost-Effectiveness Through Targeting: By identifying and targeting households with characteristics indicative of higher baseline energy use, utilities can allocate resources more efficiently. This targeted approach can lead to greater overall energy savings compared to a non-targeted, universal implementation.
In summary, profiling allows for the strategic targeting of energy conservation programs to households that are more likely to respond positively, thereby improving the programs’ cost-effectiveness and overall impact.
