American attitudes toward nudges
By J. Jung, Barbara A. Mellers. Judgment and Decision Making, 2016
187 citations recorded by the source corpus.
To successfully select and implement nudges, policy makers need a psychological understanding of who opposes nudges, how they are perceived, and when alternative methods (e.g., forced choice) might work better. Using two representative samples, we examined four factors that influence U.S. attitudes toward nudges – types of nudges, individual dispositions, nudge perceptions, and nudge frames. Most nudges were supported, although opt-out defaults for organ donations were opposed in both samples. “System 1” nudges (e.g., defaults and sequential orderings) were viewed less favorably than “System 2” nudges (e.g., educational opportunities or reminders). System 1 nudges were perceived as more autonomy threatening, whereas System 2 nudges were viewed as more effective for better decision making and more necessary for changing behavior. People with greater empathetic concern tended to support both types of nudges and viewed them as the “right” kind of goals to have. Individualists opposed both types of nudges, and conservatives tended to oppose both types. Reactant people and those with a strong desire for control opposed System 1 nudges. To see whether framing could influence attitudes, we varied the description of the nudge in terms of the target (Personal vs. Societal) and the reference point for the nudge (Costs vs. Benefits). Empathetic people were more supportive when framing highlighted societal costs or benefits, and reactant people were more opposed to nudges when frames highlighted the personal costs of rejection.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a1e1d074ef6dfe3349808c339c0aff43951374a9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In General Decision Sciences
In Social Psychology
Citations in the corpus
- Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions (2017, background): “Nudging, at least in Thaler and Sunstein (2008; but see Jung & Mellers, 2016), predominantly takes the latter approach.”
- A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost (2018, unknown): “Fourth, citizens object to manipulation, but they define it quite narrowly, as in the cases of visual illusions to reduce speeding (Jung & Mellers 2016) and subliminal advertising (Reisch & Sunstein 2016).”
- Nudge: Concept, Effectiveness, and Ethics (2017, unknown): “…Type 1 nudges (Arad & Rubinstein, 2015; Felsen, Castelo, & Reiner, 2013; Hagman, Andersson, Västfjäll, & Tinghög, 2015; Hedlin & Sunstein, 2016; Jung & Mellers, 2016; Mazzocchi et al., 2015; Reisch & Sunstein, 2016; Reisch, Sunstein, & Gwozdz, 2016; Sunstein, 2016c; Sunstein, Reisch, & Rauber,…”
- Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? (2016, background): “To be sure, Jung and Mellers (2016) also include one green nudge in their online survey, but it only appears as part of a more general non-paternalistic nudge, and a rather obscure one at that.”
- Unresolved questions in nudging research: Putting the psychology back in nudging (2017, background): “…approval of nudging techniques, such as whether the behavior targeted aligns with a person’s goals, individual dispositions and/or political orientation, although the latter may depend on whether people live in Europe or USA (Jung & Mellers, 2016; Reisch & Sunstein, 2016; Sunstein, 2016b).”