Using curiosity to incentivize the choice of “should” options

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104192
Evan Polman , Rachel L. Ruttan , Joann Peck
{"title":"Using curiosity to incentivize the choice of “should” options","authors":"Evan Polman ,&nbsp;Rachel L. Ruttan ,&nbsp;Joann Peck","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Drawing on people’s motivation to whet their curiosity, we tested a previously unexplored solution to reconciling want/should conflicts. Past work has shown that people are motivated to satisfy their curiosity and find enjoyment in doing so. Our work shows that piquing people’s curiosity can be leveraged to influence their choices, by steering them away from tempting “want” options (e.g., choosing unhealthy foods, watching lowbrow films, taking the elevator), and toward less-than-tempting, though normatively desirable “should” options. In two lab and two field studies, we created <em>curiosity lures</em>—incentives that pique people’s curiosity and deliver its closure on the condition people choose the “should” option over the “want” option. In all, our nudges were successful and highlight the external validity of our research. Notably, we observed a 9.8% increase in stairwell-use, and a 10% increase in fruit-and-vegetable purchases when we tested curiosity lures in large-scale field experiments totaling over 100,000 observations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000814","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Drawing on people’s motivation to whet their curiosity, we tested a previously unexplored solution to reconciling want/should conflicts. Past work has shown that people are motivated to satisfy their curiosity and find enjoyment in doing so. Our work shows that piquing people’s curiosity can be leveraged to influence their choices, by steering them away from tempting “want” options (e.g., choosing unhealthy foods, watching lowbrow films, taking the elevator), and toward less-than-tempting, though normatively desirable “should” options. In two lab and two field studies, we created curiosity lures—incentives that pique people’s curiosity and deliver its closure on the condition people choose the “should” option over the “want” option. In all, our nudges were successful and highlight the external validity of our research. Notably, we observed a 9.8% increase in stairwell-use, and a 10% increase in fruit-and-vegetable purchases when we tested curiosity lures in large-scale field experiments totaling over 100,000 observations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用好奇心来激励玩家做出“应该”的选择
利用人们的动机来激发他们的好奇心,我们测试了一种以前未被探索过的解决方案,以调和欲望/应该的冲突。过去的研究表明,人们有动力满足自己的好奇心,并从中找到乐趣。我们的研究表明,激发人们的好奇心可以影响他们的选择,引导他们远离诱人的“想要”选择(例如,选择不健康的食物,看低俗的电影,乘电梯),而转向不那么诱人的,但在规范上是可取的“应该”选择。在两个实验室和两个实地研究中,我们创造了好奇心诱饵——激发人们的好奇心,并在人们选择“应该”选项而不是“想要”选项的条件下关闭好奇心。总之,我们的推动是成功的,并突出了我们研究的外部有效性。值得注意的是,我们观察到楼梯间的使用率增加了9.8%,水果和蔬菜的购买量增加了10%,当我们在超过10万次的大规模现场实验中测试好奇诱饵时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context
期刊最新文献
Joining disconnected others reduces social identity threat in women brokers Retraction notice to “Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety” [Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137C (2016) 71–85] The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences On time or on thin ice: How deadline violations negatively affect perceived work quality and worker evaluations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1