财务决策行为干预的可接受性

IF 5.1 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Behavioural Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1017/bpp.2024.10
Patricia de Jonge, Olga Ungureanu, M. Zeelenberg, Peeter W. J. Verlegh
{"title":"财务决策行为干预的可接受性","authors":"Patricia de Jonge, Olga Ungureanu, M. Zeelenberg, Peeter W. J. Verlegh","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2024.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Financial policymakers increasingly rely on behavioural insights to protect the interests of consumers. However, little is known about how citizens feel about interventions designed to nudge their financial behaviour. Most literature on the acceptability of behavioural interventions focuses on the health domain. To address this gap, we present the results of an experiment on the acceptability of seven financial behavioural interventions (N = 684, members of a panel of the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets). We investigate the role of the agent implementing the intervention (policymaker versus financial company) and perceived effectiveness in relation to the acceptability of these interventions. The acceptability of behavioural interventions in financial decision-making appears to be lower than the acceptability levels found in previous studies. We find no effect of the agent on acceptability. Perceived effectiveness is strongly correlated with acceptability, but only perceived effectiveness in influencing one's own decisions has a consistently positive relationship with acceptability. Perceived effectiveness in influencing others' decisions has either no, a positive, or a negative relationship with acceptability. These results highlight that acceptability appears to be at least partly domain-specific and show that we have only just begun understanding the acceptability of behavioural interventions and its drivers.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The acceptability of behavioural interventions in financial decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Patricia de Jonge, Olga Ungureanu, M. Zeelenberg, Peeter W. J. Verlegh\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/bpp.2024.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Financial policymakers increasingly rely on behavioural insights to protect the interests of consumers. However, little is known about how citizens feel about interventions designed to nudge their financial behaviour. Most literature on the acceptability of behavioural interventions focuses on the health domain. To address this gap, we present the results of an experiment on the acceptability of seven financial behavioural interventions (N = 684, members of a panel of the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets). We investigate the role of the agent implementing the intervention (policymaker versus financial company) and perceived effectiveness in relation to the acceptability of these interventions. The acceptability of behavioural interventions in financial decision-making appears to be lower than the acceptability levels found in previous studies. We find no effect of the agent on acceptability. Perceived effectiveness is strongly correlated with acceptability, but only perceived effectiveness in influencing one's own decisions has a consistently positive relationship with acceptability. Perceived effectiveness in influencing others' decisions has either no, a positive, or a negative relationship with acceptability. These results highlight that acceptability appears to be at least partly domain-specific and show that we have only just begun understanding the acceptability of behavioural interventions and its drivers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioural Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioural Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2024.10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioural Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2024.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

金融政策制定者越来越依赖行为分析来保护消费者的利益。然而,人们对公民如何看待旨在引导其金融行为的干预措施知之甚少。大多数关于行为干预可接受性的文献都集中在健康领域。为了填补这一空白,我们介绍了一项关于七种金融行为干预措施可接受性的实验结果(N = 684,荷兰金融市场管理局小组成员)。我们调查了实施干预措施的代理人(政策制定者与金融公司)的角色以及与这些干预措施的可接受性相关的感知有效性。金融决策中行为干预的可接受性似乎低于以往研究中发现的可接受性水平。我们发现代理人对可接受性没有影响。感知有效性与可接受性密切相关,但只有影响自身决策的感知有效性才与可接受性有持续的正相关关系。影响他人决策的感知有效性与可接受性之间要么没有关系,要么呈正相关,要么呈负相关。这些结果突出表明,可接受性似乎至少有一部分是针对特定领域的,并表明我们对行为干预的可接受性及其驱动因素的了解才刚刚开始。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The acceptability of behavioural interventions in financial decision-making
Financial policymakers increasingly rely on behavioural insights to protect the interests of consumers. However, little is known about how citizens feel about interventions designed to nudge their financial behaviour. Most literature on the acceptability of behavioural interventions focuses on the health domain. To address this gap, we present the results of an experiment on the acceptability of seven financial behavioural interventions (N = 684, members of a panel of the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets). We investigate the role of the agent implementing the intervention (policymaker versus financial company) and perceived effectiveness in relation to the acceptability of these interventions. The acceptability of behavioural interventions in financial decision-making appears to be lower than the acceptability levels found in previous studies. We find no effect of the agent on acceptability. Perceived effectiveness is strongly correlated with acceptability, but only perceived effectiveness in influencing one's own decisions has a consistently positive relationship with acceptability. Perceived effectiveness in influencing others' decisions has either no, a positive, or a negative relationship with acceptability. These results highlight that acceptability appears to be at least partly domain-specific and show that we have only just begun understanding the acceptability of behavioural interventions and its drivers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Two steps forward, one step back: negative spillovers in water conservation The Role of Framing and Effort in Green Nudging Acceptance – ERRATUM Context counts: an exploration of the situational correlates of meat consumption in three Western European countries Titles as identity: applying self-determination theory to increase sponsorships by experienced private refugee sponsors in Canada The role of framing and effort in green nudging acceptance
×
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