Nudges既可以保持自主性,也可以有效:来自调查和准现场实验的证据

IF 5.1 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Behavioural Public Policy Pub Date : 2023-05-25 DOI:10.1017/bpp.2023.18
Henrico van Roekel, Laura M. Giurge, C. Schott, L. Tummers
{"title":"Nudges既可以保持自主性,也可以有效:来自调查和准现场实验的证据","authors":"Henrico van Roekel, Laura M. Giurge, C. Schott, L. Tummers","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Nudges are widely employed tools within organizations, but they are often criticized for harming autonomy and for being ineffective. We assess these two criticisms simultaneously: can nudges be both autonomy-preserving and effective in changing behavior? We developed three nudges – an opinion leader nudge, a rule-of-thumb and self-nudges – to reduce a particularly sticky behavior: email use. In a survey experiment of 4,112 healthcare employees, we tested their effect on perceived autonomy and subjective effectiveness. We also tested traditional policy instruments for comparison. Next, to assess objective effectiveness, we conducted a quasi-field experiment in a large healthcare organization with an estimate of 1,189 active email users. We found that each nudge in isolation, but especially when combined, was perceived to be both autonomy-preserving and effective, and more so than traditional policy instruments like an access limit or a monetary reward. We also found some evidence that the combination of all nudges decreased actual email use. This paper advances the literature by showing how innovations in nudge design improve nudges’ ability to be autonomy-preserving and effective.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nudges can be both autonomy-preserving and effective: evidence from a survey and quasi-field experiment\",\"authors\":\"Henrico van Roekel, Laura M. Giurge, C. Schott, L. Tummers\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/bpp.2023.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Nudges are widely employed tools within organizations, but they are often criticized for harming autonomy and for being ineffective. We assess these two criticisms simultaneously: can nudges be both autonomy-preserving and effective in changing behavior? We developed three nudges – an opinion leader nudge, a rule-of-thumb and self-nudges – to reduce a particularly sticky behavior: email use. In a survey experiment of 4,112 healthcare employees, we tested their effect on perceived autonomy and subjective effectiveness. We also tested traditional policy instruments for comparison. Next, to assess objective effectiveness, we conducted a quasi-field experiment in a large healthcare organization with an estimate of 1,189 active email users. We found that each nudge in isolation, but especially when combined, was perceived to be both autonomy-preserving and effective, and more so than traditional policy instruments like an access limit or a monetary reward. We also found some evidence that the combination of all nudges decreased actual email use. This paper advances the literature by showing how innovations in nudge design improve nudges’ ability to be autonomy-preserving and effective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioural Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioural Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.18\",\"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.2023.18","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: 0

摘要

Nudges是组织内广泛使用的工具,但它们经常被批评为损害自主性和无效。我们同时评估这两种批评:轻推既能保持自主性,又能有效改变行为吗?我们开发了三种轻推——意见领袖轻推、经验法则和自我轻推——以减少一种特别棘手的行为:电子邮件使用。在一项针对4112名医护人员的调查实验中,我们测试了他们对感知自主性和主观有效性的影响。我们还测试了传统的政策工具进行比较。接下来,为了评估客观有效性,我们在一家大型医疗保健组织中进行了一项准现场实验,估计有1189名活跃的电子邮件用户。我们发现,每一次单独的推动,尤其是结合在一起的推动,都被认为是保持自主性和有效的,而且比准入限制或货币奖励等传统政策工具更有效。我们还发现一些证据表明,所有轻推的组合减少了实际的电子邮件使用。本文通过展示推送设计的创新如何提高推送者保持自主性和有效性的能力来推进文献。
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
Nudges can be both autonomy-preserving and effective: evidence from a survey and quasi-field experiment
Nudges are widely employed tools within organizations, but they are often criticized for harming autonomy and for being ineffective. We assess these two criticisms simultaneously: can nudges be both autonomy-preserving and effective in changing behavior? We developed three nudges – an opinion leader nudge, a rule-of-thumb and self-nudges – to reduce a particularly sticky behavior: email use. In a survey experiment of 4,112 healthcare employees, we tested their effect on perceived autonomy and subjective effectiveness. We also tested traditional policy instruments for comparison. Next, to assess objective effectiveness, we conducted a quasi-field experiment in a large healthcare organization with an estimate of 1,189 active email users. We found that each nudge in isolation, but especially when combined, was perceived to be both autonomy-preserving and effective, and more so than traditional policy instruments like an access limit or a monetary reward. We also found some evidence that the combination of all nudges decreased actual email use. This paper advances the literature by showing how innovations in nudge design improve nudges’ ability to be autonomy-preserving and effective.
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