American attitudes toward nudges

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Judgment and Decision Making Vol. 11; no. 1; pp. 62 - 74
Main Authors: Jung, Janice Y., Mellers, Barbara A.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Tallahassee Society for Judgment and Decision Making 01.01.2016
Cambridge University Press
Subjects:
Analysis
Attitude (Psychology)
Attitudes
Behavior
Blood & organ donations
choice architecture
Cost control
Decision making
dual systemsNAKeywords
framing
individual dispositions
Influence
libertarian paternalism
Libertarianism
nudges
Paternalism
Perceptions
Social sciences
Studies
United States
United States > US
perceptions
framing
dual systems
attitudes
choice architecture
individual dispositions
nudges
libertarian paternalism
ISSN:1930-2975, 1930-2975
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ISSN:1930-2975
1930-2975
DOI:10.1017/S1930297500007592