IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v9y2025i1p176-191_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact on nudge acceptability judgements of framing and consultation of the targeted population

Author

Listed:
  • Rafaï, Ismaël
  • Ribaillier, Arthur
  • Jullien, Dorian

Abstract

The aim of this article is to better understand how judgements about nudge acceptability are formed and whether they can be manipulated. We conducted a randomized experiment with N = 171 participants to test whether acceptability judgements could be (1) more favourable when the decision to implement the nudges was made following a consultation with the targeted population and (2) influenced by the joint framing of the nudge's purpose and effectiveness (in terms of an increase in desirable behaviour versus decrease in undesirable behaviour). We tested these hypotheses on various nudge scenarios and obtained mixed results that do not clearly support our hypotheses for all nudge scenarios. A surprising result that calls for further work is that by mentioning that a nudge had been implemented through a consultation with the targeted population its acceptability could be lowered.

Suggested Citation

  • Rafaï, Ismaël & Ribaillier, Arthur & Jullien, Dorian, 2025. "The impact on nudge acceptability judgements of framing and consultation of the targeted population," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 176-191, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:9:y:2025:i:1:p:176-191_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X22000136/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:9:y:2025:i:1:p:176-191_10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.