IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2021-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact on Acceptability Judgments about Nudges of Framing and Consultation with the Targeted Population

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur Ribaillier

    (Université Côte d'Azur, France
    GREDEG CNRS)

  • Ismaël Rafaï

    (CEE-M, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro
    Université Côte d'Azur, France
    GREDEG CNRS)

  • Dorian Jullien

    (Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne
    Université Paris I - Panthéon Sorbonne)

Abstract

The aim of this article is to better understand how judgments of nudges’ acceptability are formed and whether they can be manipulated. We conduct a randomized experiment to test whether acceptability judgments can be (i) enhanced when the decision to implement the nudges have been made following a consultation with the targeted population and (ii) influenced by the joint framing of the goal and effectiveness of the nudge (in terms of an increase in desirable behaviour vs. decrease in undesirable behaviour). We test those hypotheses for various nudges’ scenarios and obtain mixed results that do not clearly support our hypotheses. A surprising result that calls for further work is that mentioning that a nudge has been implemented through a consultation with the targeted population can lower its acceptability.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur Ribaillier & Ismaël Rafaï & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The Impact on Acceptability Judgments about Nudges of Framing and Consultation with the Targeted Population," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-12, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2021-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://195.220.190.85/GREDEG-WP-2021-12.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tannenbaum & Craig R. Fox & Todd Rogers, 2017. "On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(7), pages 1-7, July.
    2. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2018. "Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments," Post-Print hal-01914908, HAL.
    3. Davidai, Shai & Shafir, Eldar, 2020. "Are ‘nudges’ getting a fair shot? Joint versus separate evaluation," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 273-291, November.
    4. Ayala Arad & Ariel Rubinstein, 2018. "The People's Perspective on Libertarian-Paternalistic Policies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(2), pages 311-333.
    5. Sanders, Michael & Snijders, Veerle & Hallsworth, Michael, 2018. "Behavioural science and policy: where are we now and where are we going?," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 144-167, November.
    6. Pechey, Rachel & Burge, Peter & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Suhrcke, Marc & Marteau, Theresa M., 2014. "Public acceptability of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol consumption: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 104-109.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:310-325 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    9. McKenzie, Craig R. M. & Sher, Shlomi & Leong, Lim M. & Müller-Trede, Johannes, 2018. "Constructed Preferences, Rationality, and Choice Architecture," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(3-4), pages 337-360, December.
    10. Dragos C Petrescu & Gareth J Hollands & Dominique-Laurent Couturier & Yin-Lam Ng & Theresa M Marteau, 2016. "Public Acceptability in the UK and USA of Nudging to Reduce Obesity: The Example of Reducing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. De Jonge, Patricia & Zeelenberg, Marcel & Verlegh, Peeter W.J., 2018. "Putting the public back in behavioral public policy," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 218-226, November.
    13. Rafiq, Sana, 2021. "How much is a calorie worth? A study of willingness to pay for calorie labels in restaurant menus," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 354-377, July.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:202-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ismaël Rafaï & Arthur Ribaillier & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The impact on nudge acceptability judgments of framing and consultation of the targeted population," Working Papers hal-03228638, HAL.
    2. Peter John & Aaron Martin & Gosia Mikołajczak, 2023. "Support for behavioral nudges versus alternative policy instruments and their perceived fairness and efficacy," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 363-371, April.
    3. Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Hendrik Bruns & Grischa Perino, 2021. "Point at, nudge, or push private provision of a public good?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 996-1007, July.
    6. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    9. Cadario, Romain & Chandon, Pierre, 2019. "Viewpoint: Effectiveness or consumer acceptance? Tradeoffs in selecting healthy eating nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-6.
    10. Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    11. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2019. "Viewpoint: Effectiveness or consumer acceptance? Tradeoffs in selecting healthy eating nudges," Post-Print hal-02508983, HAL.
    12. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Waichman, Israel, 2023. "Self-nudging is more ethical, but less efficient than social nudging," Working Papers 0726, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    13. Clareta Treger, 2023. "When do people accept government paternalism? Theory and experimental evidence," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 195-214, January.
    14. Mills, Stuart, 2024. "Deceptive choice architecture and behavioral audits: a principles‐based approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122714, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. James P. Reynolds & Milica Vasiljevic & Mark Pilling & Marissa G. Hall & Kurt M. Ribisl & Theresa M. Marteau, 2020. "Communicating Evidence about the Causes of Obesity and Support for Obesity Policies: Two Population-Based Survey Experiments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Waichman, Israel, 2022. "Self-Nudging vs. Social Nudging in Social Dilemmas: An Experiment," Working Papers 0710, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    17. Schütze, Tobias & Carlhoff, Henrik & Witschel, Helena, 2024. "Eliciting Paternalistic Preferences: An Incentivised Experiment," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 169, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    18. Mira Fischer & Philipp Lergetporer & Katharina Werner, 2024. "Do Narratives about Psychological Mechanisms Affect Public Support for Behavioral Policies?," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 505, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    19. Sandro Casal & Francesco Guala & Luigi Mittone, 2019. "On the Transparency of Nudges: An Experiment," CEEL Working Papers 1902, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    20. Haoyang Yan & J. Frank Yates, 2019. "Improving acceptability of nudges: Learning from attitudes towards opt-in and opt-out policies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 26-39, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    behavioural public policies; nudges; acceptability; framing; consultation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • D04 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation; Implementation; Evaluation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gre:wpaper:2021-12. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Patrice Bougette (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.html .

    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.