Three recommendations from behavioral sciences for better interventions and solutions.

By: Gustavo Castillo Álvarez

Research Assistant, ETHOS BT

Both policymakers and private organizations aiming to induce behavioral change face the same two challenges when designing and implementing a behavioral intervention: ethical implications and efficiency. The latter receives more attention in intervention discussions, as funding and conception often depend on it. So, what should be considered when designing a behavioral intervention? ETHOS BT would like to share 3 recommendations to enable more ethical and efficient interventions:

1. Types of Preferences

Recent findings from laboratory experiments have identified that a nudge (behavioral decision intervention or a 'gentle push') does not necessarily have homogeneous effects on an entire population. Factors determining an individual's susceptibility to the nudge exist. Prior personal preferences seem to be one of these determining factors. The implementation of a nudge is typically done without discrimination across a population or target group. However, individuals with strong preferences in favor (those who would exhibit the behavior even in the absence of the nudge) or against (if it deviates from their desires or values) the nudge's target behavior do not appear to be affected by it. Thus, the potential of nudges is greater when people do not have clear prior preferences: either in cases of indifference or contradictory preferences.

First recommendation: It is crucial to precede interventions with an analysis of prior preferences regarding the target behavior in the population to be intervened, to segment the population and not compromise efficiency.

1. Intervention Technique Matters

An intervention can differ in the technique it employs to influence decision-making. This can be done by 1) providing information that facilitates decision-making (e.g., providing information about one's electricity consumption compared to that of other neighbors, as done in an experiment in the United States), 2) providing assistance in situations of self-control or limited attention (such as promoting commitment to contribute a portion of future salary to pension savings to counteract self-control weakness), or 3) altering the organization (structure) of choice alternatives or the decision-making format [4] (e.g., making sweets less accessible by placing them farther away to reduce consumption [7]). Each intervention technique operates through different mechanisms or channels, with 1) and 2) being more dependent on individual differences as they impact deliberate decision processes, while 3) impacts more automatic choice processes.

Second recommendation: Consider the desired intervention technique and precede its implementation with 1) an analysis of preferences (values and goals) of the target population when dealing with assistance and information interventions or 2) use structure interventions in cases where segmenting the population in terms of individual preferences is not possible [4].

1. Transparency

It has been repeatedly found that there is no relationship or effect of transparency on the efficiency of the nudge. Disclosing information to participants about the purpose of the intervention, its potential influence, or both does not compromise the existence or magnitude of the nudge effect.

Third recommendation: Always aim to provide information to individuals about the intervention, increasing transparency and, consequently, legitimacy and trust, without limiting the efficiency of the nudge.

If this type of content is of interest to you and your organization, contact us at www.ethosbt.com and/or at hola@ethosbt.com.

References

[1]H. Bruns, E. Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, K. Klement, M. Luistro Jonsson and B. Rahali, "Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?", Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 65, pp. 41-59, 2018. Available: 10.1016/j.joep.2018.02.002 [Accessed 29 July 2022].

[2]C. Kawa, W. Gijselaers, J. Nijhuis and P. Ianiro-Dahm, "Are You “Nudgeable”? Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Healthy Eating Nudges in a Cafeteria Setting", International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 7, p. 4107, 2022. Available: 10.3390/ijerph19074107.

[3]D. de Ridder, F. Kroese and L. van Gestel, "Nudgeability: Mapping Conditions of Susceptibility to Nudge Influence", Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 346-359, 2021. Available: 10.1177/1745691621995183 [Accessed 29 July 2022].

[4]S. Mertens, M. Herberz, U. Hahnel and T. Brosch, "The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119, no. 1, 2021. Available: 10.1073/pnas.2107346118 [Accessed 29 July 2022].

[5]T. Venema, F. Kroese, E. De Vet and D. De Ridder, "The One that I Want: Strong personal preferences render the center-stage nudge redundant", Food Quality and Preference, vol. 78, p. 103744, 2019. Available: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103744 [Accessed 29 July 2022].

[6]T. Venema, F. Kroese, J. Benjamins and D. de Ridder, "When in Doubt, Follow the Crowd? Responsiveness to Social Proof Nudges in the Absence of Clear Preferences", Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, 2020. Available: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01385 [Accessed 29 July 2022].

[7]J. Maas, D. de Ridder, E. de Vet and J. de Wit, "Do distant foods decrease intake? The effect of food accessibility on consumption", Psychology & Health, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 59-73, 2012. Available: 10.1080/08870446.2011.565341 [Accessed 2 August 2022].