Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Research Report

Combining Defaults and Transparency Information to Increase Policy Compliance

Published Online:June 16, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000419

Abstract

Abstract. Combining the strengths of defaults and transparency information is a potentially powerful way to induce policy compliance. Despite negative theoretical predictions, a recent line of research revealed that default nudges may become more effective if people are informed why they should exhibit the targeted behavior. Yet, it is an open empirical question whether the increase in compliance came from setting a default and consequently disclosing it, or the provided information was sufficient to deliver the effect on its own. Results from an online experiment indicate that both defaulting and transparency information exert a statistically independent effect on compliance, with highest compliance rates observed in the combined condition. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

References

  • Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1082–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bimonte, S., Bosco, L., & Stabile, A. (2019). Nudging pro-environmental behavior: Evidence from a web experiment on priming and WTP. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63, 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1603364 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G., & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 33–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bovens, L. (2009). The ethics of nudge. In T. Grüne-YanoffS. O. HanssonEds., Preference change (pp. 207–219). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2593-7_10 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Brehm, W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, UK: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bruns, H., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Klement, K., Jonsson, M., & Rahali, B. (2018). Can nudges be transparent and yet effective? Journal of Economic Psychology, 65, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2816227 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Capraro, V., Jagfeld, G., Klein, R., Mul, M., & van de Pol, I. (2019). Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges. Scientific Reports, 9, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tbhqa First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1192/s000712500001415x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Cremer, D.Zeelenberg, M.Murnighan, J. K. (Eds.). (2013). Social psychology and economics. New York, NY: Psychology Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fiala, L., & Noussair, C. N. (2017). Charitable Giving, Emotions, and the Default Effect. Economic Inquiry, 55(4), 1792–1812. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12459 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hansen, P., & Jespersen, A. (2013). Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behavior change in public policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1867299x00002762 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hinde, R.Groebel, J. (Eds.). (1991). Cooperation and prosocial behaviour. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Irwin, K. (2009). Prosocial behavior across cultures: The effects of institutional versus generalized trust. Advances in Group Processes, 165–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0882-6145(2009)0000026010 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Johnson, E., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Keller, P., Harlam, B., Loewenstein, G., & Volpp, K. (2011). Enhanced active choice: A new method to motivate behavior change. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kelsey, C., Vaish, A., & Grossmann, T. (2018). Eyes, more than other facial features, enhance real-world donation behavior. Human Nature, 29, 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9327-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D., & Rajpal, S. (2015). Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/e573552014-029 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McKenzie, C., Liersch, M., & Finkelstein, S. (2006). Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science, 17, 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/e640112011-058 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Payne, N., Jones, F., & Harris, P. (2004). The role of perceived need within the theory of planned behaviour: A comparison of exercise and healthy eating. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1348/1359107042304524 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Paunov, Y., Wänke, M., & Vogel, T. (2019a). Transparency effects on policy compliance: Disclosing how defaults work can enhance their effectiveness. Behavioural Public Policy, 3, 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.40 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Paunov, Y., Wänke, M., & Vogel, T. (2019b). Ethical defaults: Which transparency components can increase the effectiveness of default nudges? Social Influence, 14, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2019.1675755 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Prestwich, A., Kenworthy, J., & Conner, M. (2017). Health behavior change. New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ryan, M., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00055564 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smith, C., Goldstein, D., & Johnson, E. (2013). Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1509/0743-9156-32.2.159 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steffel, M., Williams, F., & Pogacar, R. (2016). Ethically deployed defaults: Transparency and consumer protection through disclosure and preference articulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 865–880. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0421 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sunstein, C. (2015). The ethics of nudging. Yale Journal on Regulation, 32, 413–450. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2526341 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sunstein, C., & Reisch, L. (2014). Automatically green: Behavioral economics and environmental protection. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 38, 127–157. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2245657 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Thaler, R., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, S164–S187. https://doi.org/10.1086/380085 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912282555 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar