lecture 2 - Behavioural nudging

Question 1

-what is ‘nudging’
-what is a ‘nudge’

Answer 1

nudging : Self-consciously attempting to move people in directions that will make their lives better.”

“Any aspect of [the environment] that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives”.

Question 2

what makes nudging powerful

Answer 2

• Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concept of having 2 conditions _ one control)
• A/B testing (in inudstry)

… experiments, essentially!

Question 3

nudging in the government

Answer 3

-started in america, with obama
-david cameron set up first budging unit in UK
-increased understand in government of human bheaviour of the soft sciences and psycholgy

Question 4

nudging in the industry examples

Answer 4

-beavioural insights team (nudge units, many around the world)
google
instagram
facebook

Question 5

nudging in social influenve
-Robert Cialdini , 6 principles

Answer 5

Six principles of influence:
1. Reciprocation
2. Social proof
3. Liking
4. Authority
5. Commitment & self-consistency
6. Scarcity

the other more negative side of nudging : * Related terms:
Persuasion, Conformity,Compliance, Obedience

Question 6

• reciprocation as a social norm
• why so powerful

Answer 6

• we have a strong norm to reciprocate
• No human society that doesn’t
  reciprocate (Gouldner, 1960)
• Allows us to give and not lose
• Allows division of labour,
  trading, expertise, efficient
  social groups

Question 7

Reciprocation experiment : compliance experiment Regan 1971

Answer 7

-carried out an experiment which was supposedly about ‘art appreciation’
-a confederate (actor who pretends to be participant) ‘bought’ the participant a coke, or not in other condition
-At the end, the confederate asked participants to buy raffle tickets so he could win a competition. (supposedly not part of the experiment)
- 2x tickets bought in Coke condition compared to baseline

• In 1971, a coke cost 10 cents …. but the average
  number of tickets bought in Coke condition was 2
  tickets, which was worth 50 cents.
• 400% return on investment!

Question 8

how is reciprocation showed to be powerful in the coke experiment

Answer 8

• people gave more money to the confederate when they liked him better (confederate either behaved nice or mean to third person)
• BUT only when he didn’t buy them a coke Regan 1971 JESP
• when he bought them a coke, people reciprocated regardless of liking
• Note that the gift giver chooses
  both the gift and the favour
• principle behind free samples:

Question 9

reciprocation : enforcing

Answer 9

enforces uninvited debt
-people give even when they don’t want to (e.g. no one turned down
the free Coke)
- makes sense, if rule evolved to help maximise group cohesion i.e.
people can give without loss

Charities use this
technique:
3x more donations
British Red Cross, reported in the
Guardian, 2014

Question 10

reciprocal concessions
-door in face technique

Answer 10

obligation to make a concession to
someone who has made a concession to you Cialdini et al 1975,
3x as many people agree to chaperone juvenile delinquents to the zoo after declining larger favour

Question 11

social proof examples

Answer 11

-restraunts more un appealing if not inside
-lines outside clubs
-starting off with tips in tip jar

Question 12

social proof : resusing towels experiment
Goldstein et al 2008

Answer 12

-looked at if they could promote less use of towels in the hitel scanario
-had control condition : standard environmental message, re use towels
-other condition descriptive norm : which tells them 75% of guests reused their towel (at least once),

-guests more likely to re use their towel

-they also found this effect was even larger if they told them that 75% of guests in the SAME room re used their towel

Question 13

social proof , tax experiment

Answer 13

-if you tolf them 9/10 people in britain pay their tax on time
-140000 people
- was a randomised control trial
- could recover 160 milion of tax debts if rolled out across UK

Question 14

social proof : the big mistake
injunctive norms
descriptive norms
supportive study

Answer 14

• Injunctive norms (what we’re supposed to do) eg you should brush your teeth
• Descriptive norms (what most people do) other people clean their teeth

study of wood
* Study looked at people removing petrified wood from a National Park in Arizona Cialdini et al 2006, Social Influence

• Compared the effectiveness of different messages set along visitor paths
• Dropped petrified wood along the paths (to measure how much wood was taken by visitors)

Question 15

social proof ,the big mistake

Answer 15

-> 8% wood removed
“Many past visitors have removed petrified wood” ;please dont do this; (Negative) descriptive
norm Cialdini et al 2006 (this is the big mistake because removing the wood has now become an option.

-> 1.7% wood removed
“Please don’t remove the petrified wood from the Park, in order to
preserve the natural state of the Petrified Forest” (Positive) injunctive
norm

Question 16

social proof
why do we follow the group

Answer 16

why
-we follow a group when they are more similar to us
We follow people like us:
- in the tax study, “people in the same town” was more effective than “people in the UK”
- in the towel study, “same room” was more effective than “same hotel”

to fit in (normative social influence)
* Are we always good at judging social norms?

Feasibility
-people more likely to reduce energy consumption of people in the area or town etc did this well
- Energy consumption study: social proof message 3.5x more effective than messages about why it’s good to save the environment

Question 17

social proof
-when do follow people the group

Answer 17

When uncertain (informational social influence)

• e.g. bystander effect, Kitty Genovese murder (35 mins and 38 people who didn’t do anything)
• pluralistic ignorance -
  “smoke” experiment Latene & Darley 1968, JPSP
• 75% people reported the smoke
  when on own
• 10%, when confederates didn’t move

Question 18

liking
-why do we like others

Answer 18

• physical attractiveness
• similarity
• cooperation and synchrony
• compliments
• personalisation

Question 19

liking : physical attractiveness

Answer 19

• Halo effect: “what is beautiful is good” – Dion , 1972
• Beauty premium:
• more attractive people are paid around 5 to 10 percent more Hameresh & Biddle 1993, Beauty and the Labor Market
• … are viewed as being more socially competent Eagly et al Psych Bulletin 1991
• … even receive lighter sentences in the criminal justice system

Beautiful people are more
persuasive Chaiken JPSP, 1974
* Supports associative learning
(anything associated with beauty
is also perceived as good)
* brands exploit the halo effect to
sell products

Question 20

Liking:
similarity

Answer 20

We like people more when they are
similar to us

• “Hippies” study: people asked for a
  favour (borrow a dime for a payphone) by confederates dressed either as “Hippies” or “Straights” Emswiller et al 1971 Journal of Applied Social Psych.
• Favour was granted more often when confederates’ clothes matched the participants
• Also, more people signed in the Hippie condition without looking at the petition!

Question 21

liking : cooperation and synchrony

Answer 21

• “Robbers’ Cave” experiment: when the Eagles and Rattlers were competing over camp resources, hostilities rapidly increased.

then got the teams to cooperate and : Increasing cooperation between the groups increased liking and in turn, further cooperation Sherif & Sherif 1954

• Mimicry increases liking Chatrand & Bargh 1999, JPSP
• Synchrony in action increases liking Hove & Risen 2009

Question 22

how does synchrony increase liking

Answer 22

Synchrony increases helping behaviours: participants and
confederate asked to tap along with music (on headphones):
Valdesolo & DeSteno 2011, Emotion

• after unsynchronised tapping (different music), 18% of
  participants stayed to help confederate with maths tasks
• after synchronised tapping (same music), 49% stayed to help
• likelihood of helping was mediated by sense of similarity

Question 23

liking : compliments

Answer 23

• Robust effect of compliments on liking
• Surprisingly little research on the effect
  of compliments on persuasion
• “Tips” studies: compliments lead to
  higher tips Seiter 2007 (waiters who compliment client get more tips)

Question 24

liking : being personal
example

Answer 24

“Remember that a person’s name is to that person the
sweetest and most important sound in any language.”

In general, remembering details about a person is perceived as
an index of how important you think they are - Ray et al

• Remembering names is perceived as a compliment Howard et al 1995
• Remembering someone’s name also increases the likelihood that
  the person will make a purchase, mediated by the compliment
  value

Question 25

Criticisms of the 'liking' experiments

Answer 25

- demand bias (paticipants guess whats going on in the experiment) -experimenter bias

Question 26

liking critisms demand bias

Answer 26

Demand bias? (participants guess hypothesis) causes people to just follow the behaviour you require them to follow * Mitigated by: - making sure participants are blind to the experiment hypotheses and/or the condition - asking at the end what the experiment was about (funnel debrief) - use between-subjects design

Question 27

liking criticisms experimenter bias

Answer 27

Experimenter bias? (most times, the experimenters knew the hypothesis and so could have acted differently) * Mitigated with: - strict decision criteria for choosing a participant (e.g. Hippie study used specific times, and specific participants beforehand ) - making experimenters blind - record interactions - use computer interaction (so completely scripted) e.g. Grant et al 2010

Question 28

authority : milgram experiment

Answer 28

Milgram experiments: people stopped shocks if… … the experimenter told the participant to stop (even if the “victim” insisted they continue) … the experimenter and “victim” switched roles … with two experimenters who disagreed

Question 29

authority doctors study

Answer 29

doctors study: researchers phoned wards and pretended to be doctors and asked the nurses to administer a dangerous dose of unauthorised medication to a specific patient Hofling et al J. of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1966 * in 95% of cases, the nurses went to the medicine cabinet and secured the medicine (where they were stopped!

Question 30

authority domiance versus credibility, what is credibility

Answer 30

Credibility: expertise and trustworthiness

Question 31

authority -credibility : expertise experiment

Answer 31

- participants Asked to judge a laundry detergent brand based on review by Yale chemist or 14 year old boy Smith, DeHouwer, Nosek, PSPB, 2012 * Yale chemist judged as more credible than the boy (i.e. expert, intelligent, trustworthy) * Yale review led to greater explicit preference for the laundry brand * Yale review led to greater implicit brand preference (via Implicit Association Test

Question 32

authority credibility : trustworthiness technique

Answer 32

Trustworthiness: weakness-before-strength technique take a weakness and turn it around into strength the idea is to identify your areas of weakness first. Once you address these weaknesses, you build a solid foundation of skills and confidence. Afterward, you can further enhance your strengths, making them even more powerful.

Question 33

authority : trust in experts experiment

Answer 33

Study compared behavioural nudges carried out by experts (scientists) and government groups Osman et al Basic and Applied Social Psych. 2018 * Scientists judged more trustworthy than government groups * Genuine nudges judged more ethical and plausible than fictitious nudges * Genuine nudges by government judged less trustworthy than fictious (implausible) nudges by scientists! 'people trsut scientific experts far more than politicians, study shows'

Question 34

authority : trust in experts - gaining trust fiske experiment

Answer 34

Fiske & Dupree 2014 PNAS - Scientists in the US viewed as high in competence * But not high in trust * Climate change scientists’ motivation to gain research money mediated trust in climate change

Question 35

authority : impact of the pandemic

Answer 35

64% of voters are now more likely to listen to expert advice from scientists and researchers

Question 36

commitment : what is congnitive dissonance

Answer 36

* cognitive dissonance theory: inconsistency among beliefs or behaviours causes an uncomfortable psychological tension Festinger 1957 * So, we act to reduce that tension - > consistency is preferred ( we want to believe we are consistent people

Question 37

commitment : foot in the door technique

Answer 37

* foot-in-the-door technique: start small and build up The foot-in-the-door technique is a psychological persuasion tactic where you first make a small request or ask for a minor favor that’s easy for someone to agree to, and then follow it up with a larger, more significant request. The idea is that once someone agrees to the small request, they are more likely to comply with a bigger one because they have already made a commitment to the action.

Question 38

commitment - foot in the door -cancer study

Answer 38

* Cancer study: students were phoned up by a researcher and asked hypothetical question: would they help collect donations for the ‘American Cancer society’ if asked? Sherman et al, JPSP, 1980, Exp3 * Experimental group (plus control group, who hadn’t previously been contacted) then phoned up by the ‘American Cancer Society’ and actually asked to help * 31.3% helped in experimental group v 4.2% in control group * Fighting cancer is a socially desirable behaviour so people overpredicted that they would help (47.8% thought they’d help!)

Question 39

contradiction of foot in door technique

Answer 39

foot-in-the-door technique: start small and build up * opposite to the door-in-the- face technique (start big go small) * Contradiction???

Question 40

when does the foot in door technique works best -what does this suggest -what is the techniques effectiveness mediated by

Answer 40

* foot-in-the-door: works best when there is time between requests or different people requesting * suggesting it invokes consistency (i.e. internal pressure) Pascual & Gueguen, Psychological Reports, 2005 * foot-in-the-door effectiveness is mediated by changes in self- perception (i.e. in line with behaviour)

Question 41

when does door in face technique work best -what does it suggest

Answer 41

* door-in-the-face: works best when a target request is made immediately after the first request, with the same requester Pascual & Gueguen, Psychological Reports, 2005 * suggesting it invokes reciprocation (i.e. external pressure) * two techniques are equally effective: meta analysis Pascual & Gueguen, Psychological Reports, 2005

Question 42

is commitment effective -meta analysis of exp studies on environment pledges

Answer 42

* commitment was an effective strategy in changing behaviour (moderate effect size) * also successful in driving long term behaviour change (small effect size) * less clear whether commitment was the best intervention

Question 43

why is commitment effective ?

Answer 43

* less clear why commitment is effective Lokhorst et al 2013 Enviroment and Behavior Could be: * Change in self concept and/or attitudes towards behaviour (“I am the kind of person who recycles”)? * Follow social norm (“good to be consistent”)?

Question 44

public versus private commitment experiment

Answer 44

* Students had to estimate a line length; writing it down and showing it (public commitment) or writing it down and erasing it (private commitment) Deutsch & Gerard, J Abnormal and Social Psych., 1955 confedrates in the room report wrong answers * public commitment condition showed most consistency with initial estimate, then private commitment condition (both showed more consistency than in a control condition) * commitment groups resisted social influence from a group (who were wrong) * Effectiveness of public commitment suggest that social norms play a role

Question 45

scarcity people want something more when it is....

Answer 45

time limited rare difficult to get

Question 46

scarcity : time limit rare difficult to get examples

Answer 46

time limit : sales, shops and seasonal stuff that is limited edition rare : gemstones etc desirable bc they are rare difficult : getting concert tickets

Question 47

scarcity : optimal conditions experiment

Answer 47

* Consumer preference study Worchel 1975 et al JPSP * Participants rated the same cookie, either taken from a jar with 2 cookies OR with 10 cookies. * Cookies in short supply rated as significantly more desirable to eat and more attractive as an item, and (ns) more costly * Newly scarce condition: cookie rated as EVEN more attractive, liked, and costly when it was first shown in a jar of ten, THEN in a jar of two (instead of always two)

Question 48

when the cookies were reduced in the consumer preference exp, what reason behind the cookies being reduced was more attractive ?

Answer 48

* Cookies either reduced due to ‘social demand’ or because ‘experimenter made a mistake’: social demand was the most attractive condition Worchel 1975 et al JPSP * Interestingly – no difference on rated taste of the cookies * Why? Scarcity triggers loss of freedom * Follow up experiment showed that effects were strongest for people who didn’t know the hypothesis * i.e. not a demand characteristic

Question 49

scarcity : information scarcity experiment

Answer 49

* Censorship study: Participants were given a list of tapes, either told they could listen to all of them; or told that one was restricted (censored by the ethics board) Worchel 1992 * Censorship increased people’s desire to hear the tape * Desire especially increased when: - told others had heard the tape - deliberately (not accidentally) withheld - it was personal (only they couldn’t hear it)

Question 50

what is psychological reactance

Answer 50

Psychological reactance: when people feel that their choices are heavily constricted, they feel angry and may react by increasing that behaviour

Question 51

what is the streisand effect

Answer 51

The Streisand Effect is a phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, censor, or restrict information only causes that information to become more widely known. The term was coined after an incident involving singer Barbra Streisand in 2003

Question 52

what can psychologists do to help / apply social influence to benefit

Answer 52

1. Reciprocation: nature as a benefactor 2. Social proof: Protecting habitats 3. Appeal to liking: #earthday 4. Appeal to authority 5. Commitment 6. Scarcity: Prioritising the earth

Question 53

how can nudging occur through the environment -what are the 'low' and 'high' roads to imitation

Answer 53

‘Low road to imitation’ -> mimicry * mimicry of relatively simple, observable behaviour ‘High road to imitation’ -> priming * imitation based on higher-level constructs (e.g. traits, goals, and stereotypes)

Question 54

mimicry as a nudge -perception behaviour link

Answer 54

seeing is doing (i.e. automatic copying; no need for conscious or deliberate thought) Dijksterhuis et al J Consumer Psych. 2005 * chameleon effect: mimicry happens automatically and unconsciously Chartrand & Bargh JPSP, 1999 * > monkey see, monkey do

Question 55

mimicry as a nudge : mimicry leads to.....

Answer 55

mimicry leads to increased liking and increased persuasion Chatrand & Bargh JPSP 1999 * mimicking exact words used by customers increased tips more than paraphrasing did Van Baaren et al, J. Experimental Social Psych, 2003

Question 56

priming as a nudge

Answer 56

* initial activation of a construct leads to activation of other constructs * initial activation of a construct leads to relevant behaviour Carver et al J. Experimental Social Psych. 1983 * behavioural priming

Question 57

behavioural priming : traits milgram

Answer 57

* Measured shocks delivered (Milgram task) Carver et al J. Experimental Social Psych. 1983 Study 2 * People primed by asking them to unscramble mainly hostile words (hostile, aggressive, etc.) or neutral words (supposedly a different experiment) * People primed with hostility gave more shocks than the control group did * Subject to demand, but no one guessed the link between the two studies at debrief (although one person guessed that they weren’t really delivering shocks) * Effect size was really small

Question 58

behavioural priming : stereotypes

Answer 58

* Priming behaviour with stereotypes * people primed with “professor” stereotype (asked to write down typical professor characteristics) performed better on a general knowledge task than control participants Dijksterhius & van Knippenberg 1998 * people primed with a “football hooligan” stereotype, showed lower general knowledge than control participants Dijksterhius & van Knippenberg 1998

Question 59

behaviourl priming : goals

Answer 59

* Priming goals unconsciously Chartrand & Bargh JPSP 1996 * Relied on this effect: people who are asked to form an impression remember more personal information than people who are asked to remember the information directly (ironically!) * priming impression formation goal (using a scrambled sentence task) also led to better memory compared to priming a memory goal

Question 60

behavioural priming: non verbal

Answer 60

Smell: Participants put in room with (hidden) bucket filled with lemon- scented cleaning water (or control) * Participants in the bucket condition were more likely to list cleaning activities as goals for the day (36%) than the control participants (11%) Holland et al, Psych. Science 2005

Question 61

behavioural priming : context

Answer 61

photo of eyes increased donations to tea/coffee honesty box relative to photo of flowers Bateson et al 2006 Biology Letters * 2012 HMRC tax advert based on result -Halpern 2019, Inside the Nudge Unit

Question 62

behavioural priming does it replicate

Answer 62

* Elderly-walking paradigm failed to replicate: - with better methods (e.g. infra-red movement sensors) Doyen et al 2012 PLOS One - did replicate when experimenter wasn’t blind to condition i.e. expected the participant to walk slower - thus experimenter, rather than environment, may have primed participant * Professor/hooligan paradigm failed to replicate: - set of nine studies Shanks et al., 2013 Plos ONE - multi-lab collaboration, pre-registered report, protocol validated by original author O’Donnell et al 2018 * Eyes-watching paradigm failed to replicate: - Carbon & Hesslinger 2011, Swiss J. Psychology - two meta-analyses conclude no effect Northover et al2016 Evolution & Human Behavior * Warm-cold impression priming failed to replicate - Chabris et al 2019, Social Psychology * Findings from other literatures: - Behavioural priming at odds with cognitive neuroscience literature suggesting that priming requires salient stimuli and top-down attention (factors associated with consciousness) Doyen et al 2012 PLOS One

Question 63

behavioural priming : whats going on, how can it be explained?

Answer 63

* Demand bias & experimenter bias * Under-powered studies: small effects need large participant samples, most priming studies were run on N = 20 * Effects may just be a type 1 error (i.e. not really there) * Mistakes in statistical analysis: statistics are hard and mistakes do happen! * experimenter and demand bias may instead demonstrate how powerful social influence is