Department of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 3;16(12):e0260531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260531. eCollection 2021.
Public acceptability of nudging is receiving increasingly more attention, but studies remain limited to evaluations of aspects of the nudge itself or (inferred intentions) of the nudger. Yet, it is important to investigate which individuals are likely to accept nudges, as those who are supposed to benefit from the implementation should not oppose it. The main objective of this study was to integrate research on self-regulation and nudging, and to examine acceptability of nudges as a function of self-regulation capacity and motivation.
Participants (N = 301) filled in questionnaires about several components of self-regulation capacity (self-control, proactive coping competence, self-efficacy, perceived control and perceived difficulty) and motivation (autonomous motivation and controlled motivation). To evaluate nudge acceptability, we used three vignettes describing three types of nudges (default, portion size, and rearrangement) that stimulated either a pro-self behavior (healthy eating) or pro-social behavior (sustainable eating) and asked participants to rate the nudges on (aspects of) acceptability.
Results revealed that there were substantial differences in acceptability between the three types of nudges, such that the default nudge was seen as less acceptable and the rearrangement nudge as most acceptable. The behavior that was stimulated did not affect acceptability, even though the nudges that targeted healthy eating were seen as more pro-self than the nudges targeting sustainable eating. From all self-regulation components, autonomous motivation was the only measure that was consistently associated with nudge acceptability across the three nudges. For self-regulatory capacity, only some elements were occasionally related to acceptability for some nudges.
The current study thus shows that people are more inclined to accept nudges that target behaviors that they are autonomously motivated for, while people do not meaningfully base their judgments of acceptability on self-regulatory capacity.
公众对助推的接受度越来越受到关注,但研究仍然局限于对助推本身的评估或(推断的意图)助推者。然而,重要的是要调查哪些人可能接受助推,因为那些应该从实施中受益的人不应该反对。本研究的主要目的是整合自我调节和助推的研究,并考察作为自我调节能力和动机的函数的助推接受度。
参与者(N=301)填写了关于自我调节能力的几个组成部分的问卷(自我控制、主动应对能力、自我效能感、感知控制和感知难度)和动机(自主动机和控制动机)。为了评估助推的可接受性,我们使用了三个描述三种类型的助推(默认、份量大小和重新排列)的情景,这些情景激发了自我导向行为(健康饮食)或亲社会行为(可持续饮食),并要求参与者对助推的可接受性进行评分(可接受性的方面)。
结果表明,三种类型的助推在可接受性方面存在显著差异,即默认助推被认为不太可接受,而重新排列的助推则最可接受。所激发的行为并没有影响可接受性,尽管针对健康饮食的助推被认为比针对可持续饮食的助推更自我导向。在所有自我调节成分中,自主动机是唯一与三种助推的可接受性都始终相关的测量指标。对于自我调节能力,只有一些元素偶尔与一些助推的可接受性相关。
因此,本研究表明,人们更倾向于接受针对他们自主动机的行为的助推,而人们并没有根据自我调节能力的意义来判断可接受性。