, Behavioural Scientist, Ph.D. / CBIT, Roskilde University Director of ISSP The Initiative for Science, Society & Policy Member of The Prevention Council, Danish Diabetic Assoc. Chairman of The Danish Network Head of INUDGEYOU team twitter: @peguha / March, 2015 The smaller the piece the healthier consumption a choice architectural experiment in behavioral nutrition Hansen PG; Skov LR; Schmidt K; Skov KL; Mikkelsen BE; Pérez-Cueto FJA (2013) Deskriptiv norm - tendensen til at opfatte det dominerende som normsættende Enheds bias - tendensen til at opfatte en enhed af et givent produkt som den passende og optimale størrelse/mængde Friktions bias tendens til at selv minimale psykologiske barrierer afholder en fra at handle på motiver Ordningseffekt - tendensen til at tage og spise mere af det der står forrest. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A 1&
. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A Sample Control n = 189 Intervention n = 202 391CEO s attending a coffee break at a conference for Danish CEO s held in the Danish Opera House Self-selection by choosing one of two stairs leading to floor featuring two identical brownie and fruit buffets Simple comparison of total consumption/n of brownies and apples. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A 2&
Average'consump/on'per'person'measured'in' whole'of'cake'and'apples'respec/vely' 0.9& 0.8& 0.7& 0.6& 0.5& 0.4& 0.3& 0.2& 0.1& 0& Cake'vs.'Brownies'in'the'Opera'2013' Cake&consump9on& Apple&consump9on& Control& Reduced&size& Grams'per'person' 45& 40& 35& 30& 25& 20& 15& 10& 5& 0& Fat& Satuarated&fat& Cake'vs.'Brownies'in'the'Opera'2013' Carbohydrate& Added&sugars& Dietary&fibre& Protein& Standard& Interven9on&. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A Kilo'Jules' 1800& 1600& 1400& 1200& 1000& 800& 600& 400& 200& 0& Cake'vs.'Brownies'in'the'Opera'2013' Total&energy&intake&per&person&(KJ)& Table over energy use for different activities Activity KJ/10 minutes Watching TV 33 Kissing 34 Doing the dishes by hand 71 Vacuuming 80 Brushing teeth 80 Playing music 85 Playing volleyball 95 Playing Frisbee 100 Source: Become your own food detective Danish Board of Product Facts. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A 3&
nudge Et nudge er en funktion af ethvert forsøg på at påvirke menneskers vurdering, valg eller adfærd i en forudsigelig retning (1) under antagelsen af kognitive bias, rutiner og vaner påvirker vores individuelle og sociale adfærd, og (2) som virker ved at gøre brug af disse som en integreret del af sådanne forsøg. Det betyder bl.a. at et nudge fungerer uafhængigt af 1) begrænsninger af valgmuligheder, eller 2) ændringer ved handlingsalternativernes omkostninger (herunder økonomi, tid, besvær, social sanktioner, o. lign.) 3) ny informationsgivning Source: Hansen, PG (2014) and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove? Forthcoming in The European Journal of Risk Regulation 2015? Informa/on' Interven9onsS& s9gen& Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42 Hvorfor nudge? Elimina/on'af'valg' Nega/ve'sank/oner' Posi/ve'sank/oner' Kampagner' 4&
Interven9onsS& s9gen& Elimina/on'af'valg' Interven9onsS& s9gen& Elimina/on'af'valg' Nega/ve'sank/oner' Nega/ve'sank/oner' Posi/ve'sank/oner' Posi/ve'sank/oner' Kampagner' Kampagner' Informa/on' Informa/on' Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42 Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42 Dual Process Theory 1. Sloman&S.A.&(1996)&The&empirical&case&for&two&systems&of&reasoning.&Psychological+Bulle/n,&119,&3S22.& 2. Kahneman&D.&(2003)&A&perspec9ve&on&judgement&and&choice.&American+Psychologist.&58,&697S720.& 3. Evans,&J.&(2003).&"In&two&minds:&dualSprocess&accounts&of&reasoning".&TRENDS+in+Cogni/ve+Sciences&7&(10).& 4. Stanovich,&K&E.;&West,&R&F.&(2000).&"Individual&difference&in&reasoning:&implica9ons&for&the&ra9onality&debate?".&Behavioural+and+ Brain+Sciences&23:&645 726.& 5. Stupple,& E.;& Waterhouse& (2009).& "Nega9ons& In& Syllogis9c& Reasoning:& Evidence& for& a& Heuris9c& S& analy9c& Conflict".& The+ Quarterly+ Journal+of+Experimental+Psychology&62&(8).& 5&
Kahneman, D (2002) Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive Judgment and Choice, Prize Lecture, December 8. 34 x 52 = 6&
Shiv, B. & A. Fedorikhin (1999) Heart and Mind in Conflict: the Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, No. 3 (December 1999) (pp. 278-292) System&1&og&2&arbejder&sammen& & & & & 26& 7&
(1) Kemoterapi med 80% chance for at overleve? (2) Strålebehandling med 20% risiko for at dø? 68'%' 32'%' 68'%' 16'%' 32'%' 84'%' 8&
Hvad tror du denne flaske whisky har kostet? Gruppe 1: Gruppe 2: 450 kr. 294 kr. Hansen PG; Schmidt K; Rathman, A; Schuldt J 450' 379' 294' Kroner' 1& 2& 3& 9&
S&=&P& &E.&In&this&formula9on,& S &stands&for&sa9sfac9on,& P &for&percep9on&and& E &for&expecta9on.&if&you&expect&a&certain&level&of&service,&and&perceive&the&service&reviewed&to& be&higher,&you&are&a&sa9sfied&client.&& & If&you&perceive&the&same&level&as&before,&but&expected&higher,&you&are&disappointed&and,&consequently,&a&dissa9sfied&client.&(by&David&Maister&1985)& S& 0& F& EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR MUSICAL INFLUENCES ON PRODUCT CHOICE Predicted effects measured in 1-9 lierkert skales SAMPLE AND SETTING EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS 7.5& Customer Satisfaction N = 143 7& 6.9& 7.1& 6.5& 6.2& 6.5& 6& 5.5& 5.7& 5.9& Subjects consisted of 87% staff, 9% grad students, and 4% off campus. Mean age = 43. Six menu-items were selected for descriptive manipulation, and were rotated between basic description and descriptive labels. Each item were available 6 times over a six week period Subjects filled out single-item questionnaries after consuming food 5& Ah&towards&menu&item& Ah&towards&restaurant& Repurchase&iten9on& Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels effect on sales. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 68-72 Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels effect on sales. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 68-72 10&
Hyperbolic discounting Hansen, P.G. & Hendricks (2013) Info-storms. New York: Copernicus Books. 11&
Decision-making and behavioral biases 35'%' 75'%' 96'%' Wansink, B. (2004) Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual Review of Nutrition, Vol. 24, 455-479. nudge Et nudge er en funktion af ethvert forsøg på at påvirke menneskers vurdering, valg eller adfærd i en forudsigelig retning (1) under antagelsen af kognitive bias, rutiner og vaner påvirker vores individuelle og sociale adfærd, og (2) som virker ved at gøre brug af disse som en integreret del af sådanne forsøg. Det betyder bl.a. at et nudge fungerer uafhængigt af 1) begrænsninger af valgmuligheder, eller 2) ændringer ved handlingsalternativernes omkostninger (herunder økonomi, tid, besvær, social sanktioner, o. lign.) 3) ny informationsgivning Source: Hansen, PG (2014) and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove? Forthcoming in The European Journal of Risk Regulation 2015 Anchoring the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions. Attentional Bias implicit cognitive bias defined as the tendency of emotionally dominant stimuli in one's environment to preferentially draw and hold attention. Backfire effect - Evidence disconfirming our beliefs only strengthens them. Bandwagon effect the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior. Bias blind spot the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people. [2] Choice-supportive bias the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were. [3] Confirmation bias the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. [4] Congruence bias the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses. Contrast effect the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared with a recently observed contrasting object. [5] Denomination effect the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills). [6] Distinction bias the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately. [7] Empathy gap - the tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others. Endowment effect "the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it". [8] Experimenter's or Expectation bias the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations. [9] Focusing effect the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome. [10] Framing effect drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented. Hostile media effect - the tendency to see a media report as being biased due to one's own strong partisan views. Hyperbolic discounting the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are. [11] Illusion of control the tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events. [12] Impact bias the tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states. [13] Information bias the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action. [14] Irrational escalation the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Loss aversion "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it". [15] (see also Sunk cost effects and Endowment effect). Mere exposure effect the tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them. [16] Money illusion the tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power. [17] Moral credential effect the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice. Negativity bias the tendency to pay more attention and give more weight to negative than positive experiences or other kinds of information. Neglect of probability the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty. [18] Normalcy bias the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before. Omission bias the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions). [19] Outcome bias the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made. Planning fallacy the tendency to underestimate task-completion times. [13] Post-purchase rationalization the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value. Pseudocertainty effect the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes. [20] Reactance the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice. Restraint bias the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation. Selective perception the tendency for expectations to affect perception. Semmelweis reflex the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm. [21] Social comparison bias the tendency, when making hiring decisions, to favour potential candidates who don't compete with one's own particular strengths. [22] Status quo bias the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification). [23][24] Unit bias the tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item. Strong effects on the consumption of food in particular. [25] Wishful thinking the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality. [26] Zero-risk bias preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk. Social biases Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases. Actor observer bias the tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see alsofundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one's own behaviors to do the opposite (that is, to overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality). Dunning Kruger effect a twofold bias. On one hand the lack of metacognitive ability deludes people, who overrate their capabilities. On the other hand, skilled people underrate their abilities, as they assume the others have a similar understanding. [37] Egocentric bias occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would. Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes. False consensus effect the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them. [38] Fundamental attribution error the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect). [39] Halo effect the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one area of their personality to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype). [40] Illusion of asymmetric insight people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them. [41] Illusion of transparency people overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others. Illusory superiority overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect," "better-than-average effect," or "superiority bias"). [42] Ingroup bias the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be 12&
13&
DTR'Technique' DTR& PO& RO& DO& RTD& 80& (1) "The price of these note cards is $3. 70& 60& 65& 70& 65& 50& (2) "The price of these note cards is 300 pennies It's a bargain. 40& 30& 20& 35& 35& 25& 30& 35& 30& 25& 10& 0& Study&1& Study&2& Study&3& Davis,&Barbara&Price&&&Knowles,&Eris&S.&(1999)& A&disruptSthenS reframe&technique&of&social&influence,&journal&of&personality& and&social&psychology,&vol.&76(2),&feb&1999,&192s199.& && Christopher&J.&Carpenter&&&Franklin&J.&Boster&(2009)& A&MetaS Analysis&of&the&Effec9veness&of&the&DisruptSThenSReframe& Compliance&Gaining&Technique,&Communica/on+Reports,&Vol.& 22,&No.&2,&July December&2009,&pp.&55 62&& 14&
BYAF&technique&& && Asking&for&bus&fare,&charitable&dona9ons,& par9cipa9on&in&voluntary&services &metas analysis&of&42&studies&involving&22.000& par9cipants&shows&that&ending&with& 'but' you'are'free'to'accept'of'refuse &doubles&the& likelihood&of&people&saying& yes.& && Presence&bias& not&affected&by&whether&prossocial&or&selfs interested&& && & 60.00%& 50.00%& 40.00%& 30.00%& 20.00%& 22.20%& FITD'technique' && Once+someone+has+agreed+to+a+small+request+he+is+more+likely+to+comply+with+a+larger+request.++ 27.80%& 33.30%& 52.80%& 10.00%& 0.00%& OneSContact& Familiariza9on& AgreeSOnly& Performance& Carpenter,&Christopher&J.& A&MetaSAnalysis&of&the&Effec9veness& of&the& But&You&Are&Free &ComplianceSGaining&Technique.& Communica/on+Studies&64,&no.&1&(2013),&6S17& 2&experiments&were&conducted&to&test&the&proposi9on&that&once&someone&has& agreed&to&a&small&request&he&is&more&likely&to&comply&with&a&larger&request.&the&1st& study&demonstrated&this&effect&when&the&same&person&made&both&requests.&the& 2nd&study&extended&this&to&the&situa9on&in&which&different&people&made&the&2& Freedman,&Jonathan&L.&&&Frase,&Scoh&C.&(1966)& Compliance& requests.&several&experimental&groups&were&run&in&an&effort&to&explain&these& Without&Pressure:&The&FootSInSTheSDoor&Technique,&Journal+of+ results,&and&possible&explana9ons&are&discussed.& Personality+and+Social+Psychology,&1966,&Vol.&4,&No.&2,&155S202& Dustbin& 15&
Footprints'leading'to'city'dustbins'decreases'street'liXer'by'46%' in'field'experiment' 30%& 25%& 26%& 20%& 19%& 15%& 10%& 9%& 5%& 5%& 0%& 1& 2& prestest& poststest& lihered& binned& Result+was+achieved+on+the+assump/on+that+salience+combined+with+spotlight+effect+and+external+ implementa/oninten/ons.& Source: Hansen, P.G. & Jespersen, A.M. (2012)., adfærdsøkonomi, og økonomisk psykologi fra eksperiment til skraldespand. Psykologisk set, vol. 87-88., p. 15-23. Multi-layered Intervention for Raising Compliance Hansen PG; Schmidt K; Skov KL (2013) 16&
Cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. Diffusion of responsibility a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present. Expectation effects tendencies to form expectations on the basis of availability, recency, motivation and other effects, rather than by Bayesian reasoning. Inattention tendency to ignore non-salient objects or attributes. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A. H BB -JB; EG 1 IG 2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E; AEK ;G H B 0 HF GH 1 GHI : C ;I FFB H KH GEL H, B; MF G C I 5 GG E G : :A J IH IE 5 ;J: EGI GC G I A ERST'LeXer'experiment'2013' 50%& 45%& 80.0%& 40%& 35%& 70.0%& 30%& 60.0%& 58.4%& 25%& 20%& Kontrolbrev& de&brev& 15%& 50.0%& 10%& 5%& 40.0%& 0%& Runde&1& Runde&2& Runde&3& Runde&4& I&alt& 30.0%& 30.5%& 50%& 45%& 40%& 20.0%& 35%& 30%& 10.0%& 25%& 20%& 15%& Optagende& 0.0%& 1& 2& 10%& 5%& Serie1& Serie2& 0%& de&brev& Social&Norm& What's&in&it&for&me& Rødt&brev& 17&
Behaviour change MOTIVATION INTUITIVE 18&
19&
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR MOTIVATION AND INTENTION IMPLEMENTATIONS IN BEHAVIOR CHANGE Sample & Basic design Experimental conditions Predicted effects Unrelated literature Baseline Control 248 Undergraduates over a 2 week period Motivation pamphlet Equal to baseline Motivation Motivation + Implementation pamphlet Implementation Higher tendency to exercise Some participants were not included, as they did not complete the questionnaires. No difference in previous exercise tendency Participants were randomly assigned to groups Self reported behavior and intentions iyou& &&101& S.&Milne,&S.&Orbell,&P.&Sheeran&(2012);&Combining&mo9va9onal&and&voli9onal&interven9ons&to&promote&exercise&par9cipa9on:&Protec9on& mo9va9on&theory&andimplementa9on&inten9ons;&bri9sh&journal&of&health&psychology&2002,&7,&pp&163s184& 20&
100% 90% Percentage of group that exercised 91% N = 248 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 38% 35% 20% iyou& &&101& Control& Mo9va9on& Mo9va9on&+& Implementa9on& inten9ons& S.&Milne,&S.&Orbell,&P.&Sheeran&(2012);&Combining&mo9va9onal&and&voli9onal&interven9ons&to&promote&exercise&par9cipa9on:&Protec9on& mo9va9on&theory&andimplementa9on&inten9ons;&bri9sh&journal&of&health&psychology&2002,&7,&pp&163s184& 15.0% 10.0% Percentage reduction in DNA s compared to pre-intervention & 10.1% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% -3.5% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% -18% -30.0% -31.7% -35.0% Verbal Active Active + Positive norm iyou 101 Intervention stop -29.6% Intervention restart S. Martin, S. Bassi & R. Dunbar-Rees (2012): Commitments, norms and custard creams a social influence approach to reducing did not attends (DNAs). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2012: 105: 101 104 21&
05/03/15& EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR FIELD EXPERIMENT IN TOWEL REUSE THROUGH DESCRIPTIVE NORMS Sample Experimental conditions Predicted effects 50% Participation in towel reuse program by percentage N = 428 48% 46% 1,058 hotel guests over a 80 day period Environmental message on towelrack Control Standard reuse rate 44% 42% 40% 38% 44% Descriptive norm messages on towelrack Intervention Increase in towel reuse 36% 34% 32% 35% Part of sample was removed for various Rooms were randomly assigned to either reasonscollected from a mid-priced chainhotel in the southwest U.S. industry standard Measurement of towel reuse participation condition. Environmental messages are an iyou& &&101& N.&J.&GOLDSTEIN,&R.&B.&CIALDINI,&V.&GRISKEVICIUS&(2008);& A&Room&with&a&Viewpoint:&Using&Social&Norms&to&Mo9vate&Environmental& Conserva9on&in&Hotels &Journal+of+Consumer+Research,+October+2008.& 30% iyou& &&101& Environmental& Message& Descrip9ve&norms& &message& N.&J.&GOLDSTEIN,&R.&B.&CIALDINI,&V.&GRISKEVICIUS&(2008);& A&Room&with&a&Viewpoint:&Using&Social&Norms&to&Mo9vate&Environmental& Conserva9on&in&Hotels &Journal+of+Consumer+Research,+October+2008.& Twitter: @peguha mail: pelle@inudgeyou.com Blog: www.iyou.com 22&
05/03/15& BASE]line' Analysis (diagnosis) Hypothesizing Triangulation Hypothesis tests Experiments Prototyping Lab experiments Field experiments implementation B& Behavioural mapping Identification Behavioural Reduction Behavioural patterns Solution mapping Research Adaptation Ethics BASE]line' Analysis (diagnosis) Hypothesizing Triangulation Hypothesis tests Experiments Prototyping Lab experiments Field experiments implementation context A B B& Behavioural mapping Identification Behavioural Reduction Behavioural patterns Solution mapping Research Adaptation Ethics intention A: hvad gør folk? B: hvad burde de gøre i stedet? C: Hvad er den relevante kontekst? 23&
Lehers&about&digital&post& 23.000&lehers&were& unable&to&be&delivered& 2014 Reducing costs by enhancing data quality in the Danish Business Register Collaboration between Danish Business Authorities and ISSP Applied Behavioural Science Team 172.500&DKK&lost&on& postage& How&do&we&& find&the&companies&with&wrong&addresses&when&we&cannot&send&them& a&leher?& Prompt& 24&
Results& Changes& 25&
Uhensigtsmæssige'adfærdsmønstre' Selectees, der henvender sig i sidste øjeblik Passagerer, der fumler med papirer ved disk Passagerer, der ikke har lavet APIS og Next of Kin Kaotisk kødannelse Lange ståtider i kø 26&
8.00 By showing passengers how to hand over their passports and boarding passes to handler the time taken by handler to process passengers was reduced with 1,08 second per passenger* in a field experiment. Uhensigtsmæssige'adfærdsmønstre' 7.50 7.41 Time per passenger (sec) 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 Reduc/on:'' 4&min.&46&sec.&/& flight& 6.33 Selectees, der henvender sig i sidste øjeblik Passagerer, der fumler med papirer ved disk Passagerer, der ikke har lavet APIS og Next of Kin Kaotisk kødannelse Lange ståtider i kø 4.00 Control (n = 679) Intervention (n = 684) Note: The reslut is calculated for ordinary passenger. By ordinary we mean passenger who did not have NoK-, APIS- or Selectee status. Passaengers who had not filled out their next-of-kin form 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% By informing* passengers that they had to fill out the next-of-kin form and by mounting american flags on the next-of-kin-counter we reduced the amount of passengers who had not filled out the form by 13,68 percentage points. 18.87% Reduc/on:&& 1&m.&16&sec.&/& flight& 5.19% 0.00% Control (n = 212) Intervention (n = 77) Note: Refers to the slideshow intervention. Passengers were asked fill out the form before approaching the boarding counter. 27&
Nuværende& tandlæge& Smerte& AKUT& Ny&tandlæge& PELLE GULDBORG HANSEN, BEHAVIOURAL SCIENTIST, PH.D. / CBIT, ROSKILDE UNIVERSITY DIRECTOR OF ISSP THE INITIATIVE FOR SCIENCE, SOCIETY & POLICY MEMBER OF THE PREVENTION COUNCIL, DANISH DIABETIC ASSOCIATION CHAIRMAN OF THE DANISH NUDGE NETWORK HEAD OF INUDGEYOU TEAM Smerte& AKUT& Smerte& AKUT& Nuværende& tandlæge& Indkaldelse&& + (brev,+sms,+email)+ Ezersyn& Nuværende& tandlæge& Afsøgning& Ny&tandlæge& Afsøgning& Ny&tandlæge& 28&
29& Smerte& AKUT& Nuværende& tandlæge& Ezersyn& Indkaldelse&& + (brev,+sms,+email)+ u9lfreds& Afsøgning& Ny&tandlæge& 9lfreds& betaling& Smerte& AKUT& Nuværende& tandlæge& Ezersyn& Indkaldelse&& + (brev,+sms,+email)+ u9lfreds& Afsøgning& Ny&tandlæge& 9lfreds& betaling& Smerte& AKUT& Nuværende& tandlæge& Ezersyn& Indkaldelse&& + (brev,+sms,+email)+ u9lfreds& Afsøgning& Ny&tandlæge& 9lfreds& betaling& Skrizligt&9lbud& (over&2500& DKK)& Smerte& AKUT& Nuværende& tandlæge& Ezersyn& Indkaldelse&& + (brev,+sms,+email)+ u9lfreds& Ny&tandlæge& 9lfreds& betaling& Skrizligt&9lbud& (over&2500& DKK)& Ny&bopæl& 18&år& Klinikophør& Afsøgning&
05/03/15& Smerte& AKUT& 9lfreds& Smerte AKUT urgency uncertainty Adfærd:&Forbrugerne&håndhæver&deres&ret&9l& at&få&skrizligt&9lbud&i&venteværelset& tilfreds Status Quo Indkaldelse&& + (brev,+sms,+email)+ Ezersyn& Nuværende& tandlæge& betaling& Skrizligt&9lbud& (over&2500& DKK)& u9lfreds& Indkaldelse (brev, sms, email) Forventet kompleksitet risk uncertainty Eftersyn Status Quo Sunk costs reciprocitet Nuværende routine tandlæge Sunk costs Status Quo reciprocitet betaling Sunk costs reciprocitet Skriftligt tilbud (over utilfreds 2500 DKK) Tabsaversion Sunk costs Status Quo Adfærd:&Når&de&er&u9lfredse,& afsøger&de&markedet& Forventet kompleksitet Status Quo Forventet kompleksitet risk Afsøgning& Ny&tandlæge& mor og far bias Afsøgning Ny tandlæge Ny&bopæl& Ny bopæl Forventet kompleksitet Touch point netværk Forventet kompleksitet Klinikophør& Klinikophør Forventet kompleksitet 18&år& 18 år Adfærd:&De&18Sårige&vælger&ikke&nødvendigvis& deres&forældres&tandlæge& Demografi& Dataindsamling& 250 respondenter Data indsamlet i uge 40 Data hovedsageligt indsamlet fra studerende på CBS, CSS, KUA og Panum Instituttet. Der er blevet benyttet et convience-sampling scheme Data er indsamlet som svar på et spørgeskema som respondenterne har udfyldt gennem face-to-face interview, telefonisk og skriftligt 60 40 20 0 18 Aldersfordeling 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 35+ Ny&tandlæge&ved&18.&år:&Mor+og+FarUbias& Dokumenta9on&& 42% 17% 3% 2% 3% Viser svar fra 250 respondenter om tandlægevalg 15% 18% Vælger tandlæge pga: Forældre - far og mors Geografi - far og mors Andre faktorer - far og mors Forældre - ikke far og mors Andre faktorer - ikke far og mors Geografi - ikke far og mors Har ikke truffet valg om tandlæge 30&
05/03/15& Ny&tandlæge&ved&18.&år:&Mor+og+FarUbias& Dokumenta9on&& Ny&tandlæge&ved&18.&år:&Mor+og+FarUbias& Dokumenta9on&& 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 47% har valgt mors/fars tandlæge 47% har valgt mors/fars tandlæge 42% 15% Vælger tandlæge pga: Forældre - far og mors Geografi - far og mors 42% 15% Vælger tandlæge pga: Forældre - far og mors Geografi - far og mors Andre faktorer - far og mors Andre faktorer - far og mors Forældre - ikke far og mors Forældre - ikke far og mors Andre faktorer - ikke far og mors Andre faktorer - ikke far og mors Geografi - ikke far og mors Geografi - ikke far og mors 18% Har ikke truffet valg om tandlæge 18% Har ikke truffet valg om tandlæge 17% 17% Viser svar fra 250 respondenter om tandlægevalg Viser svar fra 250 respondenter om tandlægevalg Udskrivningsbreve& Odense kommune anvender slipmetode uden Dokumenta9on&& tandlægeliste BASE]line' Analysis (diagnosis) Hypothesizing Triangulation Hypothesis tests Experiments Prototyping Lab experiments Field experiments implementation I Frederiksberg kommune får man denne sms en måned før man fylder 18 år B& Odense, Frederiksberg, København, Århus, Roskilde og Aalborg 123& Behavioural mapping Identification Behavioural Reduction Behavioural patterns Solution mapping Research Adaptation Ethics 31&
Interven9onsS& s9gen& Elimina/on'af'valg' Behaviour change Nega/ve'sank/oner' Posi/ve'sank/oner' MOTIVATION Kampagner' Informa/on' INTUITIVE Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42 Feasibility& context ReS enforcement& mechanism& Default& A B Success& feedback& Informa9on& Descrip9ve& norm& Ahen9on& Injunc9ve& norm& Diagnostisk værktøj A tude& intention A: hvad gør folk? B: hvad burde de gøre i stedet? C: Hvad er den relevante kontekst? Ru9ne& feedback& Cogni9ve& effort& Time& discrepancy& Preference& consruc9on& Incen9ves& Inten9on& 32&