Nudge of the Month

I want to save the planet…tomorrow!

By Francesco Amighetti and Beatrice Del Frate

The problem of climate change is one of the richest and most complex issues to hit communication channels nowadays: news regarding global warming, overpopulation, melting of glaciers, greenhouse effect, protection of endangered species, desertification, pollution in all its forms are heard on TV, newspapers, and social media on a daily basis.

unnamed (2)

Together with climate change awareness, also the consciousness of the key role of human activities is growing: a survey conducted in April 2018 by the leading company for global market and opinion research Ipsos states that half of the Americans acknowledge the fact that humans themselves are causing this already well known climate change. Still, “most Americans are not willing to make changes to their personal behaviours to help limit climate change”, the survey further reveals. How come such a big contradiction exist in the human minds?

Actually, this phenomenon does not come as big news. The same failure in sticking to plans and good resolutions has already been investigated in contexts such as  gym attendance, savings, or voting. In psychological terms, it is possible to speak of an actual “intention-action gap”: a human inability to stick to good intentions that is both physiological and contextual. This happens mainly because, even with a good environmental awareness, most of our anti-ecological habits are very ingrained and difficult to change from a rational perspective.  

unnamed (1)

Of course, it is here that green nudges can intervene. According to a report from COWI A/S (an engineering and environmental science Danish consulting firm), green nudges can be classified into four different categories: provision of information, changes in the physical environment, changes in the default option, social norms and regular feedback. Some examples of how these different kinds of nudge work follow.

  1. Provision of information

According to the EU legislation, consumers should be able to choose between electrical appliances in the most transparent way possible: that’s why today energy labels report energy use in kWh per year. Despite this intervention, few of us really know what it means in monetary terms, and how this will impact on our bills. With this in mind, in 2014, the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change in partnership with the Behavioural Insights Team and John Lewis conducted a field study. They came up with the expected results: providing information on the electricity lifetime running costs of a certain electrical appliance, consumers are unconsciously driven to buy more energy-efficient appliances.

  1. Changing the physical environment

In many areas of Africa, drinking water without having previously purified it is a dangerous behaviour that can have serious consequences, as water-borne diseases create health issues for local populations and can be sometimes lethal. In Kibera (Kenya), researchers were not able to understand why the demand for the chlorine solution used for purification was so low, even if discount coupons were offered to incentivize its consumption. In reality, villagers had to walk every day to water sources, and were expected to do an extra trip to the nearest shop to buy the chlorine solution. As people prefer to save energy, very few of them were willing to do the extra effort. Only positioning chlorine solution containers next to the water source, researchers were able to change the behavior of locals and of their neighbours.

  1. Default options

In most of our previous articles we have discussed the power of default options. This is probably the most powerful nudge intervention. Examples include setting printers to print double-sided by default, sending to customers mails instead of paper bills or providing to the new ones green energy plans as a default option. One case that has been analysed extensively is the impact of the default option as a way to reduce meat consumption. Meat is considered one of the main causes of food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reducing it from our meals is a great way to mitigate its production effects. Researchers tried, for instance, to influence food choice in campus dining halls presenting a meat-free menu as default. Results showed that this intervention significantly increased the probability for students to choose a meat-free meal option, facilitating pro-environmental behaviours.

  1. Social norms and regular feedback

Social norms can be considered the accepted guidelines of behavior of social groups, and can be leveraged in a smart way to arrange effective nudges. In this way, it is possible to spread pro-environmental social norms and unconsciously influence behaviour on a large scale. The main example can be found once again in the realm of energy bills. In two studies, approximately 200,000 households received periodic peer feedback reports on consumption. Every household was compared to the average consumption of similar households  in terms of family dimension and location, and was provided targeted energy efficiency advice to achieve “the average”. This system is shown to produce significant results, and it can be easily scalable through e-mails or social media. Nevertheless, it presents also weaknesses: below-average consumers may increase energy consumption causing a boomerang effect of the intervention. Targeting directly only the above-average consumers can prevent this.

unnamed

In conclusion, it is clear that the intention-action gap in the context of eco-friendly behaviour is a complex issue that should be tackled, in the best of all possible worlds, with greater political campaigns for sensibilization and with greater information and data about how best to behave. However, it is exactly in contexts where things are not that easy that nudge interventions work best.

 

 

 

Sources

www.change.org/

www.ipsos.com/en/americas-views-climate-change

www.unenvironment.org

norden.diva-portal.org

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

www.offnews.info

www.researchgate.net

 

Advertisements
Nudge of the Month

Espresso…What else?

Just start with few questions for coffee-addicted people: how many coffees do you take per day and how much sugar do you usually consume per coffee?

We all know that the world divides into two types of people: those who like their coffee natural, and those who like it sweet (sometimes very sweet).

Coffee

If you happen to be in the second group, we have bad news for you. According to the WHO, sugar is one of the major causes of several diseases, especially obesity. Given that the limit of sugar that an adult male can ingest is about 50g per day (7-10 teaspoons of sugar), charging your coffee with extra sugar may not be the best choice for your health, especially if you drink more than simply one or two coffees per day.

Changing habits is easier in words than in action, but there is also good news for all sweet coffee lovers: several kinds of nudges have been developed to address the issue, and have the potential to find further applications in the food sector, for our health’s sake. Here are two simple but effective examples.

 

Do you like to take your coffee at the cafeteria?

Coffee2

Have you ever realised that every time you go to the cafeteria taking a coffee, a tea or a cappuccino, automatically you accompany it with one or two sugar bags?

A study conducted in Italy has investigated whether coffee consumers are aware of how much sugar they consume each time they take a break.

The behaviour of two groups of people has been monitored for 6 days – each one before and after reducing the weight of sugar in each packet from 7g to 4g. The research has shown that the reduction in sugar consumed per client is statistically significant.

This means that reducing the weight of sugar does not affect the number of packets clients take, as people tend to pick up a fixed number of packets out of habit.

Or are you just looking for a quick break?

Coffee3

Most of the times, busy students and workers prefer to just grab a coffee at the nearest vending machine. In this case, how often do they actually pay attention to choosing the amount of sugar?

Assuming that students do not change the default amount of sugar that is set by the machine (e.g. leaving the selection to 3 out of 5 units of sugar), a first simple way to reduce sugar consumption may be reducing the default level of sugar from 3 to 2. In this way, increasing sugar would be an active choice, that is likely not to happen. In fact, behavioural scientists have largely shown that people generally have a bias for maintaining the status quo.

A nudge has been hypothesized by Albert Gascon, a participant in a Nudge Competition on edx.org.
It consists of two intelligent strategies tested in a single nudge intervention.

Firstly, the choice of sugar may be put before the choice of the drink; secondly, instead of reporting “more sugar” and “less sugar”, the extremes of the scale may report the options “healthier” and “less healthy”. In this way, consumers are induced to pay more attention to their choice – instead of relying upon the default option – and are nudged towards a better choice through highlighting the consequences of their choices, that are too often not taken into consideration.

 

Sources:

State of mind http://www.stateofmind.it/2017/11/nudge-quantita-zucchero-caffe/

Albert Gascon http://albertgascon.com/behavioral-economics-in-action-be101x-nudge-challenge/

Nudge of the Month

Attractive names of meals for healthier diets of children

Carrots or French fries? Fruit salad or a chocolate bar? These are the dilemmas that children face when choosing their meals in school lunchrooms. From convincing them that veggies will give them superpowers to ominous threats of what will happen to their bodies if they don’t eat healthy, there are few options left unexplored on how to get kids to eat right.

Unsurprisingly, when all else fails, BE swoops in and saves the day. Discarding classical solutions such as information campaigns, it offers a much simpler alternative: make the healthy options more tempting.

How? By changing their names. Several research teams in the US have tried this strategy in various school canteens and they found that making the names “seductive”, catchy or funny can induce children to eat healthier.

choice
Decisions, decisions…

Source: Tes Global Ltd

Hence, instead of offering carrots as “vegetable of the day” or simply “carrots”, call them “X-ray vision carrots” or “twisted citrus-glazed carrots” and you will increase the probability that children will pick them!

For reference, see Wansink et al. (2012) and Turnwald et al. (2017).