Consumers increasingly integrate sustainability into their decision making. This is relevant for non-market players who aim to support sustainable consumer behaviours. This research explores how business, governmental and civil society players as a messenger influence the success of their communication initiatives to promote sustainable consumer behaviours. Therefore, the method of nudges will be taken as an example with a precommitment nudge.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Sustainability and Sustainable development
1.1. Definition
1.1.1. Sustainability
1.1.2. Sustainable development
1.1.3. Applied definition and limitations
1.2. Health and digitalisation in sustainable development
1.2.1. Health
1.2.2. Digitalisation
1.3. Transformational change for sustainable development
1.3.1. Public Sector
1.3.2. Private Sector
1.3.3. Social Sector
1.3.4. Principles of good governance and possibilities in sustainable development
2. Intervention strategy “Nudging”
2.1. Definition and development
2.2. Categories of nudges
2.3. Theoretical background and evidence
2.3.1. Theoretical background
2.3.2. Mindspace framework
2.4. Ethical discussion
2.5. The precommitment nudge
2.5.1. Definition
2.5.2. Theoretical background
3. The choice architect
3.1. The role of the messenger in a change process
3.2. The influence of a messenger
4. The role of the messenger in precommitment nudges
4.1. The precommitment list
4.2. The evaluated messengers
4.3. The survey
4.4. The results
5. Discussion and future study directions
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Future study directions
Conclusion
Bibliography
List of appendices
Table of illustrations
Table of tables
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the support of many people. Many thanks to my adviser, Dr Dirk C Moosmayer, who not only supported me in the first developing steps of my thesis but kept on discussing necessary decisions during my thesis. Further thanks to my former lectrice Fanny Salignac who introduced me to the topic and accompanied my journey from the first to the last semester.
I gratefully recognize the possibilities the KEDGE Business School offered me the possibility to study a master’s degree in a foreign country learning new things in a new cultural environment.
Finally, I want to thank the people supporting my survey and the final steps of the thesis. Especially Rica Rahe and Mirjam Wingenbach, who were the proof-readers of the thesis.
Organisations as messengers of sustainability measurements
The influence of the organisation type on the acceptance of a sustainability measurement at the example of the precommitment nudge
Celia Bormuth
ABSTRACT
Consumers increasingly integrate sustainability into their decision making. This is relevant for non-market players who aim to support sustainable consumer behaviours. This research explores how business, governmental and civil society players as a messenger influence the success of their communication initiatives to promote sustainable consumer behaviours. Therefore, the method of nudges will be taken as an example with a precommitment nudge.
Key words: Nudge, Sustainability, Digitalisation, Consumer Behaviour, Marketing, Communication, Decision Making, Precommitment
Abbreviations list
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Introduction
Sustainability, a healthy lifestyle, and digitalisation are three developments which are observable not only since the COVID-19 pandemic hit, but their development was already existing for several years. They have a high influence on individual’s behaviour and how consummation and consumer behaviour is developing and seen in society. They furthermore changed the expectation towards corporations and political institutions to act as a member of society, with a consciousness for their responsibilities, and not only as a service or product provider. These new circumstances lead to new ways of behaviour in the markets, new market players and recent circumstances influencing possibilities. Especially in communication and how content, products and information are presented, there are unknown potentials and influential factors which can be used by different market actors, who themselves as an influencing organisation have an impact on how the addressed decision maker decides. One model, with a guideline to develop measurements which aim to influence a decision makers’s behaviour in a good way is “Nudging”. One important factor about using “nudges” is, that they are designed by a choice architect, who wants to have positive impact. The nudge theory is gaining popularity since 2008 and is based on decision making with conscious and unconscious minds.
The aim of this work is to evaluate in which way a choice architect, represented by an organisation, has an impact on how individuals decide regarding an introduced nudge, depending on their role and position in society.
In the first chapter the relevant trends sustainability, health and digitalisation will be defined with an angle on how they are connected and support each other. The second chapter explains the theory behind nudges, what a nudge is, and which kind of nudges exist. Furthermore, the second chapter will closer analyse the later evaluated precommitment nudge in relation to its theoretical background and how it works. The third chapter is aiming to understand how a choice architect is influencing processes, by first analysing its role in common change models. Afterwards, existing literature about the influence of communicators and change agents will be reviewed, to transfer the studies of individuals influencing a process to an organisation influencing it.
The knowledge generated in the theoretical chapters of this master thesis will be used, to develop the hypothesis, which is supposed to be answered with the survey conducted and analysed as the main part of this work to prove or contradict the main thesis. This survey has four different groups of participants. The results will be analysed and discussed. The final part is the conclusion to answer the main question of this thesis and give directions for future studies.
PART 1: SUSTAINABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1. Sustainability and Sustainable development
The terms sustainability, sustainable behaviour and development have become more common in the last decades and have been researched in different contexts and frames. The following chapter will first explain the term by analysing some definitions and their meaning. Therefore, they will be categorised, and their characteristics will be explained. The applied definition for this work will be closer examined. The topics of health and digitalisation as the focus of this work will be analysed and their connection to sustainable development explained. Furthermore, the roles of three different groups of actors in society (especially in Germany), for possible and existing behavioural changes and measurements towards a more sustainable development will be evaluated. These groups are the public, private and social sector and their responsibilities and possibilities will be described in relation to a “good governance approach”.
1.1. Definition
The word “Sustainability” originates from the verb “to sustain” which describes the circumstances to keep something alive or “to cause or allow something to continue for a period of time” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.) and the adjective “sustainable” describes the ability to continue for a period of time. Sustainability as the term itself is defined by the dictionaries as a quality to be able to continue for a period of time (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). Since the word sustainability and a sustainable development was introduced in society as a goal to achieve, there are several definitions what it means to implement and achieve it (Lozano, 2008).
1.1.1. Sustainability
There are not only several possible definitions, but also different approaches how to understand the concept of sustainability. Lozano is categorising them in five main clusters which contain an economic, an environmental, an integrated, an inter-generational, and a holistic approach (Lozano, 2008). Comparing this to the “Forum Global Sustainability: Toward Definition” the definitions have been categorised in the sustainable biological resource use, sustainable agriculture, carrying capacity, sustainable energy, sustainable society and sustainable economy, sustainable development, and alternative points of view for sustainability (Brown, Hanson, Liverman, & Merideth, 1987). Since similarities can be found in some of the definitions in the different categories by Brown, Hanson, Liverman & Merideth (1987), his work will be focusing on the categorisations given by Lozano (2008).
The economic approach:
In the economic approach, which is supported by for example, Friedman the main understanding of long-living businesses and a sustainable society was a steady economic growth and development in which corporations and companies had the task to generate profits and to report to their shareholders. These kinds of definitions were developing throughout the industrial revolution and with more or less political intervention applied until the end of the 20th century. In this approach, environmental and social topics are viewed separately from the economic goals and tasks and are therefore not as a responsibility or under the influence of private players (Mulder & van den Bergh, 2001; Mohammed, 2017; Friedman, 1970).
The environmental approach:
In the environmental definitions of sustainability, the main focus is to maintain and keep the natural resources and the environment as it is, not using more resources than the planet can recreate. These definitions can vary in the thematic background in which they are used, as for example forestry, fishery, fuel consumption for energy or mobility, production or other sectors, which have a strong relation and dependency towards the use of resources in common (Brown, Hanson, Liverman, & Merideth, 1987). Other possible approaches, which can be included in this category, are the definitions including the “carrying capacity” approach. This approach proposes to limit the number of humans, who live on the planet to a specific number, which can be carried by it (Bartlett, 2006; Brown, Hanson, Liverman, & Merideth, 1987). In the environmental approach, the future of the planet and its environment, as well as the long-lasting capacity are at focus of the different definitions. They leave out, how the sustainability approach is influencing the human living or solutions in which health, hunger, life and other basic human rights and needs are addressed (Lozano, 2008).
The intergenerational approach:
The intergenerational approach shows similarities to the environmental approach, but these definitions have a focus on how to preserve possibilities for future generations, including not only environmental and resource linked possibilities, but also social and economic possibilities. But these definitions may include the limitation of today’s growth and developments in order to enable future generations to live on the same planet as today’s society is living on (Daly, 2006; Christen & Schmidt, 2012). Not included in these definitions are the social and economic problems and challenges of the present, but they are mainly focusing on how to maintain the planet as it is now in order to give the future generations the same possibilities, without considering how those generations may have different needs as todays, or if today‘s human rights are the same as future ones (Lozano, 2008; Daly, 2006).
The integrated approach:
The integrated approach is based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory introduced by Elkington and is defining sustainability as the inclusion of social, environmental, and economic aspects or the three Ps: People, Planet, Process. In these definitions sustainability can only be reached if the needs of society are met, environmental circumstances are considered, and the economic development is secured. This approach can be displayed in several ways. As it can be seen in Figure 1, there are either three circles with an overlapping area in the middle, or the circle for economy is included in the circle of society which is itself embedded in the circle of the environment.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
In different definitions the explicit position and size of the circles are representative for the three aspects relevance and dependency, but their balance stays a main aspect (Elkington, 1997; Lozano, 2008). In the integrated approach the present is observed, with its challenges and needs to have an intragenerational sustainable approach in the three aspects of society, without considering future generations and their needs (Lozano, 2008).
The holistic approach:
The holistic approach can be seen as a combination of the intergenerational and the intragenerational (or integrated) approach. It describes a way of sustainability, which considers the TBL and its three dimensions, but also the intergenerational conflict and the necessity to not only consider present needs but also the ones of future generations. Lozano is using this approach and Brown, Hanson, Liverman, & Merideth are summarising different definitions in their work and create a holistic approach of sustainability which includes social, economic and environmental importance, but also addresses the importance to secure the survival of humanity on earth (Brown, Hanson, Liverman, & Merideth, 1987; Lozano, 2008).
1.1.2. Sustainable development
Sustainable development and sustainability are often used in the same context and there is no clear separation between them. Still, there are some sources such as Lozano (2008) and Marcuse (2006), who are differentiating between sustainability and sustainable development. If they are separated from each other sustainability is more to be used as a goal or a long-term perspective, while sustainable development is the way to achieve it, including measurements and indicators (Marcuse, 2006; Lozano, 2008).
As a term, sustainable development is including two words. “Sustainable” which was defined in the chapter above and “development” which is defined as a “process of growing or changing and becoming more advanced” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). Currently the development of a society is measured with the GDP, which includes consumption, investments, and government spending. These three factors measure economic market aspects, but they not only leave out social and environmental factors, they also do not include workforce, products and value which is not offered at the market (Daly, 2006). One approach to measure sustainable development are the sustainable development goals, which define 17 goals with a number of specific and measurable targets. These goals are the attempt of the United Nations to make sustainable development measurable (United Nations, 2021).
Different sources underline the fact, that sustainable development needs to be measurable (Daly, 2006) and starting in the present with a view in the future. With the SDGs and their definition of sustainable development
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 41) the United Nations are measuring sustainability and following the holistic approach of sustainability by:
- “development” describing the economic aspects of sustainability to maintain economic stability and innovation
- “needs of the present” describing the social aspects in which social justice and basic human rights of the present need to be fulfilled
- “without compromising” describing the environmental aspects by not exhausting the planet
- “future generations” describing the intergenerational sustainability.
The report itself is stating two basic concepts included in the definition. Firstly, the concept of needs where the basic needs of the poorest members of society are described and secondly the concept of limitations, where technological and environmental possibilities are addressed (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
The sustainable development goals:
The sustainable development goals were implemented in September 2015 by the United Nations as a redevelopment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDPs) and include 17 goals with 169 targets. The 17 goals cover various thematic aspects of sustainability and can be clustered in five or three clusters. The five clusters include: people, prosperity, peace, partnership, and planet and the three clusters the aspects of the TBL. Figure 2 displays the clustering of the goals in the TBL approach (United Nations, 2021).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
2 SDGs clustered in the TBL (United Nations, 2021)
In addition to the 17 thematic goals, each goal has a number of targets and indicators which make the SDG measurable (United Nations, 2021).
1.1.3. Applied definition and limitations
This work will consider a holistic approach of sustainability and the definition of sustainable development used by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), as well as the SDGs used by the United Nations. Even though the combination is covering a wide range of sustainability and sustainable development, there are some limitations to it.
One limitation is the missing time frame for a sustainable development and the goal of sustainability. The question behind this could be “sustainable for how long?”. The applied definition may be targeting the future generation, but there will always be a next generation as long as humanity is on the planet (Lozano, 2008; Brown, Hanson, Liverman, & Merideth, 1987). Another limitation is the fact, that today there is no existing knowledge as to which basic human needs will exist and be defined in the future and which new technologies may solve today‘s challenges (Keiner, 2006). There may be definitions and goals for sustainability and sustainable development, but exact measurements how to reach all SDGs and the state of a sustainable society are yet to be found. For the measurements which are implemented right now, they are a compromise between the three aspects of the triple bottom line or sustainable in one aspect but not in the other. Moreover, there is also the question of how to preserve future generations’ rights without limiting those of today’s generation. The SDGs were defined more in the western and developed countries, but also concern the developing countries which face different challenges. Therefore, it is important to consider their specific needs as well (Christen & Schmidt, 2012; Lozano, 2008).
1.2. Health and digitalisation in sustainable development
In the definition of sustainable development two key concepts can be found. The first one is the concept of “needs”, which addresses the basic needs of current and future generations and stakeholders on the planet. For human beings, Maslow has identified five level of needs, in which not only basic human needs as for example food and air are described, but also psychological and self-fulfilment needs can be found. One aspect of human needs which is part of the base four layers is the need for health (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Maslow, 1943).
The second concept, which can be found in the definition of sustainable development, is the concept of limitations, which are existing because of social organisations, structures or the current technological developments (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
With these two concepts there are several fields of action for sustainable development. In this work the field of health and the field of digitalisation for current and future generations will be closer examined since the nudge evaluated is based on technological developments and aims to improve the personal health situation of the addressed individuals.
Health is originally defined by the World Health Organisation as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (Callahan, 1937, p. 77). Even though the human health is not addressed in the Brundtland report, the human right for health is one of the SDGs and analysed in various studies and articles. Furthermore, the concept of needs is included in the definition of the report and this concept includes human rights and therefore the right to live a healthy life (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The concept of needs leads to the work of Maslow, who has identified five hierarchical levels of needs, which motivate humans in their activities (Maslow, 1943).
Maslow ’s hierarchy of needs:
In the „Theory of Motivation”, Maslow is defining different levels of needs, which come into action for individuals. In his theory he is describing how humans have different levels of needs and how the next higher level of needs will be a goal to achieve, as soon as the level beneath is secured. A hierarchy of needs is also existent in each layer itself (Maslow, 1943).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
3 Pyramid of needs as described by Maslow (Maslow, 1943)
Health as a need in accordance with the definition of the WHO can be found in more than one layer of the pyramid, which is displayed in Figure 3 Pyramid of needs as described by Maslow. In the two bottom layers of the pyramid the basic human needs are addressed. For the physiological needs this means the needs for food, fluids (water), sleep (rest) and breathing, which are the requirements to survive. The hierarchy of the base layer in itself is the one which is, according to Maslow, the strictest one. Without air, there is no need for food or fluids. Following the physiological needs, the next level in the pyramid contains the security needs. These are still basic needs which can be considered to be necessary to have a healthy life, as it is defined by the WHO. This layer contains, apart from the need of health in itself, primarily the need for safety and the security of the body and psychology, as well as stability in family, financial situation, and routines. In addition, humans have a general need for peace and a healthy environment (Maslow, 1943).
Following the two layers of basic human needs, the next two layers of Maslow hierarchy, love and esteem, deal with the psychological needs of a human being. The needs which are grouped under the category of love are the ones for inclusion and the feeling of belonging. This includes the need for a family in form of children and a partner (love), friends and a place in a group. This category of needs was already well described and researched regarding the importance to feel socially included in a group and society when Maslow wrote his article, but has since then been further studied to see how psychology and illness are affected by the social interaction and a stable social circle (Chen, Brody, & Miller, 2017; Umberson & Thomeer, 2020). Apart from the need for love and belonging, the other psychological need is the one for esteem. With these needs humans follow the goal to feel self-confident, worthy, useful, and necessary in the world. This is achieved by the fulfilment of two sets of needs. The first set includes the more intrinsic needs for strength, achievement, confidence, and independency, while the second set includes needs, which can be grouped under more extrinsic needs and the desire for reputation as prestige, recognition, attention, and importance (Maslow, 1943).
The top layer of Maslow’s pyramid fulfils the category of self-fulfilment and is titled by him as the need for self-actualisation. This layer includes the need of an individual to find its passion in what they want to do and to achieve the full potential of their own actions (Maslow, 1943). In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs the definition for health of the WHO can be found in more than one layer. In the bottom layer the basic needs are relevant for a healthy body and life, since it is not possible to survive without food, fluids, or air. In the second layer, the term health itself is mentioned in both a physical and psychological way, as well as in the need for stable family surroundings which are proven in several studies to be relevant for mental health. The third and fourth layer which are grouped under the term psychological needs are considered and mentioned in the definition of health used by the WHO, since they include factors which are relevant for the mental and social well-being. The last layer includes the self-fulfilment and the need to find the right place and passion in the society to fulfil the own possibilities. Therefore, it effects the psychological and mental state of mind as well as the social well-being and is considered as relevant for health. Maslow has already described the last aspect is only relevant if the other needs are already fulfilled (Umberson & Thomeer, 2020; Chen, Brody, & Miller, 2017; Maslow, 1943; Callahan, 1937).
Health in sustainable development:
Health as a part of sustainable development can not only be found in the concept of needs but is the topic of articles and studies who link the development of health issues and ecological developments. Furthermore, health as a social goal can be found in the SDGs which are part of the agenda of the United Nations in order to achieve a sustainable way of living (United Nations, 2021; Kj^rgârd, Land, & Pedersen, 2014; McMichael, 2006; Keiner, 2006).
With the SDGs there are more targets which include health in relation with sustainable development. The primary goal, which deals with the topic is SDG 3 “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” with its 13 targets. These targets, as listed in table Error! R eference source not found., cover several topics of health such as maternal death, mental disease, traffic accidents, research and development and administration (WHO, 2019; United Nations, 2021).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1 Targets of SDG 3 (United Nations, 2021)
Apart from the main goal of health, some of the other goals targets include indicators which are relevant for health, considering the theory of needs by Maslow. Table Error! Reference source n ot found. is listing other indicators, which support a healthy life as defined by the WHO (WHO, 2019).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
2 Health related targets from the SDGs apart from SDG 3 (United Nations, 2021)
With more than 17 targets of the SDGs having a relationship with health, the topic covers more than 10% of the SDGs 169 targets and allows various projects and finial support to be achieved. In journal articles and official reports about health and sustainability, apart from the directly health-related topics the connection between health and the different aspects of sustainability in the TBL is stated and developed. In these reports and articles, the relation between for example air quality, fresh water, education, and social inclusion but also economic stability and employment situation are mentioned. Another aspect which is influencing the current health situation is the globalisation and urbanisation. Not only because of the air pollution and global warming but also because of the risk for a global pandemic and mutations for existing diseases (WHO, 2002; McMichael, 2006; Kj^rgârd, Land, & Pedersen, 2014).
1.2.2. Digitalisation
Different countries have different limitations for sustainable development. Especially between developing and developed countries there are differences in technological and digital possibilities. The digitalisation as a development in the 21st century, in relationship with sustainability, can be therefore seen as a goal in sustainable development, but also as an aspect influencing it (United Nations, 2021; Wu, Guo, Huang, Liu, & Xian, 2018; Osburg & Lohrmann, 2017). Furthermore, digitalisation and sustainability show some similarities when it comes to the structure of change processes, challenges, and recommendations for the included actors and how they influence the life on the planet as a whole (Osburg & Lohrmann, 2017; Cranea, et al., 2021; Monkelbaan, 2019).
Digitalisation as , part of sustainable development:
Digitalisation as a part of the sustainable development process is a part of some targets, which are defined in the 17 SDGs by the United Nations in various goals.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
3 SDG targets including digitalisation relatedfields of action (United Nations, 2021')
As it can be seen in table Error! Reference source not found. in comparison to health, which h as one goal and several targets, the topic of digitalisation is not represented in the SDGs with one goal, but it is mentioned in various targets to improve the linked and correspondent technology. The SDGs which directly mention technology in a target are SDG 4 “Quality education”, SDG 8 “Decent work and economic growth”, SDG 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure” and SDG 17 “Partnership for the goals”. In the mentioning of technology, digital innovations and infrastructure it is especially the economic perspective which is represented. Under this condition, the equal access, and the fair distribution of access to technological possibilities for the youth and other (especially developing) countries are returning targets in the SDGs. The only target, where the interconnection between technological development, digitalisation and the environmental response is mentioned in target 17.7 where the equal distribution of technologies which are combinable with environmental goals is addressed (United Nations, 2021).
The combination between sustainable and technological development is not only represented in the inclusion of equal distribution of technological possibilities in the SDGs, but also in studies and articles about how technological development and the digitalisation is a risk and/or a chance for sustainable development (Renn, Beier, & Schweizer, 2021; Wu, Guo, Huang, Liu, & Xian, 2018; Osburg & Lohrmann, 2017). Especially the conflict in environmental sustainability is outlined in several papers, since the growing dependency and usage of technological solutions and automation technologies is creating an increased energy consumption, which is produced by renewable and limited resources. On the other hand, the information techniques can support environmental benefits as energy saving and reduction of water use based on information and measurement techniques. It can support new possibilities and developments, which result in better (more environmentally friendly) solutions as for example the electric instead of fuel-based cars. Furthermore, there is a possibility for more transparency about the sources of products and resources, possibly resulting in a changed consumer behaviour (Gossen, Rohde, & Santarius, 2021; Renn, Beier, & Schweizer, 2021; Wu, Guo, Huang, Liu, & Xian, 2018; Aksin-Sivrikaya & Bhattacharya, 2017).
In the case of economic sustainability, digitalisation is a main trend for developed and developing countries. It can support less developed countries in their further development or developed countries to change their perspectives. It also offers the possibility for new business models and improvement of existing services, based on digitalisation of processes and an improved access to job opportunities because of remote possibilities. Under other conditions, digitalisation in relation to economic development creates new challenges and risks, as privacy policies. Since digital processes are mostly international, global rules need to be found. These challenges need to be addresses by organisations in the public and private sector, but also by every individual (Renn, Beier, & Schweizer, 2021; Wu, Guo, Huang, Liu, & Xian, 2018; Aksin- Sivrikaya & Bhattacharya, 2017).
In relation to the social sustainability, digitalisation bears the chance to create equal access to possibilities and communities, fight against stereotypes and improve education, since the access to the internet and therefore information is technically possible for everyone. With the Covid- 19 crisis, new working models such as home-office or hybrid-possibilities have proven to work, but they have also created new challenges as mental health problems, in terms of the need to always be reachable and missing direct interaction with other humans (Vos, 2021). This is why the risks of digitalisation for individuals needs to be addressed and further evaluated in order to achieve a socially sustainable development in alignment with digitalisation (Renn, Beier, & Schweizer, 2021; Wu, Guo, Huang, Liu, & Xian, 2018).
Similarities of sustainable development and digitalisation:
Digitalisation is not only part of a sustainable development for the society, but it also shows similarities in how it is addressed by governments, private and public and non-profit/- governmental organisations and in their change structure. Since both challenges for the 21st century are linked with several actors in a society and address individuals and institutions across borders, they cannot be structured and influenced by one organisation, but there needs to be a cross-country-approach. Furthermore, the actions and structures behind both digitalisation and sustainability are having an effect on consumer behaviour and are influenced by how different actors behave. These two aspects, as well as the already described connection between the two fields of action are reasons why both digitalisation and sustainable development are complex systems which need a corresponding approach, which does not only follow a top-down approach, but also includes bottom-up-thinking and representatives from the three different sectors from the governance approach (Osburg & Lohrmann, 2017; Monkelbaan, 2019; Cranea, et al., 2021; Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003).
1.3. Transformational change for sustainable development
In order to deal with the new challenges in form of the transformational changes resulting from the technological and sustainable development the existing approach of government and governing needs to be rethought. The main task and goal of the new approach is to include not only governments in decisions and actions which are influencing the society, but also private and social actors. In a governance approach the society is structured into three sectors, which are influencing markets and its development. These three sectors include the public sector with its political institutions, administrations and public organisations, the private sector with corporations and privately held organisations and the social sector represented for example by non-for-profit organisations (NPO), associations, and citizen initiatives. In different countries and on different levels the allocations of organisations can differ. They can be part of the private sector in one country but in another country, they are part of the public sector. All sectors have different actors, responsibilities, and goals as well as different knowledges and possibilities. This is why for sustainable development they need to cooperate in order to create a lasting change. Figure 4 displays the three sectors and their position in society with its citizens, which are influenced by their activities (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003; Cranea, et al., 2021; Monkelbaan, 2019).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
4 The three sectors of society (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003)
1.3.1. Public Sector
There are different institutions and levels for the public sector, which influence development in a society. For Germany, there is the international level including organisations such as the WHO and the world trade organisation (WTO) as well as the European level with institutions like the European parliament and the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and Board (EDPB) (European Union, 2021). On the national level there are the federal council and parliament, but also the states with administrations, ministries and parliaments and the different cities, villages and circles with their administrations and political boards (European Comission, 2021).
The different levels of the political system in Germany have various tasks and responsibilities. This is why different states have for example different education systems or decisions about economic promotions and subventions. In addition, there are also SDG related responsibilities, which are under the supervision of the different municipalities such as waste management, the identification and maintenance of green living spaces and infrastructure. The government on the national level has the power to develop strategies, implement regulations and go into discussions with the different states’ governances, but in order to achieve a sustainable and digital development the coordination of actions with the other sectors is not enough. It is also necessary to coordinate and organise activities inside the political sector within institutions, ministries, and political administration offices with different levels of political power. To do this, Germany has developed national strategies for both topics (sustainability and digitalisation), which include different measurements and responsibilities for the different levels (German Federal Government, 2021; Bundesregierung, 2021).
The political sector has various possibilities to introduce change measurements, but they do also have the possibility to influence how the other sectors act and what they do by implementing regulations, subventions, funding or motivating decision structures which support more sustainable decisions such as an easier access to public transport or a more difficult parking situation in city centres (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003).
1.3.2. Private Sector
The second sector is even more divers in its actors, than the political one. Within the private sector all kinds of privately held corporations and organisations, which are not non-for-profit or association based are included. These corporations are different in their size, main business objectives and customer base, but they have in common how they are participating in the economic market and therefore influence the consumers’ behaviour, as well as how they behave themselves, where they spend money and how they treat their employees (Monkelbaan, 2019; Elkington, 1997).
In the past the main purpose of business was to earn money, contribute to market development and satisfy the stakeholders. With the trend of sustainability and corporate governance, the purpose of businesses and their roles in society is changing to be more than a provider of services and products is developing (Friedman, 1970; Porter & Kramer, 2006). In this extended responsibility of businesses there are different approaches in how to follow the obligations. Three common ones are corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate citizenship and social enterprises (Valor, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2006).
CSR and corporate citizenship expand the role of existing businesses, which were earlier in history seen as Friedman described them, to have the responsibility to contribute to the market and make profits for their shareholders. With the new perspective of CSR, corporations are held responsible for their actions and the effects they have on the society and planet, even if there is only an indirect connection between them. One example is how Nestle is being held responsible for the troubles with plastic packaging or fast-food chains for existing nutrition developments. Companies who apply a CSR approach accept their responsibilities for sustainable development and therefore introduce activities or measurements in order to contribute to it (Valor, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Corporate citizenship shows some similarities to CSR, since it also addresses the responsibility of corporations towards the society, but in comparison to the CSR approach, it is not the effects of its actions for which they can be made accountable, but they are seen as part of the society in which the corporation is located and therefore, they are asked to contribute to it and behave as a member of it. Both CSR and corporate citizenship, have in common that they do not only see the responsibility of businesses towards their shareholders, but they include stakeholders. Stakeholders of a company include every group of society and the environment of a company, which is affected by the company's actions. Next to shareholders, stakeholders can also be employees, customers, suppliers, politics, nature, and other actors in society. With these different stakeholders CSR or corporate citizenship measurements of a company can go into two directions: Inside the company with measurements and activities for their employees or outside the company with activities targeting customers, environment or affected countries. Still, the main purpose of the corporations stays as it was, and the product or service offer does not need to change in order to follow a CSR or corporate citizenship approach (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Valor, 2005).
In comparison, another approach to achieve and support sustainability in the private sector are social enterprises. Social enterprises are corporations who are funded to solve a social challenge and whose main purpose and business model is based on a potential solution for a social challenge or problem. Just as CSR and corporate citizenship, they follow the stakeholder approach, but they do differ, since their whole business plan is based on sustainability and social contribution, while for the other two approaches they can but do not need to be linked to their strategy and actions (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Huybrechts & Nicholls, 2012; Cukier, Trenholm, Carl, & Gekas, 2011).
1.3.3. Social Sector
The third sector, which is participating in social change and sustainable development is the social sector. It is represented for example, by NGOs, citizen movements and associations which are supporting topics and responsibilities which are not covered by the other two sectors, or they support tasks which may be settled in one of the other sectors, but they are missing the knowledge or human resources to fulfil them. These organisations have in common that their main purpose is neither to generate revenue or earn profit, nor do they have to implement regulations or have a responsibility for a specific area. Instead, they work independently for the organisations main purpose without an economically focused target. This makes them NPOs, who are mainly funded by governments in form of project support or by companies and citizens in form of donations. The work and engagement of the social sector can be clustered into two categories, in which their competencies, main focus topics and goals differ: Local engagement and international engagement (Miller, 2007; Smith & Bucek, 2000).
Locally engaged NPOs are introducing projects and do activities in the country they are located in. They support tasks, which are not mandatory for governments but socially asked. These tasks may address needs as sport, art, education, or self-fulfilment. But with globalisation and migration and problems like poverty and nutrition they are relevant for the basic human needs as well. The engaged and integrated citizens are part of the society they are supporting. In comparison, the international NPOs are working mostly in developing countries and the NPOs activities are not funded and supported by the governments in their country of action but they are organised in one country and fulfilled in different countries all over the world. Their engaging persons are normally from the country of origin or other developed countries (if it is an international NPO) and are working project based for a limited time in one country of action. Their goals are similar to the ones of locally based NPOs, but they also include measurements, for example health, basic human rights, security, and others (Smith & Bucek, 2000; Miller, 2007).
1.3.4. Principles of good governance and possibilities in sustainable development
In order to achieve a good cooperation in the society and therefore good governance, which can be considered as a framework, the United Nations have identified a number of principles to consider:
- Participation: Including the other sectors and the members of society in decision making processes. Participation needs to be organised and structured by the interacting orgaisation.
- Consensus orientated: Following the goal to include all point of views and opinions in the solution finding process. To find a consensus a mediation process to allign the different groups in society and sectors is needed.
- Responsiveness: Reacting to the different needs of the several stakeholders. To be responsive an organisation needs to react and respond to its different interest groups.
- Accountability: Taking responsibility for the actions which are taken and implemented. Being accountable includes to respond to the affected groups of a decision.
- Transparency: Making information and backgrounds of decisions and actions available for interested and affected groups. To be transparent there needs to be a free flow of information.
- Rule of law: Creating and following legal circumstances, in allignment to human rights and equality. For a working legal system a legal jurisdiction, independent from the other sectors, is necessary.
- Effectiveness and efficiency: Using the available resources in a responsible way to fulfil the needs of society and affected interest groups. In the use of ressources the environment is also considered as an interest group.
- Equity: Creating a society in which the members have the same possibilities. To have an equal society the various groups and individuals need to feel included (United Nations, 2009; Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003).
- Graham, Amos, & Plumptre also include “Strategic vision”: Having a long term perspective on developments (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003).
The principles of good governance can be followed by all sectors, but they have different possibilities to shape the decision-making frame and the social structure. What the actors of all three sectors have in common is how they are influencing a citizen's daily life in form of laws and developing possibilities (public sector), products and services (private sector) and engagement and activities (social sector), but also as an employer, place of work and socialisation (Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003).
Based on this fact, each actor in one of the sectors can have a different influence on how to create a more sustainable society by changing their own behaviour but also by changing their communication and change the consumption pattern of the citizens, for example by consumer behaviour measurements as nudging.
PART 2: INTERVENTION STRATEGY “NUDGING”
2. Intervention strategy “Nudging”
Following the goal of a more sustainable behaviour and therefore a sustainable development there are several possible strategies how to support it. One was introduced in 2008 by Richard Thaler and Case Sunstein under the term of “nudging” and can be sorted into the category of behavioural science and consumer behaviour. It is based on how individuals are making decisions and how changing the structure and frame around these decisions support a “better” decision making. The strategy of nudging as a possible solution will be further explained in this chapter by first defining it and giving an overview about the development starting from the book “Nudge” by Thaler and Sunstein in 2008 until the current research agenda related to the SDGs and sustainable development. In a next step, the different categories of nudges will be explained with the biases and heuristics behind them and why they can support behavioural changes, followed by the explanation of the theoretical background of nudges focussing on system 1 and system 2 thinking. In this context the Mindspace framework will be closer evaluated and analysed. In a last step, the ethical concerns about nudging will be considered by analysing how nudging can be seen as a manipulation of choice rather than a support for decision making.
2.1. Definition and development
Originally developed by Thaler and Sunstein in 2008, nudges are tools in consumer behaviour that need to fulfil several characteristics.
- Choice architecture: Consumer behaviour is influenced by a number of facts which are not only the information about the topic of the decision itself, but also on how it is introduced, presented, who is introducing it and the psychological mind of the consumer making the decision. Every aspect influencing a decision is part of the choice architecture.
- Choice architect: Nudges are implemented by a choice architect, who makes decisions about the design of the choice architecture. Choice architects can be individuals, as well as organisations or institutions and decisions about the design can be made individually or collectively.
- Libertarian paternalism: In order for a consumer behaviour measurement to be a nudge, it needs to influence the decision of the addressed individual without limiting him in choosing differently. Libertarian paternalism is the combination of two concepts. Firstly, it is liberty preserving, which means every addressed and affected stakeholder is still free in which of the offers he chooses, since a nudge is not limiting the offers. Secondly, it is paternalistic, since it is changing the choice architecture but in a way which needs either to be “pro-self’ which means good for the individual making the decision or “prosocial” which implicates a decision being good for the society.
- Humans and Econs: Nudges influence the behaviour of a Human but would not influence Econs. Humans are thinking emotionally and influenced by the choice architecture and their emotions. In comparison, Econs are rational thinking individuals who cannot be influenced by emotionally based communication or the adaptation of the circumstances only, but they are comparing the facts and figures in order to decide. While Humans are present in society, Econs are theoretical implications.
Nudges are defined as “... any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” (Thaler & Sunstein, Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and hapiness, 2008, p. 6). In their original work Thaler and Sunstein have therefore identified measurements to influence consumer behaviour, as a nudge if:
- They only address the way a decision is presented.
- They do not force decisions or regulations on individuals.
- They do not use economic motivations .
- They are easy to avoid.
- They are transparent (Thaler & Sunstein, Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and hapiness, 2008).
Since being implemented, the nudge theory was further developed and researched not only by Thaler and Sunstein themselves, but also by research for sustainable development, health, consumer behaviour, marketing and in other correlations. The theory and method of nudging became even more popular since Thaler was announced to be the winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2017 (Thaler, 2017).
The developments can be categorized in four categories. The first one is the further development of nudges. Sunstein himself has further developed the original five nudges, which are incentives, understand mapping defaults, feedback, expect error, structure complex choices, to ten different nudges. Some studies show even more different possible nudges, as for example Caraban, Karapanos, Campos, & Goncalves who are talking about 23 different nudges (Caraban, Karapanos, Campos, & Goncalves, 2019; Sunstein, 2014). Another approach, partly followed by Caraban, Karapanos, Campos, & Goncalves is to not categorise the kind of nudge but cluster them depending on how transparent they are and if they use automatic or reflective thinking and behaviour (2014).
This approach leads to the second development coming with the nudge theory, which is the evaluation of the effects of nudges and how they work. In the original introduction, the biases and heuristics behind nudges as well as the rational and emotional thinkig of Humans were already mentioned and illustrated. It was explained how nudges can be a support in overcoming biases which have a negative effect and they can be used to change behaviour to be pro-social or pro-self. In further research, several aspects of the correlation between nudges, heuristics and biases were further analysed. On the one hand, there is the effectivness on nudges and how they work, on the other hand there is research about the limits of nudges and heuristics and how they may make use of heuristics themselves (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Sunstein, 2018; Grüne-Yanoff, Marchionni, & Feufel, 2018; Moseleya & Stoker, 2013; Ingendahl, Hummel, Maedche, & Vogel, 2021).
The research about the heuristics and biases used and adressed by nudges is closly related to the third research direction, which adresses the ethical questions and discussions about nudges and whether they are a manipulation of choice or not and if and how they are ethical considerabel tools for choice architects (Sunstein, 2015; Caraban, Karapanos, Campos, & Goncalves, 2019; Hansen & Jespersen, 2017).
The last development and research for nudging comes with the field of action. Here the research goes from digital nudging, to health and financial nuding, as well as educational or sustainability nudging. Since measurements are limited to be only categorised as a nudge if they are pro-self or pro-social, the research about thematic approaches are either in the context of how to support consumer behaviour to be better for the consumer’s situation in the present or future (as for exapmle financial situations or nutrition) or to be better for the society and planet (as for example for the planet or sustainable development) (Bucher, et al., 2016; Vlaev, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016; Hummel, Toreini, & Maedche, 2018; Huang, Chen, Hong, & Wu, 2018). For future developments of nudges, Thaler wrote an editorial on how the frame and corresponding effects as well as a multi-lateral approach are necessary to further develop the nudge approach. This year, the two original authors have furthermore redeveloped their nudge approach in the new book “Nudge: The final edition” (Thaler, 2021; Thaler & Sunstein, 2021).
2.2. Categories of nudges
In the book from 2008 there were five considerations which had to be made by a choice architect to implement a nudge which meets the definition of such. The first one, was to consider the right choice of a default. A default is the decision, which is automatically made, if the decision maker is not actively deciding. One example for defaults, could be which supplement comes with a dish. The second one is to understand the mapping of a decision. This describes the relation between a decision and the outcome. The easier the relation is to understand the easier the decision can be made. With a more complex decision with multiple outcomes, choice architects have the task to make the way for the desired outcome clear and easy to understand. The third consideration to make in a choice architecture is how Humans make mistakes and therefore to expect them to make errors. An example here is how people tend to forget the credit card after the money withdrawal, with the solution to only get the money out after you took the card out of the ATM. The process was redesigned. In order to support complex decision making, a choice architect further has the possibility to structure them. Structuring complex decisions is needed if there are multiple decision possibilities as for colours or finding a flat in a big city. While colours are listed based on their shades instead of the name, flats are filtered by the needs of the searching person. The last two things highlighted by Thaler and Sunstein were to give feedback and to use incentives. To give feedback helps the decision maker to directly see the result or if the made choice was the right one. One example for feedback is how digital cameras show the picture directly after the shot was made, so the photographer can decide if the picture is satisfying, or another shot is needed. Giving incentives does not mean to give additional financial or material benefits for an activity or decision, but to create awareness how costs and effects are related. In some cases, these are easy to see as for example how one lunch is less expensive than another one. The decision maker is directly aware of the two different effects of decision one or two. In other cases, the costs are not as directly linked, as for example when they are occurring sometime after the decision was made as for energy or telephone bills. Here a choice architect could decide to display the later occurring costs directly at the time of use (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Later on, Sunstein further developed the in his opinion, 10 most important nudges from the since then done research. These are listed and described in table Error! Reference source not f ound..
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
4 The ten most common nudges (Sunstein, 2014)
In several other studies and discussions different nudges are presented and Sunstein himself introduces the ten more detailed described nudges as the most important ones. Depending on how they are presented and used, a nudge can have different results and effects, because it is addressing different patterns and psychological processes (Sunstein, 2014; Cranea, et al., 2021).
2.3. Theoretical background and evidence
The concept of nudging and nudges is based on behavioural scientific and psychological theories and evidence, which became publicly known and are based on the fact, that humans are not purely rational thinking individuals. They have flaws and processes in decision making which are based on automatic thinking and emotions and therefore can be influenced form the presentation of the decision (Hansen & Jespersen, 2017; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Another possible explanation why nudges do work is the Mindspace framework. This is a framework which is identifying nine environmental contexts influencing behaviour and has the same background intention as nudging: to change the context of a decision (Liu, Vlaev, Fang, Denrell, & Chater, 2017).
2.3.1. Theoretical background
In the definition of nudges, it is mentioned how a nudge can only be addresses as one, if it is not working on purely rational thinking individuals, who would not be influenced by emotions or circumstances (Econs). The differentiation between Humans and Econs in the Nudge theory is based on the dual process theory introduced by William James and made publicly known by Kahneman (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). It consists of the fact, that humans have two kinds of thinking in decision making processes: the so-called system 1 and system 2 thinking. System 2 thinking is based on rational information. Decisions made in this mindset are carefully taken and consist of deductive information and can be controlled by the decision maker. In comparison, system 1 decisions are made automatically, using mental shortcuts, and are influenced by emotions and so-called heuristics and biases (Hansen & Jespersen, 2017; Haugh, 2017). Figure 5 shows the two systems with associated properties.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
5 Dual process theory - Two system thinking (Haugh, 2017)
As a reason why Humans are using system 1 thinking, which is more influential and less rational than system 2 thinking, the faster and easier application of such decisions as well as the reduced amount of energy and cognitive workload is described. System 1 decisions are generally speaking, decisions during the daily life, where Humans have limited amount of information, time or motivation to spend a long time considering the pros and cons. System 2 decisions are such decisions, which have a higher priority and therefore need effort to take them. They are normally not happening regularly but are one-time decisions with a high priority (Haugh, 2017; Hansen & Jespersen, 2017).
System 1 thinking and automatically, fast made decision are made possible because of mental shortcuts. These mental shortcuts are influential and include mental flaws as biases and heuristics. There are a number of these biases and heuristics, and they have (just as nudges) not been developed in one moment but over a period of time. In the work of Kahneman and Tversky, they have introduced the effects of representativeness, availability, and adjustment/anchoring (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Other heuristics and biases which can be linked to various nudges are affect heuristic, loss aversion, prospect theory, psychological/hyperbolic discounting, status quo bias, cognitive consistency/dissonance, self-serving bias, information disclosure, social proof, inter-group bias, social capital theory and moral conviction as well as hindsight bias, sunk costs, myopia, time delay traps, framing, certainty effect/zero risk bias, false consensus effect, overoptimism/overconfidence and reciprocity. The number of biases and heuristics are more or less addressed by a specific nudge and the heuristics and biases which are linked to the precommitment nudge as focus of this work will be closer described in chapter 2.5.2 (Gowda, 1999; Prentice, 2004 ; Olejniczak & Sliwowski, 2015; Moseleya & Stoker, 2013). The system 1 thinking with its shortcuts is a reason why nudging is working and why it is needed. Nudges can either make use of biases as for example the loss aversion as a reason why defaults work, or they can counter shortcuts and move the decision which would be made in automatic mode to the rational mind and therefore work to counter them as warnings do. The different effect and functionality of nudges are one reason why they are ethically discussed (Sunstein, 2018).
2.3.2. Mindspace framework
While nudges are categorising and defining the measurement, Mindspace is identifying contextual factors which are influencing the success of a context changing measurement. The nine factors which are included are: M essenger, I ncentives, N orms, D efaults, S alience, P riming, A ffect, C ommitment and E go. These influential factors are based on different heuristics and automatic habits (Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012; Olejniczak & Sliwowski, 2015).
Messenger: It has been proven in several studies, how the person communicating a message or introducing a measurement has an influence on how the person receiving it is interpreting and thinking about it. Factors that are of influence regarding the messenger are for example how we are feeling about this person and how close or distanced the relationship is, but also the authority and competences that are inked to the messenger can influence how a decision is made and how a message or information is processed (Vlaev, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016; Liu, Vlaev, Fang, Denrell, & Chater, 2017). The role of the messenger and how it influences a nudge measurement and communication will be closer described in chapter 3.
Incentives: How humans evaluate the relationship between costs and benefits and therefore the incentive behind a decision is influenced not only by rational evaluation and easy connections between them, but also by a number of mental shortcuts. These mental shortcuts can lead as described in chapter 2.3.1 to a number of steppingstones and miscalculations in form of heuristics and biases. Especially relevant for incentive-based decision making is how a loss is deemed more than a gain of the same amount (loss aversion), how the starting position influences how a change or a value is seen (anchoring) and how direct results have a higher availability than future effects (prospect theory). When it comes to nudges, how something is seen and valued and how behaviours and decisions are made around it can either create awareness for such a flaw as for example showing future costs in the moment of action or to reframe something as it is possible to gain something instead of creating a message where it may be possible to fail. To bring relevant incentives to one’s mind is activating system 2 thinking which would in another context not have been activated and a decision may have been taken in a system 1 state of mind (Vlaev, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012).
Norms: Individuals are highly influenced by how the surrounding society members are behaving. This can be either with a conscious mind to act as the others because an individual believes the group knows better than oneself as the Asch conformity experience (an experiment for this behaviour) has shown or to follow what we believe others would approve to be accepted in the group. In relation to nudges, norms can be either used by directly addressing them in form of a social norm nudge, but they can also help to support other nudges if they are implemented at the right place where one group starts in order for others to follow. In addition, a choice architect has to consider, how social norms can result in a negative effect, if the addressed decision maker is learning how most of society is behaving different then them in the not admired way and how a social norm can only be used if it is true. Social norms affect nudges by bringing information about the beneficial option to our mind and activate system 2 thinking (Liu, Vlaev, Fang, Denrell, & Chater, 2017; Vlaev, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012).
Defaults: Default options come with a number of decisions and describe the option, which is chosen, if no active decision is made. To set a default is a nudge itself and it addresses the fact, that for a number of decisions individuals go with the preselected option. There are two possible situations in which defaults come to action: one is that a decision has to be made between whether yes or no to do or choose something. The default option is to let the decision maker opt-in or opt-out. Another possible situation for default selection, is when decision makers have to choose between a number of possibilities but there is no possibility to choose nothing. Here the default option is promoting one of the options. Defaults can be a strong nudge to implement if there is a widely accepted consensus about a topic or if there is no preference existing. Since they still leave the possibility to choose differently, they do not have a huge impact if the opinions about the topic vary a lot and the decision is considered to be important (Vlaev, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012).
Salience: With a limited availability of all the information at the moment of decision making, which information and connections are salient at this time have a huge influence on how a decision is made. An information has the most impact if it is realised by the decision maker and how well it is processed can be influenced by the timing (new information are more available than past ones), the accessibility (presented where a decision/action can be directly fulfilled) and how simple it is to understand (how long does it take to understand the content). Choice architects can use this in more than one nudge by making the better option the simple one, presenting relevant information in the moment of decision making or place warnings on a not desired choice. Salience can therefore either be used in form of nudges which move a decision from system 1 to system 2 thinking or address a number of heuristics and biases in system 1 (Sunstein, 2014; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012).
Priming: Decision makers are influenced by how present information are in their mind during their decision. Since decisions are influenced by how present information are for an individual, they can be influenced by placing so called primes in their attention before the decision is made. Primes can be either words, pictures, smells, or signs which bring a specific behaviour or option to their mind. In relation to nudges, primes can support a nudge by changing the choice architecture in a way, the admired behaviour is beforehand shown or hints and pictures which benefit the behaviour are displayed. Primes are under normal circumstances addressing the system 1 thinking and are processed unconditionally, what makes it hard to link a specific behaviour only to a prime and to predict how it will exactly turn out (Liu, Vlaev, Fang, Denrell, & Chater, 2017; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012).
Affect: Which emotions are linked to a specific decision is at some point more relevant than the rational information behind it. These emotions can either be triggered by past experiences and individually different or be influenced by communicated linked emotions rather than the decision and its benefits. A choice architect can address affect in relation with nudges by highlighting the emotional benefits of an activity rather than the rational ones. Using affect is addressing the system 1 thinking of the decision maker, since it is emotionally based (Liu, Vlaev, Fang, Denrell, & Chater, 2017; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012).
Commitment: Decision makers are influenced in a decision or action if it is related to or consists of a commitment which was made beforehand. Commitments support the tendency of individuals to stick to a promise or activity. They already work if they are self-commitments with no punishment if they are not fulfilled, but the effectiveness of commitments increases if the cost of not fulfilling it is rising. Commitments can either include a financial motivation (if someone is paying for something in advance) or a social motivation (if the commitment is communicated). Choice architects can use the effect of commitments by either directly inviting decision makers to precommit to something or remind them about a commitment they have made to make it available again. A commitment is addressing the system 2 thinking (Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012; Sunstein, 2014).
Ego: Individuals intent to behave in a way, which is consistent with a positive image of themselves. This results in the fact, that behaviour and decisions are likely to be made in a way to promote the positive image of an individual. If an action is not consistent with the image an individual has about himself, it will rather change how he thinks about the action than the behaviour itself. For choice architects, nudges should therefore promote actions which are beneficial for the image the decision maker has about himself rather than displaying negative images on less-desirable options. How the self-image is influencing the behaviour is a system 1 thinking approach and therefore nudges do address this system (Vlaev, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2012).
There are a number of similarities and parallels between the Mindspace approach and nudging, since both frameworks are based on system 1 and 2 thinking and aim to change the context in which a decision is made rather than having a long-term change in the mind of the decision maker. While Mindspace is explaining the context and influential factors on it, nudging is a set of measurements changing the choice architecture, which can either use system 1 thinking or create awareness for flaws and heuristics. This leads to an ethical decision on how nudges are manipulation or supportive measurements (Olejniczak & Sliwowski, 2015; Vlaev, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016).
[...]
- Citation du texte
- Celia Bormuth (Auteur), 2022, Organisations as messengers of sustainability measurements, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1286637
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X.