I’m still standing: A longitudinal study on the effect of a default nudge

Venema, Tina A.G.; Kroese, Floor M.; Ridder, Denise T. D. de

doi:10.1080/08870446.2017.1385786

Cited by 96 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the effectiveness of interventions was more often measured in presence of the intervention (n = 80) than after removal of the intervention (n = 34). For intentions measured in presence of the intervention, four studies reported effective interventions [96,106,108,121], four reported mixed effects [88,92,104,107] and six reported no effect [86,89,91,99,102,105]. Among the relatively low number of studies (n = 5) that measured intention after removal of the intervention, one reported effectiveness [94], whereas four did not [87,90,93,96].…”

Section: Intervention Effectiveness Effectiveness In Presence Of Intementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Of the included studies, 86 studies targeted physical activity and within these studies, seventeen measured the intention to be more physically active [86, 87, 89-94, 96, 99, 104-108, 122] 1 , 74 measured physical activity behavior [38, 39, 41-53, 55-69, 71-85, 87, 89, 90, 93-98, 100-103, 105, 106, 109-120] 1 and four measured health outcomes [40,54,60,111]. A total of three studies targeted sedentary behavior, of which one measured the intention to be less sedentary [121] and two measured sedentary behavior [38,47]; none of the studies measured health outcomes. Individuals' intentions to become physically active or less sedentary were usually measured by one to three questionnaire items on a 5-, 6-or 7point scale.…”

Section: Study Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies measured enrollment or attendance at exercise classes. Sedentary behavior was either assessed objectively [38,47], for example by the SenseWear Mini Armband monitor [47], or observed by researchers [121]. Health outcomes were determined through biometric measurements, including body weight and blood pressure.…”

Section: Study Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study changed the default (i.e. a sit-stand desk was placed at stand-up height instead of sitting height) to encourage sedentary office workers to use the desk in a standing position [121]. The results showed that the intention for stand-up working significantly increased from pre-to post-measure.…”

Section: Default Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention

Landais

Damman

Schoonmade³

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Choice architecture interventions, which subtly change the environment in which individuals make decisions, can be used to promote behavior change. This systematic review aimed to summarize studies on microenvironmental choice architecture interventions that encouraged physical activity or discouraged sedentary behavior in adults, and to describe the effectiveness of those interventions on these behaviorsand on related intentions or health outcomesin presence of the intervention and after removal of the intervention (i.e. postintervention, regardless of the time elapsed). Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library for (quasi) experimental studies published up to December 2019 that evaluated the effect of choice architecture interventions on physical activity and sedentary behavior, as well as on intentions and health outcomes related to physical activity/sedentary behavior. Studies that combined choice architecture techniques with other behavior change techniques were excluded. All studies were screened for eligibility, relevant data was extracted and two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality using the QualSyst tool.

show abstract

Section: Intervention Effectiveness Effectiveness In Presence Of Intementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Study Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Default Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention

Landais

Damman

Schoonmade³

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research targeting change in determinants derived from social-ecological theories, encompassing environmental, community, and policy factors, have also been shown to be effective [21,32,39,40]. Interventions based on choice architecture, sometimes referred to as 'nudging' , have demonstrated effectiveness in changing behavior in laboratory and field settings [41][42][43][44][45][46]. In addition, interventions adopting specific strategies such as self-monitoring [47,48], prompting social support [48], planning [49], behavioral skills [31], and affective appeals [50] have been found to be particularly effective.…”

Section: Do Interventions Based On Theory 'Work' In Changing Behavior?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Interventions Based on Behavioral Theory Work in the Real World?

Hagger¹,

Weed²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBehavioral scientists suggest that for behavior change interventions to work effectively, and deliver population-level health outcomes, they must be underpinned by behavioral theory. However, despite implementation of such interventions, population levels of both health outcomes and linked behaviors have remained relatively static. We debate the extent to which interventions based on behavioral theory work in the real world to address population health outcomes.DiscussionHagger argues there is substantive evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions based on behavioral theory in promoting population-level health behavior change in the ‘real world’. However, large-scale effectiveness trials within existing networks are relatively scarce, and more are needed leveraging insights from implementation science. Importantly, sustained investment in effective behavioral interventions is needed, and behavioral scientists should engage in greater advocacy to persuade gatekeepers to invest in behavioral interventions.Weed argues there is no evidence to demonstrate behavioral theory interventions are genuinely effective in real world settings in populations that are offered them: they are merely efficacious for those that receive them. Despite behavioral volatility that is a normal part of maintaining steady-state population behavior levels creating the illusion of effectiveness, interventions fail in shifting the curve of population behaviors because they focus on individuals rather than populations.Hagger responds that behavioral interventions work in the ‘real world’ in spite of, not because of, flux in health behaviors, and that the contention that behavioral theory focuses solely on individual behavior change is inaccurate.Weed responds that the focus on extending the controls of efficacy trials into implementation is impractical, uneconomic and futile, and this has squandered opportunities to conduct genuine effectiveness trials in naturalistic settings.SummaryHagger contends that interventions based on behavioral theory are effective in changing population-level behavior in ‘real world’ contexts, but more evidence on how best to implement them and how to engage policymakers and practitioners to provide sustained funding is needed. Weed argues for a paradigm shift, away from aggregative attempts to effect individual behavior change towards a focus on disrupting social practices, underpinned by understanding social and economic causation of the distribution and acceptance of behaviors in a population.

show abstract

Pay or nudge employees into change? A theoretical and experimental investigation of the effect of nudging for organizational change

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational change often fails due to employees' resistance to change resulting in unforeseen expenses, delays, or other disruptions in organizations. In our experiment, we compare behavioral interventions—a pro‐change default rule and a pro‐change recommendation—with a costly pay raise to foster supportive behavior. In regard to the pure nudge used (default), we support its effectiveness in enhancing change‐related success. In line with our model and based on the assumption of low decision confidence in change settings, we find that a preference nudge (recommendation) lacks a corresponding effect. In addition, we find that a pay raise has a positive effect that is likely to be triggered by positive reciprocity. If this pay raise fails to materialize, we report supporting evidence for negative reciprocity. We compare the effect sizes for these nudges and the pay raise and provide insights for the relative cost‐effectiveness of such nudges compared to a pay raise for organizational change. We conclude with managerial implications.

show abstract

I’m still standing: A longitudinal study on the effect of a default nudge

Cited by 96 publications

References 38 publications

Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention

Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention

Do Interventions Based on Behavioral Theory Work in the Real World?

Pay or nudge employees into change? A theoretical and experimental investigation of the effect of nudging for organizational change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About