Rhetoric matters: A social norms explanation for the anomaly of framing

Chang, Daphne; Chen, Roy; Krupka, Erin L.

doi:10.1016/j.geb.2019.04.011

“…Across four treatments, participants received one random truthful norm-nudge that emphasized 'moral suasion' based on either what other participants previously did (empirical message) or approved of doing (normative message). Motivated by existing literature that recognizes the relevance of framing effects (e.g., Andreoni, 1995;Levin et al, 1998;Kahneman, 2003;Alekseev et al, 2017, on the relationship between framing and norms, see Chang et al, 2019), we also varied the framing of the norm messages and presented them in either a positive way (majority did not cheat / did not approve of cheating) or an inverted and equivalent negative way (minority cheated / approved of cheating).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Requiem for a Nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty

Dimant

¹

,

Kleef

²

,

Shalvi

³

2020

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine framing effects in nudging honesty, in the spirit of the growing norm-nudge literature, by utilizing a high-powered and pre-registered study. Across four treatments, participants received one random truthful norm-nudge that emphasized 'moral suasion' based on either what other participants previously did (empirical message) or approved of doing (normative message) and varied in the framing (positive or negative) in which it was presented. Subsequently, participants repeatedly played the 'mind game' in which they were first asked to think of a number, then rolled a digital die, and then reported whether the two numbers coincide, in which case a bonus was paid. Hence, whether or not the report was truthful remained unobservable to the experimenters. We find compelling null effects with tight confidence intervals showing that none of the norm-nudge interventions worked. A follow-up experiment reveals the reason for these convincing null-effects: the information norm-nudges did not actually change norms. Notably, our secondary results suggest that a substantial portion of individuals misremembered norm-nudges such that they conveniently supported deviant behavior. This subset of participants indeed displayed significantly higher deviance levels, a behavior pattern in line with literature on motivated misremembering and belief distortion. We discuss the importance of this high-powered null finding for the flourishing norm-nudge literature and derive policy implications. JEL-Codes: B410, D010, D900.

show abstract

“…Across four treatments, participants received one random truthful norm-nudge that emphasized 'moral suasion' based on either what other participants previously did (empirical message) or approved of doing (normative message). Motivated by existing literature that recognizes the relevance of framing effects (e.g., Andreoni, 1995;Levin et al, 1998;Kahneman, 2003;Alekseev et al, 2017, on the relationship between framing and norms, see Chang et al, 2019), we also varied the framing of the norm messages and presented them in either a positive way (majority did not cheat / did not approve of cheating) or an inverted and equivalent negative way (minority cheated / approved of cheating).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Requiem for a Nudge: Framing Effects in Nudging Honesty

Dimant

¹

,

Kleef

²

,

Shalvi

³

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine framing effects in nudging honesty, in the spirit of the growing norm-nudge literature, by utilizing a high-powered and pre-registered study. Across four treatments, participants received one random truthful norm-nudge that emphasized 'moral suasion' based on either what other participants previously did (empirical message) or approved of doing (normative message) and varied in the framing (positive or negative) in which it was presented. Subsequently, participants repeatedly played the 'mind game' in which they were first asked to think of a number, then rolled a digital die, and then reported whether the two numbers coincide, in which case a bonus was paid. Hence, whether or not the report was truthful remained unobservable to the experimenters. We find compelling null effects with tight confidence intervals showing that none of the norm-nudge interventions worked. A follow-up experiment reveals the reason for these convincing null-effects: the information norm-nudges did not actually change norms. Notably, our secondary results suggest that a substantial portion of individuals misremembered norm-nudges such that they conveniently supported deviant behavior. This subset of participants indeed displayed significantly higher deviance levels, a behavior pattern in line with literature on motivated misremembering and belief distortion. We discuss the importance of this high-powered null finding for the flourishing norm-nudge literature and derive policy implications.

show abstract

“…Finally, we want to explore if and to which degree the behavior we observe can be explained by social norms. Building on the social identity model by Kranton (2000, 2005), Chang et al (2019) present evidence that framing an experiment in a particular context evokes certain social norms which in turn affect people's choices. We posit that differently framed decision situations raise different social norms for (dis)honesty -that is, people might decide to lie or not to lie depending on the prevailing social norms in the specific situational context.…”

Section: Social Norms As a Possible Explanation For (Dis)honestymentioning

confidence: 81%

“…While Cohn et al (2014) prime subjects on their (financial) professional identity, a number of studies have shown that framing an experimental task in a financial way also discourages cooperation, and thus the more "moral" behavior, in a Prisoner's dilemma (Liberman et al, 2004;Ellingsen et al, 2012Ellingsen et al, , 2013. Turning to framing, which plays an important role in our experiment, the evidence of contextual instructions' effects on behavior is mixed in dictator games: Dreber et al (2013) report no (social or anti-social) framing effects, while Chang et al (2019) show that framing an experiment in a particular context can evoke certain social norms which in turn also affect people's choices. 3 We examine financial professionals' dishonest behavior in a truth-telling experiment where participants have to report a number where truth-telling is costly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Bad bankers no more? Truth-telling and (dis)honesty in the finance industry

Huber¹,

Huber²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worries about unethical behavior are a recurring issue in the finance industry, which has inspired a number of recent studies. We contribute to this ongoing discussion by investigating preferences for truthfulness within the finance industry in a controlled experiment with 415 financial professionals (and 270 students as a control group). Participants have to report one of two numbers, of which one is true, the other false, and where truth-telling is costly. In three main treatments we vary the situational context of subjects’ decisions (abstract, neutral, finance context) by applying differently framed instructions. We find that contexts matter for financial professionals: they act more honestly in a financial context, while for a control group we find no such differences. Further variations on the financial decision situation do not worsen financial professionals’ honesty. As driver of the observed behavior we find reputational concerns to play a major role in financial professionals’ decisions.

show abstract

Rhetoric matters: A social norms explanation for the anomaly of framing

Cited by 81 publications

References 92 publications

Requiem for a Nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty

Requiem for a Nudge: Framing effects in nudging honesty

Requiem for a Nudge: Framing Effects in Nudging Honesty

Bad bankers no more? Truth-telling and (dis)honesty in the finance industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About