Abstract
Scholars, policymakers and decisionmakers sometimes criticize behavioral public policies, such as nudges, for undermining behavioral autonomy. We provide evidence from an experiment where participants encountered a recommendation, default value, or mandatory minimum contribution accompanied by varying information on the source, before contributing to climate protection and answering an autonomy-related questionnaire. We find that decisionmakers perceive defaults as more freedom threatening than recommendations and less threatening and angering than mandatory minimum contributions. Intrinsic motivation to protect the climate moderates these differences. An expert, but not the political source reduces threat to freedom and anger. Findings improve our understanding of decisionmakers’ perceptions of nudges relative to other interventions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.