Committing to Keep Clean

Illegal garbage disposals are a persistent urban problem, resulting in high clean-up costs, and nuisance and decreased satisfaction with the neighborhood among residents. We compared three adjacent city-areas in Rotterdam in the Netherlands which, for 2 weeks, either: (1) no action to decrease illegal garbage disposals was taken; (2) standard door-to-door canvassing was carried out; or (3) door-to-door canvassing was enriched with several nudges, most importantly a commitment-nudge. The nudge treatment proved highly effective, reducing illegal disposals at post-test and follow-up (2 months later) with two-thirds, resulting in a very large effect size (d = 2.60). At post-test, standard door-to-door canvassing did not differ from the control treatment, but at follow-up results were comparable to the nudging-treatment. This could, however, be due to spill-over effects. Using a commitment nudge thus proved highly effective in decreasing illegal garbage disposals, however, effects might be specific to neighborhoods with strong social cohesion.</p

Nudging is Ineffective When Attitudes Are Unsupportive

For security reasons, employees of a Dutch local government department needed to wear an identifying lanyard with their employee badge, but compliance with this policy was low. Two nudges to increase compliance were evaluated in a pre-registered natural field experiment using a pre-post design, and a qualitative survey. Bayesian inference provides insufficient support for the effectiveness of the nudges. While more respondents judged the nudges and the lanyard policy positively than negatively, there was substantial negative judgment and incomprehension for both with some employees finding the nudges paternalistic. We hypothesize that the nudges were ineffective because they failed to change attitudes about the policy, and because they led to reactance among some employees. Implications for nudging within organizations are discussed.</p

Comprehensive Evaluation of the Behavioral Insights Group Rotterdam

Behavioral insights teams (BITs) employ behavioral experts and policy professionals to collaboratively improve public policy. Most evaluations of BITs focus on the interventions that BITs develop, but not the functioning of BITs. Here, we report the first comprehensive evaluation of a BIT, the Behavioral Insights Group Rotterdam. We investigate how its resources were used, for what activities, with what outputs, and to which effects. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we derive nine propositions to describe and improve the integration of behavioral insights into public policy and administration