- Date: 11th August 2021
- Time: 12:15-13:15 BST
This webinar will be hosted by Sanchayan Banerjee, PhD Candidate in Environmental Economics at the LSE, who will be presenting his research and findings from his paper: "What works best in reducing meat consumtion? A systematic comparison of nudge, boost, think and nudge plus."
In this webinar, Sanchayan will present theoretical and empirical evidence from his doctoral research, on a new theory of behaviour change called Nudge+. Nudge+ is a modification of the toolkit of behavioural public policy that offers a sophisticated model of cognition in citizens by engaging them in adopting pro-environmental and pro-social behaviour.
Developed by Banerjee and John (2021; forthcoming in Journal of Behavioural Public Policy), nudge+ is a hybrid nudge-think strategy that overcomes the limitations of nudges by improving their efficacy and by making them transparent to receivers.
Sanchayan will introduce the conceptualisation and mechanistic design of nudge+ before presenting his findings from an online survey experiment (with N=3074 UK residents) on the relative efficacy of four categories of behavioural interventions, namely nudge, boost, think and nudge plus in reducing the choice of carbon-intensive foods.
Using this online survey experiment, Sanchayan and his co-authors (Matteo Galizzi, Peter John and Susana Mourato) randomly evaluate the systematic effectiveness of ten different intervention tools that belong to these four broad intervention categories. They find that while all these behavioural interventions work in promoting pro-environmental behaviour; some work better than the others. Almost unambiguously, the hybrid nudge plus interventions work better in reducing the choice of carbon-intensive foods than their corresponding heuristically driven (like nudges and short-term boosts) or reflective (like thinks and long-term boosts) counterparts. Nonetheless, the efficacy of the hybrid nudge+ tool depends on the ordering of the plus with the nudge, and the strength of reflection embedded in the plus. The authors find no evidence of any negative behavioural spillovers from using these behavioural interventions