1. sports
2. cricket

05/03/15&
Pelle Guldborg Hansen,
Behavioural Scientist, Ph.D. / CBIT, Roskilde University
Director of ISSP – The Initiative for Science, Society & Policy
Member of The Prevention Council, Danish Diabetic Assoc.
Chairman of The Danish Nudge Network
Head of INUDGEYOU team
The smaller the piece the healthier consumption – a choice architectural experiment in behavioral nutrition
Hansen PG; Skov LR; Schmidt K; Skov KL; Mikkelsen BE; Pérez-Cueto FJA (2013)
Nudge
twitter: @peguha / March, 2015
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Deskriptiv norm tendensen til at opfatte
det dominerende som
normsættende
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Enheds bias tendensen til at opfatte
en enhed af et givent
produkt som den
passende og optimale
størrelse/mængde
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
. H
: C ;I
Friktions bias – tendens
til at selv minimale
psykologiske barrierer
afholder en fra at handle
på motiver
Ordningseffekt tendensen til at tage og
spise mere af det der står
forrest
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
1&
05/03/15&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
. H
MF G C
I
BB -JB; EG
5 GG
1 IG
E
. H
: C ;I
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
G :
:A
J IH IE 5 ;J:
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G H
B
EGI GC
0 HF GH
G
I A
1 GHI
: C ;I
;G
FFB H KH
H
E
GEL
G
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
H
, B;
1 GHI
J IH IE
Nudge
. H
: C ;I
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
Nudge
. H
: C ;I
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
Sample
Control
n = 189
Intervention
n = 202
391CEO’s attending a coffee break
at a conference for Danish CEO’s
held in the Danish Opera House
Self-selection by choosing one of
two stairs leading to floor featuring
two identical brownie and fruit
buffets
Simple comparison of total
consumption/n of brownies and
apples
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
B
2&
05/03/15&
Cake'vs.'Brownies'in'the'Opera'2013'
45&
0.8&
40&
0.7&
35&
0.6&
0.5&
Control&
0.4&
Reduced&size&
Grams'per'person'
30&
25&
20&
Standard&
15&
Interven9on&
10&
0.3&
5&
0.2&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
. H
: C ;I
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
&
ei
n
Di
Pr
ot
br
e&
ry
&fi
ga
rs
&
. H
: C ;I
et
a
su
e&
ed
&
Ad
d
hy
dr
at
rb
o
Apple&consump9on&
Ca
Cake&consump9on&
ar
at
0&
ed
&
Fa
fa
t&
t&
0&
0.1&
Sa
tu
Average'consump/on'per'person'measured'in'
whole'of'cake'and'apples'respec/vely'
Cake'vs.'Brownies'in'the'Opera'2013'
0.9&
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
Cake'vs.'Brownies'in'the'Opera'2013'
1800&
Table over energy use for different activities
1600&
Activity
Kilo'Jules'
1400&
KJ/10 minutes
Watching TV
33
1200&
Kissing
34
1000&
Doing the dishes by hand
71
Vacuuming
80
Brushing teeth
80
600&
Playing music
85
400&
Playing volleyball
200&
Playing Frisbee
800&
95
100
0&
Total&energy&intake&per&person&(KJ)&
Source: ‘Become your own food detective’ – Danish Board of Product Facts
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
. H
: C ;I
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
3&
05/03/15&
nudge
Et nudge er en funktion af ethvert forsøg på at påvirke
menneskers vurdering, valg eller adfærd i en forudsigelig retning
(1) under antagelsen af kognitive bias, rutiner og vaner påvirker
vores individuelle og sociale adfærd, og (2) som virker ved at
gøre brug af disse som en integreret del af sådanne forsøg.
Det betyder bl.a. at et nudge fungerer uafhængigt af
Nudge
1) 
begrænsninger af valgmuligheder, eller
2) 
ændringer ved handlingsalternativernes omkostninger (herunder økonomi, tid,
besvær, social sanktioner, o. lign.)
3) 
ny informationsgivning
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
?
Hvorfor nudge?
Source: Hansen, PG (2014) Nudge and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove?
Forthcoming in The European Journal of Risk Regulation 2015
Interven9onsS&
s9gen&
Elimina/on'af'valg'
Nega/ve'sank/oner'
Posi/ve'sank/oner'
Kampagner'
Informa/on'
Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42
4&
05/03/15&
Interven9onsS&
s9gen&
Interven9onsS&
s9gen&
Elimina/on'af'valg'
Elimina/on'af'valg'
Nega/ve'sank/oner'
Nega/ve'sank/oner'
Posi/ve'sank/oner'
Posi/ve'sank/oner'
Kampagner'
Kampagner'
Informa/on'
Informa/on'
Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42
Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42
Dual Process Theory
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
Sloman&S.A.&(1996)&The&empirical&case&for&two&systems&of&reasoning.&Psychological+Bulle/n,&119,&3S22.&
Kahneman&D.&(2003)&A&perspec9ve&on&judgement&and&choice.&American+Psychologist.&58,&697S720.&
Evans,&J.&(2003).&"In&two&minds:&dualSprocess&accounts&of&reasoning".&TRENDS+in+Cogni/ve+Sciences&7&(10).&
Stanovich,&K&E.;&West,&R&F.&(2000).&"Individual&difference&in&reasoning:&implica9ons&for&the&ra9onality&debate?".&Behavioural+and+
Brain+Sciences&23:&645–726.&
5.  Stupple,& E.;& Waterhouse& (2009).& "Nega9ons& In& Syllogis9c& Reasoning:& Evidence& for& a& Heuris9c& S& analy9c& Conflict".& The+ Quarterly+
Journal+of+Experimental+Psychology&62&(8).&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
5&
05/03/15&
Kahneman, D (2002) Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive Judgment and Choice, Prize Lecture, December 8.
34 x 52 = ___
Nudge
Nudge
Nudge
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
6&
05/03/15&
Shiv, B. & A. Fedorikhin (1999) Heart and Mind in Conflict: the Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision
Making, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, No. 3 (December 1999) (pp. 278-292)
System&1&og&2&arbejder&sammen&
&
&
&
&
Nudge
26&
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
7&
05/03/15&
(1) Kemoterapi med 80% chance for at
overleve?
(2) Strålebehandling med 20% risiko for at
dø?
Nudge
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
68'%'
68'%'
16'%'
32'%'
84'%'
32'%'
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
8&
05/03/15&
Hvad tror du denne flaske
whisky har kostet?
Gruppe 1:
450 kr.
Gruppe 2:
294 kr.
Hansen PG; Schmidt K; Rathman, A; Schuldt J
450'
379'
Kroner'
294'
1&
2&
3&
9&
05/03/15&
S&=&P&–&E.&In&this&formula9on,&‘S’&stands&for&sa9sfac9on,&‘P’&for&percep9on&and&‘E’&for&expecta9on.&If&you&expect&a&certain&level&of&service,&and&perceive&the&service&reviewed&to&
be&higher,&you&are&a&sa9sfied&client.&&
&
If&you&perceive&the&same&level&as&before,&but&expected&higher,&you&are&disappointed&and,&consequently,&a&dissa9sfied&client.&(by&David&Maister&1985)&
S&
0&
F&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Customer Satisfaction
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR MUSICAL INFLUENCES ON PRODUCT CHOICE
SAMPLE AND SETTING
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
Predicted effects – measured in 1-9 lierkert skales
N = 143
7.5&
7.1&
6.9&
7&
6.5&
6.5&
6.2&
5.9&
6&
5.7&
5.5&
Subjects consisted of 87% staff, 9% grad
students, and 4% off campus. Mean age = 43.
Six menu-items were selected for descriptive
manipulation, and were rotated between ’basic
description’ and ’descriptive labels’. Each item
were available 6 times over a six week period
Subjects filled out single-item questionnaries
after consuming food
Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels’ effect on sales. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 68-72
5&
Ah&towards&menu&item&
Ah&towards&restaurant&
Repurchase&iten9on&
Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels’ effect on sales. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 68-72
10&
05/03/15&
Hyperbolic discounting
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Hansen, P.G. & Hendricks (2013) Info-storms. New York: Copernicus Books.
11&
05/03/15&
Decision-making and behavioral biases
Anchoring – the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of
information when making decisions.
Attentional Bias – implicit cognitive bias defined as the tendency of emotionally dominant stimuli in
one's environment to preferentially draw and hold attention.
Backfire effect - Evidence disconfirming our beliefs only strengthens them.
Bandwagon effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe)
the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.
Bias blind spot – the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people.[2]
Choice-supportive bias – the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
35'%'
[3]
75'%'
96'%'
Wansink, B. (2004) Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual
Review of Nutrition, Vol. 24, 455-479.
nudge
Et nudge er en funktion af ethvert forsøg på at påvirke
menneskers vurdering, valg eller adfærd i en forudsigelig retning
(1) under antagelsen af kognitive bias, rutiner og vaner påvirker
vores individuelle og sociale adfærd, og (2) som virker ved at
gøre brug af disse som en integreret del af sådanne forsøg.
Det betyder bl.a. at et nudge fungerer uafhængigt af
1) 
begrænsninger af valgmuligheder, eller
2) 
ændringer ved handlingsalternativernes omkostninger (herunder økonomi, tid,
besvær, social sanktioner, o. lign.)
3) 
ny informationsgivning
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Source: Hansen, PG (2014) Nudge and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove?
Forthcoming in The European Journal of Risk Regulation 2015
Confirmation bias – the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's
preconceptions.[4]
Congruence bias – the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to
tests of possible alternative hypotheses.
Contrast effect – the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared
with a recently observed contrasting object.[5]
Denomination effect – the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small
amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).[6]
Distinction bias – the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them
simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[7]
Empathy gap - the tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself
or others.
Endowment effect – "the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they
would be willing to pay to acquire it".[8]
Experimenter's or Expectation bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and
publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve,
discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those
expectations.[9]
Focusing effect – the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error
in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.[10]
Framing effect – drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that
information is presented.
Hostile media effect - the tendency to see a media report as being biased due to one's own strong
partisan views.
Hyperbolic discounting – the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more
immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both
payoffs are.[11]
Illusion of control – the tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external
events.[12]
Impact bias – the tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling
states.[13]
Information bias – the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[14]
Irrational escalation – the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision,
based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was
probably wrong.
Loss aversion – "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with
acquiring it".[15] (see also Sunk cost effects and Endowment effect).
Mere exposure effect – the tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity
with them.[16]
Money illusion – the tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its
value in terms of purchasing power.[17]
Moral credential effect – the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent
prejudice.
Negativity bias – the tendency to pay more attention and give more weight to negative than positive
experiences or other kinds of information.
Neglect of probability – the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision
under uncertainty.[18]
Normalcy bias – the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
Omission bias – the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful
omissions (inactions).[19]
Outcome bias – the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the
quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Planning fallacy – the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.[13]
Post-purchase rationalization – the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that
a purchase was a good value.
Pseudocertainty effect – the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is
positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[20]
Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a
perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
Restraint bias – the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of
temptation.
Selective perception – the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflex – the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.[21]
Social comparison bias – the tendency, when making hiring decisions, to favour potential
candidates who don't compete with one's own particular strengths.[22]
Status quo bias – the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).[23][24]
Unit bias — the tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item. Strong effects on the
consumption of food in particular.[25]
Wishful thinking – the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is
pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality.[26]
Zero-risk bias – preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
Social biases
Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases.
Actor–observer bias – the tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to
overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation
(see alsoFundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one's own behaviors to do the
opposite (that is, to overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of
our own personality).
Dunning–Kruger effect – a twofold bias. On one hand the lack of metacognitive ability deludes
people, who overrate their capabilities. On the other hand, skilled people underrate their abilities, as
they assume the others have a similar understanding.[37]
Egocentric bias – occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a
joint action than an outside observer would.
Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) – the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their
personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough
to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
False consensus effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree
with them.[38]
Fundamental attribution error – the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based
explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of
situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[39]
Halo effect – the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one area of
their personality to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).
[40]
Illusion of asymmetric insight – people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their
peers' knowledge of them.[41]
Illusion of transparency – people overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also
overestimate their ability to know others.
Illusory superiority – overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable
qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect," "better-than-average effect,"
or "superiority bias").[42]
Ingroup bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be
12&
05/03/15&
13&
05/03/15&
DTR'Technique'
DTR&
PO&
RO&
DO&
RTD&
80&
(1) "The price of these note cards is $3.”
70&
70&
65&
65&
60&
50&
40&
(2) "The price of these note cards is 300
pennies… It's a bargain.”
35&
35&
35&
30&
30&
30&
25&
25&
20&
10&
0&
Study&1&
Study&2&
Study&3&
Davis,&Barbara&Price&&&Knowles,&Eris&S.&(1999)&‘A&disruptSthenS
reframe&technique&of&social&influence’,&Journal&of&Personality&
and&Social&Psychology,&Vol.&76(2),&Feb&1999,&192S199.&
&&
Christopher&J.&Carpenter&&&Franklin&J.&Boster&(2009)&‘A&MetaS
Analysis&of&the&Effec9veness&of&the&DisruptSThenSReframe&
Compliance&Gaining&Technique’,&Communica/on+Reports,&Vol.&
22,&No.&2,&July–December&2009,&pp.&55–62&&
14&
05/03/15&
BYAF&technique&&
&&
Asking&for&bus&fare,&charitable&dona9ons,&
par9cipa9on&in&voluntary&services…&metaS
analysis&of&42&studies&involving&22.000&
par9cipants&shows&that&ending&with&“…'but'
you'are'free'to'accept'of'refuse”&doubles&the&
likelihood&of&people&saying&“yes”.&
&&
•  Presence&bias&
•  not&affected&by&whether&proSsocial&or&selfS
interested&&
&&
&
FITD'technique'
&&
Once+someone+has+agreed+to+a+small+request+he+is+more+likely+to+comply+with+a+larger+request.++
60.00%&
52.80%&
50.00%&
40.00%&
33.30%&
27.80%&
30.00%&
22.20%&
20.00%&
10.00%&
0.00%&
OneSContact&
Carpenter,&Christopher&J.&‘A&MetaSAnalysis&of&the&Effec9veness&
of&the&“But&You&Are&Free”&ComplianceSGaining&Technique’.&
Communica/on+Studies&64,&no.&1&(2013),&6S17&
Familiariza9on&
AgreeSOnly&
Performance&
2&experiments&were&conducted&to&test&the&proposi9on&that&once&someone&has&
agreed&to&a&small&request&he&is&more&likely&to&comply&with&a&larger&request.&The&1st&
study&demonstrated&this&effect&when&the&same&person&made&both&requests.&The&
2nd&study&extended&this&to&the&situa9on&in&which&different&people&made&the&2&
Freedman,&Jonathan&L.&&&Frase,&Scoh&C.&(1966)&‘Compliance&
requests.&Several&experimental&groups&were&run&in&an&effort&to&explain&these&
Without&Pressure:&The&FootSInSTheSDoor&Technique’,&Journal+of+
results,&and&possible&explana9ons&are&discussed.&
Personality+and+Social+Psychology,&1966,&Vol.&4,&No.&2,&155S202&
Dustbin&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
15&
05/03/15&
Footprints'leading'to'city'dustbins'decreases'street'liXer'by'46%'
in'field'experiment'
30%&
26%&
25%&
19%&
20%&
15%&
10%&
9%&
5%&
5%&
0%&
1&
2&
preStest&
postStest&
lihered&
• 
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
binned&
Result+was+achieved+on+the+assump/on+that+salience+combined+with+spotlight+effect+and+external+
implementa/oninten/ons.&
Source: Hansen, P.G. & Jespersen, A.M. (2012). Nudge, adfærdsøkonomi, og ‘økonomisk psykologi’ – fra eksperiment til skraldespand. Psykologisk set, vol.
87-88., p. 15-23. !
Multi-layered Intervention for Raising Compliance
Hansen PG; Schmidt K; Skov KL (2013)
16&
05/03/15&
Cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or
discomfort experienced by an individual who
holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or
values at the same time, or is confronted by new
information that conflicts with existing beliefs,
ideas, or values.
Diffusion of responsibility – a
sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a
person is less likely to take responsibility for
action or inaction when others are present.
Expectation effects –tendencies to form
expectations on the basis of availability, recency,
motivation and other effects, rather than by
Bayesian reasoning.
Inattention – tendency to ignore non-salient
objects or attributes
. H
: C ;I
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
. H
: C ;I
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
BB -JB; EG 1 IG
2J ; AEK 2 JG IH 5E;
AEK
FFB H KH GEL H , B; MF G C I 5 GG
5 ;J:
EGI GC
G
I A
;G
H
E
G
B
:
0 HF GH
:A
1 GHI
J IH IE
50%&
ERST'LeXer'experiment'2013'
80.0%&
45%&
40%&
35%&
30%&
70.0%&
Kontrolbrev&
25%&
60.0%&
58.4%&
Nudgede&brev&
20%&
15%&
10%&
50.0%&
5%&
0%&
Runde&1&
40.0%&
30.5%&
Runde&2&
Runde&3&
Runde&4&
I&alt&
50%&
45%&
30.0%&
40%&
35%&
20.0%&
30%&
25%&
10.0%&
Optagende&
20%&
15%&
10%&
0.0%&
1&
2&
Serie1&
Serie2&
5%&
0%&
Nudgede&brev&
Social&Norm&
What's&in&it&for&me&
Rødt&brev&
17&
05/03/15&
MOTIVATION
Behaviour change
INTUITIVE
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
18&
05/03/15&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
19&
05/03/15&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR MOTIVATION AND INTENTION IMPLEMENTATIONS IN BEHAVIOR CHANGE
Sample & Basic design
Experimental conditions
Unrelated literature
Predicted effects
Baseline
Control
248 Undergraduates over
a 2 week period
Motivation
pamphlet
Equal to baseline
Motivation
Motivation +
Implementation
pamphlet
Higher tendency to
exercise
Implementation
Some participants were not included, as
they did not complete the questionnaires.
No difference in previous exercise tendency
Participants were randomly assigned to groups
Self reported behavior and intentions
iNudgeYou&©&Nudge&101&
S.&Milne,&S.&Orbell,&P.&Sheeran&(2012);&Combining&mo9va9onal&and&voli9onal&interven9ons&to&promote&exercise&par9cipa9on:&Protec9on&
mo9va9on&theory&andimplementa9on&inten9ons;&Bri9sh&Journal&of&Health&Psychology&2002,&7,&pp&163S184&
20&
05/03/15&
N = 248
Percentage of group that exercised
100%
91%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
38%
40%
35%
30%
20%
Control&
Mo9va9on&
iNudgeYou&©&Nudge&101&
Mo9va9on&+&
Implementa9on&
inten9ons&
S.&Milne,&S.&Orbell,&P.&Sheeran&(2012);&Combining&mo9va9onal&and&voli9onal&interven9ons&to&promote&exercise&par9cipa9on:&Protec9on&
mo9va9on&theory&andimplementa9on&inten9ons;&Bri9sh&Journal&of&Health&Psychology&2002,&7,&pp&163S184&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Percentage reduction in DNA’s compared to pre-intervention
&
15.0%
10.1%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
-10.0%
-3.5%
-15.0%
-20.0%
-18%
-25.0%
-30.0%
-35.0%
-31.7%
Verbal
iNudgeYou © Nudge 101
Active
-29.6%
Active + Positive Intervention Intervention
norm
stop
restart
S. Martin, S. Bassi & R. Dunbar-Rees (2012): Commitments, norms and custard creams – a social influence approach to
reducing did not attends (DNAs). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2012: 105: 101 –104
21&
05/03/15&
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR FIELD EXPERIMENT IN TOWEL REUSE THROUGH DESCRIPTIVE NORMS
Sample
Experimental conditions
Predicted effects
50%
Participation in towel reuse program by percentage
N = 428
48%
46%
Environmental
message on towelrack
Standard reuse rate
44%
42%
Control
44%
40%
1,058 hotel guests over a
80 day period
38%
Descriptive norm
messages on towelrack
Increase in towel
reuse
36%
34%
Intervention
35%
32%
Part of sample was removed for various
reasonsCollected from a mid-priced chainhotel in the southwest U.S.
Rooms were randomly assigned to either
condition. Environmental messages are an
industry standard
30%
Measurement of towel reuse participation
Environmental&
Message&
Descrip9ve&norms&
&message&
iNudgeYou&©&Nudge&101&
iNudgeYou&©&Nudge&101&
N.&J.&GOLDSTEIN,&R.&B.&CIALDINI,&V.&GRISKEVICIUS&(2008);&”A&Room&with&a&Viewpoint:&Using&Social&Norms&to&Mo9vate&Environmental&
Conserva9on&in&Hotels”&Journal+of+Consumer+Research,+October+2008.&
N.&J.&GOLDSTEIN,&R.&B.&CIALDINI,&V.&GRISKEVICIUS&(2008);&”A&Room&with&a&Viewpoint:&Using&Social&Norms&to&Mo9vate&Environmental&
Conserva9on&in&Hotels”&Journal+of+Consumer+Research,+October+2008.&
Twitter:!
@peguha!
!
!
mail:!
[email protected]!
!
!
Blog:!
www.iNudgeYou.com!
!
!
!
22&
05/03/15&
BASE]line'
Analysis (diagnosis)
Experiments
!  Hypothesizing!
!  Triangulation!
!  Hypothesis tests !
! 
! 
! 
! 
!
!
Prototyping!
Lab experiments!
Field experiments!
implementation!
B&
©
Nudge
Behavioural mapping
Solution mapping
!
!
!  Identification!
!  Behavioural Reduction!
!  Behavioural patterns!
!  Research!
!  Adaptation!
!  Ethics!
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
BASE]line'
context!
Analysis (diagnosis)
Experiments
!  Hypothesizing!
!  Triangulation!
!  Hypothesis tests !
! 
! 
! 
! 
!
!
A!
B!
Prototyping!
Lab experiments!
Field experiments!
implementation!
B&
A: hvad gør folk?!
Behavioural mapping
!
Solution mapping
!
!  Identification!
!  Behavioural Reduction!
!  Behavioural patterns!
!  Research!
!  Adaptation!
!  Ethics!
!
intention!
B: hvad burde de gøre i stedet?!
!
C: Hvad er den relevante
kontekst?!
23&
05/03/15&
Lehers&about&digital&post&
•  23.000&lehers&were&
unable&to&be&delivered&
2014
•  172.500&DKK&lost&on&
postage&
Reducing costs by enhancing
data quality in the Danish
Business Register
Collaboration between Danish Business Authorities and ISSP Applied Behavioural Science Team
How&do&we&&
find&the&companies&with&wrong&addresses&when&we&cannot&send&them&
a&leher?&
Prompt&
24&
05/03/15&
Results&
Changes&
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
25&
05/03/15&
Uhensigtsmæssige'adfærdsmønstre'
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Selectees, der henvender sig i sidste øjeblik!
Passagerer, der fumler med papirer ved disk!
Passagerer, der ikke har lavet APIS og Next of Kin!
Kaotisk kødannelse!
Lange ståtider i kø!
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
26&
05/03/15&
By showing passengers how to hand over their passports and boarding passes to
handler the time taken by handler to process passengers was reduced with 1,08 second
per passenger* in a field experiment.
Uhensigtsmæssige'adfærdsmønstre'
8.00
7.41
Reduc/on:''
4&min.&46&sec.&/&
flight&
7.00
6.50
6.33
6.00
5.50
5.00
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
4.50
Selectees, der henvender sig i sidste øjeblik!
Passagerer, der fumler med papirer ved disk!
Passagerer, der ikke har lavet APIS og Next of Kin!
Kaotisk kødannelse!
Lange ståtider i kø!
4.00
Control (n = 679)
Intervention (n = 684)
Note: The reslut is calculated for ordinary passenger. By ordinary we mean passenger who did not have
NoK-, APIS- or Selectee status.
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
By informing* passengers that they had to fill out the next-of-kin form and by mounting
american flags on the next-of-kin-counter we reduced the amount of passengers who
had not filled out the form by 13,68 percentage points.
Passaengers who had not filled out their next-of-kin form
Time per passenger (sec)
7.50
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
18.87%
15.00%
Reduc/on:&&
1&m.&16&sec.&/&
flight&
10.00%
5.19%
5.00%
0.00%
Control (n = 212)
Intervention (n = 77)
Note: Refers to the slideshow intervention. Passengers were asked fill out the form before approaching the
boarding counter.
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
27&
05/03/15&
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
&
AKUT&
Smerte
Ny&tandlæge&
PELLE GULDBORG HANSEN, BEHAVIOURAL SCIENTIST, PH.D. / CBIT, ROSKILDE UNIVERSITY
DIRECTOR OF ISSP – THE INITIATIVE FOR SCIENCE, SOCIETY & POLICY
MEMBER OF THE PREVENTION COUNCIL, DANISH DIABETIC ASSOCIATION
CHAIRMAN OF THE DANISH NUDGE NETWORK
HEAD OF INUDGEYOU TEAM
&
Smerte
&
AKUT&
AKUT&
Smerte
Indkaldelse&&
+
(brev,+sms,+email)
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
+
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
Ezersyn&
Afsøgning&
Ny&tandlæge&
Afsøgning&
Ny&tandlæge&
28&
05/03/15&
&
AKUT&
Smerte
9lfreds
&
&
AKUT&
Smerte
9lfreds
&
&
betaling
Indkaldelse&&
+
(brev,+sms,+email)
+
betaling
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
u9lfreds
&
Indkaldelse&&
+
(brev,+sms,+email)
+
Ezersyn&
&
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
Afsøgning&
Ny&tandlæge&
AKUT&
9lfreds
&
&
9lfreds
&
+
&
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
Ezersyn&
Afsøgning&
&
&
betaling
Skrizligt&9lbud&
(over&2500&
DKK)
&
Ny&tandlæge&
AKUT&
Smerte
betaling
Indkaldelse&&
+
(brev,+sms,+email)
u9lfreds
Ezersyn&
Afsøgning&
Smerte
&
u9lfreds
&
Indkaldelse&&
+
(brev,+sms,+email)
+
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
Ezersyn&
Afsøgning&
Ny&tandlæge&
Skrizligt&9lbud&
(over&2500&
DKK)
&
u9lfreds
&
Ny&tandlæge&
Ny&bopæl&
Klinikophør&
&
18&år
29&
05/03/15&
urgency!
&
AKUT&
Smerte
9lfreds
!
&
Smerte
+
Nuværende&
tandlæge&
Ezersyn&
Adfærd:&Forbrugerne&håndhæver&deres&ret&9l&
at&få&skrizligt&9lbud&i&venteværelset&
uncertainty!
!
Forventet kompleksitet!
Skrizligt&9lbud&
(over&2500&
DKK)
&
u9lfreds
&
Indkaldelse !
!
(brev, sms,
email)
Sunk costs!
reciprocitet!
Status Quo!
reciprocitet!
routine!
Eftersyn!
Sunk costs!
reciprocitet!
!
betaling
Sunk costs!
risk!
uncertainty!
!
Status Quo!
tilfreds
Status Quo!
&
betaling
Indkaldelse&&
+
(brev,+sms,+email)
AKUT!
Nuværende
tandlæge!
Sunk costs!
Status Quo!
Skriftligt
tilbud (over
2500 DKK)
!
!
utilfreds
Adfærd:&Når&de&er&u9lfredse,&
afsøger&de&markedet&
Tabsaversion!
Forventet kompleksitet!
Status Quo!
Forventet kompleksitet!
risk!
”mor og far” bias!
Afsøgning&
Afsøgning!
Ny&tandlæge&
Ny&bopæl&
Klinikophør&
Forventet kompleksitet!
Klinikophør!
Adfærd:&De&18Sårige&vælger&ikke&nødvendigvis&
deres&forældres&tandlæge&
!
&
18&år
Demografi&
Ny tandlæge!
Forventet kompleksitet!
netværk!
Touch point !
Forventet kompleksitet!
Ny bopæl!
18 år
Dataindsamling&
•  250 respondenter
•  Data indsamlet i uge 40
•  Data hovedsageligt indsamlet fra studerende på CBS, CSS, KUA og
Panum Instituttet.
•  Der er blevet benyttet et convience-sampling scheme
•  Data er indsamlet som svar på et spørgeskema som respondenterne
har udfyldt gennem face-to-face interview, telefonisk og skriftligt
Ny&tandlæge&ved&18.&år:&Mor+og+FarUbias&
Dokumenta9on&&
3%
2%
3%
Vælger tandlæge pga:
42%
15%
Forældre - far og mors
Geografi - far og mors
Andre faktorer - far og mors
Forældre - ikke far og mors
Andre faktorer - ikke far og mors
Geografi - ikke far og mors
Aldersfordeling
18%
Har ikke truffet valg om tandlæge
17%
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
35+
60
40
20
0
Viser svar fra 250 respondenter
om tandlægevalg
30&
05/03/15&
Ny&tandlæge&ved&18.&år:&Mor+og+FarUbias&
Ny&tandlæge&ved&18.&år:&Mor+og+FarUbias&
Dokumenta9on&&
3%
2%
47% har valgt
mors/fars
tandlæge
Dokumenta9on&&
3%
3%
Vælger tandlæge pga:
42%
15%
2%
3%
47% har valgt
mors/fars
tandlæge
Forældre - far og mors
Vælger tandlæge pga:
42%
15%
Geografi - far og mors
Andre faktorer - far og mors
Forældre - ikke far og mors
Andre faktorer - ikke far og mors
Andre faktorer - ikke far og mors
Geografi - ikke far og mors
Har ikke truffet valg om tandlæge
18%
17%
Har ikke truffet valg om tandlæge
17%
Viser svar fra 250 respondenter
om tandlægevalg
Udskrivningsbreve&
Geografi - far og mors
Forældre - ikke far og mors
Geografi - ikke far og mors
18%
Forældre - far og mors
Andre faktorer - far og mors
Viser svar fra 250 respondenter
om tandlægevalg
Odense kommune
anvender slipmetode uden
tandlægeliste
Dokumenta9on&&
BASE]line'
Analysis (diagnosis)
Experiments
!  Hypothesizing!
!  Triangulation!
!  Hypothesis tests !
! 
! 
! 
! 
!
I Frederiksberg
kommune får man
denne sms en måned
før man fylder 18 år
!
Prototyping!
Lab experiments!
Field experiments!
implementation!
B&
Odense, Frederiksberg, København, Århus, Roskilde og
Aalborg
Behavioural mapping
!
123&
Solution mapping
!
!  Identification!
!  Behavioural Reduction!
!  Behavioural patterns!
!  Research!
!  Adaptation!
!  Ethics!
31&
05/03/15&
Interven9onsS&
s9gen&
Elimina/on'af'valg'
MOTIVATION
Behaviour change
Nega/ve'sank/oner'
Posi/ve'sank/oner'
Kampagner'
Informa/on'
INTUITIVE
Nudge
Adapted from Public Health: Ethical Issues Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2007) Cambridge Publishers Ltd., p. 42
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Feasibility&
ReS
enforcement&
mechanism&
context!
Default&
Success&
feedback&
A!
Informa9on&
B!
Descrip9ve&
norm&
Injunc9ve&
norm&
A: hvad gør folk?!
Ahen9on&
Diagnostisk værktøj
Ru9ne&
feedback&
A|tude&
Inten9on&
intention!
!
B: hvad burde de gøre i stedet?!
!
C: Hvad er den relevante
kontekst?!
Cogni9ve&
effort&
Incen9ves&
Time&
discrepancy&
Preference&
consruc9on&
32&
05/03/15&
Trigger
Trigger
Reenforcement
mechanism
Reward
Reenforcement
mechanism
Intention
Choice
Intention
Reward
Nudge
Choice
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
Internal triggers
External triggers
Fly&in&the&urinal&
Trigger
Reenforcement
mechanism
80'%&
Reward
Intention
Choice
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
33&
05/03/15&
intern
trigger
hot
spot
extern
trigger
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
34&
05/03/15&
intern
trigger
hot
spot
extern
trigger
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
35&
05/03/15&
36&
05/03/15&
Twitter:!
@peguha!
!
!
mail:!
[email protected]!
©
!
!
Blog:!
www.iNudgeYou.com!
!
Nudge
Pelle Guldborg Hansen
twitter: @peguha / www.inudgeyou.com
!
!
37&