Digital nudging. Hvorfor + do's and don'ts

25/12/14&

1&

26. november, 2014

Digital NudgingPELLE 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

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)

Hansen, Pelle Guldborg; Katrine Lund Skov; Laurits Rodhen Skov; Andreas Maaløe Jespersen; Karsten Schmidt. 2015. Apples vs. Brownies: A Field Experiment in Rearranging Conference Snacking Buffets to Reduce Short-Term Energy. Intake Journal of Foodservice Business Research (forthcoming 2015)

25/12/14&

2&

Apple vs. Cake biasesOrdningseffekt - tendensen til at tage og spise mere af det der står forrest

Deskriptiv norm - tendensen til at opfatte det dominerende som normsættende

Enheds bias - tendensen til at opfatte en enhed af et givent produkt som den passende og optimale størrelse/mængde

Psykologisk inerti – tendens til at selv minimale barrierer fører til en uforbeholden stor tendens til fald i handlingens udførsel


Standard buffet

Re-arranged buffet

Intervention n = 202

391CEO’s attending a coffee break

Standard eating behaviour

Healthier eating behaviour (Less

cake, more apples)

Predicted effects

Control n = 189

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR FIELD EXPERIMENT IN HEALTHY EATING BEHAVIOUR (2013)

Self-selection by choosing one of two stairs leading to floor featuring two identical brownie and fruit buffets Measurement brownie and apple intake

Experimental conditions Sample

Participants in a national conference for 550 Danish CEO’s held in the Danish Opera



25/12/14&

3&


0&

0.1&

0.2&

0.3&

0.4&

0.5&

0.6&

0.7&

0.8&

0.9&

Cake&consump9on& Apple&consump9on&

Average'consum

p/on

'per'person'measured'in'

who

le'of'cake'an

d'ap

ples're

spec/v

ely'

Cake'vs.'Brownies'in'the'Opera'2013'

Control&

Reduced&size&


0&

5&

10&

15&

20&

25&

30&

35&

40&

45&

Fat&

Satuarated&fat&

Carbohydrate&

Added&sugars&

Dietary&fibre&

Protein&

Gram

s'per'person'


Standard&

Interven9on&


0&

200&

400&

600&

800&

1000&

1200&

1400&

1600&

1800&

Total&energy&intake&per&person&(KJ)&

Kilo'Ju

les'



25/12/14&

4&

Source: ‘Become your own food detective’ – Danish Board of Product Facts

Table over energy use for different activities Activity KJ/10 minutes Watching TV 33

Kissing 34

Doing the dishes by hand 71

Vacuuming 80

Brushing teeth 80

Playing music 85

Playing volleyball 95

Playing Frisbee 100

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 biases, 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

Hansen, PG & Jespersen, AM (2013) Nudge & The Manipulation of Choice – A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy, The European Journal of Risk Regulation, Volume 1, 2013, 3-28

intention!

A! B !

context!

25/12/14&

5&

Apple vs. Cake biasesOrdningseffekt - tendensen til at tage og spise mere af det der står forrest

Deskriptiv norm - tendensen til at opfatte det dominerende som normsættende

Enheds bias - tendensen til at opfatte en enhed af et givent produkt som den passende og optimale størrelse/mængde

Psykologisk inerti – tendens til at selv minimale barrierer fører til en uforbeholden stor tendens til fald i handlingens udførsel

Behavioural&Economics&

Cogni9ve&Psychology&

Social&Psychology&

nudge&

Hansen, PG (Forthcoming 2014) The New Policy ABC: Applied Behavioural sCience .

APPLIED&BEHAVIOURAL&

SCIENCE&

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.[3] 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 members of their own groups. Just-world phenomenon – the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people "get what they deserve." Moral luck – the tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome of an event rather than the intention Outgroup homogeneity bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.[43] Projection bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one's future selves) share one's current emotional states, thoughts and values.[44] Self-serving bias – the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).[45] System justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.) Trait ascription bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable. Ultimate attribution error – similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group. Memory errors and biases Cryptomnesia – a form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination. Egocentric bias – recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering one's exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as being bigger than it was. False memory – confusion of imagination with memory, or the confusion of true memories with false memories. Hindsight bias – filtering memory of past events through present knowledge, so that those events look more predictable than they actually were; also known as the "I-knew-it-all-along effect."[31] Positivity effect – older adults remember relatively more positive than negative things, compared with younger adults[46] Reminiscence bump – the effect that people tend to recall more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than from other lifetime periods. Rosy retrospection – the tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred. Self-serving bias – perceiving oneself responsible for desirable outcomes but not responsible for undesirable ones. Suggestibility – a form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory. Telescoping effect – the effect that recent events appear to have occurred more remotely and remote events appear to have occurred more recently. Von Restorff effect – the tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.

25/12/14&

6&

www.inudgeyou.com

Karsten&Schmidt,&RU&Business&Authori9es&

Andreas&Jespersen,&RU&Consum.&&&Comp.&

Katrine&Skov,&Health&&&Nutr.&

Henrik&Boensvang&InfoStorms&

Jon&Wegener,&CBS&Neuroscience&

Johannes&Schuldt,&Experimental&Design&&

Andreas&Rathman,&&Experimental&Design&&

Simon&Jespersen&Web&

Simon&Snoghøj&Intern&

Dual process cognitive theory!

Baselines & Biases!

1.  Sloman&S.A.&(1996)&The&empirical&case&for&two&systems&of&reasoning.&Psychological+Bulle/n,&119,&3b22.&2.  Kahneman&D.&(2003)&A&perspec9ve&on&judgement&and&choice.&American+Psychologist.&58,&697b720.&3.  Evans,&J.&(2003).&"In&two&minds:&dualbprocess&accounts&of&reasoning".&TRENDS+in+Cogni/ve+Sciences&7&(10).&4.  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&b&analy9c&Conflict".&The+Quarterly+

Journal+of+Experimental+Psychology&62&(8).&

25/12/14&

7&

34 x 52 = ___

Kahneman, D (2002) Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive Judgment and Choice, Prize Lecture, December 8, 2002.

intention!

A! B !

context!

Fast&Parallel&Automa9c&&

Effortless&Associa9ve&Slow&learning&

Slow&Serial&&

Controlled&Efforjull&

Rulebgoverned&Flexible&

25/12/14&

8&

Fly&in&the&urinal&

80'%&

25/12/14&

9&

2014

Reducing costs by enhancing data quality in the Danish Business Register

Collaboration between Danish Business Authorities and ISSP Applied Behavioural Science Team

Lekers&about&digital&post&

•  23.000&lekers&were&unable&to&be&delivered&

•  172.500&DKK&lost&on&postage&

25/12/14&

10&

How&do&we&&find&the&companies&with&wrong&addresses&when&we&cannot&send&them&a&leker?&

Prompt&

Results& Changes&

25/12/14&

11&

intention!

A B

context!



Slow&Serial&&



25/12/14&

12&

Norman, D. (2002) The Psychology of Everyday Things, New York: Basic Books.

Så hvad er nyt ved ‘nudge’?

intention!

A! B !

context!



Slow&Serial&&



25/12/14&

13&

intention!

A B

context!



Slow&Serial&&



25/12/14&

14&

(1) Kemoterapi med 80% chance for at overleve? (2) Strålebehandling med 20% risiko for at dø?

Subjects were customers at the store

There were 4 types of each wine; they were balanced with respect to price and type. French and german music were played at different times.

Only six subjects responded that the music could have affected their choice of wine

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR MUSICAL INFLUENCES ON PRODUCT CHOICE

SAMPLE AND SETTING Predicted effects EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

North, A.C., Hargreaves, D.J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The Influence of in-store music on wine selections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 271

0&

5&

10&

15&

20&

25&

30&

35&

40&

45&

French&music& German&music&

Number of wines sold

French&wine& German&wine&

North, A.C., Hargreaves, D.J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The Influence of in-store music on wine selections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 271

N = 81

25/12/14&

15&

intention!

A B

context!



Slow&Serial&&



68'%'

32'%'

68'%'

32'%'84'%'

16'%'

25/12/14&

16&

Ability&

Mo9

va9o

n&

High&ability&Low&ability&

Low&mo9va9on&

High&mo9va9on&

Ac9va9on&model&

handlingsfelt&

intention!

A B

context!



Slow&Serial&&



Getting a CVR

25/12/14&

17&

no. 4incitamenter

er relative!

25/12/14&

18&

no. 3kognitiv dissonans

Hånden på vægtskålen!

Environmental message on towel-

rack

Descriptive norm messages on towel-

rack

Intervention

1,058 hotel guests over a 80 day period

Standard reuse rate

Increase in towel reuse

Predicted effects

Control

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR FIELD EXPERIMENT IN TOWEL REUSE THROUGH DESCRIPTIVE NORMS

Rooms were randomly assigned to either condition. Environmental messages are an industry standard Measurement of towel reuse participation

Experimental conditions Sample

Part of sample was removed for various reasonsCollected from a mid-priced chain-hotel in the southwest U.S.

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.&

iNudgeYou&©&Nudge&101&

25/12/14&

19&

35%

44%

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50% Participation in towel reuse program by percentage

N = 428

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.&

Environmental&Message&

Descrip9ve&norms&&message&

25/12/14&

20&

intention!

context!



Slow&Serial&&



A B

Tak!!… vi ses igen på: @TENudge!

Twitter:!@peguha!

Blog:!www.iNudgeYou.com!

mail:[email protected]!

Digital nudging 2.0

A nudge is any a,empt at influencing people’s judgment, choice or

behavior in a predictable way made possible because of cogni=ve biases in

individual and social decision-‐making posing barriers for people to perform

ra=onally in their own interest, and working by making use of those biases

as an integral part of such a,empts.

ation Motiv

ation Manipul

• Kriterier

• 2015+ = Motivation/manipulation af jeres brugere

KRITERIER

KRITERIER Synlighed Relevans

Synlighed Relevans

KRITERIER

Digital relevans

Er det relevant for mig?

Hvad får jeg ud af det?

Hvorfor skal jeg bruge tid på det?

Hvad gør vi når relevans bare ikke er nok

Seductive design

Synlighed Tilgængelighed

Relevans

2015+

Synlighed

2015+

Tilgængelighed

Relevans

Skeumorphisk design

Flat design

LightMaster T3 aNote

Microinteractions

Handling

Respons

Microinteractions


Relevans

2015+

En sand historie…

Vedkommende

Behageligt

Komfortabelt

Brugbart

Pålideligt

Funktionelt Muligt at gennemføre en handling

Tilgængeligt og præcist

Forhindringfrit og anvendeligt

Brugervenligt og effektivt

Mindeværdigt og involverende

Personligt og betydningsfuldt

Vedkommende

Behageligt Mindeværdigt og involverende

Personligt og betydningsfuldt

Biletto

97% Fejlkatagoriseret


28% Embarrasing

It’s embarrasing


28% Embarrasing

It’s embarrasing

80% Personlig henvendelse

Songkick

Motivation through limitation

Seduction through play

Seduction through play

Persuasive Design

Persuasive Design

Gamification

FourSquare

Endomondo

Persuasive Design

Gamification

Feedback

Any.do

Persuasive Design

Gamification

Feedback

Visual motivation

YaHoo News Digest

Motivation or frustration

Flappy Bird

Billetto


Relevans

2015+

Instagram Tumblr Pinterest Slack Any.do Flipboard

Messenger Facebook LinkedIn Twitter YouTube Mashable

… bruge microinteractions til at skabe personlighed

… bruge et naturligt og forståeligt sprog

… være vedkommende og humoristisk

Motiver jeres brugere ved at

Digital Nudging

- With Sitecore Experience Platform

Presented by // Rasmus Lindahl Andreasen

25 februar 2015

Once upon a time

Buyers preferred to start

the sales process…

with a direct conversation

Buyer JourneyBy 2020, 85 percent of interactions

between businesses will be

executed without human

interventionSource: Gartner

4

Hvor har du kontakt med dine kunder?

Kunde går ind I butik

Ser på et produkt

Stiller et spørgsmål

Ser på et andet produkt

Køber det første produkt

WebEmailSocial

Over altKommer ind I din butik

Besøger dit Website@message you

e-mail kundeservice e-mail til salg

Laver en kommentar på din Facebook wallSender dig en text besked

Kører forbi din butikSidder I en bus og ser din reklame

Taler med en partner

Click på et e-mail linkVen med en medarbejder

7

Som brand ønsker du at opnå en række resultater.

Som marketingmedarbejder er dit job at tune brugeroplevelsen imod at opnå resultatet.

Brugeroplevelse

Interactions Interactions Goal Goal Interactions OutcomeInteraction Interactions

Go to website

Click on Product 1

Click ‘More Info’ on

Product 1

ProductPurchase

Click on link to similar product

Click back on original

productOnline

Enters ShopLook at Product

Ask a salesperson a question

Look atsimilar

product

Go back to originalproductOffline Product

Purchase

Go to website

Click on Product 1


Product 1


Enters Shop

Look atsimilar

product

Go back to originalproduct

ProductPurchase

Online

Offline

Go to website

Click on Product 1


Product 1


Enters Shop

Look atsimilar

product

Go back to originalproduct

ProductPurchase

Online

Offline

? A

Log on

?

A

ProductPurchase

12

A single, connected experience platform

I need toCOLLECT data

I need to CONNECT data

I need ANALYZE & COMMUNICATE

I need UTILIZE& ACTION

Engagement Value Scale

Mål og Analyser alle steps i din funnel

Analyser hvilke veje der skaber den største værdi

Analyser hvilke veje der skaber den største værdi

Value

Visits

Value Per Visit

Test som en del af den redaktionelle proces

For all content changes

Simple: in the publishing workflow

Everyone can now test

19

Case Study

University of Toronto

22

Use of DMS

Personalization on Visit NumberPersonalization on Geo-locationPersonalization on IPA/B Testing

23

Visit 1

How can I get in?How much does it cost?

24

Visit 2

Why should I enroll?

25

Visit 3

What will I learn?Who are the teachers?

26

Visit 4

Call to Action

Personalization Based on Geo-Location

▲

Personalization based on Domain

A/B Testing

Option A

30

Outcomes

Bounce Reduced 23%Visit Duration Increase 23%Page Visit increase 14%Time on Page Increase 13%

Case Study

Fona

ellerHvad konverterer bedst? Hvide knapper Blå knapper

Split testing, hvad konverterer bedst?

34

Use of DMS

Rules Based PersonalizationGeo-LocationAB Testing

35

Outcomes

Online orders growth circa 100%

[email protected]

Take simple CXMM assessment

Download first 2 chapters for free

Digital nudging. Hvorfor + do's and don'ts

Marketing

Transcript of Digital nudging. Hvorfor + do's and don'ts