Accept or reject?The nudge effect of response options on making a balanced choice between enhancement and enrichment classes
LIU Jun1,2,ZHANG Zhen1,2,SUN Yan2,3,HAN Bu-Xin1,2,LU Qin4,LIU Ping-Ping1,2()
1 CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Beijing 100101, China 2 Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China 3 CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing 100101, China 4 Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
In recent years, extracurricular classes have always been hot topics of research in areas such as Education, Economics and Sociology. Taking extracurricular classes have become an important part of student lives. There are two types of curricula for students: (1) the enhancement classes which aim to improve the learning abilities and academic performance; (2) the enrichment classes which focus on developing the comprehensive abilities, such as interests and specialties. Recent studies have shown that enrichment classes of various kinds are much more popular than enhancement classes targeted for improvement of academic performances. Primary school students and their parents tend to choose enrichment classes which are more enjoyable than enhance classes which have long-term benefit academically. How can we achieve the balance in choosing between the two types of curricula? Guided by the theoretic framework of the Nudge Effect of the two response options - Accept and Reject, this work explores the task-type effect of accept and reject as different options to influence the selection of different types of classes through three experiments.
Experiment 1 observes the difference in class selection strategy categorized by generations as three groups (students/parents/grand-parents) of different families under the two response options. Experiment 2 observes the difference in class selection strategy by three generations of the same family under the two response options. The design and procedures of the two experiments are similar except participants invited under the laboratory scenario. It adopts a 2 (response options: accept/reject; between-subjects variable) × 2 (curricula types: enhancement classes / enrichment classes; within-subjects variable) × 3 (types of decision makers: primary school students / primary school parents / grandparents; between-subjects variable) mixed design. Results show that (1) people in the parent group tend to select more classes than that of both the student group and the grand-parent group; (2) all three groups tend to select more enrichment classes than academic enhancement classes no matter which response option is used; and (3) when comparing the two response options, all three groups tend to select more number of classes under the reject option. More specifically, under the reject option, people tend to select more enhancement classes relatively than that in the accept option. However, under the reject option, the differences between enrichment classes and enhancement classes are narrowed, which means the selection of enrichment classes and academic enhancement classes are more balanced under the reject option.
Experiment 3 is conducted as a field study to directly talk to people who are submitting applications for extracurricular classes to see whether the use of different response options can indeed influence their decision making on the spot. It adopts a 2 (response options: accept/reject; between-subjects variable) × 2 (curricula types: enhancement classes / enrichment classes; within-subjects variable) mixed design. Consistent with those results of Experiment 1 & 2, Experiment 3 shows that parents tend to select more classes in the rejection response condition than in the acceptance response condition. Participants also tend to select enrichment classes in both response conditions. However, their preference to enhancement classes in the rejection response condition was significantly higher than that in the acceptance response condition. All the three experiments show that the rejection response option has a significant boost to a more balanced selection of primary school parents.
This study successfully proved that the use of the reject option is also applicable to decision making strategies of child education. The result of this work can serve as a direct reference to both educators as well as student families when making choices on extracurricular classes.
刘隽,张震,孙彦,韩布新,陆勤,刘萍萍. (2019). 接受还是拒绝? 反应模式助推基础课与拓展课均衡选择. 心理学报, 51(4): 437-449.
LIU Jun,ZHANG Zhen,SUN Yan,HAN Bu-Xin,LU Qin,LIU Ping-Ping. (2019). Accept or reject?The nudge effect of response options on making a balanced choice between enhancement and enrichment classes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 437-449.
Huang Y. N., Song X. Y., Shao Y., Li S., & Liang Z. Y . ( 2018). Nudging: Default option effect and response mode promote organ donor registry participation in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 868?879.
Ji,L. F . ( 2015). Comparison and consideration of the after-school tutoring in primary and secondary schools in China, South Korea, Japan and European Union. Journal of Beijing Institute of Education, 29(3), 67?72.
Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., & Thaler R. H . ( 1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193?206.
Levin I. P., Schreiber J., Lauriola M., & Gaeth G. J . ( 2002). A tale of two pizzas: Building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Marketing Letters, 13( 4), 335-344.
Li M., Sun Y., & Chen,H. ., (in press). The decoy effect as a nudge: Boosting hand hygiene with a worse option. Psychological Science, .
Li P. N., Wang Y. S., Yang J. H., & Sun Y . ( 2017). Application of behavioral decision theory in energy conservation management. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(3), 760?765.
Liu Y., Polman E., Liu Y. F., & Jiao J. L . ( 2018). Choosing for others and its relation to information search. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 147, 65?75.
Liu Y. F., Wang P., Zhuang J. Y., Zhong J., Sun Q. Z., & Liu Y . ( 2014). Self-other differences in decision-making: Questions, studies and reflection. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(4), 580?587.
Liu, Y., & Sun, Y. , ( 2014). New avenues for framing effect research in decision-making: From risky to intertemporal and from verbal to graph framing. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(8), 1205?1217.
Ma J. J., Ma X. X., & Zhang L . ( 2008). Preference asymmetry between utilitarian and hedonic products in acquisition and forfeiture - Compact disc versus music CD. Journal of Marketing Science, 4(1), 107?119.
Mark, B., &Ora, K. ( 2013). Behind the fa?ade of fee-free education: Shadow education and its implications for social justice. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 480?497.
Mourali, M., &Nagpal, A. ( 2013). The powerful select, the powerless reject: Power's influence in decision strategies. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 874?880.
Park C. W., Jun S. Y., & MacInnis D. J . ( 2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(( 2), 187-202.
Peng H. M., Xia S. Y., Ruan F., & Pu B. Y . ( 2016). Age differences in consumer decision making under option framing: From the motivation perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1736.
Peng, P . ( 2008). Shadow education: Foreign research on private tutoring and its inspiration. Comparative Education Review, 1, 61?65.
Polman,E. ( 2010). Information distortion in self-other decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 432?435.
Polman,E. ( 2012). Effects of self-other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102( 5), 980-993.
Pornpitakpan,C. ( 2009). Cross-cultural generalization of the effect of option choice framing on product option choices. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(3), 342?354.
Shafir,E. ( 1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546?556.
Shen, J. M., & Xie, L. M . ( 2001). On the rejuvenation of the vitality of research-based curriculum - Also on the relationship between research-based curriculum and foundation and enrichment curriculum. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method,(10), 1?5.
Sokolova, T., &Krishna, A. ( 2016). Take it or leave it: How choosing versus rejecting alternatives affects information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 614?635.
Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A . ( 2014). Automatically green: Behavioral economics and environmental protection. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 38( 1), 127-158.
Thaler, R. H.,& Benartzi, S. , ( 2004). Save more tomorrow using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112( 1), S164-S187.
Thaler R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. , ( 2008) . Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wu, Q. S., & Yu , Y. ( 2011). Extra-curricular selection for primary school students from urban families - A consumption perspective. Journal of Xuzhou Normal University (Educational Science Edition),(4), 49?52.
Yao J., Liu J. J., & Gao C . ( 2016). Research on the impact of product attributes’ evaluability on purchase decision: Moderating effects of involvement. Nanjing University of Finance & Economics, (6), 84?91.
Yuan S., Zhang X., & Duan Y . ( 2017). Analysis of the influencing factors on the decision making process of family children training based on the ISM model and AHP-entropy method. Chinese Journal of Systems Science, 25(4), 94?100.