Digital Nudging to Increase Usage of Charity Features on E-Commerce Platforms

Bibtex

Cite as text

						@Select Types{,
							 
							 
							 
							 
							 
							Journal   = "Band-1",
							 Title= "Digital Nudging to Increase Usage of Charity Features on E-Commerce Platforms", 
							Author= "Christian Meske, Ireti Amojo, and Peter Mohr", 
							Doi= "https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_k5-meske", 
							 Abstract= "Using behavioral economic concepts to influence choice making in virtual environments, and more specifically to nudge participation in charitable projects, has provided fruitful opportunities for design science oriented IS research. This experimental study aims to compare two alternative nudges: an opt-in checkbox nudge and a forced-choice nudge in form of a textbox, to compare and contrast their effectivity. We assessed that the forced-choice nudge is significantly more effective in nudging participants to utilize charity features on an e-commerce platform, leading to the practical contribution of a new nudge and UI Element combination to reach targeted results. Moreover, we are able to provide new insights by putting nudging theory into practice and contributing to the overall theoretical nudging discourse in the IS research domain.", 
							 Keywords= "Digital Nudging, Persuasion, Forced-Choice, Charity, ECommerce.", 
							}
					
Christian Meske, Ireti Amojo, and Peter Mohr: Digital Nudging to Increase Usage of Charity Features on E-Commerce Platforms. Online: https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_k5-meske (Abgerufen 15.06.24)

Abstract

Abstract

Using behavioral economic concepts to influence choice making in virtual environments, and more specifically to nudge participation in charitable projects, has provided fruitful opportunities for design science oriented IS research. This experimental study aims to compare two alternative nudges: an opt-in checkbox nudge and a forced-choice nudge in form of a textbox, to compare and contrast their effectivity. We assessed that the forced-choice nudge is significantly more effective in nudging participants to utilize charity features on an e-commerce platform, leading to the practical contribution of a new nudge and UI Element combination to reach targeted results. Moreover, we are able to provide new insights by putting nudging theory into practice and contributing to the overall theoretical nudging discourse in the IS research domain.

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Digital Nudging, Persuasion, Forced-Choice, Charity, ECommerce.

References

Referenzen

1. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. science, vol. 185, pp. 1124-1131 (1974).
2. Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., Rabin, M.: Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 151, no. 1211, pp. 1211-1252 (2003).
3. Acquisti, A., Adjerid, I., Balebako, R., Cranor, L.F., Komanduri, S., Leon, P.G., Sadeh, N., Schaub, F., Wang, Y., Wilson, S.: Nudges for Privacy and Security: Understanding and Assisting Users’ Choices Online. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 50, no, 3, article 44, pp. 1-41 (2017).
4. Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R.: Nudge, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press (2009).
5. Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., Brocke, J.V.: Digital Nudging. Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 58, pp. 433-436 (2016).
6. Amazon.com, Amazon Smile About [Online]. smile.amazon.com. Available: https://smile.amazon.de/gp/chpf/about/ [Accessed 10/04/2019].
7. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R.H.: Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic perspectives, vol. 5, pp.193-206 (1991).
8. Misch, T., Lehrer, C., Jung, R.: Digital Nudging: Altering User Behavior in Digital Environments. Proceedings der 13. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 634-648 (2017).
9. Schneider, C., Weinmann, M., Vom Brocke, J.: Digital Nudging: Guiding Online User Choices Through Interface Design. Communications of the ACM, vol. 61, pp. 67-73 (2018).
10. Chaiken, S., Trope, Y.: Dual-process theories in social psychology, Guilford Press (1999).
11. Kahneman, D., Egan, P.: Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2011).
12. Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R.: Libertarian Paternalism. American economic review, vol. 93, pp. 175-179 (2003).
13. Meske, C., Potthoff, T.: The DINU-Model – A Process Model for the Design of Nudges, pp. 1-11 (2017).
14. Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R.: 1988. Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 1, pp. 7-59 (1988).
15. Johnson, E.J., Goldstein, D.G.: Defaults and Donation Decisions. Transplantation, vol. 78, pp. 1713-1716 (2004).
16. Goldstein, D.G., Johnson, E.J., Herrmann, A., Heitmann, M.: Nudge Your Customers Toward Better Choices. Harvard Business Review, vol. 86, pp. 99-105 (2008).
17. Sunstein, C.R.: Nudging: A Very Short Guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 37, pp. 583-588 (2014).
18. Luxi, S., Hsee, C.K., Numerical Nudging: Using an Accelerating Score to Enhance Performance. Psychological Science, vol. 28, pp. 1077-1086 (2017).
19. John, P., Blume, T.: Nudges That Promote Channel Shift: A Randomized Evaluation of Messages to Encourage Citizens to Renew Benefits Online. Policy and Internet, vol. 9, pp. 168-183 (2017).
20. Tietz, M., Simons, A., Weinmann, M., Vom Brocke, J.: The Decoy Effect in Reward- Based Crowdfunding: Preliminary Results From an Online Experiment, pp. 1-11 (2016).
21. Weinmann, M., Tietz, M., Simons, A., Vom Brocke, J.: Get It Before It’s Gone? How Limited Rewards Influence Backers’ Choices in Reward-Based Crowdfunding, 38th International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1-10 (2017).
22. Simons, A., Weinmann, M., Tietz, M., Vom Brocke, J.: Which Reward Should I Choose? Preliminary evidence for the middle-option bias in reward-based crowdfunding. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4344- 4353 (2017).
23. Kretzer, M. and Maedche, A.: Designing Social Nudges for Enterprise Recommendation Agents: An Investigation in the Business Intelligence Systems Context. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 12, Article 4 (2018).
24. Hou, J.: Can Interface Cues Nudge Modeling of Food Consumption? Experiments on a Food-Ordering Website. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 22, pp. 196- 214 (2017).
25. Eposito, G., Hernandez, P., Van Bavel, R., Vila, J.A.: 2017. Nudging to Prevent the Purchase of Incompatible Digital Products Online: An Experimental Study. Plos One, vol. 12, no. 15, pp. 1-15 (2017).
26. Djurica, D., Figl, K.: The Effect of Digital Nudging Techniques on Customers’ Product Choice and Attitudes towards E-Commerce Sites, pp. 1-5 (2017).
27. Cave, J., Cave, B.: Nudging eConsumers: Online Ecolabelling as Part of the Green Internet. Available at SSRN 2141967 (2012).
28. Mirsch, T., Lehrer, C., Jung, R.: Making Digital Nudging Applicable: The Digital Nudge Design Method, pp. 1-16 (2018).
29. Ly, K., Mazar, N., Zhao, M., Soman, D.: A Practitioner’s Guide to Nudging. Rotman School of Management Working Paper, pp. 1-28 (2013).
30. Datta, S., Mullainathan, S.: Behavioral Design: A New Approach to Development Policy. Review of Income Wealth, vol. 60, pp. 7-35 (2014).
31. Berinsky, A.J., Huber, G.A., Lenz, G.S. Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political analysis, (20:3), pp. 51-368 (2012).
32. Buhrmeister, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D.: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality Data? Perspectives on psychological science, vol. 6, pp. 3- 5 (2011).
33. Székely, N., Weinmann, M., Vom Brocke, J.; Nudging People to Pay CO2 Offsets – The Effect of Anchors in Flight Booking Processes. ECIS, paper 62, pp.1-10 (2016).
34. Lee, Y.K., Chang, C.T.: Intrinsic or Extrinsic? Determinants Affecting Donation Behaviors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, vol. 8, pp. 13-24 (2008).
35. Shelley, L., Jay Polonsky, M.: Do Charitable Causes Need to Segment Their Current Donor Base On Demographic Factors?: An Australian Examination. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, vol. 7, pp. 19-29 (2002).
36. Midlarsky, E., Hannah, M.E.: The Generous Elderly: Naturalistic Studies of Donations Across the Life Span. Psychology and Aging, vol. 4, no. 346, pp. 346-351 (1989).
37. Eagly, A.H., Crowley, M.: Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature. Psychological Bulletin, (100), pp. 283-308 (1986).
38. Webster, C., Nottingham, L.: Gender Differences in the Motivations for Gift Giving. American Marketing Association. Conference Proceedings, American Marketing Association, pp. 1-31 (2000).
39. Cialdini, R.B., Schaller, M. Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., Beaman, A.L.: Empathybased Helping: Is it Selflessly or Selfishly Motivated? Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 52, p. 749 (1987).
40. Nickell, G.S.: The Helping Attitude Scale. 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association at San Francisco, pp. 1-10 (1998).
41. Goswami, I., Urminsky, O.: When Should the Ask Be A Nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts On Charitable Donations. Journal of Marketing Research,(53),pp. 829-846 (2016).
42. Hlavac, M.: Stargazer: Well-Formatted Regression and Summary Statistics Tables. R Package Version 5.2.2. (2018).
43. Wickham, H.: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis, Springer (2016).
44. Hothorn, T, Zeileis, A., Farebrother, R.W., Cummins, C., Millo, G., Mitchell, D., Zeileis, M.A.: Package ‘lmtest’. Testing linear regression models. https://cran.rproject. org/web/packages/lmtest/lmtest.pdf [Accessed 05/03/2019]
45. Lau, A., Kennedy, C.: When Online Survey Respondents Only ‘Select Some That Apply’. pewresearch.org. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2019/05/09/whenonline- survey-respondents-only-select-some-that-apply/ [Accessed 15/02/2019]
46. Balz, J., Sunstein, C., Thaler, R.: Choice architecture. E. Shafir, The behavioral foundations of public policy, vol., 25, pp. 428-439 (2014).
47. Cotter, H.: Increasing Consent for Organ DOnation: Mandated Choice, Individual Autonomy, and Informed Consent. Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, vol. 21, pp. 599-626 (2011).
48. Klassen, A.C., KLassen, D.K.: Who are the Donors in Organ Donation? The family’s Perspective in Mandated Choice. Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 125, pp. 70-73 (1996).
49. Chouhan, P., Draper, H.: Modified mandated choice for organ procurement. Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 29, pp. 157-162 (2003).
50. Meske, C., Amojo, I.: Status Quo, Critical Reflection and Road Ahead of Digital Nudging in Information Systems Research – A Discussion with Markus Weinmann and Alexey Voinov. Communications of the AIS (forthcoming), In Press. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08202 [Accessed 11/19/2019]
51. Meske C., Amojo I., Poncette A.-S., Balzer F.: The Potential Role of Digital Nudging in the Digital Transformation of the Healthcare Industry. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Design User Experience and Usability. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), pp. 323-336 (2019).

Most viewed articles

Meist angesehene Beiträge

GITO events | library.gito