Choice architecture tools, commonly known as nudges, powerfully impact decisions and can improve welfare. Yet it is unclear who is most impacted by nudges. If nudge effects are moderated by socioeconomic status (SES), these differential effects could increase or decrease disparities across consumers. Using field data and several preregistered studies, the authors demonstrate that consumers with lower SES, domain knowledge, and numerical ability are impacted more by a wide variety of nudges. As a result, “good nudges” designed to increase selection of superior options reduced choice disparities, improving choices more among consumers with lower SES, lower financial literacy, and lower numeracy than among those with higher levels of these variables. Compared with “good nudges,” “bad nudges” designed to facilitate selection of inferior options exacerbated choice disparities. These results generalized across real retirement decisions, different nudges, and different decision domains. Across studies, the authors tested different explanations of why SES, domain knowledge, and numeracy moderate nudges. The results suggest that nudges are a useful tool for those who wish to reduce disparities. The research concludes with a discussion of implications for marketing firms and segmentation.
AdlerNancy E.EpelElissaCastellazzoGraceIckovicsJeannette (2000), “Relationship of Subjective & Objective Social Status with Psychological and Physiological Functioning: Preliminary Data in Healthy, White Women,” Health Psychology, 19 (6), 586–92.
2.
AfifZeinaIslanWilliam W.Calvo-GonzalezOscarDaltonAbigail (2018), “Behavioral Science Around the World: Profiles of 10 Countries,”eMBeD brief, World Bank Group.
3.
Al BahraniAbdullahWeathers JamiePatelDarshak (2019), “Racial Differences in the Returns to Financial Literacy Education,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 53 (2), 572–99.
4.
Al-UbaydliO.LeeMin SokListJohn A.MackeviciusClaire L.SuskindDana (2020), “How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? Twelve Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling,” Behavioural Public Policy, 5 (1), 1–48.
5.
AmarMotyArielyDanAyalShaharCryderCynthia E.RickScott I. (2011), “Winning the Battle but Losing the War: The Psychology of Debt Management,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (Special Issue), S38–50.
BenartziShlomoBeshearsJohnMilkmanKatherine L.SunsteinCassThalerRichardShankarMaya (2017), “Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?” Psychological Science, 28 (8), 1041–55.
8.
BernheimDouglas (1998), “Financial Illiteracy, Education and Retirement Saving,” Living with Defined Contribution Pensions 3868.
9.
BeshearsJohnChoiJames J.LaibsonDavidMadrianBrigitte C.WangSean Yixiang (2016), “Who Is Easier to Nudge?” Working Paper 401, NBER.
10.
BhargavaSaurabhLoewensteinGeorgeSydnorJustin (2017), “Choose to Lose: Health Plan Choices from a Menu with Dominated Option,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132 (3), 1319–72.
11.
Brown-JohnsonCati G.EnglandLucinda J.GlantzStanton A.LingPamela M. (2014), “Tobacco Industry Marketing to Low Socioeconomic Status Women in the USA,” Tobacco Control, 23 (2), e139–46.
12.
CamererColinIssacharoffSamuelLoewensteinGeorgeO’DonoghueTedRabinMatthew (2003), “Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for ‘Asymmetric Paternalism,’” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151 (3), 1211–54.
13.
CervellonMarie-CécilePoujolJuliet F.TannerJ.F.Jr. (2019), “Judging by the Wristwatch: Salespersons’ Responses to Status Signals and Stereotypes of Luxury Clients,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 191–201.
14.
ChapmanG.B.LiuJ. (2009), “Numeracy, Frequency, and Bayesian Reasoning,” Judgment and Decision Making, 4 (1), 34–40.
15.
CheemaAmarSomanDilip (2008), “The Effect of Partitions on Controlling Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 665–75.
16.
ChernevAlexanderBockenholtUlfGoodmanJoseph (2015), “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 333–58.
17.
ChoiJames J.LaibsonDavidMadrianBrigitteMetrickAndrew (2004), “For Better or for Worse: Default Effects and 401(k) Savings Behavior,” in Perspectives on the Economics of Aging, WiseDavid A., ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 81–121.
18.
ChoukhmaneTaha (2021), “Default Options and Retirement Saving Dynamics,” working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
19.
DanesSharonHuddleston-CasasCatherineBoyceLaurie (1999), “Financial Planning Curriculum for Teens,” Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 10 (1), 26.
20.
DellaertBenedict G.C.HaublGerald (2012), “Searching in Choice Mode: Consumer Decision Processes in Product Search with Recommendations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (2), 277–88.
21.
DellaVignaStefanoLinosElizabeth (2020), “RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence from Two Nudge Units,” working paper, University of California, Berkeley.
22.
DiehlKristin (2005), “When Two Rights Make a Wrong: Searching Too Much in Ordered Environments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (3), 313–22.
23.
Eisenberg-GuyotJerzyFirthCaislinKlawitterMariekaHajatAnjum (2018), “From Payday Loans to Pawnshops: Fringe Banking, the Unbanked, and Health,” Health Affairs, 37 (3), 429–37.
24.
FeitsmaJoram Nanne Pieter (2018), “The Behavioural State: Critical Observations on Technocracy and Psychocracy,” Policy Sciences, 51 (3), 387–410.
GraffeoMichelePolonioLucaBoniniNicolao (2015), “Individual Differences in Competent Consumer Choice: The Role of Cognitive Reflection and Numeracy Skills,” Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 844.
29.
HadarLiatSoodSanjayFoxCraig R. (2013), “Subjective Knowledge in Consumer Financial Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (3), 303–16.
30.
HansenP.G.JespersenA.M. (2013), “Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice: A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behavior Change in Public Policy,” European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4 (1), 3–28.
31.
HershfieldHal E.ShuStephenBenartziShlomo (2020), “Temporal Reframing and Participation in a Savings Program: A Field Experiment,” Marketing Science, 39 (6), 1039–51.
32.
HilgertMarianne A.HogarthJeanne M.BeverlySondra G. (2003), “Household Financial Management: The Connection Between Knowledge and Behavior,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, 89 (7), 309–22.
33.
HillRonald Paul (1995), “Researching Sensitive Topics in Marketing: The Special Case of Vulnerable Populations,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (1), 143–48.
HoefflerSteveArielyDan (1999), “Constructing Stable Preferences: A Look into Dimensions of Experience and Their Impact on Preference Stability,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8 (2), 113–39.
36.
HuhYoung E.VosgerauJoachimMorewedgeCarey K. (2014), “Social Defaults: Observed Choices Become Choice Defaults,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 746–60.
37.
HutchinsonJ. WesleyAlbaJoseph W. (1991), “Ignoring Irrelevant Information: Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning.” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (3), 325–45.
38.
JohnsonEric J.BellmanStevenLohseGerald L. (2002), “Defaults, Framing and Privacy: Why Opting In ≠ Opting Out,” Marketing Letters, 13 (1), 5–15.
JohnsonEric J.ShuSuzzane B.DellaertBenedict G.C.WansinkBrian (2012), “Beyond Nudges: Tools of a Choice Architecture,” Marketing Letters, 23 (2), 487–504.
41.
KotlerPhilipHessekielDavidLeeNancy (2012), Good Works! Marketing and Corporate Initiatives that Build a Better World and the Bottom Line. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
42.
LambertonCait PoynorDiehlKristin (2013), “Retail Choice Architecture: The Effects of Benefit-and Attribute-Based Assortment Organization on Consumer Perceptions and Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 393–411.
43.
LangenderferJeffShimpTerence A. (2001), “Consumer Vulnerability to Scams, Swindles, and Fraud: A New Theory of Visceral Influences on Persuasion,” Psychology & Marketing18 (7), 763–83.
44.
LipkusIsaac M.SamsaGregRimerBarbara K. (2001), “General Performance on a Numeracy Scale Among Highly Educated Samples,” Society for Medical Decision Making, 21 (1), 37–44.
45.
LoewensteinGeorgeChaterNick (2017), “Putting Nudges in Perspective,” Behavioural Public Policy, 1 (1), 26–53.
46.
LöfgrenÅsaMartinssonPeterHennlockMagnusSternerThomas (2012), “Are Experienced People Affected by a Pre-Set Default Option—Results from a Field Experiment,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63 (1), 66–72.
47.
LusardiAnnamaria (2008), “Financial Literacy: An Essential Tool for Informed Consumer Choice?” Working Paper No. 14084, NBER.
48.
LusardiAnnamariaMichaudPierre-CarlMitchellOlivia S. (2013), “Optimal Financial Knowledge and Wealth Inequality,” Working Paper No. 18669, NBER.
49.
LynchJohn G.JrArielyDan (2000), “Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution,” Marketing Science, 19 (1), 1–104.
50.
MathurAruneshAcarGunesFriedmanMichael J.LucheriniElenaMayerJonathanChettyMarshiniNarayananArvind (2019), “Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites,” in Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 19 (CSCW), 1–32.
51.
McArdleJohn J. (2015), “Adaptive Testing in Aging Populations,” in The Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging, WhitbourneSusan Krauss, ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1–6.
52.
McClellandGary H. (2000), “Increasing Statistical Power Without Increasing Sample Size,” American Psychologist, 55 (8), 963–64.
53.
MitchellVincent-WayneLennardDavidMcGoldrickPeter (2003), “Consumer Awareness, Understanding and Usage of Unit Pricing,” British Journal of Management, 14 (2), 173.
54.
MrkvaKellenJohnsonEric J.GächterSimonHerrmannAndreas (2020), “Moderating Loss Aversion: Loss Aversion Has Moderators, but Reports of Its Death Are Greatly Exaggerated,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (3), 407–28.
55.
NetemeyerRichard G.WarmathDeeFernandesDanielLynchJohn G.Jr, (2018), “How Am I Doing? Perceived Financial Well-Being, Its Potential Antecedents, and Its Relation to Overall Well-Being,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (1), 68–89.
56.
OrhunA. YeşimPalazzoloMike (2019), “Frugality Is Hard to Afford,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (1), 1–17.
57.
PetersEllenBjalkebringPar (2015), “Multiple Numeric Competencies: When a Number Is Not Just a Number,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108 (5), 802–22.
58.
PetersEllenTompkinsMary KateKnollMelissa A.Z.ArdoinStacy P.Shoots-ReinhardBrittanyMearaAlexa S. (2019), “Despite High Objective Numeracy, Lower Numeric Confidence Relates to Worse Financial and Medical Outcomes,” PNAS, 116 (39), 19386–391.
59.
PetersEllenVästfjällDanielSlovicPaulMertzC.K.MazzoccoKettiDickertStephan (2006), “Numeracy and Decision Making,”Psychological Science, 17 (5), 407–13.
60.
PreacherKristopher J.HayesAndrew F. (2008), “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879–91.
61.
RobertsJessica L. (2018), “Nudge-Proof: Distributive Justice and the Ethics of Nudging,” Michigan Law Review, 116 (6), 1045–66.
SantanaShelleThomasManojMorwitzVicki G. (2020), “The Role of Numbers in the Customer Journey,” Journal of Retailing, 96 (1), 138–54.
64.
ScheibehenneBenjaminGreifenederRainerToddPeter (2010), “Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 409–25.
65.
SchwartzLisa M.WoloshinStevenBlackWilliam C.Gilbert WelchH. (1997), “The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 127 (11), 966–72.
66.
SchwartzMark S. (2005), “Universal Moral Values for Corporate Codes of Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 59 (1/2), 27–44.
67.
SelaAnerBergerJonahLiuWendy (2008), “Variety, Vice, and Virtue: How Assortment Size Influences Option Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (6), 941–51.
68.
SenguptaJaideepJoharGita V. (2001), “Contingent Effects of Anxiety on Message Elaboration and Persuasion,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (2), 139–50.
69.
ShahAnuj K.MullainathanSendhilShafirEldar (2012), “Some Consequences of Having Too Little,” Science, 338 (6107), 682–85.
70.
SharifMarissa A.ShuSuzanne B. (2017), “The Benefits of Emergency Reserves: Greater Preference and Persistence for Goals That Have Slack with a Cost,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (3), 495–509.
71.
SkagerlundKennyLindThereseStrombackCamillaTinghogGustavVästfjällDaniel (2018), “Financial Literacy and the Role of Numeracy: How Individuals’ Attitude and Affinity with Numbers Influence Financial Literacy,” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 74, 18–25.
72.
SomanDilip (2015), The Last Mile: Creating Social and Economic Value from Behavioral Insights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
73.
SomanDilipCowenDanielKannanNiketanaFengBing (2019), “Seeing Sludge: Towards a Dashboard to Help Organizations Recognize Impedance to End-User Decisions and Action,” Research Report Series: Behavioural Economics in Action at Rotman, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3460734.
74.
SomanDilipHossainTanjim (2020), “Successfully Scaled Solutions Need Not Be Homogenous,” Behavioural Public Policy, 5 (1), 1–10.
75.
ThalerRichard H.SunsteinCass R. (2009), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. London: Penguin.
76.
TineMicheleGotliebRebecca (2013), “Gender-, Race-, and Income-Based Stereotype Threat: The Effects of Multiple Stigmatized Aspects of Identity on Math Performance and Working Memory Function,” Social Psychology of Education, 16 (3), 353–76.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
