Mudik is a unique exodus in Indonesia where people travel to hometown during Eid festive season. It posed a challenge for the government to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Several reports have identified that people still stick with their plan to Mudik amidst the latest Mudik ban. Thus, a scientific nudge campaign is pivotal to influence Mudik behaviour. The present study designed and tested five visual campaigns to identify key elements which can reduce Mudik intention. A pre-post field experiment used six between-subject groups designed on Qualtrics collected 767 responses measuring intention to Mudik. We asked participants respective Mudik ban institution in anticipating the latest nation-wide Mudik ban. Mother visual and a lethal virus for elderly reminder are of which sufficient reducing Mudik intention. The treatment effect holds in certain people conditions. The study yielded an initially worked nudge campaign to support government Mudik ban policy.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
2.
AltmannS.,GrunewaldA., &RadbruchJ. (2018). Cognitive foundations of passive choices[Mimeo].
3.
ArribathiA. H., & AiniQ. (2018). MudikDalam Perspektif Budaya Dan Agama (Kajian Realistis Perilaku Sumber Daya Manusia) [Mudik from the lens of cultural and religion perspectives (study of human resource)]. Cyberpreneurship Innovative and Creative Exact and Social Science, 4(1), 45–52.
4.
BenartziS., & ThalerR. (2007). Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 81–104.
5.
BeshearsJ.,ChoiJ. J.,LaibsonD., &MadrianB. C. (2009). The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes: Evidence from the United States. In Social security policy in a changing environment (pp. 167–195). University of Chicago Press.
6.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.
7.
GhaliyaG. (2020 April 21). ‘It’s too late’: Lawmakers criticize timing of Jokowi’s ‘Mudik’ ban. The Jakarta Post.
8.
FieldA., MilesJ., & FieldZ. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. SAGE Publications.
9.
HalpernD. (2015). Inside the nudge unit.WH Allen.
10.
HammillG. (2017). Mixing and managing four generations of employees. FDU Magazine Online, Winter/Spring 2005.
11.
HohleS. M. (2014). Nudging sustainable food choices. The role of defaults, frames, habits and nature relatedness (Master’s thesis). University of Oslo.
12.
IrianyI. S.,PascianaR., &RamdhaniA. (2019). Eid homecoming ‘Mudik’ tradition as a conventional pattern in the global era.
Journal of Advanced Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(3).
13.
IriyantoA. M. (2012). Mudik dan keretakan budaya. Humanika, 15(9).
14.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Penguin.
15.
KahnemanD., &TverskyA. (2013). Choices, values, and frames. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 269–278).
16.
KappesA., NussbergerA. M., FaberN. S., KahaneG., SavulescuJ., & CrockettM. J. (2018). Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(8), 573–580.
17.
MulyantoR. (2020 April 21). Indonesia bans end of Ramadan exodus amid coronavirus pandemic. Aljazeera.
18.
PosnerM. I., SnyderC. R., & SolsoR. (2004). Attention and cognitive control. Cognitive Psychology: Key Readings, 205.
19.
PrasetyoK., & WarsonoM. (2017 October). Specific migration in Indonesia Mudik and Balik Lebaran. In Social sciences, humanities and economics conference (SoSHEC 2017). Atlantis Press.
20.
RenaudK., & ZimmermannV. (2019). Nudging folks towards stronger password choices: Providing certainty is the key. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 228–258.
21.
SimonH. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161–176.
22.
SoebyaktoB. B. (2011). Mudik Lebaran: studi kualitatif. [Mudik during Ied day: A qualitative study] Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan [Journal of Developmental Economy], 9(2), 62–67.
23.
Suherdjoko. (2020 March 26). COVID-19: ‘Mudik’ begins in Java while government mulls over travel ban. The Jakarta Post.
24.
SunsteinC. R. (2016). People prefer system 2 nudges (kind of). Duke LJ, 66, 121.
25.
SunsteinC. R. (2017). Default rules are better than active choosing (often). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 600–606.
26.
Tamis-LeMondaC. S., WayN., HughesD., YoshikawaH., KalmanR. K., & NiwaE. Y. (2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183–209.
27.
ThalerR. H., & SunsteinC. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
28.
ThorndikeA. N., RiisJ., SonnenbergL. M., & LevyD. E. (2014). Traffic-light labels and choice architecture: Promoting healthy food choices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46(2), 143–149.
29.
TriandisH. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506.
30.
Van BavelJ.J., BaickerK., BoggioP., CapraroV., CichockaA., CikaraM., CrockettM.J., CrumA. J., DouglasK. M., DruckmanJ. N., DruryJ. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471.
31.
YuliantoV. I. (2011). Is the past another country? A case study of rural-urban affinity on Mudik Lebaran in Middle Java. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities, 4, 49–66.
32.
WeitenW. (2013). Psychology: Themes and variations. Wadsworth.
