Over 600 published findings supportive of the ego-depletion effect. But does it replicate? (getting the same result with new data) The short answer is NO. Several meta-analyses have found inconsistent findings. The first registered replication report (RRR) found identified instances of possible biases. The findings revealed that the size of the Ego-depletion effect was small - with 95% confidence (actually 95.05, actually giving the ego-depletion effect no significant effect) Another take-away: The idea that Ego-Depletion - the idea that self-control is a limited resource that can be depleted by overuse. Researchers reported bias in the reports when examining the question on whether glucose can reverse ego-depletion. Studies from a massive replication effort involving over 2.000 participants showed that short bouts of effortful control had no noticeable effect on inhibitory (hemmende) control. Only 3 of 24 labs showed significance for ego-depletion and even they were found to have a significant result in the wrong direction. The findings made many top psychologists consider dworning themself in booze and leaving the profession. However: The defending part meant that the RRR failed to test the independent variable and therefore failed to test the hypothesis. They indicated that the RRR was plagued with manipulation failure and therefore did not test Ego-Depletion. They have studied the phenomenon for over 2 decades and found effects over and over again. Independent and dependent variables. Why is it important with replication studies in Economic Psychology? Replication studies are important in psychology because they help to confirm or refute the findings of previous research. If a finding cannot be replicated, it calls into question the validity of the original study and suggests that the finding may have been the result of chance or some other factor. This is particularly important in economic psychology because the findings of research in this field can have significant implications for policy and decision making. If the finding cannot be replicated, it suggests that the original study may have been flawed or that the policy may not be as effective as originally thought. Ego-Depletion remains inconclusive. More research is needed. We cannot draw conclusions on a single study, we need replications. What is nudging? : A nudge is a small feature in the environment that attracts our attention and influences behavior. Nudging is effective on humans, but not econs, because econs are already doing the right thing. nudging is meant to influence our choices in a way that makes us better off. Nudging = Libertarian Paternalism (Nudging is just another word for the same thing). Paternalism means; trying to help people achieve their goals. Libertarian mean; Trying to help in a way without restricting any choices. Example: The leading example is automatic enrollment in 401(k) savings plans (Madrian and Shea 2001). Behavioral economists like such interventions because they are scalable, inexpensive, highly successful in changing behavior, and also freedom-preserving. What is Nudging? Nudge theory suggests that there probably are some ways of encouraging positive decisions instead of restricting unwanted behavior with penalties, e.g., sanctions, when aiming to alter people's decision-making and behavior. Influencing preferences, choices, and decisions. Example pros nudging: Research has shown nudges to be more effective compared to incentives and or penalties, at least in some cases (Thaler 2015). In Thaler´s book "Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics", the most effective method of getting late taxpayers to pay their tax debt was to include a text with something like "90 percent of the population pay their tax within time”. By including that sentence the payments made within 23 days increased by more than five percentage points. Nudging gives apparent effects, and it is pretty cost-effective to add a sentence in a letter rather than use the money on this. This is a perfect example of how one can use nudges effectively. In this example, nudging proved more efficient than using monetary incentives, such as fees on late payments. What are monetary incentives? Monetary incentives, on the other hand, are incentives through money or goods that incentivizes a specific behavior. Example pros Monetary incentives: A Harvard study in 2015 conducted a systematic review to evaluate the impact of incentive reward programs on vaccination. The study showed that vaccination rates increased with a median of 8% when the individuals had an incentive (Efarni, 2015). The incentives included government payments, lottery prizes, gift cards, and food vouchers (Efarni, 2015). 8% is a significant increase, and thereby one can conclude that monetary incentives have effective positive results. Thus, monetary incentives can be effectively used to alter behavior for the better, in this case, with increased vaccination. Discussion: Even though it is clear that nudging and monetary incentives both work to change behavior, both methods have their flaws. Many questions aim at nudging e.g including the long-term effects, as few studies measure the long-term impact of nudging. Nudging for short-term results can be beneficial in the present. However, the long-term effects are crucial as we want to alter behavior in the long term positively. Currently, a maximum of 21 percent of the research done on nudging measures long-term effects. Hence, questions arise, e.g., whether or not one is changing habits and whether one has to use short-term nudges continuously. Cons/backfire of nudging: Ripple effect: If every person on earth were to save for a pension with 5%, then the global consumption will decrease and lead to negative outcomes such as lower GDP, increasing unemployment, etc. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Another example: Nudging aimed to decrease ones energy consumption by writing on the bill a smiley to those under average spending, while writing “ROOM TO IMPROOVE” on those with higher consumption. Interesting findings showed that the climate-friendly democrats responded with lowering – while the republicans who have less faith in the climate crisis responded by doing the opposite in pure f. Hence it can lead to the opposite. In general: Why nudging might not work Some nudges produce confusion on the part of the target audience. Some nudges have only short-term effects. Some nudges produce “reactance” (though this appears to be rare) Some nudges are based on an inaccurate (though initially plausible) understanding on the part of choice architects of what kinds of choice architecture will move people in particular contexts. Some nudges produce compensating behavior, resulting in no net effect. Cons/backfire of monetary incentives: Sometimes incentives do not work. A study concluded that monetary incentives did not affect individuals with less requisite skills, for instance, to increase work performance (boomer & Sprinkle 2002). If people are assigned with a task they are not skilled to solve, they won't try harder just because of the incentives. The paper concluded that there are many gaps in monetary incentive research that need to be filled before suggesting whether monetary incentives should be used. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that monetary incentives must be used carefully. Incentives show to have a moderate effect when incentives were specified and well-targeted. They worked in the short and medium term but seem not to work to change long-term behavior. One must be careful when conducting such incentives to prevent bad changes to social norms, habits, etc. Also how they are designed to work with motivations. When a kindergarten started to charge fees when parents come late for pick up, the parents responded by coming even later because now they could just pay and therefore get rid of their ethical responsibility. Paying for donating blood. Women were pissed off. They wanted to do something good without being paid. Another one: Children were given a small amount for doing charity, and it lowered their wish to continue. To conclude, both nudging and monetary incentives have their cons and pros. However, if used with care, both methods seem to help people do good things.
