What We Can Learn from Five Naturalistic Field Experiments That Failed to Shift Commuter Behaviour

A.S.  Kristal; A.V.  Whillans

Article | Nature Human Behaviour

What We Can Learn from Five Naturalistic Field Experiments That Failed to Shift Commuter Behaviour

by A.S. Kristal and A.V. Whillans

Abstract

Across five field experiments with employees of a large organization (n = 68,915), we examined whether standard behavioural interventions (“nudges”) successfully reduced single-occupancy vehicle commutes. In Studies 1 and 2, we sent letters and emails with nudges designed to increase carpooling. These interventions failed to increase carpool sign up or usage. In Studies 3a and 4, we examined the efficacy of other well-established behavioural interventions: non-cash incentives and personalized travel plans. Again, we found no positive effect of these interventions. Across studies, effect sizes ranged from Cohen’s d = -0.01 to d =0.05. Equivalence testing, using study-specific smallest effect sizes of interest, revealed that the treatment effects observed in four out of five of our experiments were statistically equivalent to zero (P < 0.04). The failure of these well-powered experiments designed to nudge commuting behaviour highlights both the difficulty of changing commuter behaviour and the importance of publishing null results to build cumulative knowledge about how to encourage sustainable travel.

Keywords: commuting; Field Experiments; nudges; Behavior; Change;

Format: Print

Citation:

Kristal, A.S., and A.V. Whillans. "What We Can Learn from Five Naturalistic Field Experiments That Failed to Shift Commuter Behaviour." Nature Human Behaviour 4, no. 2 (February 2020): 169–176.

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2020

Income Volatility Increases Financial Impatience

Colin West, A.V. Whillans and Sanford DeVoe

Using a multi-method approach, we investigate whether income volatility is associated with financial impatience—the preference to receive a small sum of money immediately over a larger sum of money later. We find that experiencing more income volatility—including a higher frequency of either income dips or spikes – is associated with greater financial impatience. Using longitudinal data on biannual income, Study 1 demonstrates that this effect operates above and beyond individual differences in income risk preferences and wealth. Study 2 conceptually replicates these correlational findings with recent month-to-month income volatility and finds that this effect occurs primarily among people who report having little control over their finances. Using a longitudinal field experimental with low-income working women, Study 3 tests for a causal effect of an externally-induced spike in monthly income on changes in financial impatience. In a pre-post test experimental design, participants randomly assigned to receive cash transfers amounting to a median monthly income spike of 29% exhibit significantly greater financial impatience compared to a control condition in which participants receive no cash transfers. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for employers and policymakers.

Keywords: income volatility; compensation; impatience; time preferences; Income; Personal Finance; Behavior; Demographics; Policy;

Citation:

West, Colin, A.V. Whillans, and Sanford DeVoe. "Income Volatility Increases Financial Impatience." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 21-053, October 2020. View Details

Cite View Details Read Now

It’s true: we have more time for leisure than we did fifty years ago. But leisure has never been less relaxing, mostly because of the disintermediating effects of our screens. Technology saves us time, but it also takes it away. This is known as the autonomy paradox. We adopt mobile technologies to gain autonomy over when and how long we work, yet, ironically, we end up working all the time. Long blocks of free time we used to enjoy are now interrupted constantly by our smart watches, phones, tablets, and laptops. This situation taxes us cognitively, and fragments our leisure time in a way that makes it hard to use this time for something that will relieve stress or make us happy. Researchers call this phenomenon time confetti, which amounts to little bits of seconds and minutes lost to unproductive multitasking. Each bit alone seems not very bad. Collectively, though, all that confetti adds up to something more pernicious than you might expect.

Autonomous products such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, and playmates for our pets are meant to improve people’s lives—but do they actually make consumers happier? The authors share the results of recent research which found that owning autonomous products does in fact increase happiness, but with two important caveats: first, they found that consumers felt less comfortable using products with highly human-like features such as voices or names, and actually reported feeling guilty about relegating their dirty work to these products. Second, they found that if using a robotic product was associated with laziness, that could also decrease consumer happiness. Based on these findings, the authors offer several practical suggestions for how manufacturers can most effectively develop and market these time-saving products to the modern consumer.

Faculty & Research

What We Can Learn from Five Naturalistic Field Experiments That Failed to Shift Commuter Behaviour

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors