the-formality-effect-–-nature-human-behaviour

The Formality Effect – Nature Human Behaviour

References

  1. Bhargava, S. & Manoli, D. Psychological frictions and the incomplete take-up of social benefits: evidence from an IRS field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 3489–3529 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Milkman, K. L. et al. A megastudy of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2101165118 (2021).

  3. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin, 2009).

  4. Robitaille, N., House, J. & Mazar, N. Effectiveness of planning prompts on organizations’ likelihood to file their overdue taxes: a multi-wave field experiment. Manage. Sci. 67, 4327–4340 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhanot, S. & Hopkins, D. J. Partisan polarization and resistance to elite messages: results from a survey experiment on social distancing. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593450 (2020).

  6. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L. & Tummers, L. Behavioral public administration: combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Adm. Rev. 77, 45–56 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hall, C. C. & Jurcevic, I. Behavioral Insights for Public Policy: Contextualizing Our Science Elements in Applied Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 2022); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028806

  8. Nickerson, D. W. & Rogers, T. Do you have a voting plan? Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychol. Sci. 21, 194–199 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dai, H. et al. Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature 597, 404–409 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gerber, A. S. & Rogers, T. Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: everybody’s voting and so should you. J. Polit. 71, 178–191 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Herd, P. & Moynihan, D. P. Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means (Russell Sage Foundation, 2019).

  12. Lasky-Fink, J., Robinson, C., Chang, H. & Rogers, T. Using behavioral insights to improve school administrative communications: the case of truancy notifications. Educ. Res. 50, 442–450 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B. C. Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10415–10420 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Finkelstein, A. & Notowidigdo, M. J. Take-up and targeting: experimental evidence from SNAP. Q. J. Econ. 134, 1505–1556 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D. & Vlaev, I. The Making of Homo Honoratus: From Omission to Commission Working Paper No. 21210 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015); 10.3386/w21210

  16. Linos, E., Prohofsky, A., Ramesh, A., Rothstein, J. & Unrath, M. Can nudges increase take-up of the EITC? Evidence from multiple field experiments. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 14, 432–452 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Increasing School Attendance: Seattle—Proactive Communications Do Not Change Attendance Outcomes (Office of Evaluation Sciences, 2019); https://oes.gsa.gov/assets/abstracts/1809-abstract-school-attendance-seattle.pdf

  18. Poulin, R. The Language of Graphic Design Revised and Updated: An Illustrated Handbook for Understanding Fundamental Design Principles (Rockport, 2018).

  19. Resnick, E. Design for Communication: Conceptual Graphic Design Basics (John Wiley & Sons, 2003).

  20. Rodríguez Estrada, F. C. & Davis, L. S. Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Sci. Commun. 37, 140–148 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilchey, M. D., Osborne, M. & Soman, D. Does the visual salience of credit card features affect choice? Behav. Public Policy https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.14 (2021).

  22. Wedel, M. & Pieters, R. A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Rev. Mark. Res. 4, 123–147 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barcelos, R. H., Dantas, D. C. & Senecal, S. Watch your tone: how a brand’s tone of voice on social media influences consumer responses. J. Interact. Mark. 41, 60–80 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gretry, A., Horváth, C., Belei, N. & van Riel, A. C. R. ‘Don’t pretend to be my friend!’ When an informal brand communication style backfires on social media. J. Bus. Res. 74, 77–89 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kelleher, T. Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. J. Commun. 59, 172–188 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liebrecht, C., Tsaousi, C. & van Hooijdonk, C. Linguistic elements of conversational human voice in online brand communication: manipulations and perceptions. J. Bus. Res. 132, 124–135 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Childers, T. L. & Jass, J. All dressed up with something to say: effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. J. Consum. Psychol. 12, 93–106 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Luangrath, A. W., Peck, J. & Barger, V. A. Textual paralanguage and its implications for marketing communications. J. Consum. Psychol. 27, 98–107 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Evans, M. B., McBride, A. A., Queen, M., Thayer, A. & Spyridakis, J. H. The effect of style and typography on perceptions of document tone. In Proc. International Professional Communication Conference, 2004 300–303 (IEEE, 2004); https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375314

  30. Thayer, A., Evans, M. B., McBride, A. A., Queen, M. & Spyridakis, J. H. I, pronoun: a study of formality in online content. J. Tech. Writ. Commun. 40, 447–458 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion revised edn (Harper Business, 2006).

  32. McGuire, W. J. in Behavioral and Management Sciences in Marketing (eds Davis, H. L. & Silk, A. J.) 156–180 (Wiley, 1978); https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1979.10717982

  33. Pornpitakpan, C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 243–281 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Aronson, E., Turner, J. A. & Carlsmith, J. M. Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67, 31–36 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C. & Courneya, K. S. The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: an integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33, 179–196 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kareklas, I., Muehling, D. D. & Weber, T. J. Reexamining health messages in the digital age: a fresh look at source credibility effects. J. Advert. 44, 88–104 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mizerski, R. W., Golden, L. L. & Kernan, J. B. The attribution process in consumer decision making. J. Consum. Res. 6, 123–140 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hovland, C. I. & Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin. Q. 15, 635–650 (1951).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kumagai, S. & Iorio, F. Building Trust in Government through Citizen Engagement (World Bank, 2020); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/33346/Building-Trust-in-Government-through-Citizen-Engagement.pdf

  40. Americans’ Views of Government: Decades of Distrust, Enduring Support for Its Role (Pew Research Center, 2022); https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/americans-views-of-government-decades-of-distrust-enduring-support-for-its-role/

  41. Many Believe Misinformation Is Increasing Extreme Political Views and Behaviors (AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 2022); https://apnorc.org/projects/many-believe-misinformation-is-increasing-extreme-political-views-and-behaviors

  42. Bullock, O. M. & Hubner, A. Y. Candidates’ use of informal communication on social media reduces credibility and support: examining the consequences of expectancy violations. Commun. Res. Rep. 37, 87–98 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fishbane, A., Ouss, A. & Shah, A. K. Behavioral nudges reduce failure to appear for court. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6591 (2020).

  44. Reiff, J. S., Dai, H., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L. & Benartzi, S. Save more today or tomorrow: the role of urgency in pre-commitment design. J. Mark. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437231153396 (2023).

  45. Roux, C., Goldsmith, K. & Bonezzi, A. On the psychology of scarcity: when reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. J. Consum. Res. 42, 615–631 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kim, S., Zhang, X. A. & Zhang, B. W. Self-mocking crisis strategy on social media: focusing on Alibaba chairman Jack Ma in China. Public Relat. Rev. 42, 903–912 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Xiao, Y., Cauberghe, V. & Hudders, L. Humour as a double-edged sword in response to crises versus rumours: the effectiveness of humorously framed crisis response messages on social media. J. Contingencies Crisis Manage. 26, 247–260 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. West, D. M. Equity and accessibility in e-government: a policy perspective. J. E-Gov. https://doi.org/10.1300/J399v01n02_03 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Castelo, N. et al. Moving Citizens Online: Using Salience and Message Framing to Motivate Behavior Change (Behavioral Science and Policy Association, 2015); https://behavioralpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BSP_vol1is2_-Castelo.pdf

  50. Linos, E. & Riesch, N. Thick red tape and the thin blue line: a field study on reducing administrative burden in police recruitment. Public Adm. Rev. 80, 92–103 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Plain Writing Act, 5 U.S.C. § 105 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274 (2010).

  52. DellaVigna, S. & Linos, E. RCTs to scale: comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica 90, 81–116 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Weinstein, E. A. & Deutschberger, P. Some dimensions of altercasting. Sociometry 26, 454–466 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sheeran, P. & Webb, T. L. The intention–behavior gap. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 10, 503–518 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Version 15 (StataCorp LLC, 2017).

Download references

About the author: Admin Verified Member Verified Professional Verified Black Owned
We created this site to help Black-Owned Businesses in the USA.

Get involved!

Get Connected!
Join our Community and Expand your audience and get to know New Black-Owned-Business!

Comments

No comments yet