Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge blog points to an interesting project, sponsored by Volkswagen, called The Fun Theory. The idea beyond The Fun Theory is that beneficial behaviors (such as recycling and exercise) can be encouraged simply by making those behaviors, well, more fun. The video below is one example where the goal was to encourage people to take the stairs instead of the escalator.
The project appears to include a contest-based crowdsourcing element to encourage people to come up with their own inventive way to nudge people towards optimal behaviors through fun.
One question that I have is to what extent are these tactics sticky. There seems to be a “novelty curve” whereby people are initially intrigued and engaged by something new and fun. However, as time goes by what was once new and intriguing becomes old and stale. Will the musical staircase above be able to maintain the same distribution of stair-to-escalator use over time? Or will people revert to convenience over fun? More than likely the distribution will settle into a new equilibrium that is different than before the staircase was altered, but tactics like these will likely need to include a ‘refreshing’ element, whereby the nudging mechanism is altered or alternated in order to prevent the suboptimal behavior from gaining ground or becoming dominant again.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: behavioral economics, crowdsourcing, nudge strategies
[...] reminded me of an older post of mine that discussed the potential for a “novelty curve” with various nudge strategies. It was in [...]
I think your refresh theory is correct; I’d also suggest that, for things like the “world’s deepest trash can” or the game recycling bin, there’s an extra problem: people will simply find things to drop into them. Initially, it will get more people to pick up trash/put things in recycling, but I suspect it will later simply encourage people to find things to drop in. The bigger question is, will it then translate into the same kinds of behaviors in other bins?