The framing of information nudge and students effort: A behavioral economics approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Heshmatullah Asgari 1
Mohaddeseh Pourali Mardan 2
1 Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
2 Master of Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
10.61838/KMAN.IRPHE.30.3.4
Abstract
One of the important fields for achieving the goals of the higher education system is to use new methods to influence students' motivation. Therefore, the main goal of this study is to investigate the impact of the framing of information nudge on students' efforts using the behavioral economics approach, taking into account the theories of social psychology. To investigate this goal, a 2*2*2 factorial model including; two levels of framing effect (positive or negative), two levels of regulatory focus (promotion or prevention) and two levels of test difficulty (difficult or easy) were considered. The independent variables of this study are the negative frame, the promotion focus and the difficulty of the test and the dependent variable is the anticipated effort in a hypothetical exam. The random sampling of this research included 400 students of Ilam and Allameh Tabatabai University. The results of the estimation of the ordinary least squares model showed that the promotion focus frame increases students' effort compared to the prevention focus frame. The negative frame increases student effort relative to the positive frame, but without controlling for regulatory focus, it has no independent effect on student effort. The results of the estimation of interaction variables also showed that the variable of negative frame * promotion focus has a negative and significant coefficient. This result shows that the joint condition of negative frame and promotion focus increases students' effort less than negative frame and prevention focus. In other words, the negative frame increases students' effort both in the promotion focus and in the prevention focus, but the effect of the negative frame is greater in the prevention focus. It also confirms that students experience regulatory fit under the common conditions of prevention focus and negative frame, but regulatory fit is not confirmed under the common conditions of promotion focus and positive frame. In order to strengthen students' motivation and performance, policy makers and planners in higher education can use behavioral economics tools such as framing of information nudge appropriate to subjects such as exam preparation, education plan, choosing a field at higher levels of education, etc.

Keywords

Subjects

Abadie, A., Athey, S., Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2022). When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 138(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac038
Abdi, H., Mirshah Jafari, S. I., Nili, M. R., & Rajaipour, S. (2020). A Study of the Visons and Missions of Iran’s Higher Education in 2025 Plan: An Analysis of Priorities and Opportunities. Strategy for Culture, 13(49), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsfc.2020.109871
Abtahei, S., & Torabian, M. (2010). Evaluating Goal Achievements of University Education Set In National20-Year Development Plan: A Study Through Ahp. Journal of Research in Educational Systems. https://www.sid.ir/paper/137553/en
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alibakhshi, S., & Zare, H. (2010). Effect of teaching self-regulated learning and study skills on the academic achievement of university students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(3), 69-80. https://www.sid.ir/paper/151862/en
Asgari, H., & Pouralimardan, M. (2023). Factor Analysis of Health Biases: a Behavioral Economics Approach. Quarterly Journal of Applied Theories of Economics, 10(2), 119-144. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/qjatoe/0310.html
Asgari, H., Roozitalab, A., & Mansouri, A. (2021). Behavioral Analysis of Willingness to Pay Taxes (A Case Study of Semnan Industrial Town) [Research]. Journal of Tax Research, 29(49), 7-32. https://doi.org/10.52547/taxjournal.29.49.7
Ballis, B., Lusher, L., & Martorell, P. (2022). The effects of exam frames on student effort and performance. Economics of Education Review, 90(no), 102286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2022.102286
Barton, A. L., Tweed, S. R., & Chesley, C. G. (2020). The Currency of Studenthood: Behavioral Economics in the Higher Education Classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 32(3), 476-485. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1299963
Bećirović, D., Zahirović Suhonjić, A., & Stanić, M. (2022). Using loss aversion and framing to nudge students' classroom performance. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 27(2), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.30924/mjcmi.27.2.2
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from" feeling right.". Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(3), 388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
Cesario, J., Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Basic Principles and Remaining Questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
Damgaard, M. T., & Nielsen, H. S. (2018). Nudging in education. Economics of Education Review, 64(no), 313-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.008
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(2), 130-132. https://philpapers.org/rec/FISBAI?all_versions=1
Ghbari, T. A. (2023). How Does the Regulatory Focus Affect Problem-Solving Among Undergraduate Students? The New Educational Review, 71(no), 180-192. https://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_15804_tner_23_71_1_14
Halamish, V., Liberman, N., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (2008). Regulatory focus effects on discounting over uncertainty for losses vs. gains. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(5), 654-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.002
Hendijani, R., & Arab, M. (2021). The Effect of regulatory fit on performance: A lab experiment. Research in cognitive and behavioral sciences, 10(2), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.22108/cbs.2021.127865.1512
Hendijani, R., & Rezaee, M. (2022). The Effect of A Fit Between Regulatory Focus and Advertisement Message on Consumer’s Perception of Waiting Time: A Lab Experiment. Consumer Behavior Studies Journal, 9(3), 147-176. https://doi.org/10.34785/j018.2022.003
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/52/12/1280/
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making (pp. 99-127). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0006
Keller, T., & Szakál, P. (2023). The Framing of Information Nudge Affects Students' Anticipated Effort: A Large-Scale, Randomized Survey Experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 104, 102012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102012
LaCroix, K. L., Nakkawita, E., Fisher, S. R., Higgins, E. T., & Brown, D. A. (2023). Promotion vs. Prevention Regulatory Focus in Physical Therapy Students. Editorial Policies, no(no), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2429391/v1
Lagarde, M., & Blaauw, D. (2021). Effects of incentive framing on performance and effort: evidence from a medically framed experiment. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 7(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-021-00100-0
Latimer, A. E., Rivers, S. E., Rench, T. A., Katulak, N. A., Hicks, A., Hodorowski, J. K., Higgins, E. T., & Salovey, P. (2008). A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 826-832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.013
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(3), 500. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1987-22913-001
Miwa, S., Nagamine, M., Tang, L., Xiao, Y., & Toyama, M. (2023). Can Regulatory Fit Improve Elementary School Students’ Performance? Effects of Different Types of Regulatory Fit. Psychological Reports, 126(3), 1461-1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211061073
Moslehi, L., & Alidoust Ghahfarrokhi, E. (2022). Identifying and Prioritizing Factors Affecting the Quality of E-learning of Physical Education Students During the Outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 28(4), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.22034/irphe.2022.705236
Nukpe, P. (2012). Motivation: theory and use in Higher Education. Investigations in university teaching and learning, 8(no), 11-17. https://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/id/eprint/314
Panahi, M., & Dehghan Shabani, Z. (2023). Investigating the Effect of Framing to Change Attitudes and Behaviors Towards Climate Chang. Journal of environmental science and technology, 24(11), 27-39. https://www.sid.ir/paper/1064111/en
Roshanaei, M. (2009). Investigating the relationship between motivation and self-regulation of basic science students. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 3(7), 23-42. https://www.jiera.ir/article_83283_5ac4d96be4fb9f4310dabf41c8be4c68.pdf
Smith, J. L., Wagaman, J., & Handley, I. M. (2009). Keeping it dull or making it fun: Task variation as a function of promotion versus prevention focus. Motivation and Emotion, 33(2), 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9118-9
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health. Wealth, and Happiness, 6(no), 14-38. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fa&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Thaler%2C+R.+H.%2C+%26+Sunstein%2C+C.+R.+%282008%29.+Nudge%3A+Improving+decisions+about+health%2C+wealth%2C+and+happiness.+Yale+University+Press.+Translated+by+Mehri+Modabadi.+Tehran.+Hormazd+Publications&btnG=#d=gs_cit&t=1721029460306&u=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3A0RKBoSiBjfwJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%26output%3Dcite%26scirp%3D0%26hl%3Dfa
Tifferet, S. (2020). The effect of grade framing on task engagement, task completion, and anticipated regret. Instructional Science, 48(4), 475-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09516-3
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Zhang, J. (2016). Can MOOCs be interesting to students? An experimental investigation from regulatory focus perspective. Computers & Education, 95(no), 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.003
 

  • Receive Date 23 December 2023
  • Revise Date 22 April 2024
  • Accept Date 26 June 2024
  • Publish Date 22 September 2024