The formality effect.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Nov 2023
23 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
29
01
2023
accepted:
13
10
2023
medline:
24
11
2023
pubmed:
24
11
2023
entrez:
23
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This paper documents the existence of a 'formality effect' in government communications. Across three online studies and three field experiments in different policy contexts (total N = 67,632), we show that, contrary to researcher and practitioner predictions, formal government communications are more effective at influencing resident behaviour than informal government communications. In exploring mechanisms, we show that formality operates as a heuristic for credibility and importance. Recipients view the source of a formal letter as more competent and trustworthy, and view the request itself as more important to take action on, despite no evidence of change in comprehension or in perceived ease of taking action. These findings have immediate implications for government communicators and open the door for a renewed focus on how the design and presentation of information impacts behaviour.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37996499
doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01761-z
pii: 10.1038/s41562-023-01761-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
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).
doi: 10.1257/aer.20121493
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).
Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin, 2009).
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).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3744
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).
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).
doi: 10.1111/puar.12609
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
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).
doi: 10.1177/0956797609359326
pubmed: 20424044
Dai, H. et al. Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature 597, 404–409 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03843-2
pubmed: 34340242
pmcid: 8443442
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).
doi: 10.1017/S0022381608090117
Herd, P. & Moynihan, D. P. Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means (Russell Sage Foundation, 2019).
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).
doi: 10.3102/0013189X211000749
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).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1103170108
pubmed: 21670283
pmcid: 3127912
Finkelstein, A. & Notowidigdo, M. J. Take-up and targeting: experimental evidence from SNAP. Q. J. Econ. 134, 1505–1556 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/qje/qjz013
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
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).
doi: 10.1257/pol.20200603
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
Poulin, R. The Language of Graphic Design Revised and Updated: An Illustrated Handbook for Understanding Fundamental Design Principles (Rockport, 2018).
Resnick, E. Design for Communication: Conceptual Graphic Design Basics (John Wiley & Sons, 2003).
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).
doi: 10.1177/1075547014562914
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).
Wedel, M. & Pieters, R. A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Rev. Mark. Res. 4, 123–147 (2008).
doi: 10.1108/S1548-6435(2008)0000004009
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).
doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2017.10.001
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).
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.012
Kelleher, T. Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. J. Commun. 59, 172–188 (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x
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).
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.050
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).
doi: 10.1207/S15327663JCP1202_03
Luangrath, A. W., Peck, J. & Barger, V. A. Textual paralanguage and its implications for marketing communications. J. Consum. Psychol. 27, 98–107 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2016.05.002
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
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).
doi: 10.2190/TW.40.4.e
Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion revised edn (Harper Business, 2006).
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
Pornpitakpan, C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 243–281 (2004).
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
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).
doi: 10.1037/h0045513
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).
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02078.x
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).
doi: 10.1080/00913367.2015.1018461
Mizerski, R. W., Golden, L. L. & Kernan, J. B. The attribution process in consumer decision making. J. Consum. Res. 6, 123–140 (1979).
doi: 10.1086/208756
Hovland, C. I. & Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin. Q. 15, 635–650 (1951).
doi: 10.1086/266350
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
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/
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
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).
doi: 10.1080/08824096.2020.1767047
Fishbane, A., Ouss, A. & Shah, A. K. Behavioral nudges reduce failure to appear for court. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6591 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.004
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).
doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12188
West, D. M. Equity and accessibility in e-government: a policy perspective. J. E-Gov. https://doi.org/10.1300/J399v01n02_03 (2008).
doi: 10.1300/J399v01n02_03
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
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).
doi: 10.1111/puar.13115
Plain Writing Act, 5 U.S.C. § 105 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274 (2010).
DellaVigna, S. & Linos, E. RCTs to scale: comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica 90, 81–116 (2022).
doi: 10.3982/ECTA18709
Weinstein, E. A. & Deutschberger, P. Some dimensions of altercasting. Sociometry 26, 454–466 (1963).
doi: 10.2307/2786148
Sheeran, P. & Webb, T. L. The intention–behavior gap. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 10, 503–518 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12265
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Version 15 (StataCorp LLC, 2017).