Impact of Nudge and Sludge in Policy Interventions: A Survey of Behavioral Influences under the Biden Administration

Examined conservatives’ responses to interventions explicitly attributed to the Biden administration. Unlike Experiment 1, which inferred value incongruence from topic selection, Experiment 2 made ideological conflict explicit by associating all interventions—focused on neutral topics like reducing plastic usage and minimizing electricity consumption—with the Biden administration. This design aimed to provoke reactance among decisive conservatives. Highly decisive conservatives responded more favorably to sludges when interventions were explicitly associated with the Biden administration, further emphasizing the potential of sludges to engage individuals with strong ideological convictions in polarized settings. Here also, nudges did not show a significant effect, reinforcing the idea that their influence may be constrained in value-incongruent settings.

本研究考察了保守派对明确归因于拜登政府的各项干预措施的反应。与实验1通过议题选择推断价值不一致性不同，实验2将所有聚焦于减少塑料使用、降低电力消耗这类中性议题的干预措施均与拜登政府相关联，从而使意识形态冲突显性化。该实验设计旨在引发坚定保守派的心理抗拒（reactance）。当干预措施明确与拜登政府挂钩时，高决断型保守派对粘性干预措施（sludges）的响应更为积极，这进一步凸显了粘性干预措施在极化环境中对拥有强烈意识形态信念个体的动员潜力。与此同时，助推（nudges）并未展现出显著效果，这进一步佐证了助推的影响力在价值不一致的环境中可能受到限制这一观点。