liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Västfjäll, Daniel
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 33) Show all publications
Hagman, W., Erlandsson, A., Dickert, S., Tinghög, G. & Västfjäll, D. (2019). The effect of paternalistic alternatives on attitudes toward default nudges. Behavioural Public Policy
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The effect of paternalistic alternatives on attitudes toward default nudges
Show others...
2019 (English)In: Behavioural Public Policy, ISSN 2398-0648Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Nudges are increasingly being proposed and used as a policy tool around the world. The success of nudges depends on public acceptance. However, several questions about what makes a nudge acceptable remain unanswered. In this paper, we examine whether policy alternatives to nudges influence the public's acceptance of these nudges: Do attitudes change when the nudge is presented alongside either a more paternalistic policy alternative (legislation) or a less paternalistic alternative (no behavioral intervention)? In two separate samples drawn from the Swedish general public, we find a very small effect of alternatives on the acceptability of various default nudges overall. Surprisingly, we find that when the alternative to the nudge is legislation, acceptance decreases and perceived intrusiveness increases (relative to conditions where the alternative is no regulation). An implication of this finding is that acceptance of nudges may not always automatically increase when nudges are explicitly compared to more paternalistic alternatives.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge University Press, 2019
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161462 (URN)10.1017/bpp.2019.17 (DOI)
Available from: 2019-11-01 Created: 2019-11-01 Last updated: 2019-12-12Bibliographically approved
Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A. & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(4), 444-474
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals
2018 (English)In: Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, ISSN 1049-5142, E-ISSN 1540-6997, Vol. 30, no 4, p. 444-474Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article tries to clarify whether negative charity appeals (i.e., advertisements emphasizing the bad consequences of not helping) or positive charity appeals (i.e., advertisements emphasizing the good consequences of helping) are more effective. Previous literature does not provide a single answer to this question and we suggest that one contributing reason for this is that different studies have operationalized appeal effectiveness in different ways (e.g., actual behavior, self-rated helping intentions, or expressed attitudes about the ad or the organization). Results from four separate studies suggest that positive appeals are more effective in inducing favorable attitudes toward the ad and toward the organization but that negative appeals are more effective (in studies 1A and 1B) or at least equally effective (in studies 1C and 1D) in eliciting actual donations. Also, although people’s attitude toward the appeal (i.e., liking) was a good predictor for the expected effectiveness in increasing donation behavior (in Study 2), it was a poor predictor of actual donation behavior in all four main studies. These results cast doubt on marketing theories suggesting that attitudes toward an advertisement and toward the brand always lead to higher purchase behavior.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2018
Keywords
Attitudes toward charity advertisements, donation behavior, negative/sad appeals, nonprofit marketing, positive/happy appeals
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-161460 (URN)10.1080/10495142.2018.1452828 (DOI)000452047400005 ()2-s2.0-85044780884 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2019-11-01 Created: 2019-11-01 Last updated: 2019-11-07Bibliographically approved
Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., Tinghög, G. & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 13(7), Article ID e0201474.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior
2018 (English)In: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 13, no 7, article id e0201474Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants’ bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
San Francisco, United States: Public Library of Science, 2018
National Category
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology) Economics and Business
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-149915 (URN)10.1371/journal.pone.0201474 (DOI)000440300500039 ()30063739 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85050828331 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2017-01827Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, P14-0978:1Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, 2014.0187
Available from: 2018-08-04 Created: 2018-08-04 Last updated: 2018-08-24Bibliographically approved
Lind, T., Erlandsson, A., Västfjäll, D. & Tinghög, G. (2018). Motivated reasoning when assessing the effects of refugee intake. Behavioural Public Policy
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Motivated reasoning when assessing the effects of refugee intake
2018 (English)In: Behavioural Public Policy, ISSN 2398-063XArticle in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Do differences in worldview ideology hinder people from objectively interpreting the effect of immigration? In an experiment with Swedish adults (n = 1015), we investigate whether people display motivated reasoning when interpreting numerical information about the effects of refugee intake on crime rate. Our results show clear evidence of motivated reasoning along the lines of worldview ideology (i.e., whether people identify themselves primarily as nationally oriented or globally oriented). In scenarios where refugee intake was associated with higher crime rate, nationally oriented people were 18 percentage points more likely to make the correct assessment compared to globally oriented people. Likewise, in scenarios where refugee intake was associated with lower crime rate, nationally oriented people were 20 percentage points less likely to make the correct assessment compared to globally oriented people. Individuals with higher numeric ability were less likely to engage in motivated reasoning, suggesting that motivated reasoning more commonly is driven by feelings and emotional cues rather than deliberate analytical processes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge University Press, 2018
Keywords
Motivated reasoning; partisan bias; politics; immigration; experiment
National Category
Economics Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology) Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-155088 (URN)10.1017/bpp.2018.41 (DOI)
Available from: 2019-03-15 Created: 2019-03-15 Last updated: 2019-08-12Bibliographically approved
ODonnell, M., Nelson, L. D., Ackermann, E., Aczel, B., Akhtar, A., Aldrovandi, S., . . . Zrubka, M. (2018). Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 268-294
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Perspectives on Psychological Science, ISSN 1745-6916, E-ISSN 1745-6924, Vol. 13, no 2, p. 268-294Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (professor) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (soccer hooligans). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the professor category and those primed with the hooligan category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2018
Keywords
priming; replication; intelligence
National Category
Applied Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-147817 (URN)10.1177/1745691618755704 (DOI)000429909000026 ()29463182 (PubMedID)
Note

Funding Agencies|Association for Psychological Science; Arnold Foundation

Available from: 2018-05-14 Created: 2018-05-14 Last updated: 2019-02-27
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E. H., Jim, A., Hoogesteyn, K., Orthey, R., McCarthy, R. J., . . . Yıldız, E. (2018). Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 299-317
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, Vol. 1, no 3, p. 299-317Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen’s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.’s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04).

National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-154892 (URN)10.1177/2515245918781032 (DOI)
Available from: 2019-03-04 Created: 2019-03-04 Last updated: 2019-03-04
McCarthy, R. J., Skowronski, J. J., Verschuere, B., Meijer, E. H., Jim, A., Hoogesteyn, K., . . . Yıldız, E. (2018). Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979). Paper presented at 2019/03/04. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 321-336
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, ISSN 2515-2459, Vol. 1, no 3, p. 321-336Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SAGE Publications Inc, 2018
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-154897 (URN)10.1177/2515245918777487 (DOI)
Conference
2019/03/04
Available from: 2019-03-04 Created: 2019-03-04 Last updated: 2019-03-04
Tinghög, G. & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Why People Hate Health Economics – Two Psychological Explanations. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Why People Hate Health Economics – Two Psychological Explanations
2018 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Most people dislike the idea of “health economists” having influence on medical decision making and who gets what when it comes to health care. Health economics is often thought of as inhumane, promoting efficiency at the expense of more profound moral values, such as equality and need. The fact that allocations solely based on cost-effectiveness are unlikely to be compatible with public views has been illustrated in experimental studies (1, 2). Moreover, lessons from the Oregon experience on priority setting illuminated that rationing decisions based on health maximization are likely to conflict with the view of the general public. For an economist this can be hard to understand, why is not the quest to maximize the value for money something that strikes a chord with the general public? Here we will outline two fundamental psychological mechanisms that will help to explain why people hate health economics.

The two psychological mechanisms – taboo-tradeoffs and compassion fade – are emotional phenomena that bias decision-making. These biases are of amplified by the fact that health is of special moral importance to most people. Not only our own health, but other people’s health as well. Moreover, decisions on how to allocate scarce resources in health care also ultimately lead to policies that carry life and death consequences. Thus, health care rationing elicits strong emotions making it an area of decision-making where emotion and reason often diverge. We will argue that health economics at large has been oblivious to the core aspects of human nature outlined in this paper, and this has limited the use of health economics as a productive input in health policy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2018. p. 12
Series
Linköping University Working Papers in Economics ; 6
Keywords
Health Economics, Medical Decision Making, Health Care Priority setting, Emotions, Psychology
National Category
Economics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-148852 (URN)
Available from: 2018-06-20 Created: 2018-06-20 Last updated: 2018-06-25Bibliographically approved
Strömbäck, C., Lind, T., Skagerlund, K., Västfjäll, D. & Tinghög, G. (2017). Does self-control predict financial behavior and financial well-being?. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 14, 30-38
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Does self-control predict financial behavior and financial well-being?
Show others...
2017 (English)In: Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, ISSN 2214-6350, E-ISSN 2214-6369, ISSN 2214-6350, Vol. 14, p. 30-38Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

To improve our understanding of how people make financial decisions, it is important to investigate what psychological characteristics influence individuals’ positive financial behavior and financial well-being. In this study, we explore the effect of individual differences in self-control and other non-cognitive factors on financial behavior and financial well-being. A survey containing measures of financial behavior, subjective financial well-being, self-control, optimism, deliberative thinking and demographic variables was sent to a representative sample (n=2063)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; line-height: normal; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; color: rgb(80, 80, 80); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Microsoft Sans Serif', 'Segoe UI Symbol', STIXGeneral, 'Cambria Math', 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; position: relative;"> of the Swedish population. Our findings extend the application of the behavioral lifecycle hypothesis beyond savings behavior, to include general financial behavior. People with good self-control are more likely to save money from every pay-check, have better general financial behavior, feel less anxious about financial matters, and feel more secure in their current and future financial situation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2017
Keywords
Financial behavior, Financial well-being, Self-control, Decision making, Behavioral finance
National Category
Economics Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-140677 (URN)10.1016/j.jbef.2017.04.002 (DOI)2-s2.0-85020027862 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Länsförsäkringar ABMarianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, 2014.0187
Note

Export Date: 7 September 2017; Article

Available from: 2017-09-07 Created: 2017-09-07 Last updated: 2018-05-04Bibliographically approved
Bjalkebring, P., Västfjäll, D., Dickert, S. & Slovic, P. (2016). Greater Emotional Gain from Giving in Older Adults: Age-Related Positivity Bias in Charitable Giving. Frontiers in Psychology, 7
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Greater Emotional Gain from Giving in Older Adults: Age-Related Positivity Bias in Charitable Giving
2016 (English)In: Frontiers in Psychology, ISSN 1664-1078, E-ISSN 1664-1078, Vol. 7Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Older adults have been shown to avoid negative and prefer positive information to a higher extent than younger adults. This positivity bias influences their information processing as well as decision-making. We investigate age-related positivity bias in charitable giving in two studies. In Study 1 we examine motivational factors in monetary donations, while Study 2 focuses on the emotional effect of actual monetary donations. In Study 1, participants (n = 353, age range 20-74 years) were asked to rate their affect toward a person in need and then state how much money they would be willing to donate to help this person. In Study 2, participants (n = 108, age range 19-89) were asked to rate their affect toward a donation made a few days prior. Regression analysis was used to investigate whether or not the positivity bias influences the relationship between affect and donations. In Study 1, we found that older adults felt more sympathy and compassion and were less motivated by negative affect when compared to younger adults, who were motivated by both negative and positive affect. In Study 2, we found that the level of positive emotional reactions from monetary donations was higher in older participants compared to younger participants. We find support for an age-related positivity bias in charitable giving. This is true for motivation to make a future donation, as well as affective thinking about a previous donation. We conclude that older adults draw more positive affect from both the planning and outcome of monetary donations and hence benefit more from engaging in monetary charity than their younger counterparts.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA, 2016
Keywords
charitable giving age; emotion; motivation; decision making
National Category
Gerontology, specialising in Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-130127 (URN)10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00846 (DOI)000377745300001 ()27378966 (PubMedID)
Note

Funding Agencies|National Science Foundations (NSF); Adlerbertska Forskningsstiftelsen; Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health; Working Life and Welfare (FORTE)

Available from: 2016-07-12 Created: 2016-07-11 Last updated: 2018-01-10
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications