When Do People Prefer Carrots to Sticks? A Robust “Matching Effect” in Policy Evaluation

References

• Andreoni J, Harbaugh W, Vesterlund L (2003) The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishments, and cooperation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):893–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arvai JL (2003) Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: Effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk Anal. 23(2):281–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arvai JL, Gregory RS, McDaniels TL (2001) Testing a structured decision approach: Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Anal. 21(6):1065–1076.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkernauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Rev. General Psych. 5(4):323–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandt RB (1964) The concepts of obligation and duty. Mind 73(291):374–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 6(1):3–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camacho CJ, Higgins ET, Luger L (2003) Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 84(3):498–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cesario J, Higgins ET, Scholer AA (2008) Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 2:444–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chisholm R (1963) Supererogation and offence: A conceptual scheme for ethics. Ratio 5(1):1–14.Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL (2006) Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Soc. Influence 1(1):3–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Bruin ENM, Van Lange PAM (2000) What people look for in others: Influences of the perceiver and the perceived on information selection. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 26(2):206–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dror Y (1983) Public Policy Making Reexamined, 2nd ed. (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ).Google Scholar
• Fiske ST (1980) Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 38(6):889–906.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guala F (2012) Reciprocity: Weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate. Behavioral Brain Sci. 35(1):1–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardisty DJ, Johnson EJ, Weber EU (2010) A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psych. Sci. 21(1):86–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heider F (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Higgins ET (2000) Making a good decision: Value from fit. Amer. Psychologist 55(11):1217–1230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Higgins ET (2005) Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 14(4):209–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psych. Bull. 125(5):576–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janoff-Bulman R, Sheikh S, Hepp S (2009) Proscriptive vs. prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 96(3):521–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Goldstein D (2003) Do defaults save lives? Science 302(5649):1338–1339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Hershey J, Meszaros J, Kunreuther H (1993) Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J. Risk Uncertainty 7(1):35–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Shu SB, Delleart GBGC, Fox C, Goldstein DG, Haubl G, Larrick RPet al. (2012) Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Lett. 23(2):487–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1986) Fairness and the assumptions of economics. J. Bus. 59(4):S285–S300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer T, Fox CR (2005) Bias in allocation among risky and uncertain prospects: Partition-dependence, unit-dependence, and procedure-dependence. Working paper, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.Google Scholar
• Lee AY, Aaker JL (2004) Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 86(2):205–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malle BF (2011) Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. Chadee D, ed. Theories in Social Psychology (Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA), 72–95.Google Scholar
• Margolis M, Sances M (2013) Who really gives? Partisanship and charitable giving in the United States. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2148033.Google Scholar
• McDaniels RS, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal. 19(3):497–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKenzie CRM, Liersch MJ, Finkelstein SR (2006) Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psych. Sci. 17(5):414–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Motyka S, Grewal D, Puccinelli NL, Roggeveen AL, Avnet T, Daryanto A, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M (2014) Regulatory fit: A meta analytic synthesis. J. Consumer Psych. 24(3):394–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mulder LB (2008) The difference between punishments and rewards in fostering moral concerns in social decision making. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 44(6):1436–1443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Västfjäll D, Mertz CK, Slovic P, Hibbard JH (2009) Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions. J. Experiment. Psychol.: Appl. 15(3):213–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rozin P (1999) The process of moralization. Psychol. Sci. 10(3): 218–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rozin P, Singh L (1999) The moralization of cigarette smoking in the United States. J. Consumer Psych. 8(3):321–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty 1(1):7–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sears DO, Funk CL (1991) The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 24:1–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shafir E, ed. (2001) The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Sher S, McKenzie CRM (2006) Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition 101(3):467–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U (2014) No-way interactions. Data Colada (blog), March 12, http://datacolada.org/17. [DOI: 10.15200/winn.142559.90552.]Google Scholar
• Skowronski JJ, Carlston DE (1987) Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 52(4):689–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skowronski JJ, Carlston DE (1989) Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psych. Bull. 105(1):131–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum D, Valasek CJ, Knowles ED, Ditto PH (2013) Incentivizing wellness in the workplace: Sticks (not carrots) send stigmatizing signals. Psych. Sci. 24(8):1512–1522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tyler TR, Rasinski K (1991) Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular U.S. supreme court decisions: A reply to Gibson. Law Soc. Rev. 25(3):621–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Urmson JO (1958) Saints and heroes. Melden A, ed. Essays in Moral Philosophy (University of Washington Press, Seattle), 198–216.Google Scholar