DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00437

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2019/51:4 PP.437-449

Accept or reject? The nudge effect of response options on making a balanced choice between enhancement and enrichment classes

In recent years, extracurricular classes have always been hot topics of research in areas such as Education, Economics and Sociology. Taking extracurricular classes have become an important part of student lives. There are two types of curricula for students:(1) the enhancement classes which aim to improve the learning abilities and academic performance; (2) the enrichment classes which focus on developing the comprehensive abilities, such as interests and specialties. Recent studies have shown that enrichment classes of various kinds are much more popular than enhancement classes targeted for improvement of academic performances. Primary school students and their parents tend to choose enrichment classes which are more enjoyable than enhance classes which have long-term benefit academically. How can we achieve the balance in choosing between the two types of curricula? Guided by the theoretic framework of the Nudge Effect of the two response options-Accept and Reject, this work explores the task-type effect of accept and reject as different options to influence the selection of different types of classes through three experiments.
Experiment 1 observes the difference in class selection strategy categorized by generations as three groups (students/parents/grand-parents) of different families under the two response options. Experiment 2 observes the difference in class selection strategy by three generations of the same family under the two response options. The design and procedures of the two experiments are similar except participants invited under the laboratory scenario. It adopts a 2 (response options:accept/reject; between-subjects variable)×2 (curricula types:enhancement classes/enrichment classes; within-subjects variable)×3 (types of decision makers:primary school students/primary school parents/grandparents; between-subjects variable) mixed design. Results show that (1) people in the parent group tend to select more classes than that of both the student group and the grand-parent group; (2) all three groups tend to select more enrichment classes than academic enhancement classes no matter which response option is used; and (3) when comparing the two response options, all three groups tend to select more number of classes under the reject option. More specifically, under the reject option, people tend to select more enhancement classes relatively than that in the accept option. However, under the reject option, the differences between enrichment classes and enhancement classes are narrowed, which means the selection of enrichment classes and academic enhancement classes are more balanced under the reject option.
Experiment 3 is conducted as a field study to directly talk to people who are submitting applications for extracurricular classes to see whether the use of different response options can indeed influence their decision making on the spot. It adopts a 2 (response options:accept/reject; between-subjects variable)×2 (curricula types:enhancement classes/enrichment classes; within-subjects variable) mixed design. Consistent with those results of Experiment 1 & 2, Experiment 3 shows that parents tend to select more classes in the rejection response condition than in the acceptance response condition. Participants also tend to select enrichment classes in both response conditions. However, their preference to enhancement classes in the rejection response condition was significantly higher than that in the acceptance response condition. All the three experiments show that the rejection response option has a significant boost to a more balanced selection of primary school parents.
This study successfully proved that the use of the reject option is also applicable to decision making strategies of child education. The result of this work can serve as a direct reference to both educators as well as student families when making choices on extracurricular classes.

Key words:response options,nudging,extracurricular classes,curricula types,decision makers

ReleaseDate:2019-04-26 01:28:05

Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., … Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041-1055.

Bertini, M., Ofek, E., & Dan, A. (2009). The impact of add-on features on consumer product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 17-28.

Chapman, G. B., Li, M., Colby, H., & Yoon, H. (2010). Opting in vs opting out of influenza vaccination. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(1), 43-44.

Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2017). Role of accentuation in the selection/rejection task framing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 146(4), 543-568.

Chen, X. L (2014). Conflict and cooperation:A study of the relationship between educational institutions and schools (Unpublished master's thesis). Nanjing Normal University.

[陈晓陆. (2014). 冲突与合作:辅导机构与学校的关系研究(硕士学位论文). 南京师范大学.]

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.

Fu, H. X. (2014). Problems and reflections on the market of after-school tutoring market in primary and secondary schools (Unpublished master's thesis). Capital Normal University, Beijing.

[付洪秀. (2014). 中小学课外辅导市场存在的问题及其反思(硕士学位论文). 首都师范大学, 北京.]

Goldstein, D. G., Johnson, E. J., Herrmann, A., & Heitmann, M. (2008). Nudge your customers toward better choices. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 99-106.

Huang, D. (2015). School extracurricular training market regulation research (Unpublished master's thesis). Guangxi Normal University.

[黄笛. (2015). 公共管理视域下的中小学课外培训市场规制研究(硕士学位论文). 广西师范大学.]

Huang, Y. N., Song, X. Y., Shao, Y., Li, S., & Liang, Z. Y. (2018). Nudging:Default option effect and response mode promote organ donor registry participation in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 868-879.

[黄元娜, 宋星云, 邵洋, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 以小拨大:默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记. 心理学报, 50(8), 868-879.]

Ji, L. F. (2015). Comparison and consideration of the after-school tutoring in primary and secondary schools in China, South Korea, Japan and European Union. Journal of Beijing Institute of Education, 29(3), 67-72.

[季林飞. (2015). 中、韩、日、欧盟中小学课外教育的比较与思考. 北京教育学院学报(社会科学版), 29(3), 67-72.]

Jin, L. Y., Zou, D. Q., & Qiu, L. J. (2009). The effect of option framing on consumer choice in service customization context. Nankai Business Review, 12(6), 90-100.

[金立印, 邹德强, 裘理瑾. (2009). 服务定制情境下选项的战略呈现:呈现框架对消费者选择的影响. 南开管理评论, 12(6), 90-100.]

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies:The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.

Levin, I. P., Schreiber, J., Lauriola, M., & Gaeth, G. J. (2002). A tale of two pizzas:Building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Marketing Letters, 13(4), 335-344.

Li, M., Sun, Y., & Chen, H. (in press). The decoy effect as a nudge:Boosting hand hygiene with a worse option. Psychological Science,

Li, P. N., Wang, Y. S., Yang, J. H., & Sun, Y. (2017). Application of behavioral decision theory in energy conservation management. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(3), 760-765.

[李鹏娜, 王延伸, 杨金花, 孙彦. (2017). 行为决策理论在能源节约管理中的应用. 心理科学, 40(3), 760-765.]

Li, S. (2016). Neither "carrot" nor "stick":A new shortcut to nudge social development. Management Insights, 6, 92-96.

[李纾. (2016). 既非"胡萝卜"也非"大棒":助推社会发展的一条新捷径. 管理视野, 6, 92-96.]

Liu, J. Y., & Bray, M. (2017). Determinants of demand for private supplementary tutoring in China:Findings from a national survey. Education Economics, 25(2), 205-218.

Liu, W. C. (2002). Laying a foundation for the lifelong development of students -Building a new curriculum system with elegant characteristics. Hunan Education, (15), 33-34.

[刘维朝. (2002). 为学生的终身发展奠基——全面构建有雅礼特色的课程新体系. 湖南教育, (15), 33-34.]

Liu, Y., Polman, E., Liu, Y. F., & Jiao, J. L. (2018). Choosing for others and its relation to information search. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 147, 65-75.

Liu, Y. F., Wang, P., Zhuang, J. Y., Zhong, J., Sun, Q. Z., & Liu, Y. (2014). Self-other differences in decision-making:Questions, studies and reflection. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(4), 580-587.

[刘永芳, 王鹏, 庄锦英, 钟俊, 孙庆洲, 刘毅. (2014). 自我-他人决策差异:问题、研究与思考. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 580-587.]

Liu, Y., & Sun, Y. (2014). New avenues for framing effect research in decision-making:From risky to intertemporal and from verbal to graph framing. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(8), 1205-1217.

[刘扬, 孙彦. (2014). 行为决策中框架效应研究新思路——从风险决策到跨期决策, 从言语框架到图形框架. 心理科学进展, 22(8), 1205-1217.]

Lu, J. Y., & Shang, X. S. (2018). Making decisions for others:Multi-dimensional psychological mechanisms and decision feelings. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(9), 1545-1552.

[陆静怡, 尚雪松. (2018). 为他人做决策:多维度心理机制与决策体验. 心理科学进展, 26(9), 1545-1552.]

Ma, J. J., Ma, X. X., & Zhang, L. (2008). Preference asymmetry between utilitarian and hedonic products in acquisition and forfeiture -Compact disc versus music CD. Journal of Marketing Science, 4(1), 107-119.

[马京晶, 马欣昕, 张黎. (2008). 选择与放弃中对产品实用性和享乐性的不同偏好——以电脑光盘和音乐cd为例. 营销科学学报, 4(1), 107-119.]

Mark, B., & Ora, K. (2013). Behind the façade of fee-free education:Shadow education and its implications for social justice. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 480-497.

Mourali, M., & Nagpal, A. (2013). The powerful select, the powerless reject:Power's influence in decision strategies. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 874-880.

Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & MacInnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want:An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187-202.

Peng, H. M., Xia, S. Y., Ruan, F., & Pu, B. Y. (2016). Age differences in consumer decision making under option framing:From the motivation perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:1736.

Peng, P. (2008). Shadow education:Foreign research on private tutoring and its inspiration. Comparative Education Review, 1, 61-65.

[彭湃. (2008). "影子教育":国外关于课外补习的研究与启示. 比较教育研究, 1, 61-65.]

Polman, E. (2010). Information distortion in self-other decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 432-435.

Polman, E. (2012). Effects of self-other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 980-993.

Pornpitakpan, C. (2009). Cross-cultural generalization of the effect of option choice framing on product option choices. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(3), 342-354.

Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting:Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546-556.

Shen, J. M., & Xie, L. M. (2001). On the rejuvenation of the vitality of research-based curriculum -Also on the relationship between research-based curriculum and foundation and enrichment curriculum. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, (10), 1-5.

[沈建民, 谢利民. (2001). 试论研究型课程生命活力的焕发——兼论研究型课程与基础型课程、拓展型课程的关系. 课程. 教材. 教法, (10), 1-5.]

Sokolova, T., & Krishna, A. (2016). Take it or leave it:How choosing versus rejecting alternatives affects information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 614-635.

Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2014). Automatically green:Behavioral economics and environmental protection. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 38(1), 127-158.

Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrow using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(1), S164-S187.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge:Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371-384.

Wang, W. C. (2002). The nature and offerings of enrichment curriculum. Research of Modern Basic Education, (4), 61-65.

[王维臣.(2002). 拓展课程的定位与设置——国外经验的启示. 现代基础教育研究, (4), 61-65.]

Wu, Q. S., & Yu, Y. (2011). Extra-curricular selection for primary school students from urban families -A consumption perspective. Journal of Xuzhou Normal University (Educational Science Edition), (4), 49-52.

[伍青生, 俞晔. (2011). 城市小学生家庭课外教育选择行为特征——基于消费视角的研究. 徐州师范大学学报(教育科学版), (4), 49-52.]

Xue, H. (2015). From school education to shadow education:Education competition and social reproduction. Peking University Education Review, 13(3), 47-69.

[薛海平. (2015). 从学校教育到影子教育:教育竞争与社会再生产. 北京大学教育评论, 13(3), 47-69.]

Yao, J., Liu, J. J., & Gao, C. (2016). Research on the impact of product attributes' evaluability on purchase decision:Moderating effects of involvement. Nanjing University of Finance & Economics, (6), 84-91.

[姚杰, 刘俊杰, 高成. (2016). 产品属性评估性对选购决策的影响研究:卷入度调节作用. 南京财经大学学报, (6), 84-91.]

Yuan, S., Zhang, X., & Duan, Y. (2017). Analysis of the influencing factors on the decision making process of family children training based on the ISM model and AHP-entropy method. Chinese Journal of Systems Science, 25(4), 94-100.

[袁胜军, 张新阳, 段亚丽. (2017). 基于ISM和AHP-Entropy的家庭儿童培训消费决策影响因素研究. 系统科学学报, 25(4), 94-100.]

Zhang, B. (2017). Shadow education and the cultural reproduction of China new middle classes -Speaking from Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital. Theory & Practice of Education, 37(22), 17-20.

[张冰. (2017). "影子教育"与中国"新中间阶层"的文化再生产——从布迪厄的文化资本理论说开去. 教育理论与实践, 37(22), 17-20.]

Zhang, G. Y., & Zhang, M. (2016). Goal framing effects on the purchasing decision of tourism services in customization scenarios. Tourism Tribune, 31(1), 57-67.

[张广宇, 张梦. (2016). 定制化情境下旅游服务购买决策的目标框架效应. 旅游学刊, 31(1), 57-67.]