Please enter your username below and press the send button.A password reset link will be sent to you.
If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on March 07, 2016
After one year, as we recently reported in the journal Health Affairs, employees randomly assigned to a control group that received no financial incentive had no change in their weight. But employees who were offered a $550 premium reduction didn’t lose weight either. One reason that these rewards were ineffective was that they were provided too far in the future. If you lose weight today you may not receive any reward until next year. Next year is a long way off, particularly if there is a cookie in front of you right now. (Some methods work better -- see article.)
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on March 03, 2016
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on February 19, 2016
They were randomly assigned to four groups: A "gain incentive" paid $1.40 for each day the goal was achieved. A "lottery incentive" offered the possibility of a daily $50 reward that could be collected only if the goal had been met the previous day. A "loss incentive" allocated $42 a month up front but deducted $1.40 for each day the goal was not reached. (The dollar amounts for each type of incentive were designed to be roughly equal.) A control group received daily feedback from a smartphone app, as did everyone else. Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/health/sportsmedicine/20160216_The_takeaway_that_could_make_you_exercise_more.html#6KEx22Cq1jaHyfCM.99
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on February 07, 2016
Most nudges were supported, although opt-out defaults for organ donations were opposed in both samples. “System 1” nudges (e.g., defaults and sequential orderings) were viewed less favorably than “System 2” nudges (e.g., educational opportunities or reminders). System 1 nudges were perceived as more autonomy threatening, whereas System 2 nudges were viewed as more effective for better decision making and more necessary for changing behavior. People with greater empathetic concern tended to support both types of nudges and viewed them as the “right” kind of goals to have. Individualists opposed both types of nudges, and conservatives tended to oppose both types. Reactant people and those with a strong desire for control opposed System 1 nudges. To see whether framing could influence attitudes, we varied the description of the nudge in terms of the target (Personal vs. Societal) and the reference point for the nudge (Costs vs. Benefits). Empathetic people were more supportive when framin
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on January 03, 2016
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on November 02, 2015
A new meta-study finds fear-based appeals are consistently effective.
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on August 18, 2015
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on May 05, 2015
It’s rare for people to change what they believe, and if they do it, it’s usually a long process. This week, stories of those very infrequent instances where people’s opinions flip on fundamental things that they believe. Why does it happen in these particular and unusual circumstances? We explain.
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on February 24, 2015
"The nation's largest and most influential anti-sexual-violence organization is rejecting the idea that culture — as opposed to the actions of individuals — is responsible for rape." No one would deny that we should teach boys to respect women. But by and large, this is already happening. By the time men reach college, RAINN explains, “most students have been exposed to 18 years of prevention messages, in one form or another.” The vast majority of men absorb these messages and view rape as the horrific crime that it is. So efforts to address rape need to focus on the very small portion of the population that “has proven itself immune to years of prevention messages.” They should not vilify the average guy.
This link recently saved by ramitsethi on February 21, 2015
"Calling people stupid, mocking them and attacking them are certainly not effective ways of convincing people that vaccines are generally safe and effective. A more rational and hopefully more effective approach is to address their legitimate concerns and consider their fears. After all, the goal should be the health of people and not scoring points."