Testing effects of loss framing and checklists: evidence from a field experiment on wellness program participation in Philadelphia
- 6 Downloads
Loss framing and checklist formatting are two oft-cited tools for encouraging behavior change, but there is little causal evidence on their impact in field settings. We partnered with the City of Philadelphia to test the effectiveness of these tools to increase completion of the City’s wellness program. In our experiment, 5235 City employees and retirees were randomly assigned to receive one of four postcard versions (using a 2 × 2 design), whereby we varied both framing (gain or loss) and how instructions were provided (information only or information in checklist format). Our results suggest that neither loss framing nor the checklist formatting significantly influenced the likelihood that individuals would complete the wellness tasks, or how quickly they completed the tasks. We conclude that this specific form of employee behavior may be difficult to influence through the “passive” behavioral interventions we tested, and suggest that a more “active” approach may be required in such instances.
KeywordsBehavioral economics Checklists Loss framing Experiment Randomized control trial Evidence-based policy
JEL ClassificationH75 C93 I12 D90
The authors wish to thank the Mayor’s Policy Office and Yuan Huang in particular, along with Marsha Greene-Jones and Jackie Ajose from the Office of Human Resources in the City of Philadelphia for their logistical support.
- Berry, L., Mirabito, A., & Baun, W. (2010). What’s the hard return on employee wellness programs? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/12/whats-the-hard-return-on-employee-wellness-programs
- Boorman, D. (2001). Today’s electronic checklists reduce likelihood of crew errors and help prevent mishaps. ICAO Journal,56, 17–20.Google Scholar
- Byrnes, M., Schuerer, D., Schallom, M., Sona, C., Mazuski, J., Taylor, B., et al. (2009). Implementation of a mandatory checklist of protocols and objectives improves compliance with a wide range of evidence-based intensive care unit practices. Critical Care Medicine,37(10), 2775–2781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cuellar, A., Haviland, A., Richards-Shubik, S., LoSasso, A., Atwood, A., Wolfendale, H., et al. (2017). Boosting workplace wellness programs with financial incentives. The American Journal of Managed Care,23(10), 604–610.Google Scholar
- Fryer Jr, R. G., Levitt, S. D., List, J., & Sadoff, S. (2012). Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: a field experiment. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Giné, X., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2010). Put your money where your butt is: a commitment contract for smoking cessation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,2(4), 213–235.Google Scholar
- Jones, D., Molitor, D., & Reif, J. (2018). What do workplace wellness programs do? Evidence from the illinois workplace wellness study. Working paper.Google Scholar
- Richburg-Hayes, L., Anzelone, C., Dechausay, N., & Landers, P. (2017). Nudging change in human services: final report of the behavioral interventions to advance self-sufficiency (bias) project. OPRE Report 2017-23, Washington DC: Office of Planning and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar