Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 423–435 | Cite as

Active and Forced Choice for Overcoming Status Quo Bias: A Field Experiment on the Adoption of “No junk mail” Stickers in Berlin, Germany

  • Georg Liebig
  • Jens RommelEmail author
Original Paper


Consumers around the world are burdened by large amounts of unaddressed junk mail. Attaching “No junk mail” stickers to mailboxes offers a simple solution for protecting against unwanted ads. Presumably, the use of such stickers can be increased if consumers deliberately decide either for or against receiving junk mail. This conjecture of status quo bias was tested in a field experiment run with more than 900 households in Berlin, Germany. In one treatment, stickers were put into mailboxes, facilitating active choice. In a second treatment, stickers were attached halfway onto the outsides of mailboxes, forcing consumers to either remove or fully attach them. It was found that roughly a fifth of the sample attached a sticker after treatment. With uptake of more than 21, as compared to 16%, the forced choice was more effective than the active choice treatment. The findings highlight the importance of green nudges and defaults for promoting pro-environmental behaviour. Implications for landlords of the presented interventions are discussed. The field of social norms is identified as a promising area for extending the scope of the present study.


Active choice Behavioural economics Green nudge Junk mail Status quo bias 



We are grateful to the student group that assisted in distributing the stickers, namely Cornelia, Georg, Gesine, Giulia, Helena, Jan, Kerstin, Michael, and Viola. We are thankful to Felix Arnold, Ranjan Kumar Ghosh, Christian Kimmich, Benedikt Meyer-Bretschneider, Valeria Schwarz-Gröger, and an anonymous reviewer for comments that helped to improve the paper. Excellent language editing was provided by Christopher Hank. We also thank the bologna.lab at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin for their financial support of the Q-Team “Behavioral Agricultural and Environmental Economics.”


  1. Abadie, A., & Gay, S. (2006). The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1082–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg. (2012). Statistischer Bericht A I 5 – hj 1/12: Einwohnerinnen und Einwohner im Land Berlin am 30. Juni 2012. Berlin: Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg. Accessed 21 Feb 2014.
  4. Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  6. Burchell, K., Rettie, R., & Patel, K. (2013). Marketing social norms: Social marketing and the ‘social norm approach’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadena, X., & Schoar, A. (2011). Remembering to pay? Reminders vs. financial incentives for loan payments (NBER Working Paper No. 17020).Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C. F., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 1211–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Jure (2014). Rechtsprechung: BGH, 20.12.1988 - VI ZR 182/88. Accessed 26 Feb 2014.
  10. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(18456), 18456–18456.Google Scholar
  11. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. Institute for Government. Accessed 17 Feb 2014.
  12. European Commission, DG Environment. (2012). Green Behaviour (Future Brief No. 4). Science for Environment Policy. Accessed 03 March 2014.
  13. Fleiter, T., Fehrenbach, D., Worrell, E., & Eichhammer, W. (2012). Energy efficiency in the German pulp and paper industry: A model-based assessment of saving potentials. Energy, 40, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garner, R. (2005). Post-it® note persuasion: A sticky influence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory, W., & Roberts, S. (2005). Help I’m drowning in a sea of junk mail. In M. Mullany, J. Taylor, & P. Weller (Eds.), Proceedings of the New Zealand Applied Business Education Conference 2005 (pp. 205–213).Google Scholar
  16. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ifak Institut. (2012). Verbrauchs- und Medienanalyse. Ipsos Media Markt Analysen. Accessed 03 March 2014.
  18. Ifak Institut. (2013). Verbrauchs- und Medienanalyse - VuMA 2014. Ipsos Media Markt Analysen. Accessed 03 March 2014.
  19. IfD. (2013). Allensbacher Markt- und Werbeträger-Analyse. Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach. Accessed 03 March 2014.
  20. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  21. Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Economics Letters, 119, 325–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kallbekken, S., Sælen, H., & Hermansen, E. A. T. (2013). Bridging the energy efficiency gap: A field experiment on lifetime energy costs and household appliances. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karlan, D., McConnell, M., Mullainathan, S., & Zinman, J. (2010). Getting to the top of mind: How reminders increase saving (NBER Working Paper No. w16205).Google Scholar
  24. Lissowska, M. (2011). Overview of behavioural economics elements in the OECD consumer policy toolkit. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKenzie-Mohr, D., Lee, N. R., Schultz, P. W., & Kotler, P. A. (2012). Social marketing to protect the environment: What works. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (2014) Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. Journal of Consumer Policy. doi: 10.1007/s10603-014-9256-2.
  27. Oullier, O., & Saunero, S. (2011). “Green nudges”: New incentives for ecological behaviour (Centre for Strategic Analysis Policy Briefs No. 216). Paris.Google Scholar
  28. Parmeter, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2013). Quasi-experiments and hedonic property value methods. In J. A. List & M. K. Price (Eds.), Handbook on experimental economics and the environment (pp. 3–66). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Resse, A. (2005). ‘Stop Pub’: can banning of junk mail reduce waste production? Waste Management & Research, 23, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rettie, R., Burchell, K., & Barnham, C. (2014). Social normalisation: Using marketing to make green normal. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E., et al. (2009a). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2). Accessed 03 March 2014.
  33. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009b). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schultz, P. W. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist, 19, 107–117.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, N. C., Goldstein, D. G., & Johnson, E. J. (2013). Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32, 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sunstein, C. R. (2013a). Impersonal default rules vs. active choices vs. personalized default rules: A triptych. Accessed 28 Feb 2014.
  38. Sunstein, C. R. (2013b). Simpler: The future of government. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  39. Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2013). Green by default. Kyklos, 66, 398–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2014). Automatically green: Behavioral economics and environmental protection. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 38, 128–158.Google Scholar
  41. Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thaler, R. H. (1992). The winner’s curse: Paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  43. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington, DC, January 3–5, 2003), 175–179.Google Scholar
  44. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Yale: Yale University.Google Scholar
  45. TNS Infratest. (2013). Dialogmarketing Deutschland 2013, from Accessed 03 March 2014.
  46. VdP. (2013). Leistungsbericht Papier 2013. Bonn: Verband Deutscher Papierfabriken.Google Scholar
  47. WBGU. (2011). Welt im Wandel: Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation. Berlin, Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung für Globale Umweltveränderungen. Accessed 17 Feb 2014.
  48. WWF. (2011). Wald steckt da, wo wir ihn nicht erwarten: Papierverbrauch in Deutschland Hintergrundinformationen. World Wildlife Fund.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations