Introduction

The study examines the influence of nudging on the successful studies of Higher education institutions (HEI’s) students. The research was conducted in one of the typical countries of the Central European region (Czech Republic). The goal of the research was to find out how students accept individual forms of nudging. Successfully completing tertiary studies is one of the current issues of public policy. About 30% of OECD HEIs’ students do not complete their studies. In the EU, the direct economic losses measured as net benefits of tertiary education are on average about USD 408 100 (per capita) for a man and USD 274 100 (per capita) for a woman (OECD, 2021a; OECD, 2021c; Wollscheid et al., 2015). Students of EU countries are also facing the problem of failure to achieve higher education. In the Czech Republic, for example, the share of tertiary-educated persons is significantly below the OECD average. In 2020, the share of tertiary-educated persons aged 25–64 years accounted for 25% and 33% among 25–34-year-olds, while almost every other student did not complete their study. Drop-out rate within 5 years after HEI enrolment between 2007 and 2015 rose from 43.25 to 49.08%. (OECD, 2021a; OECD, 2021b; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (Czech Republic), 2022). Figure 1 shows cumulative drop out within 5 years after HEI enrolment. Figure 1 shows cumulative early school leaving within 5 years of enrollment in higher education.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Higher education dropout in the Czech Republic (in %) according to the year of study. Source: authors based on data from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (Czech Republic), 2022

Full size image

It is therefore desirable to look for ways to increase academic success (Braxton & Lee, 2005), to know the predictors of short-term and long-term academic success (Vettori et al., 2021), and factors that may influence successful completion of studies. There are a number of factors influencing the study success, and their categorization are presented and discussed (Devlin & O'shea, 2012; Partridge et al., 2021).

Our study examines the influence of nudging on the successful studies of HEI’s students. One of the typical countries of the Central European region (Czech Republic) is analyzed. The goal of the research was to find out how students accept individual forms of nudging. Factors influencing study success can be classified in different ways, as shown in the following literature review.

Literature review: nudging and impact

Drawing on the literature about nudging and their impact, the following classification of factors affecting the success of HEI studies are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Factors affecting the success of HEI studies
Full size table

Analysis of the scientific discourse revealed only a few studies that deal with the analysis of “nudge” in HEIs (Brown et al., 2022; Dimitrova & Mitrovic, 2021; Fowlie & Forder, 2020; Graham et al., 2017). Harden (2011) concludes that nudge-based interventions are more effective than mandated changes. The nudges were particularly helpful for undergraduate students who were less experienced in self-regulated learning. For instance, Mohammadhassan et al. (2022) claim that a video-based online learning nudges help students learn more through note-taking and personalized support.

Although the aforementioned studies deal with nudging, none of them examines how individual forms of nudges are accepted by different groups of HEI’s students. We focus on this gap in our study.

The sample of investigation is HEI students in the Czech Republic. Drawing on previous studies, the aim of the study is to investigate how students accept individual forms of nudging and what the experts’ opinion is about nudging and about our conclusions from the questionnaire survey.

The article has the following structure. After conducting a literature review, a theoretical and conceptual framework was created. In the empirical part, we research questions were defined and empirical research conducted. The results and outputs from the empirical research are contained in the “Results and discussion” section. The final part of the study contains theoretical generalizations and practical recommendations and implications for higher education policy.

Theoretical and conceptual framework

The key theory for anchoring our research is “nudge theory” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Nudge theory is anchored in the paradigm of behavioral economics (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, 1981; Cartwright, 2011; Camerer & Loewenstein, 2004; Dolan et al., 2010). This paradigm examines human behavior and seeks answers to questions about decision-making, and how people can be helped to make the right (effective) decisions (Cartwright, 2011; Oliver, 2013; Reisch & Sunstein, 2016). This behavioral idea was eventually introduced and used in our study.

We start from the assumption that one of the tools to encourage students to study successfully is the nudge tool (Weijers et al., 2021). In our study, nudge theory is a key theory for explaining the investigated problems. We explain the investigated problems in the form of subsumption under the theory (Ochrana et al., 2022). This means that using nudge theory, we explain the investigated phenomena and discuss the identified problems. We ask ourselves the basic question of whether the nudge tool can be used to “nudge” HEI’s students towards successful studies.

We distinguish between the term “nudge” and the term “nudging.” Both terms refer to different phenomena (problems under investigation). The term “nudge” refers to a tool that can be used to influence a person’s behavior in such a way that the persons voluntarily reevaluate their priorities so that their resulting changed behavior brings both individual and social benefit.

According to Thaler and Sunstein (2008), a nudge results in a predictable change in the behavior of the “nudged” target group (the “nudged” individual). We arrive at this changed behavior in a process we refer to as “nudging.” The mentioned terms thus allow defining the meaning of two different phenomena.

A variety of tools can be used to nudge students (Dolan et al., 2010; Damgaard & Nielsen, 2018; Damgaard & Nielsen, 2018 and Oreopoulos, 2020). We used the results of the research of these scientists to compile the questions for the questionnaire (see Appendix 1).

The interventions can be classified as “high-touch” or “low-touch” in terms of cost of the intervention and whether it involves in-person interaction or not. “Texting students is a low-touch nudge, while meeting with them to provide more direct assistance is a high-touch nudge. Encouragement is often more effective if delivered in person than through signage, text, or email” (Oreopoulos, 2020, p.11).

In the context of nudge theory, using the typology of nudging interventions according to Damgaard and Nielsen (2018), we presented individual forms of nudging to students, investigated their attitude towards them in terms of acceptance, and addressed experts to analyze the results.

Methods and data analysis

With regard to the research objective, the following research questions (RQ) were set:

•RQ1: How do HEIs students accept individual forms of nudging?

•RQ2: What is the opinion of the experts on the use of nudging and on the results of the conducted research?

To find answers to the research questions, a two-phase research focused on two groups of respondents was conducted. In the first phase of the research, a questionnaire survey among students of HEIs was carried out.

The questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was compiled based on nudging interventions according to Damgaard and Nielsen (2018).

Respondents were approached in the form of an electronic questionnaire via social media (Facebook). The questionnaire was aimed at answering: RQ 1, the following research phase, focused on RQ 2.

Results and discussion

Prior to interviewing the experts, the investigation on students’ acceptance of different forms of nudges was performed (as shown in research question 1). Forty-two student associations of higher public and private schools were contacted with request to address students. In addition, social media (Facebook) was used. Due to administrative constraint, the military university and the police academy were not approached. Online questionnaire was created in Click4Survey research tool and used for approaching the students. Data was collected from June 6 to June 26, 2022. A total of 207 responses were obtained. The structure of respondents according to selected socio-demographic characteristics was as follows (as shown in Appendix 2: Table 3).

In this part of the study, we will comment and discuss the results of the empirical investigation. The first research question (RQ 1) was aimed at finding out how HEIs students accept individual forms of nudging, as defined by Damgaard and Nielsen (2018) and Oreopoulos (2020). A detailed description of the results from empirical research and the acceptance of different forms of nudging are shown in Appendix 1

To determine the degree of acceptance, of the following scale was used:

-Acceptable with a value 1

-Somewhat acceptable with a value 2

-Somewhat unacceptable with a value of 3

-Unacceptable with a value 4

The borderline value of acceptance was thus 2.5.

As shown in Appendix 1, this scale enables differentiating the degree of acceptance of individual forms of nudges. A discussion of the findings is presented below.

Acceptance of high-touch and low-touch nudges

The results of the investigation show that the proposed pro-graduation nudges are acceptable.

It was found that information nudges have the highest acceptance rate. This can be explained by the fact that information is a significant factor for effective decision-making. If we have relatively enough information, we can make a better decision. High-touch nudges also have a high acceptance rate. These forms of nudges involve personal contact, a finding that is consistent with the nudge concept and the fact that humans are social beings. Here, it is important to highlight that a nudge is not regarded as coercion. The student is free to make decisions and does so in the context of a familiar (“safe”) social environment. Low-touch nudges do not have such immediate personal contact and, therefore, have a lower acceptance rate. We can therefore say that those forms of nudges that have the nature of “non-social” (technical) means are less accepted by students. Therefore, students reluctantly accept nudges in the form of text message reminders and preset email messages. It is therefore not surprising that only 2 out of 13 high-touch nudges exceeded the borderline value of 2.5, while 8 out of 20 low-touch nudges (i.e., 40%) were considered somewhat unacceptable.

The results of the investigation show the acceptance of peer group manipulations fluctuated around the borderline value. This finding is consistent with nudge theory. Manipulation, unlike nudging, is involuntary coercion. This can explain a strong correlation between “most irritating” and group “manipulative” nudges. Such nudges are, for instance, messages sent to students after each test, where the message includes a comparison of the student with his or her classmates on the test.

When comparing the mutual dependence between individually designed forms of nudges, a strong or moderate correlation between such nudges that belong to different forms but are identical in content was registered. This finding is quite understandable. Nudging affects the psyche of the personality primarily through its content. The form of action is not dominant in relation to the content. As an example, we can mention the relationship between these two forms of nudges: “easy access to study information” and “orientation day of using the information system.” The correlation between them is moderately strong. None of the offered forms of nudges have an unacceptable value of 3. This means that the given list of nudges (Appendix 1) can be used to increase the effectiveness of successful HEIs’ studies. In conclusion to the discussion on RQ1, we note that in future psychological-social research, it would be interesting to find out what the difference between successful students and those students who were reminded by “most irritating” forms of nudges is.

This part of “Results and discussion” now focusses on analyzing the opinion of experts on the use of nudging and commenting on the research. Two identification characters for expert coding are used. The first are the codes marked with the letter E indicates “domestic” experts (that is, experts from the Czech Republic). The number after the letter E indicates the given expert (see Appendix 3: List of experts). The letters FE indicate foreign experts. The number then identifies the given person (see Appendix 3: List of experts).

The experts were asked to comment on the detailed results with regards to the five main topics shown in Table 2. Of the 22 addressed experts, 14 from the Czech Republic and 4 foreign experts participated in the structured interviews held from 1st until 29th July 2022.

Table 2 Topics of structured interviews
Full size table

Structured interviews were conducted to obtain answers to the question of what the experts’ opinion was on the use of nudges and the results of the research conducted. The analysis of the experts’ responses along with a discussion of the results of the empirical survey is discussed in the following section of the study. It successively focusses on five areas: general opinion on nudges, age, study field, grade, and educational attainment of parents. Theoretical conclusions and practical recommendations for public policy are formulated as well.

Expert analysis

Regarding Research Question 2, the experts are clearly positive (with the exception of expert E 3) towards the use of nudges. They consider it an important tool to influence the study’s success. The experts point out that it is necessary to choose appropriate and correct nudging techniques. Only then can they become effective tools. The experts point out that for this, it is necessary to monitor the harmony between social and individual goals (E1, E6, E8, E9). It must not act harshly. There is an opinion that nudges can also be used as a tool that can help compensate for the miss out of students from a “less active” social environment (E2).

One of the experts looks at the nudge effect from the perspective of a rationally behaving actor. In his opinion, the use of nudges resembles the logic of quasi-market government interventions, where the actors concerned can compare albeit in a limited rational way the benefits and costs of a situation and seek their individual optima (E8). However, at the same time along with E1, it draws attention to behavioral aspects. Effective use of nudging depends negatively on the respondents’ feelings about subliminal abuse and is positively dependent on a well-defined desired effect (E1). The effect of nudges depends on the match between the partial target of the nudges and the conditions of its use. There should be a clear link between the fulfilment of conditions leading to success and the nudged activities: “If nudging will motivate students to do a certain activity that will meet the learning objectives, I think there will be an increase in success rates.” (E6). One of the conditions for the effective use of nudges is knowledge and competence. Here we encounter a certain limitation because, as one of the experts states, many teachers lack knowledge and competence in this area, which might result in overpressure on students (E10). The optimal frequency, the medium and the tool that is implemented, and the periodicity of use are vital to success (FE3, FE4). Practical workshops such as nudging for teachers are recommended. E4 is rather cautious about nudging and suggests boosting techniques to target the competencies of individuals. E4 points to certain manipulations, albeit well-intentioned and for the supposed benefit of the objects of intervention. E3 expresses strong doubts about using this method of “stimulation” as it is very difficult to measure the effect of the nudge on the results.

At the end of the experts’ discussion on the appropriateness of using nudging, it can be stated that nudging is considered a suitable tool to increase success in higher education. Our results complement and extend the current nudging debate. The findings from this study are grouped into the categories that follow.

Age

Regarding commenting on the fact that students over 25 show a much higher acceptance rate of nudging than students under 25, the experts’ opinion was as follows: being older means more life experience and/or motivation (E1, E3, E4, E6, E7, E9, E10, FE1, FE3, FE4). Older students have a better understanding of the goal of the learning process and are more easily nudged, have a better idea of what they expect from their studies (E7), are “more ‘pragmatic’” even towards the use of nudging (E4) and need nudging (FE1). There is a difference between generations in general, e.g., younger students have more self-esteem, while older students have more appreciation of authorities (E2, E5, E8). Greater need for nudging is due to lack of daily contact for part-time students (E12). “Students of part-time studies have a significantly different motivation and approach to studying than full-time students” (E10).

From the opinion of experts, the conclusion can be implied that students under 25 and students over 25 can be considered as two relatively different age groups with different life experience and motivation to study. With some simplification, we can say that the group under 25 is full-time students, and the group over 25 is part-time students. This means that the key factor in the different acceptance of nudges is probably the difference in approach to studying between part-time students and full-time students.

Study field

The comment of experts on the finding that economics students are more “prone” to the use of nudging, while “non-economists,” e.g., medical and humanities students, are more restrained of the use of nudging is as follows: experts explain this finding by different relationship of economics and medical students to subliminal influencing (E1), rationality and practicality of economics students (E2, E4, E8, E10), a better understanding of how nudging works by economics students (FE2) or different “quality” of students in different schools (E5, E6). “While economics students are more used to being guided rather in a passive role, medical students approach their studies much more independently” (E6). According to E9, medical students are already exposed to nudging in the family to a greater extent than students of economic studies. Nudging from external environment has probably greater influence on economics students. FE3 notices that there are much older part-time students in economic and related fields. E12 and FE4 experts look for an explanation in the fact that the great pressure in some study-intensive fields leads to the fact that students refuse any additional pressure. “On the contrary, in less time-consuming fields, students work more often and therefore additional reminding through nudging might, on the contrary, help them” (FE4).

In conclusion to this problem, we can state that the “type of field of study,” technical versus non-technical, probably has an effect on students’ attitude towards nudging. Is this difference related to different motivations of the students, their priorities, values, etc.? These are questions that some other research can seek to answer.

Grade

Regarding the finding that graduate students are more restrained of nudging than undergraduates, the experts’ opinion is as follows: restrained opinion of nudging among graduate students might be explained by experience and maturity of students, while the role of bachelors is relatively more passive (E6, E9, E10, E12, FE1, FE3, FE4). “MA students are more adapted, determined and motivated to successfully complete their studies and have a higher level of responsibility and critical thinking” (FE3). From expert opinions, we can therefore draw the conclusion that the difference is probably due to different life experience, which is related to age. It is therefore potentially a psychological-sociological research problem.

Educational attainment of parents

The commented problem concerns the opinion whether the level of educational attainment of parents affects the acceptance of nudging. The answers to this question are rather ambivalent. Higher education of parents can be both a strengthening and an inhibiting factor for the effectiveness of the nudges (E1, E8, E10, FE4, FE2). Parents’ lower education means their lower confidence that education is meaningful, as well as their lower ability to encourage their children to study. These children might be helped just by nudging (E2). FE1 assumes greater acceptance of nudging among students with lower levels of parent education. According to E6 and FE3, children take over nudging attitudes from their parents. However, E9 does not assume a significant influence of conditions in the student’s family on the effectiveness of nudging. “This is not a determining prerequisite for the positive effects of nudging.” E5 proposes an experiment using nudging at secondary schools and then observing HEIs’ students if they react differently to nudging depending on whether they have been nudged before to prove general impact of being nudged at lower age whether at school or in the family on later reaction to nudging.

Experts’ opinions lead to the conclusion that parents’ education is rather an ambivalent factor. This is a useful practical finding. Windows of opportunity to use nudges are potentially open to all students. Different education of the parents does not represent a barrier for the application of nudges.

The results of our research correspond, for instance, to those of Cerezo Prieto et al. (2021), Pugatch and Wilson (2018), Oreopoulos (2020), Graham et al. (2017), Lawrence et al. (2019), Plak et al. (2022), Meier (2017), and Castleman & Meyer, 2020 or Kim et al. (2012).

Conclusion

The study investigated the problem of students’ acceptance of different forms of nudges. It comes out of the assumption that if we know the degree of acceptance of individual forms of nudging by students, we can more effectively support students positively in their studies. Structured interviews aimed at assessing the results of the questionnaire survey brought interesting findings. Experts are positive about the use of nudges. They consider it an important tool to influence the study success. The exception was only one expert (E3) who had reservations about nudging. The concern focuses on inputs, and it was argued that by increasing the percentage of college students may be a strategic mistake. Expert 3 is of the opinion that this strategy may lead to a lowering of the level of higher education.

This study has found that students older than 25 show a much higher rate of acceptance of nudging than students under 25. Experts are of opinion that students under 25 of age and students over 25 of age can be considered not only as different age groups, but also as students with different life experiences and motivations to study. The experts overwhelmingly believe that the type of field of study, technical versus non-technical, is likely to influence students’ attitudes towards nudging. However, other factors probably also come into play, e.g., students’ motives, their values, and their priorities. The fact that graduate students are more restrained of nudging than undergraduates is probably due to a different life experience that is related to age. When it comes to assessing whether parents’ education affects students’ choice of nudging, this factor is perceived rather as ambivalent.

A relevant conclusion for public policy is that nudging can be used to increase the effectiveness of study success. Nevertheless, it is advisable to differentiate between the particular forms of nudging. At the same time, this problem is a challenge for further research. For example, it would be interesting to use the modeling method to check how different forms of nudging affect the study performance.