The Influence of Nudging Strategies on Decision-Making: A Behavioural Study of Generation Z’s Public Finance and Budgetary Preferences

Öz

The study’s purpose is to analyse the influences of nudge strategies linked to public borrowing, tax responsibilities, social equity, economic welfare, and state budget engagement on the behavioural intentions of Generation Z undergraduates. The study employs two distinct face-to-face cluster interviews and nine experimental scenarios to examine how the framing effect, a nudging strategy, influences the public financial decisions of young adults from various universities. This experimental approach provides valuable insights into behavioural public finance by integrating psychological and economic principles. According to the findings, the framing effect significantly influences the behavioural intentions of Generation Z undergraduates. Furthermore, they reveal that effective nudges can enable these young adults to make more informed decisions about public finance and budgeting. This study is among the few that systematically performs an experimental design to examine the effects of various nudging approaches on Generation Z’s public finance and budgeting decisions. It also offers practical implications for policymakers, educators, and financial institutions, which aim to enhance budget awareness and literacy and encourage responsible financial behaviour of Generation Z.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Behavioural Public Finance
• Budgeting
• Generation Z
• Framing Effect
• Nudge

Kaynakça

1. Afonso W., & Mohr, Z. (2024). More than a wink and a nudge: Examining the choice architecture of online government budget simulations. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-17. Doi:10.1017/bpp.2024.38.
2. Alexander, P., & Balavac-Orlic, M. (2022). Tax morale: framing and fairness. Economic Systems, 46(1), 100936.
3. Anderson, J.E. (2017). Paying the state use tax: Is a “nudge” enough? Public Finance Review, 45(2), 260-282.
4. Ansong, A., & Gyensare, M. 2012. Determinants of university working students financial literacy at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), 126-133.
5. Ardanaz, M., Otálvaro-Ramírez, S., & Scartascini, C. (2023). Does information about citizen participation initiatives increase political trust? World Development, 162, 106132.
6. Baker II, R.J., Walker, J.M., Williams, A.W. (2009). Matching contributions and the voluntary provision of a pure public good: experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation, 70(1-2), 122-134.
7. Bankman J., & Griffith T. (1987). Social welfare and the rate structure: A new look at progressive taxation. California Law Review, 75(6), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3480545.
8. Ben-Ami, M., Hornik, J., Eden, D., Kaplan, O. (2014). Boosting consumers’ self-efficacy by repositioning the self. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 1914–1938.

9. Benson, S., Schmidt, K., Kleine-Borgmann, J., Herbstreit, S., Schedlowski, M., & Hollinderbäumer, A. (2022). Can positive expectations help to improve the learning of risk literacy? a cluster-randomised study in undergraduate medical students. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 416. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03498-1.
10. Boun My, K., & Ouvrard, B. (2019). Nudge and tax in an environmental public goods experiment: Does environmental sensitivity matter? Resource and Energy Economics, 55, 24-48.
11. Brendl, C.M., Higgins, E.T., & Lemm, K.M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: the role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1028- 1051.
12. Chong, D., & Druckman, J.N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
13. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson
14. Dattalo, P. (2018). Determining sample size using fast and slow thinking. Journal of Social Service Research, 44(2), 180–190. doi: 10.1080/01488376.2018.1436632
15. Demir, Z.G., & Kurtuluş, E. (2024). The effect of an intergenerational interaction programme on the life satisfaction, social support, and loneliness of the elderly. Ageing International, 49(3), 621–641. doi: 10.1007/s12126-024-09563-y
16. Dolan, P., & Metcalfe, R. (2015). Neighbours, knowledge, and nuggets: two natural field experiments on the role of incentives on energy conservation. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 23-41.
17. Druckman, J.N. (2001). The implications of framing effects on citizen incompetence. Political Behaviour, 23, 225–256.
18. Eichenberger, R., Stadelmann, D. (2010). How federalism protects future generations from today’s public debt. Review of Law & Economics, 6(3), 395–420. doi: 10.2202/1555-5879.1539.
19. Ekerim, M.G., & Yilmaz, M.B. (2022). The importance and meaningfulness of visuals: the situation for university students. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(1), 39–47.
20. Formanova, L., Madr, M., Andrlık, B., & Hrabalova, V. (2021). Factors influencing the level of tax literacy of students of bachelor study programmes in economics at faculties of economics. DANUBE, 12(4), 308–323.
21. Garcia, D., Massari, S., & Franco, L. (2019). Positive framing in public finance: the influence of message framing on youth perceptions of government spending. Journal of Public Economics, 175, 45-59.
22. Gosling, C.J., & Moutier, S. (2019). Is the framing effect a framing effect? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(6), 1412-1421.
23. Grüne-Yanoff, T., Marchionni, C., & Feufel, M.A. (2018). Towards a framework for selecting behavioural policies: how to choose between boosts and nudges. Economics & Philosophy, 34(2), 243-266.
24. Guala, F., & Mittone, L. (2005). Experiments in economics: external validity and robustness of phenomena. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(4), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780500342906
25. Hahs-Vaughn, D.L., & Lomax, R. (2020). An introduction to statistical concepts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624358.
26. Hasseldine, J., & Hite, P.A. (2003). Framing, gender and tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(4), 517–533. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748700200209X.
27. Hidayat, R., & Tauhid, M.S. (2022). Co-learning on budget literacy and expenditure tracking of the village development programme. CARADDE: Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 5(2), 236-343. Doi: https://doi.org/10.31960/caradde.v5i2.1560
28. Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review of the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, 80, 47-58.
29. International Budget Partnership (2012). The power of making it simple: a government guide to developing citizens budgets. https://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Citizen-Budget-Guide.pdf, Access: 12.01.2025.
30. International Budget Partnership (2023). Open budget survey 2023. https://internationalbudget.org/open-budget-survey/, Access: 12.01.2025.
31. Iqbal Jeelani, M., Danish, F., Gul, M. (2018). A review of recent developments in cluster sampling. Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, 5(5), 146–150.
32. Jin, S., Zhang, W., & Su, R. (2020). Framing effects on financial literacy and decision-making: insights from generation Z. Journal of Behavioural Finance, 21(4), 310-325.
33. John, P. (2023). The ethics of self-aware behavioural public policies: are they different from standard nudges? Behavioural Public Policy, 7(4), 898-905.
34. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
35. Kamiguchi, A., & Tamai, T. (2019). Public investment, public debt, and population ageing under the golden rule of public finance. Journal of Macroeconomics, 60, 110-122. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2019.01.011.
36. Keller, T., & Szakál, P. (2023). The framing of information nudge affects students' anticipated effort: a large-scale, randomised survey experiment. Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, 104, 102012.
37. Kellermann, K. (2007). Debt financing of public investment: A popular misinterpretation of the golden rule of public sector borrowing. European Journal of Political Economy, 23(4), 1088- 1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejpoleco.2006.03.006.
38. Khurshid, M., Zahid, R.A., & Nisa, M.U. (2024). Factors affecting financial decisions of university students: Evidence from Pakistan. Managerial Finance, 50(2), 297-312.
39. Kim, N.W., Jung, J., Ko, E.Y., Han, S., Lee, C.W., Kim, J., Kim, J. (2016). Budget map: Engaging taxpayers in the issue-driven classification of a government budget. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 1028–1039.
40. Kirchler, E., & Maciejovsky, B. (2001). Tax compliance within the context of gain and loss situations, expected and current asset position, and profession. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(2), 173-194.
41. Kuhn, K.M. (2013). Communicating public service quality: positive framing effects in service evaluations. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 830-841.
42. Kumar R., & Indrayan A. (2002). A nomogram for single-stage cluster-sample surveys in a community for the estimation of a prevalence rate. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(2), 463–467.
43. Kundurzhiev, T., Prodanova, Y., Yancheva-Stoicheva, M., Tsacheva, N., Hristova, L., & Miteva, I. (2018). Ownership of medical institutions in Bulgaria impacts on the quality of working life of workers. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(3), 689–702.
44. Kuroki, M., & Sasaki, S. (2023). Nudging public budget officers: A field‐based survey experiment. Public Budgeting & Finance, 43(3), 3-20.
45. Levin, I.P., & Gaeth, G.J. (1988). How consumers are affected by framing attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374-378.
46. Liu, B., Lin, S., the Yuan, X., He, S., & Zhang, J. (2024). Nudge citizen participation by framing mobilisation information: A survey experiment in China. Journal of Chinese Governance, 9:1, 78-103, doi: 10.1080/23812346.2023.2191413
47. Loewenstein, G., Asch, D.A., Volpp, K.G. (2013). Behavioural economics holds the potential to deliver better results for patients, insurers, and employers. Health Affairs, 32(7), 1244-1250.
48. Löfgren, Å., & Nordblom, K. (2020). A theoretical framework of decision-making explaining the mechanisms of nudging. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation, 174, 1-12.
49. Lüdtke, J., Weiss, M., & Kroll, C. (2021). Youth support for sustainable finance: Framing effects in environmental public policy. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 23(2), 157-172.
50. Machova, R., Seben, Z., & Kutna, A. (2019). Generation Z and Y versus tax literacy in the 21st century. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 2 (64), 433-439.
51. McCaffery, E.J., & Baron, J. (2004). Framing and taxation: Evaluation of tax policies involving household composition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(6), 679-705.
52. Milkman, K.L., Beshears, J., & Choi, J.J. (2011). Implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(26), 10415-10420.
53. Minea, A., & Villieu, P. (2009). Borrowing to finance public investment? The ‘golden rule of public finance’ reconsidered in an endogenous growth setting. Fiscal Studies, 30(1), 103–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2009.00091.x.
54. Mountain, T.P., Kim, N., Gutter, M.S., Kiss, E., Cho, S.H., & Johnson, C.L. (2020). An exploration of gender bias, framing, and student loan decisions through an experimental design. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 41, 350-363.
55. Niemeyer C., Teubner T., Hall M., & Weinhardt C. (2018). The impact of dynamic feedback and personal budgets on arousal and funding behaviour in participatory budgeting. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(4), 611–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9578-6
56. Okechi, K.I., Niyomwungere, F., & Etikan, I. (2024). A comprehensive analysis of cluster sampling versus multi-stage sampling techniques: Methodologies, applications, and comparative insights. PJBMR, 2(1):21-30.
57. Otaki, M. (2015). Public debt as a burden on the future generation: A Keynesian approach. Theoretical Economics Letters, 5(5), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.[phone]
58. Ott, K., Bajo, A., Bronić, M., Bratić, V., Medak Fell, D. (2009). A citizen’s guide to the budget. Institute of Public Finance; Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:242, Access: 15.01.2025.
59. Pallant, J. (2007). A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows version 15. New York: McGraw-Hill.
60. Presidency of Strategy and Budget Directorate (2025). Citizens’ budget guideline 2025. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Vatandasin-Butce-Rehberi.pdf, Access: 15.01.2025.
61. Razak, L.A., & Habbe, A.H. (2019). Effect of framing and locus of control on commitment escalation in investment decisions. 3rd International Conference on Accounting, Management and Economics 2018, 237–246.
62. Rothman, A.J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behaviour: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.
63. Saulitis, A. Sikane, A., & Gaile, G.A. (2024). Nudging pro-environmental behaviour in a subsidised waste recycling system: A field experimental study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 99, 102416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102416
64. Schrills, T., Zoubir, M., Stahl, J., Drozniak, K., & Franke, T. (2020). Good boy here or bad boy far away? Effects of digital nudging on booking decisions in car sharing. In D. Harris & W.-C. Li (Eds.), Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Cognition and Design, 12187, 398–411.
65. Sebastião, H., Silva, N., Torres, P., & Godinho, P. (2024). Financial literacy bias: A comparison between students and nonstudents. Review of Behavioural Finance. 16(4), 620-642. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-01-2023-0023
66. Smith, A., Brown, J., & Clark, M. (2020). Simplified budget communication for young citizens: effects on fiscal understanding and engagement. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(4), 563-580.
67. Subaşi, D.Ö., & Ocakçı, A.F. (2024). The effect of child abuse and neglect prevention programme on awareness levels and child abuse potential in pregnant women: a randomised controlled study. Children and Youth Services Review, 157, 107415.
68. Tavakol M., & Dennick R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53.
69. Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
70. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
71. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
72. United Nations Development Programmes (2021). Citizens budget guide Solomon Islands 2020. https://www.undp.org/pacific/publications/citizens-budget-guide-solomon-islands, Access: 12.01.2025.
73. Vatavu, S., Lobont, O.-R., Stefea, P., & Brindescu-Olariu, D. (2019). How taxes relate to potential welfare gain and appreciable economic growth. Sustainability, 11(15), 4094.
74. Yakubov, S. (2021). Implementation of the public control over the state budget. Review of Law Sciences, 5(9), 19-35.
75. Zheng, H., Chen, K., & Ma, Z. (2023). Interactive effects of social norms and information framing on consumers’ willingness to engage in food waste reduction behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103525. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103525
76. Weijers, R. J., de Koning, B. B., & Paas, F. (2021). Nudging in education: From theory towards guidelines for successful implementation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 883-902.