Comparing Types of Financial Incentives to Promote Walking: An Experimental Test.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to determine whether different types and schedules of financial incentives differentially affected the likelihood of meeting a walking goal and if perceived incentive value influenced behavior.
Results Summary
Walking increased in incentive conditions compared to the control, but no differences were found between incentive types or schedules. Perceived value of the incentive was associated with meeting the walking goal but was not influenced by reinforcement type or schedule.
Population
153 participants in a between-subjects experiment.
Effective Dosage
Not specified
Duration
8 weeks
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
financial incentives | increase | physical activity | people | - | increased | #1 |
financial incentives | increase | walking | participants in incentive conditions | - | greater | #2 |
cash reward reinforcement type | no change | walking | - | - | did not differentially affect | #3 |
deposit contract reinforcement type | no change | walking | - | - | did not differentially affect | #4 |
fixed schedule | no change | walking | - | - | did not differentially affect | #5 |
variable schedule | no change | walking | - | - | did not differentially affect | #6 |
reinforcement type | no change | perceived value of the incentive | - | - | was not affected by | #7 |
schedule | no change | perceived value of the incentive | - | - | was not affected by | #8 |
perceived value of the incentive | increase | likelihood of meeting the walking goal | - | - | associated with | #9 |
BACKGROUND: Offering people financial incentives to increase their physical activity is an increasingly prevalent intervention strategy. However, little is known about the relative effectiveness of different types of incentives. This study tested whether incentives based on specified reinforcement types and schedules differentially affected the likelihood of meeting a walking goal and explored if observed behavioural changes may have been attributable to the perceived value of the incentive. METHODS: A 2 (reinforcement type: cash reward, deposit contract) × 2 (schedule: fixed, variable) between-subjects experiment with a hanging control condition was conducted over 8 weeks (n = 153). RESULTS: Although walking was greater in the incentive conditions relative to the control condition, walking did not differ across incentive conditions. Exploratory analyses indicated that the perceived value of the incentive was associated with the likelihood of meeting the walking goal, but was not affected by reinforcement type or schedule. CONCLUSIONS: The reinforcement type and schedule manipulations tested in this study did not differentially affect walking. Given that walking behaviour was associated with perceived value, designing incentive strategies that optimise the perceived value of the incentive may be a promising avenue for future research.