Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The formality effect

Nature Human Behaviour volume 8, pages 300–310 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

This paper documents the existence of a ‘formality effect’ in government communications. Across three online studies and three field experiments in different policy contexts (total N = 67,632), we show that, contrary to researcher and practitioner predictions, formal government communications are more effective at influencing resident behaviour than informal government communications. In exploring mechanisms, we show that formality operates as a heuristic for credibility and importance. Recipients view the source of a formal letter as more competent and trustworthy, and view the request itself as more important to take action on, despite no evidence of change in comprehension or in perceived ease of taking action. These findings have immediate implications for government communicators and open the door for a renewed focus on how the design and presentation of information impacts behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Study 1 treatment effects on perceived formality, in standard deviations, relative to a letter with informal language and informal aesthetic.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data from the prediction survey and Studies 1, 4, 5 and 6 are available on OSF at https://osf.io/akh9b/. Accredited researchers can access data for Studies 2 and 3 after signing a data sharing agreement with BIT. Requests for data for Studies 2 and 3 can be directed to BIT.

Code availability

All code is available on OSF at https://osf.io/akh9b/.

References

  1. Bhargava, S. & Manoli, D. Psychological frictions and the incomplete take-up of social benefits: evidence from an IRS field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 3489–3529 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Milkman, K. L. et al. A megastudy of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2101165118 (2021).

  3. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin, 2009).

  4. Robitaille, N., House, J. & Mazar, N. Effectiveness of planning prompts on organizations’ likelihood to file their overdue taxes: a multi-wave field experiment. Manage. Sci. 67, 4327–4340 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhanot, S. & Hopkins, D. J. Partisan polarization and resistance to elite messages: results from a survey experiment on social distancing. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593450 (2020).

  6. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L. & Tummers, L. Behavioral public administration: combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Adm. Rev. 77, 45–56 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hall, C. C. & Jurcevic, I. Behavioral Insights for Public Policy: Contextualizing Our Science Elements in Applied Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 2022); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028806

  8. Nickerson, D. W. & Rogers, T. Do you have a voting plan? Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychol. Sci. 21, 194–199 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dai, H. et al. Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature 597, 404–409 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gerber, A. S. & Rogers, T. Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: everybody’s voting and so should you. J. Polit. 71, 178–191 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Herd, P. & Moynihan, D. P. Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means (Russell Sage Foundation, 2019).

  12. Lasky-Fink, J., Robinson, C., Chang, H. & Rogers, T. Using behavioral insights to improve school administrative communications: the case of truancy notifications. Educ. Res. 50, 442–450 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B. C. Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10415–10420 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Finkelstein, A. & Notowidigdo, M. J. Take-up and targeting: experimental evidence from SNAP. Q. J. Econ. 134, 1505–1556 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D. & Vlaev, I. The Making of Homo Honoratus: From Omission to Commission Working Paper No. 21210 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015); 10.3386/w21210

  16. Linos, E., Prohofsky, A., Ramesh, A., Rothstein, J. & Unrath, M. Can nudges increase take-up of the EITC? Evidence from multiple field experiments. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 14, 432–452 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Increasing School Attendance: Seattle—Proactive Communications Do Not Change Attendance Outcomes (Office of Evaluation Sciences, 2019); https://oes.gsa.gov/assets/abstracts/1809-abstract-school-attendance-seattle.pdf

  18. Poulin, R. The Language of Graphic Design Revised and Updated: An Illustrated Handbook for Understanding Fundamental Design Principles (Rockport, 2018).

  19. Resnick, E. Design for Communication: Conceptual Graphic Design Basics (John Wiley & Sons, 2003).

  20. Rodríguez Estrada, F. C. & Davis, L. S. Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Sci. Commun. 37, 140–148 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilchey, M. D., Osborne, M. & Soman, D. Does the visual salience of credit card features affect choice? Behav. Public Policy https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.14 (2021).

  22. Wedel, M. & Pieters, R. A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Rev. Mark. Res. 4, 123–147 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barcelos, R. H., Dantas, D. C. & Senecal, S. Watch your tone: how a brand’s tone of voice on social media influences consumer responses. J. Interact. Mark. 41, 60–80 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gretry, A., Horváth, C., Belei, N. & van Riel, A. C. R. ‘Don’t pretend to be my friend!’ When an informal brand communication style backfires on social media. J. Bus. Res. 74, 77–89 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kelleher, T. Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. J. Commun. 59, 172–188 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liebrecht, C., Tsaousi, C. & van Hooijdonk, C. Linguistic elements of conversational human voice in online brand communication: manipulations and perceptions. J. Bus. Res. 132, 124–135 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Childers, T. L. & Jass, J. All dressed up with something to say: effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. J. Consum. Psychol. 12, 93–106 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Luangrath, A. W., Peck, J. & Barger, V. A. Textual paralanguage and its implications for marketing communications. J. Consum. Psychol. 27, 98–107 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Evans, M. B., McBride, A. A., Queen, M., Thayer, A. & Spyridakis, J. H. The effect of style and typography on perceptions of document tone. In Proc. International Professional Communication Conference, 2004 300–303 (IEEE, 2004); https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375314

  30. Thayer, A., Evans, M. B., McBride, A. A., Queen, M. & Spyridakis, J. H. I, pronoun: a study of formality in online content. J. Tech. Writ. Commun. 40, 447–458 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion revised edn (Harper Business, 2006).

  32. McGuire, W. J. in Behavioral and Management Sciences in Marketing (eds Davis, H. L. & Silk, A. J.) 156–180 (Wiley, 1978); https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1979.10717982

  33. Pornpitakpan, C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 243–281 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Aronson, E., Turner, J. A. & Carlsmith, J. M. Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67, 31–36 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C. & Courneya, K. S. The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: an integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33, 179–196 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kareklas, I., Muehling, D. D. & Weber, T. J. Reexamining health messages in the digital age: a fresh look at source credibility effects. J. Advert. 44, 88–104 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mizerski, R. W., Golden, L. L. & Kernan, J. B. The attribution process in consumer decision making. J. Consum. Res. 6, 123–140 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hovland, C. I. & Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin. Q. 15, 635–650 (1951).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kumagai, S. & Iorio, F. Building Trust in Government through Citizen Engagement (World Bank, 2020); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/33346/Building-Trust-in-Government-through-Citizen-Engagement.pdf

  40. Americans’ Views of Government: Decades of Distrust, Enduring Support for Its Role (Pew Research Center, 2022); https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/americans-views-of-government-decades-of-distrust-enduring-support-for-its-role/

  41. Many Believe Misinformation Is Increasing Extreme Political Views and Behaviors (AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 2022); https://apnorc.org/projects/many-believe-misinformation-is-increasing-extreme-political-views-and-behaviors

  42. Bullock, O. M. & Hubner, A. Y. Candidates’ use of informal communication on social media reduces credibility and support: examining the consequences of expectancy violations. Commun. Res. Rep. 37, 87–98 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fishbane, A., Ouss, A. & Shah, A. K. Behavioral nudges reduce failure to appear for court. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6591 (2020).

  44. Reiff, J. S., Dai, H., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L. & Benartzi, S. Save more today or tomorrow: the role of urgency in pre-commitment design. J. Mark. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437231153396 (2023).

  45. Roux, C., Goldsmith, K. & Bonezzi, A. On the psychology of scarcity: when reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. J. Consum. Res. 42, 615–631 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kim, S., Zhang, X. A. & Zhang, B. W. Self-mocking crisis strategy on social media: focusing on Alibaba chairman Jack Ma in China. Public Relat. Rev. 42, 903–912 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Xiao, Y., Cauberghe, V. & Hudders, L. Humour as a double-edged sword in response to crises versus rumours: the effectiveness of humorously framed crisis response messages on social media. J. Contingencies Crisis Manage. 26, 247–260 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. West, D. M. Equity and accessibility in e-government: a policy perspective. J. E-Gov. https://doi.org/10.1300/J399v01n02_03 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Castelo, N. et al. Moving Citizens Online: Using Salience and Message Framing to Motivate Behavior Change (Behavioral Science and Policy Association, 2015); https://behavioralpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BSP_vol1is2_-Castelo.pdf

  50. Linos, E. & Riesch, N. Thick red tape and the thin blue line: a field study on reducing administrative burden in police recruitment. Public Adm. Rev. 80, 92–103 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Plain Writing Act, 5 U.S.C. § 105 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274 (2010).

  52. DellaVigna, S. & Linos, E. RCTs to scale: comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica 90, 81–116 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Weinstein, E. A. & Deutschberger, P. Some dimensions of altercasting. Sociometry 26, 454–466 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sheeran, P. & Webb, T. L. The intention–behavior gap. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 10, 503–518 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Version 15 (StataCorp LLC, 2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank BIT, our city government partners, and E. Cardon, K. Reddy and S. Tregebov at BIT Americas for work on Studies 2 and 3. We thank the California Policy Lab, Franchise Tax Board and Golden State Opportunity for collaboration on Study 4. We also thank seminar participants at Indiana University, the Society for Judgment and Decision Making annual conference and the Public Management Research Conference for feedback on the manuscript. Finally, we thank Bloomberg Philanthropies for funding for the BIT Americas studies. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Elizabeth Linos & Jessica Lasky-Fink

  2. Department of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK

    Chris Larkin

  3. Veterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA

    Lindsay Moore

  4. NESTA, London, UK

    Elspeth Kirkman

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Linos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Lasky-Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Larkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lindsay Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elspeth Kirkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design of Studies 1, 5 and 6. As former employees of BIT, E.L., E.K. and L.M. contributed to the design and evaluation of Study 2. As former employees of BIT, E.K. and L.M. contributed to the design and evaluation of Study 3. E.L. contributed to the design and evaluation of Study 4. J.L.-F. conducted and led the analysis for Studies 1, 5 and 6. All authors contributed to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Linos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Austin Hubner, Christine Liebrecht and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–8, Tables 1–18, Methods and references.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Linos, E., Lasky-Fink, J., Larkin, C. et al. The formality effect. Nat Hum Behav 8, 300–310 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01761-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01761-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing