A098: Measuring Nudging

Background: The prevalence of physical inactivity poses a substantial public health challenge, as it is intricately linked to an elevated risk of adverse health outcomes. Within the context of college environments, students frequently face conditions that inadvertently foster inactive lifestyles. Nudges, defined as changes in the design of choice environments to help people make better choices predictably while maintaining freedom of choice, are frequently employed to promote health behaviors. Most nudge studies are based on only one or two types of interventions. However, the effectiveness of different types of nudges on improving physical activity on a large scale needs to be verified, especially for the college student population. The present study was designed to examine the influence of different types of nudges on physical activity behaviors among college students on a large scale, significantly improving research efficiency and exploring the most effective nudges. Method: Measuring the susceptibility on physical activity nudges by the College Physical Activity Nudging Susceptibility Scale (i.e., CPANSS), consisting of 21 items and five factors rated on a Likert 5-point scale. The short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was employed to collect data on the amount and frequency of physical activity. Data were collected using an online questionnaire with 3143 respondents from four universities in China. Descriptive statistics, reliability, and univariate and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to address the research objectives. Results: The physical activity levels of college students were classified as Inactive (11.55%), Minimally Active (76.52%), and HEPA Active (11.93%) using the IPAQ flow chart. Regression analysis revealed that all five nudges, namely “Messenger and Norms,” “Incentives,” “Default,” “Salience, Priming and Affect,” and “Commitments and Ego,” had significant effects on METs (R²=0.211; p &lt; 0.01) and physical activity frequency (R²=0.265; p &lt; 0.01). Notably, “Commitments and Ego” (<italic>β</italic>=0.269) exhibited the most significant impact on promoting total METs, while “Default” (<italic>β</italic>=0.295) demonstrated the most “nudgeability” on enhancing physical activity frequency. Conclusion: This study measured and verified the significant effects of five types of nudges on physical activity among college students on a large scale. The findings provide valuable insights for managers and policymakers aiming to promote physical activity in students by changing college settings.