Incentivizing Wellness in the Workplace
Incentivizing Wellness in the Workplace
复制标题
激励工作场所的健康
DOI：
10.1177/0956797612474471
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
8.2
通讯作者：
P. Ditto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David Tannenbaum;C. J. Valasek;E. Knowles;P. Ditto
公司经常提供激励措施，鼓励员工保持健康的生活方式。这些激励措施的形式可以是对健康体重员工的保费折扣（“胡萝卜”政策）或对超重员工的保费增加（“大棒”政策）。在这里报告的三项研究中，我们证明，即使大棒政策和胡萝卜政策在形式上是等同的，它们也不一定向员工传达相同的信息。大棒政策不胡萝卜政策被认为反映了公司对超重员工的负面态度（研究1a），超重参与者对其的评价尤其负面（研究1b）。即使超重员工在大棒政策下支付的钱比在胡萝卜政策下支付的少，情况也是如此。当作为决策者时（研究2），具有高水平隐性超重偏见的参与者特别有可能选择坚持政策——通常是基于这样的政策是成本效益的——即使这样做对公司来说成本更高。政策制定者应该意识到，激励计划的框架可以传递隐性的，有时是污名化的信息。
Companies often provide incentives for employees to maintain healthy lifestyles. These incentives can take the form of either discounted premiums for healthy-weight employees (“carrot” policies) or increased premiums for overweight employees (“stick” policies). In the three studies reported here, we demonstrated that even when stick and carrot policies are formally equivalent, they do not necessarily convey the same information to employees. Stick but not carrot policies were viewed as reflecting negative company attitudes toward overweight employees (Study 1a) and were evaluated especially negatively by overweight participants (Study 1b). This was true even when overweight employees paid less money under the stick than under the carrot policy. When acting as policymakers (Study 2), participants with high levels of implicit overweight bias were especially likely to choose stick policies—often on the grounds that such policies were cost-effective—even when doing so was more costly to the company. Policymakers should realize that the framing of incentive programs can convey tacit, and sometimes stigmatizing, messages.
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
Greenwald, AG;Nosek, BA;Banaji, MR
通讯作者：
Banaji, MR