Using behavioral change methods to encourage Czech HEIs’ students to (successfully) graduate and the acceptance of nudging

Abstract The article focuses on the hitherto unresearched impact of nudging on the successful completion of HEIs studies. The aim of the study is to find out how HEIs students accept different forms of nudging and how individual forms of nudging can contribute to the successful completion of studies. The explanatory paradigm is anchored in nudge theory. Based on a systematic literature review, key behavioral factors and forms of nudge that influence the successful completion of studies are identified. A two-phase empirical research was conducted (questionnaire among university students, N = 207) and a structured interview with experts (N = 22). High-touch nudges were far more acceptable. By contrast, 40% of low-touch nudges were considered somewhat unacceptable. Students do not mostly accept reminders and defaults. Students differed in their evaluation of proposed techniques and their acceptance according to their socio-economic and socio-demographic characteristics. Support was slightly stronger among men, part-time students, and economists. Female, graduate, medical, health, and social study students, and students up to 25 years of age were more likely to be against the interventions. Students having at least one parent with higher education showed slightly less acceptance of nudges. The study’s insights provide a deeper understanding of diverse needs regarding behavioral tools and enable derive of guidelines for the education policy implementation and development.


Introduction
The problem of tertiary edD countries with the goal of 40 % at least.In 2020, the share of tertiary educated persons aged 25-64 years was 40 % in the OECD countries, 37 % in the EU while 50 % in the US, and 70 % in Japan.Only 45 % of 25-34-year-old adults in OECD countries are tertiary educated compared to 52 % in the US (European Commission EC, 2010;OECD, 2021a;Vossensteyn et al., 2015).The direct economic losses in EU measured as net benefits of tertiary education are on average about USD 408 100 (per capita) for a man and USD 274 100 (per capita) for a woman.About 30 % of OECD HEIs' students do not complete their studies.Furthermore, there are social losses (OECD, 2021b(OECD, , 2021c;;Vossensteyn et al., 2015).It is, therefore, necessary to increase the graduation rate.
We examine the problem of (un)successful HEI's studies on the case of the Czech Republic as an example of typical Central European country with a well visible problem of a low graduation rate.In 2020, the share of tertiary educated persons aged 25-64 years accounted for 25 % and 33 % among 25-34-year-old, while almost every other student did not complete study.Drop-out rate within five years after HEI enrolment between 2007 and 2015 enrolment years rose from 43.25% to 49.08% (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Czech Republic, 2022;OECD, 2021aOECD, , 2021b)).This is a serious social problem that requires an effective solution to increase the success of HEI studies.

Literature review
We analyzed the literature in two research fields.In the first research field, we focused on key studies on behavioral economics (see e.g.Cartwright, 2018;Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) and nudge theory (see e.g.Camerer & Loewenstein, 2004;Primrose, 2017;Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).Furthermore, we examined the studies addressing specific sub-problems of nudge.
The analysis of the first field of research leads to the conclusion that nudge can be a suitable tool for influencing people's behavior.This leads us to the assumption that nudging can also be used to increase the success of completing HEIs studies.Graham et al. (2017) claim that the use of nudges may have a positive effect on the wider population, although little research has demonstrated if there are any potential benefits in the choice architecture or design of educational and graduation-supporting nudges.
Other studies point to the role of a number of factors influencing behavior, such as more personalized proactive contact with the tutor (Bailes & Hoy, 2014;Simpson, 2010), peer pressure in areas such as drug and alcohol consumption (Borsari et al., 2006;Rimal & Real, 2005), attendance reminders (Calzolari & Nardotto, 2011;Graham et al., 2017) can also have a dominating effect on individuals' behaviors (Borsari et al., 2006;Rimal & Real, 2005).
The study Damgaard and Nielsen (2018) became the inspiration for identifying the factors of successful graduation of students.Damgaard and Nielson provided an overview of two types of interventions: those involving passive decision-making include pure nudges (defaults, framing, and peer group manipulations) and brief psychological interventions (social belonging, identity activation, and mindset interventions).The study suggests that, if effective, these two kinds of interventions can have broad and long-term effects on overall student outcomes.
It was found that positive effects have consistently been found for primary school children, but results are less consistent and less positive for older students (see Fryer, 2016;Levitt et al., 2016;Wagner & Riener, 2015).Some types of nudging can produce both effects.For example, social comparison nudges, which facilitate comparisons with others, may create (un)desirable social pressure to adhere to the norms (Coffman et al., 2017;Wagner & Riener, 2015).
A useful classification of behavioral interventions is given by Oreopoulos (2020).Behavioral interventions can be divided into "high-touch" or "low-touch" based on the cost of the intervention and whether the intervention involves in-person interaction or not.
In the second research field, we focused on studies that deal with the problem of examining a "successful HEIs student".We find that this problem is lively discussed in the scientific literature.We arranged this discussion with regard to the topic of our study as shown in Table 1.We structured the discussion in such a way that it corresponds to the idea of the input-out put model (Leontief, 1986).We will use this input-output model idea when creating a theoretical conceptual framework.
When analyzing the literature, we found that the success of HEI's studies is a frequent research problem.At the same time, however, we find that there is a lack of analysis of successful graduation of students from the point of view of the use of nudging.We note only a few studies (see Brown et al., 2022;Dimitrova & Mitrovic, 2022;Fowlie & Forder, 2020;Graham et al., 2017) that explicitly deal with the investigation of nudging in universities.The main finding from these studies is that nudges were useful for those students who were less experienced in self-regulated learning.Harden (2011) contributes to the discussion by concluding that nudge-based interventions are more effective than mandate changes.
The important finding for our investigation is the gap of nudging acceptance on the successful completion of HEI's studies.Therefore, the main goal of the study is to find out how HEI's students accept different forms of nudging and how individual forms of nudging can contribute to the successful completion of HEI's studies.
The added scientific value of this study lies in the original empirical investigation of an unsolved problem, which is the analysis of the use of various forms of nudging as tools to encourage HEI's students to graduate successfully.Formulated conclusions and recommendations also have  Carmona, et al. (2017) etc.
a practical benefit.They provide public policy actors with relevant information for the formation of an effective educational higher education policy.
The study is divided into the following parts.In the first part, we provide a literature review and, based on the use of a descriptive input-output model, we provide a classification of factors that influence the successful graduation of students.In the second part, we create a theoretical and conceptual framework for research.Based on an assessment of contemporary scientific discourse, we anchor our research on the concept of nudge (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).The third part is empirical.It deals with the investigation of how students in the Czech Republic assess the suitability of using nudge tools as a means of "pushing" students.The fourth section is devoted to the results and discussion.At the end of the study, theoretical generalizations and practical recommendations for the educational policy are provided.

Theoretical and conceptual framework. Behavioral aspects of HEIs' student's graduation
We anchor the investigation of the problem on the nudge concept (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) and the modified input-output model (Leontief, 1986).In accordance with Thaler and Sunstein (2009), we use the term "nudge" to denote a tool that can be used to non-violently and predictably influence (change) the behavior of HEI's students.The goal of this change is to achieve individual and social benefit (i.e.successful completion of HEI's studies).
In our research, nudge theory has the function of an explanatory paradigm (Kuhn, 2012) and the role of core theory (Lakatos et al., 1979).We explain the examined problems in the form of subsumption under the nudge theory (Ochrana et al., 2022).We examine the appropriateness of using nudge tools and the degree of their acceptance by HEI's students.We investigate how identified behavioral factors and processes (see, e.g., Devlin & O'Shea, 2012;Partridge et al., 2021) influence success in higher education.We look at these factors, processes, and target output of successful graduation of students through the lens of a modified input output model (Leontief, 1986), as shown in Figure 1.
The presented input output model is an expediently simplifying view of the researched problem of the success of HEI's studies from the point of view of input, processes and output.We Source: Authors effectiveness of this output by the term "successful HEIs' student".In our study, we mean "a successful HEIs' student" a student "staying in school until completion of a degree'' (Braxton & Lee, 2005).
A key input is students starting their studies having different initial learning potential.They vary in their socio-demographic characteristics, in their willingness to accept external incentives to study, etc.
Table 1 shows the factors identified by the analysis of the scientific discourse.All these factors can influence the target outcome, which is a successfully graduated student.The expected outcome ("successful HEI's student") is also influenced by the educational processes themselves.
We conclude that the simplified and modified model of inputs and outputs shows that the success of HEI's study depends on a number of factors.In the empirical part of our study, we focus on the previously unexplored issue of the impact of nudging on successful completion of HEI's studies.
To do so, in the empirical part we will use a previously developed typology of nudging interventions (Damgaard & Nielsen, 2018).In more detail, we will investigate: a) how HEIs' students accept different forms of nudging; b) whether the acceptance of different forms of nudging depends on gender and age; c) whether the acceptance of nudging depends on the degree programme and whether the student is a full-time or a part time student; d) whether there are differences in the acceptance of nudging depending on the highest level of parental education.We formulate these identified issues into research questions (see Section 3.3).

Object of research
The object of our research is HEIs' students, heterogeneous in terms of gender, age, and educational attainment of parents.We addressed the respondents through an on-line questionnaire created on Click4survey tool.It reached students through social media (Facebook) and 42 student associations contacted.The total number of responding students was 207.
Table 2 shows the structure of respondents according to selected characteristics.
From the socio-demographic characteristics, the striking fact is that the number of respondents is dominated by women (60.9%).The "type of HEI" (expressed as the proportion of public universities and private universities) is significantly in favor of public universities.It is given by low share of private HEIs students in the Czech Republic.In our study, we are interested in how much the respondents accept the proposed high-touch and low-touch pro-graduation nudges.Here, we note we encountered a limitation of the data.

Data, research procedure and research methods
The research procedure was carried out in the following steps (phases).In the first phase, we approached forty-two HEIs students' associations with a request for research among HEI's students.In the application, we submitted the aim of the research, the method of collecting information (questionnaire) and a sworn statement on compliance with the ethical principles of the planned research.HEIs students' associations agreed with the request.
In the second step, HEI's students were approached.Respondents were addressed through an electronic questionnaire created at Click4survey via social media (Facebook) and addressed fortytwo HEIs students' associations.The data was collected from 6 June until 26 June 2022.
The questionnaire had two parts.The first part of the questionnaire included socio-demographic questions (gender, age, educational attainment of parents).The second part of the questionnaire (the focal part) focused on finding out the degree of acceptance of proposed behavioral interventions supporting HEIs' students' graduation.
The suggested "pro-graduation" nudges were categorized according to Damgaard and Nielsen (2018) and Oreopoulos (2020) as Table 1 (in Appendix) shows.To receive clear and avoid neutral answers, we enabled the respondents to select from just four possible answers (acceptable, somewhat acceptable, somewhat unacceptable, and unacceptable).We are aware that this fourlevel classification is a simplistic view of nudging acceptance.Nevertheless, we consider it sufficiently indicative of the essence of the problem.
In the third research step, we analyzed the data.We processed the outputs from the questionnaires using relevant mathematical and statistical methods and used them to evaluate the results of the questionnaire.We used the IBM SPSS Statistics 19 statistical software for the evaluation.When evaluating the results, we considered 0.01 as a statistically significant level.From correlation statistical methods we used Spearman correlation.Based on the frequency in SPSS, we processed the number and percentage of individual answers to the questions.We verified the representativeness of the sample with the Chi-square test.We discuss the results of this analysis in section 4. "Results and Discussion".

Limitation of Provided Data
(1) PhD.students cannot be evaluated separately due to their very small number (6).
(2) Likewise, in order to achieve an adequate sample size to process, we categorized the study programs into four (more or less) homogeneous groups (Economics and Law; Humanities, Arts and Education; Medical, Health and Social Studies; and Sciences, Engineering and ICT).
(3) No data was provided by Police and Military HEIs students.(4) No data was provided by foreign school students.The reason was the fact that we deliberately focused on the reality of the Czech Republic.The questionnaire was therefore offered only in the Czech language.
(5) Regarding the highest level of education attained by the parents, we considered the higher of both.
Given these limitations, the results of the investigation do not allow closer comparability of subsamples.For some "illustration" of the problem, we performed a correlation analysis.The interdependence between the individual questions and answers was determined using the Spearman correlation coefficient (statistical significance of 0.01 Here, we emphasize that we consider the results of the correlation analysis only as an illustration of the problem under study.We are aware that a high correlation does not necessarily imply confirmation of causality and a zero correlation does not imply independence (Meloun & Militký, 2006).If there is another kind of dependence in the data, the correlation coefficient will not capture it, especially when few observations are available.Moreover, and crucially, we anchor our research methodology qualitatively and on a non-Cartesian epistemology (Ochrana, 2012).

Research questions
We transform the above-mentioned identified problems (see part 3.2) into the following seven research questions (RQs): RQ 1: What is the attitude of HEI's students towards nudging?Do they consider it an appropriate tool that can help them to succeed in HEI studies?RQ 2: Do students differ in their attitudes towards nudging depending on their gender?RQ 3: Do students differ in their attitude towards nudging depending on their age?RQ 4: Do students differ in their attitude towards nudging depending on the study program?RQ 5: Do students differ in their attitude towards nudging depending on the study grade?RQ 6: Are there differences in acceptance of nudging depending on whether students study fulltime or part-time?RQ 7: Are there differences in acceptance of nudging depending on the highest level of education attained by the parents?

Results and discussion
The following section of the paper contains the search for answers to the above-established research questions.In order to determine the degree of acceptance of different forms of nudges, we created a scale for the responses obtained.The answers were coded with values as follows: • acceptable with a value of 1, • somewhat acceptable with a value 2, • somewhat unacceptable with a value of 3, • unacceptable with a value 4.
We realize that this scale is not very detailed.Nevertheless, we consider it sufficient to determine the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of the presented form of nudge.
It was also necessary to define the dividing line (border) between the subset of accepted nudge forms and the subset of unaccepted nudge forms.This borderline value of acceptance was thus 2.5.The boundaries of acceptance oscillate between "somewhat acceptable with a value of 2" and between "somewhat unacceptable with a value of 3".That is why we set the borderline value of acceptance at level 2.5.
Table 3 shows the acceptance of proposed nudges ranked from most to least acceptable, accompanied by the monitored variables.
RQ1: What is the attitude of HEI's students towards nudging?Do they consider it an appropriate tool that can help them to succeed in HEI studies?
As Table 3 shows, pro-graduation nudges are generally acceptable.Information nudges (having sufficient information) enjoyed the highest acceptance.High-touch nudges (i.e., those including personal contact) are far more acceptable for students than low-touch ones.Only 2 out of 13 hightouch nudges exceeded the borderline value of 2.5, while 8 out of 20 low-touch nudges (i.e., 40%) were considered somewhat unacceptable for HEIs students.This finding corresponds to the explanatory paradigm of nudge theory (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) and the idea of nudging.Nudging is an approach that does not exert any pressure.People can participate in a behavior change intervention entirely voluntarily (Oliver, 2013).Therefore, they prefer such forms of nudging that give them a psychological sense of freedom and a social sense of freedom of decision.This is in line with the conclusion of Harden (Harden, 2011) that nudgebased interventions are more effective than mandate changes.Therefore, students also do not mostly accept reminders (mostly in the form of a text message) and defaults (pre-set regular emailing).These forms of nudges can evoke manipulation for them.Therefore, the acceptance of peer group manipulations fluctuated around the borderline value.
Using the Spearman correlation coefficient for the comparison of the interdependence between the individually proposed nudges, we found a strong or medium correlation with such nudges that were identical in contents (only having different forms).This relative agreement can be explained by a similar (or identical) impact on the psyche.
There was a strong correlation between "the most irritating" mindset and group manipulation nudges such as messages sent after each exam about the study results in comparison with the peers of the given study program, messages such as "We know you are the kind of student who maximizes your potential . .." and "60% of your peers have already taken the Erasmus+".This correlation (and a similar reaction) can be explained by the fact that both stimuli (types of nudges) are perceived by students as (albeit hidden) manipulation.The analysis also revealed a medium correlation between "Easy access to study information" and "Orientation Day to Use the Information System".
Overall, we can state that from the offered list of "Acceptance of Proposed Pro-Graduation Nudges" the proposed pro-graduation nudges are an "appropriate inventory" of incentives.This list of incentives is potentially useful for effective nudging.None of the nudge resources have an unacceptable value of 3.Ten items reach the threshold value of 2.5.We record that, for example, these are items related to privacy protection and items disclosing personal academic achievements.Czech students are not very interested in publishing their results.This is a rather interesting insight that would require special psychological-sociological research.On a side note: Czech  students are interested in being successful, but rather do not want to popularize their achievements.
Regarding the comments of the experts on the results of RQ 1, most respondents (E 1-E 3, E 6 -E 13; FE 1 -FE 4) commented positively on the use of nudging, but at the same time pointed to some problems with its use at the HEI's.For example, respondent E 9 said about the problem of nudging: "I generally support nudging in all areas of public policies, including education.It is a tool that can be used to achieve goals more effectively than by command-and-control regulation."Similar attitudes were taken by E 1: "I consider nudging appropriate.The goal to be achieved is clear and is in line with the goal of the study both on a societal and individual level."According to E 3, nudging by the school can also help offset the handicap of students from a less activating social environment.Only one expert (E 4) expressed an obviously negative opinion on the use of nudging.She stated, "about nudge I think it's . . ..I don't mean to be vulgar.I have strong doubts about using this method of stimulation".However, this was a rare opinion.Most experts consider nudging to be a suitable tool for influencing student success.However, for its effective use, it is necessary to create suitable conditions at the HEI's.FE 1 aptly commented on this issue: "It is a very good way if it is not violent towards the student and is accepted by the student in good faith".

RQ2: Do students differ in their attitudes towards nudging depending on their gender?
Gender showed no statistically significant differences.However, female students answered more critically (10 proposed nudges exceeded 2.5) than males (7).Whilst information nudges and mentoring were slightly more acceptable for male students (by 0.2 points), for female students, it was the automatic offer of psychological assistance and reminders.The experts did not make any comments that contradicted the research results.
RQ3: Do students differ in their attitude towards nudging depending on their age?HEIs students over 25 years of age showed a much higher level of acceptance than those up to 25.This difference is aptly characterized by the aforementioned critical expert (E 4) on nudge.She gives the following explanation: "maybe it's because most of the over 25s are probably on part time studies, they're employed, they know they're studying at work, so they try".We too are inclined to this opinion.Only 1 out of all nudges exceeded the borderline value of 2.5 (Social comparison text messages), while 10 nudges (i.e., 30%) were considered somewhat unacceptable for younger HEIs students.Verbal evaluation of study results by the guarantor after the end of the academic year was more acceptable for younger students (1.67 vs. 1.86).
Expert E 3 believes that younger students are more self-confident, FE 4 and E 8 note that older students feel more responsible for completing their studies and therefore accept nudging.Expert E 5 supposes that older students can be, in a certain sense, more "pragmatic" even towards the use of nudging.

RQ4: Do students differ in their attitude towards nudging depending on the study program?
Economists considered the proposed nudges most acceptable (1.79), while medical, health, and social study students least (2.19).The acceptance by economists did not even exceed the borderline value of 2.5 in any proposed nudge.
Expert E 11 comments on this finding as follows: "That's interesting, I can't explain it exactly, but it's true that groups of students in different fields differ from each other in certain behavioral characteristics. . .And I can imagine that economists will react to nudging more positively than others-they are more inclined to competition, performance, the efficiency of negotiations, targeting the result, etc.".Experts E 3 and FE 2 hope similarly that economists are more rational and therefore give good advice.Expert E 5 claims that, according to several empirical studies, economics students are closer to the character of a rational "homo economicus".
On the contrary, medical, health, and social study students regarded 12 nudges to be somewhat unacceptable or unacceptable.Even 4 nudges (social belonging, identity activation, and mindset nudges in the form of text and pop-up messages) exceed the value of 3.
Humanities, Arts, and Education as well as Science, Engineering, and ICT students ranged between these values.FE 4 comments on this finding as follows: "Due to the difficulty of the study and its success, students of e.g., medical studies have a greater responsibility for themselves and perceive all the duties that come with it more responsibly and do not need nudging." Regarding our results, we note that medical and social studies students are more reluctant to use the nudge.For them, nudging is probably also an ethical phenomenon.This conclusion is a hypothesis the validity of which would be useful to test in international research.
In conclusion to this research question, we note that the different behavior of students of different programs can be explained on the basis of the nudge theory.The nudge theory (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) is based on the prospect theory paradigm (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), on criticism of the axiom of "purely" rational human behavior.People do not act purely rationally (like homo economicus), but are complex socio-psychological beings with their own consciousness, psyche, will, feelings, values, morals.All of this affects their decision-making.Therefore, they react differently to the possibility of choosing and accepting a given form of nudge.From the point of view of prospect theory, they decide according to whether they perceive the presented arguments as a loss or a gain (Plous, 1993).They take risks when framing arguments positively and avoid risk when framing arguments negatively (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).Students of different programs may frame the information provided differently.They may be individually new, valuable, relevant and useful in different ways.Therefore, we believe that students of different programs may differ in their acceptance of the same form of nudge.
RQ5: Do students differ in their attitude towards nudging depending on the study grade?Graduate students were more critical of the acceptance of nudges than undergraduate students (2.13 vs. 1.93, resp. 11 vs. 5 nudges exceeding the borderline value of 2.5).For graduate students, the most acceptable nudge was easy to access to information.Besides information nudges, undergraduate students welcomed mostly automatic assistance.Ph.D. students could not be analyzed as a separate group due to the small number of values in the sample.
Experts E 1, FE 4, E7 and E10 argue that the difference between the acceptance of graduate and bachelor students probably results from different experiences and from a different level of information.We believe that graduate students have more experience, have more information about nudging, and therefore are more "selective" (critical) about nudging.Also, these views are consistent with our findings regarding the previous research question RQ 4. Graduate students have a higher level of information and experience.It can therefore be assumed that the information provided in the form of a nudge is not as relevant for them as it is for bachelor's students.Graduate students (compared to undergraduate students) therefore frame the information provided differently.This can explain why graduate students were more critical of the acceptance of nudges than undergraduate students.RQ6: Are there differences in acceptance of nudging depending on whether students study fulltime or part-time?
The form of study influenced the level of pro-graduate nudge acceptance in favour of part-time students (1.86 vs. 2.04).Part-time students are generally more isolated and that is why they accept nudging techniques better.
While 30% of (particularly low touch) nudges were somewhat unacceptable for full-time students, part-time students considered only one nudge (i.e., trophies, medals awarded in public to the best students in each field in a given academic year) as somewhat unacceptable.This finding is not too surprising.One can work with the hypothesis that part-time students rather expect activities from the HEI's that enable them to study successfully and maintain (compared to full-time students) better contact with the HEI's and teachers.It is also probably a different approach to studying for full-time students and part-time students.
Expert FE 3 relates this difference to the higher level of experience with time management.Expert E 5 states: "In my opinion, it depends on the maturity and experience of the students."Other experts express themselves in a similar spirit.
We certainly note that the findings from this research question are consistent with the previous findings (RQ 4, RQ 5).Again, we register different behavior of different segments of students.The first segment is full-time students.The second segment is part-time students.Although both segments belong to the same set of HEI's students, from the point of view of prospect theory, they are two different subsets of HEI's students.These differences are primarily due to the very method of study, different experience, the strength of motivation to successfully complete studies, etc.All these are factors that influence the choice of whether to accept a given form of nudge.The same form of nudge can therefore have a different meaning for a part-time student and for a full-time student.
Again, part time students and full time students can frame the information provided differently.Therefore, the provided nudge has a different value for them, which both different student segments express by a different degree of acceptance of the same kind of nudge.RQ7: Are there differences in acceptance of nudging depending on the highest level of education attained by the parents?
The level of education attained by the parents is a socioeconomic status factor influencing the successful graduation of HEIs.(Merritt and Buboltz (2015).Our analysis considered the highest level of education attained by the parents (the higher of both).Students having at least one parent with higher education showed slightly less acceptance of nudges and considered extrinsic motivation (trophies, medals awarded in public) and social comparison nudges (in the form of text messages) somewhat unacceptable.
The finding regarding the effect of parents' educational attainment on the acceptance of nudging is interesting.The slight difference can probably be explained by the different entrylevel of the students (see Figure 1) and probably also by the influence of the family environment on the students' attitude towards nudging, as noted by FE 4, E1, E7 and E 14.It can be observed in the Czech Republic that parents with higher education lead their children to succeed in the entrance exam, while because of the higher salary, they can more easily finance preparatory courses for the entrance exams.At the same time, they can pass on personal experience of how to study successfully to their children.
The results of our research correspond to the motivation, self-regulation, satisfaction, and expectancy studies of Rach and Heinze (2017), Vettori et al. (2021), Kosiol et al. (2019), Brouwer et al. (2016), Osma and Radid (2015), Kitsantas et al. (2008), Alfaro et al. (2009), Vallejos et al. (2012); (Kitsantas et al. (2008), Merritt and Buboltz (2015).Also, non-monetary incentives (trophies, medals) showed less consistency and less positive for older students as in the studies of Fryer (2016), Levitt et al. (2016), and Wagner and Riener (2015).E 3 comments on our results in a similar vein: "I think that more educated parents use nudging more and are better able to give advice.The less educated or less successful do not believe so much in improving life chances with higher education or greater diligence.They don't put as much pressure on their children, and they don't know how to do it either.This is where the school can help."

Conclusion
The study examines the problem of (un)successful HEI's studies on the case of the Czech Republic as an example of a Central European country with a well visible problem of a low graduation rate.The literature review confirms that examining the success of HEI's studies is a frequent research question.At the same time, however, there is a lack of analysis of successful graduation of students from the point of view of the use of nudging.Therefore, the authors of this study set themselves the goal of finding out how HEI's students accept different forms of nudging and how individual forms of nudging can contribute to the successful completion of HEI's studies.A corresponding theoretical conceptual framework was created for this.The theoretical pillar was the nudge theory.According to this theory, it is possible to influence human behavior with nudging tools.In accordance with Thaler and Sunstein (2009), we understand "nudge" as a tool that can be used to predictably influence (change) the behavior of HEI's students.The goal of this change is to achieve successful completion of HEI's studies.To do this, we have identified key behavioral factors (see Devlin & O'Shea, 2012;Partridge et al., 2021) that we hypothesize influence HEI's success.
We used a modified input output model (Leontief, 1986) to graphically display the problem.The basic elements of this modified model are: input (students), educational processes (influenced by nudge tools), and output (successful graduate student).We investigated how HEI's students accept individual forms of nudging in the educational process.Their impact on output (successful completion of HEI's studies) can be deduced from the degree of acceptance of individual forms of nudge.Answers to the following problems were sought: a) how HEI's students accept individual forms of nudging; b) whether acceptance of individual forms of nudging depends on gender and age; c) whether acceptance of nudging depends on study programs and on the study grade; d) whether acceptance of nudging depends on whether the student is full-time or part-time; e) whether there are differences in acceptance of nudging depending on the highest level of education attained by the parents.A scale was created to determine the degree of acceptance of various forms of nudges: acceptable with a value of 1, somewhat acceptable with a value 2, somewhat unacceptable with a value of 3, unacceptable with a value 4. We set the borderline "value of acceptance at level 2.5".The following findings and conclusions emerge from the investigation: The acceptance varied inconsiderably among different interventions.High-touch nudges gathered the most support, while low-touch (particularly in the form of text messages) generated higher resistance.
Information nudges enjoyed the highest acceptance.The type of study program, the form of study, and gender were the strongest predictors of acceptance.Support was slightly stronger among male students, part-time students, and economists.They seem to be more nudgeable.On the contrary, female, graduate, medical, health, and social study students up to 25 years of age, were more strongly opposed to the interventions.Also, students having at least one parent with higher education showed slightly less acceptance of nudges.Strong or medium correlations were found with such nudges that were identical in contents and different in forms of communication.A strong correlation between social belonging, identity activation, and mindset nudges and group manipulation nudges was also revealed.
The different levels of acceptance must be considered by Czech public policy administrators when planning interventions designed to encourage students to successfully graduate.This article suggests a movement towards more research and publications in all these focus areas and collecting a greater deal of data on interventions so that policymakers and other stakeholders may employ their indisputable potential.As respondent E 11 aptly remarked: "Study failure is a big problem and, in this context, increasing the motivation and interest of students is very important.Nudging can be an appropriate tool, but it must not be overdone so that students do not feel under excessive pressure.I am afraid that many teachers lack knowledge and competence in this direction." We agree with this view.
An important insight is that when using nudging, it is necessary to consider the specifics of the target group.The same form of nudging can therefore be received differently by full-time and parttime students.Furthermore, students of different programs may frame the provided information in different ways.Further research is needed.Nudging is therefore not only a theoretical but also a practical problem.Nudging can undoubtedly be considered an important tool for influencing the success of HEI's studies.It is therefore certainly desirable to check the validity of our conclusions and the relevance of the questions raised and resolved in further research and other data.The results of the investigation are also a challenge for public policy actors.They point to the possibilities of what effective nudging tools to use to encourage HEI students to successfully graduate.
Figure 1.Systematic view of factors of successful graduation of students.

Table 2 . Structure of respondents according to selected socio-demographic characteristics Socio-demographic characteristics N Share in %
). Interdependence between individual characters, or rate/ degree of how the characters are related to each other, we determined as follows: values of the correlation coefficient in the interval from 0 to | 0.3 | we evaluate as a weak direct, or indirect dependence, values in the interval from | 0.3 | to | 0.6 | we evaluate as a medium direct, or indirect dependence and values in the interval from | 0.6 | to | 1 | as a strong direct, or indirect dependence.