A Systematic Scoping Review of the Choice Architecture Movement: Towards Understanding When and Why Nudges Work
B. Szaszi, Anna Palinkas, B. Pálfi, A. Szollosi, B. Aczel
{"title":"A Systematic Scoping Review of the Choice Architecture Movement: Towards Understanding When and Why Nudges Work","authors":"B. Szaszi, Anna Palinkas, B. Pálfi, A. Szollosi, B. Aczel","doi":"10.1002/BDM.2035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we provide a domain-general scoping review of the nudge movement by reviewing 422 choice architecture interventions in 156 empirical studies. We report the distribution of the studies across countries, years, domains, subdomains of applicability, intervention types, and the moderators associated with each intervention category to review the current state of the nudge movement. Furthermore, we highlight certain characteristics of the studies and experimental and reporting practices that can hinder the accumulation of evidence in the field. Specifically, we found that 74% of the studies were mainly motivated to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in one specific setting, while only 24% of the studies focused on the exploration of moderators or underlying processes. We also observed that only 7% of the studies applied power analysis, 2% used guidelines aiming to improve the quality of reporting, no study in our database was preregistered, and the used intervention nomenclatures were non-exhaustive and often have overlapping categories. Building on our current observations and proposed solutions from other fields, we provide directly applicable recommendations for future research to support the evidence accumulation on why and when nudges work. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.","PeriodicalId":258423,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Theorizing Politics & Power (Political) (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"195","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AARN: Theorizing Politics & Power (Political) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/BDM.2035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 195
Abstract
In this paper, we provide a domain-general scoping review of the nudge movement by reviewing 422 choice architecture interventions in 156 empirical studies. We report the distribution of the studies across countries, years, domains, subdomains of applicability, intervention types, and the moderators associated with each intervention category to review the current state of the nudge movement. Furthermore, we highlight certain characteristics of the studies and experimental and reporting practices that can hinder the accumulation of evidence in the field. Specifically, we found that 74% of the studies were mainly motivated to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in one specific setting, while only 24% of the studies focused on the exploration of moderators or underlying processes. We also observed that only 7% of the studies applied power analysis, 2% used guidelines aiming to improve the quality of reporting, no study in our database was preregistered, and the used intervention nomenclatures were non-exhaustive and often have overlapping categories. Building on our current observations and proposed solutions from other fields, we provide directly applicable recommendations for future research to support the evidence accumulation on why and when nudges work. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
对选择架构运动的系统范围审查:走向理解轻推何时以及为什么起作用
在本文中,我们通过回顾156项实证研究中的422项选择架构干预措施,对助推运动进行了领域一般范围的回顾。我们报告了研究在不同国家、年份、领域、适用性子领域、干预类型和与每个干预类别相关的调节者之间的分布,以回顾轻推运动的当前状态。此外,我们强调了研究、实验和报告实践的某些特征,这些特征可能会阻碍该领域证据的积累。具体来说,我们发现74%的研究主要是为了评估特定环境下干预措施的有效性,而只有24%的研究关注于探索调节因子或潜在过程。我们还观察到,只有7%的研究应用了功效分析,2%的研究使用了旨在提高报告质量的指南,我们的数据库中没有研究是预先注册的,使用的干预命名法不是详尽的,而且经常有重叠的类别。基于我们目前的观察和其他领域提出的解决方案,我们为未来的研究提供了直接适用的建议,以支持关于轻推为何以及何时起作用的证据积累。版权所有©2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。