Jul 28, 2022
Nudge theory, (which proposes that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions are a way to influence the behaviour and decision-making of groups or individuals - think carrot and stick, where the carrot is the nudge and the stick is legislation) hasn't had the best few years as researchers have failed to replicate many of the landmark studies on which the entire field has been built.
A meta-analysis, published in December last year, of more than 200 studies concluded that ‘choice architecture is an effective and widely applicable behaviour change tool’ that produces small-to-medium-sized effects. (So, yey for nudge theory).
However this month, another paper took the same data used in the meta-analysis, and after correcting for science journals’ bias towards studies with significant positive results, it found ‘no evidence remain[ed] that nudges are effective as tools for behaviour change’.
So is this the final death knell for nudge theory?
Not quite yet. The correcting paper also stated that almost all the categories of nudge research showed 'evidence for heterogeneity, which implies that some nudges might be effective, even when there is evidence against the mean effect'.
Basically, some nudges appear to work in certain circumstances and on certain groups of people. But we don't know why they work.
And this is nothing new. Also this month, a study out of UCL found that there's no evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin levels. But we also know that some SSRIs work on some people as a treatment for depression. Similarly, doctors regularly prescribe paracetamol as a pain reliever, but we still don't fully understand how it actually works.
So don't ditch your nudge campaigns just yet!