Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#2Following the same erroneous line of thought the next strategies might now situate themselves between nudging and strong enforcement. Something to really look forward to.
Asking people or setting an example are of course ideas that have to be discarded, applied statistical analysis is far more convenient and you have to write some kind of paper. They don't strictly have to but are certainly decisively nudged to do that. In the interest of their career of course, you got to get that numbers up.
At least nudging worked for pissoirs though. I like the subtlety of the critic saving the theory. It would be good to do something against publication bias as suggested in the article.
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#3Honest debate and persuasion is so 20th Century.
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#4Read the article. Retitled article should read “Not all nudges work”.
The interesting bit from the source article is that changes to the mean do not always reflect the value of the nudge. So, when judging a nudge, data should be spun various ways to determine impact on different segments of the population.
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#5This is a poor headline (from The Economist) that does not reflect the referenced work. The correct interpretation is that nudges need to be tested in the field to find out if they work. This is common knowledge in behavioural science.
Experts are not good at predicting which nudges are going to work in practice[1]. Trials are always needed.
This is no different to the requirement for drug trials. Drugs are not released just on the say so of pharmacologists, empirical evidence is needed. And yet nobody says pharmacology is looking ‘shaky’.
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#6Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#7Honest debate and persuasion is so 20th Century.
I kind of miss honesty, though.
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#8What is a nudge? Do dark patterns, tactics employed by casinos or loot box games that depend on whales and children of wealthy parents count?
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#9What is a nudge? Do dark patterns, tactics employed by casinos or loot box games that depend on whales and children of wealthy parents count?
Fundamentally yes, except that nudge theory is about manipulating collective action (or inaction) in populations. Promoters of this theory also envision themselves as trying to help, not fleece people of their money.
Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky
#10The chair of behavioral insights advisory in the WHO is one of the co-authors of Nudge Theory. So it's probably safe to say that government health programs - in any country that is supported by the WHO - also implement Nudge to some extent.