> This meta-analytic finding turns on the authors’ method for measuring publication bias. Because I accept that, I must believe that this entire body of research, probably the signal behavioral economics work, is essentially worthless!
I strongly disagree with this statement, even as someone who believes “nudge” effects are wildly overblown.
It means “these studies failed to find evidence” - NOT that there is nothing to find.
The distinction is important because, as it turns out, the policies that the research influenced did work, in many cases. 401k contributions did go up, in many cases. More people became organ donors. More Europeans got stronger privacy protections.
“The power of defaults” is such a cliche because, in many cases, it works.
The problem with these studies is overstating the effect - not spewing worthless BS.
I defend and elucidate. Worthlessness I would define here relative to the amounts of public and of policy attention the nudge findings have received vs net value add modified by these results.
Perhaps due to the PR efforts of leading researchers, it was much more than “set defaults intelligently.” The interpretations were more like: we can use social science to shape peoples’ behavior at the margins. Further these marginal changes would cumulate to substantive and lasting societal improvement.
On reflection, it seems to me that the value of this paper stems from its attempt to measure or quantify publication bias. In this case, the bias was positive in the direction of with studies confirming nudge effects.
Taking that a step further implies that the actual net nudge effects across published and unpublished studies were statistically and therefore substantively insignificant. Hence the use of the term worthless, i.e. non-findings.
To say that it is costless to implement a nudge scheme in the behavioral economics sense is simply untrue. In the retirement case it required a lengthy ethical and legal debate; some study and political argument as to the best outcome, which is in part a redistributive question, hard costs associated with revision or development of messages and other materials, etc.
Worse I believe is the damage done from attention and action predicated on now seemingly faulty social science. What could’ve been done instead and what will happen in the next time a social scientist claims an ‘easy’ way to make things better are costs.
> statistically and therefore substantively insignificant
This is not what statistical significance implies. This misunderstanding, and its inverse, leads to the very errors for which you criticize the "nudge" papers.
More to the broader point, "set defaults intelligently" in fact implies the ability to "shape peoples' behavior at the margins." Otherwise, why bother thinking about them?
That's why what is actually at issue with "nudges" is effect size & context: how much of a difference can we have, and where?
And to that question, this paper provides little insight. It aggregates too much & ignores real-world policy evidence.
Now, it's still a good paper - people have gone WAY overboard with nudges in silly places - it just needs to be understood as "let's reign in expectations" and not "this field is bunk"
I think the issue here is using science / evidence to push for policy changes when there isn't actually sound science or evidence. That can be done with sound policies that work just as well as it can be done with bad policies. But we should always be concerned when unsound science gets used. It can be used to shut down valid policy debates. And eventually, on a long enough time line, it will get abused by bad actors.
Can these effects be explained without inventing a new term? Because if they can then these studies didn’t really find anything did they?
Whenever I see a new term being introduced as an explanation I am hesitant to accept it, as it may turn out to just be explaining the planetary motions with epicycle, when the motions can be easier explained by moving the sun to the center of the solar system instead of the earth.
Not very scientific, but isn't it just laziness? Most people (including me) are too lazy to think about all the choices they could make, so they just stay with the default choice most of the time. Not because they actually prefer it, mainly because they never even read it.
Indeed. Your alternative theory doesn’t require an extra construct, and instead uses a pretty established cognitive behavior (the tendency of inaction) to explain the same phenomenon. I would say your explanation has the advantage of Occam’s razor, whereas Nudge Theory doesn’t.
That we need to “create” the idea of a “nudge effect” when it’s clear people take on commonly encountered social behaviors is bizarre.
Cognitive experience is a for loop with memory; for time spent in situation X, memory forms at rate Y. Social science solved.
Social science derives all it’s conclusions by studying the same old physical world as physical science. It’s restatement of science customized to cultural tradition. It’s cultural tradition to over hype our specialness selling books and big ideas, when the math is the same everywhere. Creating cultural objects of obvious math is a commodity now.
I strongly disagree with this statement, even as someone who believes “nudge” effects are wildly overblown.
It means “these studies failed to find evidence” - NOT that there is nothing to find.
The distinction is important because, as it turns out, the policies that the research influenced did work, in many cases. 401k contributions did go up, in many cases. More people became organ donors. More Europeans got stronger privacy protections.
“The power of defaults” is such a cliche because, in many cases, it works.
The problem with these studies is overstating the effect - not spewing worthless BS.