Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science

Milkman, Katherine L.; Gromet, Dena M.; Ho, Hung S.; Kay, Joseph S.; Lee, Timothy W.; Pandiloski, Pepi; Park, Yeji; Rai, Aneesh; Bazerman, Max H.; Beshears, John; Bonacorsi, Lauri; Camerer, Colin F.; Chang, Edward H.; Chapman, Gretchen B.; Cialdini, Robert B.; Dai, Hengchen; Eskreis-Winkler, Lauren; Fishbach, Ayelet; Gross, James J.; Horn, Samantha; Hubbard, Alexa; Jones, Steven J.; Karlan, Dean; Kautz, Tim; Kirgios, Erika; Klusowski, Joowon; Kristal, Ariella; Ladhania, Rahul; Loewenstein, George; Ludwig, Jens; Mellers, Barbara A.; Mullainathan, Sendhil; Saccardo, Silvia; Spiess, Jann; Suri, Gaurav; Talloen, Joachim; Taxer, Jamie L.; Trope, Yaacov; Ungar, Lyle H.; Volpp, Kevin G.; Whillans, Ashley V.; Zinman, Jonathan; Duckworth, Angela

doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04128-4

Cited by 111 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, Mertens et al focus their message on the average effect size estimated without adjusting for publication bias, concluding that "our results show that choice architecture interventions promote behavior change with a small to medium effect size of Cohen's d = 0.45"(p. 1). We argue that this effect size is implausibly large which could be misleading and further strengthen researchers' and practitioners' overoptimistic expectations 3,4 about the impact of nudges. Furthermore, the authors focus their conclusions on this average value and on subgroups, leaving aside the large degree of unexplained heterogeneity 5 in apparent effects across published studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

No reason to expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions

Szászi

Higney

Charlton

et al. 2022

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 75%

No reason to expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions

Szászi

Higney

Charlton

et al. 2022

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, a multicountry randomized experiment by Moehring et al finds that providing individuals information about the share of their network that is accepting of vaccines influences individuals’ own vaccination intentions ( Moehring et al, 2000 ). While not focused on COVID-19 vaccination, two recent studies by Milkman et al find that text-message-based nudges leveraging loss-aversion and social pressure can increase flu vaccination by up to 5 percentage points ( Milkman et al, 2021b ; Milkman et al, 2021a ). Taken together, our results contribute to research on behavioral science strategies for addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy by revealing changes to side-effect framing as another additional nudge-based pathway for impact.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Addressing public concerns over vaccine side-effects will be a key component of efforts to improve vaccine use in the United States, United Kingdom, and globally – especially with recommendations for ongoing booster doses. Several recent behavioral sciences studies investigating this topic have found that small financial incentives and reminders can improve COVID-19 and flu vaccine uptake ( Campos-Mercade et al, 2021 ; Milkman et al, 2021b ; Milkman et al, 2021a ; Dai et al, 2021 ; Klüver et al, 2021 ; Santos et al, 2021 ). As another distinct ‘nudge’ pathway, there is a large body of evidence in health communication and the behavioral sciences that shows that how risks are framed and presented to individuals can also affect their perceptions of its severity and ultimately their behavior ( Bonner et al, 2021 ; Trevena et al, 2013 ; Zipkin et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of side-effect risk framing strategies on COVID-19 vaccine intentions: a randomized controlled trial

Sudharsanan

Favaretti

Hachaturyan

et al. 2022

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Fear over side-effects is one of the main drivers of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A large literature in the behavioral and communication sciences finds that how risks are framed and presented to individuals affects their judgments of its severity. However, it remains unknown whether such framing changes can affect COVID-19 vaccine behavior and be deployed as policy solutions to reduce hesitancy.Methods:We conducted a pre-registered randomized controlled trial among 8998 participants in the United States and the United Kingdom to examine the effects of different ways of framing and presenting vaccine side-effects on individuals’ willingness to get vaccinated and their perceptions of vaccine safety.Results:Adding a descriptive risk label (‘very low risk’) next to the numerical side-effect and providing a comparison to motor-vehicle mortality increased participants’ willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine by 3.0 percentage points (p=0.003) and 2.4 percentage points (p=0.049), respectively. These effects were independent and additive and combining both framing strategies increased willingness to receive the vaccine by 6.1 percentage points (p<0.001). Mechanistically, we find evidence that these framing effects operate by increasing individuals’ perceptions of how safe the vaccine is.Conclusions:Low-cost side-effect framing strategies can meaningfully affect vaccine intentions at a population level.Funding:Heidelberg Institute of Global Health.Clinical trial number:German Clinical Trials Registry (#DRKS00025551).

show abstract

“…Although behavior analysts may find the concept familiar, BA boosting possesses the merit of providing an operational account of the conditions for creating long-lasting behavior change once the effects of nudging fade out. For example, only 8% of interventions a megastudy (i.e., a massive field experiment testing out several concurrent behavioral interventions in the same population and in a comparable way) aimed at informing policy for encouraging physical exercise were still found measurable and significant after 4 weeks from rollout (Milkman et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Nudging and Boosting: Interventions Of Choice Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Tutorial. A Behavioral Analysis of Rationality, Nudging, and Boosting: Implications for Policymaking

Tagliabue

2022

Perspect Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As recent trends in policymaking call for increased contributions from behavioral science, nudging and boosting represent two effective and relatively economic approaches for influencing choice behavior. They utilize concepts from behavioral economics to affect agents’ concurrent suboptimal choices: in principle, without applying coercion. However, most choice situations involve some coercive elements. This study features a functional analysis of rationality, nudging, and boosting applied to public policy. The relationship between behavior and environmental variables is termed a “behavioral contingency,” and the analysis can include social and cultural phenomena by applying a selectionist perspective. Principles of behavioral control, whether tight or loose, may be exerted by policymakers or regulators who subscribe to paternalistic principles and may be met with demands of libertarianism among their recipients. This warrants discussion of the legitimacy and likelihood of behavioral control and influence on choices. Cases and examples are provided for extending the unit of analysis of choice behavior to achieve outcomes regulated by policies at the individual and group levels, including health, climate, and education. Further research and intervention comprise the study of macrocontingencies and metacontingencies. Advancing the understanding and application of behavioral science to policymaking may, therefore, benefit from moving from the relatively independent contributions of behavioral economics and behavior analysis to an inclusive selectionist approach for addressing choice behavior and cultural practices.

show abstract

Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science

Abstract: Milkman et al.

Cited by 111 publications

References 29 publications

No reason to expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions

No reason to expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions

Effects of side-effect risk framing strategies on COVID-19 vaccine intentions: a randomized controlled trial

Tutorial. A Behavioral Analysis of Rationality, Nudging, and Boosting: Implications for Policymaking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About