For educational researchers, Al-Ubaydli et al. raise a crucial question: How can the science of scaling experimental innovations contribute to school improvement? By assessing how particular innovative programs work, why, for whom and under what conditions, experimenters test theories: about how children and youth learn, about how adults can collaborate to create the required learning opportunities and about how policy can supply the required incentives and resources to support such effective collaboration. My focus in this response article thus shifts from the perspective of innovators who hope to scale their interventions to the perspective of practitioners who face the challenge of adopting, adapting or borrowing ideas from experimental studies and harmonizing those ideas with expert clinical judgment.

The problem with decision-making in an institutional setting is that it is often more important for one's reputation and job security to appear to be logical than it is to be truly effective. Indeed, a far lower burden of proof is applied to ideas and suggestions that accord with simple economic axioms than to those that are oblique, counterintuitive or employ second-order thinking. Hence, the best new ideas generated by behavioural science will and should often lie outside the bureaucrat's natural comfort zone; any difficulties encountered by behavioural scientists should not surprise us: like the sting of an antiseptic, they are proof that the treatment is working.

Regulators require lenders to display a subset of credit card features in summary tables before customers finalize a credit card choice. Some jurisdictions require some features to be displayed more prominently than others to help ensure that consumers are made aware of them. This approach could lead to untoward effects on choice, such that relevant but nonprominent product features do not factor in as significantly. To test this possibility, we instructed a random sample of 1615 adults to choose between two hypothetical credit cards whose features were shown side by side in tables. The sample was instructed to select the card that would result in the lowest financial charges, given a hypothetical scenario. Critically, we randomly varied whether the annual interest rates and fees were made visually salient by making one, both, or neither brighter than other features. The findings show that even among credit-savvy individuals, choice tends strongly toward the product that outperforms the other on a salient feature. As a result, we encourage regulators to consider not only whether a key feature should be made more salient, but also the guidelines regarding when a key feature should be displayed prominently during credit card acquisition.

The application of behavioural insights to public policy has been a success story of recent years, in academia and in the civil service. Alongside this, a parallel group of practitioners has emerged, using the same underlying research to pursue commercial and marketing goals. Although the objectives are mostly different, many of the approaches are similar. This article contrasts public and private sector approaches and highlights lessons each group can learn from the other.

Promoting agency – people's ability to form intentions and to act on them freely – must become a primary objective for Behavioural Public Policy (BPP). Contemporary BPPs do not directly pursue this objective, which is problematic for many reasons. From an ethical perspective, goals like personal autonomy and individual freedom cannot be realised without nurturing citizens’ agency. From an efficacy standpoint, BPPs that override agency – for example, by activating automatic psychological processes – leave citizens ‘in the dark’, incapable of internalising and owning the process of behaviour change. This may contribute to non-persistent treatment effects, compensatory negative spillovers or psychological reactance and backfiring effects. In this paper, we argue agency-enhancing BPPs can alleviate these ethical and efficacy limitations to longer-lasting and meaningful behaviour change. We set out philosophical arguments to help us understand and conceptualise agency. Then, we review three alternative agency-enhancing behavioural frameworks: (1) boosts to enhance people's competences to make better decisions; (2) debiasing to encourage people to reduce the tendency for automatic, impulsive responses; and (3) nudge+ to enable citizens to think alongside nudges and evaluate them transparently. Using a multi-dimensional framework, we highlight differences in their workings, which offer comparative insights and complementarities in their use. We discuss limitations of agency-enhancing BPPs and map out future research directions.

Over the last decade, health care in many parts of the world has shifted toward a more patient-centric, consumeristic model, marked by an emphasis on choice and a proliferation of typical consumer-facing information (e.g. price and quality data). However, while the ‘patients as consumers’ perspective is an apt one, there are crucial differences between health care and typical consumer domains that warrant special consideration by policy-makers and researchers alike. This article discusses some of these differences and explores the challenges that consumers (i.e. patients) face when making trade-offs between price and quality.

In a previously published article, I reported some tests of prospect theory's reflection effect over outcomes defined by money and life years gained from treatment. Those results suggested qualified support for the reflection effect over money outcomes and strong support over longevity outcomes. This article reruns those tests while accounting for the intensity of individual risk attitudes, and, overall, show consistency with the reflection effect. However, I argue that these results do not necessarily offer support for the explanatory power of prospect theory. Rather, the results may be driven by evolved responses to circumstances that provoke perceptions of scarcity and abundance. Therefore, from an ecological perspective, behavioral patterns such as those that are consistent with the reflection effect, which, by extension, tend to be considered as erroneous or biased by most behavioral economists because they conflict with the postulates of rational choice theory, may not be unreasonable. Recognizing as such is important when considering how behavioral insights ought to inform public policy design and implementation.

The aim of this article is to better understand how judgements about nudge acceptability are formed and whether they can be manipulated. We conducted a randomized experiment with N = 171 participants to test whether acceptability judgements could be (1) more favourable when the decision to implement the nudges was made following a consultation with the targeted population and (2) influenced by the joint framing of the nudge's purpose and effectiveness (in terms of an increase in desirable behaviour versus decrease in undesirable behaviour). We tested these hypotheses on various nudge scenarios and obtained mixed results that do not clearly support our hypotheses for all nudge scenarios. A surprising result that calls for further work is that by mentioning that a nudge had been implemented through a consultation with the targeted population its acceptability could be lowered.

This study investigates the impacts of behavioral finance on stock market volatility. The primary aims are to explain the reasons behind changes in the S&P 500 price within the context of behavioral finance and to analyze investor behavior in response to these changes. To achieve this, the research employs time-series analysis over a 10-year period, focusing on the S&P 500, real interest rates, consumer confidence, market volatility and credit default swaps while considering the effects of behavioral biases. The findings reveal several significant correlations: rising real interest rates negatively affect stocks due to loss aversion and sentiment. Conversely, higher consumer confidence tends to positively influence the stock market, driven by herding behavior and optimism. Additionally, market volatility shows a negative correlation with the S&P 500, influenced by risk aversion, recency bias and herding behavior. Moreover, an increase in credit default swap rates leads to stock market declines, primarily influenced by risk perception, loss aversion and herding behavior.

Naturalistic monitoring tools provide detailed information about people's behaviours and experiences in everyday life. Most naturalistic monitoring research has focused on measuring subjective well-being. This paper discusses how naturalistic monitoring can inform behavioural public policy-making by providing detailed information about everyday decisions and the choice architecture in which these decisions are made. We describe how the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) – a naturalistic monitoring tool popular in the subjective well-being literature – can be used to: (i) improve ecological validity of behavioural economics; (ii) provide mechanistic evidence of the everyday workings of behavioural interventions; and (iii) help us to better understand people's true preferences. We believe that DRM data on everyday life have great potential to support the design and evaluation of behavioural policies.

Local public managers increasingly use behavioral policy instruments to influence the behavior of citizens. However, despite their increased reliance on these instruments, there is little evidence on why local public manager would prefer behavioral instruments over classic stick, carrot or sermon-type instruments. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a stated-preference survey and two focus groups, to examine whether senior local public managers (directors and deputy directors) in Flanders prefer behavioral policy instruments over classic stick, carrot and sermon-type instruments, and explore whether their trust in citizens (perceptions of citizen's ability, benevolence and integrity) affects these preferences for policy instruments. The results indicate that in some policy areas, such as health, public nuisance and road safety, public managers appear more willing to use behavioral policy instruments than classic sticks and carrots, but not sermons. Furthermore, we find that public managers’ trust in citizens does not appear to significantly affect their preferences for policy instruments, but that political and economic motives do play a role in their preferences for behavioral policy instruments. Finally, the results also indicate that the simultaneous use of behavioral and classic policy instruments (packaging) can help mediate the perceived risks of citizens’ non-compliance with behavioral policy instruments.

Participatory work structure is a popular concept but its causal impacts in real-world work groups have heretofore been unquantified and research has been Western-centric. We test the hypothesis that participatory group structure increases productivity for blue-collar workers in a context where participation is not a normative default. We conducted a pre-registered longitudinal field experiment with 65 Chinese factory groups (1752 workers). Half of the groups were randomly assigned to a 20-minute participatory meeting once per week for 6 weeks, in which the group's supervisor stepped aside and workers contributed ideas and personal goals in an open discussion of their work. The other half continued with status-quo meetings in which supervisors spoke and set goals, workers listened, and a researcher observed. We found that a participatory versus a hierarchical structure led to a 10.6% average increase in individual treatment workers’ productivity, an increase that endured for 9 weeks after the experiment ended. The brief participatory meetings also increased treatment workers’ retention rate (an 85% vs. 77% retention rate in treatment vs. control groups) and feelings of empowerment such as job satisfaction and sense of control. We found no evidence of informational gains or new worker goals; instead, evidence suggests that the increase in frequency of workers’ voicing opinions may have driven higher productivity. These findings provide rare causal evidence in a setting where participation is not a normative default, indicating the benefits of direct group participation for changing and sustaining behavior and attitudes.

Behavioural public policy analysts have examined cases of individuals’ failures of reason or judgement to attain their ends and have used these to justify ‘means’ paternalism: a form of government intervention that tries to save individuals from the consequences of those reasoning failures and to enable them better to achieve those ends. This has been challenged on a number of grounds, including too great a focus on choice-preserving interventions such as nudges, the privileging of future preferences over current ones and the possibility of state failures as damaging to individual well-being as the original reasoning failure. This paper summarizes the principal arguments in favour of means paternalism and then addresses these challenges.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments around the world into drastic measures without the normal evidence base or analyses of consequences. We present a quantitative model that can be used to rapidly assess the introduction and interaction of nonpharmaceutical infection prevention measures (NPI) both in rapid a priori predictions and in real-world a posteriori evaluations. Two of the most popular NPIs are imposing minimum physical interpersonal distancing and the use of face coverings. The success of both measures is highly dependent on the behavior of the public. However, there is very little published information about the interactions between distance, mask wearing, and the behavioral adaptations that they are likely to generate. We explore the relation between these two fundamental NPIs and the behavioral responses that they may induce, considering both risk compensation and social norms enhancement. At present, we do not have the necessary information to parameterize our model to a sufficient degree to generate quantitative, immediately applicable, advice, but we explore a vast parameter space and illustrate how the consequences of such measures can range from highly beneficial to paradoxically harmful in plausible real situations.

We asked individuals about their willingness to pay (WTP) either: (1) for a mandate requiring restaurants to post calorie information on their menus; or (2) to avoid such a mandate. On average, more people were in in favor of the mandate and were willing to pay four times more than those who were against it, thereby leading to a Kaldor–Hicks improvement from this policy. To ensure robustness, we tested the impact of providing three types of information during individuals’ WTP determinations: (1) visual examples of the proposed calorie labels; (2) data on their effectiveness at the individual level; and (3) data on their wider social and economic benefits. For those in favor, providing a simple visual of the label had no impact on WTP. Data on the individual effectiveness of the labels increased the WTP, while evidence on broader obesity reduction and economic benefits reduced it. For opponents, WTP did not change with provision of additional information except when provided with information on social and economic benefits. Under this condition, the opponents increased their WTP 12-fold to avoid a mandate of this policy. Finally, we measured individual well-being under this policy and found directionally similar results, confirming a net improvement in aggregate welfare. Our results suggest that messaging that focuses on private benefits (providing calorie information so that individuals can effectively choose to reduce excessive caloric consumption) rather than wider public benefits (reduction in overall health-related costs and obesity) is more likely to be effective.

Viewed from both an ethical and practical perspective, it is clearly desirable that public sector allocative and regulatory decisions should, so far as possible, reflect the preferences of individual members of society. It is therefore hardly surprising that, in appraising proposed safety improvements, public sector bodies have displayed an increasing tendency to estimate the benefits of such improvements on the basis of values of safety defined in such a way as to reflect the preferences and attitudes to safety of individual members of the public. However, given the technical complexity of many public sector safety decisions, it is also necessary to rely on expert analysis and informed judgement in reaching such decisions, so that preference-based values of safety should be regarded as being only one input to the decision-making process. In addition, the definition and estimation of the values themselves raise a number of practical and ethical questions. The purpose of this paper is to consider the role that preference-based values of safety can realistically be expected to play in these decision-making processes, given these difficulties and limitations.

Very often, significantly smaller benefits are observed in final policy outcomes than are indicated by initial research discoveries. Al-Ubaydli et al. have identified a poor understanding of the ‘science of scaling’ as the underlying cause of this discrepancy. They propose a framework to increase our understanding of the science of scaling. We build on this framework by making six specific suggestions capturing three key ideas. First, researchers need to move away from their preoccupation with general theoretical models and focus on subject-specific theories of intervention, leading to individualized treatments. Second, there should be greater collaboration between researchers and policymakers, as well as more transparency in reporting findings, to ensure that the research environment is more representative of the policy environment. Third, researchers should recognize that policymakers do not always maximize social welfare; policymakers may have their own short-term incentives. Therefore, researchers must consider policymakers’ short-term incentives in designing interventions in order to increase the chances of a research intervention becoming a policy.

The current state of the art in field experiments does not give me any confidence that we should be assuming that we have anything worth scaling, assuming we really care about the expected welfare of those about to receive the instant intervention. At the very least, we should be honest and explicit about the need for strong priors about the welfare effects of changes in averages of observables to warrant scaling. What we need is a healthy dose of theory and the implied econometrics.

Both theory on motivational crowding and recent empirical evidence suggest that nudging may sometimes backfire and actually crowd out prosocial behavior, due to decreased intrinsic motivation and warm glow. In this study, we tested this claim by investigating the effects of three types of nudges (default nudge, social norm nudge, and moral nudge) on donations to charity in a preregistered online experiment (N = 1098). Furthermore, we manipulated the transparency of the nudges across conditions by explicitly informing subjects of the nudges that were used. Our results show no indication that nudges crowd out prosocial behavior; instead, all three nudges increased donations. The positive effects of the nudges were driven by the subjects who did not perceive the nudges as attempts to manipulate their behavior, while donations among subjects who felt that the nudges were manipulative remained unaffected. Subjects’ self-reported happiness with their choice also remained unaffected. Thus, we find no indication that nudges crowded out warm glow when acting altruistically. Generally, our results are good news for the proponents of nudges in public policy, since they suggest that concerns about unintended motivational crowding effects on prosocial behavior have been overstated.