Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T17:20:03.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When nudges have societal-level impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Eric J. Johnson  and
Kellen Mrkva
Eric J. Johnson
Affiliation:
Center for Decision Science and Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA ejj3@gsb.columbia.edu; https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/cbs-directory/detail/ejj3
Kellen Mrkva
Affiliation:
Marketing, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA kellen_mrkva@baylor.edu; https://business.baylor.edu/directory/?id=Kellen_Mrkva
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Individual-level research in behavioral science can have massive impact and create system-level changes, as several recent mandates and other policy actions have shown. Although not every nudge creates long-term behavior change, defaults and other forms of choice architecture can not only change individual behavior but also reduce inequities and lead to changes in public policy and norms.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e163
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C., & Metrick, A. (2004). For better or for worse: Default effects and 401 (k) savings behavior. In Perspectives on the economics of aging (pp. 81–126). University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choukhmane, T. (2023). Default options and retirement saving dynamics. Working paper.Google Scholar
Domurat, R., Menashe, I., & Yin, W. (2021). The role of behavioral frictions in health insurance marketplace enrollment and risk: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Review, 111(5), 1549–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbane, A., Ouss, A., & Shah, A. K. (2020). Behavioral nudges reduce failure to appear for court. Science, 370(6517), eabb6591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, D. G., Hershfield, H. E., & Benartzi, S. (2016). The illusion of wealth and its reversal. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 804–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, D. G., Johnson, E. J., Herrmann, A., & Heitmann, M. (2008). Nudge your customers toward better choices. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 99–105.Google Scholar
Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. J. (2022). The elements of choice: Why the way we decide matters. Penguin.Google Scholar
Kohavi, R., & Thomke, S. (2017). The surprising power of online experiments. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 74–82.Google Scholar
Luguri, J., & Strahilevitz, L. J. (2021). Shining a light on dark patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis, 13(1), 43–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mažar, N., & Soman, D. (Eds.). (2022). Behavioral science in the wild. University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrkva, K., Posner, N. A., Reeck, C., & Johnson, E. J. (2021). Do nudges reduce disparities? Choice architecture compensates for low consumer knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 85(4), 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, N. A., Simonov, A., Mrkva, K., & Johnson, E. J. (2023). Dark defaults: How choice architecture steers campaign donations. Working paper.Google Scholar
Reeck, C., Posner, N. A., Mrkva, K., & Johnson, E. J. (2023). Nudging app adoption: Choice architecture facilitates consumer uptake of mobile apps. Journal of Marketing, 00222429221141066.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar