The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Systematic Scoping Review of the Choice Architecture Movement: Toward Understanding When and Why Nudges Work
Abstract
In this paper, we provide a domain‐general scoping review of the nudge movement by reviewing 422 choice architecture interventions in 156 empirical studies. We report the distribution of the studies across countries, years, domains, subdomains of applicability, intervention types, and the moderators associated with each intervention category to review the current state of the nudge movement. Furthermore, we highlight certain characteristics of the studies and experimental and reporting practices that can hinder the accumulation of evidence in the field. Specifically, we found that 74% of the studies were mainly motivated to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in one specific setting, while only 24% of the studies focused on the exploration of moderators or underlying processes. We also observed that only 7% of the studies applied power analysis, 2% used guidelines aiming to improve the quality of reporting, no study in our database was preregistered, and the used intervention nomenclatures were non‐exhaustive and often have overlapping categories. Building on our current observations and proposed solutions from other fields, we provide directly applicable recommendations for future research to support the evidence accumulation on why and when nudges work. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-0977 · Cited by 11,572
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 · Cited by 7,629
SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K., Hróbjartsson, A., Mann, H., Dickersin, K., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 · Cited by 7,363
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness
Adkisson, R. V. (2008) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.09.003 · Cited by 5,543
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
A manifesto for reproducible science
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 · Cited by 3,397
Cited by
Changing Behavior Using the Model of Action Phases
Keller, L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.006 · Cited by 147
Understanding health behavior change by motivation and reward mechanisms: a review of the literature
Michaelsen, M. M., & Esch, T. (2023) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1151918 · Cited by 114
Indirect rebound effects on the consumer level: A state-of-the-art literature review
Reimers, H., Jacksohn, A., Appenfeller, D., Lasarov, W., Hüttel, A., Rehdanz, K., Balderjahn, I., & Hoffmann, S. (2021) · Cleaner and Responsible Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100032 · Cited by 76
Impact of Voice Fidelity on Decision Making: A Potential Dark Pattern?
Dubiel, M., Sergeeva, A., & Leiva, L. A. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645202 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Szaszi, B., Palinkas, A., Palfi, B., Szollosi, A., & Aczel, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-12-04
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 355-366
- ISSN
- 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0771
- OpenAlex
- W2769305543
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 20.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Systematic Scoping Review of the Choice Architecture Movement: Toward Understanding When and Why Nudges Work. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdm.2035
- The paper
- Szaszi, B., Palinkas, A., Palfi, B., Szollosi, A., & Aczel, B. (2018). A Systematic Scoping Review of the Choice Architecture Movement: Toward Understanding When and Why Nudges Work. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2035
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
