Choice architecture 2.0: Behavioral policy as an implicit social interaction
Abstract
We propose a new conceptual framework for behavioral policy design that we call choice architecture 2.0. We argue that in addition to considering how different choice environments affect decisions (as in conventional choice architecture), choice architects should also be aware of the implicit interaction taking place between the targets of the choice architecture and themselves. When confronting a decision, people often engage in a social sensemaking process that entails an assessment of (a) the beliefs and intentions of the choice architect and (b) how their decision will be construed by the choice architect and other observers. We present examples of how this choice architecture 2.0 framework can be used to anticipate factors that moderate the success or failure of behavioral policy interventions, and we provide examples of factors that may trigger social sensemaking. We also present a template for a social sensemaking audit that policymakers can perform before implementing any particular design of choice architecture.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When nudges come from a trusted source, decision-makers are more likely to consider the impact of the decision and the intention of the source.
“Additionally, when nudges come from a trusted source, decision-makers are more likely to consider the impact of the decision and the intention of the source (Krijnen et al., 2017).”
From Thx 4 the msg: Assessing the Impact of Texting on Student Engagement and Persistence (2022) · cites this paper as Krijnen et al., 2017
Cites
Orne, M. T. (1962) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0043424 · Cited by 4,041 · see citing works
The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209380 · Cited by 3,811 · see citing works
When Is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism
Foreh, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1303_15 · Cited by 1,003 · see citing works
Bowles, S. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1152110 · Cited by 833 · see citing works
$100 Bills on the Sidewalk: Suboptimal Investment in 401(k) Plans
Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2011) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00100 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091721 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thx 4 the msg: Assessing the Impact of Texting on Student Engagement and Persistence
Tippetts, M. M., Davis, B., Nalbone, S., & Zick, C. D. (2022) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s11162-022-09678-8 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Krijnen, J. M. T., Tannenbaum, D., & Fox, C. R.
- Venue
- Behavioral Science & Policy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- i-18
- ISSN
- 2379-4607 (ISSN-L)
- 2379-4615
- OpenAlex
- W2807753855
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behavioral Science & Policy (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Keywords
- choice architecture, behavioral public policy, nudging, behavioral interventions, policy design
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