基于元分析的助推效果研究：“认知路径”与“透明性”的二维视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.02275

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于“认知路径”与“透明性”的二维视角, 对行为公共政策专业期刊Behavioural Public Policy (2017~ 2022)与Behavioral Science & Policy (2015~2022)中40篇助推研究的108个实证结果进行元分析, 系统评估助推措施有效性, 比较不同认知路径和透明程度助推措施的相对优势, 探索助推效果异质性的影响因素, 分析认知路径、透明性与异质性因素的交互效应。研究发现: (1)助推干预效果综合效应量较小, 不同研究效应量呈现明显差异; (2)不同认知路径与透明性的助推有效性存在差异, 助推的认知路径与透明性对其有效性的影响存在交互效应; (3)助推效果受研究设计和行为领域的影响, 助推发挥作用的认知路径、助推设计的透明性与异质性影响因素间呈现出复杂的互动作用。

关键词: 行为公共政策, 助推, 元分析, 政策效果, 认知路径, 透明性

Abstract:

Challenges faced by nudges in practice have prompted scholars to reflect on effectiveness and applicable conditions of nudge. A common approach is to conduct meta-analyses on the results of behavioral intervention experiments involving nudges. However, existing meta-analyses have significant limitations. On one hand, due to differences in the selection of effect size indicators, the results of different meta-analyses lack comparability, preventing a comprehensive view of the overall effects of various nudging tools across common behavioral domains. On the other hand, most existing meta-analyses categorize nudges based on the “MINDSPACE” framework, which does not encompass all nudge interventions.

Drawing inspiration from Hansen and Jespersen (2013), this study establishes an analytical framework from a dual perspective of cognitive pathway and transparency, encompassing commonly used nudging interventions in practice. Based on this framework, a meta-analysis is conducted to compare the differences in effectiveness across nudge categories, providing a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the real effects of nudges under different cognitive pathways and levels of transparency. This helps address academic disputes regarding the effectiveness of nudges under different cognitive pathways and transparency levels.

This study focuses on the effectiveness of nudge in the actual policy domain, conducting a meta-analysis on nudge intervention experimental research published in the two professional journals: Behavioural Public Policy (2017-2022) and Behavioral Science & Policy (2015-2022). Using the standardized mean difference (Cohen's d) as an effect size index, Comprehensive Meta Analysis 2.0 is employed to calculate the effect size. All articles published in these two journals were included (a total of 330) in our sample frame, and a thorough reading of the full text was used to screen the literature one by one. The experimental data included in the meta-analysis had to meet the calculation requirements of CMA 2.0, containing basic statistical data such as means, standard deviations, t-values, and F-values. After screening, 40 sample articles were ultimately selected, yielding 108 research results. Considering the differences in research sample sizes, a random effects model was applied to calculate the overall effect of nudging, and then compare the effectiveness of nudges that work through different cognitive pathways and are presented with different levels of transparency. Subsequently, a regression analysis model is established using SPSS25 to test the effects of three classes of heterogeneity factors (research design, behavioral characteristics, and behavioral domains) with eight variables (sample size, field experiment, data type, behavioral motivation, monetary change, health, consumption, finance, public interest) on nudging intervention effects; Finally, an interaction regression analysis model is constructed to analyze the interactions between nudge cognitive pathways, transparency, and heterogeneity factors.

The results showed that: (1) Nudge research in the field of behavioral public policy has a relatively small overall effect and still faces the risk of failure in practice. (2) Transparent nudges can also be effective in guiding people to change their behaviour, and there is an interactive effect between different nudges that work through different cognitive pathways and are presented with different levels of transparency. (3) The effects of nudges are influenced by study design and vary across different behavioral domains. (4) Complex interactions are observed between the cognitive pathways through which nudges operate, the transparency of nudge design, and the factors affecting effect size heterogeneity.

The academic contributions of this paper are: (1) By conducting a meta-analysis on nudge behavioral effects from the dual perspectives of “cognitive pathway” and “transparency”, this research helps separate the actual effects of various psychological cognitive processes and intervention techniques, aiding in forming an objective understanding of the real effectiveness of different types of nudges. (2) Evaluating the effects and differences of various nudges, which not only addresses the academic debate on whether nudge designs should be transparent but also compares the differences in the effects of two cognitive pathways on behavior change, providing empirical evidence for the selection of nudging tools in subsequent policy practices. (3) This study's analysis of the root causes of heterogeneity in nudge effects enriches the literature on the factors influencing nudge effectiveness and applicable conditions, promoting the accumulation of knowledge in the field of behavioral public policy.

Key words: behavioural public policy, nudge, meta-analysis, policy effectiveness, cognitive pathway, transparency

中图分类号:

B849: C91

李燕, 陈文进, 张书维. (2023). 基于元分析的助推效果研究：“认知路径”与“透明性”的二维视角. 心理科学进展 , 31(12), 2275-2294.

LI Yan, CHEN Wenjin, ZHANG Shuwei. (2023). The behavioral effects of nudge: A meta-analysis based on a dual perspective of “Cognitive Pathway” and “Transparency”. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(12), 2275-2294.

图/表 9

参考文献 105

	(标*的文献为纳入元分析的文献)
[1]	付春野, 吕小康, 张雅睿. (2022). 公共政策中助推策略的伦理争议. 公共行政评论, 15(3), 179-195+200.
[2]	李燕, 苏一丹, 朱春奎. (2021). 公民政策遵从研究述评: 基于“政策情境”与“行为特征”的二元视角. 公共行政评论, 14(4), 175-195+200.
[3]	张书维, 胡鑫雅, 王宇. (2022). 助推生育意愿的默认选项效应研究: 以“二孩”为支点. 公共行政评论, 15(5), 4-26+196.
[4]	赵宁, 刘鑫, 李纾, 郑蕊. (2022). 默认选项设置的助推效果: 来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展, 30(6), 1230-1241. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01230
[5]	*Ackfeld, V., Rohloff, T., & Rzepka, S. (2021). Increasing personal data contributions for the greater public good: A field experiment on an online education platform. Behavioural Public Policy. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2021.39
[6]	Arad, A., & Rubinstein, A. (2018). The people’s perspective on libertarian-paternalistic policies. The Journal of Law and Economics, 61(2), 311-333. doi: 10.1086/698608 URL
[7]	Arno, A., & Thomas, S. (2016). The efficacy of nudge theory strategies in influencing adult dietary behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 16, Article 676. 10.1186/s12889-016-3272-x
[8]	Baggio, M., & Motterlini, M. (2022). Testing donation menus: On charitable giving for cancer research-Evidence from a natural field experiment. Behavioural Public Policy*, 6(3), 417-438. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.13 URL
[9]	Banerjee, S., & John, P. (2021). Nudge plus: Incorporating reflection into behavioral public policy. Behavioural Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.6
[10]	Berliner Senderey, A., Ohana, R., Perchik, S., Erev, I., & Balicer, R. D. (2022). Encouraging COVID-19 vaccination through behaviorally informed reminders: Results from a national randomized field experiment in Israel. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 8(1), 25-32.
[11]	Blanco, L., & Rodriguez, L. (2020). Delivering information about retirement saving among Hispanic women: Two Facebook experiments. Behavioural Public Policy*, 4(3), 343-369. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.33 pmid: 34084943
[12]	Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[13]	Boruchowicz, C., Lopez Boo, F., Roseth, B., & Tejerina, L. (2023). Default options: A powerful behavioral tool to increase COVID-19 contact tracing app acceptance in Latin America? Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(3), 662-678. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2021.38 URL
[14]	Bovens, L. (2009). The ethics of nudge. In T. Grüne-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (Vol. 42, pp. 207-219). Springer-Dordrecht.
[15]	Bradt, J. (2022). Comparing the effects of behaviorally informed interventions on flood insurance demand: An experimental analysis of ‘boosts’ and ‘nudges’. Behavioural Public Policy*, 6(3), 485-515. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.31 URL
[16]	Bruns, H., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Klement, K., Jonsson, M. L., & Rahali, B. (2018). Can nudges be transparent and yet effective? Journal of Economic Psychology, 65, 41-59. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2018.02.002 URL
[17]	Cadario, R., & Chandon, P. (2019). Which healthy eating nudges work best? A meta-analysis of field experiments. Marketing Science, 39(3), 465-486. doi: 10.1287/mksc.2018.1128 URL
[18]	Castelo, N., Hardy, E., House, J., Mazar, N., Tsai, C., & Zhao, M. (2015). Moving citizens online: Using salience & message framing to motivate behavior change. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 1(2), 57-68.
[19]	Chandra, G. (2023). Non-monetary intervention to discourage consumption of single-use plastic bags. Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(1), 143-156. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.9 URL
[20]	Chapman, G. B., Li, M., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2016). Default clinic appointments promote influenza vaccination uptake without a displacement effect. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 2(2), 40-50.
[21]	Chen, N., Trump, K., Hall, S., & Le, Q. (2023). The effect of postcard reminders on vaccinations among the elderly: A block-randomized experiment. Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(2), 240-265. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.34 URL
[22]	Chin, A., & Beckett, D. (2021). Don't watch me read: How mere presence and mandatory waiting periods affect consumer attention to disclosures. Behavioural Public Policy*, 5(2), 202-221. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.44 URL
[23]	Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[24]	Cooper, H. M. (1981). On the significance of effects and the effects of significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 1013-1018. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.1013 URL
[25]	de Ridder, D., Kroese, F., & van Gestel, L. (2022). Nudgeability: Mapping conditions of susceptibility to nudge influence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(2), 346-359. doi: 10.1177/1745691621995183 URL
[26]	DellaVigna, S., & Linos, E. (2022). RCTs to scale: Comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica, 90(1), 81-116. doi: 10.3982/ECTA18709 URL
[27]	De-loyde, K., Pilling, M., Thornton, A., Spencer, G., & Maynard, O. (2022). Promoting sustainable diets using eco-labelling and social nudges: A randomised online experiment. Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2022.27
[28]	*Dewies, M., Schop-Etman, A., Merkelbach, I., Rohde, K., & Denktaş, S. (2022). Call first, pay later: Stimulating debtors to contact their creditors improves debt collection in the context of financial scarcity. Behavioural Public Policy. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2022.7
[29]	Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I. (2012). Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 264-277. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.009 URL
[30]	Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. Retrieved June 23, 2023, from https://www.bi.team/publications/mindspace/
[31]	Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding- out. The American Economic Review, 87(4), 746-755.
[32]	Gerber, A., Huber, G., & Fang, A. (2023). Voting behavior is unaffected by subtle linguistic cues: Evidence from a psychologically authentic replication. Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(2), 380-394. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.57 URL
[33]	Gigerenzer, G. (2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 361-383. pmid: 26213590
[34]	Gråd, E., Erlandsson, A., & Tinghög, G. (2021). Do nudges crowd out prosocial behavior? Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2021.10
[35]	Gravert, C., & Kurz, V. (2021). Nudging à la carte: A field experiment on climate-friendly food choice. Behavioural Public Policy*, 5(3), 378-395. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.11 URL
[36]	Grinstein-Weiss, M., Cryder, C., Despard, M. R., Perantie, D. C., Oliphant, J. E., & Ariely, D. (2017). The role of choice architecture in promoting saving at tax time: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 3(2), 20-38.
[37]	Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3-28. doi: 10.1017/S1867299X00002762 URL
[38]	Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973-986. doi: 10.1177/1745691617702496 pmid: 28792862
[39]	Hodson, N. (2023). Cancer screening and accessibility bias: People want screening when informed it saves no lives. Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(1), 157-169. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.10 URL
[40]	Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47-58. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.005 URL
[41]	Jachimowicz, J. M., Duncan, S., Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2019). When and why defaults influence decisions: A meta-analysis of default effects. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 159-186. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.43 URL
[42]	Jachimowicz, J. M., Gladstone, J., Berry, D., Kirkdale, C., Thornley, T., & Galinsky, A. (2021). Making medications stick: Improving medication adherence by highlighting the personal health costs of non-compliance. Behavioural Public Policy*, 5(3), 396-416. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.1 URL
[43]	John, P., Cotterill, S., Moseley, A., Richardson, L., Smith, G., Stoker, G., & Wales, C. (2013). Nudge, nudge, think, think: Experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
[44]	John, P., & Stoker, G. (2019). Rethinking the role of experts and expertise in behavioural public policy. Policy & Politics, 47(2), 209-225.
[45]	Jung, J. Y., & Mellers, B. A. (2016). American attitudes toward nudges. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 62-74. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500007592 URL
[46]	Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[47]	Kalkstein, D. A., De Lima, F., Brady, S. T., Rozek, C. S., Johnson, E. J., & Walton, G. M. (2022). Defaults are not a panacea: Distinguishing between default effects on choices and on outcomes. Behavioural Public Policy. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2022.24
[48]	Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Kantorowicz, J., & Wells, L. (2022). Can vaccination intentions against COVID-19 be nudged? Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2022.20
[49]	Karlan, D., Morten, M., & Zinman, J. (2015). A personal touch in text messaging can improve microloan repayment. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 1(2), 25-31.
[50]	Keppeler, F., Sievert, M., & Jilke, S. (2022). Increasing COVID-19 vaccination intentions: A field experiment on psychological ownership. Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2022.16
[51]	Kjaergard, L. L., Villumsen, J., & Gluud, C. (2001). Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine, 135(11), 982-989. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010 pmid: 11730399
[52]	Knoll, M. A. Z., Appelt, K. C., Johnson, E. J., & Westfall, J. E. (2015). Time to retire: Why Americans claim benefits early & how to encourage delay. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 1(1), 53-62.
[53]	Köbis, N., Troost, M., Brandt, C., & Soraperra, I. (2022). Social norms of corruption in the field: Social nudges on posters can help to reduce bribery. Behavioural Public Policy*, 6(4), 597-624. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.37 URL
[54]	Kölle, F., Lane, T., Nosenzo, D., & Starmer, C. (2020). Promoting voter registration: The effects of low-cost interventions on behaviour and norms. Behavioural Public Policy*, 4(1), 26-49. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.10 URL
[55]	Krijnen, J. M., Tannenbaum, D., & Fox, C. R. (2017). Choice architecture 2.0: Behavioral policy as an implicit social interaction. Behavioral Science & Policy, 3(2), i-18.
[56]	Kroese, F. M., Marchiori, D. R., & de Ridder, D. (2016). Nudging healthy food choices: A field experiment at the train station. Journal of Public Health, 38(2), E133-E137.
[57]	Krpan, D., Makki, F., Saleh, N., Brink, S., & Klauznicer, H. (2021). When behavioural science can make a difference in times of COVID-19. Behavioural Public Policy*, 5(2), 153-179. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.48 URL
[58]	Lelorier, J., Grégoire, G., Benhaddad, A., Lapierre, J., & Derderian, F. (1997). Discrepancies between meta- analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(8), 536-542. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199708213370806 URL
[59]	Li, X., Hsee, C. K., & Wang, L. (2021). Incivility awareness could save lives. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 7(1), 1-8.
[60]	Linos, E., Reddy, V., & Rothstein, J. (2022). Demystifying college costs: How nudges can and can't help. Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2022.1
[61]	Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D., & Rajpal, S. (2015). Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1(1), 35-42.
[62]	Loewenstein, G., & Chater, N. (2017). Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 26-53. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2016.7 URL
[63]	Loewenstein, G., Sunstein, C. R., & Golman, R. (2014). Disclosure: Psychology changes everything. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 391-419. doi: 10.1146/economics..6.issue-1 URL
[64]	Lunn, P. D., & Choisdealbha, Á. N. (2018). The case for laboratory experiments in behavioural public policy. Behavioural Public Policy, 2(1), 22-40. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2016.6 URL
[65]	Marchiori, D. R., Adriaanse, M. A., & de Ridder, D. (2017). Unresolved questions in nudging research: Putting the psychology back in nudging. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), Article e12297. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12297
[66]	Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J., & Brosch, T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. PNAS of the United States of America, 119(1), Article e2107346118. 10.1073/pnas.2107346118
[67]	Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, Article 42. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
[68]	Mills, S. (2022). Personalized nudging. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(1), 150-159. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.7 URL
[69]	Mills, S., & Whittle, R. (2023). Seeing the nudge from the trees: The 4S framework for evaluating nudges. Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12941
[70]	Mobekk, H., & Stokke, L. (2020). Nudges emphasizing social norms increased hospital visitors’ hand sanitizer use. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 6(2), 51-57.
[71]	Mol, J., Botzen, W., Blasch, J., Kranzler, E., & Kunreuther, H. (2021). All by myself? Testing descriptive social norm-nudges to increase flood preparedness among homeowners. Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. 10.1017/bpp.2021.17
[72]	Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2015). Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 81-98. doi: 10.1111/ejpr.2015.54.issue-1 URL
[73]	Nemati, M., & Penn, J. (2020). The impact of information- based interventions on conservation behavior: A meta- analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 62, Article 101201. 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101201
[74]	Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M., & Faller, D. G. (2019). Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nature Communications, 10, Article 4545. 10.1038/s41467-019-12457-2
[75]	Paunov, Y., Wänke, M., & Vogel, T. (2019a). Ethical defaults: Which transparency components can increase the effectiveness of default nudges? Social Influence, 14(3-4), 104-116. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2019.1675755 URL
[76]	Paunov, Y., Wänke, M., & Vogel, T. (2019b). Transparency effects on policy compliance: Disclosing how defaults work can enhance their effectiveness. Behavioural Public Policy*, 3(2), 187-208. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.40 URL
[77]	Persian, R., Prastuti, G., Adityawarman, Bogiatzis-Gibbons, D., Kurniawan, M., Subroto, G., … Sutherland, A. (2023). Behavioural prompts to increase early filing of tax returns: A population-level randomised controlled trial of 11.2 million taxpayers in Indonesia. Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(3), 701-720. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2022.25 URL
[78]	Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., & Beltramini, R. F. (1985). A meta-analysis of effect sizes in consumer behavior experiments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 97-103. doi: 10.1086/jcr.1985.12.issue-1 URL
[79]	Renaud, K., & Zimmermann, V. (2019). Nudging folks towards stronger password choices: Providing certainty is the key. Behavioural Public Policy*, 3(2), 228-258. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.3 URL
[80]	Reñosa, M. D. C., Landicho, J., Wachinger, J., Dalglish, S. L., Bärnighausen, K., Bärnighausen, T., & McMahon, S. A. (2021). Nudging toward vaccination: A systematic review. BMJ Global Health, 6(9), Article e006237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006237
[81]	Reynolds, J., Hobson, A., Ventsel, M., Pilling, M., Marteau, T., & Hollands, G. (2022). Effect of visualising and re-expressing evidence of policy effectiveness on perceived effectiveness: A population-based survey experiment. Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.32
[82]	Rinscheid, A., Pianta, S., & Weber, E. (2021). What shapes public support for climate change mitigation policies? The role of descriptive social norms and elite cues. Behavioural Public Policy*, 5(4), 503-527. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.43 URL
[83]	Ritov, I., & Garcia, S. M. (2022). Ventilator allocations: The effect of mere identifiability. Behavioral Science & Policy*, 8(1), 35-44.
[84]	Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Chacón-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 448-467. pmid: 14664682
[85]	Sin, R., Harris, T., Nilsson, S., & Beck, T. (2022). Dark patterns in online shopping: Do they work and can nudges help mitigate impulse buying? Behavioural Public Policy*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.11
[86]	Slavin, R., & Smith, D. (2009). The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 500-506. doi: 10.3102/0162373709352369 URL
[87]	Sloman, S., Kupor, D., & Yokum, D. (2023). Are voters influenced by the results of a consensus conference? Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(2), 395-416. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2021.2 URL
[88]	Steffel, M., Williams, E. F., & Pogacar, R. (2016). Ethically deployed defaults: Transparency and consumer protection through disclosure and preference articulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 865-880. doi: 10.1509/jmr.14.0421 URL
[89]	Sunstein, C. R. (2015). The ethics of nudging. Yale Journal on Regulation, 32(2), 413-450.
[90]	Sunstein, C. R. (2016). People prefer system 2 nudges (kind of). Duke Law Journal, 66(1), 121-168.
[91]	Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Nudges that fail. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 4-25. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2016.3 URL
[92]	Tang, L. L., Caudy, M., & Taxman, F. (2013). A statistical method for synthesizing meta-analyses. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2013, Article 732989. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/732989
[93]	Thaler, R. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
[94]	Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175-179. doi: 10.1257/000282803321947001 URL
[95]	Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[96]	Tor, A. (2020). Nudges that should fail? Behavioural Public Policy, 4(3), 316-342. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2019.5 URL
[97]	van der Linden, S., & Goldberg, M. H. (2020). Alternative meta-analysis of behavioral interventions to promote action on climate change yields different conclusions. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 3915. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17613-7
[98]	van Gestel, L. C., Adriaanse, M. A., & de Ridder, D. (2021). Do nudges make use of automatic processing? Unraveling the effects of a default nudge under type 1 and type 2 processing. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 5(1-3), 4-24. doi: 10.1080/23743603.2020.1808456 URL
[99]	van Roekel, H., Reinhard, J., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022). Improving hand hygiene in hospitals: Comparing the effect of a nudge and a boost on protocol compliance. Behavioural Public Policy*, 6(1), 52-74. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2021.15 URL
[100]	Vasas, Z. (2023). Do nudges increase consumer search and switching? Evidence from financial markets. Behavioural Public Policy, 7(3), 808-824. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2022.23 URL
[101]	Veltri, G., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Folkvord, F., Theben, A., & Gaskell, G. (2023). The impact of online platform transparency of information on consumers’ choices. Behavioural Public Policy*, 7(1), 55-82. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2020.11 URL
[102]	Weijers, R. J., de Koning, B. B., & Paas, F. (2021). Nudging in education: From theory towards guidelines for successful implementation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), 883-902. doi: 10.1007/s10212-020-00495-0
[103]	Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 119-138. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.119 URL
[104]	Wooldridge, J. M. (2016). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
[105]	Yeung, K. (2017). ‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118-136.

作者(年份)	行为领域	实验类型	干预方式	样本来源	样本量
Mol等(2021)	购买洪水灾害保险	在线实验	描述性社会规范	荷兰、西班牙	1805
Sloman等(2023)	政策态度(移民、金融、工资、援助)	在线实验	公开公民会议信息	美国	1359
Persian等(2023)	提前申报税单	实地实验	简化/指导/提示信息/心理暗示	印尼	11157069
Dewies等(2022)	误领补贴还款	实地实验	强化信息可读性和易识别性	荷兰	3330
Hodson (2023)	癌症检查	在线实验	利用“癌症”的可得性偏见	美国	411
Boruchowicz等(2023)	行程轨迹追踪app安装(疫情防控)	实地实验	默认选项	拉丁美洲	18000
Bradt (2022)	购买洪水灾害保险	在线实验	描述洪灾危害	美国	331
Blanco & Rodriguez (2020)	退休储蓄	实地实验	同辈与家庭看法	西班牙	347438
Chin & Beckett (2021)	信息阅读	实验室实验	“旁边有人”与强制等待时间	美国	408
Rinscheid等(2021)	气候政策态度	实地实验	描述性社会规范	美国	1520
Kantorowicz-Reznichenko等(2022)	疫苗接种	实地实验	传递新冠伤亡信息	以色列、英国	2429
Sin等(2022)	冲动购物	在线实验	延迟/反思/分心	美国	1226
Linos等(2022)	奖学金申请	实地实验	简化信息/强调归属	美国	265570
Gråd等(2021)	促进捐款	在线实验	默认选项/描述性社会规范/强调道德	英国、美国、葡萄牙、波兰	1098
Chen等(2023)	疫苗接种	实地实验	寄送接种卡片提示	美国	208867
Reynolds等(2022)	饮食政策态度	在线实验	食物卡路里信息	英国	4500
Keppeler等(2022)	接种疫苗	实地实验	激发公民心理所有权	德国	27298
Gerber等(2023)	参与总统选举投票	实地实验	语言类型的使用(投票者/去投票)	美国	2219
De-loyde等(2022)	健康饮食	在线实验	生态标签/描述性社会规范	英国	1399
Renaud & Zimmermann (2019)	提高密码设置强度	实地实验	使用密码使用期限	德国	672
Paunov等(2019b)	课程选择	实地实验	默认选项	美国	290
Jachimowicz等(2021)	医疗遵从	实地实验	个人成本/承诺/社会成本	英国	16191
Gravert & Kurz (2021)	健康饮食	实地实验	改变菜单框架	瑞典	1388
Krpan等(2021)	新冠期间外出次数	在线实验	写信/构想活动/强调风险	美国、英国	2637
Ackfeld等(2021)	提供个人信息	实地实验	强调公共利益/个人隐私保护	德国	200000
van Roekel等(2022)	手部卫生	实地实验	张贴海报(框架效应)	荷兰	88
Baggio & Motterlini (2022)	促进捐款	实地实验	改变数额框架/简易捐款流程	以色列	150000
Köbis等(2022)	减少贿赂行为	实验室实验	描述性社会规范	荷兰	311
Veltri等(2023)	网购行为	在线实验	物品信息序列/易识别性	德国、波兰、西班牙、英国	4800
Chandra (2023)	一次性塑料袋使用	在线实验	问题框架	英国	189
Kölle等(2020)	参与总统选举投票注册	实地实验	发送咨询意愿/提示信息短信	英国	4948
Knoll等(2015)	延迟领取退休金	调查实验	利用图表描述提前申领退休金的损失	美国	785
Karlan等(2015)	按期偿还贷款	实地实验	按期发送提醒短信	美国	943
Castelo等(2015)	使用政府网上服务平台	实地实验	利用凸显和框架效应	加拿大	626212
Chapman等(2016)	疫苗接种	实地实验	默认选项	美国	900
Grinstein-Weiss等(2017)	存储退还的税费	实地实验	提供选项和信息干预	美国	646116
Mobekk & Stokke (2020)	使用洗手液	实地实验	描述性社会规范	挪威	700
Li等(2021)	行人等红灯	实地实验	树立警示牌	中国	12000
Berliner Senderey等(2022)	疫苗接种	实地实验	描述性社会规范/强调接种疫苗有益健康	以色列	835282
Ritov & Garcia (2022)	分配医疗资源	调查实验	让医疗人员知晓病人信息	亚马逊平台(MTurk)	255

作者(年份)	行为领域	实验类型	干预方式	样本来源	样本量
Mol等(2021)	购买洪水灾害保险	在线实验	描述性社会规范	荷兰、西班牙	1805
Sloman等(2023)	政策态度(移民、金融、工资、援助)	在线实验	公开公民会议信息	美国	1359
Persian等(2023)	提前申报税单	实地实验	简化/指导/提示信息/心理暗示	印尼	11157069
Dewies等(2022)	误领补贴还款	实地实验	强化信息可读性和易识别性	荷兰	3330
Hodson (2023)	癌症检查	在线实验	利用“癌症”的可得性偏见	美国	411
Boruchowicz等(2023)	行程轨迹追踪app安装(疫情防控)	实地实验	默认选项	拉丁美洲	18000
Bradt (2022)	购买洪水灾害保险	在线实验	描述洪灾危害	美国	331
Blanco & Rodriguez (2020)	退休储蓄	实地实验	同辈与家庭看法	西班牙	347438
Chin & Beckett (2021)	信息阅读	实验室实验	“旁边有人”与强制等待时间	美国	408
Rinscheid等(2021)	气候政策态度	实地实验	描述性社会规范	美国	1520
Kantorowicz-Reznichenko等(2022)	疫苗接种	实地实验	传递新冠伤亡信息	以色列、英国	2429
Sin等(2022)	冲动购物	在线实验	延迟/反思/分心	美国	1226
Linos等(2022)	奖学金申请	实地实验	简化信息/强调归属	美国	265570
Gråd等(2021)	促进捐款	在线实验	默认选项/描述性社会规范/强调道德	英国、美国、葡萄牙、波兰	1098
Chen等(2023)	疫苗接种	实地实验	寄送接种卡片提示	美国	208867
Reynolds等(2022)	饮食政策态度	在线实验	食物卡路里信息	英国	4500
Keppeler等(2022)	接种疫苗	实地实验	激发公民心理所有权	德国	27298
Gerber等(2023)	参与总统选举投票	实地实验	语言类型的使用(投票者/去投票)	美国	2219
De-loyde等(2022)	健康饮食	在线实验	生态标签/描述性社会规范	英国	1399
Renaud & Zimmermann (2019)	提高密码设置强度	实地实验	使用密码使用期限	德国	672
Paunov等(2019b)	课程选择	实地实验	默认选项	美国	290
Jachimowicz等(2021)	医疗遵从	实地实验	个人成本/承诺/社会成本	英国	16191
Gravert & Kurz (2021)	健康饮食	实地实验	改变菜单框架	瑞典	1388
Krpan等(2021)	新冠期间外出次数	在线实验	写信/构想活动/强调风险	美国、英国	2637
Ackfeld等(2021)	提供个人信息	实地实验	强调公共利益/个人隐私保护	德国	200000
van Roekel等(2022)	手部卫生	实地实验	张贴海报(框架效应)	荷兰	88
Baggio & Motterlini (2022)	促进捐款	实地实验	改变数额框架/简易捐款流程	以色列	150000
Köbis等(2022)	减少贿赂行为	实验室实验	描述性社会规范	荷兰	311
Veltri等(2023)	网购行为	在线实验	物品信息序列/易识别性	德国、波兰、西班牙、英国	4800
Chandra (2023)	一次性塑料袋使用	在线实验	问题框架	英国	189
Kölle等(2020)	参与总统选举投票注册	实地实验	发送咨询意愿/提示信息短信	英国	4948
Knoll等(2015)	延迟领取退休金	调查实验	利用图表描述提前申领退休金的损失	美国	785
Karlan等(2015)	按期偿还贷款	实地实验	按期发送提醒短信	美国	943
Castelo等(2015)	使用政府网上服务平台	实地实验	利用凸显和框架效应	加拿大	626212
Chapman等(2016)	疫苗接种	实地实验	默认选项	美国	900
Grinstein-Weiss等(2017)	存储退还的税费	实地实验	提供选项和信息干预	美国	646116
Mobekk & Stokke (2020)	使用洗手液	实地实验	描述性社会规范	挪威	700
Li等(2021)	行人等红灯	实地实验	树立警示牌	中国	12000
Berliner Senderey等(2022)	疫苗接种	实地实验	描述性社会规范/强调接种疫苗有益健康	以色列	835282
Ritov & Garcia (2022)	分配医疗资源	调查实验	让医疗人员知晓病人信息	亚马逊平台(MTurk)	255

类别	研究数量	效应量	标准误	95.0%置信区间
类别	研究数量	效应量	标准误	下限	上限
透明型系统1	16	0.07	0.01	0.05	0.08
透明型系统2	40	0.27	0.02	0.23	0.32
不透明型系统1	40	0.27	0.04	0.2	0.34
不透明型系统2	12	0.1	0.02	0.06	0.13

类别	研究数量	效应量	标准误	95.0%置信区间
类别	研究数量	效应量	标准误	下限	上限
透明型系统1	16	0.07	0.01	0.05	0.08
透明型系统2	40	0.27	0.02	0.23	0.32
不透明型系统1	40	0.27	0.04	0.2	0.34
不透明型系统2	12	0.1	0.02	0.06	0.13

变量名称	变量定义
效应量	每个研究的标准化均值差, 即Cohen’s d值作为因变量
助推类型
系统1	系统1助推赋值为1, 其他赋值为0
透明型	透明型助推赋值为1, 其他赋值为0
透明型系统1	透明型系统1助推赋值为1, 其他赋值为0
透明型系统2	透明型系统2助推赋值为1, 其他赋值为0
不透明型系统1	不透明型系统1助推赋值为1, 其他赋值为0
研究设计
样本量	单个实验中控制组与对照组合计被试人数大于等于1000赋值为1, 小于1000赋值为0
实验类型	实地实验赋值为1, 其他实验赋值为0
数据类型	连续变量赋值为1, 二分类变量赋值为0
行为特征
行为动机	自利行为赋值为1, 利他行为赋值为0
金钱变动	有实际金钱变动赋值为1, 无金钱变动赋值为0
行为领域
健康	健康领域赋值为1, 其他领域赋值为0
消费	消费领域赋值为1, 其他领域赋值为0
金融	金融领域赋值为1, 其他领域赋值为0
公共利益	涉及公共利益赋值为1, 其他赋值为0