Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38384774›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Exploring open science practices in behavioural public policy research.

Maximilian Maier, František Bartoš, Nichola Raihani, David R Shanks, T D Stanley, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Adam J L Harris

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nudges for people who think.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maximilian MaierDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9873-6096
František BartošDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0018-5573
Nichola RaihaniDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2339-9889
David R ShanksDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4600-6323
T D StanleyDeakin Laboratory for the Meta-Analysis of Research (DeLMAR), Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3205-1983
Eric-Jan WagenmakersDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1596-1034
Adam J L HarrisDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In their book 'Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness', Thaler & Sunstein (2009) argue that choice architectures are promising public policy interventions. This research programme motivated the creation of 'nudge units', government agencies which aim to apply insights from behavioural science to improve public policy. We closely examine a meta-analysis of the evidence gathered by two of the largest and most influential nudge units (DellaVigna & Linos (2022

Indexed as

nudgingopen sciencepre-registrationpublic policyselective reporting

Identifiers

PMID38384774
PMCPMC10878814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.