Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39753819›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Nudges for people who think.

Aba Szollosi, Nathan Wang-Ly, Ben R Newell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Aba Szollosi *School of Psychology, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. aba.szollosi@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3457-542X
Nathan Wang-LySchool of Psychology, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ben R Newell *School of Psychology, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ben.newell@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1898-205X

Funding

Australian Research Council DP190101076Australian Research Council DP190101675
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The naiveté of the dominant 'cognitive-miser' metaphor of human thinking hampers theoretical progress in understanding how and why subtle behavioural interventions-'nudges'-could work. We propose a reconceptualization that places the balance in agency between, and the alignment of representations held by, people and choice architects as central to determining the prospect of observing behaviour change. We argue that two aspects of representational (mis)alignment are relevant: cognitive (how people construe the factual structure of a decision environment) and motivational (the importance of a choice to an individual). Nudging thinkers via the alignment of representations provides a framework that offers theoretical and practical advances and avoids disparaging people's cognitive capacities.

Indexed as

MotivationThinkingChoice BehaviorDecision MakingHumansBehaviour changeChoice architectureCognitive miserDecision-makingNudgeRepresentation alignment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.