Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41254275›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Hypothetical nudges provide directional but noisy estimates of real behavior change.

Linnea Gandhi, Anoushka Kiyawat, Colin Camerer, Duncan J Watts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Linnea GandhiOperations, Information, and Decisions Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. lgandhi@wharton.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5166-9431
Anoushka KiyawatDepartment of Behavioral Science, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-3989-8842
Colin CamererHumanities and Social Sciences and Computational and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4049-1871
Duncan J WattsOperations, Information, and Decisions Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5005-4961

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypothetical scenarios provide an extremely useful alternative to field experiments for scholars interested in nudging behavior change, comprising a substantial proportion of the literature. Yet the extent to which hypotheticals accurately estimate real-world treatment effects is not well understood. To investigate, we identified five recent field studies of real-world nudges in distinct domains and designed four styles of hypothetical scenarios to approximate each one. This setup allows for clear comparison of old field data with new hypothetical data. Across our 20 experiments (N = 16,114), hypothetical scenarios nearly always estimated the correct direction of treatment effects. However, they varied widely in estimating magnitudes, making them unreliable inputs to real-world policy applications such as cost-benefit analyses. Our findings underscore the promising value of hypotheticals, but also the need for greater investigation into strategies to calibrate their estimates.

Identifiers

PMID41254275
PMCPMC12627771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.