A Systematic Scoping Review of the Choice Architecture Movement: Toward Understanding When and Why Nudges Work

In this paper, we provide a domain‐general scoping review of the nudge movement by reviewing 422 choice architecture interventions in 156 empirical studies. We report the distribution of the studies across countries, years, domains, subdomains of applicability, intervention types, and the moderators associated with each intervention category to review the current state of the nudge movement. Furthermore, we highlight certain characteristics of the studies and experimental and reporting practices that can hinder the accumulation of evidence in the field. Specifically, we found that 74% of the studies were mainly motivated to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in one specific setting, while only 24% of the studies focused on the exploration of moderators or underlying processes. We also observed that only 7% of the studies applied power analysis, 2% used guidelines aiming to improve the quality of reporting, no study in our database was preregistered, and the used intervention nomenclatures were non‐exhaustive and often have overlapping categories. Building on our current observations and proposed solutions from other fields, we provide directly applicable recommendations for future research to support the evidence accumulation on why and when nudges work. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effect of Transparency on Framing Effects in Within‐Subject Designs

A long‐lasting assumption about the framing effect is that if the participants discover the purpose of the experiment in a within‐subject design, then this test transparency would trigger them to override their initial answer and make coherent choices. For this reason, researchers try to mask the connection between the two parts of the test by inserting filling questions or a time delay between the two parts of the test. In this research, we explored the extent to which these customarily used masking solutions are effective in increasing test sensitivity for the framing effect. In three experiments, we assessed the effect of masking on the tests of the attribute framing and the risky‐choice framing effects. Contradicting the general belief, our results indicate that these effects are already measurable without any masking or delay and we found no convincing evidence that the attempts to decrease task transparency provide worthwhile benefits for general tests of the effect. Beyond their practical relevance, the results question whether the test is a good measure of coherence rationality and better suit those accounts that suggest that the two parts of the framing tasks cannot be regarded as identical. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Lax monitoring versus logical intuition: The determinants of confidence in conjunction fallacy

The general assumption that people fail to notice discrepancy between their answer and the normative answer in the conjunction fallacy task has been challenged by the theory of Logical Intuition. This theory suggests that people can detect the conflict between the heuristic and normative answers even if they do not always manage to inhibit their intuitive choice. This theory gained support from the finding that people report lower levels of confidence in their choice after they commit the conjunction fallacy compared to when their answer is not in conflict with logic. In four experiments we asked the participants to give probability estimations to the options of the conflict and no-conflict versions of the tasks in the original set-up of the experiment or in a three-option design. We found that participants perceive probabilities for the options of the conflict version less similar than for the no-conflict version. As people are less confident when choosing between more similar options, this similarity difference is proposed to serve as a mediator in the task in a way that the conflict and no-conflict conditions have their effects on confidence ratings through manipulating the similarity of the answer options.     

The Multidimensional Model of Broaching Behavior

The multidimensional model of broaching behavior (MMBB) is introduced as a heuristic that addresses multicultural counseling and social justice competence. The MMBB includes humanistic skills that allow counselors to broach clients’ racial, ethnic, and cultural (REC) concerns in an effort to develop strong therapeutic alliances and alleviate distress. This article provides illustrative examples of the 4 MMBB dimensions: intracounseling, intraindividual, intra-REC, and inter-REC. Implications for the counseling profession and practice are described, and directions for future research are presented.     

The cognitive reflection test revisited: exploring the ways individuals solve the test

Individuals’ propensity not to override the first answer that comes to mind is thought to be a crucial cause behind many failures in reasoning. In the present study, we aimed to explore the strategies used and the abilities employed when individuals solve the cognitive reflection test (CRT), the most widely used measure of this tendency. Alongside individual differences measures, protocol analysis was employed to unfold the steps of the reasoning process in solving the CRT. This exploration revealed that there are several ways people solve or fail the test. Importantly, 77% of the cases in which reasoners gave the correct final answer in our protocol analysis, they started their response with the correct answer or with a line of thought which led to the correct answer. We also found that 39% of the incorrect responders reflected on their first response. The findings indicate that the suppression of the first answer may not be the only crucial feature of reflectivity in the CRT and that the lack of relevant knowledge is a prominent cause of the reasoning errors. Additionally, we confirmed that the CRT is a multi-faceted construct: both numeracy and reflectivity account for performance. The results can help to better apprehend the “whys and whens” of the decision errors in heuristics and biases tasks and to further refine existing explanatory models.