https://osf.io/f3rxt/ from Exploring open science practices in behavioural public policy research

In their book ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness’, Thaler & Sunstein (2009 Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin) 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 Econometrica 90, 81–116) and use statistical techniques to detect reporting biases. Our analysis shows evidence suggestive of selective reporting. We additionally evaluate the public pre-analysis plans from one of the two nudge units (Office of Evaluation Sciences). We identify several instances of excellent practice; however, we also find that the analysis plans and reporting often lack sufficient detail to evaluate (unintentional) reporting biases. We highlight several improvements that would enhance the effectiveness of the pre-analysis plans and reports as a means to combat reporting biases. Our findings and suggestions can further improve the evidence base for policy decisions.