Editors' introduction / What works: When and why are nudges sticky, scaleable and transferable?

Why isn't there a single discipline with its own experimental paradigms, and an overarching theoretical framework that consolidates findings from studies on behavioral interventions (e.g. nudges)? This reflects the frustrations of some, particularly practitioners, who simply want to know which methods will reliably lead to positive behavioral change at a population level. At the same time, they acknowledge that it is important to know why some methods work better than others in particular contexts, i.e. it's not just about the effect size of the intervention. Other concerns that are voiced include the fact that scientific studies conducted to test behavioral interventions often compare one or two interventions against a baseline, within a single context, with hypothetical decisions made, within a sample that is not always representative. Also, interventions are tested within a variable time frame (though rarely longitudinally) (Bauer and Reisch, 2019). Results from these studies ultimately represent the upper bound for the reliability, sustainability, and generalizability of the behavioral interventions that are being tested (Lin, Osman and Ashcroft, 2017).