IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v116y2025ics2214804325000175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing transparent and covert nudges: A meta-analysis calling for more diversity in nudge transparency research

Author

Listed:
  • Bruns, Hendrik
  • Fillon, Adrien
  • Maniadis, Zacharias
  • Paunov, Yavor

Abstract

Do transparent and non-transparent nudges have similar effects? The question is central in recent research on behavioural public policy, as it leads to ethical and practical implications regarding policy-maker responsibility, citizen agency, and nudge design. We meta-analysed results from 23 publications designed to compare transparent to covert nudges including 117 effect sizes and found a positive effect of transparency on behavioural outcomes, but no effect on non-behavioural outcomes. The moderator analyses revealed that studies conducted online, manipulating the decision structure, and conducted in the domain ‘other’ tended to exhibit significantly positive transparency effects for behavioural outcomes. We note that all but two studies were conducted online or in the lab, and that there is an over-representation of research on default nudges (88 % of total effects), severely limiting the generalizability of the findings. Thus, we call for an improvement of research conducted on transparent nudges and the inclusion of more nudge types, preferably in a field setting. We also stress the importance of defining the form of transparency that societies require for respecting their citizen's autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruns, Hendrik & Fillon, Adrien & Maniadis, Zacharias & Paunov, Yavor, 2025. "Comparing transparent and covert nudges: A meta-analysis calling for more diversity in nudge transparency research," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:116:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325000175
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2025.102350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325000175
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2025.102350?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:116:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325000175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.