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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    2. Liu, Xin & Zhao, Ning & Li, Shu & Zheng, Rui, 2022. "Opt-out policy and its improvements promote COVID-19 vaccinations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    3. Zhuo, Shi & Ratajczak, Michael & Thornton, Katie & Jones, Phil & Jarchlo, Ayla Ibrahimi & Gold, Natalie, 2023. "Testing the impact of overt and covert ordering interventions on sustainable consumption choices: a randomised controlled trial," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117705, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Lucia A. Reisch & Cass R. Sunstein, 2016. "Do Europeans like nudges?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 310-325, July.
    5. Hendrik Bruns & Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko & Katharina Klement & Marijane Luistro Jonsson & Bilel Rahali, 2018. "Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?," Post-Print hal-01824076, HAL.
    6. Michaelsen, Patrik & Johansson, Lars-Olof & Hedesström, Martin, 2024. "Experiencing default nudges: autonomy, manipulation, and choice-satisfaction as judged by people themselves," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 85-106, January.
    7. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    8. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    9. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Bruns, Hendrik & Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Elena & Klement, Katharina & Luistro Jonsson, Marijane & Rahali, Bilel, 2018. "Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 41-59.
    11. Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko & Jaroslaw Kantorowicz, 2021. "To follow or not to follow the herd? Transparency and social norm nudges," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 362-377, August.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:310-325 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Cappelletti, Dominique & Mittone, Luigi & Ploner, Matteo, 2014. "Are default contributions sticky? An experimental analysis of defaults in public goods provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 331-342.
    14. Christopher J. Bryan & Elizabeth Tipton & David S. Yeager, 2021. "Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(8), pages 980-989, August.
    15. Reisch, Lucia A. & Sunstein, Cass R., 2016. "Do Europeans like nudges?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 310-325, July.
    16. Michael Hallsworth, 2023. "A manifesto for applying behavioural science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 310-322, March.
    17. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko & Jaroslaw Kantorowicz, 2021. "To follow or not to follow the herd? Transparency and social norm nudges," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 362-377, August.
    3. Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), 2025. "Study on behavioural economics for efficient regulation and supervision," Colección Estudios de Mercado E/CNMC/002/23_ENG, Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC).
    4. Leonhard Lades & Federica Nova, 2022. "Ethical Considerations when using Behavioural Insights to Reduce Peoples Meat Consumption," Working Papers 202209, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    5. Paul M. Lohmann & Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Christina Gravert & Lucia A. Reisch, 2025. "Nudging, Fast and Slow: Experimental Evidence from Food Choices under Time Pressure," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(10), pages 2595-2627, October.
    6. Lohmann, Paul M & Gsottbauer, Elisabeth & Farrington, James & Human, Steve & Reisch, Lucia A, 2024. "Choice architecture promotes sustainable choices in online food-delivery apps," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125835, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Liu, Jia & Sonntag, Axel & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2022. "Information defaults in repeated public good provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 356-369.
    8. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    9. Sætra, Henrik Skaug & Mills, Stuart, 2022. "Psychological interference, liberty and technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    10. Elisa Gambetti & Micaela Maria Zucchelli & Raffaella Nori & Fiorella Giusberti, 2022. "Default rules in investment decision-making: trait anxiety and decision-making styles," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, December.
    11. S. Mills & S. Costa & C. R. Sunstein, 2023. "AI, Behavioural Science, and Consumer Welfare," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 387-400, September.
    12. L. Lades & F. Nova, 2024. "Ethical Considerations When Using Nudges to Reduce Meat Consumption: an Analysis Through the FORGOOD Ethics Framework," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Beshears, John & Kosowsky, Harry, 2020. "Nudging: Progress to date and future directions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 3-19.
    14. Jia Liu & Yohanes E. Riyanto, 2017. "The limit to behavioral inertia and the power of default in voluntary contribution games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 815-835, April.
    15. Chikazoe, Junichi & Kawaguchi, Kohei & Suzuki, Kanji & Uetake, Kosuke & Watanabe, Yasutora & Yamada, Katsunori, 2025. "Why Default Nudges Work: Identifying Cognitive Mechanism with fMRI," SocArXiv wfrsp_v1, Center for Open Science.
    16. Kirchgässner, Gebhard, 2012. "Sanfter Paternalismus, meritorische Güter, und der normative Individualismus," Economics Working Paper Series 1217, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    19. Cox, James C. & Kreisman, Daniel & Dynarski, Susan, 2020. "Designed to fail: Effects of the default option and information complexity on student loan repayment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    20. Kaenzig, Josef & Heinzle, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2013. "Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 311-322.
    21. Roberto Fumagalli, 2016. "Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 459-480, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.