Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Experimental validation bias limits the scope and ambition of applied behavioural science

Applied behavioural science tends to overvalue interventions that can be readily tested using experiments. This experimental validation bias drives the popularity of light interventions and nudges and unnecessarily limits the scope and ambition of the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin, 2008).

  2. DellaVigna, S. & Linos, E. RCTs to scale: Comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper https://doi.org/10.3386/w27594 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gal, D. & Simonson, I. Predicting consumers’ choices in the age of the internet, AI, and almost perfect tracking: Some things change, the key challenges do not. Consum. Psychol. Rev. 4, 135–152 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cronbach, L. J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am. Psychol. 30, 116–127 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goswami, I. & Urminsky, O. When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. J. Mark. Res. 53, 829–846 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hsee, C. K. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 67, 247–257 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Reiley, D. H. & List, J. A. in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics 2nd edn (eds Durlauf, S. N. & Blume, L. E.) pp.1–5 (Palgrave Macmillan 2008).

  8. Fanelli, D. & Glänzel, W. Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 8, e66938 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Polit. Econ. 98, 1325–1348 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. & Johnson, E. J. Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 43, 87–131 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Gal.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gal, D., Rucker, D.D. Experimental validation bias limits the scope and ambition of applied behavioural science. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 5–6 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00002-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00002-2

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing