|
on Nudge and Boosting |
|
Issue of 2026–08–10
two papers chosen by Marco Novarese, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale |
| By: | Zhang, Rongcun; Zhang, Yue; Jin, Yanhong; Zheng, Fengtian; Zhang, Man |
| Abstract: | Nutrition information interventions are widely used to improve children’s dietary choices, yet it remains unclear whether they should target children or caregivers. We study this question in a randomized field experiment with 574 child-caregiver pairs in a rural elementary school in China using an incentivized sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) choice experiment. We compare two student-targeted nutrition education interventions and one caregiver-targeted intervention, and measure both students’ own beverage choices and caregivers’ proxy choices immediately after the intervention and one month later. The student-targeted intervention reinforced with visual cues improves students’ SSB-related knowledge but does not generate robust behavioral change. By contrast, the student-targeted intervention reinforced with peer incentives produces the largest and most persistent improvements in students’ own SSB choices and also generates child-to-caregiver spillovers in caregivers’ proxy choices. The caregiver-targeted intervention improves caregivers’ proxy choices both immediately and one month later, and generates delayed caregiver-to-child spillovers. Spillovers are therefore bidirectional but asymmetric. Heterogeneity analyses show that peer-based effects are stronger among children with greater purchasing autonomy and social ability, whereas caregiver-side responses are stronger in households with greater caregiver engagement and communication. Overall, nutrition education is more effective when it is reinforced by peers on the student side and by changes in household food provision on the caregiver side, highlighting the importance of school-home collaboration. |
| Keywords: | Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:aaea26:404553 |
| By: | Duru, Maya; Hoover, Hanna; Kappes, Heather Barry; Schwegman, David; Seim, Brigitte; Toma, Mattie; Turner, Mary Clair |
| Abstract: | A primary way the U.S. federal government delivers public goods and services is via monetary payments. Ensuring that these payments are calculated accurately, delivered on time, and made to the correct recipients is important for government fiscal health. Inaccurate or delayed payments can weaken public trust in the government and undermine government accountability. In this article, we examine findings from a set of impact evaluations assessing interventions designed to improve payment integrity in U.S. federal programs. The low-cost, evidence-based interventions draw on insights from the social and behavioral sciences and include modification of forms, changes to how and when agencies request information, and altering existing communications. The evaluations were conducted by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)’s Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) in collaboration with agency partners. We extract three takeaways across four representative evaluations. First, the real-world evaluations validate a key implication of the behavioral science literature: interventions that reduce burdens for individuals have small effects that meaningfully improve payment integrity at scale. Second, effects attenuate across interventions and over time, suggesting a need for iterative evaluation. Finally, bureaucratic hurdles and administrative complexity are the main barriers to translating academic insights into real-world government programs. Addressing these challenges will require close collaboration between behavioral scientists and practitioners throughout the intervention design and evaluation process. |
| Keywords: | payment integrity;public policy;randomized evaluations;behavioral science |
| JEL: | J50 |
| Date: | 2026–07–06 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:138264 |