I am curious about how individuals make decisions, and in particular what individuals think about attempts at influencing their decision making and behavior. Primarily, I study applications in the environmental domain. I also do research on economic psychology (e.g. over-indebtedness, market predictions, trust in investors).
I am an ambassador for the Centre of Open Science and strongly value open science-practices in research.
Current themes:
How people experience and evaluate nudges – and why it matters
The success of a policy intervention is not always best judged only by its behavioral impact or cost-benefit qualities. For welfare, and more, it matters how interventions affect people’s thoughts and feelings – are they left mad, or sad?
Representative Publications:
Are transparent nudges less effective? Do people think differently of them?
There is a history of criticisms suggesting that psychologically informed behavior change interventions work best, or only work at all, when choosers do not notice them. That is, if (all) interventions were sufficiently transparent, their power to influence would fade. Is this true? When is it true? Do choosers resent non-transparent interventions and choice architects?
Representative Publications:
