Comprehensive Evaluation of the Behavioral Insights Group Rotterdam

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231180302
• Author: Malte Dewies,Inge Merkelbach,Jurian Edelenbos,Kirsten I. M. Rohde,Semiha Denktaş
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231180302

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(8) 1555 –1583

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997231180302

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Comprehensive

Evaluation of the

Behavioral Insights

Group Rotterdam

Malte Dewies1, Inge Merkelbach1,

Jurian Edelenbos1, Kirsten I. M. Rohde1, and

Semiha Denktaş1

Abstract

Behavioral insights teams (BITs) employ behavioral experts and policy

professionals to collaboratively improve public policy. Most evaluations of

BITs focus on the interventions that BITs develop, but not the functioning

of BITs. Here, we report the first comprehensive evaluation of a BIT, the

Behavioral Insights Group Rotterdam. We investigate how its resources

were used, for what activities, with what outputs, and to which effects.

Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we derive nine propositions to

describe and improve the integration of behavioral insights into public policy

and administration.

Keywords

behavioral insights team, behavioral public administration, behavioral public

policy, evaluation, nudge

1Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Malte Dewies, Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University

Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam 3062 PA, The Netherlands.

Email: dewies@essb.eur.nl

1180302AAS0010.1177/00953997231180302Administration & SocietyDewies et al.

research-article2023

1556 Administration & Society 55(8)

The integration of behavioral science findings into public policy continues to

attract widespread attention from governments and scientists alike (e.g., Afif

et al., 2018; Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017; Lourenço et al., 2016; OECD, 2017).

This integration, often generically referred to as behavioral insights, is based on

the argument that public policy can be improved by avoiding common miscon-

ceptions about behavior (e.g., humans act like homo economicus) and infusing

more realistic understandings of behavior into policy making and implementa-

tion (e.g., Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Behavioral insight teams (BITs) are promi-

nent forerunners translating this argument into practice. BITs combine expertise

from behavioral sciences and public policy to address concrete policy issues

with a behavioral dimension on a case-by-case basis by developing behavioral

solutions. According to review articles, many solutions from BITs successfully

change behavior (e.g., DellaVigna & Linos, 2020; Hummel & Maedche, 2019).

Here, we report the first systematic evaluation of a BIT.

Background

The publication of the book Nudge is a useful starting point for summarizing

the evolution of behavioral insights (Whitehead et al., 2017). According to

the book, nudges are light-touch interventions that tend to capitalize on

behavioral automatisms to encourage behavioral change without forbidding

any options (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Nudge became a worldwide best-

seller, attracted widespread attention from public organizations, and paved

the way for behavioral insights being institutionalized. The first BIT, also

called “nudge unit” (Halpern, 2015), was formed in the United Kingdom

(UK) only two years after Nudge was published. This team played an impor-

tant role in combining behavioral insights with experimentation to trial

mostly nudges in the field and find out “what works” (Haynes et al., 2012;

John, 2014). Behavioral insights are since strongly associated with experi-

mentation (Einfeld, 2019). According to Strassheim et al. (2015), behavioral

insights gain authority using easily understandable experimental evidence,

that “appeals to common sense reason, while at the same time being linked to

scientific norms and standards.”

Not all BITs are the same, though and relevant differences were reported,

for instance between BITs from Australia and New Zealand (Jones et al.,

2021). However, BITs tend to have in common that they are specialized

teams employing expertise from behavioral science and public policy for

investigating policy issues from a behavioral perspective to develop solutions

grounded in behavioral science findings. Many BITs rely on step-wise proce-

dures to analytically identify interventions for changing behaviors underlying

policy issues and on experimentation to evaluate those interventions before