Nudging in Nightlife: A Scoping Review of Choice Architecture Interventions in Nightlife and Similar Settings

• In Event: Public safety and crime prevention

Abstract

Although nightlife is valued for diverse reasons like socializing and unwinding, it is also a setting associated with various adverse outcomes, such as substance abuse, interpersonal violence, and other social nuisances. Traditional prevention measures in this context often rely on theoretical frameworks that assume that nightlife visitors make fully rational decisions. However, given the limitations of human rationality, several scholars have argued to incorporate behavioral science insights into such prevention policies (e.g., Pogarsky & Herman, 2019). Nudging or the attempt to influence people's choices or behavior by leveraging cognitive biases that hinder rational decision-making (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008, 2021), has proven to be an effective policy tool in many areas of public interest, including healthcare. A behavioral approach may be particularly relevant in nightlife prevention efforts, given that the typical nightlife environment (e.g., through intoxication) often impairs rational and conscious thinking, causing individuals to rely more on intuitive and unconscious decision-making. However, due to the unique nature of nightlife environments, researchers and policymakers cannot assume that insights from nudging interventions in other contexts can be directly generalized to address certain behaviors in nightlife (Sunstein, 2017).
Despite growing interest, there is currently no broad review of whether and how nudging interventions work in these environments. To address this gap, a scoping review was conducted of academic contributions on the application of nudging in both nightlife settings (e.g., bars and clubs) and contexts closely resembling nightlife environments (e.g., music festivals), using systematic search methods. The review (n=31) synthesizes the impact and characteristics of nudges implemented in these settings, including the targeted population, the behavior addressed, desired outcomes, choice architecture techniques employed, cognitive biases leveraged, and the intervention format (e.g., leaflet, sticker, sound, etc.). The study findings offer insights for both researchers and policymakers, guiding future research efforts and informing evidence-based nightlife interventions.

Authors

• Thijs Hauspie, Ghent University, Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law

• Koen Ponnet, imec-mict, Department of Communication Sciences, Ghent University

• Wim Hardyns, Ghent University, Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law