In Defense of Nudging: Context, Evidence, and Real-World Impact

A 2022 paper by Maier and colleagues claimed there’s “no evidence for nudging” after adjusting for publication bias. That conclusion sounds sweeping, but it misses several important points and it doesn’t reflect what we see in real-world organizational data.

1. Publication bias isn’t unique to nudging.
Publication bias, or the tendency for studies with positive results to get published more often than null results, affects every field of research, from medicine to machine learning. It’s nothing new, and it’s certainly not unique to behavioral nudges. The fact that researchers are trying to correct for it is a healthy sign of the scientific process in action.

2. The study looks at all forms of nudges, not Perceptyx Intelligent Nudges
The Maier study pooled together everything labeled a “nudge” from rearranging cafeteria layouts to changing organ donor defaults. That kind of broad averaging makes the results hard to interpret. The Perceptyx Activate offering focuses on a specific, evidence-based form of digital nudging designed to help employees reinforce specific behaviors through recommendations and suggestions. These nudges are grounded in behavioral science and have demonstrated effectiveness across organizations.

3. We measure real-world impact with every customer.
For every Activate customer, we conduct an impact analysis to understand how our nudges influence behavior change and improvement on key outcomes. Across organizations, these analyses consistently show measurable positive effects on employee behaviors and experience. Our approach is built on real-world application and empirical feedback, not just academic theory.

4. The takeaway.
The debate around nudging isn’t about whether the idea “works,” it’s about how and where it works best. Our experience shows that when nudges are thoughtfully designed, contextually relevant, and evaluated continuously, they deliver meaningful behavior change and measurable organizational value.