Reviews in the Behavioral Insights topic area determine the quality of causal evidence on interventions that apply behavioral science insights to labor-related contexts. To identify studies for this topic area, CLEAR, with the Behavioral Interventions for Labor-Related Programs study team, consulted with experts in behavioral design, asking them to identify causal impact studies of applications of behavioral science insights to labor-related contexts. Therefore, this is not a systematic review.
Behavioral Insights
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1994 - 2016.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 14
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine whether additional messaging about a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) increased employees’ usage of an FSA. The study used a randomized controlled trial to…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of iThrive, a workplace wellness program developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, on employment, productivity,…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of providing information about Social Security rules and benefits on labor force participation, knowledge of Social Security, and claiming of Social…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of different ways of framing retirement information on the age at which individuals intended to claim Social Security benefits. The authors randomly…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of contribution matches, credit rebates, and advance notification on tax filers’ decisions about opening an individual retirement account (IRA)…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine whether providing job search information to unemployed job seekers affected their labor market outcomes. German citizens identified as unemployed were randomly…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The article provided an overview of experimental evaluations of unemployment insurance (UI) reforms conducted from 1977 to 1992 in the United States. These reforms typically tried to improve the…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The article’s objective was to assess how behavioral economics can inform labor policy reforms to increase policy efficiency. The authors used behavioral economic theory to explain barriers to…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of complexity, program information, and stigma on the take-up rate of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) among eligible taxpayers who had not…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a compulsory dialogue meeting (DM) on the return to partial or full-time employment for long-term sick-listed workers in Norway. The authors…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.