GRADING RUBRIC: NUDGE CHALLENGE

The rubric describes the expected performance at each level of understanding. Please refer to the rubric when writing your own answer and grading peer students answer. When grading, read the assignment and compare the expected performance at each level. Give the score that matches to your evaluation for the assignment.

1. Information about the context in in which the nudge will be taken [max 2 points]

Score

Expected performance at each score

The response clearly defines the context in which the nudge will take place. This includes the country / city and the physical location (e.g., a store, a website, a mailing / letter, a bank branch, the home of a target individual).

The response described either the country / city or the physical location, but not both.

There is no information about the country and the location where the nudge will be delivered.

2. Precision and observability of the desired behavioural change [max 2]

Score

Expected performance at each score

The response clearly identifies a target behaviour that the nudge needs to change. The target behaviour needs to be precise and should not be decomposable into other constituent behaviours. For example, increasing retirement savings of a household is general and could be decomposed into precise behaviours such as opening a new retirement account, setting aside more money per month, reducing spending on discretionary items etc. The behaviour should also be easily observable behaviours are typically easy to observe (increase in bank balances, whether the household has a retirement account, number of accounts) while attitudes and intentions are not.

The desired behaviour change does not meet both criteria of precision and observability but satisfies only one.

The desired behaviour change is neither precise nor easy to observe.

3. Proper application of course materials in identifying problems and supporting own solutions [max 3] There are two sub items: a) identification of stages of decision making process and b) identification of relevant phenomenon, principle and concepts covered in the course. 3a) Identification of stages of decision making process

Score

Expected performance at each score

The process of making desired behaviour is identified, and the potential bottlenecks that influence the desired choice are clearly identified.

The process of making desired behaviour is identified, but the bottlenecks that influence desired choice are not clearly identified.

The process of making desired behaviour is not identified

3b) Identification of relevant phenomenon, principle and concepts covered in the course.

Score

Expected performance at each score

The response includes relevant phenomenon, principle, or concepts covered in the course.

There is no mention of relevant phenomenon, principle, or concepts covered in the course

4. The Nudge 4a) Description and Nature

Score

Expected performance at each score

The response describes the nudge and makes a mention of whether it is a pure nudge, or a nudge in conjunction with economic incentives, restrictions or persuasion techniques.

The response merely describes the nudge without any comments on its nature

4b) Simplicity of the Nudge

Score

Expected performance at each score

The nudge described to address the problem is simple and cost-effective; i.e. it only requires a relatively small change in current operations, procedures or materials to deliver the nudge in a cost-effective manner

The nudge, although effective, is complex and requires costly changes to operations, procedures or materials

4c) Feasibility and Scalability

Score

Expected performance at each score

The nudge described to address the problem is scalable in the event that the results of the proposed experiment are successful, it should be feasible to deliver the nudge to very large sections of the target population

The nudge, although potentially effective, is not easy to scale because of cost of feasibility concerns

5. The Experiment 5a) Factors and levels

Score

Expected performance at each score

The response clearly defines the type of experimental design (e.g.; before-after; two condition; fully crossed) and the nature of the experiment (betweenparticipants or within-participants). It explicitly defines the factors and the levels of each factors

The response provides either information on the experiment type; or a list of factors and levels but not both

There is no clear articulation of experiment type, factors or levels

5b) Procedure

Score

Expected performance at each score

The proposed nudge will typically be one of the treatment conditions. In addition, the response describes what participants in the control and (if applicable) other treatment conditions will do.

Procedure for participants in the control and (if applicable) additional treatment conditions is not specified

5c) Outcome variable

Score

Expected performance at each score

The outcome variable of the experiment is clearly defined and is consistent with the desired behaviour change

The outcome variable is either not defined, or is inconsistent with the desired behaviour change

5d) Data analysis and prediction

Score

Expected performance at each score

The response clearly states the type of analysis (ANOVA, regression) that will be used to analyze the data, we well as the predicted response (e.g., a significant interaction effect, a significant regression coefficient)

The response states the type of analysis but not the specific prediction

The answer mentions neither the statistical model to use nor the predicted result

6. Overall impression, creativity and originality 6a) Creativity

Score

Expected performance at each score

The suggested nudge is creative. The idea seems refreshing and my gut-feel is that it will work in changing behaviour

The suggested nudge, though potentially effective, is not particularly creative and is similar to many other efforts

6b) Overall Evaluation

Score

Expected performance at each score

The nudging challenge was competently tackled. The response suggested a mastery over the process, and the final outcome was consistent with the analysis

While the response suggested an understanding of the process and also provided a feasible solution, there was a lack of consistency and flow and the solution did not address the identified problems