This edition touches Weeks 1–4; few strong items landed in the seven-day window, so two are from the prior 30 days. No retraction or correction notice for Kahneman & Tversky 1979 or Nudge ch. 1–3 turned up, though I did not query Retraction Watch directly.
01arXiv · Oct 1Preprint models limited attention and the attraction effect
Week 1 · preprint (not peer-reviewed). Mallik, A. B., Bhattacharya, M., & Bhowmik, A. (2026). Stochastic Choice, Limited Attention, and Aggregation over Attributes. arXiv:2610.01333 [econ.TH], submitted 1 Oct 2026.
New: two choice rules in which attention to each attribute is limited; one captures choice deferral from cognitive load, the other reproduces the attraction effect but not the compromise effect. It is a theory paper with axioms and no experiment. Access: preprint freely available.
For Week 1: new supplement (no assigned bounded-rationality baseline); instructor background on how limited attention formalizes the attraction effect, too technical as a student reading.
02Preprint index · Sep 17Loss aversion appears larger when people learn from experience
Week 2 · preprint (not peer-reviewed). Busch, N., & Pachur, T. (2026). The Description–Experience Gap in Loss Aversion. Posted 17 Sep 2026; I could not confirm a host server or DOI, so I cite the index listing.
New: a meta-reanalysis of raw data (88,409 choices; 439 description and 468 experience participants) found loss aversion, estimated with cumulative prospect theory, stronger in experience-based choices. A preregistered experiment (19,435 choices, 202 participants per condition) reproduced the gap. Access: abstract free; full text not retrieved.
For Week 2: challenges the assumption in Kahneman & Tversky 1979 that one loss-aversion parameter fits all; use as a discussion prompt on description versus experience.
03Columbia Mailman · Sep 28Large replication finds mental accounting robust across 21 countries
Week 3 · news case study (institutional press release on a peer-reviewed article). Priolo, G., Stablum, F., et al. (2026). The Robustness of Mental Accounting Across 21 Countries. Journal of Consumer Research, ucag022, online 10 Jul 2026. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucag022.
New: 5,589 participants; hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses showed a 100% replication rate across scenarios, and unpooled analyses showed 90.5% (133/147 effects). Effects were weaker in lower-income countries. The Sep 28 press release is the author-side account; the abstract is on the VU Amsterdam portal. Access: press release open; journal page blocked to me, access status unconfirmed.
For Week 3: new supplement; use the press release's overtime-check versus tax-refund example, and FSA spending example, as an accessible student reading.
04NBER · Sep (rev.)NBER paper prices nudges against taxes and subsidies
Week 4 · working paper (not peer-reviewed). List, J. A., Rodemeier, M., Roy, S., & Sun, G. K. (2026). The Value of Behavioral Policies. NBER Working Paper 35567, issued July 2026, revised September 2026. doi:10.3386/w35567.
New: over 1,200 estimates from over 600 studies in five markets, translating nudge effects into equivalent price changes, for example an 11% electricity tax or a 100% influenza-vaccine subsidy. Nudges were more cost-effective than price tools in all markets, yet price tools often produced larger total surplus at scale. Access: NBER abstract free; PDF access not checked.
For Week 4: supplements Nudge ch. 1–3 with a cost-effectiveness comparison; discussion prompt on whether a small effect is worth it.
05The Behavioral Scientist · Oct 4Government nudge trials averaged 1.4 points versus 8.7 in journals
Week 4 · news/commentary (secondhand, AI-assisted per the site). Hreha, J. (2026, Oct 4). How well do nudges work at scale? The Behavioral Scientist.
It summarizes DellaVigna & Linos (2022, doi:10.3982/ECTA18709): 126 randomized trials from two US nudge units averaged a 1.4 percentage-point increase versus 8.7 in academic journals, with about 70% of the gap attributed to selective publication. It also notes the Mertens et al. PNAS meta-analysis carries a 2022 correction and Maier et al. challenged it for publication bias. I read this summary, not the paper. Access: open.
For Week 4: challenges the optimism in Nudge ch. 1–3; pair with DellaVigna & Linos for a published-versus-unpublished effects debate.
Enable JavaScript to read this edition.