Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge*
In: The journal of political philosophy, Band 18, Heft 1, S. 123-136
ISSN: 1467-9760
In: The journal of political philosophy, Band 18, Heft 1, S. 123-136
ISSN: 1467-9760
In: The journal of political philosophy, Band 18, Heft 1, S. 123-137
ISSN: 0963-8016
In: The world today, Band 72, Heft 4, S. 39
ISSN: 0043-9134
In: Public administration review: PAR, Band 83, Heft 5, S. 1015-1036
ISSN: 1540-6210
AbstractGovernments use nudges to stimulate citizens to exercise, save money and eat healthily. However, nudging is controversial. How the media frames nudge impacts decisions on whether to use this policy instrument. We, therefore, analyzed 443 newspaper articles about nudging. Overall, the media was positive about nudges. Nudging was viewed as an effective and efficient way to change behavior and received considerable support across the political spectrum. The media also noted that nudges were easy to implement. The controversy about nudges concerns themes like paternalism, fear of manipulation, small effect sizes, and unintended consequences. Academic proponents of nudging were actively involved in media debates, while critical voices were less often heard. There were some reports criticizing how the government used nudges. However, these were exceptions; the media often highlighted the benefits of nudging. Concluding, we show how nudging by governments was discussed in a critical institution: the news media.
In: Moral philosophy and politics, Band 8, Heft 2, S. 285-303
ISSN: 2194-5624
Abstract
In this paper, I examine how nudges affect the autonomy and freedom of those nudged. I consider two arguments put forth by Thaler and Sunstein for the claim that these effects can only be minor. According to the first of these arguments, nudges cannot significantly restrict a person's autonomy or freedom since they are easy to resist. According to the second argument, the existence of nudges is inevitable, and thus, pursuing libertarian paternalism by nudging people doesn't make a relevant difference to people's autonomy and freedom. After arguing that both of these arguments fail, I elucidate the general conditions in which, and the degrees to which, a person's autonomy and freedom are affected by nudges. One focus of this discussion concerns how people's autonomy and freedom are affected if—for example, due to progress in information technology—nudges become more effective, more individualized and more common, and affect more people.
In: https://hdl.handle.net/10642/4800
Master i International Social Welfare and Health Policy ; Recently there has been growing interest in the use of "nudges" as a policy tool and their potential to solve some of society's biggest problems, such as obesity or climate change. Thaler and Sunstein in their influential book Nudge provide a broad but specific definition of "nudge", with the essence of nudging being changing the "choice architecture" or environment of people to influence behavior in ways that promote human welfare and protect freedom of choice. Nudges have a focus on how to influence behavior through engaging the "automatic system" of the human mind, and in ways that people are not always consciously aware. A major aim of the thesis is to examine what nudges are and how they work. Our approach is to examine the "mechanisms of change" that underlie the process from nudge to changed behavior. We categorise nudges as working through "core" mechanisms of change if they directly enters the "automatic system", harness social influence or appeal to our emotions. We categorise nudges that work through "peripheral" mechanisms of change as those that appeal more to the "reflective system" to influence behaviour change. We show how these mechanisms vary between nudges. In order to find out if nudges actually work and are cost effective, we selected a nudge for special investigation, namely prompted stair use interventions. We referred to systematic reviews and carried out our own small scale secondary evaluation of these interventions. We argued that it is not possible to make categorical statements as to whether this nudge works due to methodological weaknesses in these studies, particularly the lack of control group designs and lack of cost efficiency analyses. We argue the effective implementation of nudges may rely on traditional governance interventions, such as legal restrictions and information provision. Nudge has led to political initiatives in the form of the establishment of departments or committees in the UK, US and Norway to bring the "nudge" concept into policy making. We gathered empirical material, mainly through qualitative interviews, from members of a committee set up to advise and/or implement nudges in Lillehammer, Norway in order to compare to what extent we find similar issues related to what nudges are and how they work in this committee and in the academic literature. Similarities include awareness of nudge as a broad concept, an emphasis on nudges working at a 'semi-conscious' level as well as the importance of cost-effectiveness, generalizability and the value of control groups when evaluating nudges. A key difference was the limited reference to the ethical debate about nudges among committee members, in contrast to academic authors, perhaps because the former view nudges as small-scale interventions that aim to help people make better choices and do not raise serious ethical considerations. In conclusion we question whether "nudges" can in fact be defined as "libertarian" and "paternalistic", we call for public debates about the use of nudges and involvement in overcoming some of the ethical dilemmas nudges raise (particularly for those that work mainly through the automatic system) and enhance legitimacy. Finally we argue for more robust evaluation studies to build evidence base for this relatively new intervention. ; publishedVersion
BASE
In areas such as health, environment, and energy consumption, there is a need to do better. A common goal in society is to get people to behave in ways that are sustainable for the environment or support a healthier lifestyle. Nudging is a term known from economics and political theory, for influencing decisions and behavior using suggestions, positive reinforcement, and other non-coercive means. With the extensive use of digital devices, nudging within a digital environment (known as digital nudging) has great potential. We introduce smart nudging, where the guidance of user behavior is presented through digital nudges tailored to be relevant to the current situation of each individual user. The ethics of smart nudging and the transparency of nudging is also discussed. We see a smart nudge as a recommendation to the user, followed by information that both motivates and helps the user choose the suggested behavior. This paper describes such nudgy recommendations, the design of a smart nudge, and an architecture for a smart nudging system. We compare smart nudging to traditional models for recommender systems, and we describe and discuss tools (or approaches) for nudge design. We discuss the challenges of designing personalized smart nudges that evolve and adapt according to the user&rsquo ; s reactions to the previous nudging and possible behavioral change of the user.
BASE
Source at https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies7020045 . ; In areas such as health, environment, and energy consumption, there is a need to do better. A common goal in society is to get people to behave in ways that are sustainable for the environment or support a healthier lifestyle. Nudging is a term known from economics and political theory, for influencing decisions and behavior using suggestions, positive reinforcement, and other non-coercive means. With the extensive use of digital devices, nudging within a digital environment (known as digital nudging) has great potential. We introduce smart nudging, where the guidance of user behavior is presented through digital nudges tailored to be relevant to the current situation of each individual user. The ethics of smart nudging and the transparency of nudging is also discussed. We see a smart nudge as a recommendation to the user, followed by information that both motivates and helps the user choose the suggested behavior. This paper describes such nudgy recommendations, the design of a smart nudge, and an architecture for a smart nudging system. We compare smart nudging to traditional models for recommender systems, and we describe and discuss tools (or approaches) for nudge design. We discuss the challenges of designing personalized smart nudges that evolve and adapt according to the user's reactions to the previous nudging and possible behavioral change of the user.
BASE
In: Schmidt , A T 2017 , ' The Power to Nudge ' , American Political Science Review , vol. 111 , no. 2 , pp. 404-417 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000028 ; ISSN:0003-0554
Nudging policies rely on behavioral science to improve people's decisions through small changes in the environments within which people make choices. This article first seeks to rebut a prominent objection to this approach: furnishing governments with the power to nudge leads to relations of alien control, that is, relations in which some people can impose their will on othersa concern which resonates with republican, Kantian, and Rousseauvian theories of freedom and relational theories of autonomy. I respond that alien control can be avoided, if nudging is suitably transparent and democratically controlled. Moreover, such transparency and democratic control are institutionally feasible. Building on this response, I then provide a novel and surprising argument for more nudging: democratically controlled public policy nudging can often contain the power of private companies to nudge in uncontrolled and opaque ways. Therefore, reducing alien control often requires more rather than less nudging in public policy.
BASE
In: Behavioural public policy: BPP, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 4-25
ISSN: 2398-0648
AbstractWhy are some nudges ineffective, or at least less effective than choice architects hope and expect? Focusing primarily on default rules, this essay emphasizes two reasons for this. The first involves strong antecedent preferences on the part of choosers. The second involves successful "counternudges," which persuade people to choose in a way that confounds the efforts of choice architects. Nudges might also be ineffective, and less effective than expected, for five other reasons: (1) some nudges produce confusion in the target audience; (2) some nudges have only short-term effects; (3) some nudges produce "reactance" (though this appears to be rare); (4) some nudges are based on an inaccurate (though initially plausible) understanding on the part of choice architects of what kinds of choice architecture will move people in particular contexts; and (5) some nudges produce compensating behavior, resulting in no net effect. When a nudge turns out to be insufficiently effective, choice architects have three potential responses: (1) do nothing; (2) nudge better (or differently); and (3) fortify the effects of the nudge, perhaps through counter-counternudges, or perhaps through incentives, mandates, or bans.
In: Behavioural public policy: BPP, Band 7, Heft 3, S. 758-772
ISSN: 2398-0648
AbstractThe aim of this study is to respond to Cass Sunstein's question: 'Why are some nudges ineffective, or at least less effective than choice architects hope and expect?'—particularly in view not only of the rational basis in decision-making but also of the direct influence of emotions on the behavior of those who must choose. In this study, I used findings from psychology surveys, specifically considering the influence of emotions on the fallibility of nudges in social interactions when wealth is compared. Special attention is dedicated to vanity, a combined emotion that leads to emotional choices, which arises in self-presentation and self-comparison when external signs of wealth are displayed. Imagination plays an important role in simulation to the extent that it causes failure in further nudges. In conclusion, I argue that vanity impels people to act differently, as expected of choice architects.
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
In: American political science review, Band 111, Heft 2, S. 404-417
ISSN: 1537-5943
Nudging policies rely on behavioral science to improve people's decisions through small changes in the environments within which people make choices. This article first seeks to rebut a prominent objection to this approach: furnishing governments with the power to nudge leads to relations of alien control, that is, relations in which some people can impose their will on others—a concern which resonates with republican, Kantian, and Rousseauvian theories of freedom and relational theories of autonomy. I respond that alien control can be avoided, if nudging is suitably transparent and democratically controlled. Moreover, such transparency and democratic control are institutionally feasible. Building on this response, I then provide a novel and surprising argument for more nudging: democratically controlled public policy nudging can often contain the power of private companies to nudge in uncontrolled and opaque ways. Therefore, reducing alien control often requires more rather than less nudging in public policy.
In: Public administration: an international journal
ISSN: 1467-9299
AbstractNudging is a popular and influential approach in policymaking. Yet, it has faced substantial criticism from several policy perspectives, with growing concern raised about the efficacy of some nudge interventions. This article offers an evaluative framework for nudging which captures these various perspectives. Our 4S framework highlights the importance of nudges being sufficient, scalable, and subjective, in addition to being statistically significant, to be an effective policy response. We review various nudge interventions, coupled with various methodological critiques, to demonstrate the need for a more expansive evaluative framework. The 4S framework synthesizes these sizeable literatures and numerous critiques to meet this need, serving as an important contribution to behavioral policymakers. We argue that the 4S framework complements existing frameworks for designing behavioral interventions as an evaluative framework. By adopting the 4S framework, policymakers will be better placed to design interventions which are effective in relation to the wider policy environment.