It sounds like something out of a 1984-esque dystopia—a government unit specially trained in the science of subtle manipulation—but its more fact than fiction. In 2008, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein released their new book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Claiming that human beings are “predictably irrational” when it comes to decision-making, the book offered a guide for policy-makers, marketers, and legal professionals on how to use this information. Their idea: a “nudge” towards the right direction is all you need to get people to do what you want without limiting their choices.
The authors define a nudge as “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” While their definition might seem complicated, the concept is actually really simple. For instance, you may have seen those little green posters next to elevators on campus that encourage you to take the stairs. The posters reminded readers that it is both healthier and eco-friendly to ditch the elevator. The elevators weren’t banned; all you got was a little “nudge” to take the stairs.
Nudges come in many shapes and forms. On Lake Shore Drive, an avenue known for its views of the Chicago skyline, authorities were having trouble getting people to slow down to the speed limit on the S curves. A series of white stripes were painted on the road, but with a twist: when the stripes first appear, they are evenly spaced, but as drivers reach the most dangerous portion of the curve, the stripes get closer together, giving the sensation that driving speed is increasing. Most people naturally slow down. But nudges can also be on a smaller scale; an oft cited, rather humorous example of a nudge is the one used at Amsterdam airport to help reduce ‘human spillage’ at the urinals. A very real-looking fly was painted onto the porcelain bowl, and spillage reduced by almost eighty percent. Apparently, urinal-users can’t resist ‘aiming’ at any sort of target.
Humans are naturally susceptible to ‘nudges’, and recent research into humans’ psychological biases has helped us understand and exploit our ingrained tendencies better. Many of us have heard of “herd mentality,” the instinct we have to be influenced by what everyone else seems to be doing. ‘Herd mentality’ is just one of a number of routine biases that behavioral economists are looking to capitalize. Now, Thaler and Sunstein believe that policymakers should try to exploit biases too.
The publishing of Nudge generated a wave of excitement. In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron set up a “Behavioral Insights Team”, an organization that tried to use “nudges” to assist the government in effectively implementing their policies. The “Nudge Unit”, as it is unofficially called, is now in its fourth year of operation; its biggest success was an increase in the number of organ donors, achieved by experimenting with the text on the driving license renewal website. The Unit recruited Richard Thaler to assist with them with their work. His co-author Cass Sunstein now works as a senior policymaker on Barack Obama’s team.
Not everyone, however, is as excited as Sunstein and Thaler about the insight inherent, seemingly universal biases hold. Most criticism centers on the problems associated with the government manipulating people’s decisions, mainly the fallibility of policy-makers. Policymakers have their own cognitive biases that are not shared by the general population, which could induce them to design imperfect interventions even if they mean well.
However, libertarians have voiced a more philosophical concern: they believe that as long a citizen isn’t breaking the law, he should have the right to make bad decisions without worrying about “nudges” towards the government-mandated, supposedly morally correct decision. This broader concern is representative of the one of the most fundamental political debates, the clash between the respect for autonomy of citizens and the “paternalistic” promotion of citizens’ welfare. Thaler and Sunstein like to believe that “nudges” achieve a balance between these two values, and have even taken to branding these policy decisions as “libertarian paternalism.” Still, many claim that this so-called libertarian paternalism is far more paternalistic than it is libertarian. Patrick Basham, founder of the Democracy Institute, a Washington based think-tank, claims that nudge-theory based policy choices are an “anachronistic, extreme and very dangerous form of nannying dressed up in stewardship clothing.”
In response to this criticism, Thaler and Sunstein like to point out that since we are subject to so many biases when taking choices, there really is no way for a choice architect to design a “neutral” option in most cases. In their opinion, it’s better for the government to understand these biases and design choices accordingly, than to simply ignore them. Regardless, the number of policymakers jumping on the nudge bandwagon is increasing, and it seems that nudges are here to stay.
What do you think? Is the government being smart by “nudging” citizens towards smarter decisions, or are you horrified by this “choice manipulation”? We want to hear from you! Leave a reply below to start a dialogue.