Building off of Cassidy’s post and our class discussion on the ethical implications of behavior change interventions, I wanted to bring up the concept of “nudging,” which I’m guessing we will discuss at some point during this course. I recently began reading the book “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.
I’ve only just started reading the book, but essentially, the authors defend “libertarian paternalism” (a.k.a “nudging”) as an acceptable and ethical form of behavior intervention. They argue that, in general, “people should be free to do what they like and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so” (libertarianism), but that it is legitimate to try to influence people’s behavior in order to make their lives “longer, healthier, and better” (paternalism).
A “nudge,” as they define it, is any “choice architecture” (the way information is presented) that “alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” For example, putting the fruit before the dessert options in a cafeteria line is a “nudge” toward healthier eating habits, while outright banning dessert from the cafeteria is not.
In line with our discussion of the weaknesses of Rational Actor models, Thaler and Sunstein agree that humans do not operate with “complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and complete self-control.” This can result in humans making pretty bad decisions. Certainly, we are capable of making great decisions – but this is usually when we have “experience, good information, and prompt feedback.” On the other hand, in situations in which we are “inexperienced, poorly informed, and in which feedback is slow and infrequent” (in choosing investment options, or one-time medical procedures, for example), we often make poor decisions.
The authors also believe that there is no such thing as “neutral” design, and that many of us are choice architects, whether we realize it or not. Small choices in design or ordering of options can have major impacts on people’s behavior. For example, if you design the form or choose the default option for enrollment in the company health care plan, you are a choice architect. No matter what choice architecture you actively choose (or don’t choose), you are influencing behavior. Thus, the authors argue that it is perfectly acceptable for institutions – both public and private – to steer people’s choices in directions that will “improve their lives.”
Some questions to consider: What does “better” mean, and who gets to decide? What if someone prefers to live a shorter and less objectively healthy life if it means they can eat fast food every day? What if, in their opinion, eating fast food makes their life “better”? Does your answer change if someone’s behavior impacts (mostly) just themselves (such as eating fast food) vs. impacting society as a whole (driving a fuel-guzzling vehicle)? Is nudging more or less ethical than “doing nothing”? Than more paternalistic policies like high taxes or bans on certain behaviors? Does it depend on the behavior? The setting (school, vs. work, etc.)? The age group (children vs. adults)? Whether the “nudger” is a private or government entity? How might your opinion of nudging change if the intended behavior is something you don’t agree with?
Where do you think the concept of nudging fits into our discussion of various behavior change models? Would you consider it a “situational factor” (as described in the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior)? Do you think Thaler and Sunstein place too much importance on this one variable, or do you think it is essential to consider and is lacking in other models?
Citations:
1) De Young, Raymond. “Education-Based Models.” Lecture. January 13, 2016.
2) De Young, Raymond. “Rational Actor Models.” Lecture. January 25, 2016.
3) Hines, J.M., H.R. Hungerford & A.N. Tomera (1987). “Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible behavior: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Environmental Education. 18(2): 1-8.
4) Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York: Penguin Books.
I would consider nudging (knowing nothing about the concept and going only by what you explained in your post) not closely related to any variable on a model but more as an intervention tool or a way to, once you have a solid grasp on a model, shift subject's behavior in a desirable way. In that way, a nudge can be related to a situational factor (like in your example with the dessert option): people tend to grab the first dessert they see because they are in a hurry, so once you understand that the lack of time affects behavior, you intervene by arranging the options in a way to promote a desired behavior (choosing a fruit). But while i see that nudging mostly relates to situational factors but i would say it could relate to other types of variables as well.
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic I've struggled with the more I've learned about environmental communication, environmental education, policy/government agency function, and behavior change. I've decided that the ethics of nudging the public lie in two things so far:
ReplyDelete1) The level to which the public accepts, values, and trusts the paternal role of the person/organization/agency doing the nudging. If they do not place trust and responsibility on that entity in the way you describe, that's when it will be seen as manipulation, because they have no way to expect that their best interests are at the root of the nudging process.
2) The extent to which the nudge is more focused on making good behavior easier than it is focused on subtly forcing people's hands/brains to pursue a certain behavior. It's hard for me to see promoting a behavior's accessibility and removing barriers as manipulation, as they still absolutely have a choice to pursue the "bad" behavior. In essence, then, this kind of nudging is simply leveling the playing field for different behaviors, so people actually have more of a choice than they did before.
After reading this post I immediately thought of Ebeling & Lotz’s article, Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. I recently read this article in my economics class and thought, “This would be a perfect article for my psychology class!” Similar to a nudge, Ebeling & Lotz analyzed the impact of default rules on purchasing renewable electricity in Germany. Overall they found that setting the default choice of electricity consumption to include renewable electricity caused the purchase of renewables to increase by almost tenfold!
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are some controversial questions related to nudging, it appears that this particular nudge was highly successful and thus beneficial to the environment. This is due to the fact that the context for this nudge is fairly black and white; I think we can all agree that supplementing non-renewable fossil fuel energy with renewable energy is beneficial to the general society. When the choice is black and white, I think nudging can be a very effective tool: tenfold in this case! Therefore, I do not think Thaler and Sunstein place too much importance on nudging, when it relates to a nudge that there is an overall general consensus.
Lastly, I would like to mention, that because of the tenfold impact of a nudge as seen in the Ebeling & Lotz’s article, I think this variable might be lacking in some behavior models. Where and how it would be integrated into established and new models, I do not know. But it appears that nudging can have drastic impacts on behavior. If anyone knows where and how nudging could be integrated in behavioral models, please share your thoughts and suggestions.
Citations:
1) Ebeling, F., & Lotz, S. (2015). “Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs.” Nature Climate Change. 5: 868-871.