In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using behavioral insights to inform public policy and drive social change. The basic premise is that small changes or “nudges” in how choices are presented can have an outsized influence on people’s behavior without restricting their options. This approach draws on research from psychology and behavioral economics showing that human decision making is subject to various cognitive biases and mental shortcuts. By taking these biases into account when designing policies and programs, policymakers may be able to steer people towards better decisions as judged against their own interests.
The appeal of nudging is that it offers a less coercive and more ethical alternative to mandates or bans for addressing societal problems. Rather than forcing people to act in a certain way, it tries to make the desired behavior easier through small tweaks to the choice environment. Well-known examples of nudges include changing default options, using social norms, simplifying messages, and providing prompts or reminders. When applied thoughtfully, such techniques can help address issues such as obesity, retirement saving, energy conservation, and recycling without limiting freedom of choice.
However, employing nudges in public policy also raises important considerations regarding transparency, ethics, and efficacy. Critics argue that nudging is a form of manipulative paternalism and that true behavioral change requires education rather than subtle engineering of decisions. There are also concerns that nudges could be implemented in ways that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Additionally, the long-term impacts of nudging policies remain unclear.
This paper provides an overview of the use of behavioral insights in public policy and social programs. It begins with a discussion of the intellectual roots of nudging in behavioral economics and psychology. The next sections examine specific techniques for behavioral change, highlighting examples of successful applications as well as ethical considerations. The paper then analyzes current debates regarding the use of nudges in policymaking, including transparency, coercion, efficacy, and welfare. It concludes with recommendations for implementing behavioral insights in an ethical and responsible manner to foster positive social outcomes.
Intellectual Roots of Nudging
The idea of using behavioral insights in policymaking has its origins in behavioral economics, a field that rose to prominence in the late 20th century. Behavioral economics challenged the assumption at the heart of traditional economic models that humans are rational actors who make optimal decisions. Pioneering behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky through their research on judgment, decision-making, and human rationality showed that in reality, human choices are prone to many cognitive biases. These include factors like loss aversion, status quo bias, anchoring effects, availability heuristics, and framing effects (Thaler, 2015). Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein later popularized the term “nudge” to promote the use of behavioral economics in influencing decision-making and behavior change (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).
The concept of nudging also builds on extensive work in cognitive and social psychology on how subtle factors can strongly influence human behaviors and decisions. Research has shown that people are often unaware of what factors drive their judgments and choices and are “cognitive misers” who rely on mental shortcuts and rules of thumb (Cialdini, 2009). Behavior is also heavily influenced by social norms and the surrounding environment. By tapping into these processes, psychology-informed “choice architecture” provides ways to nudge people towards better decisions without coercing them.
Thus, the intellectual foundation of nudging rests on understanding real human behavior rather than idealized assumptions about rationality. Thaler and Sunstein advocated designing policies and environments using a “choice architecture” that accounts for human cognitive biases and prompts better decisions. This approach maintains freedom of choice while encouraging outcomes that individuals themselves would see as beneficial if they had perfect information and willpower.
Behavioral Economics Techniques for Change
Proponents of nudging have highlighted a number of specific techniques informed by behavioral research that can be used to influence behavior in positive ways. Examples include defaults, social norms, simplification, pre-commitment, reminders, salience, priming, and emotional appeals. Each utilizes some quirk of human decision-making to subtly guide people’s choices (Halpern, 2015).
Defaults – People are more likely to accept default options rather than actively choosing alternatives. Policymakers can leverage this by making socially beneficial choices the default. For instance, automatically enrolling employees into retirement savings plans dramatically increases participation compared to requiring they opt-in (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).
Social norms – People tend to align their attitudes and behaviors with what they perceive others to believe or do. Communicating positive social norms can activate conformity. For example, informing people about high recycling rates in their neighborhood tends to increase recycling (Schultz, 1999).
Simplification and framing – Complex information and too many choices overwhelm people. Simplifying language, reducing options, and framing consequences positively or negatively impacts decisions. Presenting energy costs in terms of annual savings rather than monthly bills makes energy conservation more appealing (Hardisty et al., 2010).
Pre-commitment – People are more likely to follow through on future actions if they pre-commit to doing so. Having employees pre-schedule their 401(k) contribution rate increases helps increase their retirement savings (Thaler & Benartzi, 2004).
Reminders and prompts – Given the constraints of attention and memory, providing reminders, prompts, checklists and implementation intentions facilitates follow-through on intended behaviors. Reminder letters to pay fines substantially increase fine repayment rates (Haynes et al., 2013).
Salience – Making certain information very visible or prominent can guide choices by activating heuristics like availability. Displaying calories on restaurant menus appears to reduce calories purchased (Bleich et al., 2017).
Priming – People’s subsequent behavior can be influenced by subtle exposure to words, images or concepts. Exposing people to words related to honesty makes them less likely to cheat (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
Emotions and self-interest – Appeals framed in terms of emotions like fear or empathy as well as self-interest are generally more persuasive than factual information alone. Graphic warnings on cigarette packages reduce smoking appeal (Peters et al., 2007).
These techniques demonstrate that small, inexpensive tweaks to how choices are presented can spur significant changes in behavior. Policymakers are increasingly drawing on such nudging approaches to tackle various public problems.
Applications of Behavioral Insights
Nudging strategies derived from behavioral research have now been applied across a wide array of policy domains, including health, financial decision making, pro-environmental behavior and more. While evidence is still emerging, well-designed interventions show considerable promise for changing behaviors at relatively low cost. Examples of successful applications include:
Promoting healthy eating: Placing fruits and vegetables in convenient, visible locations markedly increases their consumption relative to other less healthy options (Kroese et al., 2016).
Increasing vaccination rates: Text message reminders about flu shots as well as default scheduled appointments substantially boost vaccination rates compared to requiring patients to actively schedule an appointment themselves (Chapman et al., 2010).
Encouraging energy conservation: Sending Home Energy Report letters comparing a household’s energy use to an efficient neighbor reduces energy consumption by 2-4% (Allcott, 2011).
Reducing littering: Placing motivational signs near trash bins that evoke injunctive social norms (e.g., “Most park users throw their waste in the bins”) reduces littering (De Kort et al., 2008).
Improving hand hygiene: Placing hand sanitizer dispensers directly in a patient’s line of sight upon entering and exiting a room improves compliance with hand hygiene protocols (Munshi et al., 2013).
Increasing tax collection: Sending letters alerting late taxpayers that paying taxes is “the right thing to do” results in a 1.2 percentage point increase in timely payments (Hallsworth et al., 2017).
Boosting college enrollment: Providing personalized information about application steps and eligibility for financial aid significantly increases college application and acceptance rates (Bettinger et al., 2012).
These examples demonstrate that thoughtfully designed behavioral interventions, informed by research insights into human psychology and irrational tendencies, can positively impact behaviors without restricting individual choice.
Ethical Considerations
While nudging offers promise for behavior change, there are several ethical considerations regarding its use as a policy tool. Critics have argued that nudging is a form of manipulative paternalism that subtly steers unknowing people’s choices against their best interests. However, proponents counter that libertarian paternalism aims to steer people towards decisions that they themselves would see as beneficial while fully maintaining freedom of choice (Sunstein, 2015). Still, there are several key issues that deserve attention when implementing nudges ethically:
Transparency – Nudges should not be covert but implemented transparently whenever possible so people recognize they are being nudged. Transparency allows maintaining autonomy (Hansen, 2016).
Hidden biases – Choice architects may have biases that inadvertently steer nudges in ways that disproportionately disadvantage certain groups. Nudges should be carefully evaluated to uncover hidden assumptions and effects on vulnerable populations (Smith et al., 2012).
Moral hazard – Overreliance on nudging by policymakers could reduce incentives to enact more substantive reforms. Nudges should complement rather than replace other policy actions (Marteau et al., 2011).
Effectiveness – Ethical use of nudging requires a commitment to rigorously testing effectiveness to ensure interventions are achieving their aims and avoiding unintended harms. Shortcuts undermine responsible implementation (House of Lords, 2011).
Coerciveness – While less coercive than mandates, nudges can still restrict choices in concerning ways in some contexts (Rebonato, 2012). Assessing the coerciveness of nudging interventions guides appropriate usage.
With mindfulness of these ethical considerations and principles of transparency, accountability, and empirical validation, policymakers can utilize behavioral insights while avoiding ethically dubious manipulation.
Current Debates and Issues
The appropriate use of behavioral insights in formulating laws, rules and public policies remains debated and raises a number of critical issues:
Transparency – Some critics argue many applications of nudges currently lack transparency. People are unaware their behaviors are being deliberately shaped by policymakers, which erodes autonomy (Bovens, 2009). However, others note nudges are more transparent than traditional regulations and endorse “libertarian paternalism” that preserves choice (Thaler & Sunstein, 2003).
Coercion – While nudging is less coercive than mandates or bans, some argue it still manipulates people’s decisions in concerning ways. Counterarguments contend nudging is minimally intrusive and justifiable if aimed at welfare improvement (Sunstein, 2015). However, coerciveness likely exists on a continuum warranting contextual ethical analysis (Rebonato, 2012).
Efficacy – Questions remain about the duration and larger impacts of nudging effects. Behaviors may revert once interventions are removed. Some argue only through changing preferences can nudging produce lasting change (Guala & Mittone, 2015). More research on long-term efficacy is needed.
Welfare – Debate continues on whether nudges improve well-being. Some argue that policymakers cannot determine people’s real interests better than they can. However, proponents contend small behavior changes can lead to significant welfare gains at the population level (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). There are also concerns nudging could worsen inequality if disproportionately influencing vulnerable groups.
Democracy – Use of nudges by public officials raises accountability issues regarding government’s role to openly debate and enact policies rather than subtly shape behaviors. Scholars argue nudging should occur transparently and only supplement legislative policy processes (Hansen, 2016).
Resolving these debates likely requires developing principles and frameworks for implementing behavioral insights that address legitimate ethical and pragmatic concerns while sustaining the advantages of this approach.
Implementing Nudges Responsibly
While nudging holds promise, critics rightly argue implementing behavioral insights irresponsibly could entail ethically dubious manipulation and overstepping by policymakers. Thoughtful usage requires avoiding common pitfalls. Recommendations include:
- Transparency – Clearly communicate when and how nudges are being used to uphold ethical standards and enable public debate (Bovens, 2009).
- Accountability – Provide ethical oversight, evaluation mechanisms, and avenues for public input to hold policymakers accountable (Yeung, 2012).
- Freedom of choice – Ensure nudges are minimally intrusive and preserve individual volition (Rebonato, 2014). Assess coerciveness and welfare implications.
- Effectiveness – Empirically test nudging interventions through randomized controlled trials to ensure they work as intended on key outcomes (Marteau et al., 2011). Adapt based on evidence.
- Replicability – Seek to replicate nudging results across contexts prior to large-scale implementation and publish findings to inform responsible practice (John et al., 2009).
- Monitoring – Monitor for unintended harms of nudging policies, particularly on vulnerable groups, and correct course as needed (Smith et al., 2012).
- Expiration – Include expiration or reevaluation dates for nudging interventions to incentivize quality evidence generation on efficacy (Hansen, 2016).
- Complementarity – Use nudges to complement, not replace, more substantive policy reforms (Marteau et al., 2011). Avoid overreliance on nudging alone.
By adhering to these principles, policymakers can harness behavioral insights in ways that avoid ethical pitfalls like opacity and coercion while promoting transparent, accountable, and empirically-validated practice aimed at furthering public welfare.
Conclusion
The integration of behavioral economics and psychology into public policymaking holds much promise for cost-effectively changing behaviors to improve collective welfare. Carefully designed, evidence-based interventions that account for human cognitive biases can help address many societal challenges. However, employing behavioral insights in policy also merits close ethical scrutiny. Nudging should be implemented transparently wherever possible, be subject to oversight for hidden biases, and uphold freedom of choice. Policymakers should also rigorously test and adapt interventions while monitoring for unintended harms. With thoughtful usage and ethical oversight, behavioral insights offer public policy a valuable new set of tools for non-coercively promoting social good.
References
Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1082-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
Bettinger, E. P., Long, B. T., Oreopoulos, P., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1205-1242. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs017
Bleich, S. N., Economos, C. D., Spiker, M. L., Vercammen, K. A., VanEpps, E. M., Block, J. P., Elbel, B., Story, M., & Roberto, C. A. (2017). A systematic review of calorie labeling and modified calorie labeling interventions: Impact on consumer and restaurant behavior. Obesity, 25(12), 2018-2044. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21940
Bovens, L. (2009). The ethics of nudge. In T. Grüne-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (pp. 207-219). Springer.
Chapman, G. B., Li, M., Colby, H., & Yoon, H. (2010). Opting in vs opting out of influenza vaccination. JAMA, 304(1), 43-44. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.892
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
De Kort, Y. A. W., McCalley, L. T., & Midden, C. J. H. (2008). Persuasive trash cans: Activation of littering norms by design. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 870-891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507311035
Guala, F., & Mittone, L. (2015). Paradigmatic experiments: The Dictator Game. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 58, 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.03.006
Halpern, D. (2015). Inside the nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference. WH Allen.
Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., & Vlaev, I. (2017). The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. Journal of Public Economics, 148, 14-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.02.003
Hansen, P. G. (2016). The definition of nudge and libertarian paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(1), 155-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005468
Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2010). A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psychological Science, 21(1), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609355572
Haynes, L., Green, D. P., Gallagher, R., John, P., & Torgerson, D. J. (2013). Collection of delinquent fines: An adaptive randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of alternative text messages. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(4), 718-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21717
House of Lords. (2011). Behaviour change. Science and Technology Select Committee 2nd Report. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/179.pdf
John, P., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2009). Nudge nudge, think think: Two strategies for changing civic behaviour. The Political Quarterly, 80(3), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02001.x
Kroese, F. M., Marchiori, D. R., & de Ridder, D. T. (2016). Nudging healthy food choices: A field experiment at the train station. Journal of Public Health, 38(2), e133-e137. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdv096
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., Roland, M., Suhrcke, M., & Kelly, M. P. (2011). Judging nudging: Can nudging improve population health? BMJ, 342, d228. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d228
Munshi, R., Zuckerman, R. B., Armstrong, K. A., Tomaszewicz, P., Cline, M. J., & Sommers, B. D. (2013). Encouraging hand hygiene in healthcare workers using behavioural sciences: A systematic review. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 39(10), 478-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(13)39066-x
Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review, 7(sup1), S8-S31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527
Rebonato, R. (2012). Taking liberties: A critical examination of libertarian paternalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rebonato, R. (2014). A critical assessment of libertarian paternalism. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(3), 357-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-014-9265-1
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2101_3
Smith, N. C., Goldstein, D. G., & Johnson, E. J. (2012). Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.10.114
Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Do people like nudges? Administrative Law Review, 68, 177-232.
Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. WW Norton & Company.
Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrowTM: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164-S187. https://doi.org/10.1086/380085
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175-179. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947001
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin Books.
Yeung, K. (2012). Nudge as fudge. The Modern Law Review, 75(1), 122-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00893.x
