Nudge theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Nudge theory
Social scientists
Government programs
Government agencies
Related concepts
Nudge theory in business
  • v

Nudge theory is a concept in behavioral economics, political theory, and behavioral sciences[1] that proposes positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions as ways to influence the behavior and decision-making of groups or individuals. Nudging contrasts with other ways to achieve compliance, such as education, legislation or enforcement.

The nudge concept was popularized in the 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, by behavioral economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein, two American scholars at the University of Chicago. It has influenced British and American politicians. Several nudge units exist around the world at the national level (UK, Germany, Japan, and others) as well as at the international level (e.g. World Bank, UN, and the European Commission).[2] It is disputed whether "nudge theory" is a recent novel development in behavioral economics or merely a new term for one of many methods for influencing behavior, investigated in the science of behavior analysis.[3][4]

Definition of a nudge[]

The first formulation of the term nudge and associated principles was developed in cybernetics by James Wilk before 1995 and described by Brunel University academic D. J. Stewart as "the art of the nudge" (sometimes referred to as micronudges).[5] It also drew on methodological influences from clinical psychotherapy tracing back to Gregory Bateson, including contributions from Milton Erickson, Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch, and Bill O'Hanlon.[6] In this variant, the nudge is a microtargeted design geared towards a specific group of people, irrespective of the scale of intended intervention.

In 2008, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein's book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness brought nudge theory to prominence.[7][8] The authors refer to the influencing of behaviour without coercion as libertarian paternalism and the influencers as choice architects.[9][10]

Thaler and Sunstein defined their concept as the following:[11]:6

A nudge, as we will use the term, is 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. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not.

In this form, drawing on behavioral economics, the nudge is more generally applied in order to influence behaviour.

One of the most frequently cited examples of a nudge is the etching of the image of a housefly into the men's room urinals at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, which is intended to "improve the aim."[11]

A fly image at the bottom of a urinal has been proven to improve men's aim, leading to lowered cleaning costs.[12]

The book also gained a following among US and UK politicians, in the private sector and in public health.[13]

Overview[]

A nudge makes it more likely that an individual will make a particular choice, or behave in a particular way, by altering the environment so that automatic cognitive processes are triggered to favour the desired outcome.[14][15]

An individual's behaviour is not always in alignment with their intentions (a discrepancy known as a value-action gap).[15] It is common knowledge that humans are not fully rational beings; that is, people will often do something that is not in their own self-interest, even when they are aware that their actions are not in their best interest.[8] As an example, when hungry, people who diet often underestimate their ability to lose weight, and their intentions to eat healthy can be temporarily weakened until they are satiated.[16]

Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman describes two distinct systems for processing information as to why people sometimes act against their own self-interest: System 1 is fast, automatic, and highly susceptible to environmental influences; System 2 processing is slow, reflective, and takes into account explicit goals and intentions.[14] When situations are overly complex or overwhelming for an individual's cognitive capacity, or when an individual is faced with time-constraints or other pressures, System 1 processing takes over decision-making.[15][17] System 1 processing relies on various judgmental heuristics to make decisions, resulting in faster decisions.[17] Unfortunately, this can also lead to suboptimal decisions. In fact, Thaler and Sunstein[11] trace maladaptive behaviour to situations in which System 1 processing overrides an individual's explicit values and goals.[15] It is well documented that habitual behaviour is resistant to change without a disruption to the environmental cues that trigger that behaviour.[17]

Nudging techniques aim to use judgmental heuristics to the advantage of the party that is creating the set of choices. In other words, a nudge alters the environment so that when heuristic, or System 1, decision-making is used, the resulting choice will be the most positive or desired outcome.[17] An example of such a nudge is switching the placement of junk food in a store, so that fruit and other healthy options are located next to the cash register, while junk food is relocated to another part of the store.[18]

Types of nudges[]

Nudges are small changes in the environment that are easy and inexpensive to implement.[14] Several different techniques exist for nudging, including defaults, social-proof heuristics, and increasing the salience of the desired option.

Nudging to incite pupils to use toilet buildings at May Sa'iri school in Ethiopia

A default option is the option that an individual automatically receives if they do nothing. People are more likely to choose a particular option if it is the default option.[17] For example, Pichert & Katsikopoulos (2008) found that a greater number of consumers chose the renewable energy option for electricity when it was offered as the default option.[19]

A social-proof heuristic refers to the tendency for individuals to look at the behavior of other people to help guide their own behavior. Studies have found some success in using social-proof heuristics to nudge individuals to make healthier food choices.[20]

When an individual's attention is drawn towards a particular option, that option will become more salient to the individual and they will be more likely to choose that option. As an example, in snack shops at train stations in the Netherlands, consumers purchased more fruit and healthy snack options when they were relocated next to the cash register.[18] Since then, other similar studies have been made regarding the placement of healthier food options close to the checkout counter and the effect on the consuming behavior of the customers and this is now considered an effective and well-accepted nudge.[21]

Application of theory[]

Behavioral insights and nudges are currently used in many countries around the world.[22][23]

Government[]

In the 1938 Austrian Anschluss referendum,[24] the larger centered circle was "a 'subtle' hint to the people, to help them understand which way to vote."[25] The intended result, a Ja ("yes") to the annexation of Austria into Germany with Hitler as its leader, was finally achieved through this and other blunter measures.
In the 1978 Chilean national consultation, in addition to the biased question text, the SI ("Yes" to Pinochet and his government) is under a sketch of the flag of Chile while NO is under a lower dark flag. This nudge[24] and other measures got a 79% support for "yes".

There are various notable examples of government applications of nudge theory.

During their terms, both U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and U.S. President Barack Obama may have sought to employ nudge theory to advance domestic policy goals in their respective countries.[26] In 2008, the United States appointed Cass Sunstein, who helped develop the theory, as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.[9][27][28] In 2010, the British Behavioural Insights Team, or "Nudge Unit," was established at the British Cabinet Office and headed by psychologist David Halpern.[29]

In Australia, the state Government of New South Wales established a Nudge Unit of its own in 2012.[30] In 2016, the federal government followed suit, forming the Behavioural Economics Team of Australia (BETA) as the "central unit for applying behavioural insights...to public policy."[31]

In 2020, the British government of Boris Johnson decided to rely on nudge theory to fight the coronavirus pandemic, with Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance seeking to encourage “herd immunity” with this strategy.[32]

Example of a nudge: a housefly painted onto the ceramic of a urinal in a men's public toilet

Business[]

Nudge theory has also been applied to business management and corporate culture.

For instance, nudge is applied to health, safety, and environment (HSE) with the primary goals of achieving a "zero accident culture."[33] The concept is also used as a key component in a lot of human-resources software.

Particular forerunners in the application of nudge theory in corporate settings are top Silicon Valley companies. These companies are using nudges in various forms to increase productivity and happiness of employees. Recently, more companies are gaining interest in using what is called "nudge management" to improve the productivity of their white-collar workers.[34]

Health[]

Healthcare[]

Lately, nudge theory has also been used in different ways to help healthcare professionals make more deliberate decisions in numerous areas. For example, nudging has been used as a way to improve hand hygiene among healthcare workers to decrease the number of healthcare-associated infections.[35] It has also been used as a way to make fluid administration a more thought-out decision in intensive care units, with the intention of reducing well known complications of fluid overload.[36]

Public health and safety[]

Stairs try to invite people to use them by displaying energy use. The barrier does not go well with the nudge theory, as it takes choice away.

It has been proposed that food-related outbreaks could be minimised by publicly displaying the inspector's hygiene report in restaurants. Many countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, France, India, Singapore, China, United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States have such food safety measures in place. It has been argued that the public display of hygiene ratings may prompt hygiene compliance by the food business operators and may act as a nudge for consumers to avoid outlets, but this approach suffers from several behavioural and cognitive limitations.[37]

Fundraising[]

Nudge theory can also be applied to fundraising, helping to increase donor contributions and increase continuous donations from the same individual, as well as to entice new donors to give.[38]

There are some simple strategies used when applying nudge theory to this area.[38] The first strategy is to make donating easy: creating default settings that automatically enrol a donor for continuous giving or prompts them to give every so often encourages individuals to continue giving. The second strategy to increase donors is to make giving more enticing, which can include increasing a person's motivation to give through rewards, personalized messages, or focusing on their interests. Personalized messages,[39] small thank-you gifts,[38] and demonstrating the impact one's donation can have on others, have been shown to be more effective when increasing donations.[40][41] Another strategy helpful to increasing donors is using social influence, as people are very influenced by group norms.[42] By allowing donors to become visible to the public and increasing their identifiability, other individuals will be more inclined to give as they conform to the social norms around them.[38] Using peer effects has been shown to increase donations.[43] Finally, timing is important: many studies have demonstrated that there are specific times when individuals are more likely to give,[44] for example during holidays.

Although many nudging theories have been useful to increase donations and donors, many scholars question the ethics of using such techniques on the population.[45] Ruehle et al. (2020), state that one has to always consider an individual's autonomy when designing nudges for a fundraising campaign. They state that the power of others behind messaging and potentially intrusive prompting can cause concern and may be seen as manipulative of donor's autonomy.[45]

AI and Algorithmic Nudging[]

Nudges are used at many levels in AI algorithms, for example recommender systems, and their consequences are still being investigated. Two articles appeared in Minds & Machines in 2018 addressed the relation between nudges and Artificial Intelligence, explaining how persuasion and psychometrics can be used by personalised targeting algorithms to influence individual and collective behaviour, sometimes also in unintended ways. [46] [47] In 2020 an article in AI & Society addressed the use of this technology in Algorithmic Regulation. [48]

A piece in the Harvard Business Review published in 2021 was one of the first articles to coin the term "Algorithmic Nudging" (see also Algorithmic Management). The author stresses "Companies are increasingly using algorithms to manage and control individuals not by force, but rather by nudging them into desirable behavior — in other words, learning from their personalized data and altering their choices in some subtle way."[49]

While the concept builds on the work by University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, "due to recent advances in AI and machine learning, algorithmic nudging is much more powerful than its non-algorithmic counterpart. With so much data about workers’ behavioral patterns at their fingertips, companies can now develop personalized strategies for changing individuals’ decisions and behaviors at large scale. These algorithms can be adjusted in real-time, making the approach even more effective."[50]

Critique[]

Nudging has also been criticised. Tammy Boyce, from the public health foundation The King's Fund, has said: "We need to move away from short-term, politically motivated initiatives such as the 'nudging people' idea, which are not based on any good evidence and don't help people make long-term behaviour changes."[51] Likewise, Mols et al. (2015), acknowledge nudges may at times be useful, but argue that covert nudges offer limited scope for securing lasting behavior change.[4]

Cass Sunstein has responded to criticism at length in his 2016 book, The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science,[52] making the case in favor of nudging, against charges that nudges diminish autonomy,[53] threaten dignity, violate liberties, or reduce welfare. He previously defended nudge theory in his 2014 book Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism[54] by arguing that choice architecture is inevitable and that some form of paternalism cannot be avoided.

Ethicists have debated nudge theory rigorously.[55] These charges have been made by various participants in the debate from Bovens (2009)[56] to Goodwin (2012).[57] Wilkinson, for example, charges nudges for being manipulative, while others such as Yeung (2012) question their scientific credibility.[58]

Public opinion on the ethicality of nudges has also been shown to be susceptible to “partisan nudge bias.”[59] Research from David Tannenbaum, Craig R. Fox, and Todd Rogers (2017) found that adults and policymakers in the United States believed behavioral policies to be more ethical when they aligned with their own political leanings.[59] Conversely, people took these same mechanisms to be more unethical when they differed from their politics.[59] The researchers also found that nudges are not inherently partisan: when evaluating behavioral policies absent of political cues, people across the political spectrum were alike in their assessments.[59]

Some, such as Hausman and Welch (2010)[60] as well as Roberts (2018)[61] have inquired whether nudging should be permissible on grounds of (distributive) justice. Though Roberts (2018) argued that nudges do not benefit vulnerable, low-income individuals as much as individuals who are less vulnerable, some empirical research suggests that nudges benefit low-income and low-SES people most, if anything increasing distributive justice.[62] Lepenies and Malecka (2015)[63] have questioned whether nudges are compatible with the rule of law. Similarly, legal scholars have discussed the role of nudges and the law.[64][65]

Behavioral economists such as Bob Sugden have pointed out that the underlying normative benchmark of nudging is still homo economicus, despite the proponents' claim to the contrary.[66]

It has been remarked that nudging is also a euphemism for psychological manipulation as practiced in social engineering.[67][68]

There exists an anticipation and, simultaneously, implicit criticism of the nudge theory in works of Hungarian social psychologists Ferenc Mérei[69] and László Garai,[70] who emphasize the active participation in the nudge of its target.

The authors of a book titled Neuroliberalism: Behavioural Government in the Twenty-First Century (2017), argue that, while there is much value and diversity in behavioural approaches to government, there are significant ethical issues, including the danger of the neurological sciences being co-opted to the needs of neo-liberal economics.[71]

See also[]

References[]

  1. ^ Simon, Carsta; Tagliabue, Marco (2018). "Feeding the behavioral revolution: Contributions of behavior analysis to nudging and vice versa". Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy. 1 (2): 91–97.
  2. ^ "Behavioural Insights". EU Science Hub. 2015-05-06. Retrieved 28 March 2019.
  3. ^ Tagliabue, Marco; Simon, Carsta (2018). "Feeding the behavioral revolution : Contributions of behavior analysis to nudging and vice versa". www.semanticscholar.org. S2CID 173172300. Retrieved 2019-06-27.
  4. ^ Jump up to: a b Mols, F.; Haslam, S. A.; Jetten, J.; Steffens, N. K. (2015). "Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth". European Journal of Political Research. 54 (1): 81–98. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12073.
  5. ^ Wilk, J. (1999), "Mind, nature and the emerging science of change: An introduction to metamorphology.", in G. Cornelis; S. Smets; J. Van Bendegem (eds.), EINSTEIN MEETS MAGRITTE: An Interdisciplinary Reflection on Science, Nature, Art, Human Action and Society: Metadebates on science, 6, Springer Netherlands, pp. 71–87, doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2245-2_6, ISBN 978-90-481-5242-1
  6. ^ O'Hanlon, Bill, and Wilk, James (1987), Shifting Contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy, New York: Guilford Press.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ "Nudge Theory". www.businessballs.com. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b Kosters, Mark; Van der Heijden, Jeroen (2015). "From mechanism to virtue: evaluating nudge theory" (PDF). Evaluation. 21 (3): 276–91. doi:10.1177/1356389015590218. hdl:1885/71637. S2CID 44192004.
  9. ^ Jump up to: a b Andrew Sparrow (2008-08-22). "Speak 'Nudge': The 10 key phrases from David Cameron's favorite book". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
  10. ^ Carrasco-Villanueva, Marco (2017-10-18). "Richard Thaler y el auge de la Economía Conductual". Lucidez (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-10-31.
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b c Thaler, Richard, and Cass Sunstein (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin Books.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Have you been nudged? BBC, 2017
  13. ^ See: Dr. Jennifer Lunt and Malcolm Staves Archived 2012-04-30 at the Wayback Machine
  14. ^ Jump up to: a b c Saghai, Yashar (2013). "Salvaging the concept of nudge". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (8): 487–93. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100727. PMID 23427215.
  15. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Parkinson, J.A.; Eccles, K.E.; Goodman, A. (2014). "Positive impact by design: the Wales centre for behaviour change". The Journal of Positive Psychology. 9 (6): 517–522. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.936965. S2CID 143964979.
  16. ^ Nordgren, L.; Van der Pligt, J.; van Harreveld, F. (2008). "The instability of health cognitions: visceral states influence self-efficacy and related health beliefs". Health Psychology. 27 (6): 722–727. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.6.722. PMID 19025267.
  17. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Campbell-Arvai, V; Arvai, J.; Kalof, L. (2014). "Motivating sustainable food choices: the role of nudges, value orientation, and information provision". Environment and Behavior. 46 (4): 453–475. doi:10.1177/0013916512469099. S2CID 143673378.
  18. ^ Jump up to: a b Kroese, F.; Marchiori, D.; de Ridder, D. (2016). "Nudging healthy food choices: a field experiment at the train station". Journal of Public Health. 38 (2): e133-7. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv096. PMID 26186924.
  19. ^ Pichert, D.; Katsikopoulos, K.V. (2008). "Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behavior". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 28: 63–73. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004.
  20. ^ Cheung, T.; Kroese, F.; Fennis, B.; de Ridder, D. (2017). "The hunger games: using hunger to promote healthy choices in self-control conflicts". Appetite. 116: 401–409. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.020. PMID 28502739. S2CID 13796944.
  21. ^ Van Gestel, LC (2018). "Nudging at the checkout counter - A longitudinal study of the effect of a food repositioning nudge on healthy food choice". Psychol Health. 6 (33): 800–809. doi:10.1080/08870446.2017.1416116. PMID 29252010.
  22. ^ Carrasco-Villanueva, Marco (2016). "中国的环境公共政策：一个行为经济学的选择 [Environmental Public Policies in China: An Opportunity for Behavioral Economics]". In 上海社会科学院 [Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences] (ed.). 2016上海青年汉学家研修计划论文集 (in Chinese). 中国社会科学出版社 [China Social Sciences Press]. pp. 368–392.
  23. ^ Bradshaw, Della (2015-11-15). "How a little nudge can lead to better decisions". www.ft.com. Financial Times LTD. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b Sammut, Gordon; Bauer, Martin W. (7 January 2021). The Psychology of Social Influence: Modes and Modalities of Shifting Common Sense. Cambridge University Press. pp. 207–208. ISBN 978-1-108-24441-1. Retrieved 9 September 2021.
  25. ^ Chaim Walder (2011). People Speak 4. pp. 23–24. ISBN 978-1-59826-669-6.
  26. ^ "First Obama, now Cameron embraces 'nudge theory'". 12 August 2010.
  27. ^ Carol Lewis (2009-07-22). "Why Barack Obama and David Cameron are keen to 'nudge' you". The Times. London. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
  28. ^ James Forsyth (2009-07-16). "Nudge, nudge: meet the Cameroons' new guru". The Spectator. Archived from the original on 2009-01-24. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
  29. ^ "About Us". Behavioural Insights Team.
  30. ^ "About Us". Behavioural Insights. NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. Archived from the original on 2014-06-16.
  31. ^ "Behavioural Insights". New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet. Archived from the original on 2014-06-16. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  32. ^ "The UK's Covid-19 strategy dangerously leaves too many questions unanswered". www.theguardian.com. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
  33. ^ "Cast No Shadow" (PDF). Rydermarsh.co.uk. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
  34. ^ Ebert, Philip; Freibichler, Wolfgang (2017). "Nudge management: applying behavioural science to increase knowledge worker productivity". Journal of Organization Design. 6:4. doi:10.1186/s41469-017-0014-1.
  35. ^ Caris, MG (2018). "Nudging to improve hand hygiene". J Hosp Infect. 98 (4): 352–358. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2017.09.023. PMID 28974467.
  36. ^ Horst, Kawati, Rasmusson, Pikwer, Castegren, Lipscey (2018). "Impact of resuscitation fluid bag size availability on volume of fluid administration in the intensive care unit". Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 9 (62): 1261–1266. doi:10.1111/aas.13161. PMID 29851027. S2CID 44064352.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  37. ^ Awasthi, Bhuvanesh (2021). "Does the food safety ranking system act as a nudge?". International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE). 10 (4): 42–58.
  38. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Behavioural Insights Team. 2013 May 24. "Applying behavioural insights to charitable giving." London: Cabinet Office and Charities Aid Foundation. pp. 1-25.
  39. ^ Behavioural Insights Team. 2012 February 6. "Applying behavioural insights to reduce fraud, error and debt." London: Cabinet Office. pp. 185–86.
  40. ^ Small, D. A., and G. Loewenstein. 2003. "Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability." Journal of Risk and uncertainty 26(1):5-16.
  41. ^ Small, D. A., G. Loewenstein, and P. Slovic. 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102(2):143–53.
  42. ^ Bernheim, B. D. 1994. "A theory of conformity." Journal of political Economy 102(5):841-77.
  43. ^ Carman, K. G. (2004). Social influences and the designation of charitable contributions: evidence from the workplace. Harvard University Journal, 1.
  44. ^ Breman, A. 2011. "Give more tomorrow: Two field experiments on altruism and intertemporal choice." Journal of Public Economics 95(11-12):1349-57.
  45. ^ Jump up to: a b Ruehle, R. C., B. Engelen, and A. Archer. 2020. "Nudging Charitable Giving: What (If Anything) Is Wrong With It?" Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 0899764020954266.
  46. ^ Burr, Christopher; Cristianini, Nello; Ladyman, James (2018). "An analysis of the interaction between intelligent software agents and human users". Minds and machines.
  47. ^ Burr, Christopher; Cristianini, Nello (2019). "Can machines read our minds?". Minds and machines.
  48. ^ Cristianini, Nello; Scantamburlo, teresa (2020). "On social machines for algorithmic regulation". AI & Society.
  49. ^ Möhlmann, Mareike (April 22, 2021). "Algorithmic Nudges Don't Have to Be Unethical". Harvard Business Review.
  50. ^ Möhlmann, Mareike (April 22, 2021). "Algorithmic Nudges Don't Have to Be Unethical". Harvard Business Review.
  51. ^ Lakhani, Nina (December 7, 2008). "Unhealthy lifestyles here to stay, in spite of costly campaigns". The Independent. London. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
  52. ^ Sunstein, Cass R. (2016-08-24). The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107140707.
  53. ^ Schubert, Christian (2015-10-12). "On the Ethics of Public Nudging: Autonomy and Agency". Rochester, NY. SSRN 2672970. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  54. ^ Sunstein, Cass R. (2014). Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300212693.
  55. ^ Barton, Adrien; Grüne-Yanoff, Till (2015-09-01). "From Libertarian Paternalism to Nudging—and Beyond". Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 6 (3): 341–359. doi:10.1007/s13164-015-0268-x. ISSN 1878-5158.
  56. ^ Bovens, Luc (2009). "The Ethics of Nudge". Preference Change. Theory and Decision Library. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 207–219. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2593-7_10. ISBN 9789048125920.
  57. ^ Goodwin, Tom (2012-06-01). "Why We Should Reject 'Nudge'". Politics. 32 (2): 85–92. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2012.01430.x. ISSN 0263-3957. S2CID 153597777.
  58. ^ Yeung, Karen (2012-01-01). "Nudge as Fudge". The Modern Law Review. 75 (1): 122–148. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00893.x. ISSN 1468-2230.
  59. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Tannenbaum, David; Fox, Craig R.; Rogers, Todd (2017-07-10). "On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions" (PDF). Harvard Scholar. Volume 1, Article 0130. Nature Human Behaviour. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
  60. ^ Hausman, Daniel M.; Welch, Brynn (2010-03-01). "Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge*". Journal of Political Philosophy. 18 (1): 123–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x. ISSN 1467-9760.
  61. ^ Roberts, Jessica L. (2018-04-01). "Nudge-proof: Distributive Justice and the Ethics of Nudging*". Michigan Law Review. 116 (6): 1045–1066. ISSN 0026-2234.
  62. ^ Mrkva, Kellen; Posner, Nathaniel A.; Reeck, Crystal; Johnson, Eric J. (2021-07-01). "Do Nudges Reduce Disparities? Choice Architecture Compensates for Low Consumer Knowledge*". Journal of Marketing. doi:10.1177/0022242921993186. ISSN 0022-2429.
  63. ^ Lepenies, Robert; Małecka, Magdalena (2015-09-01). "The Institutional Consequences of Nudging – Nudges, Politics, and the Law". Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 6 (3): 427–437. doi:10.1007/s13164-015-0243-6. ISSN 1878-5158. S2CID 144157454.
  64. ^ Alemanno, A.; Spina, A. (2014-04-01). "Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 12 (2): 429–456. doi:10.1093/icon/mou033. ISSN 1474-2640.
  65. ^ Kemmerer, Alexandra; Möllers, Christoph; Steinbeis, Maximilian; Wagner, Gerhard (2016-07-15). "Choice Architecture in Democracies: Exploring the Legitimacy of Nudging - Preface". Rochester, NY. SSRN 2810229. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  66. ^ Sugden, Robert (2017-06-01). "Do people really want to be nudged towards healthy lifestyles?". International Review of Economics. 64 (2): 113–123. doi:10.1007/s12232-016-0264-1. ISSN 1865-1704.
  67. ^ Cass R. Sunstein. "NUDGING AND CHOICE ARCHITECTURE: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS" (PDF). Law.harvard.edu. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
  68. ^ "A nudge in the right direction? How we can harness behavioural economics". 1 December 2015.
  69. ^ Mérei, Ferenc (1987). "A peremhelyzet egyik változata: a szociálpszichológiai kontúr" [A variant of the edge-position: the contour socialpsychological]. Pszichológia (in Hungarian). 7: 1–24.
  70. ^ Garai, Laszlo (2017), "The Double-Storied Structure of Social Identity", Reconsidering Identity Economics: Human Well-Being and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 21–34, doi:10.1057/978-1-137-52561-1_2, ISBN 978-1-137-52561-1
  71. ^ Whitehead, Mark; Jones, Rhys; Lilley, Rachel; Pykett, Jessica; Howell, Rachel (2017). Neuroliberalism: Behavioural Government in the Twenty-First Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781138923829.

Further reading[]

Retrieved from ""