From Liz Barker and Crawford Hollingworth, The Behavioural Architects
Henry Farrell and Cosma Shalizi question the ethics and effectiveness of “nudging” people into making better choices (5 November, p 28). Such questions are sound and justified. We should worry about whether we are manipulated by government. However, most behavioural economists would argue this does not deny people choice and democratic freedom.
Terminology is tricky. Although “nudge” can sound covert, it is also intended to be friendly. Research has proved people suffer biases and make use of heuristics and shortcuts to make decisions. Whether we recognise them and continue to research them or not, these biases will exist. And with problems such as obesity and diabetes, surely arranging canteen shelves so that healthy items are more prominent and easy to reach is smart and serves people’s real interests.
Although the authors rightly point out that high organ-donation rates are a result of good transplant infrastructure, opt-out schemes are still a crucial part of this success. It is also crucial to be aware of the different streams of consent. Opt-in and opt-out is not a simple dichotomy; there are at least six possible types of consent.
In areas where nudging has been applied, we would guess the majority would like to be “nudged”. For example, in the UK, although 65 per cent of people polled in 2008 were prepared to donate organs, only 25 per cent of the population had registered.
Advertisement
To eat more healthily, to be an organ donor, to save for our pensions – these are things that we want to be doing, yet due to our tendency to value things now rather than later, or lack of time, we find difficult.
If nudging were applied in areas where the majority did not support that action, that would be worrying, especially if people who did not get round to opting-out ended up swaying the social norm.
Oxford, UK
