Can big changes to behaviour be achieved through subtle social persuasion? The authors of ‘Nudge’ argue that this approach represents a “genuine third way” in politics and public policy.

Cass Sunstein is a law professor and Richard Thaler an economics professor at the University of Chicago. They are the authors of Nudge (Yale University Press).

The pair answer FT readers’ questions below.

.....................................................................................................................

Firstly, in your FT article you note that ‘One reason for pollution is that people are not fully aware of the costs’, and you observe that ‘If those are made more visible, behaviour changes’. The way that behaviour changes is likely to be that ordinary people reduce their quality of life (by consuming less). But for most people, their quality of life is not high to start with. Why should we expect them to reduce it further (whether or not the means is coercive)?
Nico Macdonald, London

Cass Sunstein: Thanks so much. In the area of energy use, many environmentally-friendly approaches actually save money, so people’s quality of life will actually improve. Most of us have countless opportunities to use less energy and hence to pollute more, and to be a little wealthier in the process. True, some environmentally beneficial acts cost a little, or even a lot. But we have consciences too, and to reduce serious risks, many people will pay a little, or even a lot.

Secondly, modern societies have a division of labour in which ordinary people do their work, and hope to spend as much of their non-working time as possible on activities of their choice. In their work we would hope that politicians, scientists, engineers, designers and planners would address and solve many of the problems discussed in Nudge at a macro level. For instance, reducing the pollution created in the manufacture, distribution, use and disposal of products, including the associated externalities. What is wrong with this model, which allows ordinary people to make their contribution to society through their work but doesn’t force them (coercively or not) into additional work and worry in their private lives? And to what extent are politicians using concerns about the environment, etc, as a platform for creating an ersatz (and degraded) notion of citizenship?
Nico Macdonald, London

Cass Sunstein: Agreed, many social problems can be solved through the private sector. And also agreed, coercion shouldn’t be the first choice. But for pollution, a model of laissez-faire just isn’t enough. People’s incentives aren’t properly aligned; my polluting behaviour, or consumption behaviour that produces pollution, hurts you! So pollution taxes aren’t hard to justify. Our focus, though, is on nudges, not taxes. Gentle nudges can make the environment a lot cleaner. And since people are being nudged anyhow - by private and public decisions - it isn’t right to say, “no nudges!” The question is how to have beneficial nudges, because nudges are inevitable.

.....................................................................................................................

To what extent do people’s values shape their behaviour, as opposed to the context they find themselves in? Is there evidence that these values can be changed?
Sam Gordon, UK

Cass Sunstein: A lot, and yes! Values are really important, as you suggest. In areas such as discrimination, crime, smoking, and recycling, values make all the difference. And there’s a ton of evidence that values can be changed. Consider the areas just mentioned. For much behaviour, people care what their neighbours do and think. If you think that most people recycling, or obeying the law, you’ll probably be more likely to recycle and obey the law. There’s a ton of evidence on this point, outlined in Nudge.

.....................................................................................................................

What are the implications of your book for improving business ethics and professional ethics in law, accounting and nursing? How would a nudge help maintain high professional standards in the competitive world of business, the professions and healthcare?
John Gardner, Onalaska Wisconsin

Cass Sunstein: Great questions; thanks much. There are many opportunities here. One is to invoke ordinary social practice. Let’s say that in nursing, 95 per cent of people do not do X, where X is bad. If nurses are informed that the overwhelming majority of nurses do not do X, there’s a good chance that the percentage of nurses who do X will increase even further. (Of course it is hard to use this strategy if ethical violations are widespread.) Another possibility is to inform people of who, concretely and vividly, is hurt by unethical conduct. There’s a lot of room for further thought on this count. (I write as a lawyer especially concerned about unethical lawyers!)

Richard Thaler: In the book we talk about numerous opportunities for the private sector to help people make better decisions, as well as the also numerous situations in which firms find it profitable to nudge people in ways that are unhelpful, to put it nicely. (Many of those who took out sub-prime mortgages were nudged to take out loans they would almost certainly not be able to pay back when the initially low rates reset.) We think there are many great business opportunities for firms to play the role of honest broker, but to do well in that domain it will be necessary to be rigorously scrupulous. In this domain, good ethics can be profitable.

.....................................................................................................................

What do you think about national gross happiness in Buthan? Is this policy a kind of marketing or do you think that this is a new way for the government to target people’s wellbeing?
Mara Luquet, So Paulo - Brazil

Cass Sunstein: This is very interesting. A bit crude, but many governments are realising that gross national product is a most inadequate way to get a national welfare. Supplemental or replacement measures deserve far more attention. We nudgers are greatly interested in recent happiness research and it has important policy implications.

.....................................................................................................................

Can businesses be nudged? I’m thinking particularly of businesses making commitments to climate friendly policies to cut carbon emissions when times are good - can we rely on continuing commitment in an economic downturn? Isn’t there a risk that if you rely on subtle social pressure, that it may turn out to be very fragile compared to market forces?
Victoria, London

Cass Sunstein: A good point here. In the domain of climate change, I favour either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program, and neither of these is a mere nudge. Both have a coercive component. And when the economy is sour, many businesses are less willing to sacrifice money for other goals. But note two points. a) Some climate-friendly policies actually save money! b) Many businesses are willing to do at least something for the public good, even if it costs a bit. c) Nudges can help a lot with both a) and b). We discuss several possibilities in our book.

.....................................................................................................................

Have you distinguished between the differing effects of ‘emotional compliance’ to achieve behavioural change, as opposed to ‘intellectual persuasion’ to achieve attitudinal change? i.e. the chasm between heuristic and systematic thinking. An example of this is when female voters behaviours change for the short term when seeing a politician cradle a baby.
James Bryce, Hong Kong

Cass Sunstein: We are quite interested in this and our book gets at the distinction you have in mind. Much of our book operates on the basis of a distinction between the automatic system and the reflective system. The automatic system isn’t entirely emotional, but it is quick and intuitive - and sometimes driven by emotions. A lot of recent work explores the “affect heuristic,” which means that people’s affective reaction to an event, an activity, or a process can serve as a mental shortcut for a more deliberative judgment. For example, many people have a negative reaction to nuclear power and a positive one to Barack Obama. (Our own intuitive and calculative systems both like Obama, we confess!) Some of our nudges are designed to strengthen the reflective system, or at least the judgments that it would make if it were in charge. We discuss both emotion-driven and calculation-driven persuasion.

.....................................................................................................................

Do you think it will also work in Russia?
Robert van Loon

Cass Sunstein: In general, the answer is certainly yes. The findings we discuss in Nudge are applicable in all nations. If you are referring to the Russia-Georgia conflict, I’ll have to be very tentative. But social pressures have had an effect in the international context as elsewhere.

.....................................................................................................................

If frugality and financial discipline are required for wealth conservation how can media coverage and the use of spokesmen deter the lure of products and services that amass debt for the consumer?Advertisements for costly purchases and celebrity extravagance compete with rising prices on necessities.and the government taxes every purchase.Who will fund a campaign to stop spending?
Maura Rubencamp, New York

Cass Sunstein: We have a bunch of suggestions for promoting frugality and financial discipline, including automatic enrolment in savings plans, and what we call “simplified transparency,” to ensure that consumers have a better understand of credit markets. Our hope is that good default rules and more information will help a lot. A large topic, one that we cover in four chapters of the book; sorry that I don’t have space to offer more details!

Richard Thaler: This question raises a very good point. Firms will generally find it more profitable to try to nudge you to spend than to save. It is hard to make much money off someone not spending! Even for those who can profit in this domain, such as financial institutions, it will tend to be true that the firms that offer the lowest fees will do the least advertising. We think that the best way to resist the Siren’s call to spend is to make savings automatic. As everyone knows, money can burn a hole in your pocket.

.....................................................................................................................

You mentioned in your FT article that automatically enrolling people in a savings plan dramatically increases participation, even though people retain the right to opt out. Can the governments across the world apply this ‘nudge’ principle to mass enrol children and adults (particularly government employees) in health and fitness programs, with a right to opt-out, to slow down the obesity epidemic, which is growing at alarming rates particularly in the US? Doesn’t this kind of nudging go against the free market principles of no state intervention?
Kalyan Mynampati, Singapore

Cass Sunstein: This is really interesting; thanks. A general point first: As Hayek wrote, a free market system does NOT mean “no state intervention.” A free market system needs a lot of state intervention, including criminal law, property law, contract law, and tort law. The state of nature has none of these! Whatever the rhetoric, no sensible person opposes state regulation as such. As for your proposal: I’d be less nervous about this if opt-out really were costless. If the state does this, but lets people get out just on a quick, “No thanks,” the intrusion is less troublesome. But as your question suggests, it’s troublesome even with a quick opt-out. One reason: We need to know if the new “fitness” program default is really what most people would choose, if that had perfect information; at least that is a highly relevant question. Since there is reason to doubt whether most informed people would enroll in fitness programs, the proposal runs into an immediate problem. Nudge discusses the criteria by which we decide whether one default rule is better than another, and this program seems (offhand) to fail. For children, of course, the analysis isn’t the same, and schools typically require some kind of sports and exercise.

Richard Thaler: Many firms are discovering that they can have healthier and happier employees if they make it easier for the employees to get some exercise. Large firms can do this without a nudge from the government.

.....................................................................................................................

Total fertility rate is on the decline in many countries, whether they are developed nations or emerging economies. In your view, what kind of governmental nudge would be effective in urging couples to have more babies?
Siang Meng Tan, Singapore

Cass Sunstein: A terrific question, on which my ignorance is boundless. If a government wants people to have more children, the most obvious approach isn’t a nudge; it’s economic incentives. Make it financially easier to have children! A potential nudge would involve (gentle) efforts to emphasize a sense of civic obligation and the rewards of being a parent. It might be possible to build here on other movements that have succeeded in changing behavior, eg in the domains of smoking and recycling.

.....................................................................................................................

Your theories assume that taking choices away from people will improve their lives. And who shall make these choices for people? Savants like yourself? You have no idea who I am, what my medical history is or what my life is like, or what my personal goals are. But you in your inifinite wisdom would further empower government to take away my freedom for my good. Isn’t the logical conclusion of your basic idea the liberation offered by Marx, Stalin and Pol Pot, to name just a few? And when it starts, just when does it stop before it goes too far? And what is too far for your taste?
Harry Schell, CA, USA

Cass Sunstein: Our approach doesn’t take choices away from people! We want to maintain and increase freedom of choice. We don’t believe in reducing anyone’s freedom.

.....................................................................................................................

The majority of British people publicly state support for recycling of domestic rubbish yet their own behaviour is often contra to their views. How can these good intentions be translated into major changes in behaviour without resorting to the stick of taxation or fines?
E Bailey, London

Cass Sunstein: Four possibilities: 1. Emphasize the widespread belief that people ought to be recyling. 2. Emphasize the harms created by a failure to recycle. 3. Make it really easy to recycle. 4. Point out the significant numbers of people who are now recycling.

.....................................................................................................................

Can you tell me what are the different ways by which an individual can overcome procrastination in his/her behaviour?
Sameer Tahir , Karachi, Pakistan

Cass Sunstein: Our book is about nudges, but we also like “snudges,” that is, self-nudges. One way is to make some kind of bet, or investment, so that you lose if you procrastinate. Eg, tell a friend, I’ll give you some significant money, or buy you a good bottle of wine, if I don’t do X by a certain date. Or work with someone to ensure that you’ll give to a party or cause that you dislike, or hate, if you don’t meet a deadline. There are now many services to help with this; check out stickk.com for a good and fun example.

.....................................................................................................................

Picking you up on your Hayekian reference, another of Hayek’s well known ideas is that information is different to knowledge, and that no central source can have adequate knowledge to successfully order or control society. Doesn’t this conflict a little with your ideas of centrally administered paternalism?
Peter R, London

Cass Sunstein: Our approach is fully compatible with Hayek, I think. Recall that we want to preserve freedom of choice; nudges do not coerce. One strong inspiration, at least for me, is Hayek’s own emphasis on the limited knowledge of central planners. You might be conflating our approach - which, we dare to think, is something new - with old-style central planning. We reject planning; we want nudges instead.

Richard Thaler: It is also important to stress that choice architects, both in the public and private sector, can hire experts to help them. In the book we examine the case of the Swedish partial privatization of their social security plan. Participants were given a choice of 456 private sector funds but the government also designed a “default” fund for those who did not want to make a choice. They did an excellent job. The fund is well diversified, has very low fees, and has performed very well since inception. Adam Smith was a great champion of division of labour. So are we. Most people (including political leaders) do not have any expertise in selecting a retirement portfolio, so why not hire some experts to help them?

.....................................................................................................................

What is the fascination with big change? My work as a clinical psychologist has taught me that for change to take hold, it must be incremental and over a period of time to be comfortably and reliably integrated into a behavioural repertoire. So if small change is ok, then choice architecture is an expedient third way. 
Joel S. Richman, Ph.D., Winnetka, Illinois

Cass Sunstein: Sometimes small change is best; sometimes big change. It depends on the situation. Many nudges will produce just small changes, and that’s fine. But sometimes a lot needs to be done, eg when there is a really serious problem from which many people are suffering.

Sadly to me, the recent excitement over this concept constitutes testimony to the general failure of our culture and society to achieve socially valuable attitudes and behaviour through the usual institutions such as family, school, community, religious affiliations, government policy politics, etc.  At least these institutions purport to amplify human development, awareness, understanding and behaviour. 'Architecting' my behaviour towards paternally libertarian goals feels more like manipulation than freedom especially with the near certain understanding of 'normal' (meaning 'average') human behaviour not to opt out of choices which would probably be rejected if presented  in the pre-Nudge manner
Joel S. Richman, Ph.D., Winnetka, Illinois

Cass Sunstein: Freedom is definitely important, and so we would maintain it. There’s no way of allowing choices without having a context - and a context is, in effect, a kind of architecture. We want helpful architecture, rather than harmful architecture.

The very understandings of human behaviour which make the Nudge concept 'work 'do not edify the human thought or behavioral process, but rather take advantage of it. Is not the risk is that freedom of choice will ultimately only belong to the above-average, elite, or abnormally vigilant and persistent?  A truly thought provoking book and contribution, it gladdens me to see so much psychological research put to good use. 
Joel S. Richman, Ph.D., Winnetka, Illinois

Cass Sunstein: Thanks for the kind words. We want to maintain freedom of choice for everyone. And information can be a good nudge - so we want not to take advantage of human thinking, but to improve it. Many of our nudges involve information disclosure.

Richard Thaler: One of the chapters in the book is about school choice where the concern you raise is particularly important. In many communities where parents can choose which school to send their children the poor are less likely to make use of this opportunity. We discuss ways to help get these parents more involved, and methods to make sure that if they do make active choices they are well-informed.

.....................................................................................................................

Could you comment on how you fit your theories with traditional political theory. If we accept that humans have these biases, and humans in all positions/levels have them, how do you get around the problem that such biases in positions of power (ie public office) are even more serious? It seems that you ultimately rely on someone (or group) at the top of the tree, free from bias, to make your theories work - and this goes back to the old discussions of limiting power. Realistically, good intentions are likely to be perverted by political pragmatism - do you have any comment on how you limit this problem? All theories are said to work if only the right people make the decisions.
Peter R, London

Cass Sunstein: Thanks so much. We agree with you. Officials are human and boundedly rational, and they have biases of their own. But this isn’t an argument against nudging. a) Nudges are inevitable, even from government. If government has any kind of healthcare program, it’s going to be nudging. And if government has contract and property law, it will be nudging too. So the legitimate concern about government bias and error is not an argument against nudges. Asking for a world without nudges is like asking for a building without architecture. b) We favour noncoercive approaches, retaining freedom of choice. That’s a big safeguard against official error and bias. c) Transparency is a great nudge. Government should be far more transparent. As American Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said many years ago, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

.....................................................................................................................