Today’s post started from a question concerning the ethics of nudging. To be clear, I’ve always been of the opinion that nudging is a no-brainer: if you’re not decreasing choice options but just changing the default, nobody should object. After all, you can still choose as you wish, so what’s the problem? Well, there are problems involved, as it turns out.
But first, to sensibly talk about nudging, we need to define what we mean by a nudge. Specifically, what I mean (and what I’ve understood Thaler and Sunstein to mean in their book Nudge) is the following:
A nudge:
But first, to sensibly talk about nudging, we need to define what we mean by a nudge. Specifically, what I mean (and what I’ve understood Thaler and Sunstein to mean in their book Nudge) is the following:
A nudge:
- is a cue that drives behavior in a collectively beneficial direction
- does not reduce freedom of choice
- is behavior-based, not just an incentive
The problem with this argument is the assumption people choosing rationally, according to their best interest. This is directly in conflict with another assumption of nudging, which is that people do not choose rationally. After all, if we didn’t assume that, why would we do nudging in the first place? So, it seems to me that first nudging assumes (quite correctly) imperfect rationality, but when people question the ethics, then suddenly we’re assuming perfect rationality. Something seems off here.
On the other hand, I don’t think this is a knockdown argument for all nudges. The above fruit section example seems ethical to me, since it’s not really imposing any extra costs for the DM. The tax letter, in contrast, is more difficult. Paying taxes is a direct cost to the person, compared to not paying them. On the other hand, if she doesn’t pay her taxes, she’ll probably have a lot of trouble with the authorities on the longer term, thus ending up to be even more costly. But can we use such a long-term argument? Where’s the limit? How much better does the long-term benefit have to be so nudging is justified?
A final thing is that nudges aren’t really independent. For example, if an organization would start building all kinds of nudges using defaults and the status quo bias, at some point there’s just too many for us to pay attention. For example, the BIT in the UK once said companies might enroll employees into plans that automatically donate a percentage of their paycheck to charity. Even though you could of course opt out, this is very suspect. Imagine, if a company made tens of such choices: at some point you’d probably be too tired to think things through, so you’d just accept the defaults – which would cost you money. So even though charity is beneficial for the society as a whole, I don’t think it’s justifiable to have a default option donating to charities.
So, all in all, the freedom of choice argument that defenders of nudging often use (I’m one, personally), doesn’t really seem to be as strong as I thought before. With this problem in my mind, I just want to wish everyone a perfectly Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Bias Hunter will be back in January again!
On the other hand, I don’t think this is a knockdown argument for all nudges. The above fruit section example seems ethical to me, since it’s not really imposing any extra costs for the DM. The tax letter, in contrast, is more difficult. Paying taxes is a direct cost to the person, compared to not paying them. On the other hand, if she doesn’t pay her taxes, she’ll probably have a lot of trouble with the authorities on the longer term, thus ending up to be even more costly. But can we use such a long-term argument? Where’s the limit? How much better does the long-term benefit have to be so nudging is justified?
A final thing is that nudges aren’t really independent. For example, if an organization would start building all kinds of nudges using defaults and the status quo bias, at some point there’s just too many for us to pay attention. For example, the BIT in the UK once said companies might enroll employees into plans that automatically donate a percentage of their paycheck to charity. Even though you could of course opt out, this is very suspect. Imagine, if a company made tens of such choices: at some point you’d probably be too tired to think things through, so you’d just accept the defaults – which would cost you money. So even though charity is beneficial for the society as a whole, I don’t think it’s justifiable to have a default option donating to charities.
So, all in all, the freedom of choice argument that defenders of nudging often use (I’m one, personally), doesn’t really seem to be as strong as I thought before. With this problem in my mind, I just want to wish everyone a perfectly Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Bias Hunter will be back in January again!
The problem with this argument is the assumption people choosing rationally, according to their best interest. This is directly in conflict with another assumption of nudging, which is that people do not choose rationally. After all, if we didn’t assume that, why would we do nudging in the first place? So, it seems to me that first nudging assumes (quite correctly) imperfect rationality, but when people question the ethics, then suddenly we’re assuming perfect rationality. Something seems off here.
On the other hand, I don’t think this is a knockdown argument for all nudges. The above fruit section example seems ethical to me, since it’s not really imposing any extra costs for the DM. The tax letter, in contrast, is more difficult. Paying taxes is a direct cost to the person, compared to not paying them. On the other hand, if she doesn’t pay her taxes, she’ll probably have a lot of trouble with the authorities on the longer term, thus ending up to be even more costly. But can we use such a long-term argument? Where’s the limit? How much better does the long-term benefit have to be so nudging is justified?
A final thing is that nudges aren’t really independent. For example, if an organization would start building all kinds of nudges using defaults and the status quo bias, at some point there’s just too many for us to pay attention. For example, the BIT in the UK once said companies might enroll employees into plans that automatically donate a percentage of their paycheck to charity. Even though you could of course opt out, this is very suspect. Imagine, if a company made tens of such choices: at some point you’d probably be too tired to think things through, so you’d just accept the defaults – which would cost you money. So even though charity is beneficial for the society as a whole, I don’t think it’s justifiable to have a default option donating to charities.
So, all in all, the freedom of choice argument that defenders of nudging often use (I’m one, personally), doesn’t really seem to be as strong as I thought before. With this problem in my mind, I just want to wish everyone a perfectly Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Bias Hunter will be back in January again!
On the other hand, I don’t think this is a knockdown argument for all nudges. The above fruit section example seems ethical to me, since it’s not really imposing any extra costs for the DM. The tax letter, in contrast, is more difficult. Paying taxes is a direct cost to the person, compared to not paying them. On the other hand, if she doesn’t pay her taxes, she’ll probably have a lot of trouble with the authorities on the longer term, thus ending up to be even more costly. But can we use such a long-term argument? Where’s the limit? How much better does the long-term benefit have to be so nudging is justified?
A final thing is that nudges aren’t really independent. For example, if an organization would start building all kinds of nudges using defaults and the status quo bias, at some point there’s just too many for us to pay attention. For example, the BIT in the UK once said companies might enroll employees into plans that automatically donate a percentage of their paycheck to charity. Even though you could of course opt out, this is very suspect. Imagine, if a company made tens of such choices: at some point you’d probably be too tired to think things through, so you’d just accept the defaults – which would cost you money. So even though charity is beneficial for the society as a whole, I don’t think it’s justifiable to have a default option donating to charities.
So, all in all, the freedom of choice argument that defenders of nudging often use (I’m one, personally), doesn’t really seem to be as strong as I thought before. With this problem in my mind, I just want to wish everyone a perfectly Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Bias Hunter will be back in January again!
RSS Feed
