Nudge theory

Nudge theory is a concept in behavioral economics, decision making, behavioral policy, social psychology, consumer behavior, and related behavioral sciences^[1][2][3][4] that proposes adaptive designs of the decision environment (choice architecture) 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.^[5]

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).^[6] 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.^[1][7]

There have been some controversies regarding effectiveness of nudges. Maier et al. wrote that, after correcting the publication bias found by Mertens et al. (2021), there is no evidence that nudging would have any effect.^[8] "Nudging" is an umbrella term referring to many techniques, and skeptics believe some nudges (e.g. default effect) can be highly effective while others have little to no effect, and call for future work that shift away from investigating average effects but focus on moderators instead.^[9] A meta analysis of all unpublished nudging studies carried by nudge units with over 23 million individuals in the United Kingdom and United States found support for many nudges, but with substantially weaker effects than effects found in published studies.^[10] Moreover, some researchers criticized the "one-nudge-for-all" approach and advocated for more studies and implementations of personalized nudging (based on individual differences), which appear to be substantially more effective, with a more robust and consistent evidence base.^[11][12]

Nudges

Definition

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).^[13] 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.^[14] In this variant, the nudge is a microtargeted design geared toward 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.^[15][16] The authors refer to the influencing of behaviour without coercion as libertarian paternalism and the influencers as choice architects.^[17][18]

Thaler and Sunstein defined their concept as the following:^[19]: 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."^[19]

A fly image at the bottom of a urinal has been proven to improve men's aim, leading to lowered cleaning costs.^[20]

The book also gained a following among US and UK politicians, as well as in the private sector and in public health.^[21]

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.^[22][23]

An individual's behaviour is not always in alignment with their intentions (a discrepancy known as a value-action gap).^[23] 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.^[16] 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.^[24]

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.^[22] 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.^[23][25] System 1 processing relies on various judgmental heuristics to make decisions, resulting in faster decisions.^[25] Unfortunately, this can also lead to suboptimal decisions. In fact, Thaler and Sunstein^[19] trace maladaptive behaviour to situations in which System 1 processing overrides an individual's explicit values and goals.^[23] It is well documented that habitual behaviour is resistant to change without a disruption to the environmental cues that trigger that behaviour.^[25]

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.^[25] 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.^[26]

Techniques

Nudges are small changes in the environment that are easy and inexpensive to implement.^[22] In head-to-head comparisons, randomized experiments have that nudges can sometimes motivate behavior change more effectively than paying people.^[27][28] Several different techniques exist for nudging, including defaults, social-proof heuristics, and increasing the salience of the desired option.

A default option is the option that person automatically receives for doing nothing. People are more likely to choose a particular option if it is the default option.^[25] For example, Pichert and Katsikopoulos (2008) found that a greater number of consumers chose the renewable energy option for electricity when it was offered as the default option.^[29] Similarly, the default options given to mobile apps developers in advertising networks can significantly impact consumers' privacy.^[30]

A social-proof heuristic refers to the tendency of people to look at the behavior of others to help guide their own behavior. Studies have found some success in using social-proof heuristics to nudge people to make healthier food choices.^[31]

When people's attention is drawn toward a particular option, that option will become more salient and they will be more likely to choose it. 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.^[26] 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.^[32]

Application

Behavioral insights and nudges are currently used in many countries around the world.^[33][34]

Government

In the 1938 Austrian Anschluss referendum,^[35] the larger centered circle was "a 'subtle' hint to the people, to help them understand which way to vote."^[36] 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^[35] 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.^[37] In 2008, the United States appointed Cass Sunstein, who helped develop the theory, as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.^[17][38][39] In 2010, the British Behavioural Insights Team, or "Nudge Unit," was established at the British Cabinet Office and headed by psychologist David Halpern.^[40]

In Australia, the state Government of New South Wales established a Nudge Unit of its own in 2012.^[41] 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."^[42]

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.^[43]

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."^[44] 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.^[45]

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.^[46] 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.^[47]

Mandatory display of inspector reports of eatery hygiene as a public 'nudge', have received mixed responses in different countries. A recent meta-analytic review of the hygiene ratings across North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania has shown that inspector ratings (usually a smiley or a letter grade) is useful at times, but not informative enough for consumers.^[48]

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.^[49]

There are some simple strategies used when applying nudge theory to this area.^[49] The first strategy is to make donating easy: creating default settings that automatically enroll 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,^[50] small thank-you gifts,^[49] and demonstrating the impact one's donation can have on others, have been shown to be more effective when increasing donations.^[51][52] Another strategy helpful to increasing donors is using social influence, as people are very influenced by group norms.^[53] 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.^[49] Using peer effects has been shown to increase donations.^[54] Finally, timing is important: many studies have demonstrated that there are specific times when individuals are more likely to give,^[55] 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.^[56] 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.^[56]

Artificial intelligence

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. ^{[57] [58]} In 2020 an article in AI & Society addressed the use of this technology in Algorithmic Regulation. ^[59]

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."^[60]

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."^[60]

Tourism

One concern researchers in enjoyment-focused contexts, such as tourism, raised is a gap between attitude, intention and behaviour^[61][62] because tourists seek pleasure.^[63] Several empirical pieces of evidence in the tourism suggest the nudge theory's high effectiveness in reducing the burden of tourists' activities on the environment.^[64][65] For instance, tourists consumed more ethical foods,^[66] selected more sustainable hotels,^[67][68] reused towels and bed linen during hotel stays,^[69] increased their intentions to reduce their energy consumption,^[70] increased the adoption of tourists' voluntary carbon offsetting^[71] and many other examples.

Education

Nudges in education are techniques used to subtly guide students towards making better choices and achieving their academic goals. These nudges are based on the principles of behavioral economics and psychology, particularly the concept of dual process theory. This theory suggests that there are two systems of thinking: System 1, which is automatic and instinctual, and System 2, which is reflective and deliberate. Nudges aim to influence behavior by targeting System 1 processes, such as habits and automatic responses, to help students overcome common obstacles like procrastination, lack of motivation, or poor study habits. By designing nudges that align with students' goals and cognitive processes, educators can effectively support students in reaching their full potential and improving their academic performance.^[72]

Nudging in Education: Promises and Challenges

Similar to nudging in other areas, nudging in education aims to help individuals achieve desired behaviors they may struggle with due to habits or lack of motivation. For students, this could mean meeting deadlines, paying attention in class, or staying organized. Some promising examples include sending text reminders to parents to increase home literary activities and providing information about famous scientists' struggles to improve student grades. However, challenges remain. It's unclear if nudges lead to long-lasting changes or how they work over time once removed. Additionally, it's essential to ensure that nudges align with educational principles and have a positive impact on students. More research is needed to understand how nudges influence behavior and cognitive processes in education effectively.

While nudging shows potential in education, questions remain about its long-term effectiveness and how it fits within educational principles. Nudges should not only focus on end goals but also consider the cognitive processes and behaviors they influence. By understanding these aspects, educators can ensure that nudges promote positive educational practices and help students develop lasting habits. However, the implementation of nudging in education remains limited, highlighting the need for further exploration and development in this area^[72]

Behavior economics concepts commonly use in education^[73]

Cognitive depletion	When a person has to make difficult or complex choices
Cognitive overload	Being challenging for a person to make rational choices because of the complexity of the choice
Framing	How a choice is described is called framing. If a choice is framed in more positive ways, it is easier for a person to make that choice
Loss aversion	A phenomenon when people dislike losing to a greater extent than the happiness they get when winning. Behavioral economists can use this aversion to loss to nudge people to behavior changes.
Narrow bracketing	Describes the process that people use to make complicated decisions by breaking them into smaller decisions. Sometimes this strategy leads people to make inaccurate decisions
Salience	describes how a person is more likely to make a choice about something that has been more visible as a choice or more salient while ignoring other choices that were less visible
Time-inconsistency	describes how people make choices that are different based on when they are asked to make the choice. For example, a person might make a different choice when they are very tired at the end of a long day than a choice made at the beginning of the day
Default Options	are commonly used in behavioral economics nudges default options. The default option occurs if no choice or action is taken

Critique

The evidence on nudging having any effect has been criticized as "limited," so Mertens and colleagues (2021) produced a comprehensive meta-analysis. They found that nudging is effective but there is a moderate publication bias. Later Maier and colleagues computed that, after correcting for this publication bias appropriately, there is no evidence that nudging would have any effect.^[8]

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."^[74] Likewise, Mols and colleagues (2015), acknowledge nudges may at times be useful but argue that covert nudges offer limited scope for securing lasting behavior change.^[7]

Cass Sunstein has responded to criticism at length in his 2016 book, The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science,^[75] making the case in favor of nudging, against charges that nudges diminish autonomy,^[76] threaten dignity, violate liberties, or reduce welfare. He previously defended nudge theory in his 2014 book Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism^[77] by arguing that choice architecture is inevitable and that some form of paternalism cannot be avoided.

Ethicists have debated nudge theory rigorously.^[78] These charges have been made by various participants in the debate from Bovens (2009)^[79] to Goodwin (2012).^[80] Wilkinson, for example, charges nudges for being manipulative, while others such as Yeung (2012) question their scientific credibility.^[81]

Public opinion on the ethicality of nudges has also been shown to be susceptible to “partisan nudge bias.”^[82] 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.^[82] Conversely, people took these same mechanisms to be more unethical when they differed from their politics.^[82] 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.^[82]

When considering the future designers that would be creating these nudges, a study by Willermark and Islind (2022) showed that more than 50% of design students have positive attitudes towards the implementation of nudges as a form of choice architecture. The participants argued that "many people benefit from getting a little nudge", while about 40% have ambivalent or negative attitudes towards the concept stating that "We simply should not change the path of people’s choices".^[83]

Some, such as Hausman and Welch (2010)^[84] as well as Roberts (2018)^[85] and Mrkva (2021) 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, Mrkva's research suggests that nudges benefit low-income and low-SES people most, if anything increasing distributive justice and reducing the disparity between those with high and low financial literacy.^[86] This research suggests that in situations where consumers lack knowledge regarding their choices and are therefore more prone to choosing the wrong one, the implementation of 'good nudges' can be ethically justified.^[86] The same study also states that nudges have the potential to "increase firm profits while decreasing consumer welfare."^[86]

Lepenies and Malecka (2015)^[87] have questioned whether nudges are compatible with the rule of law. Similarly, legal scholars have discussed the role of nudges and the law.^[88][89]

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.^[90]

It has been remarked that nudging is also a euphemism for psychological manipulation as practiced in social engineering.^[91][92]

There exists an anticipation and, simultaneously, implicit criticism of the nudge theory in works of Hungarian social psychologists Ferenc Mérei^[93] and László Garai,^[94] 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.^[95]

See also

• Choice architecture
• Commitment device
• Constructal Law - Design evolution in nature, animate and inanimate
• Dark pattern
• Default effect
• Libertarian paternalism
• List of cognitive biases
• Negarchy
• Psychohistory (fictional)
• Thinking, Fast and Slow
• Race to the Top
• Propaganda

References

1. Tagliabue, Marco; Simon, Carsta (2018). "Feeding the behavioral revolution : Contributions of behavior analysis to nudging and vice versa". Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy. 2 (1): 91–97. S2CID 173172300.
2. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg (2016). "The Definition of Nudge and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the Hand Fit the Glove?". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 7 (1): 155–174. doi:10.1017/S1867299X00005468.
3. Capraro, Valerio; Jagfeld, Glorianna; Klein, Rana; Mul, Mathijs; de Pol, Iris van (2019). "Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges". Scientific Reports. 9 (1): 11880. Bibcode:2019NatSR...911880C. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-48094-4. PMC 6695418. PMID 31417106.
4. Mongin, Philippe; Cozic, Mikaël (2018). "Rethinking nudge: not one but three concepts". Behavioural Public Policy. 2 (1): 107–124. doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.16.
5. Gane, Nicholas (2021). "Nudge Economics as Libertarian Paternalism". Theory, Culture & Society. 38 (6): 119–142. doi:10.1177/0263276421999447.
6. "Behavioural Insights". EU Science Hub. 2015-05-06. Retrieved 28 March 2019.
7. 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.
8. Maximilian Maier, František Bartoš, T. D. Stanley, David R. Shanks, Adam J. L. Harris, and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (July 19, 2022). "No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 119 (31): e2200300119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11900300M. doi:10.1073/pnas.2200300119. PMC 9351501. PMID 35858389.
9. Szaszi, Barnabas; Higney, Anthony; Charlton, Aaron; Gelman, Andrew; Ziano, Ignazio; Aczel, Balazs; Goldstein, Daniel G.; Yeager, David Scott; Tipton, Elizabeth (2022). "No reason to expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 119 (31): e2200732119. doi:10.31234/osf.io/mwhf3. PMC 9351519. PMID 35858388.
10. DellaVigna, Stefano; Linos, Elizabeth (January 2022). "RCTS to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence from Two Nudge Units". Econometrica. 90 (1): 81–116. doi:10.3982/ECTA18709.
11. Ludolph, Ramona; Schulz, Peter J. (March 2015). "Does regulatory fit lead to more effective health communication? A systematic review". Social Science & Medicine. 128: 142–150. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.021. PMID 25617673.
12. Mills, Stuart (January 2022). "Personalized nudging" (PDF). Behavioural Public Policy. 6 (1): 150–159. doi:10.1017/bpp.2020.7. S2CID 242479520. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2020. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
13. Wilk, J. (1999), "Mind, Nature and the Emerging Science of Change: An Introduction to Metamorphology", in G. Cornelis; S. Smets; J. Van Bendegem (eds.), Metadebates on Science, vol. 6, Springer Netherlands, pp. 71–87, doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2245-2_6, ISBN 978-90-481-5242-1
14. O'Hanlon, Bill, and Wilk, James (1987), Shifting Contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy, New York: Guilford Press.
15. "Nudge Theory". www.businessballs.com. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
16. 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.
17. Andrew Sparrow (2008-08-22). "Speak 'Nudge': The 10 key phrases from David Cameron's favorite book". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
18. Carrasco-Villanueva, Marco (2017-10-18). "Richard Thaler y el auge de la Economía Conductual". Lucidez (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-10-31.
19. Thaler, Richard, and Cass Sunstein (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin Books.
20. Have you been nudged? BBC, 2017
21. See: Dr. Jennifer Lunt and Malcolm Staves Archived 2012-04-30 at the Wayback Machine
22. Saghai, Yashar (2013). "Salvaging the concept of nudge". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (8): 487–93. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100727. PMID 23427215.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Medvedev, Danila; Davenport, Diag; Talhelm, Thomas; Li, Yin (March 2024). "The motivating effect of monetary over psychological incentives is stronger in WEIRD cultures". Nature Human Behaviour. 8 (3): 456–470. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01769-5. ISSN 2397-3374. PMC 10963269. PMID 38191844.
28. Campos-Mercade, Pol; Meier, Armando N.; Pope, Devin; Schneider, Florian H. (December 2023). "Motivating vaccination with financial incentives". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 27 (12): 1099–1101. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.07.003. ISSN 1879-307X. PMID 37716894.
29. 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.
30. Tahaei, Mohammad; Frik, Alisa; Vaniea, Kami (2021). "Deciding on Personalized Ads: Nudging Developers About User Privacy". USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). doi:10.1145/3411763.3451805. hdl:20.500.11820/4b6bc799-2bed-423f-b9d4-6c8bb37c2418.
31. Cheung, T.; Kroese, F.; Fennis, B.; de Ridder, D. (2017). "The hunger games: using hunger to promote healthy choices in self-control conflicts" (PDF). Appetite. 116: 401–409. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.020. PMID 28502739. S2CID 13796944.
32. 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.
33. 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. ISBN 9781234567897.
34. Bradshaw, Della (2015-11-15). "How a little nudge can lead to better decisions". Financial Times. Financial Times LTD. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
35. 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.
36. Chaim Walder (2011). People Speak 4. Feldheim Publ. pp. 23–24. ISBN 978-1-59826-669-6.
37. "First Obama, now Cameron embraces 'nudge theory'". Independent.co.uk. 12 August 2010.
38. Carol Lewis (2009-07-22). "Why Barack Obama and David Cameron are keen to 'nudge' you". The Times. London. Archived from the original on November 20, 2008. Retrieved 2009-09-09.
39. 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.
40. "About Us". Behavioural Insights Team.
41. "About Us". Behavioural Insights. NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. Archived from the original on 2014-06-16.
42. "Behavioural Insights". New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet. Archived from the original on 2014-06-16. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
43. "The UK's Covid-19 strategy dangerously leaves too many questions unanswered". www.theguardian.com. 15 March 2020. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
44. "Cast No Shadow" (PDF). Rydermarsh.co.uk. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Awasthi, Bhuvanesh (2021). "Does the food safety ranking system act as a nudge?". International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics. 10 (4): 42–58. doi:10.4018/IJABE.2021100104 – via IGI Global.
49. Behavioural Insights Team. 2013 May 24. "Applying behavioural insights to charitable giving." London: Cabinet Office and Charities Aid Foundation. pp. 1-25.
50. Behavioural Insights Team. 2012 February 6. "Applying behavioural insights to reduce fraud, error and debt." London: Cabinet Office. pp. 185–86.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Bernheim, B. D. 1994. "A theory of conformity." Journal of political Economy 102(5):841-77.
54. Carman, K. G. (2004). Social influences and the designation of charitable contributions: evidence from the workplace. Harvard University Journal, 1.
55. Breman, A. 2011. "Give more tomorrow: Two field experiments on altruism and intertemporal choice." Journal of Public Economics 95(11-12):1349-57.
56. 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.
57. Burr, Christopher; Cristianini, Nello; Ladyman, James (2018). "An analysis of the interaction between intelligent software agents and human users". Minds and Machines. 28 (4): 735–774. doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9479-0. PMC 6404627. PMID 30930542.
58. Burr, Christopher; Cristianini, Nello (2019). "Can machines read our minds?". Minds and Machines. 29 (3): 461–494. doi:10.1007/s11023-019-09497-4. hdl:1983/ddbb662c-85b7-449b-a537-868c118bcfa6. S2CID 85528082.
59. Cristianini, Nello; Scantamburlo, teresa (2020). "On social machines for algorithmic regulation". AI & Society. 35 (3): 645–662. doi:10.1007/s00146-019-00917-8. hdl:1983/41eee0d2-24cb-4672-865b-ec838e860cfb. S2CID 140233845.
60. Möhlmann, Mareike (April 22, 2021). "Algorithmic Nudges Don't Have to Be Unethical". Harvard Business Review.
61. Souza-Neto, Valério; Marques, Osiris (2022). Attitude-behaviour gap. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-80037-747-9.
62. Dolnicar, Sara (September 2020). "Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism". Annals of Tourism Research. 84: 102933. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2020.102933. ISSN 0160-7383.
63. Dai, Fengwei; Wang, Dan; Kirillova, Ksenia (June 2022). "Travel inspiration in tourist decision making". Tourism Management. 90: 104484. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104484. ISSN 0261-5177. S2CID 245527541.
64. Marques, Osiris Ricardo Bezerra; de Souza Neto, Valério Rodrigues (2022-07-28), "Behavioural Nudging", Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing, Edward Elgar Publishing, doi:10.4337/9781800377486.behavioural.nudging, ISBN 978-1-80037-747-9, S2CID 246764759, retrieved 2022-08-25
65. Souza-Neto, Valério; Marques, Osiris; Mayer, Verônica Feder; Lohmann, Gui (2022-02-06). "Lowering the harm of tourist activities: a systematic literature review on nudges". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 31 (9): 2173–2194. doi:10.1080/09669582.2022.2036170. hdl:10072/417646. ISSN 0966-9582. S2CID 246647301.
66. Cozzio, Claudia; Volgger, Michael; Taplin, Ross; Woodside, Arch G. (2020-09-01). "Nurturing tourists' ethical food consumption: Testing the persuasive strengths of alternative messages in a natural hotel setting". Journal of Business Research. 117: 268–279. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.050. ISSN 0148-2963. S2CID 225271326.
67. Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina); Errmann, Amy; Kim, Jungkeun; Seo, Yuri; Xu, Yingzi; Zhao, Fang (July 2020). "Moral Effects of Physical Cleansing and Pro-environmental Hotel Choices". Journal of Travel Research. 59 (6): 1105–1118. doi:10.1177/0047287519872821. ISSN 0047-2875. S2CID 204430801.
68. Kim, Jungkeun; Kim, Seongseop (Sam); Lee, Jin-Soo; Kim, Peter Beomcheol; Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) (March 2020). "Influence of Choice Architecture on the Preference for a Pro-Environmental Hotel". Journal of Travel Research. 59 (3): 512–527. doi:10.1177/0047287519841718. ISSN 0047-2875. S2CID 159197495.
69. Gössling, Stefan; Araña, Jorge E.; Aguiar-Quintana, J. Teresa (2019-02-01). "Towel reuse in hotels: Importance of normative appeal designs". Tourism Management. 70: 273–283. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.027. ISSN 0261-5177. S2CID 158073416.
70. Chang, Howook “Sean”; Huh, Chang; Lee, Myong Jae (May 2016). "Would an Energy Conservation Nudge in Hotels Encourage Hotel Guests to Conserve?". Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. 57 (2): 172–183. doi:10.1177/1938965515588132. ISSN 1938-9655. S2CID 155408510.
71. Kim, Haeok Liz; Hyun, Sunghyup Sean (2021-07-03). "The anchoring effect of aviation green tax for sustainable tourism, based on the nudge theory". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 29 (7): 1082–1097. Bibcode:2021JSusT..29.1082K. doi:10.1080/09669582.2020.1820017. ISSN 0966-9582. S2CID 224999306.
72. Weijers, Robert J.; de Koning, Björn B.; Paas, Fred (September 2021). "Nudging in education: from theory towards guidelines for successful implementation". European Journal of Psychology of Education. 36 (3): 883–902. doi:10.1007/s10212-020-00495-0. hdl:1765/129818. ISSN 0256-2928.
73. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg; Jespersen, Andreas Maaløe (March 2013). "Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 4 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1017/s1867299x00002762. ISSN 1867-299X.
74. Lakhani, Nina (December 7, 2008). "Unhealthy lifestyles here to stay, in spite of costly campaigns". The Independent. London. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
75. Sunstein, Cass R. (2016-08-24). The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107140707.
76. Schubert, Christian (2015-10-12). "On the Ethics of Public Nudging: Autonomy and Agency". Social Science Research Network. Rochester, NY. SSRN 2672970.
77. Sunstein, Cass R. (2014). Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300212693.
78. 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.
79. 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. S2CID 141283500.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Willermark, Sara; Islind, Anna (2022-09-08). "CHOICE ARCHITECTURE, FRIEND, OR FOE? FUTURE DESIGNERS' PERSPECTIVE ON THE ETHICS OF DIGITAL NUDGES". 13th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems.
84. 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.
85. Roberts, Jessica L. (2018-04-01). "Nudge-proof: Distributive Justice and the Ethics of Nudging*". Michigan Law Review. 116 (6): 1045–1066. doi:10.36644/mlr.116.6.nudge-proof. ISSN 0026-2234. S2CID 53516078.
86. 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. 85 (4): 67–84. doi:10.1177/0022242921993186. ISSN 0022-2429. S2CID 234222361.
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. Kemmerer, Alexandra; Möllers, Christoph; Steinbeis, Maximilian; Wagner, Gerhard (2016-07-15). "Choice Architecture in Democracies: Exploring the Legitimacy of Nudging - Preface". Baden-Barde/Hart Publishing. Rochester, NY. SSRN 2810229.
90. 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.
91. Cass R. Sunstein. "NUDGING AND CHOICE ARCHITECTURE: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS" (PDF). Law.harvard.edu. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
92. "A nudge in the right direction? How we can harness behavioural economics". ABC News. 1 December 2015.
93. 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.
94. 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
95. Whitehead, Mark; Jones, Rhys; Lilley, Rachel; Pykett, Jessica; Howell, Rachel (2017). Neuroliberalism: Behavioural Government in the Twenty-First Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781138923829.

Further reading

• Bejan, Adrian (2016). The Physics of Life. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-250-07882-7.
• Bejan, Adrian (2020). Freedom and Evolution. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-34008-7.
• Mols, Frank; Haslam, S. Alexander; Jetten, Jolanda; Steffens, Niklas K. (February 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.
• Sunstein, Cass R. (2014). Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300197860.
• Sunstein, Cass R. (2016). The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. Cambridge Studies in Economics, Choice, and Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781316790854.
• Thaler, Richard; Sunstein, Cass (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300146813.
• Whitehead, Mark; Jones, Rhys; Lilley, Rachel; Pykett, Jessica; Howell, Rachel (2017). Neuroliberalism: Behavioural Government in the Twenty-First Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781317410164.