Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/270589948
CITATIONS READS
101 199
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jessica Pykett on 28 June 2017.
Jones, Rhys, Pykett, Jessica and Whitehead, Mark (2013) Changing Behaviours. On the Rise of the
Psychological State. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/changing-behaviours?___website=uk_warehouse
The New Yorker Magazine recently reported on the emergence on a peculiar form of soda war in New
York City. The Talk of the Town article described Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plans to ban the sale
of soft drinks in the city in portions that exceed 16 ounces (Surowiecki, 2012). While the soda (or
more specifically cola) wars of the past had been waged between competing corporate leviathans, the
battle lines in this carbonated conflict have been drawn between government and the private sector.
Bloomberg’s initiative has been developed in order to address the “super-size” culture that has seen a
rise in the number of people routinely drinking soda in 32-ounce portions, and the various public
health issues that are associated with this trend (including rising rates of obesity, heart disease and
diabetes). Bloomberg’s desire to “downsize supersize” has been criticized by some as just another
consumption practices of its citizens. But what is easy to miss is that Bloomberg’s soda initiative
actually reflects a fundamental shift in the nature of public policy design. This shift in public policy
has been driven by the rising influence of psychology and related behavioural sciences within public
policy development. These changes in the nature of public policy have not been confined to New
York City, or even the USA, they are now an international phenomena shaping government policy
development France, the Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, New Zealand, Germany, and the UK inter
alia. This volume takes a closer look at these policies, what they tell us about the changing nature of
Figure 1.1. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and deputy mayor for health Linda Gibbs, 30 May
2012 [Chang W. Lee/The New York Times via Redux]
So what is it that marks New York’s proposed soda policy out as a distinctive form of public policy?
The anti-supersize policy targets something called “default bias.” Default bias is a phenomenon that a
have been studying for sometime. The notion of default bias suggests that people do not make
economic choices that are based on perfect knowledge, sustained reflection, and rational calculation (a
model of economic decision making favoured by classical economists and referred to as the
rationality assumption). In the frenetic jostle of everyday life, people are much more likely to use
handy shortcuts in their decision-making. A default bias is a typical example of one such shortcut. A
default bias refers to the tendency of humans to be guided in their decision-making by preset choices
(such as automatic enrolled on a company pension scheme, or being charged on a particular tariff for
your domestic energy use). Default options are often followed because they require little effort on the
part of the individual and provide the reassuring sense that they reflect a “normal” choice to make.
Corporations have, of course, known for sometime about the power of default biases and have use
them to their advantage by pre-selecting choices that are not in the long-term interests of the
consumer, or upping insurance charges on renewal policies on the basis that many people will not
want the hassle of changing their provider. What Bloomberg’s supersize ban attempts to do is to
establish a new default within soda consumption (16 ounces) that is in the long-term health interest of
the consumer. This ban, does not prevent consumers buying 32 ounces of soda, it just means that they
will have purchase the soda in two smaller cups (which in itself reflects a psychological prompt to the
consumer that they are drinking more than a normal about of soft drink).
New York city’s proposed soda policy is more than simply a rejection of the assumption of
rational human behaviour that has informed previous social and economic policies. Bloomberg’s
supersize policy acknowledges the important role that emotions (or as some would term it
irrationality) play in human decision-making. When we use the term emotions we are referring to a
range of behavioural prompts that guide short and long-term decision-making, but which do not rely
on strategic deliberation. Emotional prompts to action can occur at both a conscious and sub-
conscious level and include the gut feelings of fear, joy, and uncertainty that guide automatic forms of
decision-making, or the routines of habit that may shape behaviours over a longer period of time. At
one level, emotionally based behaviours are a necessary and important part of the human decision-
making process: not all situations afford us the luxury of the time that is needed to think and
deliberate before we act. But in other situations emotionally based decision-making can have more
pernicious consequences. When emotions govern human behaviour there is a tendency for individuals
to misread signals and situations, and to favour short-term gain over long-term costs.
The role of emotions in human behaviour has become an increasingly important focus of
research within psychology, neuroscience and cognitive design (see Damasio, 1995; Du Plessis, 2011;
Norman, 1990). It has also been the foundation for a new discipline: behavioural economics.
Behavioural economics combines the study of economic decision-making with psychological work on
the nature of human behaviour (see Heukelom, 2011; Kahnemen et al 1982; Thaler and Sunstein,
2008). At the heart of behavioural economics is a desire to better understand the limits to human
rationality and how public policy can be designed in ways that recognized the emotional components
of human decision-making. Beyond academia, interest in the irrational nature of human decision-
making has been the subject of a range of popular books including Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink: The
Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005); Akerlof and Shiller’s Animal Spirits: How Human
Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why it Matters for Capitalism (2010); and Dan Ariely’s
Predictably Irrational. The hidden forces that shape our decisions (2008). What unites all of this
work is not only a recognition of the more-than-rational component of human decision-making, but a
belief that this irrationality is not random and can be studied, analyzed and predicted. It is in this
context that what we term a Behaviour Change Agenda has gradually been emerging in countries
throughout the world. While diverse in its forms, the Behaviour Change Agenda utilizes these new
the Behaviour Change Agenda, as both an intellectual project and basis for governing; and second,
through a series of case studies, to develop a critical analysis of this Agenda in practice.
In order to understand the full, and varied, nature of the Behaviour Change Agenda, it is
helpful to move beyond New York’s soda wars and consider its other manifestations around the
world. Let us start in the restaurants and bars of Buenos Aires. According to the World Health
recommended daily maximum intake of salt in their diet (Garlow, 2011). Given the connection
between high levels of salt intake and hypertension and heart disease, the Ministry of Health for the
Buenos Aires province has recently reached an agreement with the Union of Tourism, Hotel and Food
Service Workers to remove salt shakes from the tables of the city’s restaurants. The idea behind this
initiative is to break the automatic habit that some people of have of unthinkingly adding salt to their
food. As with many current behaviour changing policies, Buenos Aires Ministry of Health’s initiative
does not ban the use of salt shakers: if asked, waiters and waitresses will provide customers with salt
dispensers. It is, however, hoped that in the act of having to ask for salt shakes dinners will become
more aware of their additional intake of salt, and be conscious of the fact that adding salt to a meal is
not a normal, or default practice. Making people more conscious of their automatic behavioural
responses to situations, and resetting social norms are both key features of the Behaviour Change
Agenda.
Let us now move from the bars of Buenos Aires to the autobahns of Germany. If you have
had the chance to drive along Germany’s autobahns recently, you will have come across a series of
posters that have been designed to promote safe driving by the Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat (the
Germany Road Safety Council). The posters, which have been drawn by children, represent the loss
of loved family members to road traffic accidents (see imagine below). The posters cleverly asks
drivers if the disturbing image of the poster has distracted them, and encourages them to stop taking
unnecessary risks when they are traveling. Driving is, of course, a practice that is associated with a
range of irrational behaviours, including speeding and unnecessary aggression. But what makes this
poster campaign emblematic of the Behaviour Change Agenda is its use social marketing techniques.
Social marketing is a branch of the Behaviour Change Agenda that draws on the insights of
commercial marketing as a basis for promoting public policy goals. These roadside posters contrast
with the more prosaic signs, which inform drivers of the total numbers of accidents/fatalities on a
given road, because they deliver messages that are both socially relevant and emotive. As we move
through this volume, we will find that the Behaviour Change Agenda is marked by the increasing
The Behaviour Change Agenda also appears to be taking hold in France. The Prime Minster
of France’s Centre d’analyse stratégique has recently established a neurological unit to explore the
potential utility of behavioural and cognitive sciences in the design of government policy. On the
basis of its research on green nudges, the Centre d’analyse stratégique has recommended that utility
bills in France should enable consumers to compare their levels of energy use with other consumers
(Olivier and Sauneron, 2011). The thinking behind this policy is that it is often difficult to promote
greater efficiency in energy use among households because consumers have very little sense of
whether their existing energy use in high or low. Providing comparative energy use information on
utility bills acts as a prompt to behaviour change on two levels. First, it provides socially meaningful
information on which to base rational action on household energy use. Second, by generating peer-to-
peer comparison this information also provides an emotional prompt to energy conservation, as
feelings of comparative frugality or over consumption of energy stimulate changes energy practices.
The reframing of information in this way is also a distinguishing trait of the Behaviour Change
Agenda.
While acknowledging the international scope of the Behaviour Change Agenda, this volume
focuses on the development and implementation of behaviour changing policies in the United
Kingdom (hereafter UK). The insights of behavioural economics and psychology have been shaping
British public policy since the mid 1990s and throughout much of the New Labour administration
tenure in government. More recently, however, with the election of the Coalition government, the
Behaviour Change Agenda has risen in political prominence. With the establishment of the
Behavourial Insights Team in the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, the Coalition government has been
exploring ways of mainstreaming the Behaviour Change Agenda in all public policy sectors. We
provide of a critical analysis of associated policies that considers their efficacy, ethical implications,
The research presented in this book was gathered as part of three-year research project, which
ran from November 2008 until October 2011, and was funded by the Leverhulme Trust. This research
project explored the historical emergence of the Behaviour Change Agenda and its adoption within
the UK. As part of this research we interviewed approximately 40 policy-makers who were involved
in the development and delivery of behaviour changing policies. These interviews were conducted
with people who worked in the government, charitable and quasi-governmental sectors. In addition to
these interviews, we also observed specific cases of the implementation of the Behaviour Change
Agenda in the planning, environment, food and health sectors. In what follows, we reflect upon the
things that we discovered as part of this research. As each of us are geographers by academic training,
this volume does draw particular attention to the actual and potential impact of the Behaviour Change
Agenda on the design of the everyday spaces in which we live (including our homes, streets and
school canteens). Notwithstanding this, we feel that this book, as any study of the Behaviour Change
must be, is inter-disciplinary in scope. We thus hope that it will be of interest to urban planners,
study political power in its various manifestations. We also believe that it has some important things
to say to both to those policy-makers who are directly involved in the Behaviour Change Agenda and
the citizens who are becoming increasingly subject to its policy designs.
Chapter 1. Changing Behaviours and “New Models of Man”
“Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about
The study of human behaviour, and how it can be shaped, lies at the heart of myriad academic
disciplines and applied sciences. Economics, sociology, political science, psychology, neuroscience,
geography, anthropology, law, performance studies, philosophy, cognitive design and engineering,
and biology have all, to admittedly varying degrees, explored the causes of human conduct and how it
can be changed. While the accumulated wisdom of these collective arts and sciences of behaviour are
germane to the pursuits of this volume, our concerns are more specific. This book critically analyzes
an emerging approach to behavioural government. This is an approach that has risen to prominence
over the last twenty years. Inspired by developments in microeconomics and psychology, it has subtly
insinuated itself in public policy and state strategy throughout large parts of the world. Although it
goes by many names (including “The Behaviour Change Agenda,” Libertarian (or Soft) Paternalism,
and Intuitive Judgment Theory), and employs a wide range of techniques (including cognitive design,
choice editing, default setting, anchoring, peer-to-peer pressure, and norm formation), it is bound
together by a particular understanding of the human condition. This is a vision of the subject that
questions the “standard economic model” of motivation and decision-making and draws attention to
The standard economic model of human behaviour has its roots within both biology and
economics. Its biological foundations derive from the Darwinian construction of humans being
engaged in a constant game of survival. In this ultimate game humans become naturally ‘aggressive,
materialistic, utilitarian, and self interested’ (Rifkin, 2009: 1). The economic substrate of this
paradigm of human behaviour finds it origins in the classical economic tradition of Adam Smith and
his neoliberal heirs in the so-called Chicago School (see Hayek, 1960; 1944; and Friedman, 1982). At
the centre of this tradition stands the figure of Homo Economicus. Homo Economicus, or the
Economic Human, is an enduring model of human action within market-oriented societies. Homo
primary interest in the utility of goods, services and relations. 1 While only ever constituting an
approximation of human behaviour, Homo Economics has become a necessary myth for liberal
societies the world over. Its necessity derives from the fact that it promises a vision of a self-
regulating society within which personal freedom (that most valued of liberal objectives) provides the
Given its foundation within biological doctrine, and its evident complementarily with liberal
social norms, it is unsurprising the Homo Economicus provided such an enduring self-image for
human kind. The question is, of course, how such a powerful paradigm of humanity could be usurped.
The answer to this question can be found in real world events and more obscure developments in the
academic study of human decision-making. In terms of real world events, the past years have been
witness to a confluence of crises that have cast critical light on the standard economic model of
human decision-making. The emergence of climate change has brought into question the collective
decision-making that defines our relationship with the environments in which we live. The global
credit crunch has brought issues of personal debt and financial mismanagement into increasingly
1
For a more detailed analysis of the historical emergence of Homo Economicus see Perky
(1995). In his Ethology of Homo Economicus, Perky traces the figure back to 19th century
writings of John Stuart Mill. Interestingly, Persky notices a greater acknowledgement of the
Mills work than is often recognized today (1995: 223-224). Given the apparent
‘psychological complexity’ of Mill’s original Homo Economicus, Persky suggests that the
related illnesses have lead to increasing levels of concern about the causes of over consumption and
lifestyle related disease. What appears to connect these interlocking crises of global environmental
change and personal welfare is the inability of people to act in their own, long-term best interests.
Homo Economicus would immediately change their greenhouse gas-inducing behaviours if the full
economic costs of near-future climate change were apparent to them. The Economic Human would
also avoid the accumulation of unserviceable debt because of its prohibitive long-term costs. Homo
Economicus would also, surely, watch their waistline, if only to preserve their wealth-making
The emergence of a post-standard economic model of human behaviour has not, however,
been caused by these collective crises (necessity is rarely the mother of intellectual invention). These
varied problems have simply provided the necessary conditions of existence within which pre-existing
academic ideas and philosophies have been able to flourish. Milton Friedman once observed that
‘[O]nly a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that
are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around’ (1982: viii-ix). By the turn of the new
millennium, the key ideas that were lying around (in relation to behavioural theory at least) had been
forged at the intersections of economics, psychology and neuroscience, and were deeply connected to
emerging discipline of behavioural economics (see Schüll and Zaloom, 2011; Sent, 2004). These
readily available ideas collectively questioned the rationality assumption of the standard economic
model and asserted the inherent irrational basis of much human decision-making.2 In terms of
behavioral economics, the irrational denotes the tendency of humans to make socio-economic
decisions that are not based on all of the available information (so called bounded rationality); tend to
favour immediate need and gratification over future planning (so called future bias); and tend to be
2
Care must be taken in how we interpret the notion of irrationality here. Despite having obvious pejorative
connotations, we will argue throughout this volume that so called irrational (or emotional, pre-cognitive)
careful empirical studies (involving both the study of human decision-making in the real world and
the neural gaze of the brain-scanning equipment in the laboratory) have revealed that while these
patterns of behaviour are apparently irrational, they are far from random. It is the predictability of
human irrationality (Ariely, 2008) that has led to the gradual formation of new governmental
programmes that seek to guide and compensate for the behaviours of the sub-optimal citizen. Because
the use of standard economic models of human behaviour placed the ever-rational Homo Economicus
in the driving seat, it left little room (apart from the most rudimentary forms of market regulation) for
becomes associated with a Homer Simpson style of decision-making, the scope for legitimate state
intervention into the details of our everyday life is expanding. The majority of this volume is
dedicated to a critical analysis of both the ethics and efficacy of the new forms of behavioural
government that are emerging in the wake of the real world events and philosophical developments
outlined above. We claim that, while rarely openly debated, such developments bring into to question
not only the nature of human subjectivity, but the constitutional fabric of political communities.
In attempting to understand how and why human nature is being actively remodeled within
behavioural sciences and government bureaucracies, it is important to trace in detail the history of the
ideas that have led us to this historical juncture in time. This process is particularly important, because
far from simply lying around, the ideas associated with prominent behavioural sciences have been
carefully developed and orchestrated to exploit this particular historical moment. Charting the history
of these processes of development and orchestration will enable us to not only to understand what the
key insights of the new Behaviour Change Agenda are, but also how these insights could lead to very
different political responses and programmes. This genealogical endeavour constitutes the main goal
of this Chapter.
From Boundless Rationality to the Limits of Choice: The Carnegie School and ‘old’ behavioural
economists.
1945 may seem like an unusual year to commence our genealogy of the behavioural school of
economics. The end of the Second World War is, after all, synonymous with the rise of a global
regulation. Yet amid the military and social turmoil of 1945 we find the genesis of the economic
principle that animates the contemporary behaviour change agenda. In his influential 1945 book on
human decision making and organization, Administrative Behaviour, the American economist 3
‘[i]f there were no limits to human rationality administrative theory would be barren. It would
consist of a single precept: Always select that alternative, among those available, which will
In addition to identifying a limit within the human ability to consistently rationalize, Simon
3
It is actually quite difficult to classify the scholarly field that is most closely associated with Simon’s work.
His interests and writings span economics, psychology, computer science, political science and the philosophy
of science, inter alia. This is probably why in the preface to his 1957 book New Models of Man Simon observed
that ‘I am often complimented, sincerely I think, on the range of my dilettantism (Simon, 1957: vii).
‘The need for an administrative theory resides in the fact that there are practical limits to human
rationality, and that these limits are not static, but depend upon the organizational environment
1957 book Models of Man Simon codified his approach in the term bounded rationality (Simon, 1957:
196). According to Simon, bounded rationality was an attempt to grapple with the fact that ‘[t]he
capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems is very small compared
with the size of the problems whose solution is required for objectively rational behaviour in the real
world […]’ (Ibid: 198). This, almost post-enlightenment, indictment of human intellectual capacity is
what led Simon to orchestrate an assault on the assumptions of classical economic theory.
The first key principle of bounded rationality is that in order to deal with their inability to
rationally process the full range of variables that operate in the world, human beings construct
simplified models, which enable them to make sense of the situations they find themselves in (ibid:
199). Simon acknowledged that humans would develop rationally conceived responses to their models
of the world, but he also recognized that because these models were not accurate reflections of reality
that human behavior would inevitably exhibit irrational tendencies (ibid). According to Simon, the
key goal of modern economics was to uncover the psychological process that underpinned and
undermined the simplified models we all construct of the world around us (ibid). The second key
principle of the theory of bounded rationality is the realization that imperfect models of the world
were not simply a product of our own psychological limitations, but were a consequence of the socio-
cultural and organizational settings within which we are located (ibid). This principle was important
to Simon because it suggested that bounded rationality was not just about the limited capacity of all
humans, but also the product of the people you know, the places you work, and the knowledge which
economics (and more specifically the more recent neoliberal manifestations of the classical tradition)
in greater detail, it is necessary to explore the origins of Simon’s ideas. Herbert Simon’s work and
research was heavily influenced by the time he spent in and around the University of Chicago during
the 1930s and 1940s. Simon studied political sciences and economics at the University of Chicago
during the 1930s. In the 1940s, following a brief spell at the University of California, Berkeley,
Simon joined the staff at the Illinois Institute at Technology. It was during this time that he started to
attend the seminars convened by the Cowles Commission. The Cowles Commission for Research in
Economics (to give it its full title) was established by Alfred Cowles (a prominent American business
man) in 1932. The main objective of the Commission was to build connections between the
mathematical and economic sciences in order to enhance the ‘predictive power’ of business and
politicians over the market (see Peck, 2010: 93). Simon’s association with the Cowles Commission is
important not only because it casts light on the origins of his economics theories, but because also
because it provides important clues to his relationship to the emerging Chicago School of neoliberal
economic theory.
The historical and theoretical evidence would suggest that Simon’s work was antithetical to
involvement with the Cowles Commission would have inevitably placed him, to some degree at least,
in opposition to the Chicago School. The 1940s was witness to an escalating intramural feud between
the so-called Cowlesmen and the Chicago Boys. The Chicago Boys, who were led by the neoliberal
vanguard of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman4, among others, were suspicious of the Cowles
4
It is interesting to speculate about the nature of the relationship between Herbert Simon and Milton Friedman.
While their respective theories of human decision-making and economics placed them on something of a
collision course, in his autobiography Simon notes that Milton Friedman and his family lived, for a time, in the
same apartment building on 57th Street as the Simon family (Simon, 1991, page 93). Perhaps unsurprisingly,
however, Freidman appears to have been reluctant to chair Simon’s prestigious Richard T. Ely Lecture (see
disputes over equilibrium modeling and, at a perhaps deeper level, concern with the
Keynesian/socialist affiliations of the Cowles Commission (ibid: 93). So severe were these intellectual
and interpersonal disputes that the Cowles Commission would eventually abandon Chicago:
Even if we ignore the historical processes that would have Simon on collision course with the
Simon was challenging the theoretical ground upon which neo-classical economics had laid its
foundations. According to Simon, there were two visions of homo economicus that pervaded the
classical and neo-classical economic tradition: the consumer and the entrepreneur (Simon, 1957: 196).
On this basis the rationality assumption takes two forms. First, is the desire of the consumer to
maximize the utility of the varied goods and services they acquire (ibid: 197). Second, is the
unrelenting pursuit of profit that defines the rational actions of the entrepreneur. At the centre of
Simon’s theory of bounded rationality is a desire not only to extend and enrich the assumptions
associated with classical economics, but to change the very identity of the subject who is to be studied
within the economic tradition. In the place of the noble entrepreneur and astute consumer, we are
presented with the complex psychological motivations and flaws of “Real People” (see Jolls et al
2000).
Despite finding its origins in opposition to classical economic thought and the emerging
neoliberal tradition, care must be taken not to draw too strong a line of distinction between
behavioural economics and neoliberalism. As this book goes on to show, behavioural economics (and
the Behaviour Change policies it has given rise to) can take many different forms (see Jones et al
2010; 2011a; Whitehead et al 2011). In light of the fact that neoliberalism is also an inherently
protean process (Peck, 2010) it is inevitable that certain iterations of both lines of thought will find
themselves to be more or less compatible. Furthermore, it is clear that the radicalism of what Sent has
termed the Old Behavioural Economics (led by Simon) was to be significantly diminished within the
more conformist ideational programme of the New Behavioural Economics of the 1970s and 80s
(2004) (see following section). There is, however, another, more foundational reason for not
axiomatically placing (old) behavioural economics and the neo-classical tradition in antagonistic
isolation. Namely, that the irrationality principle proposed by Simon and embraced by behavioural
economics is not necessarily anathema to the neo-classical tradition. As Galeotti has pointed out, there
are clear connections to be made between Hayek’s notion of imperfect knowledge and human
limitation and Simon’s theory of bounded rationality (1992: 26). Foucault, reflecting on the work of
Gary Becker, also recognizes that Chicago School neoliberalism has always sought to encompass both
the rational and non-rational dimensions of human behaviour (Foucault, 2008: 267-271). It appears
then that neo-classical economics does not stand or fall the rationality principle. Indeed, in its reliance
on the notion of individual spontaneity and entrepreneurial creativity, it appears that the neoclassical
tradition relies on certain forms of irrational, non-conformist sparks to animate its project. In
recognizing the ambiguous relationships between irrationality and neoclassical economics we expose
a latent danger in Simon’s theory of bounded rationality (see here Marris, 1992). In establishing the
theory of bounded rationality Simon (perhaps inadvertently, although it would appear not)
unnecessarily tethered neoliberalism to a boundless vision of the scopes of rationality (ibid: 196-
204).5
Notwithstanding the overlaps that unite Simon and the neo-classical tradition, it is clear that
Simon’s irrationality principle leads in a very different political direction to Hayek’s notion of human
limitation. Reflecting on what he terms the Austrian (neoclassical) position (embodied in the work of
Hayek, but also Ludvig von Mises), Simon asserted that it was not an appreciation of the less-than-
rational nature of human action that divided his work from Hayek (Simon, 1992: 26-27). The
neoclassical school not only recognized, but valorized intuition and tacit understandings as key to the
effective functioning of markets (and in particular to effectively respond to changing market signals).
Rather, the division manifested itself in the different views which Simon and Hayek had on the extent
5
According to Marris, the neo-classical tradition does not so much posit a rationality principle, but seeks to
reveal the general forms of market equilibrium that allow for the establishment of the conditions under which
neoclassicists, human economic intuition was unfathomable (at least in an aggregate sense) and this is
what made governments so ineffective in regulating markets. For Simon, however, the irrational
constitution of human behaviour was a legitimate object of empirical enquiry (indeed, it was a subject
which had occupied the minds of psychologists for many years). It was Simon’s belief in the
intellectual discernability of irrational action, which led to his assertion that such actions could be
effectively managed within variously scaled social organizations (from the corporation to the nation
state). This was, of course, antithetical to the individualizing doctrines associated with the
In the context of these intellectual and political divisions it is likely that Simon felt increasingly
ostracized from the dominant intellectual streams that were starting to consolidate in and around the
University of Chicago. In 1949 Herbert Simon left Chicago for Pittsburgh to become Professor of
Administrations and Chair of the Department of Industrial Management at Carnegie Tech (later to
become Carnegie Mellon University) (Simon, 1991). It was during his time in Pittsburgh that Herbert
Simon contributed to the formation of the Carnegie School of economics and human decision-making.
Working alongside academics such as Richard Cyert, James March, Victor Vroom and Oliver
Williamson, the Carnegie School provided a supportive intellectual environment within which
Simon’s desire to mix economics and psychology was not viewed with suspicion, and his desire to
better understand the role of the organization in framing human behavior was encouraged. And so it
was that in the safe haven of Pittsburgh the Carnegie School provided the first home for the fledgling
discipline of behavioural economics. While the Carnegie School and their behavioural theories
developed in isolated parallel to the Chicago School, it was of course the Chicago School that would
rise to prominence first. During the 1970s it was the neoclassicists from Illinois who appeared to have
the answers to the stagflation crisis and gained political favour within the Pinochet, Reagan and
It could be argued that the most lasting contribution of Simon, and the Carnegie School, was
to establish a legitimate common ground between economics and psychology. Notwithstanding this,
Simon felt compelled in the 1970s to leave his post in what was then the Graduate School of
Industrial Administration (see Sent, 2004: 742), to join the Carnegie’s Psychology Department
(Simon, 1991: 385). But at around the same time a new generation of psychologists would play an
increasingly significant role in the discipline of economics. Esther-Mirjam Sent (2004) has described
this generation as the New Behavioural Economists. While the newness of this intellectual wave in
part denotes its institutional separation from Simon and the Carnegie School, for Sent it is also reflects
Two figures have, arguably, helped to shape and define the New Behavourial Economics
more than any others. Amos Tversky was a cognitive psychologist who was born in Haifa (Israel) and
obtained a PhD in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1964. Daniel Kahneman is also an
Israeli-born psychologist who obtained his PhD in psychology from the University of California at
Berkley in 1961. Working together in the early 1970s, Kahneman and Tversky sought to bring the
insights associated with the psychological study of human bias and heuristics into economic studies of
the human decision-making process.6 Kahneman and Tversky utilized notions of bias and heuristics to
analyze how individuals make judgments under conditions of constrained time and uncertainty. At the
heart of Kahneman and Tversky’s work was an attempt to uncover the particular processes which
limited individual’s rational capacity, and to determine whether there were patterns associated with
bounded rationality. While explicitly building on the earlier work of Simon, Tversky and Kahneman
6
According to Kahneman, his collaborations with Tversky can be traced back to 1969, when he invited Tversky
to the Department of Psychology, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, to deliver a seminar on the intuitive
nature of statistical knowledge. Convening later in the Café Rimon, they devised a study of intuitive statistics
that would lay the foundation for the ongoing collaborations (see Kahneman, 2012: 5).
combined research into the psychology of human decision-making with a more specific concern with
the statistical parameters of judgments. In an influential article that first appeared in the journal
Science in 1974, Tversky and Kahneman outlined what they saw to be the cognitive bases upon which
bias and misassumption enter human decision-making (see Tversky and Kahneman, 1974; see also
Kahneman et al 1982). They essentially argued that consistent errors emerged in human decision-
making on the basis of the heuristics (or shortcuts), which we all deploy to try and make sense of the
At one level, Kahneman and Tvesky connect what they term naïve judgments with the routine
misinterpretation of representativeness and associated causal relations (Kahneman et al., 1982: 5-8,
Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). Accordingly, they argue that the representativeness heuristic works
on the basis that people use a given indicator as a predictor of a given outcome on the basis that the
indicator resembles the outcome. They go on to discuss the example of how people arbitrarily connect
traits of personality (indictor) to occupation (outcome) (using the example of the stereotypical
depictions of the librarian as introverted, meek and tidy; and a salesperson as extrovert, charismatic
and charming) (ibid: 5). Despite the obvious limitations of such indicators as bases of prediction, they
tend to be used by humans as ready-to-hand, shortcuts for us to make a range of everyday judgments.
In deciding the likelihood of whether a given person is a librarian or a salesman (to use Kahneman et
al’s example), it would be more pertinent to assess the base-rate levels of the total number of people
who are employed in these respective occupations than the personality traits of individual people (i.e.
there is a much greater statistical chance of someone being a salesperson in the UK today than being a
librarian) (ibid). Of course, such base-rate figures (as with so much relevant decision-making data) are
rarely ready-to-hand when they are needed: hence the recourse to the so-called representative
heuristic.
Kahneman et al go on to outline a whole series of limitations that are associated with the input
information people rely upon when making a range judgment calls (these include misconception of
the nature of chance, illusions of validity generated by the arbitrary formation of patterns in available
data, anchoring produced by the nature of the data that frame a decision, and the availability heuristic,
which relates to the retrievability of experiential data which may be perceived to have relevance for a
particular judgment (1982: 4-20). What is, perhaps, most important about Tversky and Kahneman’s
analysis is that they suggest that naïve judgments persist even when people (including professional
statisticians) are aware of the irrational flaws that inform their decisions. This is, of course, because
numerous decisions still have to be made, and heuristic shortcuts (no matter how bias laden they may
be) are a useful survival tactic for us all. This is also because statistical rules tend not to be learned on
the basis of everyday life and experience: they originate from a different sphere of human
The question remains, however, as to why Tversky and Kahneman, and the many others who
built on their insights, are different from the old behavioural economics of the Carnegie School. Sent
observes that ‘Kahneman and Tversky started from the rationality assumption that has characterized
mainstream economics and next analyzed departures from this yardstick, as opposed to developing a
new one’ (2004: 743). Consequently, while recognizing bounded rationality as a necessary condition
of human decision-making, Kahneman and Tversky continued to discern an essentially rational basis
to human decisions. On these terms, heuristics and biases are not so much emotional aberrations, but
relatively predictable errors in attempts to make rational judgments under suboptimal conditions.
While Kahneman and Tversky’s position was still, in some ways, at odds with neoliberal assumptions
about the extent to which everyday, intuitive decision-making could be known, it was still a
perspective on human decision-making which could be more easily reconciled with mainstream
economics (see also Camerer, 1999). To these ends, while Simon and the Carnegie school attempted
to move the subject of economic enquiry into a psychological frame of analysis, Tversky and
Kahneman sought to bring psychological tools of analysis to the mainstream study of the rational
economic subject. On these terms Tversky and Kahneman’s work embodies a normative assumption
of rationality that: 1) suggests that rational courses of action can be identified (although it is not clear
by whom); 2) legitimates intervention in irrational forms of action; and 3) resuscitates the figure of
Homo Economicus (if not as a reflection of actual human behaviour, then still as the paradigmatic
goal)
Kahneman and Tversky’s ability to construct a more reformist union of psychology and
economic provided the intellectual bases upon which behavioural economics could flourish and grow.
The institutional, and financial support, needed for the development of new behavioural economics
would, however, come from another source (see Laibson and Zeckhasuer, 1998). The initial support
of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (from 1984 to 1989), and the subsequent establishment of Russell
so-called Sloan-Sage programme was held together and orchestrated by Eric Wanner. Wanner was a
psychologist who studied at the Center for Cognitive Studies at Harvard University (ibid: 5). The
Harvard Center for Cognitive studies was an interdisciplinary research centre established in the 1960s
which was devoted to studying the mind, and included among its interlocutors Daniel Kahneman and
Herbert Simon (ibid). Wanner’s work developing a Cognitive Science book series for Harvard
University Press enabled him to get to know both Kahneman and Tversky (who were on the Cognitive
Science Book Series Advisory Board) (ibid). In 1982 Wanner joined the Sloan Foundation and
assumed responsibility for its cognitive science program. The Sloan Foundation had been established
in 1934 at the behest of Alfred. P Sloan Jnr, who was at that time President and CEO of General
Motors, in order to support economic research. 7 It is perhaps unsurprising, given his exposure to the
work of Kahneman and Tversky, that not long after joining the foundation Wanner should suggest the
establishment of a new research programme on decision theory (ibid: 12). Ultimately, Wanner’s new
research programme would be called the Behavioural Economics Program. While mobilizing the idea
of behavioural economics that had first been coined by Herbert Simon, the Sloan Foundation’s
programme was more concerned with supporting the kind of work on the predictable irrationality
associated with human behaviour (envisaged by Kahneman and Tversky) than the more radical
approach to human decision-making proposed by Simon (ibid: 18). While the Sloan Foundation’s
financial support for research in behavioural science was relatively modest, Heukelom (2011) claims
7
Since its inception, the Alfred P Sloan Foundation has had a commitment to supporting research in science,
technology and economics that will potentially result in benefits to social wellbeing.
that by bringing like-minded psychologists together, and supporting related conferences and
symposia, the Foundation had a crucial role in generating a sense of disciplinary identity and mission
In 1986 Wanner left the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to become President of the Russell Sage
Foundation (ibid). The Russell Sage Foundation was established in 1907 by Margaret Olivia Sage,
with the mission to improve ‘[t]he social and living conditions in the United States’ (Russell Sage
Foundation, 2011). While much of its early work was devoted to mapping and analyzing urban
poverty, in the post second world war period it developed a broader mandate: supporting the work of
social scientists in the study of the social problems and the development of social policy. Concerned
that his departure from the Sloan Foundation would result in the demise of the Behavioral Economics
Program, Wanner set about convincing the board of trustees at Russell Sage to incorporate the
programme into its own research portfolio. What ultimately emerged was an integrated behavioural
economics research programme, which was funded through both the Sloan and Russell Sage
Foundation, and whose advisory committee was comprised of a mix of economists and psychologists
(ibid: 25). The support of the Russell Sage Foundation was important not only because it extended
and increased the amount of funding that was available to explicitly support the research of
behavioural economics, but also it provided a series of mechanisms in and through which the
fledgling sub-discipline could take shape. Visiting scholars working within the Russell Sage
Foundation’s Behavioural Economics Program would spend time meeting and collaborating at the
Foundation’s head quarters in New York City (ibid: 29). The Foundation also supported the
establishment of a Behavioural Economics books series. Finally, the Russell Sage Foundation formed
the Behavioral Economics Roundtable (comprised of former recipients of Foundation funding for
research in Behavioral Economics) (ibid: 31). The Behavioral Economics Roundtable exists to this
day, and supports behavioural economics through its Summer Institute, where graduate students and
junior academic staff (also known as “campers”) learn the rudiments of the sub-discipline (see Sent:
744).
What we essentially see emerging during the 1970s and 1980s is a brand of behavioural
economics that was able to win far more attention from the economic mainstream than its previous
incarnation. The new behavioural economists were also able to gain key institutional support and
sustenance from influential foundations. It is difficult to assess the impacts, if any, that the financial
support that behavioural economics received from prominent foundations had on the nature of the
nascent discipline. Between the support of General Motors and the Russell Sage Foundation, it
certainly unfair to suggest that the discipline was either a slave to corporate interests, or a weapon for
more progressive policy designs. It is, however, important to note that the type of behavioral
economics that would ultimately gain a foothold in the academic establishment approached questions
of bounded rationality, and the problems of the neoclassical rationality assumption, not as a basis for a
radical rethinking of the human subject, but as a call to rationalize the irrational exuberances of
humankind. We will see, as we move through this volume, that the desire to rationalize the irrational
has become a defining characteristic of the Behaviour Change policy agenda. We will also see that
this normative desire for correctional re-rationalization has raised a series of ethical issues, and
resulted in a number of missed opportunities, within the design of behaviour changing policies.
Pop-psychology and the Design of Everyday Things: From Hare Krishna to Apple
The emergence of behavioural economics fused together the research of economics and
psychologists in ways that enabled human decision-making to be conceived of in more complex and
variable ways. What was not forthcoming, at least initially, from behavioural economics was a clear
sense of how the problems associated with bounded rationality could be acted upon and remedied.
The answer to this question would emerge out of separate, but interconnected, sets of developments
In many ways, a sense of the bounded rationality of individual consumers has been an
intuitive operating principle of the marketing sector since it inception. The ability of advertisers to tap
into people’s irrational desires and unerring need for short-term gratification is central to the
processes in and through which people buy things that they do not actually need and commodity
markets continue to expand. In 1957, Vance Packard’s The Hidden Persuaders exposed the ways in
which the corporate community was seeking to manipulate the decisions and lifestyles of the
consumer society (see also Frank, 1997: 40-41; Twitchell, 1996). During the 1980s social
psychologists increasingly sought to uncover the psychological principles that underpinned hidden
forms of persuasion. This research process was, in part, designed to enable people to recognize when
they were being subconsciously persuaded, but it also sought to enable techniques of persuasion to
become accessible to those who did not work on Madison Avenue or for Saatchi and Saatchi. A key
figure is this process was Robert B. Cialdini. Cialdini was the W.P. Carey Distinguished Professor of
Marketing and Reagent’s Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University. 8 During the 1970s and
80s Cialdini studied the operational practices of what he terms compliance professionals (2007: xii).
Compliance professionals are a cadre of individuals ranging from car dealers to encyclopedia
salespeople, who are particularly skilled in shaping and manipulating the decision-making of others.
Cialdini responded to a series of newspaper advertisements for work within compliance industries, in
order to receive training in the commercial arts of persuasion. On the basis of his covert participant
observations, in 1984 Cialdini published his now famous book Influence: The Psychology of
At the centre of Cialdini study of influence, was the same (if unnamed) concern with the
‘We can’t be expected to recognize and analyze all of the aspects of each person, event, and
situation we encounter in even one day. We haven’t the time, energy, or capacity for it. Instead,
we must very often use our stereotypes, our rules of thumb to classify things according to a few
8
As we will see in the next Chapter, Cialdini is also now an advisor to the UK Coalition Government on
Although Cialdini does not draw on the work of Kahnman and Tversky, their heuristics and
biases are clearly present in Cialdini’s view of everyday human decision-making. Cialdini does,
however, diverge from the new behavioural economists to the extent that he does not seek to correct
the rational frailties of human behaviour, but to exploit them in order to produce capacities of
influence. Drawing on studies of animal behaviour, mass suicide events, and even the fund-raising
practices of the Hare Krishna Society, Cialdini exposes the so-called trigger features, which tend to
produce certain degrees of unthinking compliance within us all. Trigger process range from the desire
to reciprocate a social gift, the inherent likability of something or someone, or the inbuilt desire to
establish systems of personal commitment to objects and people. What connects all of these triggers of
influence, and actually makes them so effective, is that are able to ‘manipulate without the appearance
of manipulation’ (ibid: 31). Ultimately, the work of Cialdini remains significant today because of the
way in which it illustrated how the accumulated knowledge of marketing psychology could be utilized
to serve the commercial and non-commercial agendas of individuals and collective bodies. In other
words, it paved the way for a more generalized deployment of behaviour changing techniques within
A second set of developments, which also crystallize in the 1980s and 90s, suggested
potential strategies for remedying bounded rationality. Cognitive design or engineering is concerned
with the ways in which decision-making is framed by the ergonomic environments and system within
which we live out of daily lives. A strong driving force behind cognitive design and engineering is the
realization that much of the objects, technologies, and devices that infuse our worlds have been
designed with the requirements of the production process and not the end-user in mind. The
prominent cognitive engineer Donald Norman whimsically explains things this way,
‘If I was placed in the cockpit of a modern jet airliner, my inability to perform gracefully and
smoothly would neither surprise nor bother me. But I shouldn’t have trouble with doors and
switches, water faucets and stoves. “Doors?” I can hear the reader saying, “you have trouble
with opening doors?” Yes. I push doors that are meant to be pulled, pull doors that are meant to
be pushed, and walk into doors that should be slid.’ (Norman, 1988: 2-3).
Donald Norman is arguably the highest profile advocate of cognitively oriented design and
engineering. Norman’s academic background spans electrical engineering, computer science and
cognitive studies. In addition to an academic career that has included time at the Harvard University,
the University of California, San Diago and Northwestern University, Norman has also been Head of
the Advanced Technology Group at Apple and worked for Hewlett Packard. Norman’s attempts to
humanize design were distilled in his book The Design of Everyday Things (Norman, 1990; see also
Norman, 2007).9 In this classic text, Norman builds directly on Kahnemen of Tversky’s analysis of
bias and errors. Norman does not, however, conceive of bounded rationality in relation to the
computational limitations of the human condition, but instead focuses his attention on the ways in
which irrationality is produced at the interface of human cognition and our everyday environments.
Norman takes as his focus the design of the approximately 20,000 everyday things that surround us on
a daily basis (1990: 11). These objects range from thermostats to computers, and from clocks to
ovens. Human error, according to Norman, is often not an unpredictable accident, but the product of
the naïve physics through which we tend to construct the world, and the related design features of
Norman describes naïve physics as the heuristic assumptions we routinely make about how
things around us work. While often very inaccurate, such naïve assumptions generally enable us to
make our way successfully through the ever-complex technological worlds in which we live, without
9
The Design of Everyday things was originally published in 1988 under the title The Psychology of Everyday
tend to proliferate when our intuitive, shorthand assumptions about the operational dynamics of
objects actually get in the way of us using them effectively and efficiently. A classical example of this
is people’s misunderstanding of how thermostats work. According to Norman, people often tend to
assume that a thermostat controls the amount of heat that emanates from an appliance (Norman, 1990:
38-39). Consequently, if you want to heat a room quickly, you set the thermostat at a high level to
speed-up the warming process. Of course, thermostats are binary devices, which simply switch on and
off according to whether a pre-set temperature has been achieved: setting the thermostat to high level
does not increase the speed with which a room reaches a desired temperature, it merely means that the
room will eventually reach a higher temperature than that which is desired. The design issue
associated with devices like thermostats is that they do not provide users with ergonomic clues to their
true nature (ibid). Many everyday devices thus contribute to a kind of environmental limitation of
human rationality.
The key implication of research within cognitive engineering has been an increasing
recognition that the limitations of the rationality assumption are not merely the product of a lack of
human rational capacity. Cognitive engineering and design has helped to uncover the irrational push
of the world around us. The partial relocation of error formation from human cognition and into the
environments that surround us has had an enduring impact on the nature of behaviour change policy
(see Chapter 2). Prime among these has been the emergence of the ‘environment’ as a site and focus
of governmental intervention into human behaviour. Crucially, as we will go on to see, this shift
towards environmentally oriented behavioural policy has enabled governmental authorities to partially
circumvent the ethical concerns that have been raised in opposition to the behaviour change agenda.
with the work of Herbert Simon. It came to maturity during the 1970s and 80s with the rise of the new
behavourial economists. It then found increasingly practical forms of application through the work of
behavioural psychologists and cognitive engineers. It was not, however, until the turn of the
millennium that the assiduous work of behavioral economists finally achieved political recognition
and influence. A key figure in the political ascent of the behaviour change agenda has been Richard
Thaler. Thaler’s 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness (co-
written with Cass Sunstein) is, without doubt, the most prominent codification of new behavioural
economics. As a volume it has both raised the political profile of behavioural economics and made the
broader behaviour change agenda a significant issue of public debate. So how do Richard Thaler and
Nudge fit into the historical narrative of the behaviour change agenda?
The story of Nudge actually takes us right back to where our story began: Chicago. Richard
Thaler is Professor of Behavioural Science Economics and Economics at Chicago University. His
association with the New Behavioural Economists goes back to the early 1980s. It was at this point
that a young Thaler started to engage with the work of Kahneman and Tversky (Heukelom, 2011).
Thaler was, in many ways, one of the first generation of young economists to emerge out of the new
behavioural tradition. It was in this context that Thaler become involved in the early meetings
between Wanner, Kahneman and Tversky as the first attempts were made to form the Sloan
Foundations Behavioural Economics Programme (ibid: 13). Thaler was actually the first recipient of a
Sloan Foundation grant support in the field of behavioural economics: his 1983 application to the
Foundation funded a sabbatical he would spend in British Columbia with Kahneman (ibid). Following
this collaboration with Kahneman, Thaler went on to play a crucial role in administering the Sloan
Foundation’s Behavioural Economics programme, before leading the Russell Sage Foundation’s
Behavourial Approaches to Financial Markets research group (with Robert Schiller) (ibid). Thaler
would have the further distinction of being the author of the first volume published as part of the
Russell Sage Foundation’s Behavioural Economics Book Series (his 1991 Quasi-Rational
Economics).
An appreciation of Thaler’s strong academic, personal and institutional connections with New
Behavioural Economics is a crucial starting point to understanding the form and purpose of Nudge.
On the basis of his intellectual collaboration with his fellow Chicagoan Cass Sunstein (of the
University of Chicago Law School), Nudge encapsulates the essence of new behavioural economics.
Furthermore, by drawing on the insights of Robert Cialdini and Donald Norman (Norman actually
provides a glowing endorsement on the dust-jacket of the 2008 edition of the book), Nudge outlines
the practical steps, and politically acceptable grounds, upon which the ideas associated with the new
The central philosophy behind Thaler and Sunstein’s notion of nudge is that of libertarian (or
soft) paternalism. This seemingly oxymoronic notion is important for two reasons: 1) because it
embraces the insights of marketing psychology that it is possible to influence people into making
favourable decisions without having to coerce them (thus maintaining a libertarian feel); and 2) in
drawing on the insights of varied studies within behavioural economy, it recognizes the barriers that
exist to rational human decision-making (thus suggesting the need for some form of paternalistic
intervention on behalf of the state or non-governmental organizations). While criticized by some for
not being able to live up to either its libertarian or paternalist credentials (Mitchell, 2005), Thaler and
Sunstein’s positioning of nudge has enabled them to achieve a certain degree of support from across
‘[l]ibertarian paternalism is neither left or right, neither democrat nor republican. In many areas,
the most thoughtful Democrats are going beyond their enthusiasm for choice-eliminating
programs. In many areas, the most thoughtful Republicans are abandoning their knee-jerk
As we will see in Chapter 2, the bi-partisan appeal of libertarian paternalism has been
confirmed in the UK where it has gained support from the New Labour and subsequent Conservative
architectures (or environments) within which humans live out their lives. According the Thaler and
Sunstein, choice architectures are the varied physical, socio-cultural, and administrative environments
within which decision-making is framed (see Thaler et al 2010). A central tenet of their argument is
that the choice environments that presently surround us are not neutral, or indeed accidental,
outcomes of the evolution of society: they have been designed by commercial and at times (non-
commercial) forces in ways that make it very difficult to make choices that serve our long term
interests. From the school canteen that subliminally promotes unhealthy eating practices, to the
complex and off-putting forms that make taking out a pension plan unattractive, Thaler and Sunstein
argue that many of our choice environments require some form of rationalized re-design. Out of
Thaler and Sunstein’s concern with choice environments emerges the figure of the choice architect,
‘If you design the ballot voters use to choose candidates, you are a choice architect. If you are
a doctor and must describe the alternative treatments available to a patient, you are a choice
architect. If you design the form that new employees fill out to enroll on the company health
care plan, you are a choice architect. If you are a parent, describing possible educational options
The question of course still remains that if choice architects are the harbingers of a new
paternalistic society, how can the libertarian commitment to free choice to be preserved?
Thaler and Sunstein suggest that the effective blending of libertarian and paternalistic ideals
within the design (and redesign) of choice architectures can be secured through a particular technique:
the nudge. Drawing directly on the insights of cognitive design and behavioural psychology, the
nudge seeks to act on predictable forms of irrational bias and error through forms of non-coercive
mere nudge, the intervention must be easy or cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting
the fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not’ (ibid: 6).
Perhaps the most discussed, and certainly bizarre, example of a nudge was developed in the
toilet cubicle of Schiphol Airport. In 2005, maintenance crews experimented with the design of the
urinals that were being used in the airport. They found by simply placing the image of a black
housefly inside the urinal that they could improve the accuracy of urination and save cleaning costs in
the process (this technique has now apparently been adopted in the John F. Kennedy International
Airport in New York). This design intervention is a classic nudge (and is even described as one by
Thaler and Sunstein, 2008: 4) because it encourages men to practice a socially beneficial practice
(through appeal to their automatic brain functions and sense of fun, as opposed to a rationally
constructed argument), but is non-compulsive (there is no costs to the individual should they wish to
Arguably the most controversial application of nudging techniques has been in the field of
organ donation (see Jones at al 2011). In many ways organ donation is one the most directly relevant
policy areas for the application of nudging techniques. Surveys illustrate that far more people declare
a preference for donating their organs after death than actually sign onto organ donation registers.
While the reasons for this disparity are complex (relating in part, no doubt, to the people’s desire to
avoid thinking about their death and what might subsequently happen to their internal organs), it is
clear that given people’s declared preference to donate, that nudging could potentially make the
process easier (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008: 175-182). Most nudging strategies that have been designed
in relation to the issue of organ donation have sought to address the question of default positioning.
Defaults relate to presumed categories within which choices are positioned. In relation to organ
donation the default position is ordinarily set so that it is assumed we do not wish to donate our organs
unless we explicitly opt-onto formal registers. One form of nudge could involve changing the default
to presumed consent, with an opt-out clause should people wish to be taken-off donation registers. In
relation to organ donation, presumed consent naturally raises significant ethical questions concerning
people’s rights to control what happens to their own bodies when they are ignorant of the presumed
consent setting associated with organ donation. In Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein discuss the value of
mandated choice strategies, which rather than pre-setting a default position require people to make a
choice about organ donation in the process of, say, renewing their driving license (a process that seeks
to overcome the forces of inertia that simply stop people getting around to taking even a preferred
It is very easy to miss the broader political and philosophical implications of Thaler and
Sunstein’s ideas. Through the association it creates between choice and freedom, and its focus on
environments rather than individuals, the notion of libertarian paternalism (and the associated
techniques of nudge) is able to reframe the historical limitations which have been placed on the role of
government in everyday life. The historical principle that is partially overwritten here is the classical
formulation of liberal society, which was famously established by the nineteenth century British
philosopher John Stuart Mill. Mill asserted that the only time that:
‘[p]ower can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his
[sic] will, is to the prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a
10
It is interesting to note that in the UK a system of “prompted choice” has now been introduced in relation to
signing onto the Organ Donor Register. Consequently when people now apply for or renew their driving
licenses that are asked whether they would like to sign onto the register and which organs and tissues they
would be willing to donate. Prompted choice is seen to be more libertarian than mandated choices because it
be possible to intervene within an individual’s personal dealings without eroding their liberty (so long
as choice is preserved), and that in many instances the reframing of choice environments actually
enhances freedoms of choice (see here Pykett et al., 2011). It is on this basis that behaviour change
policies have increasingly been able to shift focus from harm-to-others issue, such as environmental
pollution and social order, to harm-to-self matters, including healthy eating, sexual conduct and
financial planning.
*****
An interesting post-script to the emergence of the Behaviour Change Agenda outlined in this
Chapter, has been the support that this programme has been receiving from the cognitive and
neurological sciences (see Schüll and Zaloom, 2011; Damasio, 1995; Le Doux, 1996). Recent studies
within the cognitive sciences, and developments within brain scanning and imaging technology, have
enabled ever-more elaborate scientific studies to be carried out into the emotional and more-than-
understanding the empirical research of behavioural economists, such developments have also seen
We explore the insights and implications of developments within the cognitive and
neurological sciences at various points in this volume. At this point, however, it is just important to
reflect upon the implications of this Chapter. In charting the rise of the Behaviour Change Agenda we
hope to have achieved three things: 1) to outline the varied intellectual sources associated with the
movement; 2) to reveal the different relations which these competing strands of behavioural
economics (particularly those associated with the new and old behavioural economists) have to
classical economics and the standard economic model of human behaviour; and 3) to reveal the
increasingly significant political and ethical implications associated with the translation of the
Behaviour Change Agenda from academic study into public policies. On the basis of our account of
the contingent process and events that have led to the rise of the Behaviour Change Agenda, we hope
to establish the grounds upon which to develop a sustained critique of its application. Furthermore, we
aim to explore how the insights of this behavioural regime could be used to support very different,