Paper by Lukas Fuchs: “Adding an option is a neglected mechanism for bringing about behavioural change. This mechanism is distinct from nudges, which are changes in the choice architecture, and instead makes it possible to pursue republican paternalism, a unique form of paternalism in which choices are changed by expanding people’s set of options. I argue that this is truly a form of paternalism (albeit a relatively soft one) and illustrate some of its manifestations in public policy, specifically public options and market creation. Furthermore, I compare it with libertarian paternalism on several dimensions, namely respect for individuals’ agency, effectiveness, and efficiency. Finally, I consider whether policymakers have the necessary knowledge to successfully change behaviour by adding options. Given that adding an option has key advantages over nudges in most if not all of these dimensions, it should be considered indispensable in the behavioural policymaker’s toolbox…(More)”.
Boosting: Empowering Citizens with Behavioral Science
Paper by Stefan M. Herzog and Ralph Hertwig: “Behavioral public policy came to the fore with the introduction of nudging, which aims to steer behavior while maintaining freedom of choice. Responding to critiques of nudging (e.g., that it does not promote agency and relies on benevolent choice architects), other behavioral policy approaches focus on empowering citizens. Here we review boosting, a behavioral policy approach that aims to foster people’s agency, self-control, and ability to make informed decisions. It is grounded in evidence from behavioral science showing that human decision making is not as notoriously flawed as the nudging approach assumes. We argue that addressing the challenges of our time—such as climate change, pandemics, and the threats to liberal democracies and human autonomy posed by digital technologies and choice architectures—calls for fostering capable and engaged citizens as a first line of response to complement slower, systemic approaches…(More)”.
Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions
Paper by Dolores Albarracín, Bita Fayaz-Farkhad & Javier A. Granados Samayoa: “Unprecedented social, environmental, political and economic challenges — such as pandemics and epidemics, environmental degradation and community violence — require taking stock of how to promote behaviours that benefit individuals and society at large. In this Review, we synthesize multidisciplinary meta-analyses of the individual and social-structural determinants of behaviour (for example, beliefs and norms, respectively) and the efficacy of behavioural change interventions that target them. We find that, across domains, interventions designed to change individual determinants can be ordered by increasing impact as those targeting knowledge, general skills, general attitudes, beliefs, emotions, behavioural skills, behavioural attitudes and habits. Interventions designed to change social-structural determinants can be ordered by increasing impact as legal and administrative sanctions; programmes that increase institutional trustworthiness; interventions to change injunctive norms; monitors and reminders; descriptive norm interventions; material incentives; social support provision; and policies that increase access to a particular behaviour. We find similar patterns for health and environmental behavioural change specifically. Thus, policymakers should focus on interventions that enable individuals to circumvent obstacles to enacting desirable behaviours rather than targeting salient but ineffective determinants of behaviour such as knowledge and beliefs…(More)”
Behavioural science: could supermarket loyalty cards nudge us to make healthier choices?
Article by Magda Osman: “Ken Murphy, CEO of the British multinational supermarket chain Tesco, recently said at a conference that Tesco “could use Clubcard data to nudge customers towards healthier choices”.
So how would this work, and do we want it? Our recent study, published in the Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews, provides an answer.
Loyalty schemes have been around as far back as the 1980s, with the introduction of airlines’ frequent flyer programmes.
Advancements in loyalty schemes have been huge, with some even using gamified approaches, such as leaderboards, trophies and treasure hunts, to keep us engaged. The loyalty principle relies on a form of social exchange, namely reciprocity.
The ongoing reciprocal relationship means that we use a good or service regularly because we trust the service provider, we are satisfied with the service, and we deem the rewards we get as reasonable – be they discounts, vouchers or gifts.
In exchange, we accept that, in many cases, loyalty schemes collect data on us. Our purchasing history, often tied to our demographics, generates improvements in the delivery of the service.
If we accept this, then we continue to benefit from reward schemes, such as promotional offers or other discounts. The effectiveness depends not only on making attractive offers to us for things we are interested in purchasing, but also other discounted items that we hadn’t considered buying…(More)”
The Unaccountability Machine — why do big systems make bad decisions?
FT Review of book by Dan Davies: “The starting point of Davies’ entertaining, insightful book is that the uncontrolled proliferation of accountability sinks is one of the central drivers of what historian Adam Tooze calls the “polycrisis” of the 21st century. Their influence reaches far beyond frustrated customers endlessly on hold to “computer says no” service departments. In finance, banking crises regularly recur — yet few individual bankers are found at fault. If politicians’ promises flop, they complain they have no power; the Deep State is somehow to blame.
The origin of the problem, Davies argues, is the managerial revolution that began after the second world war, abetted by the advent of cheap computing power and the diffusion of algorithmic decision-making into every sphere of life. These systems have ended up “acting like a car’s crumple-zone to shield any individual manager from a disastrous decision”, he writes. While attractive from the individual’s perspective, they scramble the feedback on which society as a whole depends.
Yet the story, Davies continues, is not so simple. Seen from another perspective, accountability sinks are entirely reasonable responses to the ever-increasing complexity of modern economies. Standardisation and explicit policies and procedures offer the only feasible route to meritocratic recruitment, consistent service and efficient work. Relying on the personal discretion of middle managers would simply result in a different kind of mess…(More)”.
Second-Order Agency
Paper by Cass Sunstein: “Many people prize agency; they want to make their own choices. Many people also prize second-order agency, by which they decide whether and when to exercise first-order agency. First-order agency can be an extraordinary benefit or an immense burden. When it is an extraordinary benefit, people might reject any kind of interference, or might welcome a nudge, or might seek some kind of boost, designed to increase their capacities. When first-order agency is an immense burden, people might also welcome a nudge or might make some kind of delegation (say, to an employer, a doctor, an algorithm, or a regulator). These points suggests that the line between active choosing and paternalism can be illusory. When private or public institutions override people’s desire not to exercise first-order agency, and thus reject people’s exercise of second-order agency, they are behaving paternalistically, through a form of choice-requiring paternalism. Choice-requiring paternalism may compromise second-order agency. It might not be very nice to do that…(More)”.
It’s time we put agency into Behavioural Public Policy
Article by Sanchayan Banerjee et al: “Promoting agency – people’s ability to form intentions and to act on them freely – must become a primary objective for Behavioural Public Policy (BPP). Contemporary BPPs do not directly pursue this objective, which is problematic for many reasons. From an ethical perspective, goals like personal autonomy and individual freedom cannot be realised without nurturing citizens’ agency. From an efficacy standpoint, BPPs that override agency – for example, by activating automatic psychological processes – leave citizens ‘in the dark’, incapable of internalising and owning the process of behaviour change. This may contribute to non-persistent treatment effects, compensatory negative spillovers or psychological reactance and backfiring effects. In this paper, we argue agency-enhancing BPPs can alleviate these ethical and efficacy limitations to longer-lasting and meaningful behaviour change. We set out philosophical arguments to help us understand and conceptualise agency. Then, we review three alternative agency-enhancing behavioural frameworks: (1) boosts to enhance people’s competences to make better decisions; (2) debiasing to encourage people to reduce the tendency for automatic, impulsive responses; and (3) nudge+ to enable citizens to think alongside nudges and evaluate them transparently. Using a multi-dimensional framework, we highlight differences in their workings, which offer comparative insights and complementarities in their use. We discuss limitations of agency-enhancing BPPs and map out future research directions…(More)”.
Fixing frictions: ‘sludge audits’ around the world
OECD Report: “Governments worldwide are increasingly adopting behavioural science methodologies to address “sludge” – the unjustified frictions impeding people’ access to government services and exacerbating psychological burdens. Sludge audits, grounded in behavioural science, provide a structured approach for identifying, quantifying, and preventing sludge in public services and government processes. This document delineates Good Practice Principles, derived from ten case studies conducted during the International Sludge Academy, aimed at promoting the integration of sludge audit methodologies into public governance and service design. By enhancing government efficiency and bolstering public trust in government, these principles contribute to the broader agenda on administrative simplification, digital services, and public sector innovation…(More)”.
Water Shortages in Latin America: How Can Behavioral Science Help?
Article by Juan Roa Duarte: “Today in 2024, one of Latin America’s largest cities, Bogota, is facing significant challenges due to prolonged droughts exacerbated by El Niño. As reservoir levels plummet, local governments have implemented water rationing measures to manage the crisis. However, these rationing measures have remained unsuccessful after one month of implementation—in fact, water usage increased during the first week.1 But why? What solution can finally help solve this crisis?
In this article, we will explore how behavioral science can help Latin American cities mitigate their water shortages—and how, surprisingly, a method my hometown Bogota used back in the ‘90s can shed some light on this current issue. We’ll also explore some modern behavioral science strategies that can be used in parallel…(More)”
An Anatomy of Algorithm Aversion
Paper by Cass R. Sunstein and Jared Gaffe: “People are said to show “algorithm aversion” when (1) they prefer human forecasters or decision-makers to algorithms even though (2) algorithms generally outperform people (in forecasting accuracy and/or optimal decision-making in furtherance of a specified goal). Algorithm aversion also has “softer” forms, as when people prefer human forecasters or decision-makers to algorithms in the abstract, without having clear evidence about comparative performance. Algorithm aversion is a product of diverse mechanisms, including (1) a desire for agency; (2) a negative moral or emotional reaction to judgment by algorithms; (3) a belief that certain human experts have unique knowledge, unlikely to be held or used by algorithms; (4) ignorance about why algorithms perform well; and (5) asymmetrical forgiveness, or a larger negative reaction to algorithmic error than to human error. An understanding of the various mechanisms provides some clues about how to overcome algorithm aversion, and also of its boundary conditions…(More)”.