{"id":1306,"date":"2021-11-01T10:00:44","date_gmt":"2021-11-01T10:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1306"},"modified":"2021-10-29T15:59:22","modified_gmt":"2021-10-29T14:59:22","slug":"nudging-for-changing-selves","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/nudging-for-changing-selves\/","title":{"rendered":"Nudging for Changing Selves"},"content":{"rendered":"

When we go into a car showroom and we\u2019re greeted by a series of sales assistants, one after the other, we tend to end up buying from the first person we met when we came in the door. And when we don\u2019t have a strong preference between a range of political candidates on a ballot, we tend to pick the one at the top of the list. The American psychologists <\/span>Dana Carney<\/a><\/span><\/span> and <\/span>Mahzarin Banaji<\/a><\/span><\/span> call this general phenomenon <\/span>\u2018first is best\u2019<\/a><\/span><\/span>. Some people think that empirical results like this, which tell us how our choices are sensitive to the ways in which they are presented, can be used by governments to improve people\u2019s decision-making in important contexts. Many of the classic results in this area have failed to replicate when later researchers have carried out new versions of the original experiments, so we should exercise caution when we appeal to any of them while the field is still in a state of flux, but let\u2019s assume for the sake of argument that this one is secure. My question in this post is this: how might a government use this result? Here\u2019s a standard, simple example. As the civil servant charged with designing the menu for the cafeteria in some institution, you might have found that people do, upon reflection, want to eat healthily, but also know that, when faced with a choice between a chocolate bar and an apple, they\u2019ll be swayed by temptation to choose against their considered preferences and take the chocolate. In this case, you might appeal to Carney and Banaji\u2019s research and design your menu so that the healthier options are listed at the top, in this way hoping to sway customers back from temptation to make the choice they would endorse upon reflection.<\/span><\/p>\n

Were you to do this, you\u2019d be engaged in what behavioural economists call <\/span>nudging<\/a><\/span><\/span>. Deliberately ordering the menu items in this way, rather than picking the order at random or deliberately putting the unhealthy items at the top, <\/span>is said to have a number of advantages<\/a><\/span><\/span>. For one thing, it\u2019s supposed to be compatible with <\/span>libertarianism<\/a><\/span><\/span>, a political viewpoint that says that the government should never restrict its citizens\u2019 freedom of choice. By listing the healthy options at the top, you might make someone more likely to choose them, but you don\u2019t remove any options, nor make any options significantly more difficult to choose\u2014it\u2019s hardly a drag to read further down the menu for the chocolate bar selection. For another thing, it\u2019s supposed to improve the lives of the individuals who are successfully nudged; and, most importantly, it improves them by their very own lights, or as the nudge enthusiasts often say, as judged by themselves\u2014I do, upon reflection, want to eat more healthily. So, while this is assuredly a paternalist move in which the government tries to improve the lives of its citizens directly rather than merely providing them with the means to do so themselves, it is what economists call <\/span>means paternalist, not ends paternalist<\/a><\/span><\/span>. It tries to affect the means that you take when pursuing your ends, but it leaves your ends untouched\u2014it doesn\u2019t try to make you want to eat healthily if you don\u2019t already; it just tries to make you choose in ways that better serve the end of healthy eating if you already have that goal.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the previous blogpost<\/a>, I talked about what Edna Ullmann-Margalit calls big decisions<\/i>. These are decisions in which, if you choose one of the options, it will lead you to have what L. A. Paul calls a personally transformative experience<\/i>, that is, one that will change some of your core values. For instance, when I am deciding whether or not to adopt a child, I might know that, if I do, my core values will be changed and I\u2019ll come to value bringing up this particular child a great deal more than I currently do\u2014at the moment, say, I\u2019m pretty keen to stay child-free. But now <\/span>an interesting question arises<\/a><\/span><\/span>: is it ever OK for the government to nudge you, when faced with a big decision such as whether to adopt a child, into choosing the option that is likely to lead to a personally transformative experience? The question arises because of the test offered by two of the most enthusiastic proponents of nudging for whether a government should administer a nudge. <\/span>Richard Thaler<\/a><\/span><\/span> and <\/span>Cass Sunstein<\/a><\/span><\/span>, the authors of the book <\/span>Nudge<\/a><\/span><\/span> that popularised the practice and extolls its virtues, say that a government may nudge someone if that person would assent to it after the nudge has taken place were they to have plenty of time to think about and reflect on it, were they not burdened with any cognitive limitations such as biases, fuzzy thinking, poor numeracy, etc., and were they appraised of all available information pertaining to their choice. But of course, if the government were to nudge me into adopting a child, I would indeed assent to it after the event, even in this idealised conditions Thaler and Sunstein describe. After all, by that time, my values would have changed, and I would assign great value to bringing up that child. So such a nudge is OK by Thaler and Sunstein\u2019s lights. But that seems wrong. Surely any government that did this would be overstepping their remit. Or, at the very least, their intervention would no longer count as means paternalist in the way that nudging is advertised to be. Instead of leaving my ends untouched and nudging me to pick a means that would better achieve those ends, I\u2019ve been nudged into changing my ends. And yet, because the test for legitimacy is administered after the nudge, it would pass. What\u2019s more, even very heavy-handed nudges might pass. If the government had subjected me to subliminal messaging or emotional blackmail for some lengthy period before I made my choice, I might now feel that the outcome thereby achieved is so valuable, I\u2019m happy they did so.<\/span><\/p>\n

All of this seems too much. This is not in the spirit of nudging at all. But how to prevent it? A natural response is just to say that we should administer Thaler and Sunstein\u2019s test both before and after the nudge. So we\u2019d say that a government is allowed to nudge me towards a decision if, were I to consider the decision both before and after the nudge with plenty of time for reflection, none of the cognitive limitations I actually have, and all the relevant information, I\u2019d be happy for it to go ahead. Since I was inclined towards staying child-free before the choice, I wouldn\u2019t assent to any nudge that led me to adopt, and certainly not a heavy-handed one. Of course, we couldn\u2019t actually administer the test beforehand, since many nudges only work if you aren\u2019t aware you\u2019re being nudged. But the test is an idealisation anyway, so that doesn\u2019t seem to be a problem.<\/span><\/p>\n

A bigger problem is that there are cases where this goes wrong as well. (<\/span>Krister Bykvist<\/a><\/span><\/span> and I both offer versions of this case; he in <\/span>this paper<\/a><\/span><\/span>, me in <\/span>my book<\/a><\/span><\/span>.) Suppose that, at the moment, I give slightly higher value to being a parent than to remaining child-free. I value raising a child a great deal, and I value remaining child-free just slightly less. What\u2019s more, I know I\u2019ll retain these values if I were to remain child-free\u2014I\u2019ll always slightly wish I\u2019d become a parent, but I\u2019ll value my child-free life a great deal all the same. I also know that, if I were to become a parent, I\u2019d come to value it dramatically less than I currently do; but I\u2019d also come to value the child-free alternative even less than that. So, in this situation, both before becoming a parent and afterwards, I value that life more than the child-free life. So I\u2019ll pass Thaler and Sunstein\u2019s test before and after I\u2019m nudged\u2014at both times, I\u2019ll be grateful for the nudge. And yet that nudge will send me down a path to which I\u2019ll assign very low value once I\u2019m on it. And that seems wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

So the search for a workable test for when it\u2019s OK to nudge someone into a personally transformative experience continues\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"When we go into a car showroom and we\u2019re greeted by a series of sales assistants, one after the other, we tend to end up buying from the first person […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1311,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Richard Pettigrew (@wiglet1981 ) Nudging for Changing Selves on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[319,321,320,168],"custom_author":[318],"class_list":["post-1306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-decision","tag-nudge","tag-self","tag-value","custom_author-pettigrew-richard"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-l4","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":679,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-polarization-does-to-us\/","url_meta":{"origin":1306,"position":0},"title":"What Polarization Does to Us","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Commentators from across the political spectrum warn us that extreme partisan polarization is dissolving all bases for political cooperation, thereby undermining our democracy.\u00a0 The near total consensus on this point is suspicious.\u00a0 A recent Pew study finds that although citizens want politicians to compromise more, they tend to blame only\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1268,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/covid-19-exceptionalism\/","url_meta":{"origin":1306,"position":1},"title":"COVID-19 exceptionalism","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"By Lisa Bortolotti and Kathleen Murphy-Hollies Exceptionalism Exceptionalism is the idea that a country is superior to other countries and in virtue of this superiority it is not subject to the same constraints. Some political leaders assumed that their countries were invulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, leading\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/08\/Exceptionalism.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/08\/Exceptionalism.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/08\/Exceptionalism.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/08\/Exceptionalism.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/08\/Exceptionalism.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/08\/Exceptionalism.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1880,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/zetetic-standpoint-epistemology\/","url_meta":{"origin":1306,"position":2},"title":"Zetetic standpoint epistemology","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A central claim of standpoint theory is that the oppressed have an epistemic advantage over the dominant with respect to the workings of oppression. This \u2018epistemic advantage thesis\u2019 ranges over issues like whether some event or action is an instance of oppression, what it is like to be oppressed, what\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/02\/questionpexels-pixabay-356079-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/02\/questionpexels-pixabay-356079-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/02\/questionpexels-pixabay-356079-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/02\/questionpexels-pixabay-356079-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/02\/questionpexels-pixabay-356079-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/02\/questionpexels-pixabay-356079-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1208,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/legal-character-evidence-prohibitions-and-the-opacity-of-character\/","url_meta":{"origin":1306,"position":3},"title":"Legal Character Evidence Prohibitions and the Opacity of Character","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"We tend to think another person\u2019s character helps explain why she acts as she does. When we observe patterns in how others act, we take this to be evidence of a trait or disposition. We attribute loyalty to hose we can rely on, generosity to those who donate significant time\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1287,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/prejudiced-belief-epistemic-and-moral-perspectives\/","url_meta":{"origin":1306,"position":4},"title":"Prejudiced Belief: Epistemic and Moral Perspectives","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Prejudice seems like a paradigmatic case of bad belief. But in what sense bad? Suppose we could agree that prejudiced beliefs tend to be false. That would be one way for them to bad: beliefs, we might think, should aim at the truth; false beliefs fall short in that important\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/09\/violence-against-women-1169348_1280-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/09\/violence-against-women-1169348_1280-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/09\/violence-against-women-1169348_1280-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/09\/violence-against-women-1169348_1280-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/09\/violence-against-women-1169348_1280-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1860,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-epistemology-of-rumours\/","url_meta":{"origin":1306,"position":5},"title":"The Epistemology of Rumours","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 8, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Rumours disrupt official lines of communication and can derail policy. During the 2013 \u2013 2016 West African Ebola outbreak, rumours were that medics were stealing bodies to be sold for parts on the international organ market. In response, people kept their sick loved ones at home. In South Africa, in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/Uganda.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/Uganda.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/Uganda.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/elephant-nudge.jpeg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1306"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1313,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306\/revisions\/1313"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1306"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}