4 ms·

What's exactly "nudging" here?. For example it has been shown that for organ donation, if the default is affirmative (opt-in) and you have to opt-out, then orga

What's exactly "nudging" here?. For example it has been shown that for organ donation, if the default is affirmative (opt-in) and you have to opt-out, then organ donors double https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1091721 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1091721 , I think this is one of the "nudge" example in pop-science books.

endominus 4y ago
I think that's more narrowly defined as "status quo bias" - people tend to take the lowest energy path, so generally accept default choices. The definition of nudging that I could determine from the original book's Wikipedia page includes that, as well as other forms of nudges. I wonder if separating out these nudges by type would result in different results in this metaanalysis. But that is also analogous to p-hacking, isn't it?
adammarples 4y ago
I think Newton covered that in his first law. Nobody is actually being nudged, which implies a behavior change, at all.
tgv 4y ago
> A nudge, according to Thaler and Sunstein is any form of choice architecture that alters people's behaviour in a predictable way without restricting options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must require minimal intervention and must be cheap. Thaler and Sunstein wrote the book on nudges, quite literally. So their definition counts, and it's the one from the article. The opt-in/out decision you mention isn't a nudge in this sense. You're not asked what you prefer, you have to be aware that you can opt-in/out and then actively pursue that option.
- svnt 4y ago
  A nudge is naive if not circularly defined then as it presumes at least two permanently distinct classes of humans: informed humans who can architect nudges and learn about them and other humans who must respond in the same way every time and cannot do this meta-learning.
- ghaff 4y ago
  In the case of organ donation, Thaler has written that he actually prefers mandated choice--i.e. there is no default but you have to either opt in or opt out--in this case. [1] But I'm not sure why a system where the government creates a default of either opt-in or opt-out (which you can change) wouldn't be a nudge. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.h... (The issue being that in countries that are opt-out, doctors still often ask families for permission on the grounds that the deceased never made an affirmative choice to donate.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tgv 4y ago
    The system is that you're by default in some register. The choice has already been made. Many people aren't even aware of it, or only remotely. You have to undertake action to change it. That's not a "choice architecture" in the nudge sense. That would require that you are presented with both options simultaneously, and are forced to choose. A nudge, e.g. on a web form, would then be to have one option already checked.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      >A nudge, e.g. on a web form, would then be to have one option already checked. Yes. But an alternative is to present choices on a web form without one being pre-selected but with a choice mandatory. Which is essentially what I understand Thaler to be arguing for. >The choice has already been made. I'd say that still is a default but one which requires more effort to change than a pre-selected option on a webform. And arguably sufficient effort that it may no longer be reasonable to default to organ donation in that manner.
  - Nasrudith 4y ago
    Wouldn't it not be a nudge because it outright changes the unspoken costs? If the public is largely apathetic about what happens to their bodies post death, if the situation would leave them viable having to take an action vs inertia is an added costs. This could make deciding "not worth it" for low rewards, let alone preferring not to think of the possibility of their own demise.
lozenge 4y ago
The full list and criteria is here- https://osf.io/fywae/ https://osf.io/fywae/

endominus 4y ago

I think that's more narrowly defined as "status quo bias" - people tend to take the lowest energy path, so generally accept default choices. The definition of nudging that I could determine from the original book's Wikipedia page includes that, as well as other forms of nudges. I wonder if separating out these nudges by type would result in different results in this metaanalysis. But that is also analogous to p-hacking, isn't it?

adammarples 4y ago

I think Newton covered that in his first law. Nobody is actually being nudged, which implies a behavior change, at all.

tgv 4y ago

> A nudge, according to Thaler and Sunstein is any form of choice architecture that alters people's behaviour in a predictable way without restricting options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must require minimal intervention and must be cheap. Thaler and Sunstein wrote the book on nudges, quite literally. So their definition counts, and it's the one from the article. The opt-in/out decision you mention isn't a nudge in this sense. You're not asked what you prefer, you have to be aware that you can opt-in/out and then actively pursue that option.

svnt 4y ago
A nudge is naive if not circularly defined then as it presumes at least two permanently distinct classes of humans: informed humans who can architect nudges and learn about them and other humans who must respond in the same way every time and cannot do this meta-learning.
ghaff 4y ago
In the case of organ donation, Thaler has written that he actually prefers mandated choice--i.e. there is no default but you have to either opt in or opt out--in this case. [1] But I'm not sure why a system where the government creates a default of either opt-in or opt-out (which you can change) wouldn't be a nudge. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.h... (The issue being that in countries that are opt-out, doctors still often ask families for permission on the grounds that the deceased never made an affirmative choice to donate.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tgv 4y ago
  The system is that you're by default in some register. The choice has already been made. Many people aren't even aware of it, or only remotely. You have to undertake action to change it. That's not a "choice architecture" in the nudge sense. That would require that you are presented with both options simultaneously, and are forced to choose. A nudge, e.g. on a web form, would then be to have one option already checked.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >A nudge, e.g. on a web form, would then be to have one option already checked. Yes. But an alternative is to present choices on a web form without one being pre-selected but with a choice mandatory. Which is essentially what I understand Thaler to be arguing for. >The choice has already been made. I'd say that still is a default but one which requires more effort to change than a pre-selected option on a webform. And arguably sufficient effort that it may no longer be reasonable to default to organ donation in that manner.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  Wouldn't it not be a nudge because it outright changes the unspoken costs? If the public is largely apathetic about what happens to their bodies post death, if the situation would leave them viable having to take an action vs inertia is an added costs. This could make deciding "not worth it" for low rewards, let alone preferring not to think of the possibility of their own demise.

lozenge 4y ago

The full list and criteria is here- https://osf.io/fywae/ https://osf.io/fywae/