Nudge Nudge, Think Think: Two Strategies for Changing Civic Behaviour

John, Peter; Smith, Graham; Stoker, Gerry

doi:10.1111/j.1467-923x.2009.02001.x

Cited by 227 publications

(200 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

180

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other nudges rely on heuristics and biases in human reasoning such as those observed by Kahneman and Tversky (2000): for example, the recency and endowment effects. John et al (2011) argue that governments should not rely only on nudges that depend on basic human reactions and behaviour, but should also employ strategies that are more focused on deliberative cognitive reasoning, which they term "think" as opposed to "nudge".…”

Section: Nudgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Mindful versus mindless. A mindful approach is the think approach promoted by John et al (2011) that encourages a more cognitive, deliberative approach to decision making (as in showing pension projections for varying saving levels) versus a mindless approach that relies on human emotions and biases in reasoning (placing unhealthy food in hard to reach places).…”

Section: Nudgementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The digital nudge in social security administration

Gregor

Archer

2016

Int Social Security Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of nudge theory, from the fields of behavioural science, political theory and behavioural economics, has sparked government initiatives yielding significant public value. A nudge is a method for predictably altering behaviour without restricting consumer choice options or significantly changing incentives. Nudges work by leveraging default human behaviour such as the tendency to take the path of least resistance when exercising choice. Government agencies have run many successful trials with simple textual nudges designed to positively influence behaviours such as tax compliance, voter registration and student attrition. This article develops the concept of the digital nudge in social security administration. The digital nudge leverages predictive analytics technology within a digital government framework to support a social investment policy approach. Based on a literature review of nudges within a digital government context, the article identifies examples of innovation within social security administration where nudges are contributing to better social outcomes. At the same time, concerns regarding ethics and privacy are identified as nudges are applied at the individual rather than the population level. The use of data and personal information to drive the nudge process has to be managed in such a way that individual rights are protected. This requirement has to be reconciled with the broader interests of society in achieving affordable outcomes, the parameters of which are determined through the political process.

show abstract

Section: Nudgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nudgementioning

confidence: 99%

The digital nudge in social security administration

Gregor

Archer

2016

Int Social Security Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8-9). Such trials are commonplace in medicine, but have also been conducted in areas of public policy within the UK, including charity giving, voter turnout, recycling (John et al 2011), domestic energy efficiency (Heyman et al 2011) and sex education in schools (Oakley et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance

Pearce

Raman

2014

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2012, a new movement of government departments, think tanks and highprofile individuals within the UK has sought to promote the increased usage of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in public policy. They promote RCTs as an evidence-based corrective for the inappropriate certainties of experts. Recent government reports and public debate around this initiative are reviewed and analysed within a framework for epistemic governance: normative insights into how knowledge for policymaking should be understood and governed drawn from science and technology studies and the policy sciences. The legitimacy of RCT evidence within policymaking is found to rest on the recognition of three key features: (1) how multiple meanings of evidence limit generalisability, (2) ensuring a plurality of evidence inputs, including those from other forms of research and expertise, and (3) building institutions for governing the use of RCTs in the public interest. Producing evidence for policymaking is a hybrid activity that necessarily spans both science and politics. Presenting RCTs as naively neutral evidence of what policy interventions work is misleading. The paper concludes by calling for more work on how the new RCT movement might engage with its own history in social and policy research on the value of experiments for policymaking.

show abstract

“…There may be a substitution effect between independent individual thought and libertarian paternalist policies that effectively do people's thinking for them (John et al, 2009; see also Green, 1983;Klick andMitchell 2006, p1623). Thaler and Sunstein reply by arguing for the educative value of libertarian paternalist information campaigns (2009, pp240-241).…”

Section: Existing Critiques Of Libertarian Paternalismmentioning

confidence: 99%