In Nudge, the authors' introduction immediately resonated with me as a dietitian. In it they discuss a hypothetical school cafeteria that incorporates wisdom from supermarket designers by `selling' products simply by placing them in different positions.

When I worked with clients, I told them what they should be eating, and what they shouldn't. My podiatrist tells me not to wear stilettos and my physio tells me that I should do my joint rehab exercises as well as, or instead of fun exercise.

Imagine if we could just gently nudge people in the direction of healthier choices, rather then simply telling them what to do. This is the concept behind the book Nudge.

I would recommend Nudge to anyone who is trying to promote better health to individuals, communities or within organizations.

Richard Thaler is a Professor at The University of Chicago, Booth School of Business. His co-author, Cass Sunstein is a Law Professor at the University of Chicago. Their research over the past 30 years has been in behavioural economics, looking at how people make decisions, and the science of choice.

Within Nudge the authors describe Libertarian Paternalism as a weak, soft, and non-intrusive type of paternalism because choices are not blocked fenced off, or significantly burdened. However, because they describe and encourage techniques for Governments, organisations and individuals to consciously attempt to nudge people towards making healthier choices, it still counts as paternalistic.

Those trying to nudge people into making better choices are Choice Architects, where they design and manipulate the environment to make it easier or more fun to make the most beneficial choice. Although this may be described as manipulative, it's important to note that there is no neutral design, whenever you design an environment; it will influence choices of your clients or customers. If you are responsible for designing a stairwell, you can make it easy to access, aesthetically pleasing, with natural light will encourage people to take the stairs over the elevator or escalator. If you are designing a menu, making healthy choices the default option will make it easier for customers to choose that option. If you design the stairwell or the menu that makes it easier for the least healthy option to be chosen, it will be. If you do nothing, you are not doing nothing, you are being a choice architect without considering the consequences.

Relevance to Health Professionals

All health professionals can all gain something out of ideas presented in Nudge. We understand the science and the why of health and medicine, but the barriers in getting clients to do, what we want them to do, for their own health, can be a challenge. Nudge uses numerous health examples, such as how a school cafeteria can help students choose healthier food; how we can increase organ donation; and strategies to increase compliance in taking prescription medicine.

Before you become a choice architect, it is important to understand the outcomes you are trying to achieve and determine whether any of the options suggested by Thaler and Sunstein:

* Making the healthiest option the easiest choice

* Making the healthiest option enjoyable

* Making the healthiest option the default choice

* Making unhealthy choices more difficult

* Giving incentives for choosing healthiest choices

* Giving positive feedback for choosing healthiest choices

First some quick comments, then some longer ones:

1) Anyone interested in the Social Sciences should get this. Parts of it are written as if the book were a guide to finance, but that was probably just a marketing ploy of some sort. The main thesis is really interesting and very refreshing for those interested in the somewhat stale and oversimplified "big vs. small government" debate.

2) I read this right after Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow." Both are extremely similar, but Nudge is more to the point and more organized. "Thinking Fast and Slow" was still brilliant though.

3) All those reviewers who call this "manipulation" or some other "Big Government!!!" charge, I must say, probably didn't read the book. The authors address libertarian concerns multiple times, and with great consideration, throughout the entire book. Understanding what makes "libertarian paternalism" libertarian is an extremely important step in getting the authors' main point. Honestly, if anything, it made my political views MORE libertarian rather than less, so it's difficult for me to think of Nudge as a "defense of Big Brother" or some other right-wing nonsense.

4) The only inconsistency I came across (and I mention this below) is that when they talk about being "anti-mandate," they really mean being against public or consumer mandates. However, many of their proposals do implicitly involve mandates on businesses though, such as requiring that air conditioner manufacturers install a light that would tell the user when the filter needs replacement (which would save a good amount of energy). I am not opposed to this whatsoever, but it's important to acknowledge that it's still a government mandate, so it's not as libertarian as it first seems. However, it's still more libertarian than other conceivable alternative mandates that could be placed on the public to use less energy.

5) My take-away from the book: The authors spend a good amount of time describing ECONS and HUMANS, but not so much time describing why ECONS are so important for right-wing economists. This is also partly because authors' main objective, it seemed, was political. They describe their philosophy as "libertarian paternalism." They are libertarian in the sense that they (ostensibly) don't generally like the idea of the government "banning," "mandating," and "outlawing" economic choices, or making some economic choices extremely difficult for the consumer (for example if the government made all vehicles which get less than 20 MPG twice as expensive via taxes, and mandated that a consumer must wait 90 days before being able to register a low-MPG vehicle, whereas high-MPG vehicles could be registered immediately). However, the other part of their philosophy involves "paternalism"--a very dirty word to libertarians. The basic normative argument for paternalism is that the government has some role to play in guiding people toward better choices. In talking about "libertarian paternalism," they are saying that whatever the government does, it is going to have some effects upon the population, even if it is not explicitly trying to manipulate or persuade the public. So, instead, adopt smart policies (with predictable results) that guide the public toward a "good" direction, but allow individuals to opt-out if they wish. An interesting example they brought up involved organ donors. Turns out that there are some massive inter-country differences when it comes to the desire to donate organs. But is this because the people in each country have such massively different attitudes about it? No--the main variable is a simple one: Is the default option to donate, or not to donate? In the U.S., on our licenses, we have to check a box that confirms we want to be organ donors and, therefore, our default is that we are not donors. In other countries, the default option is that citizens are donors--but of course they are free to opt-out at any time.

Bringing it back to the ECONS vs. HUMANS debate is what makes a simple example like this so mind-blowing (for me, at least). The crucial key to understand is that, to the ECON, it makes no difference what the default is. The ECON always knows what s/he wants--if s/he wants to be a donor, and the default is "No," the ECON would instantly change it to "Yes," and vice versa. Simple as that. But HUMANS, on the other hand, don't do this. HUMANS have a massive, statistically proven bias toward the default option and, as a result, which route the government decides to go ends up making a massive difference. If the government decides that it's probably a "good" thing if most citizens are willing to donate vital organs, the authors argue, then it should keep the default at "Yes" and allow people to opt-out. (Notice that if the government simply mandated that everyone donate their organs, it would be paternalism outright, not libertarian paternalism.) The book is essentially a collection of examples like this, where the authors wish to enact policies that result in a better society/economy while staying true to the libertarian paternalist ethic. (One place where I think they slip a bit, though, is that they are more inclined to support "regulations" on businesses--but these regulations are of course mandates, however much they don't want to call them mandates. When they say they are against mandates, they seem to be more against regulating average citizens and consumers than regulating businesses.)

As I see it, the die-hard libertarian still has a valid argument to make. Basically, they can object to the nudge argument on purely political grounds, which would sound like this, "I don't give a crap if libertarian paternalism would result in a better economy or better society. The government has no right to--i.e., shouldn't--participate in manipulative policymaking." It's a fair political argument, but it doesn't cohere with the free-market argument, which states that free-market policies will actually result in a better economy. Nudge shows how free-market policies actually won't result in a better economy, in large part because the actors receiving, evaluating, and acting upon economic signals are HUMANS, not ECONS.

For those interested, I wrote an article about this type of stuff (and long before reading Nudge or much else in the way of behavioral economics) called "Unmasking the GOP's Faith-Based Economics" available @Truthout.org

Anyone who has taken a philosophy class or studied religion is probably familiar with the concept of free choice. On the surface, it seems like a very simple question: do individuals have free choice?

Your immediate reaction is probably affirmative. I have the choice to keep typing, but I also have the choice to stop typing or add unnecessary, punctuation. But as you dive deeper, things get more complicated. If we are simply atoms reacting to other atoms, what are the causes and what are the effects? On a macro (and more relatable) level, I choose what to eat for lunch everyday but why do I decide to eat foods that are undeniably bad for me? Why does the emotional side of my brain have greater sway than the logic side? What controls it? I surely don’t

Nudge is about the decisions we make. Our surroundings have a bigger impact on our decision making than we are willing to admit. Simple changes to our environment can have a huge impact both positively and negatively.

In this great book, Thaler and Sunstein walk us through the architectures of choice. They present the issues and provide possible solutions. From cafeterias to retirement plans to organ donors, this is a great book about how we can adjust environments to better our lives and the lives around us.

Of all the books on behavioral economics I have read, this is by far the most readable. The book is filled with practical understanding of concepts. This book is not about how we can control others, but how can we make better choices. Can nudges become a problem? Absolutely. I really appreciate the libertarian paternalism presented in the book.

As an economist, Nudge was a book that I desperately wanted to like. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Perhaps my low rating of the book stems from my high expectations of a book co-authored by the well-regarded behavioral economist Richard Thaler. Without such expectations, my rating might have been higher. But at the same time, without such expectations, I might not have bothered to read the book at all.

The only interesting part of the book is the first part, which consists of the first five chapters. Here, the authors lay out the main premise of the book. The decisions humans make are affected by "nudges." Since nudges are not easy to define, they are best explained through examples. The clearest example of a nudge is a default. When you register online at a site, you are often asked, "Would you like to receive future emails?" By default this box could be either checked or not checked. The default matters; that is, different results emerge under different defaults. The main point of the book is that nudges matter and thus should be carefully designed.

The rest of the book presents a laundry list of policies to which we should apply this principle. For me, this got boring fast. For some reason, the authors seem to be obsessed with identifying every possible nudge and offering their nudge design suggestions. The end of the paperback version of the book became really ridiculous - a bonus chapter of twenty more nudges. I think that the hardcover version is saved from this madness, because the bonus chapter was added after the publication of the hardcover version.

Many may find Nudge overly political. The authors weigh in on what they believe to be good nudges on a large number of hot political issues such as Medicare and same-sex marriage. I personally didn't mind their political stances as much as I minded the lack of economics.

The book is also poorly written. I felt that the publishers gave the authors complete free reign since the authors were well-regarded academics, and obviously academics don't need editors. One problem with the writing was the lack of a targeted audience. The book is supposed to be targeted towards a mass audience; or at least, that is the target of the book's marketing efforts. It is not a textbook or standard teaching material targeted towards undergraduate economics majors. It is also not a serious academic discourse targeted towards other economists. And yet, although it's supposed to be targeted towards the layman, the writing is oftentimes confused about its audience. Additionally, I didn't care for the writing style. While I do enjoy a casual and conversational tone, this book suffered from unnecessary tangential remarks that detracted from the main point. All of the writing issues in this book could have been easily rectified with a good editor. I don't fault the authors as much as I do the publishers for that oversight.

I weakly recommend Part I of Nudge to the intellectually curious layman. The rest of the book I recommend only to those want to read a laundry list of political suggestions.

There are two predominant beliefs about human nature and free will. One, which is popular among conservatives and libertarians, says that we are totally self-made, and have no one to blame, or credit, for our success or failure but ourselves.

According to this view, anyone can be a John Galt or Howard Roark if they only try. Because of this, government should simply allow as much freedom as possible. That way, the worthy can rise to the top and the slackers will become virtuous or die off, either way making society better.

The other view, common among leftists "intellectuals," says that humans are slaves to their genetics and environment. Thus, the only way to improve their lives is for the State to intervene and control them for their own good.

Both of these views are nonsense. The truth, as it usually does, lies in between these two equally untenable extremes. We are free to make up our own minds as well as slaves to human nature and limitations. What we are and do is a curious amalgamation of both our choices and the influences that come our way.

The authors of this excellent book admit this paradoxical truth, and use it as a foundation to create sensible public policies. Among the areas they address are school choice, retirement accounts, and healthcare. Their recommendations center around the idea that nudges in the right direction can assist people in making choices that will approve their quality of life.

One idea they propose is changing the default option on 401 K sign up forms, so that one must opt out of using a plan. Currently the exact opposite is the norm. One must expend effort to join, yet do nothing to avoid participating.

Theirs is a brilliant approach that will increase well-being while preserving freedom of choice. People will still be able to decline the best options. But, due to human tendencies like the "status quo bias," most of them will simply accept the default option, leading them to eat healthier, save money, and exercise more.

Those who critique this book on ideological grounds are, IMO, in denial about their own natures. Ayn Rand's heroes are cardboard caricatures, as are the flesh-and-blood automatons that inhabit the wacky theories of the far left. This fine volume dispenses with both of those silly views. In their place, it offers a reality-based approach to enhancing the welfare of individuals and society. It gets my highest recommendation.

I read Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler's Nudge with great interest. This work provides an overview of choice architecture from a policy planning perspective but also offers practical thoughts and tips that are related to how people might make their decisions in day-to-day life. It introduces the notion of essentially two brains. The one of the prefrontal cortex and the rational decision making and also the human brain that is rooted a little bit lower down. These make decisions differently, and all too often we think about decision making only regarding a mythical species called the homo economicus that is making decisions entirely irrationally. The authors go over some places where choice architects can help structure decisions either through creating defaults, placing options intelligently to help us make faster decisions with our less econ-like brain. They give some examples from simple design in food placement in cafeterias to default choices for organ donation that produce a relatively significant difference, without apparently affecting issues related to fairness. They discuss the notion of libertarian paternalism where people are free to choose but the State steps in, in a paternalistic way, to help them with these choices. People have the hardest time making decisions that they do not often confront, which often have significant consequences such as those they have to make when facing a disease, when choosing a job and so forth. Whereas they are good with everyday choices that they get rapid feedback on, deciding what to eat, products in a store and so forth.

The authors go through some simple situations where people tend to make misguided choices, forgetting the total costs in economic ventures such as buying a car in relation to the cost to rent or use one. They also talk a bit about practical ideas for changing things such as having taxes precomputed for us or having lights to remind us to change our air conditioner filters. I thought a lot of this was useful for simply arranging one’s everyday life, putting reminders out to help them make quick decisions and remembering that people, while they do have a rational brain, are also human.

Overall, a good book that I recommend heartily.

I admit to buying this book after Richard Thaler received the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in “understanding the psychology of economics.” And to be fair, this book was published in 2008, so I’m sure Mr. Thaler and Mr. Sunstein both have a large body of work that post-dates it.

The book is well written and the authors are methodical in both laying out their case and pointing out its potential flaws. It doesn’t compromise the book in any way, but I did find it a bit odd that they refer to themselves throughout the book in the third person. When I first came across it I had to recheck the cover to make sure they weren’t referring to someone else, but it’s a minor point of style.

I was enthused by the idea of mixing sciences; in this case psychology and economics. As the authors note, economists have historically worked with a proxy of the average person that is fully informed, completely rational, and lives in a vacuum. That’s not where the people who actually make, spend, and invest money actually live and that gap between what the authors term Econs and Humans has historically compromised a lot of otherwise sound economic theory.

The ideas in the book are built around what the authors call libertarian paternalism. Over-simplified, it’s paternalism with choice, in which the paternalism is achieved by nudging the choices in ways that are effective, but otherwise cheap in cost, modest in sacrifice, and easy to avoid. It’s a kind of win-win solution in which one win is slightly favored by human decency or universal standards of justice.

We are constantly nudged without always being conscious of the nudging. When you stand in front of a retail display deciding which shampoo to buy you may have no idea how deliberately that display has been constructed by the retailer and the manufacturers. Tremendous amounts of thought and research are behind it. It’s established fact that positioning drives sales, often more than the variations in products and prices themselves.

Most of the nudges that Professors Thaler and Sunstein introduce are less invasive and more transparent than the commercial nudges we are already subject to. How to get people to save more for retirement? How to get more organ donors? How to combat obesity and encourage people to live healthier life styles?

In all cases, there is ample evidence that this is what people themselves want. They are impeded in their efforts, however, by the realities of human psychology. Things like the “status quo bias”, “pluralistic ignorance”, and “loss aversion” are all existing nudges common to the human psyche. Fitting in, going along with the crowd, and irrational optimism are as natural as the sunrise.

Thaler and Sunstein just want to use these commonplace and natural biases to nudge people toward decisions that they probably want to make but frequently don’t, for reasons having little to do with the value of the intention. The idea makes a lot of sense and I found myself in general agreement most of the way.

I admit to having some difficulties with the context at times, however. For example, in their discussion relating to retirement savings, one chapter is titled, “Naïve Investing”, and the authors suggest ways in which savers could be enticed into more astute strategies by way of theoretically painless nudges. There is, however, an inevitable bias underlying the nudge itself. In this case it is the conventional wisdom that equities outperform fixed income investments over a long period of time. This is true in the aggregate and over a long period of time, of course, but not universally true when considering the investment needs and horizon of a single investor.

My point is not to argue that bias, however, which they, in fact, acknowledge. My point is merely that the nudge itself introduces its own contextual bias, creating, in effect, a multi-level bias that the “choice architects,” in the vernacular of nudging, must be cognizant of if the nudging is to realize the original objective of positive paternalistic influence.

The authors don’t ignore this incremental bias, mind you. On a related note, they cite the example of an Enron employee who lost his entire life savings in company stock, making a sound and appropriate argument in favor of further limiting 401k and defined benefit plan investments in company stock. They’re right, of course, although in this case I think an outright ban is ethically warranted.

The “nudge” is, more or less, an aggressive form of default planning that recognizes the weaknesses in human behavior, particularly our seemingly instinctive inability to understand probability theory. (As Peter Hollins points out, in a sample of 23 people the chances of two of them sharing a birthday is 50-50.)

In the closing chapters of the book the authors acknowledge the potential criticisms that will be leveled at libertarian paternalism from both the right and left extremes of the political spectrum. Their defense is a strong one but there is an implicit admission that said defense relies on the duality of paternalism and libertarianism. I agree with their assessment that the combined term is not an oxymoron, but one without the other will render the concept less defensible. And that’s where the execution, as they fully acknowledge, could compromise the intent. Or as the old adage goes, the only difference between theory and practice is the practice.

When all is said and done I think that what the authors are really advocating is simpler than it reads—moderation, compromise, and common sense. “With respect to government, we hope that the general approach might serve as a viable middle ground in our unnecessarily polarized society.” Nudge on.

When I talk to people outside my field, or in academia, I talk about this book in reference to Freakanomics, because that's how a lot of them are going to understand it: as a challenging book that blends psychology with economics, and comes to counter-intuitive conclusions. But for colleagues at the office, I call it what it really is: a manifesto; a call to action for the scientific bureaucrat.

The book is a mix between basic science findings, many covered in greater detail in the classic "Thinking, Fast and Slow," and case studies that the basic science is meant to inform. This being Thaler, there's quite a bit of coverage given to behavioural economic work on retirement savings, but there's an enjoyable medley other topics including healthcare, organ donation, and the countless "coffee mug" studies. The central thesis of the book is that human cognition is imperfect, with predictable biases arising from the heuristics people use, and that policy makers and people who design the environment the public make choices in should understand and accommodate these biases in an unobtrusive manner to help people accomplish what those people say they want in life. A sort of "libertarian paternalism." Nudges are the the arrangement of people's environment - such as default rules, structure of forms, and how information is presented - aimed at allowing people to better accomplish their own stated goals.

I think this book has fewer stars than some other books on behavioural economics (such as Thinking, Fast and Slow) because people misunderstand what this is and isn't. It isn't intended to be a book on basic science, like "Predictably Irrational" or "The Invisible Gorilla." It covers some the basic science, because it's important to the topic at hand, but what this book really strives to be is an anthem for better choice architecture. It's intended to be read by people who structure things, and shared with their colleagues.

There's a story that the British BIT got a helping hand becoming a thing when someone kept a stack of "Nudge" in their office to lend to just about anyone who would pass. In a similar vein, I've bought this book 3 times now, re-read it many more, and lent it or given it away to anyone who will take it and internalize the lessons, or be inspired by the case studies. I would heartily endorse this book.

People dont do whats in their best interest all the time. It will make you research more into finances. May be difficult for me to apply the lessons on how to influence peoples decisions but you can see enormous possibilites for those in the civil service.

Comprato per un corso universitario in Public Management. Scritto in modo assolutamente scorrevole ed a tratti anche divertente (i due autori, di cui l'ultimo premio Nobel per l' economia, si alternano, richiamano e prendono a volte in giro tra un aneddoto e l'altro).

Per chi non ha mai sentito parlare dell'argomento "nudge", questo libro ne è una sorta di pietra miliare (anche all'università, corso in Public Policies, ci è stato suggerito da 3 professori diversi per 3 corsi diversi).

Per chi invece già sa di cosa stiamo parlando, potrebbe risultare un po' ridondante e carente di una conclusione particolarmente illuminante rispetto alla letteratura già in circolazione.

Ad ogni modo il mio consiglio per chi sente l'argomento Nudge per la prima volta, per gli entusiasti di approcci innovativi e creativi (lateral thinking) e per i curiosi in generale è "Compratelo!". Assolutamente consigliato in quanto un ottimo investimento per il vostro tempo libero (o meno, nel mio caso).

E' quel tipo di lettura piacevole, su un argomento veramente interessante (ultimamente quasi di moda) capace di lasciarti un valore aggiunto.

N.B. Per chi parla la lingua, consigliata la versione originale rispetto alla traduzione. Per chi non se la sente o non parla inglese, quella in Italiano è comunque un ottimo acquisto!

Se siete al primo approccio e volete saperne di più, o toccare con mano. Vi consiglio di andare a curiosare su YouTube! Troverete una VALANGA di esempi di nudging in tutto il mondo.

[ARGOMENTO, per chi fosse curioso di avere qualche impressione in più rispetto alla trama ufficiale: Il libro introduce al tema della "spinta gentile" (come è stata tradotta in Italia) - sarebbe quella spintarella per farti coraggio o l'incentivo per prendere una decisione.

Il senso è trovare il modo tramite cui indurre le persone ad adottare comportamenti "raccomandabili" in maniera del tutto spontanea, scorrevole (che portino quindi ad un valore aggiunto per loro stessi e per la società in generale). E' ovviamente un approccio "democratico" in quanto lascia sempre libero arbitrio a chiunque ma, cambiando il modo in cui tutte le alternative sono proposte e presentate, aumenta la probabilità che la scelta propenda verso l'alternativa desiderata da "l'ideatore" o dal "public manager" (il concetto sarebbe, come già anticipato, non farlo per fini personali) .

Parte da esempi quotidiani ripresi da tutto il modo (a partire dai risultati ottenuti mettendo una mosca finta dentro molti bagni pubblici maschili) per poi approcciare gradualmente a tematiche più manageriali, quali incentivi nel sistema assicurativo, per i sistemi pensionistici e così via.]

Buona lettura!

Giulia

This is a classic and a must have for behavioral scientists, designers and for lay readers alike. Many parts are universal and applicable in several lines of work.

Es una obra básica para entender la implementación de políticas aplicando la economía del comportamiento. Junto con “Misbehaving” y Thinking fast and slow” ofrecen un panorama comprensivo sobre esta rama de la economía.

Great book - the concept has a lot of practical applications. I purchased this for my 12 year old who had to read it for school. While he appreciated its value, some of the explanations were a little complex for him and dry.