When Nudging Turns Into Deception

Imagine that you’re very hungry, so you enter a cafeteria to get some food. You come in craving a burger or a pizza, but you notice that the salad bar is welcoming you at the beginning of the aisle. So you fill your plate with salad, only to realize at the cashier that the burger station was right at the end. You missed out on your favorite food, but at least you got a healthier option, right? This subtle influence on your behavior is called "nudging." If you’re the cafeteria owner, this sounds like a great way of promoting certain behaviors, but as a customer, isn’t it annoying?

Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at the University of Chicago and Nobel Prize winner Richard Thaler, along with Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein,

popularized the term "nudge" in their book Nudge. They define nudge theory as "choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way" (Thaler and Sunstein). The idea behind it is that "we have limited attention" and nudging can "get us to pay attention" to what the nudger thinks is important. They describe nudging with the interesting analogy of a tourist using a GPS. When you use GPS, you’re using a tool that "increases navigability." You’re never forced to go anywhere, the GPS gives the recommended route, but you’re the one who chooses the destination—you’re the one in control. If you see a nice view, you can pull over or change the route and the GPS won’t "yell" at you (Thaler and Sunstein).

Thaler and Sunstein refer to nudge theory as a form of "libertarianism paternalism" or "soft paternalism," which is a situation that largely influences people’s decisions but still preserves their freedom of choice (Thaler and Sunstein). This can be seen in the cafeteria

example where healthy foods were presented more prominently or in a more visually appealing manner but didn’t encroach on people's freedom.

Behavioral scientists celebrate nudging because of its potential to save hundreds of lives and improve welfare. A famous example of this is organ donation. A study published in Science Magazine titled "Do Defaults Save Lives?" states that when countries ask citizens to opt-in for organ donations, only 42% of people choose to donate (Johnson and Goldstein). However, when citizens are automatically enrolled as donors with the option to opt-out, the rate of consent almost doubles to 82%. To explore this behavioral phenomenon, another study titled "The Meaning of Default Options for Potential Organ Donors" gave donors a spectrum to evaluate the emotional significance of donating organs (Ross). On the far left of the spectrum, donations are viewed as the simple act of "voting for a mayor," and on the far right, donating feels like "volunteering for a dangerous military assignment." Judging by this spectrum, when the form had an opt-in system, donors saw their action as close to "giving away half their wealth to charity after death", while opt-out systems felt as inconvenient as someone cutting them in line. The study notes that the reason behind this discrepancy is that default options "impose emotional costs" on someone who attempts to make an off-default decision. But even if nudge practices like these yield great benefits to individuals and societies, is it still considered ethical to influence people’s decisions?

In Switzerland, an electricity company offered customers five different energy options, ranging from less environmentally friendly but cheaper to more environmentally friendly but more expensive (Ghesla). The default option was an intermediately green and intermediately expensive contract, and customers will be enrolled in this contract unless they opt-out. The study found that although the green default option reduces emissions, it also comes at a considerable

cost to consumers. Low-income households with lower levels of education usually find the default option as a recommendation, and making a decision outside the default would be too complicated; therefore, the green default option would “effectively act as a hidden tax on the poor" (Ghesla). The study concludes that while the green default option achieves its intended environmental effect, policymakers should be aware of the unjust impact it has on certain groups.

Going back to Thaler and Sunstein’s GPS analogy, while we’re the ones who choose the destination, we’re not necessarily in the driver’s seat of our decision-making; sometimes nudgers get too involved to the point where they take the wheel and lead us to destinations we didn’t ask for.

If we were to have a spectrum that measured the level of influence on people’s behavior, we’d have four levels. On the far left would be nudging, then economic incentives, then laws, and lastly coercion. As you move to the right, you increase the impact but also carry the risk of outrage from people. The challenge behavioral economists have been facing is identifying which practices fall under the ethical nudge level and which ones are influential to the point of manipulation. Yes, nudging’s main advantage is preserving freedom of choice, but it still carries a high chance to "manipulate people and be objectionable for that" (Sunstein 416).

In some cases, nudging is obviously manipulative. Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, a pioneer in the field of mass media propaganda and known as the father of public relations, pushed the concept of nudging to the extreme. He was employed by Lucky Strikes, a tobacco company, to help normalize smoking among women in the 1930s

(Gunderman). He accomplished this by displaying smoking as a symbol of independence. Bernays also convinced doctors to endorse cigarettes as healthier than sweets, which allowed him to utilize the slogan "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet." The promotion became more

than just a product; it became a movement. Bernays even went so far as to advertise cigarettes as both soothing to the throat and slimming to the waistline. He persuaded women that the green hue of the cigarette pack was actually fashionable by manifesting the cigarette packet colors in fashion shows and window displays. Interestingly, as he was pushing the smoking propaganda, he was trying to convince his wife to quit smoking because he was aware of the early studies linking smoking to cancer (Gunderman).

Besides Lucky Strike’s clear example of manipulation, it’s generally tricky to classify whether a nudge is manipulative or not. T.M. Wilkinson, an Associate Professor in Political Studies at the University of Auckland and the former chair of New Zealand's Bioethics Council, argues that the main ingredient for manipulation is temptation, or playing on people’s emotions (Wilkinson). For instance, a UK resident anonymously reported in an UnHerd article how she was in "turmoil" when she received a nudge letter from the UK’s tax payments authority, HMRC (UnHerd). The letter is supposed to act as a reminder to pay taxes and to inform the receiver that most people in their local area have paid their taxes except for them. From the government’s perspective, these letters help "bring forward around £210 million of tax revenue" in a year, according to the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team (BIT). From the citizen’s perspective, she experienced panic that even reached the point of considering suicide because of the

"astronomical bills" that are presented in the letter with a "threatening" tone and hardly any details (UnHerd). In this case, such a letter can be considered tempting. Wilkinson counts such letters as manipulative because they display "emoticons" to make us "feel morally superior or inferior to others" (Wilkinson). After months of fear, she finds out that she doesn’t owe the government money at all, and this supposedly "harmless" letter was just to nudge citizens to pay early (UnHerd).

Because nudging has the power to change how people behave, some organizations might abuse this practice. Thus, Thaler and Sunstein have set up three criteria that qualify a nudge to be ethical: Make it transparent to the audience, make it easy to opt out of the decision, and nudge for people's sake (Thaler and Sunstein). In a New York Times article, Thaler shares a personal anecdote about a nudging experience that fails to meet those criteria. He was trying to read an article in The Times of London when he hit a pay wall (Thaler). He has "no beef with pay walls," and the website offers £1 for the first month to nudge users into subscribing. So far, this sounds like a good deal, but after reading the details, he realized that when the trial ends, he’ll be automatically enrolled in a £26 per month plan. And to cancel, Thaler must call London during British business hours, not on a toll-free number, and give them 15 days notice about his cancellation. This nudge clearly violates the three conditions: its instructions are unclear and not upfront, opting out is a hassle, and it prioritizes the company’s best interests over the user’s.

Behavioral economics defends nudging by putting forward the assertion that the public is stupid, or as they say "irrational", and therefore, they can’t run their own lives properly. To use an economist's phrase, people are unable to maximize their own utility. Because they're incompetent, an organization must intervene and nudge them away from what they would like to do. This is marketed under the premise of "caring for the customer." Regardless of whether or not humans are irrational, economists shouldn’t smear a person’s purposeful action with a label like "irrational" when it’s merely personal preference. At the end of the day, everyone has a subjective self.

This is the major issue with the idea of nudging: it assumes that experts know what’s best for people. A blogger on the Royal Society of Arts website complains about how Tesco reduced the size of plastic bags to the size of an A4 sheet of paper (RSA). While it didn't bother the

narrator too much, the man next in line was frustrated as he crammed his gallons of milk into those small bags. For Tesco, this seemed like a clever nudge to encourage customers to bring their own bags. However, this nudge was counterproductive since most people ended up using more bags than usual due to the lack of communication and alternative options at the cashier (RSA). When nudgers put consumers in a situation like this, they might reach the threshold of an unethical nudge that Sunstein once described, when consumers react by saying, "That was awful. Why did that happen? I’m sadder and poorer" (Sunstein).

Cass Sunstein, director of the Behavioral Economics program at Harvard Law School, justifies nudging by claiming it is inevitable: "Choice architecture cannot be avoided. Nature itself nudges; so does the weather; so do customs and traditions." However, nudging from nature can’t be compared to intentional nudging applied by the government or corporations, which usually serves a certain agenda. Wilkinson challenges this argument of inevitability by

suggesting that "options would better be presented at random," and this way "no-one would be under anyone else's control." If we apply this, cafeterias won’t present foods in a certain order, and electricity companies would enroll people randomly in energy plans, but is this really effective?

It’s self-evident, especially in the years of the pandemic, that people simply don’t like being told what to do, even if it’s for their benefit. It’s because nudging can go against personal autonomy. If we look at democracy, individual freedom is considered a priority, and the government shouldn't be meddling in our choices. But in reality, the government is already influencing the public’s behavior in many ways, and nudging is just one of them. Bernays believes that the "true ruling power" of a country is this sort of manipulation that constitutes an "invisible government." He writes, "Our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of" (Bernays). So the question becomes: When should a democracy make prohibitive laws, when should it nudge, and when should it do nothing at all? The answer is simple: "The appropriate tool depends on the problem," as Thaler frames it (Thaler). Big problems like climate change might require all the tools of regulation, from incentives to nudges, and the authors of Nudge suggest that if the consequences of a decision are severe, "nudging might not be enough." Conversely, if a decision is "inflicting harm on others, freedom of choice is not the best idea" (Thaler). It’s just that nudging is more acceptable since it’s less controlling, while laws are more serious and strict.

As the saying goes: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. When people realize that they were manipulated with exaggerated information or with default options, they will grow immune and start ignoring such nudges. In fact, they might even attempt to do the exact opposite because they have lost trust in nudgers, which is when behavioral economics becomes powerless. And from the government’s perspective, if nudging doesn’t work, the only alternative would be to use authoritarian force.

Works Cited

Bernays, Edward L. Biography of an Idea: The Founding Principles of Public Relations. Open Road Media, 2015.

Bernays, Edward L. Propaganda. Ig Publishing, 2004.

Bousquet, Chris. “When Government Nudging Is Ethical.” Government Technology, 31 March 2017, https://www.govtech.com/data/when-government-nudging-is-ethical.html.

Being Nudged by Tesco, Royal Society of Arts (RSA), 25 February 2009, .

Ghesla, Claus. “Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults.” ScienceDirect, February 2020,

.

Gunderman, Richard. “The manipulation of the American mind: Edward Bernays and the birth of public relations.” The Conversation, 9 July 2015,

.

Johnson, Eric J., and Daniel Goldstein. “Do Defaults Save Lives?” Science Magazine, 21 November 2003, .

Ross, Lee D. “The meaning of default options for potential organ donors | Stanford SPARQ.” Stanford SPARQ, 18 September 2012,

.

Neilson, Kate. “Is Nudge Theory ethical? And are you already doing it without noticing?” HRM online, 8 May 2019,

.

Alismail 9

Ruda, Simon, and Freddie Sayers. “Will nudge theory survive the pandemic?” UnHerd, 13 January 2022, .

McKinsey & Company. “Much anew about 'nudging.'” McKinsey, 6 August 2021,

.

Sunstein, Cass R. “The Ethics of Nudging.” Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 2015,

.

“Behavioural Insights Tax Trials Win Civil Service Award.” The Behavioural Insights Team, 22 November 2013,

Thaler, Richard H. “A closer look at nudging with Richard Thaler.” YouTube, UBS Nobel Perspectives, 4 June 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ_9m7yERUw.

Thaler, Richard H. “'Nudge' author Richard H. Thaler: Is the Government manipulating us?” YouTube, UnHerd, 2 September 2021, . Thaler, Richard H. “The Power of Nudges, for Good and Bad (Published 2015).” The New York Times, 31 October 2015,

.

Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin Publishing Group, 2009.

T. M. Wilkinson. “Nudging and Manipulation.” Wilson Online Library, 7 September 2012, .