13 Comments on Nudge, nudge, think, think

Tessy Britton on Fri, 8th May 2009 6:40 pm


It is very encouraging to see thinking moving in this direction – and really tackles one of my main frustrations with current debate. This primarily concerns their descriptions of ‘view of subjects’, which neatly describes the continuum between a positivist and an anti-positivist view of human functioning. We can all be open to strange influences, not thinking straight etc, but what is interesting is our innate capacities to learn.

The ‘think’ element under ‘role of the state’ is very appealing indeed… sounds a bit like education

Nigel Edwards on Fri, 8th May 2009 6:40 pm


yep, more please

carl allen on Fri, 8th May 2009 9:06 pm


Role of the state … seems to assume that the state is a software programme which acts as an entity. Another assumption seems to be that the software resists code changes.

Jamie Young on Sat, 9th May 2009 9:32 am


Here’s a link to the paper if anyone wants to get hold of it:
http://www.civicbehaviour.org.uk/documents/nudge_nudge_think_think_PJ31March2009_000.pdf

I think the “think” and the “nudge” strategy are def. complementary. For example, if the state wanted to reduce harmful behaviour that was (for the most part) habitual and unconscious, then “nudging” seems a better strategy, but if it’s consciously harmful behaviour, then “think” (or education as Tessy said above) is more appropriate.

I think there are two problems with using “nudging” to correct bigger, more seriously harmful behaviour – it’s less transparent (relies on unusual psychological quirks that people may not know they are subject to) and it’s more infantilising than education (which reminds me of this post Mark Easton wrote the other day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/05/now_wash_your_hands.html).

Tessy Britton on Sat, 9th May 2009 5:59 pm


Thank you Jamie for linking to the full article. Although the key argument was to see ‘nudge’ and ‘think’ as complimentary, I thought one of the most insightful assertions was that:

“The two approaches of ‘nudge’ and ‘think’ are fundamentally different… They are not just part of the menu of choices that policy-makers may neutrally select… They disagree fundamentally about the preferred course of action and what it can be expected to produce.”

Although in the context of policy examples of the use of ‘nudge’ are often benign, your point about transparency is very important. But what could be considered as equally unfavourable is that it often results in a very short term (or shallow) behaviour change.

The ‘think’ approach, which the paper begins to explore, demonstrates a much ‘deeper’ approach, where potential behaviour change is self-directed, fuelled by conscious cognitive processes and information and reinforced by social interaction.

If the two processes are complimentary, it would be use ‘nudge’ to tackle immediate short term problems, and ‘think’ for long-term, deep changes in society that encourage participation and engagement – where behaviour change is just a fortunate by-product, rather than a direct aim.

I really liked Mark Easton’s article too. Reminded me of the excellent quote by Jay Cross ‘People enjoy change… but they don’t like to be changed”

matthewtaylor on Mon, 11th May 2009 7:45 am


Thanks Jamie – really helpful comment. Of course, one way to deal with the issues of lower transparency and the danger of infantilising is to ‘think about nudging’; to precede nudging with public deliberation. There is no contradiction n the idea that the public, aware of ts own psychological or ethical frailties, chooses to be nudged

matthewtaylor on Mon, 11th May 2009 7:47 am


Hi Nigel. I will come back to this, but as you can see there is already a good conversation going on in the comment pages. My colleague Jamie Young is overseeing a project which looks to apply these kinds of questions to practical policy challenges.

matthewtaylor on Mon, 11th May 2009 7:49 am


Hi Tessy. I wonder if we can go further even than ‘complementary’ and explore how think and nudge can be integrated in ‘clumsy’ policy solutions.

Tessy Britton on Mon, 11th May 2009 8:16 am


An in-depth understanding of human functioning, and intelligent approaches that incorporate this understanding, can only improve policy….

Choosing to be nudged? If nudging attempts to by-pass conscious decision making, then deliberation may negate it’s effects…. potentially?

Changing Behaviour Change | Left Foot Forward on Tue, 15th Jun 2010 5:31 pm


[...] ‘Think’ approach, advocated by Gerry Stoker, is passionately democratic, and contends that if we [...]

Directing choice and managing behaviour | 4orty2wo on Fri, 18th Jun 2010 6:53 am


[...] expectations which are conveyed through body language and reactions and simple mimesis. The ‘Think’ approach, … contends that if we deliberate collectively as rational agents responsive to [...]

Nudging the Issue | Influence and networks | Global Dashboard on Mon, 23rd Aug 2010 6:59 am


[...] to nudge the people to war (see the video below). The alternative approach to Nudge has been called Think. It’s a bit more old fashioned – you try to explain things to people to allow them to [...]

Nudging the Issue | Global system | Global Dashboard on Mon, 23rd Aug 2010 7:36 am


[...] alternative approach to Nudge has been called Think. It’s a bit more old-fashioned – you try to explain things to people to allow them to [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!