Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:00:06.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Message and Environment: a framework for nudges and choice architecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2018

LUCA CONGIU Open the ORCID record for LUCA CONGIU [Opens in a new window]  and
IVAN MOSCATI
LUCA CONGIU*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
IVAN MOSCATI
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
*
*Correspondence to: Department of Economics, University of Insubria, via Monte Generoso 71, 21100Varese, Italy. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that the diverse components of a choice architecture can be classified into two main dimensions – Message and Environment – and that the distinction between them is useful in order to better understand how nudges work. In the first part of this paper, we define what we mean by nudge, explain what Message and Environment are, argue that the distinction between them is conceptually robust and show that it is also orthogonal to other distinctions advanced in the nudge literature. In the second part, we review some common types of nudges and show they target either Message or Environment or both dimensions of the choice architecture. We then apply the Message–Environment framework to discuss some features of Amazon's website and, finally, we indicate how the proposed framework could help a choice architect to design a new choice architecture.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 71 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ariely, D. (2009), Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions, Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Barton, A. and Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2015), ‘From Libertarian Paternalism to Nudging – and Beyond’, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3): 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behavioural Insights Team (2013), Applying Behavioural Insights to Charitable Giving. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-behavioural-insights-to-charitable-giving.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. and Stanovich, K. E. (2013), ‘Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3): 223–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, P. G. (2016), ‘The Definition of Nudge and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the Hand Fit the Glove?’ European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(1): 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, P. G. and Jespersen, A. M. (2013), ‘Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice: A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy’, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. M. and Welch, B. (2010), ‘Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershfield, H. E., Goldstein, D. G., Sharpe, W. F., Fox, J., Yeykelis, L., Carstensen, L. L. and Bailenson, J. N. (2011), ‘Increasing Saving Behavior through Age-Progressed Renderings of the Future Self’, Journal of Marketing Research, 48: S23–S37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E. J., Shu, S. B., Dellaert, B. G. C., Fox, C., Goldstein, D. G., Häubl, G., Larrick, R. P., Payne, J. W., Peters, E., Schkade, D., Wansink, B. and Weber, E. U. (2012), ‘Beyond Nudges: Tools of a Choice Architecture’, Marketing Letters, 23(2): 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. and Gigerenzer, G. (2011), ‘Intuitive and Deliberate Judgments Are Based on Common Principles’, Psychological Review, 118(1): 97–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mongin, P. and Cozic, M. (2018), ‘Rethinking Nudge: Not One But Three Concepts’, Behavioural Public Policy, 2(1): 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhee, N. and Boivie, I. (2015), ‘The Continuing Retirement Savings Crisis’, National Institute on Retirement Security. Available at: www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/final_rsc_2015.pdf.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. (1952), ‘Probability, Utility and the Independence Axiom’, Econometrica, 20(4): 670–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1973), ‘Behaviour and the Concept of Preference’, Economica, 40(159): 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1993), ‘Internal Consistency of Choice’, Econometrica, 61(3): 495–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1997), ‘Maximization and the Act of Choice’, Econometrica, 65(4): 745–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2016), ‘People Prefer System 2 Nudges (Kind of)’, Duke Law Journal, 66(1): 121–168.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Benartzi, S. (2004), ‘Save More Tomorrow™: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving’, Journal of Political Economy, 112(1): S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science, 184(4157): 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981), ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice’, Science, 211(4481): 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wansink, B., Kent, R. J. and Hoch, S. J. (1998), ‘An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Purchase Quantity Decisions’, Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1): 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar