Page 78 - MYM 2015

added to the debate with their description of two distinct systems of cognition that in uence decision making based on emerging experimental studies from social psychology and brain imaging. They describe these systems as: Systems One and Systems Two.
System One is more intuitive, reactive, quick and holistic. In System One thinking, we rely on a number of heuristics (Cognitive manoeuvres and short cuts), situational prompts, readily associated ideas, and vivid memories to arrive at fast and con dent decisions. ‘System One’ thinking is particularly helpful in routine situations when time is short and immediate action is necessary. However, while System One is functioning, another powerful system is also at work unless people speci cally shut it down by for example drinking a lot of alcohol. This system is called ‘System Two’.
System Two is our more re ective thinking system that we use for making judgments when we nd ourselves in complex or unfamiliar situations, and when we
have more time to consider the costs and bene ts of
a particular course of action. It allows us to process abstract concepts, to deliberate, to plan ahead, to weigh options carefully, to review and revise our decisions in the light of relevant standards or rules of procedure
and evidence. A problem with Systems Two thinking
is that it is exhausting and dif cult. People tend not
to use this form of thinking very much. System Two is described by Kahneman as ‘Our lazy controller’. System Two decisions are more deliberative, however they are still in uenced by the same heuristics that impact on System One. System Two uses reasoning based on what people have learned through analysis, evaluation, explanation, and self-correction. This is the system which people rely on to think carefully through complex, novel, high-stakes, and highly integrative problems. However, for most of the time according Kahneman (2011) we much prefer to operate in System One mode.
Richard Thaler an economist began importing this new theory into economics. Much of this work is set out in his book with Cass Sunstein called ‘Nudge’ (2008). Nudge like a number of similar books brings together
a neo libertarian philosophy promoted by Thaler and Sunstein (2008) together with a number of case studies about how redesigning systems using some of the new behavioral theory derived from social psychology can make it easier for more people to make positive social choices, albeit choices that do not always require them to fully engage with a decision in a conscious Systems Two sense.
Thaler and Sunstein lay out a set of concepts that can help inform people with the responsibility for
developing choice situations in social programs. Thaler and Sunstein call these people ‘Choice Architects’
and their role is to guide how choices and prompts to positive social behavior can be set up. The hallmark
of this kind of ‘paternalism’ is a focus not on tackling the determinants of social issues by removing causal prompts such as cheap alcohol or by punishing ‘bad’ behavior or by nagging people about what they should do. Rather the focus is on incentivizing positive choices and creating the conditions or systems in which people feel able to and want to make constructive choices for their own and their families’ bene t, or constructing choices that require little or no effort that result in
a positive personal and social bene ts. Thaler and Sunstein describe ‘Choice Architecture’ as designing systems and services in such a way that the good choice, such as the healthy choice is the easy and rewarding choice.
This kind of paternalism locates responsibility with individuals but also with providers of public services, NGOS’s, private organizations and social businesses to create the ‘choice architecture’ that will ‘Nudge’ people in the right direction.
Libertarian Paternalism as advocated by Sunstein
and Thaler (2003) seeks a middle ground between
a state dominated coercive paternalistic approach to social improvement and a more liberal approach that emphasizes free choice and the power of the market as the key driver. They argue that ‘Nudges’ are a practical representation of this middle ground. Around the world many governments are beginning to explore how this theory can be operationalized.
Why We Need More Than Nudges
Nudging is an approach to policy development
and tactical implementation that is being actively considered by many governments. However, before adopting a position that positive rewards and mindless choosing are the default intervention mode it needs to be recognized that such approaches will not work in all situations, Grist (2010).
Nudges are by their nature paternalistic. They are top-down, they are designed by ‘Choice Architects’ not by the people themselves. They are directive and they are controlling. In this sense the application
of a Nudge based approach runs counter to social policy drivers for a more citizen directed response to issues. It is also the case that a focus on unconscious ‘System One’ thinking or environmental designs
will not be the solution to every social challenge. In some circumstances it will be necessary to use
78 I October 2015