Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T23:32:06.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nudge/sludge symmetry: on the relationship between nudge and sludge and the resulting ontological, normative and transparency implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

STUART MILLS Open the ORCID record for STUART MILLS [Opens in a new window]
STUART MILLS*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, London, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Research Fellow in the Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics, London, UK. Email: s.mills3@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A recent development within nudge theory is the concept of sludge, which imposes frictions on decision-making. Nascent literature adopts a normative interpretation of sludge: nudge good, sludge bad. However, this normative interpretation leaves much to be desired. A clear definition and treatment of sludge remains absent from this literature, as is a complete understanding of ‘frictions’. Furthermore, the relationship between nudges and sludges is unclear. This paper proposes the concept of nudge/sludge symmetry in an attempt to advance the conceptual understanding of sludge. Building from the definition of a nudge, three types of friction permissible under nudge theory are identified: hedonic, social and obscurant. Sludge is then positioned, in terms of frictions, relative to nudge: nudges decrease relative frictions, sludges increase relative frictions. A consequence of this proposition is nudge/sludge symmetry – where a nudge decreases the frictions associated with a specific option, sludge is simultaneously imposed on all other options available to a decision-maker. Nudge/sludge symmetry subsequently challenges the normative interpretation of sludge, and so a new framework drawing on the literature on nudges in the private sector is offered, with the choice architect placed at the centre. This new approach to sludge and emphasis on the role of the choice architect, in turn, reaffirms the importance of transparency in public policy interventions.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 309 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allcott, H. (2011), ‘Social norms and energy conservation’ Journal of Public Economics, 95: 1082–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allcott, H. and Kessler, J. (2019), ‘The Welfare Effects of Nudges: A Case Study of Energy use Social Comparisons’ American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(1): 236–276.Google Scholar
Allcott, H. and Rogers, T. (2014), ‘The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation’ American Economic Review, 104(10): 3003–3037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bang, H. M., Shu, S. and Weber, E. (2020), ‘The role of perceived effectiveness on the acceptability of choice architecture’ Behavioural Public Policy, 4(1): 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Gill, O. (2012), Seduction by Contract: Law, Economics, and Psychology in Consumer Markets, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S. (2017), The Smarter Screen: Surprising Ways to Influence and Improve Online Behavior, USA: Portfolio Penguin.Google Scholar
Berg, J. (2018), ‘Obfuscating with transparency’ Science, 360(6385): 133CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernheim, D. (1994), ‘A Theory of Conformity’ Journal of Political Economy, 102(5): 841–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beshears, J., Milkman, K., Dai, H. and Benartzi, S. (2016),, ‘Framing the Future: The Risks of Pre-Commitment Nudges and Potential of Fresh-start Messaging’ Working Paper. [Online] [Date Accessed: 09/04/2019]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5353b838e4b0e68461b517cf/t/583ca5acd2b8571174b28e40/1480369581625/48-Beshears_et_al_2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Bovens, L. (2009), ‘The ethics of nudge’ in Grüne-Yanoff, T. and Hansson, S. O. Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology, (2009), Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bruns, H., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Klement, K., Jonsson, M. L. and Rahali, B. (2018), ‘Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?’ Journal of Economic Psychology, 65: 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, M. (2019), ‘Instagram's anti-bullying AI asks users: “Are you sure you want to post this?”’ The Guardian. [Online] [Date accessed: 03/08/2020]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/09/instagram-bullying-new-feature-do-you-want-to-post-thisGoogle Scholar
Bucher, T., Collins, C., Rollo, M., McCaffrey, T., de Vlieger, N., van der Bend, D., Truby, H. and Perez-Cueto, F. (2016), ‘Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: a systematic review of positional influences on food choice’ British Journal of Nutrition, 115: 2252–2263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cambridge Dictionary (2020), ‘Obscuration’ [Online] [Date accessed: 18/09/2020]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/obscurationGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S., Wilford, M., Kornell, N. and Mullaney, K. (2013), ‘Appearances can be deceiving: instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning’ Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20: 1350–1356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cialdini, R. and Goldstein, N. (2004), ‘Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity’ Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 591–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cialdini, R., Demaine, L., Sagarin, B., Barrett, D., Rhoads, K. and Winter, P. (2005), ‘Managing social norms for persuasive impact’ Social Influence, 1(1): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaney, L. (2018), ‘Behavioural Insights Team: ethical, professional and historical considerations’ Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2): 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. and Vaughan, E. (2011), ‘Fortune favours the (): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes’ Cognition, 118(1): 111–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy,. Harper & Row Publishers: New York.Google Scholar
Goldhill, O. (2019), ‘Politicians love nudge theory. But beware its doppelgänger, “sludge”’. Quartz. [Online] [Date accessed: 27/07/2020]: https://qz.com/1679102/sludge-takes-nudge-theory-to-new-manipulative-levels/Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2015), ‘On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism’ Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6: 361–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagman, W., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D. and Tinghög, G. (2015), ‘Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges’ Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6: 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, D. (2015), Inside the Nudge Unit: How small changes can make a big difference,. UK: WH Allen.Google Scholar
Hattke, F., Hensel, D. and Kalucza, J. (2019), ‘Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape’ Public Administration Review, 80(1): 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. and Welch, B. (2010), ‘Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge’ The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, P., De Leire, T., Harvey, H. and Moynihan, D. (2013), ‘Shifting Administrative Burden to the State: The Case of Medicaid Take-Up’ Public Administration Review, 73(1): 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hern, A. (2020), ‘Twitter aims to limit people sharing articles they have not read’ The Guardian. [Online] [Date accessed: 03/08/2020]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/11/twitter-aims-to-limit-people-sharing-articles-they-have-not-readGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R. and Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017), ‘Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions’ Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6): 973–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ip, E., Saeri, A., Tear, M. (2018), ‘Sludge: how corporations “nudge” us into spending more’ The Conversation. [Online] [Date accessed: 27/07/2020]: https://theconversation.com/sludge-how-corporations-nudge-us-into-spending-more-101969Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’ Econometrica, 47(2): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroese, F., Marchiori, D. and de Ridder, D. (2016), ‘Nudging healthy food choices: A field experiment at the train station’ Journal of Public Health, 38: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lades, L. and Delaney, L. (forthcoming), ‘Nudge FORGOOD’ Behavioural Public Policy. DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2019.53Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D., Rajpal, S. (2015), ‘Warning: You are about to be nudged’ Behavioral Science and Policy, 1(1): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madrian, B., Shea, D. (2001), ‘The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior’ The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4): 1149–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mersch, D. (2018), ‘Obfuscated Transparency’ in Alloa, E, Thomä, D (eds.) ‘Transparency, Society and Subjectivity’ (2018), SpringerLinkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (2001), On Liberty, (1859). Ontario: Batoche Books Limited.Google Scholar
Mills, C. (2018), ‘The Choice Architect's Trilemma’ Res Publica, 24: 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S. (forthcoming), ‘Personalized Nudging’ Behavioural Public Policy. DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2020.7Google Scholar
Motyka, S., Suri, R., Grewal, D. and Kohli, C. (2016), ‘Disfluent vs. fluent price offers: paradoxical role of processing disfluency’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(5): 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D., Herd, P. and Harvey, H. (2015), ‘Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1): 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobel, N. (2018), ‘Nudge vs. sludge – the ethics of behavioral interventions’. Impactually. [Online] [Date accessed: 27/07/2020]: https://impactually.se/nudge-vs-sludge-the-ethics-of-behavioral-interventions/Google Scholar
Oliver, A. (2015), ‘Nudging, shoving and budging: behavioural economic-informed policy’ Public Administration, 93(3): 700–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, A. (2019), ‘Towards a New Political Economy of Behavioral Public Policy’ Public Administration Review, 79(6): 917–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebonato, R. (2014), ‘A Critical Assessment of Libertarian Paternalism’ Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(3): 357–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reijula, S. and Hertwig, R. (forthcoming), ‘Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect’ Behavioural Public Policy, DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2020.5Google Scholar
Sætra, H. (2019), ‘The tyranny of perceived opinion: Freedom and information in the era of big data’ Technology in Society, 59, p. 101155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sætra, H. (2020), ‘Liberty, Psychological Force and Algorithmic Power: Why liberal political theory also takes issue with technologies of control’ Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Sanders, M., Snijders, V. and Hallsworth, M. (2018),, ‘Behavioural science and policy: where are we now and where are we going?’, Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2): 144–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahab, S. and Lades, L. (2020), ‘Sludge and Transaction Costs’ Working Paper 202007, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soman, D. (2020), ‘Sludge: A Very Short Introduction’ BEAR. [Online] [Date accessed: 18/09/2020]: https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/-/media/Files/Programs-and-Areas/BEAR/White-Papers/BEARxBIOrg-Sludge-Introduction.pdf?la=en&hash=DCB98795CB485977A04DDB27EFD800C3DA40220EGoogle Scholar
Soman, D., Xu, J. and Cheema, A. (2010), ‘Decision points: A theory emerges’ Rotman Magazine Winter, pp. 64–68Google Scholar
Steffel, M., Williams, E. and Pogacar, R. (2016), ‘Ethically Deployed Defaults: Transparency and Consumer Protection Through Disclosure and Preference Articulation’ Journal of Marketing Research, 53: 865–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. (1996), ‘Social Norms and Social Roles’ Columbia Law Review, 96(4): 903–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2012), ‘Impersonal Default Rules vs. Active Choices vs. Personalized Default Rules: A Triptych’, SSRN. [Online] [Date accessed: 10/07/2019]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2171343Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2013), ‘The Storrs Lectures: Behavioral Economics and Paternalism’ The Yale Law Journal, 122(7): 1670–2105.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2019), ‘Sludge Ordeals’ Duke Law Journal, 68: 1843–1883.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2020), ‘Behavioral Welfare Economics’ Journal of Benefits and Costs, 11(2): 196–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. (forthcoming), ‘Sludge Audits’ Behavioural Public Policy. DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2019.3.2Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. and Gosset, J. (forthcoming), ‘Optimal Sludge? The Price of Program Integrity’ Duke Law Journal. Accessed via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3642942Google Scholar
Tocqueville, A. (2000), Democracy in America, USA: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. (2018), ‘Nudge, not sludge’ Science, 361(6401): 431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Thunström, L. (2019), ‘The welfare effects of nudges’ Judgment and Decision Making, 14(1): 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyers, R. (2018), ‘Nudging the Jetset to Offset: Voluntary Carbon Offsetting and the Limits to Nudging’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Wendel, S. (2016), ‘Behavioral Nudges and Consumer Technology’ in Abdukadirov, S. (eds.) Nudge Theory in Action: Behavioral Design in Policy and Markets, (2016). Palgrave MacMillan: UKGoogle Scholar