US president Barack Obama copped a bit of flak in 2009 for appointing a Harvard law professor to a senior White House regulatory position. The reason Cass Sunstein was viewed as a controversial choice by some people was due to his advocacy of an approach to policy known as "liberal paternalism". Discussed at length in Nudge, which Sunstein co-authored with Richard Thaler, liberal paternalism takes the view that people need some help to make choices which are good for them and others. In essence, the policy-makers decide which option would be in people's best interests (the "paternalism" part), then set up the system in such a way that they are channelled into that choice - but not forced (the "liberalism" part).

Many feel that this approach imposes values in an overly prescriptive way, although the authors of Nudge go to great lengths to discuss the ethics of liberal paternalism, and the boundaries which should be applied. The thing about nudging people is that it actually works. There are many examples which show that peoples actions can be easily influenced by the way in which a system is designed.

One of the examples give in Nudge relates to organ donations. The authors make the point that the fact that few people donate their organs is not reflective of a deliberate decision not to do so, but simply because they neglect to tick the organ donor box on their drivers licence form. In one study reported in the book, when people were required to tick a box to indicate that they wish to donate their organs, only 42% did so. However, in the reverse situation, where people were required to tick if they did not wish to donate, 82% of people chose to donate. In other words, most people just choose the default option.

Applying these lessons to the environmental field, there are many opportunities for applying which Sunstein and Thaler term "choice architecture" - by which decisions and choices are presented in such a way that certain outcomes are more likely. As previously mentioned in Wake-Up Call, a small German town tried making green energy the default option, and found that 94% stuck with it. When people were required to actually choose green energy as an option, less than 10% did so.

We can also apply these principles to the way in which we design our environment. Many workplaces have taken the approach of moving recycling bins closer to peoples desks, and rubbish bins further away. Despite the occasional howls of protest, this simple change almost inevitably leads to a substantial reduction in the amount of waste-to-landfill generated by these offices.

The drivers of the success of choice architecture are familiar to those who study behaviour change. Firstly, from a rationalist point of view, we will often do what is easiest, especially when it is something we are not really passionate about. Those who care deeply about where their waste goes will actively seek out the recycling bin. The rest will recycle if it doesn't cost them any time and energy - otherwise the nearest bin will do. Designing the system for those who are relatively disengaged with the issue to do the right thing without having to go out of their way seems a bit defeatist, but is an effective way of achieving the desired result.

Habits are another reason why system design is important. Studies show that as much as 50% of our behaviour is habitual, meaning we do it unconsciously, supported by stable and repetitive environmental context. As a result, we are often on autopilot, not really thinking too much about the wider implications of what we are doing. In such a circumstance, we are seemingly not really in control of our decisions - our surroundings are doing the thinking for us. These surroundings can be designed to guide us towards actions which are beneficial to us, or not.

Which brings us back to the question about ethics. Do we have the right to design a system which imposes a particular way of acting? Sunstein and Thaler argue that all systems have to be designed in some way, and that there is always a value judgement made by the designers of choices. Where there is a demonstrable societal benefit in people adopting more sustainable behaviours, why not design a system which makes this the more likely outcome?

It is well known that supermarkets are designed in a way which guides us towards their preferred outcomes (i.e. more money spent), through tactics such as placing essential items in the far corners of the supermarket, and enticing us at the checkout with impulse buying opportunities such as chocolate. Imagine if a more responsible approach was taken, whereby as much effort was put into guiding people towards healthy and sustainable choices, rather than just profit.


Source: Green Times

Written by AWAKE: applying psychology to sustainability
Awake provides psychology-based services to support the development of sustainable behaviour in individuals, groups and organisations. Visit www.awake.com.au for more info.