Cite
A groundbreaking discussion of how we can apply the new science of to nudge people toward decisions that will improve their lives by making them healthier, wealthier, and more free Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion. Unfortunately, we often choose poorly. Nobel laureate Richard Thaler and legal scholar and bestselling author Cass Sunstein explain in this important exploration of that, being human, we all are susceptible to various biases that can lead us to blunder. Our mistakes make us poorer and less healthy; we often make bad decisions involving education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, the family, and even the planet itself. In Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein invite us to enter an alternative world, one that takes our humanness as a given. They show that by knowing how people think, we can design environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society. Using colorful examples from the most important aspects of life, Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate how thoughtful choice architecture can be established to nudge us in beneficial directions without restricting freedom of choice. Nudge offers a unique new take-from neither the left nor the right-on many hot-button issues, for individuals and governments alike. This is one of the most engaging and provocative books to come along in many years.
Nudge theory
Cite
Citations (10,936)
Cite
Citations (2)
Paternalism
Nudge theory
Unintended consequences
Cite
Citations (96)
The strategy of internalizing environmental responsibility commits the government to promote the voluntary cooperation of citizens in environmental dilemmas. Do our data show that this strategy has worked? To the extent that it has, is it a wise and viable policy for the future? And what are the limitations on what the strategy can accomplish in various cases of the dilemma? These are questions addressed in the final three sections of this chapter. But first we must follow up on the groundwork laid in the four previous chapters of this part. Chapters 9 and 10 presented the data concerning the acceptance of self-regulation policies, as well as evidence on the extent to which the respondents agree or disagree with the environmental ethos, at the level of motives and preferences.
Ethos
Cite
Citations (0)
Behavioral economics has shown that individuals sometimes make decisions that are not in their best interests. This insight has prompted calls for behaviorally informed policy interventions popularized under the notion of "libertarian paternalism." This type of "soft" paternalism aims at helping individuals without reducing their freedom of choice. We highlight three problems of libertarian paternalism: the difficulty of detecting what is in the best interest of an individual, the focus on freedom of choice at the expense of a focus on autonomy, and the neglect of the dynamic effects of libertarian-paternalistic policy interventions. We present a form of soft paternalism called "autonomy-enhancing paternalism" that seeks to constructively remedy these problems. Autonomy-enhancing paternalism suggests using insights from subjective well-being research in order to determine what makes individuals better off. It imposes an additional constraint on the set of permissible interventions highlighting the importance of autonomy in the sense of the capability to make critically reflected (i.e., autonomous) decisions. Finally, it acknowledges that behavioral interventions can change the strength of individual decision-making anomalies over time as well as influence individual preference learning. We illustrate the differences between libertarian paternalism and autonomy-enhancing paternalism in a simple formal model in the context of optimal sin nudges.
Paternalism
Cite
Citations (6)
(1985). A broad utilitarian theory of value and moral value. Forum for Social Economics: Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 29-59.
Value (mathematics)
Value theory
Cite
Citations (0)
Abstract Despite the general consensus that individualistic utility-optimising behaviour reduces popular support for the welfare state, we still know little about how and to what extent such negative effects of self-interested calculus are mediated by other attitudinal factors, particularly solidaristic values and principles. Using individual-level data from the Japanese General Social Survey, this study seeks not only to qualify existing findings on welfare preference formation but also to explore the hypothesis that the negative impact of economic self-interest is offset or moderated by solidarity-oriented values and beliefs. The author finds that the oft-made claim that material interest and individualistic ideologies undermine welfare support can be replicated in the context of Japan. The results also provide evidence in support of the liberal nationalist contention that popular discourse on welfare is significantly directed by a sense of national unity. Data from Japan also elucidate the fact that a strong sense of social trust significantly weakens the salience of self-oriented cost–benefit calculations. These findings suggest that solidarity-related variables such as national identity and interpersonal trustworthiness should receive more attention in future research on welfare attitudes.
Self-interest
Salience (neuroscience)
Cite
Citations (15)
Irrationality
Irrational number
Fallacy
Ignorance
Cite
Citations (13)
Scholars in economics, political science, and sociology use various definitions of the term institution. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this chapter define the term in a precise manner in order to delineate the scope of the analysis. Particular rules, beliefs, norms, and organizations are central to this definition, which helps illuminate why institutions have such a profound impact on behavior and how they should be studied analytically (Part II), why they persist in a changing environment and why they exert an independent impact on institutional dynamics (Part III), and how to study them empirically (Part IV).
Institution
Scope (computer science)
Cite
Citations (3)
Buku terlaris New York Times
Pemenang Penghargaan Buku Terbaik Akademi Sains Nasional pada tahun 2012
Dipilih oleh New York Times Book Review sebagai salah satu dari sepuluh buku terbaik tahun 2011
A Globe and Mail Judul Buku Terbaik Tahun 2011
Salah Satu Buku The Economist tahun 2011
Salah Satu Buku Nonfiksi Terbaik The Wall Street Journal of the Year 2011
2013 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient
Pekerjaan Kahneman dengan Amos Tversky adalah subyek dari Proyek Undoing Michael Lewis: Persahabatan yang Mengubah Pikiran Kita
Dalam buku terlaris internasional, Berpikir, Cepat, dan Lambat, Daniel Kahneman, psikolog terkenal dan pemenang Hadiah Nobel dalam Ekonomi, membawa kita pada perjalanan pemikiran yang inovatif dan menjelaskan dua sistem yang mendorong cara kita berpikir. Sistem 1 cepat, intuitif, dan emosional; Sistem 2 lebih lambat, lebih deliberatif, dan lebih logis. Dampak dari terlalu percaya pada strategi perusahaan, kesulitan memprediksi apa yang akan membuat kita bahagia di masa depan, efek mendalam dari bias kognitif dalam segala hal mulai dari bermain pasar saham hingga merencanakan liburan kita berikutnya ― masing-masing dapat dipahami hanya dengan mengetahui bagaimana kedua sistem tersebut membentuk penilaian dan keputusan kami.
Melibatkan pembaca dalam percakapan yang hidup tentang bagaimana kita berpikir, Kahneman mengungkapkan di mana kita bisa dan tidak dapat mempercayai intuisi kita dan bagaimana kita dapat memanfaatkan manfaat dari pemikiran yang lambat. Dia menawarkan wawasan praktis dan mencerahkan tentang bagaimana pilihan dibuat baik dalam bisnis kita dan kehidupan pribadi kita ― dan bagaimana kita dapat menggunakan teknik yang berbeda untuk menjaga gangguan mental yang sering membawa kita ke dalam masalah. Pemenang Penghargaan Buku Terbaik Akademi Sains Nasional dan Hadiah Buku Los Angeles Times dan dipilih oleh The New York Times Book Review sebagai salah satu dari sepuluh buku terbaik tahun 2011, Berpikir, Cepat dan Lambat ditakdirkan menjadi klasik.
Cite
Citations (10,708)