Psychological “nudges” are a growing industry. Inspired by scientific research, these easy-to-apply methods for changing behavior are becoming increasingly popular among political and governing elites.

Across the world, politicians and experts—guided by researchers in behavioral psychology—are developing methods to steer people toward certain decisions which, at least according to the paradigm of those in power and the elites, are assumed to be in the interest of both the individual and society.

Supporters and promoters of these psychological interventions—an influential group of psychologists and economists, also known as behavioral economists—follow a philosophy they call “libertarian paternalism.” This seemingly contradictory phrase is associated with the paternalistic idea of encouraging certain choices through tactics that preserve the individual’s freedom of choice. Self-described “choice architects” design and use methods supposedly aimed at protecting individuals from their own tendencies that might harm them—such as excessive self-confidence, reduced attention, an overfocus on the present at the expense of the future, a tendency to be motivated more by the negative than by the positive, by fantasies and daydreams, and so on.

The economist Richard Thaler from the University of Chicago and the law professor Cass Sunstein, now working at Harvard University, launched this political movement with their 2008 book Nudge. In it, Thaler and Sunstein argue that people generally do not think rationally, economically, and logically like the so-called Homo Economicus, but are instead more like the cartoon character Homer Simpson—glued to the television and his donuts. For this reason, the concept of psychological nudges is received positively in relevant circles. And yet—isn’t Homo Economicus itself an ideological construct? After all, who would actually want to be characterized as Homo Economicus?

Such positive “nudges” can include, for example, emails reminding past donors to a charity that it is time to donate again, or messages to late taxpayers informing them that most of their neighbors or business peers have already paid their dues. To encourage healthier eating, these choice architects redesign store layouts and interiors so that fruits and vegetables are more easily accessible than unhealthy food.

Of course, these examples are part of the positive, promotional image of such policies. We should not forget that similar methods were used as early as the beginning of the last century by the PR industry to get women to start smoking, for example.

But newer research suggests that easy-to-implement nudges can lead to unwanted complications and problems for both the “nudgers” and the “nudged.” This is because any covert influence, applied without the individual’s knowledge, carries responsibility and risk. Things can always go wrong—sometimes badly. The realization that people have been deliberately manipulated by state and private institutions, supposedly for their own good, can also have unpredictable social consequences.

At the very least, it is troubling that politicians and elites have embraced the idea of influencing the population through specific, scientifically grounded methods and techniques, so that it moves in a direction desired by them. To what extent the goals of such policies are truly beneficial for people, and to what extent they are not, is a question that hardly admits a universal or unambiguous answer. In any case, suspicions remain that such goals may be driven by interests, ideology, self-interest, a thirst for control and power, messianism, and so on. The very idea that a privileged minority grants itself the right to manipulate the majority according to its own considerations is disturbing and runs counter to democratic values and to our understanding of humanity and life.

From nudging to social engineering*, the distance is very short. And perhaps it has already been crossed…

*The term should not be confused with techniques for hacking passwords or gaining control over an individual’s devices. That meaning, in the context of digital security, has become popular and threatens to displace the original meaning of “social engineering”—namely, social control, the design of society, and the determination of individual roles and destinies in the name of a given social project shaped by a specific ideology.

Based on materials from:

https://www.sciencenews.org