 |
 |
Hi This is interesting stuff. On the one hand its same old, same old: the government want to regulate and control what we 'freely' choose whilst generating the appearance of beneficence and democracy. One of the best ways of controlling a population is to give them 'free' choice but then predetermine the options they are able to viably choose between. Amongst others, Foucault was onto this some years ago. And on the other hand, from what I can find online it seems like little more than economists finally waking up to the idea that their pet theory of rational choice doesn't actually capture how most people decide in most situations. Its wrapped up in a language of 'choice architecture' which makes it sound sinister but I'm not convinced they've provided much that's actually new. I couldn't find any studies directly testing hypotheses generated by the theory - though I didn't have loads of time to spend searching - but I'm not convinced there's too much here that's new or different to the techniques that advertisers have been using for decades except that they've chucked in the behaviourist finding that its better to reward good choices than punish bad ones. The kinds of choices they want to nudge us toward 'for our own good and the good of all' will presumably include things like exercising more, smoking less, drinking only in moderation, and having sex only on Sundays and even then under a duvet with the light off and strictly in the missionary position. Yet they're employing McDonald and Pepsi to help them write health policy and representatives of the alcohol industry to advise on responsible drinking. I don't think they've yet signed up a porn star to advise on sexual moderation but that can't be far away. At the same time they're cutting funds to local government and freezing or limiting council tax, forcing steep rises in the cost of e.g. swimming pool and football pitch hire and gym use. They're putting VAT up to 20%, cutting public sector jobs and wages, reducing benefits... In this context I'd see their adoption of nudge theory as more akin to the notion of the big society: a figleaf to cover over the fact that we're being shafted. Unlike the big society it does involve them actually doing something, although it has the benefit that what's involved seems like it will cost little or nothing, adopting a rhetoric and creating some guidelines rather than actually investing in people's wellbeing. But just like the big society its a figleaf that pushes responsibility back onto us, our choices and our lifestyles. When it 'works' they'll claim the credit, when it fails - which it mostly will because there's little or no substance - they'll blame us. So its Foucault (and others) yet again: they're giving us the power to choose whilst requiring us to choose responsibly on their limited and restrictive terms. I could be wrong and there's a mass of empirical evidence to back up the claim that there's a new technology of behavioural manipulation here that actually works. If anyone knows of anything it would be good to hear it. But in the absence of that I'd be more concerned about their use of nudge theory to legitimate a cuts agenda than their use of it to manipulate our choices. Consequently, if we're to critique it then that's where I think our critique should be targeted. J. On 09/12/2010 08:25, Annie Mitchell wrote: > Dear all, Have people in the UK been following the development of the > “nudge unit “ ( behavioural insight team) ? the intentions are intended > towards social benefit ( but by getting us to change our individual > choices by changing incentives ) and while there is some sense behind it > in terms of acknowledging environmental determinants of human behaviour > , I find the whole development hugely sinister - very alarming indeed to > read ( see link below for Guardian report) “ The deputy prime minister, > Nick Clegg, said he believed the unit could change the way citizens > think.“ I didn’t read anything in the book about nudges ( or even > shoves) towards bankers and unfettered business interests. What do > others make of this development? Can we marshall a community psychology > critique? > > Annie > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/09/cameron-nudge-unit-economic-behaviour > > > ___________________________________ The Community Psychology List has a > new website/blog at: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/ There is a > threaded discussion forum: > http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi There is > a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK To post on the website > blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email > addresses below. David Fryer ([log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) or Grant Jeffrey > ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) To > unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, > visit the website: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK -- ********************************************************* John Cromby Psychology Division, SSEHS Loughborough University Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU England Tel: 01509 223000 Email: [log in to unmask] Personal webpage: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/ Co-Editor, "Subjectivity": www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/ ********************************************************* ___________________________________ The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/ There is a threaded discussion forum: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below. David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]) To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK