Osoby korzystające z technologii asystujących mogą nie mieć pełnego dostępu do informacji zawartych w tym pliku. Aby uzyskać pomoc, wyślij e-mail na adres: mmwrqcdc. gov. Typ 508 Zakwaterowanie i tytuł raportu w temacie wiadomości e-mail. Dziesięć wielkich osiągnięć w dziedzinie zdrowia publicznego --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2001-2017 W XX wieku oczekiwana długość życia po urodzeniu wśród mieszkańców USA wzrosła o 6237, z 47,3 lat w 1900 do 76,8 w 2000 r. I zaobserwowano bezprecedensową poprawę stanu zdrowia populacji na każdym etapie życia (1). W 1999 r. MMWR opublikowała serię raportów podkreślających 10 osiągnięć w zakresie zdrowia publicznego, które przyczyniły się do tych ulepszeń. Niniejsze sprawozdanie ocenia postępy w dziedzinie zdrowia publicznego w ciągu pierwszych 10 lat XXI wieku. Naukowcy zajmujący się zdrowiem publicznym w CDC zostali poproszeni o nominowanie godnych uwagi osiągnięć w dziedzinie zdrowia publicznego, które miały miejsce w Stanach Zjednoczonych w latach 2001-2017. Z tych nominacji w niniejszym raporcie podsumowano 10 osiągnięć, które nie zostały uszeregowane w żadnej kolejności. W ostatnim dziesięcioleciu odnotowano znaczny spadek liczby przypadków, hospitalizacji, zgonów i kosztów opieki zdrowotnej związanych z chorobami, którym można zapobiegać dzięki szczepionkom. Wprowadzono nowe szczepionki (tj. Rotawirus, czterokryty koniugat meningokokowy, półpasiec, koniugat pneumokokowy i szczepionki przeciwko wirusowi brodawczaka ludzkiego, a także szczepionkę przeciw tężcowi, błonicy i bezkomórkową szczepionkę przeciw krztuścowi dla dorosłych i nastolatków), co doprowadziło do 17 liczby chorób, na które Stany Zjednoczone są skierowane. polityka szczepień. Niedawna analiza ekonomiczna wskazała, że szczepienie każdej kohorty urodzeniowej w USA z obecnym harmonogramem immunizacji dzieci zapobiega około 42 000 zgonów i 20 milionom przypadków choroby, przy oszczędnościach netto wynoszących prawie 14 miliardów w kosztach bezpośrednich i 69 miliardach w całkowitych kosztach społecznych (2). Wpływ dwóch szczepionek jest szczególnie uderzający. Po wprowadzeniu skoniugowanej szczepionki przeciw pneumokokom, w latach 2000-2008 zapobiegano około 211 000 poważnych zakażeń pneumokokowych i 13 000 zgonów (3). Rutynowe szczepienia rotawirusowe, wdrożone w 2006 r., Obecnie zapobiegają około 40 000 - 60 000 hospitalizacjom rotawirusów każdego roku (4). Poczyniono również postępy w zakresie stosowania starszych szczepionek, z odnotowanymi przypadkami zapalenia wątroby typu A, zapalenia wątroby typu B i ospy wietrznej na rekordowo niskim poziomie do końca dekady. Śmiertelność charakterystyczna dla wieku (tj. Liczba zgonów na milion) od ospy wietrznej dla osób w wieku 20 lat, spadła o 9737 z 0,65 w okresie przedszczepicielskim (1990-1994) do 0,02 w latach 2005-2007 (5). Średnia śmiertelność skorygowana względem wieku (liczba zgonów na milion popu - lacji) z zapalenia wątroby typu A również znacznie spadła, z 0,38 w okresie przedszczepicielskim (1990-1995) do 0,26 w latach 2000-2004 (6). Zapobieganie i zwalczanie chorób zakaźnych Ulepszenia stanu i lokalnej publicznej infrastruktury zdrowotnej wraz z innowacyjnymi i ukierunkowanymi działaniami profilaktycznymi przyniosły znaczny postęp w zakresie zwalczania chorób zakaźnych. Przykłady obejmują zmniejszenie o 3037 w latach 2001-2017 w zgłoszonych przypadkach zachorowań na gruźlicę i 5837 spadek w latach 2001-2009 w zakażeniach krwi obwodowej związanej z linią centralną (7, 8). Duże postępy w zakresie technik i technologii laboratoryjnych oraz inwestycje w nadzór nad chorobami poprawiły zdolność szybkiego i dokładnego identyfikowania skażonej żywności i zapobiegania dalszemu rozprzestrzenianiu się (9 - 12). Wielokrotne wysiłki zmierzające do rozszerzenia badań na obecność wirusa HIV, w tym zalecenia dotyczące poszerzenia badań przesiewowych osób w wieku 13-64 lat, zwiększyły liczbę osób, u których zdiagnozowano HIVAIDS i zmniejszyły odsetek z późną diagnozą, umożliwiając wcześniejszy dostęp do ratującego życie leczenia i opieki oraz dającego osoby niezbędne do ochrony swoich partnerów (13). W 2002 r. Informacje z modeli predykcyjnych CDC i doniesienia o podejrzeniu transmisji wirusa Zachodniego Nilu poprzez transfuzję krwi pobudziły krajowe dochodzenia, które doprowadziły do szybkiego opracowania i wdrożenia nowego badania przesiewowego dawców krwi (14). Do tej pory takie badania przesłoniły 3000 potencjalnie zainfekowanych darowizn USA, usuwając je z dopływu krwi. Wreszcie, w 2004 r., Po ponad 60 latach wysiłków, wścieklizna psów została wyeliminowana w Stanach Zjednoczonych, zapewniając model kontrolowania pojawiających się chorób odzwierzęcych (15, 16). Od czasu opublikowania pierwszego raportu generalnego chirurga dotyczącego tytoniu w 1964 r. Wdrożenie opartych na dowodach polityk i interwencji przez federalne, stanowe i lokalne organy ds. Zdrowia publicznego znacznie ograniczyło używanie tytoniu (17). Do 2009 roku 20.637 osób dorosłych i 19.537 osób było aktualnymi palaczami, w porównaniu do 23,537 dorosłych i 34,837 młodych ludzi 10 lat wcześniej. Jednak postęp w zmniejszaniu liczby palących wśród młodzieży i dorosłych wydaje się utrudniony w ostatnich latach. Po znacznym spadku od 1997 r. (36,437) do 2003 r. (21,937) wskaźniki palenia wśród uczniów szkół średnich pozostały stosunkowo niezmienione od 2003 r. (21,937) do 2009 r. (19,537) (18). Podobnie częstość występowania palących osób dorosłych stale spadała od 1965 r. (42,437) w latach 80., ale tempo spadku zaczęło spadać w latach 90., a rozpowszechnienie pozostało względnie niezmienione od 2004 r. (20 937) do 2009 r. (20 637) (19). Pomimo postępów, palenie nadal powoduje obciążenia ekonomiczne, w tym koszty medyczne i utratę wydajności, wynoszące około 193 miliardów rocznie (20). Chociaż żadne państwo nie wprowadziło kompleksowego zakazu palenia tytoniu (tj. Zakaz palenia w zakładach pracy, restauracjach i barach) w 2000 r., Liczba ta wzrosła do 25 stanów, a Dystrykt Kolumbii (DC) do 2017 r., A 16 państw uchwalił kompleksowe zwolnienie od dymu tytoniowego prawa po wydaniu raportu generalnego chirurgów z 2006 r. (21). Po podwyżce o 99 państw akcyzy na papierosy, przy średnim wzroście 55,5 centów za opakowanie, średni stan podatku akcyzowego wzrósł z 41,96 centów za opakowanie w 2000 r. Do 1,44 za opakowanie w 2017 r. (22). W 2009 r. Wszedł w życie największy federalny podatek akcyzowy od papierosów, łącząc federalny i średni stan podatku akcyzowego dla papierosów do 2,21 za opakowanie, co stanowi wzrost z 0,76 w 2000 r. W 2009 r. Urząd ds. Żywności i Leków (FDA) uzyskał organ regulujący produkty tytoniowe (23). Do 2017 r. FDA zakazała stosowania aromatyzowanych papierosów, wprowadziła ograniczenia w dostępie do młodzieży i zaproponowała większe, bardziej skuteczne etykiety ostrzegawcze, które prawdopodobnie doprowadzą do znacznego zwiększenia liczby podejmowanych decyzji o rezygnacji (24). Zdrowie matki i niemowlęcia W ostatniej dekadzie odnotowano znaczny spadek liczby niemowląt urodzonych z wadami cewy nerwowej (NTD) i ekspansją przesiewową noworodków na zaburzenia metaboliczne i inne dziedziczne zaburzenia. Obowiązkowe wzmacnianie kwasem foliowym produktów zbożowych oznaczonych jako wzbogacone w Stanach Zjednoczonych, począwszy od 1998 r., Przyczyniło się do zmniejszenia liczby NTD o 3637 w latach 1996-2006 i zapobiegło szacunkowej liczbie 10 000 ciąż dotkniętych NTD w ciągu ostatniej dekady, powodując oszczędności w wysokości 4,7 miliarda euro. w kosztach bezpośrednich (25 - 27). Udoskonalenia technologii i poparcie jednolitego zespołu badań przesiewowych noworodków doprowadziły do wcześniejszego leczenia i interwencji ratunkowej co najmniej 3 400 dodatkowych noworodków z wybranymi zaburzeniami genetycznymi i endokrynologicznymi (28, 29). W 2003 r. Wszystkie, z wyjątkiem czterech, badania przesiewowe obejmowały tylko sześć z tych zaburzeń. Do kwietnia 2017 r. Wszystkie stany zgłosiły badania przesiewowe na co najmniej 26 zaburzeń na rozszerzonym i wystandaryzowanym jednolitym panelu (29). Przesiewowe badania przesiewowe noworodków wzrosły z 46,537 w 1999 r. Do 96,937 w 2008 r. (30). Odsetek niemowląt, które nie przeszły badania przesiewowego, które zostały zdiagnozowane przez audiologa przed upływem 3 miesięcy jako normalne lub z trwałym ubytkiem słuchu, wzrósł z 51,837 w 1999 r. Do 68,1 w 2008 r. (30). Bezpieczeństwo pojazdów silnikowych Wypadki samochodowe należą do 10 najczęstszych przyczyn śmierci mieszkańców USA w każdym wieku i najczęstszych przyczyn śmierci osób w wieku 5-34 lat (30). Jeśli chodzi o lata potencjalnego życia utracone przed 65 rokiem życia, wypadki samochodowe wypadły na trzecim miejscu w 2007 r., Za tylko rakiem i chorobami serca, i odpowiadają za około 99 miliardów kosztów medycznych i kosztów pracy straconych rocznie (31, 32). W dużej mierze można zapobiegać zgonom i urazom związanym z wypadkami. Od 2000 do 2009 r., Podczas gdy liczba mil pojazdów przejechanych drogami narodowymi wzrosła o 8,537, śmiertelność związana z podróżą samochodową zmniejszyła się z 14,9 na 100 000 mieszkańców do 11,0, a wskaźnik urazów zmniejszył się z 1130 do 722 wśród dzieci, liczba zgonów pieszych zmniejszyła się o 4937, z 475 do 244, a liczba zgonów na bicyclistach spadła o 5837, z 178 do 74 (33, 34). Te sukcesy w dużej mierze wynikają z bezpieczniejszych pojazdów, bezpieczniejszych jezdni i bezpieczniejszego użytkowania dróg. Zachowanie zostało poprawione dzięki polityce ochronnej, w tym przepisom dotyczącym pasa bezpieczeństwa i fotelika dziecięcego, 49 państw i DC wprowadziły przepisy dotyczące pasów bezpieczeństwa dla dorosłych, a wszystkie 50 stanów i DC uchwaliło przepisy chroniące dzieci jeżdżące w pojazdach (35). Ulepszone zasady licencjonowania sterowników dla nastoletnich kierowców pomogły zmniejszyć liczbę wypadków śmiertelnych nastolatków (36). Zapobieganie chorobom układu krążenia Choroby serca i udary mózgu były pierwszą i trzecią najczęstszą przyczyną zgonów w Stanach Zjednoczonych od 1921 r. I 1938 r. (37, 38). Wstępne dane z 2009 r. Wskazują, że udar mózgu jest obecnie czwartą najczęstszą przyczyną zgonów w Stanach Zjednoczonych (39). W ostatnim dziesięcioleciu skorygowana wiekiem choroba wieńcowa i śmiertelność udarów zmniejszyły się z 195 do 126 na 100 000 populacji i odpowiednio z 61,6 do 42,2 na 100 000 populacji, kontynuując trend, który rozpoczął się w latach 80. XX w. W odniesieniu do udaru iw 1960 choroba niedokrwienna serca (40). Czynnikami, które przyczyniają się do tych redukcji, są spadki częstości występowania czynników ryzyka chorób sercowo-naczyniowych, takich jak niekontrolowane nadciśnienie tętnicze, podwyższony poziom cholesterolu i palenie tytoniu, oraz poprawa leczenia, leków i jakości opieki (41--44). Znaczący postęp odnotowano w poprawie warunków pracy. i zmniejszając ryzyko urazów związanych z miejscem pracy. Na przykład uniesienie pacjenta było istotną przyczyną urazów kręgosłupa wśród 1,8 miliona amerykańskich pracowników służby zdrowia w placówkach opiekuńczych i mieszkalnych. Pod koniec lat 90. ubiegłego wieku dokonano oceny programu postępowania z najlepszymi praktykami, który obejmował wykorzystanie mechanicznego sprzętu do podnoszenia pacjenta, wykazując redukcję 6637 w stawkach odszkodowań za szkody wyrządzone pracownikom i utracone dni robocze oraz udokumentowano, że inwestycja w sprzęt do podnoszenia może być odzyskane w ciągu mniej niż 3 lat (45). Po szeroko rozpowszechnionym rozpowszechnianiu i przyjęciu tych najlepszych praktyk przez branżę domów opieki, dane Bureau of Labor Statistics wykazały 3537 spadek liczby urazów kręgosłupa u pracowników opieki społecznej i pielęgniarskiej w latach 2003-2009. Roczny koszt urazów związanych z rolnictwem wśród młodzieży oszacowano na miliard rocznie (46). W celu rozwiązania tego problemu stworzono kompleksową inicjatywę zapobiegania urazom w dzieciństwie. Jednym z jego działań było opracowanie przez Krajowe Centrum Wsi ds. Bezpieczeństwa i Higieny Rolnej wytycznych dla rodziców, aby dopasowali swoje obowiązki do rozwoju dziecka i jego możliwości fizycznych. Dane uzupełniające wykazały 5637 spadek liczby wypadków w gospodarstwach młodych w latach 1998-2009 (Narodowy Instytut Bezpieczeństwa i Zdrowia w Pracy, dane niepublikowane, 2017). W połowie lat 90. połowy krabów w Morzu Beringa wiązały się z 770 zgonów na 100 000 pełnoetatowych rybaków (47). Większość ofiar śmiertelnych miała miejsce, gdy statki przewróciły się z powodu dużych obciążeń. W 1999 r. Straż Przybrzeżna USA wprowadziła kontrolę stabilności i bezpieczeństwa w portach w celu skorygowania zagrożeń związanych ze stabilnością. Od tego czasu jeden statek został utracony, a liczba ofiar śmiertelnych wśród rybaków krabowych spadła do 260 zgonów na 100 000 pełnoetatowych rybaków (47). Opracowano oparte na dowodach zalecenia dotyczące badań przesiewowych w celu zmniejszenia śmiertelności z powodu raka okrężnicy i raka piersi oraz raka szyjki macicy (48). Kilka interwencji inspirowanych tymi zaleceniami poprawiło wskaźniki badań przesiewowych w kierunku raka. Dzięki wspólnym wysiłkom federalnych, stanowych i lokalnych agencji zdrowia, profesjonalnych stowarzyszeń klinicystów, organizacji non-profit i rzeczników pacjentów, opracowano standardy, które znacznie poprawiły jakość i zastosowanie testu przesiewowego w kierunku raka (49, 50). Program wczesnego wykrywania raka piersi i raka szyjki macicy zmniejszył dysproporcje, oferując usługi badań przesiewowych w kierunku raka piersi i raka szyjki macicy u kobiet nieubezpieczonych (49). Sukces programów wynika z podobnych relacji opartych na współpracy. W latach 1998-2007 częstość zgonów z powodu raka jelita grubego zmniejszyła się z 25,6 na 100 000 osób do 20,0 (2,837 rocznie) w przypadku mężczyzn i od 18,0 na 100 000 do 14,2 (2,737 rocznie) w przypadku kobiet (51). W tym samym okresie odnotowano mniejszy spadek śmiertelności z powodu raka piersi i szyjki macicy (odpowiednio 2,237 i 2,437) (52). Zapobieganie zatruciu ołowiem w dzieciństwie W 2000 r. Zatrucie ołowiem w dzieciństwie pozostawało głównym problemem zdrowia publicznego w Stanach Zjednoczonych, dotykającym dzieci ze wszystkich obszarów geograficznych oraz na poziomie społecznym i gospodarczym. Czarne dzieci i osoby żyjące w ubóstwie oraz w starych, źle utrzymanych mieszkaniach były nieproporcjonalnie dotknięte. W 1990 r. W pięciu stanach wprowadzono kompleksowe przepisy dotyczące zapobiegania zatruciu ołowiem do 2017 r., W 23 stanach obowiązywały takie przepisy. Egzekwowanie tych ustaw, a także ustaw federalnych, które zmniejszają zagrożenia w mieszkaniach o największym ryzyku znacznie zmniejszyło rozpowszechnienie zatrucia ołowiem. Wyniki badań ankietowych dotyczących zdrowia i badań żywieniowych od 1976 do 1980 do 2003-2008 wskazują na gwałtowny spadek, z 88,237 do 0,937, w odsetku dzieci w wieku od 1 do 5 lat z poziomem ołowiu we krwi wynoszącym 10 gdL. Ryzyko podwyższenia poziomu ołowiu we krwi w oparciu o status społeczno-ekonomiczny i rasę również uległo znacznemu zmniejszeniu. Korzyści ekonomiczne związane z obniżeniem poziomu ołowiu wśród dzieci poprzez zapobieganie narażeniu na ołów szacuje się na 213 miliardów rocznie (53). Gotowość i reagowanie na zdrowie publiczne Po tym, jak międzynarodowe i krajowe akcje terrorystyczne z 2001 r. Podkreśliły luki w gotowości państw na zdrowie publiczne, dokonano ogromnej poprawy. W pierwszej połowie dekady wysiłki koncentrowały się przede wszystkim na zwiększeniu zdolności systemu zdrowia publicznego do reagowania (np. Na zakup materiałów i sprzętu). W drugiej połowie dziesięciolecia skupiono się na poprawie zdolności laboratorium, epidemiologii, nadzoru i reagowania publicznego systemu opieki zdrowotnej. Na przykład w latach 2006-2017 odsetek laboratoriów sieci laboratoryjnej, które przeszły badania biegłości w zakresie czynników zagrożenia bioterrorystycznego, wzrósł z 8737 do 9537. Odsetek państwowych laboratoriów zdrowia publicznego prawidłowo podporządkowanych Escherichia coli O157: H7 i przekazujących wyniki do krajowych system zgłoszeń wzrósł z 4637 do 6937, a odsetek państwowych agencji zdrowia publicznego przygotowanych do wykorzystania strategicznego zapasów krajowych materiałów zwiększył się z 7037 do 9837 (54). Podczas pandemii grypy H1N1 w 2009 r., Te ulepszenia w zakresie zdolności do opracowywania i wdrażania skoordynowanych działań w zakresie zdrowia publicznego w sytuacjach nadzwyczajnych ułatwiały szybkie wykrycie i scharakteryzowanie ogniska, wdrożenie testów laboratoryjnych, dystrybucję środków ochrony osobistej ze strategicznego zapasów krajowych, opracowanie kandydata na wirusa szczepionkowego i powszechne podawanie powstałej szczepionki. Te interwencje w zakresie zdrowia publicznego zapobiegły oszacowaniu 5-10 milionów przypadków, 30 000 hospitalizacji i 1500 zgonów (CDC, dane niepublikowane, 2017). Istniejące systemy zostały również dostosowane do reagowania na zagrożenia dla zdrowia publicznego. Podczas pandemii grypy H1N1 w 2009 r. Program "Szczepienia dla dzieci" został dostosowany, aby umożliwić dostawcom zamawianie i dystrybucję szczepionki pandemicznej. Podobnie, prezydenckie plany awaryjne dla AIDS Relief zostały wykorzystane do szybkiego dostarczenia leczenia po wybuchu epidemii cholery na Haiti w 2017 roku. Od 1999 do 2009 roku współczynnik umieralności skorygowany o wiek w Stanach Zjednoczonych spadł z 881,9 na 100 000 mieszkańców do 741,0, rekordowo niski i kontynuacja utrzymującej się tendencji spadkowej, która rozpoczęła się w ostatnim stuleciu. Postępy w dziedzinie zdrowia publicznego znacząco przyczyniły się do tego spadku Siedem z dziesięciu osiągnięć opisanych w niniejszym raporcie dotyczyło jednej lub więcej z 15 wiodących przyczyn śmierci. Powiązane dane zdrowych ludzi 2017 są dostępne pod adresem cdc. govmmwrpreviewmmwrhtmlmm6019a5addinfo. htm. Przykłady w tym raporcie ilustrują również skuteczne stosowanie podstawowych narzędzi zdrowia publicznego. Niektóre, takie jak ustanowienie systemów nadzoru, rozpowszechnianie wytycznych, wdrażanie wyników badań lub opracowywanie skutecznych programów zdrowia publicznego, są klasycznymi narzędziami, za pomocą których zdrowie publiczne od dawna zajmuje się problemem chorób. Chociaż nie jest to nowe, rozsądne korzystanie z systemu prawnego, poprzez zachęcanie do zdrowego zachowania poprzez opodatkowanie lub poprzez kształtowanie go w całości poprzez działania regulacyjne, stało się coraz ważniejszym narzędziem w nowoczesnej publicznej praktyce zdrowotnej i odegrało ważną rolę w wielu osiągnięciach opisanych w niniejsze sprawozdanie (55). Kreatywne wykorzystanie całego spektrum dostępnych opcji, jak wykazano tutaj, umożliwiło publicznym praktykom zdrowia skuteczne reagowanie. Praktyki w zakresie zdrowia publicznego będą nadal ewoluować, aby sprostać nowym i złożonym wyzwaniom, które czekają nas. Zgłoszone przez Zespół ds. Osiągnięć w dziedzinie Zdrowia Publicznego, CDC. Odpowiadający współtwórca: Ram Koppaka, MD, PhD, Biuro Epidemiologii i Analiz, Biuro Nadzoru, Epidemiologii i Usług Laboratoryjnych, CDC rkoppakacdc. gov, 347-396-2847. Referencje Narodowe Centrum Statystyki Zdrowia. Zdrowie, Stany Zjednoczone, 2017: ze specjalną cechą śmierci i umierania. Hyattsville, MD: CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, 2017. Dostępne na cdc. govnchshus. htm. Dostęp do 16 maja 2017 r. Zhou F. Zaktualizowana ocena ekonomiczna rutynowego harmonogramu szczepień dla dzieci w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Zaprezentowany na 45. Krajowej Konferencji Szczepień. Waszyngton, DC 28-31 marca 2017. Pilishvili T, Lexau C, Farley MM, i in. Trwałe zmniejszenie inwazyjnej choroby pneumokokowej w erze skoniugowanej szczepionki. J Infect Dis 201720172--41. Tate JE, Cortese MM, Payne DC. Pobór, wpływ i skuteczność szczepień rotawirusowych w Stanach Zjednoczonych: przegląd pierwszych 3 lat danych postlensure. Pediatr Infect Dis J 201730 (1 suplement): S56--60. Marin M, Zhang JX, Seward JF. Bliskie wyeliminowanie zgonów z powodu ospy wietrznej w USA po wdrożeniu programu szczepień dziecięcych. Pediatria. W prasie, 2017. Vogt TM, Wise ME, Bell BP, Finelli L. Spadek śmiertelności w zapaleniu wątroby typu A w Stanach Zjednoczonych w epoce szczepienia przeciwko wirusowemu zapaleniu wątroby typu A. J Infect Dis 2008197: 1282--8. CDC. Oznaki życia: linia centralna - powiązane infekcje krwi - Stany Zjednoczone, 2001, 2008 i 2009. MMWR 201760: 243--8. CDC. Trendy w gruźlicy --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2017. MMWR 201760: 333--7. CDC. Ciągły wieloetapowy wybuch infekcji Escherichia coli serotyp O157: H7 związany ze spożywaniem świeżego szpinaku --- Stany Zjednoczone, wrzesień 2006 r. MMWR 200655: 1045--6. CDC. Wielostronna epidemia serotypu Salmonella w stanie Tennessee związana z masłem orzechowym --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2006-2007. MMWR 200756: 521--4. Boxrud D, Monson T, Stiles T, Besser J. Rola, wyzwania i wsparcie laboratoriów PulseNet w wykrywaniu ognisk chorób przenoszonych przez żywność. Public Health Rep 2017125 (Suppl 2): 57--62. Gottlieb SL, Newbern EC, Griffin PM, et al. Wielostopniowa epidemia listeriozy powiązana z mięsem z indyka i wynikające z niej zmiany w polityce USA. Clin Infect Dis 200642: 29--36. CDC. Zmienione zalecenia dotyczące testów na obecność HIV dorosłych, nastolatków i kobiet w ciąży w placówkach opieki zdrowotnej. MMWR 200655 (nr RR-14). Pealer LN, Marfin AA, Petersen LR, i in. Przenoszenie wirusa Zachodniego Nilu poprzez transfuzję krwi w Stanach Zjednoczonych w 2002 r. N Engl J Med 2003349: 1236--45. Blanton JD, Hanlon CA, Rupprecht CE. Obserwacja wścieklizny w Stanach Zjednoczonych w 2006 r. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007231: 540-56. Rupprecht CE, Barrett J, Briggs D, i in. Czy można zwalczyć wściekliznę Dev Biol (Basel) 2008131: 95--121. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Palenie i zdrowie: raport komitetu doradczego do lekarza ogólnego służby zdrowia publicznego. Waszyngton, DC: Departament Edukacji i Opieki Zdrowotnej USA, Publiczna Służba Zdrowia 1964. CDC. Tendencje w rozpowszechnianiu używania tytoniu: krajowe YRBS, 1991-2009. Atlanta, GA: Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej USA, CDC 2017. Dostępne na cdc. govhealthyyouthyrbspdfustobaccotrendyrbs. pdf. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. CDC. Oznaki życia: obecne palenie papierosów wśród dorosłych w wieku 18 lat --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2009. MMWR 201759: 1135--40. CDC. Śmiertelność związana z paleniem tytoniu, lata potencjalnego straconego życia i straty wydajności - Stany Zjednoczone, 2000-2004. MMWR 200857: 1226--8. CDC. Należy przestrzegać przepisów antynikotynowych dotyczących miejsc pracy, restauracji i barów --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2000-2017. MMWR 201760: 472-5. CDC. System monitorowania i oceny stanu tytoniu państwowego (STATE). Dostępne w cdc. govtobaccostatesystem. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 roku. Drukarnia rządu USA. Ustawa o zapobieganiu paleniu tytoniu przez rodzinę i ustawy o tytoniu. Prawo publiczne nr 111-31. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office 2009. Dostępne pod adresem gpo. govfdsyspkgPLAW-111publ31content-detail. html. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. CDC. Wielkie rundy CDC: aktualne możliwości w zakresie kontroli tytoniu. MMWR 201759: 487--92. CDC. Rozszczep kręgosłupa i bezmózgowie przed i po podaniu kwasu foliowego --- Stany Zjednoczone, 1995-1996 i 1999-2000. MMWR 200453: 362-5. CDC. Wielkie rundy CDC: dodatkowe możliwości zapobiegania uszkodzeniom cewy nerwowej dzięki umocnieniu kwasu foliowego. MMWR 201759: 980--4. Grosse SD, Ouyang L, Collins JS, Green D, Dean JH, Stevenson RE. Ekonomiczna ocena programu zapobiegania nawrotom cewy nerwowej. Am J Prevent Med 200835: 572--7. CDC. Wykorzystanie tandemowej spektrometrii mas do badań przesiewowych w kierunku metabolizmu wśród noworodków. Raport z grupy roboczej. MMWR 200150 (nr RR-3). CDC. Wpływ rozszerzonego badania przesiewowego noworodków --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2006. MMWR 200857: 1012-5. CDC. Podsumowanie niemowląt badanych pod kątem utraty słuchu, zdiagnozowanych i włączonych do wczesnej interwencji, Stany Zjednoczone, 1999-2008. Atlanta, GA: Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej USA, CDC 2017. Dostępne pod adresem cdc. govncbdddhearingloss2008-dataEHDI19992008.pdf. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. CDC. System kwerend i raportowania statystyk internetowych (WISQARS). Dostępne na cdc. govinjurywisqarsindex. html. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. Naumann RB, Dellinger AM, Zaloshnja E, Lawrence BA, Miller TR. Występowanie i łączne koszty życia związane z wypadkami śmiertelnymi i nieszczęśliwymi związanymi z pojazdami silnikowymi według typu użytkownika drogi, Stany Zjednoczone, 2005. Traffic Inj Prev 201711: 353--60. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fakty dotyczące bezpieczeństwa ruchu drogowego, dane z 2009 r .: dzieci. Waszyngton, DC: Departament Transportu Stanów Zjednoczonych 2017. Raport nr. DOT HS 811-387. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fakty dotyczące bezpieczeństwa w ruchu lotniczym 2009 (wczesne wydanie). Waszyngton, DC: Departament Transportu Stanów Zjednoczonych 2017. Raport nr. DOT HS 811-402. Ubezpieczeniowy Instytut Bezpieczeństwa Drogowego. Bezpieczeństwo pasażerów dzieci. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute 2017. Dostępne na stronie iihs. orglawsrestraintoverview. aspx. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. Baker SP, Chen L-H, Li G. Ogólnokrajowy przegląd stopniowego licencjonowania kierowców. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2007. Dostępne na aaafoundation. orgpdfnationwidereviewofgdl. pdf. Acccessed 17 maja 2017. CDC. Główne przyczyny śmierci w latach 1900-1998. Hyattsville, MD: Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej USA, CDC, Narodowe Centrum Statystyki Zdrowia. Dostępne na cdc. govnchsdatadvslead190098.pdf. Przyjęto 17 maja 2017 r. Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Tejada-Vera B. Zgony: dane ostateczne za 2007 r. Natl Vital Stat Rep 201758 (19). Kochanek KD, Xu JQ, Murphy SL, et al. Zgony: dane wstępne za 2009 r. Natl Vital Stat Rep 201759 (4). CDC. Spadek liczby zgonów z powodu chorób serca i udaru mózgu - Stany Zjednoczone, 1900-1999. MMWR 199948: 649-56. Instytut Medycyny. Polityka populacyjna i podejście do zmiany systemów w celu zapobiegania i kontroli nadciśnienia tętniczego Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2017. CDC. Zdrowie, Stany Zjednoczone, 2009: ze specjalną cechą technologii medycznej. Hyattsville, MD: Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej USA, CDC, Narodowe Centrum Statystyki Zdrowia 2017. CDC. Korzystanie z rejestru w celu poprawy leczenia ostrego udaru mózgu - siedem stanów, 2005-2009. MMWR 201760: 206--10. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, i in. Statystyka chorób serca i udaru --- Aktualizacja 2017: raport z American Heart Association. Circulation 2017123: e18--209. Biuro Statystyki Pracy. Tabela R6: Zapadalność na nieszczęśliwe wypadki przy pracy i choroby obejmujące dni wolne od pracy na 10 000 pełnoetatowych pracowników w przemyśle i wybranych częściach ciała dotkniętych obrażeniami lub chorobami, 2003. Dostępne pod adresem bls. goviifoshwcoshcaseostb1384.pdf. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017. Zaloshnja E, Miller TR, Lee BC. Zachorowalność i koszty braku urazów w gospodarstwach rolnych, Stany Zjednoczone, 2001-2006. J Agromedicine 201716: 6--18. CDC. Komercyjne połowy rybne --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2000-2009. MMWR 201759: 842-5. CDC. Przewodnik po usługach prewencyjnych dla społeczności. Atlanta, GA: Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej USA, CDC 2017. Dostępne na thecommunityguide. orgindex. html. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. CDC. Rak piersi. Atlanta, GA: Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej USA, CDC 2017. Dostępne na cdc. govcancerbreast. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. CDC. Badanie na obecność raka jelita grubego w grupie osób w wieku 50 lat --- Stany Zjednoczone, 2001. MMWR 200352: 193--6. Kohler BA, Ward E, McCarthy BJ, i in. Coroczny raport dla narodu na temat stanu nowotworu, 1975-2007, zawierający nowotwory mózgu i innych układów nerwowych. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017103: 714--36. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, i in. Roczne sprawozdanie dla narodu na temat stanu raka, 1975-2006, zawierające tendencje raka jelita grubego i wpływ interwencji (czynniki ryzyka, badania przesiewowe i leczenie) w celu zmniejszenia przyszłych stóp. Cancer 2017116: 544--73. Grosse SD, Matte TD, Schwartz J, i in. Korzyści ekonomiczne wynikające ze zmniejszenia ekspozycji dzieci na ołów w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Environ Health Perspect 2002110: 563--9. CDC. Uzasadnienie szacunków dla komitetów ds. Środków. Rok podatkowy 2017. Atlanta, GA: Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej USA, CDC. Dostępne na stronie intra-apps. cdc. govfmoappropriationsbudgetformulationappropriationsbudgetformpdffy2017cdccjfinal. pdf. Dostęp do 17 maja 2017 r. CDC. Prawo i zdrowie publiczne w CDC. MMWR 200655 (Suppl 2): 29--33. Używanie nazw handlowych i komercyjnych źródeł służy wyłącznie do celów identyfikacyjnych i nie oznacza poparcia ze strony amerykańskiego Departamentu Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej. Odniesienia do stron innych niż CDC w Internecie są świadczone dla czytelników MMWR i nie stanowią ani nie sugerują poparcia dla tych organizacji lub ich programów przez CDC lub amerykański Departament Zdrowia i Opieki Społecznej. CDC nie ponosi odpowiedzialności za zawartość stron znalezionych na tych stronach. Adresy URL wymienione w MMWR były aktualne na dzień publikacji. Wszystkie artykuły HTML w formacie MMWR to elektroniczne konwersje z dokumentów składanych. Ta konwersja może spowodować błędy w tłumaczeniu znaków lub formatów w wersji HTML. Użytkownicy są odsyłani do elektronicznej wersji PDF (cdc. govmmwr) lub oryginalnej kopii papierowej MMWR w celu wydrukowania wersji oficjalnego tekstu, rysunków i tabel. Oryginalną papierową kopię tego problemu można uzyskać od Inspektora Dokumentów, amerykańskiego biura drukarskiego (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371, telefon: (202) 512-1800. Skontaktuj się z GPO, aby uzyskać aktualne ceny. Pytania lub wiadomości dotyczące błędów w formatowaniu należy kierować do mmwrqcdc. gov. Businessballs współpracuje z Accipio mdash Instytutem Przywództwa i Zarządzania (ILM) i Chartered Management Institute (CMI) centrum mdash, aby zaoferować BEZPŁATNE audiowizualne interaktywne moduły e-learningowe dostosowane do międzynarodowo uznane kwalifikacje (ILM lub CMI). Zdobądź punkty do nauki dla każdego eModule przywództwa i zarządzania oraz zdobądź nagrodę, certyfikat lub dyplom 3 poziomu po zarejestrowaniu się w instytucji przyznającej nagrodę (za pośrednictwem Accipio), zapewnieniu wystarczającej liczby punktów nauki i zaliczeniu zadań. Obowiązują opłaty za akredytację. Kliknij tutaj, aby uzyskać dostęp do Akademii eLeadership. Teoria podsuwania teorii drążenia streszczenia. wyjaśnienie heurystyczne. aktualizuj historię. Rozszerzenia i powiązania z motywacją, zarządzaniem zmianą i przywództwem oraz glosariuszem przesuwania Nudge theory to elastyczna i nowoczesna koncepcja: zrozumienia, w jaki sposób ludzie myślą. podejmować decyzje . i zachowuj się, pomagając ludziom poprawić ich sposób myślenia i podejmowania decyzji, zarządzając zmianami wszelkiego rodzaju oraz identyfikując i modyfikując istniejące, nieprzydatne wpływy na ludzi. Teoria Nudge została nazwana i spopularyzowana w książce z 2008 roku, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, napisanej przez amerykańskich naukowców Richarda H Thalera i Cass R Sunsteina. Książka jest mocno oparta na nagrodzonej Noblem pracach amerykańsko-amerykańskich psychologów Daniela Kahnemana i Amosa Tversky'ego. recenzje i wyjaśnia koncepcję Thaler i Sunsteins Nudge. szczególnie heurystyka (tendencje do myślenia i decydowania o instynktownych i często błędnych ludzkich) wiąże metody Nudge z innymi teoriami i modelami, a do prac Kahnemana i Tverskysa definiuje i opisuje dodatkowe metody szturchania ludzi i grup poszerza uznanie i zastosowanie metodologii Nudge do szerszych zarządzanie zmianą, motywacja, przywództwo, coaching, doradztwo, rodzicielstwo, itp. oferuje metody Nudge i powiązane koncepcje jako zestaw narzędzi do teorii Nudge, aby można było nauczać i stosować tę koncepcję w wielu sytuacjach związanych z relacjami z ludźmi i umożliwiając ludziom poprawiają swoje myślenie i podejmowanie decyzji oraz oferują glosariusz teorii Nudge i terminów pokrewnych Teorie Nudge zostały pierwotnie zaproponowane w amerykańskiej ekonomii behawioralnej, ale można je zaadaptować i zastosować znacznie szerzej, aby umożliwić i zachęcać do zmian w ludziach, grupach lub w tobie. Teorię skaleczenia można również wykorzystać do badania, rozumienia i wyjaśniania istniejących wpływów na zachowanie ludzi, w szczególności wpływów, które nie są pomocne, w celu ich usunięcia lub zmiany. Jest mnóstwo tych nieprzydatnych żartów na całym świecie - szczególnie w reklamie i rządzie, które są przypadkowe, bardzo świadome. Uwaga: Ten artykuł nie jest reprodukcją ani ekstrakcją prac Thalera i Sunsteinów - jest to podsumowanie, interpretacja i rozszerzenie teorii Nudge, w tym głównej terminologii, rozszerzonej o dodatkowe metody, pomocnych wyjaśnień, przykładów i powiązań, z powiązanymi pomysłami i pojęciami motywacji i zarządzania. Accordingly if you seek to understand Thaler and Sunsteins work first-hand, or to research and extract from the original Thaler-Sunstein source material, then you should obtain their book Nudge, and also explore Kahneman and Tverskys earlier work. If you extractquote from this article please clarify in the citation that the extract is taken from this articlewebpage, (which is therefore a secondary source in terms of the theories of Thaler, Sunstein, Kahneman and Tversky). Like any review this article is open to debate as to how precisely it interprets and represents the original (Thaler-SunsteinKahneman-Tversky) work, and this is especially so because of the adaptive and developmental nature of this article. index - nudge theory 4. History and origins of Nudge theory - Thaler, Sunstein, Kahneman, Tversky - heuristics - whats in the book 5. Nudge theory - the Thaler-Sunstein principles, terminology, nudges 5.1 Nudge philosophy - libertarian paternalism 5.2 Nudge theory managerleader - choice architect 5.3 How people think and decide 5.3.1 Heuristics overview 5.4 How people really think vs how policy-makers preferbelieve people think - humans and econs 5.5 Automatic vs Reflective thinking systems 5.6 Heuristics introduction - human thinking and deciding tendencies - heuristics nudges 5.7 Thaler-Sunstein Heuristics - in detail - (different types of types of nudges) .1 Anchoring and Adjusting (comparing then guessing) .2 Availability (perceived popularityrarity) .3 Representativeness (stereotyping and comparison) .4 Optimismover-confidence (underover-estimation or complacency) .5 Loss aversion (holding on to thingsresistance) status quo bias (inertia) .6 Status quo bias (inertia, default to n o action) .7 Framing (orientation, accentuation, presentation, styling) .8 Temptation (greed, ego, short-term reward) .9 Mindlessness (negligence, avoidance, not concentrating) .10 Self-control strategies (habits and routines to counter weaknesses) .11 Following the herd (conforming, mob instinct, safety in numbers) .12 Spotlight effect (anxiety, pressure, quot. everyones watching my decisionquot, fear of making errors) .13 Priming - (the ways people can be made ready or prepared before thinking and deciding, e. g. visualization, role-modelling, building belief, offering methods not just directions) .14 Stimulus response compatibility - overlays other heuristics and nudges - (the design of signage, language, so that it looks and seems appropriate for the message it conveys) .15 Feedback - overlays other heuristics and nudges - (given to respondent during and after thinkingdecisions, enabling adjustment and useful experience) 8. Developing, adapting and using Nudge theory - other types of nudges - examples and correlations to other theories and disciplines 10. Glossary of terms - Nudge theory and related concepts 1. Introduction to nudge theory Nudge theory is credited mainly to American academics Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. They built much of their theory on the heuristics work of Israeli-American psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, which first emerged in the 1970s in psychological journals. The name and concept of Nudge or Nudge theory were popularized by the 2008 book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, which became a major international best-seller. Kahnemans 2017 book, also a best-seller, Thinking, Fast and Slow contains much of the fundamental Khaneman-Tversky theory which underpins the Thaler-Sunstein Nudge concept. Amos Tversky is somewhat neglected in citations for Nudge theory because he died in 1996. Nudge theory seeks to improve understanding and management of the heuristic influences on human behaviour (US spelling is behavior), which is central to changing people. Central to behaviour, is decision-making, from the choices available. Nudge theory is mainly concerned with the design of choices . which influences the decisions we make. Nudge theory proposes that the designing of choices should be based on how people actually think and decide (instinctively and rather irrationally), rather than how leaders and authorities traditionally (and typically incorrectly) believe people think and decide (logically and rationally). In this respect, among others, Nudge theory is a radically different and more sophisticated approach to achieving change in people than traditional methods of direct instruction, enforcement, punishment, etc. The use of Nudge theory is based on indirect encouragement and enablement. It avoids direct instruction or enforcement. Here are some simple examples to illustrate the difference between traditional enforced change and Nudge techniques: Weekly food shop budgeting. Use a basket instead of a trolley. Nudge theory accepts that people have certain attitudes, knowledge, capabilities, etc. and allows for these factors (whereas autocratic methods ignore them). Nudge theory is based on understanding and allowing for the reality of situations and human tendencies (unlike traditional forcible instruction, which often ignores or discounts the reality of situations and people). Fundamentally (and properly, according to its origins) Nudge theory operates by designing choices for people which encourage positive helpful decisions for the people choosing, and ideally for the wider interests of society and environment, etc. Additionally, Nudge theory offers a wonderful methodology for identifying, analysing and re-shaping existing choices and influences that people are given by governments, corporations, and other authorities. Given that so many of these choices and influences are extremely unhelpful for people, this is a major area of opportunity for the development and use of Nudge theory, even if it were not envisaged as such by its creators. Nudge theory also draws from and connects to many other models of motivation and management, for example: Nudge theory seeks to minimize resistance and confrontation . which commonly arise from more forceful directing and autocratic methods of changing peoplebehaviour. Note the differences: Forcing methods drastic, direct, and require conscious determined effort (by the personpeople being changed). Nudge methods are easier for people to imagine doing, and less threatening and disruptive to actually do. Forcing methods are confrontational and liable to provoke resistance. Nudge methods are indirect, tactical, and less confrontational - nudge methods may be cooperative and pleasurable. Significantly, and easily overlooked, Nudge theory can also be used to identify, explain, and modify existing heuristic effects on people and society groupings - especially where these effects are unhelpful or damaging to peoplesociety. 2. Nudge theory overview Nudge theory initially emerged in the early 2000s USA as a radical approach to influencing peoples interaction with financial systems, notably pensions, savings and healthcare - so as to improve quality of later life, (not to enrich financial corporations). This last point is significant - Nudge was initially developed as an ethical concept . by academics, for the improvement of society . not as a mechanism for commercial exploitation, or government manipulation. From these beginnings, the Nudge concept now offers vastly bigger implications and applications. Nudge principles and techniques are now increasingly significant in communications, marketing, and the motivation of groups: in business, marketing, selling, organizational leadership, politics, economics, education, welfare really in any situation where someone or a body of some sorts seeks to influence a person or a group of people, for example a customer group, or an entire society - or simply yourself, as an aid to improving personal health, wealth and well-being. Nudge theory for example can help the parenting of a child or at the other extreme could help a world government manage a global population. Nudge has dramatically affected thinking and methods for motivating and changing people. Nudge theory advocates change in groups through indirect methods, rather than by direct enforcement or instruction. Central to the Nudge concept is that people can be helped to: think appropriately . and make better decisions by being offered choices that have been designed to enable these outcomes. Here is a simple table showing varying characterizations of, and differences between, traditional directed change and Nudge-oriented interventions, in terms of key words and tactical notions. nudge at a glance openness, nothing withheld The roots of Nudge theory can be traced back to a wide variety of psychological models and philosophical concepts, especially the theories on thinking and decision-making of Kahneman, Tversky and others. From a philosophical and motivational standpoint, Abraham Maslow understood and articulated the ethos and principles of Nudge theory in the 1950s and 60s, a half-century before it was named. Maslows famous Hierarchy of Needs model represents the most fundamental heuristic tendencies of human thinking and decision-making. Erik Eriksons life change model is of similar significance, although neither Maslow or Erikson used the heuristic in describing their concepts. Nudge theory also correlates strongly with, andor draws from, other positive theories entailing the improvement of peoples situations, such as: Perhaps the most compelling early evidence that Nudge theory has become a very significant concept for managing change, people, and societies, is that governments - notably the US and UK - very quickly developed specialized Nudge departments to use Nudge methods in helping to shift societal behaviours on a very big scale. The effectiveness of the methods are such that the UK government Nudge Unit (officially called the Behavioural Insights Team) was privatised in 2017 (very little that has enormous potential is retained by the UK state in modern times..), with the official announcement: quotSince the Behavioural Insights Team was created in 2017, there has been considerable media interest in the teams work. Often referring to the team as the Nudge Unit (after the work of Professor Richard Thaler, co-author of Nudge and academic advisor to the team), much of the media interest has focused on the influence this team has had within Whitehall and overseas and the methods and insights that the team has applied to public policy. quot This quote was taken from the UK government Behavioural Insights Team website, Mar 2017. It remains to be seen whether this particular Nudge Unit will be able to uphold the philosophy advocated by Nudges creators. Thaler, Sunstein, Kahneman and Tversky. Probably not, as the privatised company is selling its services to the corporate world and other governments, and will inevitably seek to maximise profits for its investors. On which point, its important to note that anyone can use Nudge theory (see Anyone can use Nudge theory ). Its simple and easy if you read a little about it to understand how it works. 3. Definitions of nudge theory The dictionary definition (OED - Oxford English Dictionary) of the word nudge in its traditional sense is helpful in appreciating Thaler and Sunsteins approach to the Nudge concept: quotProd (someone) gently with ones elbow in order to attract attention. quot quotTouch or push (something) gently or gradually. quot quotCoax or gently encourage (someone) to do something. quot quotA light touch or push. quot (Oxford English Dictionary) Incidentally the origin of the word nudge is uncertain. It compares with Norwegian nugga and nyggja, to push or rub, which suggests the word may have Norse or Viking origins in English. Thaler and Sunstein dont actually give a specific definition of Nudge theory in their book, although a definition of a nudge is given in the book and quoted by Wikipedia (2017): quot. A nudge, as we will use the term, is any aspect of the choice architecture that alters peoples behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not. quot (This is the penultimate paragraph of the introductory chapter in Thaler and Sunsteins Nudge book, and refers to the books opening scenario of designing choices in a cafeteria queue. Its the nearest thing to a definition of Nudge by the authors that appears in the book.) Heres Wikipedias own definition of Nudge theory: Nudge theory (or Nudge) is a concept in behavioral science, political theory and economics, which argues that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions (to try to achieve non-forced compliance) can influence the motives, incentives and decision making of groups and individuals alike, at least as effectively - if not more effectively - than direct instruction, legislation, or enforcement. (Wikipedia, 2017-2017) Here are further definitions (Businessballs 2017) which reflect an expanded view (of the potentially wider use) of Nudge theory. The expanded view of Nudge theorys potential use (offered by this articleguide) is that: Nudge theory can be applied far more widely than to behavioral economics. Nudge theory can be applied to virtually any type of human relationships where the alteration of peoples thinking and decision-making may be beneficial for those people, and to wider society and the planet as a whole. Nudge theory also offers a basis for identifying and assessing many and various existing influences on peoples thinking and decision-making - either accidental or intentionally designed - especially influences which produce unhelpful thinking and decisions for the people concerned and wider society and the planet. These wider applications invite correspondingly wider definitions of Nudge theory: quotNudge theory, named and described in Thaler and Sunsteins 2008 book Nudge - Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, is an approach to understanding and changing peoples behaviorbehaviour, by analysing, improving, designing, and offering free choices for people, so that their decisions are more likely to produce helpful outcomes for those people and society generally . and this particularly should be compared with outcomes typically arising from traditional enforced or directed change, and compared with carelessly or cynically designed indirect influences. Nudge theory was initially envisaged to apply chiefly to areas of economics and health, especially those managed by the state and local corporate authorities, but the Nudge concept is actually much more widely applicable, to most human decision-making, and the ways that human-decision-making can be assisted. Note that Nudge theory can also be used to identify and modify or remove existing unhelpful nudges. quot (A Chapman, Businessballs 2017) And a shorter one: quotNudge theory enables the analysis, improvement and design or re-design of influences on peoples thinking and decision-making . according to how people actually make decisions (instinctively), rather than according to how leaders and policy-makers tend to think that people make decisions (logically and obediently, like robots), extending to the appropriate use of these thinking systems in given situations. quot (A Chapman, Businessballs 2017) Im always open to better suggestions of definitions, and given that Nudge theory is quite new and still evolving I am sure some will emerge. 4. Nudge theory - history and origins - Thaler, Sunstein, Kahneman, Tversky Nudge theory was named, defined (as Nudge theory) and popularized in the 2008 book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, written by American academics Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. The development of Nudge theory - notably its principles - are attributed to the books authors properly with Daniel Kahneman, a significant collaborator of Thaler, a globally revered Nobel prizewinning psychologist with a specialism in heuristics and thinking, and Kahnemans own long-time collaborator, Israeli-American psychologist Amos Tversky. Tversky died in 1996, sadly before the Nobel economics prize was awarded in 2002 for his work with Kahneman, and this seems to have has reduced popular recognition of Tverskys contribution to Nudge theory. Richard H Thaler - born 1945 - US academic economist, author, Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Cass Robert Sunstein - born 1954 - US economic law academic with additional interest in behavioral economics, taught for 27 years at the University of Chicago Law School, served in the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, latterly Robert Walmsley University Professor and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Daniel Kahneman - born 1934 - Israeli-American psychologist winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Specialist in the psychology of judgment and decision-making, behavioral economics and hedonic psychology (concerned with humansocietal happiness and wellbeing). Co-developer with Amos Tversky of Prospect theory. At 2017 Daniel Kahneman is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Princeton University, and Professor of Psychology Public Affairs Emeritus at Princetons Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Amos Nathan Tversky - (1937-1996) - Israeli psychologist and long-time collaborator of Daniel Kahneman in the study of behavioral economics, heuristics, decision-making. Co-developer with Daniel Kahneman of Prospect theory. Amusingly, as evidence of Tverskys extraordinary brilliance, it is said that academic colleagues suggested a Tversky Intelligence Test whereby quotThe faster you realized Tversky was smarter than you, the smarter you were. quot In the Nudge book, Thaler and Sunstein draw heavily on the earlier heuristics work of Kahneman and Tversky, which first emerged in the 1970s in university papers and psychological journals. Kahnemans 2017 book, also a best-seller, Thinking, Fast and Slow, contains much of this fundamental theory which underpins the Thaler-Sunstein Nudge concept. Significantly Kahneman dedicated this book to the memory of Amos Tversky. In 1979 Daniel Kahneman produced a significant paper with his long-time collaborator, the Israeli Amos Nathan Tversky (1937-96): Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk (Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky Econometrica, 472, pp. 263-291, March 1979.) Kahneman and Tverskys Prospect theory, and the paper which described it, became regarded as fundamentally important contributions to the understanding of human thinking and decision-making, notably in behavioral economics. Accordingly, Prospect theory, along with other heuristics work of Kahneman and Tversky, formed a substantial part of the development of the Thaler-Sunstein Nudge theory. About Prospect theory.. Prospect theory is defined (Wikipedia 2017) as follows: quotProspect theory is a behavioral economic theory that describes the way people choose between probabilistic alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are known. The theory states that people make decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome, and that people evaluate these losses and gains using certain heuristics. The model is descriptive: it tries to model real-life choices, rather than optimal decisions. The theory was developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979 as a psychologically more accurate description of decision making, comparing to the expected utility theory. In the original formulation the term prospect referred to a lottery. (Expected utility theory refers to Expected utility hypothesis earlier called moral expectation, which is an early explanation of instinctive decision-making contrasted with mathematical expectation or logical decision-making, in economics, gambling, strategygame theory, which can be traced to origins in the 1730s.) Thaler and Sunsteins original Nudge theory is chiefly concerned with behavioral economics and behavioral finance (UK-English: behavioural), being the primary interests of the books authors. Kahneman and Tverskys expertise, by contrast, is psychology with a broader approach to decision-making, so it is interesting (and a lesson in nudging) that Thaler and Sunsteins more narrow economics angle succeeded in bringing the ideas of Nudge - and heuristics especially - into the mainstream. This is perhaps due to the highly accessible Nudge branding and packaging, together with a good marketing approach. People respond well to strongly promoted, accessibly-packaged concepts with catchy names, which equates to a series of nudges (arguably one of framing. and then following the herd when the book became a best-seller - during which promotional accessibility is a major factor too). Thaler and Sunsteins focus (behavioral economics and behavioral finance) more specifically entailed the interaction between American citizens and US financial systems involving savings, pensions, debtcredit, and healthcare provision . Examples and references in other areas of behaviour and decision-making were offered in the book, but not to a great extent, and certainly not to the depth that the potential application of Nudge was explored and proposed in the financial and healthcare fields mentioned. The book Nudge is effectively in two quite different halves (although not indexed as such): 1. The first half offers very clear and entertaining explanation, supported by research and survey statistics, etc. of human decision-making, which the authors contend to be generally illogical, weak, harmful, and often self-destructive. Most of this explanation is underpinned by previous studies and scientific theory concerning heuristics . which in the authors context of human decision-making refers to the tendency for humans to think instinctively, emotionally, and subjectively, rather than logically, rationally and objectively. The authors list several types of heuristic tendencies in people, which equate to Nudges, on the basis that heuristics are fundamental drivers of decisions. 2. The second half of the book analyses various theorized and potential effects of heuristics in the US sectors of: consumersocietal finance (pensions, savingsinvesting, creditborrowing, and social security) healthcare (prescription drugs, organ donations) the environment (carbon tax) and marriage (the notion that it should be separated from the state) As such basically the books first part offers the Nudge principles (rather like a toolkit), whereas the second part describes and offers Nudge solutions to challenges in the US economysociety . The Nudge book is immensely appealing to non-technical audiences who are interested in the technical aspects of individualgroup thinking and decision-making. Seen from another angle this is central to change management . motivation, and managing people, potentially on a vast scale. The book is particularly interesting (from a general decision-making perspective) in its first half, in which heuristics, and the ways that people think and decide, are explained in an entertaining and accessible way. (The second half of the book focuses on American socio-economics, which by implication is more specialized and narrowly appealing.) The authors did not devise or discover all of the various heuristic tendencies they present, but they have very cleverly brought them together into a cohesive, comprehensible and useable set of principles, and this is arguably the most valuable aspect of the book (aside from bringing a helpful concept to a very big audience). We could conceivedevelop the main heuristic Nudge principles as a sort of toolkit of ideasmethods, by which peoples thinking and decision-making can be altered. Such a toolkit, together with Thaler and Sunsteins explanatory theory and philosophy, reminds all policy-makers, managers and communicators that people rarely think very rationally, and this is the essence of what is now called Nudge theory. Nudge theory began to evolve from the moment the book was released. The flexibility and adaptability of Nudge theory is a big part of its appeal to leaders everywhere. During the 2017s Nudge theory was still evolving and expanding in terms of its techniques, definition, and (significantly) its applications. 5. Nudge theory - main elements, principles, terminology Here are the original main technical and structural aspects of Nudge theory, defined by Thaler and Sunstein, in their 2008 book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Nudge theory has evolved significantly since these founding principles were established, and it will continue to grow considerably in future years. Here are Thaler and Sunsteins founding Nudge theory principles and terminology. Please note again that much of the heuristics theory described here is based on the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 5.1 Nudge theory - philosophy Nudge theory is a clever and potent concept, but like any clever concept it can be abused. Having an ethical philosophy helps to encourage a responsible approach to using Nudge theory. A guiding philosophy is certainly required for corporations and governmental authorities, which in modern times routinely exploit peoples heuristic weaknesses. Thaler and Sunstein use the term libertarian paternalism as a name for the underpinning philosophy that they advocate when considering and applying Nudge theory, and particularly the guiding ethos of leaders and managers who employ Nudge theory methods. As such, libertarian paternalism is the authors preferred term for the guiding ethos and values of Nudge theory the ethical and philosophical basis governing its use, and by implication its development. Thaler and Sunstein advocate the use of Nudge for the good of human society and the world we live in. They acknowledge that Nudge theory unavoidably entails a degree paternalism, as arguably all leadership does. But Thaler and Sunstein also emphasize the need for Nudge methods to be guided by a need to protect peoples freedom of choice to have compassion for people and society, and to care for the environment and future of the planet. Thaler and Sunstein reinforced their emphasis on free choice as follows: quot. when we use the term libertarian to modify the word paternalism, we simply mean liberty-preserving. quot This is important, because Nudge is a powerful concept. It was not designed to be used for unethical purposes, or to pursue aims which exploit people, or which do harm. Nudge theory was designed to help society, not to enrich the already powerful and wealthy. Paternalism refers to any leaderships responsibility for people and planet. Libertarian refers to the freedom that people should have in making their own choices, and the need to protect free will. Thaler and Sunstein said of Nudge theorys underpinning philosophy, in emphasizing the need to preserve free choice: quot. Nudges are not mandates. Putting the fruit at eye-level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not. quot Here is an additional philosophical note about respectful relationships, cooperation, amenability . specifically how followers feel about the leadershipauthority that is applying the change nudge. This is a further important additional philosophical aspect of Nudge theory. It is implied by and within Nudge theory but not featured in Thaler and Sunsteins book. It concerns the relationship between leader and group (or other authority and audience), and is the vital consideration that: In very many relationships between a leadermanagerauthority and the peoplegroupsfollowers etc. whose change is sought, people are influenced (consciously or unconsciously) by their feelings towards the leaderauthority (choice architect) or whateverwhomever is perceived to be the nudger. Basically people are more amenable (open and cooperative) to being nudged if they have positive feelings towards (whomeverwhatever is perceived to be) the nudger, than if these feelings are negative (fearful, distrustful, distasteful, etc). Later in this article (see the LikeabilityCredibilityTrust influence below) you will see that this unofficial and unspoken philosophical aspect of Nudge theory can be a major reason for difficulties in applying Nudge theory successfully - and if we consider how people usually regard politicians, governments, corporations then it is easy to imagine that this factor can be hugely influential on peoples reactions to nudges. Given that Nudge theory logically operates better where people have generally positive rather than negative feelings towards the nudging authority, it follows that we must consider the factors that generate these feelings and define the relationships between authority and people. Nudge theory philosophy can therefore be extended beyond libertarian paternalism, to acknowledge and include anything which determines how people feel about the nudging authority . This varies according to situations, and to different degrees entails issues of ethics and integrity. empathy and trust. corporate governance. the psychological contract. and other major factors which form opinions and feelings in people (many of which are inter-connected and explained on this website). 5.2 Nudge theory managerleader - choice architect Choice architect is Thaler-Sunstein terminology for someone (or a body) who leads or manages the application of Nudge theory. Thaler and Sunstein used the term choice architect in referring to a leader or manager (or other person with such responsibility, and by extension a governing organization or leadership) who uses Nudge techniques in seeking to change a groups behaviour. The terminology choice architect emphasizes that change is enabled by designing choices for people . which encourage them to make decisions . ideally towards positive helpful outcomes . Also, the judgment of positive outcomes must be made by the people undergoing the change. That is to say, the leadership is not the final judge of whether a change in people is helpful and good - the people themselves must judge this. The notion of a choice architect connects strongly to the philosophy of Nudge theory. The choice architect must act with great responsibility and integrity. Thaler and Sunstein do not specifically refer to the need for dedicated governance of the role, activities, and designs of the choice architect, but the need for this function to operate ethically and with proper accountability is strongly implied. On this point, the style and reputation of choice architect, as perceived by the people being nudged, can be a major factor influencing the success of applying Nudge theory. In many situations where Nudge theory is used, or can be used, the people being nudged will have feelings of one sort or another towards the choice architect (or whateverwhomever is perceived as this authority). These feelings influence the peoples openness to cooperation and having a positive reaction to being nudged. (See the LikeabilityCredibilityTrust influence below.) Accordingly, these perceptions are an important aspect of the choice architect role and responsibility, and (as with the philosophical considerations above), so an effective choice architect must be defined more broadly than simply the application of a Nudge process we must extend this to anything which determines how people feel towards the nudging authority . Again, (as with the philosophical considerations above) this perception of the style and reputation of the choice architect potentially includes issues of ethics and integrity. and empathy and trust. etc. and other concepts which form opinions and feelings in people (many inter-connected and explained on this website). These feelings also extend to prominent personalitiesbodies perceived to be associated with the nudging authority. (This is why corporations use famous popular and relevant endorsees to support their brands.) People naturally to focus on famous (or infamous) people and personalities if they are seen to represent or be associated with the nudging authority (for example political and corporate leaders). In such situations the style and reputation of these figurehead characters in choice architecture can be immensely significant in affecting how people feel towards the nudging authority. For example a nudge concerning well-being which is endorsed by the Dalai Lama is more likely to be received positively than if the same nudge were endorsed by a poorly regarded politician or corporate leader. To an extent however this is dependent on the purpose of the nudge - a nudge aimed at encouraging people to increase their physical fitness and exercise would be more positively and credibly received if endorsed by a popular sportsperson than the Dalai Lama. Relevance is therefore an important factor in considering this whole complex somewhat unofficial area of Nudge theory (given that Thaler and Sunstein did not specifically cover it). Thaler and Sunstein imply strongly that part of the choice architect role is to consider existing nudges, as well as to design new nudges. Its useful to note however that the choice architect role could and should extend to a more active responsibility for identifying and modifying or removing unhelpful existing nudges. Of course where this equates to changing how the global advertising industry operates, or how the internet is designed and regulated, or how the free market is moderated, this is not a small task, but the process must begin with awareness and intent, and then there is at least a target and aim to improve things, until sufficient will at suitable levels of authority exists. 5.3 Nudge principles - how people think and decide Thaler and Sunsteins book Nudge is about 250 pages long. The first 100 or so pages explain convincingly how people think about choices and make decisions. These c.100 pages are the most significant section of the book in explaining why and how Nudge theory works in a general sense . The second half of the book explores the application of Nudge theory in relation to major challenges of USA behavioral economics (notably savings and investments, credit markets, and social security) and to USA society (notably prescription drugs, organ donation, the environment and carbon tax, and to marriage). When reading this article please consider that the principles and techniques of Nudge theory can be applied far more widely than the original focus of Thaler and Sunsteins book. This review of Thaler and Sunsteins Nudge theory is essentially concerned with the how and why nudge theory works. At the root of this is understanding how people assess choices and make decisions . Thaler and Sunstein crucially assert (and offer researchevidence) that peoples decision-making thinking is generally not very clever or logical, and is commonly unhelpful or even harmful (to the people facing choices and making the decisions). This is a fundamentally important assertion, supported by explanations of very many different irrational human tendencies, or fallibilities as Thaler and Sunstein say i. e. the reasons for human fallibilities in assessing situations and making decisions. These human fallibilities are generally associated with natural human behaviour (hence the human designation explained below) and are highly significant in either acting as nudges or contributing to nudge effects. Thaler and Sunstein refer technically to this area of human fallibility as heuristics. which in the context of Nudge theory basically means the various internal references and responses which people use in assessing things, developing views, and making decisions. Here is a brief summary of the fallibilities, or heuristic tendencies, identified by Thaler and Sunstein. Each one is expanded in more detail in the heuristics section below this listing. The numbering Thaler and Sunstein did not number these points. They are numbered here to help understanding. 5.3.1 Heuristics overview - peoples thinking and decision-making tendencies Each of these summarized heuristic elements is linked to a more detailed explanation. Note that much of this theory and terminology was first established by Kahneman and Tversky. Thaler and Sunstein say that essentially these heuristics equate to nudges. Consider that to varying degrees these heuristics are already exploited (accidentally, carelessly, or very deliberately) by corporations, governments, other institutions, mass media, religions, leaders, bosses, parents, etc. Most of the people in authority using these devices will not know the term heuristics, but they nevertheless will be using these methods in different ways to influence people. heuristics in thaler-sunstein nudge theory - overview Using a knowncomparable fact and adjusting it to estimate or decide about something which is unknown. How common or visible or familiar something is perceived to be. The greater the commonnessvisibilityfamiliarity, then the greater the perceived frequency or incidence (which is often quite different to reality), and also the greater sense of trust in the validity of the thing or communication. This heuristic is greatly influenced by mass media. The tendency strongly influences perceived credibility. When we seehear something a lot, when question it less. How similar something is thought to be in relation to a perceived stereotype or assumption. People use this heuristic frequently in making assumptions. The tendency to under-estimate costs, timescales, challenges, and to over-estimate rewards and the ease of unknown things. The tendency for people to value possessions far more than if the things were not yet possessed - creating a resistance to giving any sort of concession or making change. People do not like to lose possession of things, irrespective of their actual valueimportance. The tendency for people to stay committed to current situations, for fear of changing to the unknown. Status quo bias is also caused by laziness, aversion to complexity, unnatural learning style demands, reading smallprint, etc. Presentation or orientation of information that alters its perceived nature. This includes positivenegative accentuation, juxtaposition, association, or many other ways of distorting the attractivenessunattractiveness of something. Greed, inability to delay gratification urge to satisfy aspiration, ego, etc. People are naturally biased towards short-term reward, and against long-term reward, or perceived low reward. Equates to the WIIFM factor (Whats in it for me). The tendency for people to form views and decisions without concentrating, or even negligently - and the perceived free or discount effect, which can encourage people to ignore real issues. See TANSTAAFL (There aint no such thing as a free lunch). Tactics used by people to counter their own heuristic weaknesses, which then also become heuristics. The mob effect, need for affirmation, avoiding riskembarrassment, strength in numbers, following the crowd, fear of isolation, etc. There are many cultural factors which adds to these effects, notably enabled and magnified by the internet and related technologies. People tend to over-estimate the visibilitysignificance of their own decisions and actions. This produces unhelpful pressures on thinking and can easily influence decision-making. The manner in which people are primed or softenedhardened before a situation or option is introduced - extends to enabling visualization of a viewpoint or feeling - relates to facilitative theory. This is a major area overlapping several individual heuristics, and refers to the degree to which something is designed in a way that helps us understand and make the best response to it. For example, go is usually green, not red. Potentially includes feedback, which is shown separately because of its independent significance. (Not presented as a heuristic like the above by Thaler and Sunstein, but easier to appreciate in this grouping.) This is an aspect of choice architecture but warrants separate explanation due to its importance. People are open to influence from feedback or reflection while thinking and deciding, or having decided, prior to further decisions. Its a crucial element of Nudge theory and its extensionapplication. (Not presented as a heuristic like the above by Thaler and Sunstein, but easier to appreciate in this grouping.) The above heuristics are fundamental to the understanding and application of Nudge theory. They are explained in more detail below in the main heuristics section. Additional heuristics, some of which overlap or are inferred by Thaler and Sunsteins nudges, andor which have been proposed by various theorists, are shown in the supplementary heuristics section. 5.4 Humans and Econs These are two different characterizations of people, used by Thaler and Sunstein to illustrate two different types of thinking and decision-making. Thaler and Sunstein illustrated the contrast between (irrational dumb, very common) human behaviour, and (rational smart, far less common) logical behaviour, by presenting two (notionally) different types of people, which they called human and econ . Humans are (what we might consider) real people, who make real human decisions (or fail to make a decision), driven by a wide range of human considerations and factors such as inertia, optimism, denial, lethargy, the inability to delay gratification, false assumptions, and more (covered in the heuristics listing above and below in the detailed heuristics descriptions ). This is a view of peoplesociety from a reality perspective. Econs are an imaginary type of people - imagined to exist (instead of real people) by economists, politicians, academics, etc. Econs (are imagined) always to think logically and rationally, and are not influenced by the various heuristic factors such as inertia, optimism, denial, lethargy, the inability to delay gratification, false assumptions, and more (covered below), which generally cause humans to behave in ways that are irrationally unhelpful, destructive, neglectful, etc. Econs are a view of people and society from an unrealistic perspective. A crucial aspect of Nudge theory is recognizing that econs do not really exist in terms of broad societal behaviour whereas humans definitely do. When we accept this we begin to see why and how Nudge is a viable and necessary methodology, and why enforcement, as a strategy for shifting behaviour, tends to fail. Thaler and Sunstein do not actually say that most politicians and corporate bosses believe that the world is populated by econs, but this is certainly implied. There is a flip-side to all this, namely that certain people in many corporations and governments understand extremely well that people often think and decide very instinctively and irrationally, and they exploit these weaknesses by using nudge methods for cynical and unhelpful purposes. A great benefit of Nudge theory is being able to see more clearly where and how this cynicism is at work, and potentially to confront and modify it. Thaler and Sunstein explained that at the root of these two different types of people are two different thinkingdecision-making systems, which follows in the section dealing with Automatic and Reflective systems of thinking. 5.5 Automatic system vs Reflective system (of thinking) According to Thaler-Sunstein Nudge theory (and previously developed equivalent KahnemanTversky theory): Humans are characterized as thinking automatically. Econs are characterized as thinking reflectively. This equates broadly to Daniel Kahnemans earlier presentation of this concept, which dates from the 1970s, and which refers instead to: System One thinking - automatic, instinctive, quick, biased, inaccurate, irrational, etc. System Two thinking - thoughtful, reflective, calculated, slow, rational, logical, critical, etc. The Thaler-Sunstein table contained the automaticreflective headers and the first six pairs of characteristics beneath. It is extended here to add clarity and context. the reflective tendency in people is over-estimated by policy-makers Thaler and Sunstein suggest that people use reflective decision-making very commonly, even for very important situations, such as in electoral voting, investing, major purchases, life decisions, etc. Note that AutomaticSystem One thinking is not bad or stupid. On the contrary. This is a significant point and easy to overlook or misunderstand. AutomaticSystem One thinking is very useful in certain situations, but in other situations may be unhelpful, where a more careful rational (Reflective) thinking is required. The tendency for humans to behave and think like Humans and not like robotic Econs - i. e. to prefer and more often use AutomaticSystem One thinking rather than ReflectiveSystem Two thinking - is a major factor in the success of humans as a species. Early humans and tribal groups who were able to think quickly and instinctively had a big advantage compared to humans who could not. And so this capabilitytendency became dominant in people via natural selection, (i. e. people possessing successful geneticsstrategies - such as quick thinking - survived and competed more successfully than peoplegroupstribes with weaker traits). Daniel Kahneman emphasizes that System One thinking (Automatic thinking of Humans) is actually a higher form of human intelligence than System Two thinking (Reflective thinking of Econs). This is because System One thinking enables people to make very quick assessments, based on highly sophisticated (usually entirely unconscious and instinctive) mental analysis and reference to experience and knowledge. For many decision-making situations - particularly in pre-historic times when life was much simpler, and not full of cynical distractions such as advertising, mass media, and governments - the ability to make quick instinctive assessments and decisions wasis a valuable capability. These two different methods of thinking and deciding are not bad or good in themselves. The point is that situations often demand one or the other, and people in modern times are not generally very good at using the right one, or balancing the use of both methods. This difficulty is compounded in modern times because of the pressure and scale of populations, misinformation, and distraction: People are often encouraged to think Automatically (System One), when they should instead be thinking Reflectively (System Two). Decisions that people face in modern times can be very far-reaching, with very big implications, compared with past times. Societies are bigger than ever and still growing fast. Societies are organized and managed by corporations and governments on a much bigger scale than ever before. So decisions by people nowadays can affect societies and the planet to an vast and unprecedented degree. 5.6 Heuristics - human thinking and deciding tendencies (heuristics nudges) Note: This section on heuristics, like the remainder of this article, is not a reproduction or extraction of Thaler and Sunsteins work (nor of the Kahneman-Tversky theory which largely underpins it) - it is a summary and interpretation of the concept and terminology, expanded by explanations and extensions to related ideas and examples. Accordingly if you seek to understand the Thaler-SunsteinKahneman-Tversky work first-hand, or to research and extract from the original source materials, then you should obtain the relevant original bookspapers. If you extractquote from this article please reference it appropriately, which in terms of Nudge theory, is a review and a secondary source. Heuristics feature strongly in Nudge theory - in fact heuristics equate to nudges. Thaler and Sunstein use the phrase rules of thumb to introduce and explain heuristics in the context of Nudge theory. (For quite separate interest see the rule of thumb in cliches origins ) Note that the general dictionary meaning of heuristics is broader and less specific to human thinking and deciding, compared with the more technical meaning of heuristics in psychology and Nudge theory, which refers more to the faulty thinkingdeciding commonly arising from human weaknesses, habits, conditioning, etc. The word heuristics basically means self-discovery (from Greek heuriskein, find), although in the context of Nudge theory, heuristics (which acts as a plural or singular term) more broadly refers to the various internal references and responses which people use in assessing things, developing views, and making decisions. By its internal nature, heuristic thinking tends to be personal, emotional, subjective, and instinctive. The famous old Monty Hall closed door probability problem is a fascinating example of faulty human heuristic thinking. Heuristic thinking also tends to lead to assumptions, knee-jerk reactions, habits, etc. Thaler and Sunstein particularly refer to the heuristics research of Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (mentioned above as key figures alongside Thaler and Sunstein in the development of Nudge theory itself) - specifically to their identification in 1974 of (initially three) rules of thumb, which people tend to use when considering and deciding about unknowns (covered in more detail next, along with several other heuristic tendencies): Anchoring and Adjustment - comparing, then guessing from that subjective reference point Availability - actually meaning perceived frequency, commonness, and familiarity of something Representativeness - comparison based on (often unreliable subjective) stereotypes The above are three of the heuristic tendencies (or types of nudges) identified and named by Thaler and Sunstein, and earlier by Kahneman-Tversky, who identified several more which feat ure in Thaler-Sunsteins Nudge theory. All of the main heuristics presented by Thaler and Sunstein are explained in detail below. Besides these, other heuristics (or nudge effects) exist and are detailed separately as supplementary heuristics below. 5.7 Thaler and Sunsteins Nudge heuristics in detail .1 Anchoring and Adjusting (comparing then guessing) .2 Availability (perceived popularityrarity) .3 Representativeness (stereotyping and comparison) .4 Optimismover-confidence (underover-estimation or complacency) .5 Loss aversion (holding on to thingsresistance) status quo bias (inertia) .6 Status quo bias (inertia, default to no action) .7 Framing (orientation, accentuation, presentation, styling) .8 Temptation (greed, ego, short-term reward) .9 Mindlessness (negligence, avoidance, not concentrating) .10 Self-control strategies (habits and routines to counter weaknesses) .11 Following the herd (conforming, mob instinct, safety in numbers) .12 Spotlight effect (anxiety, pressure, quot. everyones watching my decisionquot, fear of making errors) .13 Priming - (the ways people can be made ready or prepared before thinking and deciding, e. g. visualization, role-modeling, building belief, offering methods not just directions) .14 Stimulu s response compatibility - overlays other heuristics and nudges - (the design of signage, language, so that it looks and seems appropriate for the message it conveys) .15 Feedback - overlays other heuristics and nudges - (given to respondent during and after thinkingdecisions, enabling adjustment and useful experience) The thinkingdecision-making heuristics explained here have existed under varying terminology for many years in the study and theory of psychology and decision-making, outside of Thaler and Sunsteins Nudge theory work, notably pioneered by Kahneman and Tversky, as discussed already. Thaler and Sunstein very cleverly assembled these sub-theories and named them, to create a cohesive series of elements by which Nudge theory can be understood and applied, rather like a series of techniques, which can (I suggest) be used as a toolkit . The names of the first three heuristics, Anchoring and Adjustment, Availability, and Representativeness, are specifically attributed by Thaler and Sunstein to psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The additional Thaler-Sunstein nudges are to varying degrees similarly derived. Here they are: .1 Anchoring and Adjustment (comparison and guessing) Using a knowncomparable fact or belief and adjusting it to guessdecide something which is unknown. The comparable reference is commonly not a good similarity. Estimates are commonly very inaccurate, resulting in unreliable guesses on which to base a decision. This thinking may be affected (unhelpfully primed ) by mass media, misreporting, popular misconception, and myths. In Thaler and Sunsteins terminology a anchor refers to a persons perceived reference point in relation to a question for which the answer is not known and is to be deduced. In simple terms an anchor is a clue, or cue, or a pointer, or a starting point, (whose scalequality we think we know reasonably reliably) which can be adjusted to help us to estimate an answer. The authors call this anchoring and adjustment. (The term is borrowed from Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahnemans work on heuristics.) Most people would naturally do this when asked a question such as the cost of something thats completely new to them. Or the time it takes to complete a task in which they have no knowledge. Similarly when people are required to answer a quantitive question, such as the height of the Empire State Building, or the population of a city, they tend first to establish internally an anchor reference (another building or city whose scale they know), and then they adjust this amount until they feel comfortable with their guess for the unknown answer. In the context of Nudge theory, anchors act as nudges. However anchors are not a very reliable way to arrive at an accurate assessment of something. The authors offer evidence that different people arbitrarily select quite different anchors for the same unknown questions, which even after adjustment commonly produce quite different estimated answers. Anchoring is inherently unreliable, but it is also dependent on differing individual standpoints. .2 Availability (perceived popularityfrequencyrarity, visibility, commonness) Perceived commonnessfamiliarity of something produces a perceived popularity or incidence of something, and a basis for trustcredibility. This is often quite different to real popularity, and is rarely a basis for trust. Perceptions are greatly influenced by mass media, which equates to unhelpful priming. The tendency operates in reverse i. e. perceived uncommonness or rarity tends to produce perceptions of low popularity, low credibility and distrust, which may be very unreliable. Thaler and Sunstein use the term availability in referring to to visibility . or how commonly something is perceived to arise in a general sense, which significantly influences peoples assessment of how likely it is to arise in a personal sense. (The term availability is borrowed from Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahnemans work on heuristics.) Thaler and Sunstein give the example of the visibility (availability) of homicides (in the media notably) compared to that of suicides. This leads to the incorrect belief among most people that homicides are more common than suicides, when the opposite is true, by a considerable margin. For the same heuristic reason, most people are far more cautious when taking a plane journey than when crossing the road or driving their car, when in fact its far more dangerous statistically to cross the road or drive a car than take a plane journey. And also for the same heuristic reason, billions of people continue to drink too much alcohol, when they would not dare to touch an ecstasy tablet. Thousands die every day from alcohol-related disease. Deaths from ecstasy tablets are perhaps a few hundred in the history of mankind. The perception of frequency or visibility (availability) - how common something is - is an important heuristic within Nudge theory. People often assess likely outcomes based on a false perception of actual facts and statistics. It follows therefore, assert Thaler and Sunstein, that by shifting false perceptions, so in turn peoples assessments of outcomes can be shifted too, along with related decision-making. Here is an practical example of the use of the availability (visibility) effect, offered by Thaler and Sunstein in the 2008 book, Nudge, quot. A good way to increase peoples fear of a bad outcome is to remind them of a related incident in which things went wrong a good way to increase peoples confidence is to remind them of a similar situation in which everything worked out for the best. quot The Availability heuristic equates in some situations to familiarity (that something seems familiar to us), and this is strongly linked to trust (in the validity or credibility of something, or information about something). The concept of branding and brand awareness is an example of the availability heuristic in use. Corporations spend millions building and maintaining the familiarity of their brands and logos, etc. because this increases our sense of trust, and a perceived sense of reliability, in the productsservices under the brands in question. Incidentally this effect offers an example of two or more heuristics (nudges) working together, because brand familiarity acts potently with the following the herd (conforming ) heuristic. .3 Representativeness (stereotyping, comparison) People refer to personal stereotypes or assumptions in seeking references for unknowns. This is highly subjective, susceptible to misinformation, and a very unreliable basis for forming opinions and making decisions. This thinking is affected (unhelpfully primed ) by mass media promotion of stereotypes and biases. Thaler and Sunstein suggest the word similarity to clarify representativeness (which is borrowed from Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahnemans work on heuristics). They also relate this heuristic mechanism to stereotyping. We see representativeness bias occurring widely in peoples thinking when stereotyping and discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexuality, age, and social class, etc. Assessments and decisions based on similarity assumptions and extensions are extremely common and happen daily on a vast scale in every field imaginable. The tendency is seen also in the extension or extrapolation of a small sample to produce a wrong conclusion about the bigger picture. As with the other heuristic tendency availability (visibility or commonness), the mass media contributes greatly to the building and maintaining of stereotypes in all aspects of life. The representativeness heuristic is sometimes a confusion between, or reversal of, cause and effect. Or it may be a faulty correlation - for example, the common mistaken view that people can catch a cold from being out in cold weather, whereas a cold is a virus that is passed from person to person. Representativeness misjudgments may alternatively stem from the misinterpretation of a chance or random pattern as being a normal or standard effect, which can be extended or projected, much like the extension of a stereotype. .4 Optimismover-confidence (overunder-estimation, complacency, ignoring or taking risks) People tend to under-estimate expensescosts, timescales, complexity, and the difficulty of unfamiliar challenges. People tend to over-estimate rewards and the ease of unfamiliar tasks. This can cause denial, complacency, and insufficient planning, attention, resourcing, time, etc. The Optimism heuristic generally ignores, denies, under-estimates or justifies risk. This is the tendency to under-estimate costs, timescales, challenges, and to over-estimate rewards and the ease of unknown things. This tendency leads to complacency, inertia, extravagance, wastage, delays, failures to make budgets and control spending, setting unreasonable goals and expectations. The Optimism heuristic is closely linked with risk - either as an effect of low perceived risk, or a cause of ignoring or under-estimating risk, or of justifying taking risk. When people mismanage their household budgets by spending too much of their monthly salary in the first couple of weeks of the month, this is typically due to the optimism heuristic. They hope their money will last, and fail to check account balances, rather than budgeting and controlling expenditure. This for many people becomes a lifelong repeating cycle of failing to balance their outgoings and incomes. Optimism then influences many peoples decisions to seek and commit to punitively expensive loans. Woven into these feelings is the unconscious or deliberate denial of risks arising from the thinking and decision. The same tendencies cause many people to: take a hopeful approach to retirement rather than planning and saving, avoid medical diagnosis and treatment when they get sick, delay getting repairs done until the roof is actually leaking bucketfuls, and defer and procrastinate in considering the urgency of all sorts of necessary jobs. The optimism heuristic is also commonly responsible for people being late, when they imagine they can complete jobs and travel much faster than proves to be so. The Optimism tendency is also responsible for people finding themselves in awkward embarrassing positions when misjudgments have been made, compounded by reluctance or denial in accepting that corrective action is necessary, causing situations to go from bad to worse. As with other heuristic failings, blame can soon emerge. quotSomeone should have told me. quot is a common reaction to problems arising from this heuristic. A useful approach for preventing or countering the risks of the optimismover-confidence heuristic is designing feedback (covered below) into processes and choices offered to people. The Optimism heuristic is an opposing instinct to the Loss aversion heuristic shown below. Depending on the person and situation one of these may be a dominant factor in someones thinking. .5 Loss aversion (holding on, resistance) People tend to value something more when they possess it, than if they do not (Thaler and Sunstein suggest that this over-valuation equates to 100 or double) People (therefore) tend to resist (to a disproportionate degree) losing something they already possess, or exchanging it for something of equal or even greater value. This causes inertia and tendency to default to inaction (which potentially equates to Status quo bias. (below). The Loss aversion heuristic is a major cause of risk avoidance, which also produces inertia. Thaler and Sunstein suggest that most people are fundamentally loss averse, so that assessments and decisions tend to me made so as to avoid a perceived loss, even if the loss is more than compensated by a different gain. Thaler and Sunstein assert that: quot. Roughly speaking, losing something makes you twice as miserable as gaining the same thing makes you happy. quot It seems that when people believe they must quot. give something up, they are hurt more than they are pleased to acquire the very same thing. quot The authors extend this point to assert that quot. Loss aversion helps produce inertia, meaning a strong desire to stick with your current holdings. quot The Loss aversion heuristic produces a heightened sense of risk. Most people tend to avoid risk. Thinking becomes driven by a feeling that change will be disadvantageous, and so decisions are made either to preserve, conserve or consolidate the current position (often seen a holding something) and this relates strongly to the Status quo heuristic, explained below. The Loss aversion heuristic is an opposing instinct to the Optimism heuristic explained above. Loss aversion avoids risk, whereas Optimism ignores, minimizes or justifies risk. .6 Status quo bias (inertia, resistance to change, default to inaction) People generally fear change, especially of uncertain nature. Fear of error, embarrassment, rejection, etc. may also contribute to inertia depending on personality and life-stage and situation. Status quo bias may be compounded by laziness, aversion to complexity and effort, etc. Thaler and Sunstein refer to status quo bias, being a tendency for humans to want to maintain things in their present form and so to resist change. Inertia (where people find it easier to do nothing rather than make a change) is a powerful effect, and has been used by leaders and communicators for generations. Inertia relates to the use of defaults by authorities and corporations, which we see every day in checkboxes, on forms and websites, and embedded more deeply into how options are often presented. The use of inertia as a selling, marketing and governing mechanism is controversial, especially where the default (what happens in the event of no change or decision) produces advantages for a sellergoverning authority, and disadvantages or unnecessary costs for customers. Inertia and defaults feature strongly in choice architecture, explained below - the signage and structures that influence our attitudes prior to decision-making. Logically, the authors say that inertia is produced by the human tendency to avoid change, effort, risk, etc. which in turn may be due to laziness, aversion to time-consuming complexity (for example in understanding complicated options), andor simply a discomfort felt when considering changing something. We see inertia especially affecting peoples decisions when having to adopt new technologies, or decluttering a home, or working towards a new qualification or career change. Thaler and Sunstein refer to the use of inertia and default in securing permissions for organ donation as a positive helpful application of the technique. They offer evidence by which the permission default was switched to opt-out from opt-in, so that peoples natural inertia in checking boxes produced a massive increase in organ donation permissions. It is not difficult to imagine how this simple but very potent heuristic - inertia, doing nothing - has been and will continue to be used widely for unethical purposes. .7 Framing (orientation, accentuation, presentation) The presentation or orientation of information can alter its perceived meaningnature. This includes positivenegative accentuation, juxtaposition, association, or many other ways of distorting the attractivenessunattractiveness of something. The description of a choice can entirely alter the way people notice and perceive the meaning and implications of the choice. Framing is proposed by the authors as a further significant heuristic in how people assess options and make decisions. Language is immensely flexible. Something which is a good possibilityoption may always be described or framed as a poor one, and vice-versa. Thaler and Sunstein offer the example of illness diagnosis and treatmentrecovery prognosis between doctor and patient: that if a medical consultant focuses on death rates, people are put off treatment, whereas a focus on survival rates tends to increase agreement for treatment, without any alteration of the actual figures. Its a matter of orientation and presentation, or framing. The notion of accentuating the positive is an aspect of framing. A child is more likely to spill a drink if told, quotDont spill that drink, quot than if told, quotBe careful with that drink. quot When a sports coach says to the team at half-time: quotNow go win this game, quot rather than quotDont lose this game, quot the coach is framing the same instruction in a way that is more likely to get a good result. Framing affects the way people feel and think about about something primarily due to the way in which a choice or option is described. This heuristic may operate in parallel with more direct forms of mood-changing. which is described in the supplementary (non-Thaler-Sunstein) heuristics section later. .8 Temptation (greed, ego, short-term reward, inability to delay gratification) People tend to want short-term more than long-term reward, whether the values are real or perceived. People are attracted to choices which they perceive to be easy, andor which they perceive will make like easier for themselves. People tend to behave according to the maxim that: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - i. e. people are tempted by having something now, more than something bigger in the future. People are tempted by different things according to personality and situation. People are generally and naturally attracted to options which offer quick appealing reward. What is regarded as reward by people can take many different forms, for example: materialfinancial, optimizing return on effortinput (big outcome from small investment), recognition, praise, thanks needs of ego and self-image, avoidance of challengingdifficult effort, responsibility, control, security and protection, benefits for friendschildrenetc, power, love and affection, food, sex, shelter, etc. The values people place on different types of rewards depend on a persons circumstances and feelings at the time. See the theories of Maslow and Herzberg to understand motivationneeds and reward in more detail. Temptation is a very powerful heuristic - people are naturally biased towards short-term reward, and against long-term reward, or perceived low reward. See the WIIFM factor (Whats in it for me). We see the temptation heuristic being exploited to extreme degrees in the operation of most gambling productsservices. Many people are naturally are drawn to possibilities which offer large rewards for a small effort or investment - even if logic, facts, and experience, suggest otherwise. Every day around the globe millions of intelligent mature people gamble collectively millions of dollars on lotteries, which these people know offer odds of several millions-to-one against winning a major prize. They do this mainly because for them the temptation heuristic is more powerful than facts and logic. .9 Mindlessness (negligence, not concentrating) People sometimes form views and decisions without concentrating, or negligently. Distraction, illusion, or difficulty can be major factors in reducing concentration. Simple human error or other common human weaknesses can cause oversights and mistakes. Where Thaler and Sunstein use the term mindlessness this refers to various sorts of human error in considering situations and options. Mindlessness is the tendency for people to form views and decisions carelessly. This may be due to difficulty and complexity, stress and pressure, laziness, anxiety, poor awareness or education, distraction or deception, false assumptions, illusions, declining mental powers, etc. In the modern age, this human tendency to overlook important details is exploited by various authorities, especially cynical corporations. For example a perceived free or discount offer can be intentionally distracting, encouraging people to ignore more important issues. Where retailers exaggerate discounts by stating artificially high previous selling prices they are deliberately trying to produce and exploit a mindlessness in people. Mindlessness is related to framing (the way that a choice is described) and over-optimism (hoping that things are okay). See TANSTAAFL (There aint no such thing as a free lunch). People are practising mindlessness when they fail to read terms and conditions, and other small print. Its a very widespread behaviour, and is very widely encouraged and exploited by corporations and authorities. Mindlessness usually causes people to make unhelpful decisions, or to overlook the need for a decision. Authorities, leaders, corporations (and other choice architects) therefore have a responsibility to identify risks of mindlessness in designed choices, and to improve clarity and visibility as appropriate. It is not ethical to defend the poor design of an important choice (in a communication, process, etc) by saying that people should have read the small print. Choice architects should know that mindlessness is a real human tendency, and take measures to protect people from such vulnerability. .10 Self-control strategies (habits and routines to counter weaknesses) People are often aware that they have some heuristic weaknesses, which they might regard as bad habits, or simply weaknesses). People commonly devise routines and protections against their perceived weaknesses. Strategies which people use to protect themselves from their own weaknesses become new heuristic tendencies potential weaknesses. Most people know that they have human heuristic weaknesses, although theyd be highly unlikely to use that terminology. People instead tend to acknowledge their own vulnerability to heuristic weakness in expressions such as: I am my own worst enemy I would lose my own head if it were not screwed on I should have made a list I should count to ten. (to give thinking-time before speakingacting) I cant resist a bargain I wear my heart on my sleeve I should have known it was too good to be true.. Many people devise tactics to overcome their weaknesses. Interestingly many of these strategies then act as additional heuristics. Thaler and Sunstein give the example of people who put their alarm-clocks out of reach, as a strategy to counter the temptation heuristic which encourages people to switch off the alarm and go back to sleep. Here are some more examples of self-control heuristics that people use to counter other heuristic weaknesses: keeping a watch a few minutes fast, to counter a lateness tendency leaving a car parked on a steep hill in neutral gear, for fear of forgetting its in gear when they return to it and start the engine, which would cause the car to leap forward (a car parked on a steep hill should be left in gear, as a safety measure in case of hand-brake failure) using the same PIN code for all secure devices and accounts, for fear of forgetting lots of different ones running more bank accounts than necessary (or saving money in different pots) for fear of being unable to control spending using fewer accountspots setting task deadlines in advance of actual due dates for fear of missing them keeping unnecessarily big stocks of consumable products for fear of running outforgetting to re-order Many self-control strategies like these (and there are hundreds more) actually become new weaknesses. Choice architects should recognize when such tactics could be present in peoples behaviour, and make allowances in how choices are offered accordingly. .11 Following the Herd (conforming, mob instinct) Following the herd (crowd) without question causes the mob effect, mob rule, daft committee decisions, and underpins fashions, fads, crazes and myths. The tendency is caused by peoples need for affirmation, avoiding riskembarrassment, strength in numbers, fear of isolation, etc. Mass media, and authorities and institutions with vested interests in certain beliefs, commonly help build and maintain false group-beliefs. Thaler and Sunstein explore this heuristic (they call it following the herd) at great length and depth, understandably, because it is a very substantial aspect of group and societal behaviour. The tendency is known by many other terms, some very loosely, such as the mob effect, mob rule, majority rule, when in Rome. (. do as the Romans do), the herding effect, behaving like sheep, strength in numbers, lowest common denominator, among other terms and metaphors. There are many cultural factors which enhance these effects, especially when enabled and magnified by modern internetcomputercommunications technologies. The common human urge (conscious or unconscious) to conform to the behaviours of others, or to social norms, expectations and customs, has many different causes, for example: the need for affirmation (being like others, which produces feelings of affirmation) avoiding riskembarrassmentbeing wrong (not raising ones head above the parapet) fear of isolation, ridicule, persecution, retribution, etc allegiance to a societal grouping, religion, cause, campaign, movement, etc. Fear (of embarrassment, isolation, being wrong, loss of reputation, etc) is a big factor in this heuristic. So is the spotlight effect. Note that this sort of conforming is to a perceived norm, which is not necessarily the reality. The analogous fairy tale of The Emperors New Clothes illustrates the bizarre susceptibility of humans to conforming to a perceived majority belief, even if unproven or plainly daft. (A pompous king is persuaded by mischievous tailors that a magnificent expensive suit they have produced for him can only be seen by clever people, when in fact there is no suit at all, so the king is in fact naked. The king, his courtiers, and crowds, are all tricked into agreeing that the kings suit is wondrous, even though the king is naked, because each person does not dare to appear to be stupid - except eventually a small boy, unaware of the tailors claims, who exposes the sham.) This is similar to experience of sitting in a classroom situation not daring to ask for clarification of a complex issue, because we imagine everyone else understands, when in fact not everybody does, and people are conforming to the same false notion. The fascinating Abilene Paradox is another example of unhelpful group thinking according to this (following the herdconforming) heuristic, by which a group, especially a committee or supposedly cooperative united group, is prone to making idiotic decisions based on the individual members misreading and then following a wrongly perceived group view. Confusingly when lots of people conform to a false but perceived norm, such group delusions can easily produce actual real norms, which are based on nothing but the imagination of lots of people. Many experts would also say that conforming in one way or another has also been a necessary survival instinct throughout human history, so that the tendency may actually be to a degree hard-wired or genetically inherited by each of us. Whatever the causes of conformity its immensely powerful and potentially lethal too. All wars are based on soldiers and populations conforming. (This is not the same as following orders its actually willingly doing as others do, following virtually without question, what a big crowd of fellow humans are doing). Sports and music fan-bases would not exist without the human heuristic of conforming. Nor would Facebook or Google or Twitter exist without human conformity. Nor would there be a fashion industry, or strongly branded merchandise, were it not for the human urge to conform. In fact the human urge to confirm is so powerful that non-conformers are commonly ridiculed or persecuted, quite outside of wars, and this behaviour can be seen in tiny children as well as in supposedly intelligent mature adults. .12 Spotlight Effect (anxiety, pressure, all eyes on me, fear of making mistakes) People tend to imagine their individual actionsdecisions are very noticeable to a group. This can produce unhelpful pressures on thinking, and influence decision-making. Fear is a main factor - fear of embarrassment, criticism, making mistakes, isolation, etc. This is the tendency for people to over-estimate the visibilitysignificance of their own decisions and actions, which Thaler and Sunstein call the spotlight effect. The metaphor alludes to the feeling of being centre-stage, with a spotlight and all eyes upon us, so that our every action is seen by everyone. In reality groups of other people - as a group - do not notice what we do and care very little what we do and decide. (This is different from the more realistic fear that our actions and decisions can be highly visible and significant to to another individual person, or a small personally connected group, but this is a separate matter entirely.) The effect of the spotlight effect heuristic is to pressurize our thinking and decision-making, one way or another, as if everyone were judging us andor dependent upon our decision. The spotlight effect is strongly linked to, and adds to the potency of, the conforming heuristic (following the herd). The spotlight effect is a particularly significant false factor in the early development stages of mob rule situations, which can then develop to propose much bigger real threats to non-conforming individuals. As with many other heuristics, the spotlight effect human weakness is often exploited in cynical ways by corporations, thereby persuading individuals to conform to a false reality. Much of the corporatecommercial world embeds this tactic into its advertising in attempting, often very successfully, to convince audiences that the productservicelifestyle being promoted is far more popular and normal than it actually is. The tobacco industry did this for decades, and actually continues to do so via product placement in movies, etc. Ethical choice architecture should obviously avoid presenting norms that are unhelpful to people. .13 Priming (preparing people for thinking and decisions) People can be helped to approach choices in a more prepared state. This happens before the choice is experienced. Many people need and benefit from this effect. The choice architect responsibility is extended to peoples attitude, as part of the choice design. The manner in which people are primed or softenedhardened before a situation or option is introduced - extends to enabling visualization of a viewpoint or feeling - relates to facilitative theory. Peoples openness and preferences towards choices are influenced by what happens before and while an option is emerging. Thaler and Sunstein call this preparatory stage priming. This relates to and overlaps with framing. The priming heuristic potentially includes the imagining or visualization of a viewpoint or feeling (i. e. the person consciously or unconsciously imagines the feeling or consequences of a decision). This potentially includes peoples self-image, which is is significant in affecting personal response and responsiveness to all sorts of things, including nudges. See relevance in the the supplementary heuristics section, which is greatly affected by self-image. Priming relates to NLP (neuro-linguistic programming). clean language. transactional analysis. facilitative theory, and many other psychological concepts which are concerned with mental attitude. Body language can also feature in priming. A classic example of priming, although not called this at the time, is the Hawthorne Effect experiments of Elton Mayo. Sports coaches frequently use the priming heuristic to influence the feelings and decisions of athletes and teams. The centuries-old leadership notion of fighting for a god or or QueenKing and country is a form of priming. Most advertising seeks to employ a form of priming, often by first showing attractive sexycuddly images of people, scenery, cars, puppies ands kittens, etc. Many stories, jokes and analogies also use priming in creating a certain attitude or expectation in the audience. Separately, a very specific and simple aspect of priming has been recognized (although not named as such) in psychology and concepts such as NLP for decades, in the use and avoidance of certain words when seeking to influences human responses, for example: The word how is more likely to produce a positive response than why Words like situation and challenge are more positively stimulating than words like problem and difficulty, In communications designed to motivate, using the word but usually prompts a negative feeling, compared to and or also. Single clear positive messagesinstructionsrequests work better than communications which carry more than one main message. A request to do something generally produces better response levels than a request which instructs not to or dont do something. These examples are also arguably forms of framing, although framing refers to a more general orientation of a communication, rather than the preparatory priming aspect. .14 Stimulus Response Compatibility (language, signage, design - does the look and feel of the choice match the meaning of the choice) Stimulus Response Compatibility refers to how reliably the look and feel (signs and signals) of a choice reflectrepresent its meaning. This heuristic concept overlaps many other heuristics (types of nudges). There are cultural differences - signalssigns can mean different things to different cultures. Thaler and Sunstein refer to this area of heuristics as choice architecture, and also as stimulus response compatibility. Thaler and Sunsteins use of the term choice architecture for this area of heuristics is a little confusing, and inconsistent with the term choice architect, which embraces all heuristics. Stimulus Response Compatibility refers to whether the look and feel of the communication or signal (the stimulus) matches (is compatible with) the message that we receive or infer (our response) from the communication. In other words, is our brain being tricked See the weird colour trick for demonstration of how Stimulus Response Compatibility can very easily mislead the brain. This aspect of human thinking is not presented by Thaler and Sunstein as a stand-alone heuristic like the above listed items, but is easier to appreciate in this grouping, especially when heuristics are seen as nudges in a toolkit. Stimulus Response Compatibility is an aspect of semiotics. which is the studyscience of how meaning is conveyed in language, signage, symbols, stories, metaphors, etc. and generally any other visual carrier of meaning. In honest communications, the appearance or feel of something (a sign, words, or anything designed for us to engage with or respond to) should help us understand how to respond or engage with it . (rather than encourage us to respond in some other way). A basic example of this effect is any optical illusion, by which something seems to be what it is not. The brain can easily be tricked, for example: What do the words in the triangle say Most people seeing this for the first time say, Paris in the Spring. But the word the appears twice. The brain has been tricked. It is easy to miss the finer points in life. Folk are frequently guilty of falling into this trap. The letter f appears eight times in the box. People commonly count seven, by failing to see the last but one f. The stimulus response compatibility effect on thinking - where the brain is tricked by incompatibility - is a major area of heuristics. It overlaps with several other individual heuristics, and is hugely significant in how (usually visual) communications and signals are designed, in terms of human expectation and conditioning, so that commonly we decide about things prematurely, often not even bothering to examine and understand the detail. Generally green means go or okay, and red means stop or danger, even if the words say something different. Capital-letter (upper-case) words generally emphasize importance, loudness, priority, etc. even if the wordsmeaning are unimportant. A tick means yes, an X means no, usually. A white-out box invites us to write something in it. Many more examples exist in thousands of very recognizable patterns, customs and symbols that we see around us, and these signals are increasing still more in the digital age. The extent to which the look and feel of something prepares us for a certain response is a very big factor in how we are nudged towards one response or another. Imagine how much slower the world would work if overnight the enter key were renamed or moved elsewhere on computer keyboards. Every year there is a major electoral dispute somewhere about the design of a voting slip, because the design confused people as to how many boxes should be marked. More commonly, the very tiny extensive small-print in most contracts discourages us from reading it. The stimulus (small, difficult to read) is not compatible with the response we should have (quot. these terms and conditions are important, so I should read themquot). We expect important information to be conveyed clearly, concisely, in large print. When we see lots of small print we are not inclined to read it because small-print equates to unimportant, and its difficult to read too because of the language, length of the text, and layout. This is often a cynical intention of the communicator because they know that if people actually read the small-print they would hesitate to agree to the contract. The communicator is deliberately creating and exploiting a stimulus that is incompatible with the response that the communication deserves. Thaler and Sunstein offer a couple of simple amusing examples of stimulus response incompatibility, notably: a door which must be pushed to open, but which has big handles on it, so people wrongly think it must be pulled and the daft four-in-a-line control knobs on nearly every cooker, which are incompatible with the four-in-a-square layout of the hob burners. And one example of helpful compatibility, which arises more than once in the Nudge book, is that of the image of a fly inside mens urinals, so as to improve aim, and reduce cleaning and hygiene problems (it works). You will encounter examples every day of communicationsstimuli that are designed helpfully, and unhelpfully. Many unhelpful designs are merely accidental or careless, but plenty are designed deliberately to encourage you to respond in a way that is not in your best interests. This area of heuristics overlaps strongly with conditioning, and is especially potent when combined with defaults (i. e. what specifically happens when you decide to do nothing), inertia, checkboxes, and other mechanisms which leave people wishing theyd taken more time thinking how to respond. Bear in mind that aspects of this heuristic are subject to major cultural variation. For instance the thumbs-up sign is insulting in certain parts of the world, and generally icons based on western body language are certainly not always transferable internationally with consistent meaning. .15 Feedback (during thinking and decision-making, enabling correction and useful experience) Feedback equates to helping people understand their situations, thinking, and decisions, responsively during thinking and deciding processes. People are open to helpinfluence from feedback or reflection while thinking and deciding, or having decided, prior to further decisions. Feedback is a relatively skillful and sophisticated aspect designing choices. Feedback is a crucial element of optimizing the effectiveness of Nudge theory. This is a major and sophisticated aspect of heuristics, and is part of choice architecture as defined by Thaler and Sunstein. Note that feedback here is mainly a part of a system design, for a process, or signage, as experienced by large groups of users, (rather than conventional one-to-one feedback). (Feedback is not presented by Thaler and Sunstein as a stand-alone heuristic like the above listed items. It is is easier to appreciate in this grouping of heuristics, especially when heuristics are seen as nudges in a toolkit.) As with other decision-making heuristics explained here, feedback has existed in the study and theory of decision-making for many years quite outside of Thaler and Sunsteins Nudge theory work. Humans are potentially able to respond very well to receiving feedback about their actions and decisions. We do not always do so however, because this depends how the feedback is given and how we are feeling at the time. The feedback may be accurate, but if it is given in the wrong way, or the recipient is not feeling good about himherself, then theres no certainty that the feedback will be absorbed or acted on. And sometimes poorly designed feedback can make things worse. To imagine or explain how feedback operates while people are taken through a process, a useful example is the signage during road diversions, which provides good and bad examples, especially where people are liable to make wrong turnings (unhelpful decisions). Good feedback offers signs informing people of mistakes, and signs directing people back to the correct route. Poor feedback fails to anticipate that some people may find themselves on the wrong road, and allows people to continue unaware of their mistakes, often becoming completely lost. Separately Transactional Analysis is very helpful in understanding - at an emotional level - why feedback may be received positively or negatively, and how to design feedback and reflective systems so that they are as helpful as possible. Transactional Analysis is typically concerned with personal one-to-one communications, however its principles transfer very readily to the design of systems and processes, and how organizations and systems should interact with userscustomersetc. Facilitative decision-making is also very relevant and helpful in understanding and designing feedback that helps people through a discovery and decision process. This sort of facilitative nudging methodology is a major and sophisticated area of heuristics in its own right, and is detailed separately in the supplementary heuristics section. We see many examples on the web of processes which include feedback, and in other computerized applications. Some are very good, where the user is coached through a thinkingdeciding process others are very unhelpful. Your own experiences will give you plenty of examples. In appreciating what feedback is required for users in processes and systems - to confirm, give feedback, correct, and offer helpful options and information - it can be useful to step away from the actual project (because choice architects are often so close to a project that its difficult to imagine what a user needs). Feedback - in helping people think and decide - should: confirm to people when they are making good decisions checkaskpromptcorrect people wherever an error of judgment might have occurred suggest alternativeremedial action in the event of errors and should do all this at appropriate timesstages in an appropriate manner (again see Transactional Analysis) Some sort of flowchart diagram is useful in designing good feedback systems, by which every possible choiceoptiondecision point in the decision-making process is identified, analysed, and mapped (showing all the possible paths and outcomes available). This enables appropriate support to be designed to ensure that userscustomers are helped at each stage depending on the choices they make. This completes the summary and explanation of the heuristics identified by Thaler and Sunstein. However many other additional heuristics feature in human thinkingdecision-making, and could be considered part of a Nudge theory methodology or toolkit. Several of these major supplementary heuristics are explained in detail next, below. 6. Other types of nudges, supplementary heuristics, adaptationsextensions There are many other aspects of human communicatingengaging which, while not specifically identified as heuristics or nudges by Thaler and Sunstein, might be regarded as such, and deserve explanation and inclusion here, and especially in the Nudge toolkit. Some of these heuristics are similar to, or overlap, Thaler-Sunstein nudges. Others are quite different and do not feature in the Thaler-Sunstein published work. None of the following are specifically named or categorized as nudges by Thaler and Sunstein. So please dont suggest they are. Some of these may be similar to heuristic theories of other academics and psychologists, including Kahneman and Tversky, however the collection is not intended to represent anyones specific theories. The field of heuristics is broad, changing, and open to wide interpretation. The collection which follows is an attempt to categorize and explain the main effects in an accessible and useable manner. On which point, the word intervention is used in this section in referring to actions, communications, choices, nudges, inputs, etc. that are devised and applied by leaders in attempting to alter peoples behaviourbehavior. Please note also that these are generalized aspects of human thinking. Not everyone behaves predictably according to these influences. First a summary table, linked to and followed by more detailed explanations and examples. N. B. The following heuristics are not named or defined as nudges by Thaler and Sunstein, although some arise in their examples and supporting narrative, and others are logical extensions of Thaler-Sunstein ideas, andor have been proposed in various forms by other theorists. The table below attempts to offer a simple accessible summary of these ideas and their meanings, which in turn helps to identify where they exist, and how they might be modified or used. supplementary heuristics (nudges) Positioning, moving things, prominence, proximity, etc. The physical or visual positioning of something that people engage with, or which influences the way people engage with something else. Expiry dates, limited stock, and forbidden fruit. The impression that opportunity could be lost, or something is in limited supply. Easy, rather than difficult (at a personal level). Ease of engagement, a perceived high return on on low effort, path of least resistance. When an intervention is sympathetic to someone, then engaging and responding to it is easier than something which is unsympathetic. Is the intervention in tune with the target audience Visibility - the efficiency or reach of the communication or signal. This is a measure of how many people are exposed to an intervention, and how many times people are exposed to it. Increased accessibility tends to increase responsiveness. Trust, reputation, credibility. People are more likely to engage and feel positively towards interventions associated with trusted, credible, likeable authorities and the figurehead leaderscharacters perceived to represent the authority in question. Meaningful fit with peoples self-image. People consciously or unconsciously ask themselves, quotIs this for mequot or quotIs this relevant to my needs and situationquot This is similar to framing but more personal and individually evaluated. How the intervention makes people feel. Kahneman and Tversky theorized in detail about different types of mood influences. Its a form of priming but more specifically entails stimulation and signals which affect peoples feelings, which in turn affect our thinking and decision-making. A big influence on peoples thinking and a major thread running through lots of heuristics. Used widely throughout human history as perhaps the most immediately impactful nudge of all, but fear contains more complexity and a range of applications, for potentially helpful effect, aside from the usual unhelpful usage. People are helped to understand and decide, free of bias. This is a very sophisticated, proactive and personally responsive heuristic which extends a combination of several heuristics, notably such as priming and feedback . Alteration of attitude via other sensory stimulation, aside from more obvious mood-changers. Sensory stimulants include interventions such as sound and music, colourcolor, brightness, touch and texture, heat and cold, wetness, humidity, air quality, and certain forms of body language . The nudges in the table above and explained below in more detail are not identified as specific nudges by Thaler-Sunstein, although some overlap Thaler-Sunstein ideas. The above nudges are additions, extensions or adaptations, perhaps omissions, of the Thaler-Sunstein ideas, and also serve to further explain and clarify the principles which underpin Nudge theory, and how it might be taught and applied. additional nudges - detail 6.1 Positioning - locating things, moving things, prominence This refers to the visiblephysical positioning of something. This might be the positioning of something to be read or used, or the positioning of something else which affects, or is relative to, the accessvisibility of the subjectissue concerned. For example, the positioning of words and pictures in notices and adverts the positioning of notices and adverts themselves the positioning of things which affect peoples movements, such as facilities, equipment, etc. that people engage with. Thaler and Sunstein offer examples of this sort of intervention although do not categorize it as a heuristic or nudge as such. A notable Thaler-Sunstein example is the positioning of different types of foods in a self-service cafeteria. There are lots of other examples of this sort of choice architecture being used in the world, especially in retailing and advertising. The advertising industry understands this positional strategy very well. Positioning or moving things can be a very powerful way to influence all sorts of human behaviour where choice is affected by visibilityprominence, physical access or location. For example moving the position of a drinks machine in a publicwork environment would affect the movement of people, conceivably to achieve an aim that might otherwise be completely unrelated to the drinks service. There are many possibilities to alter peoples choices by positioning or moving things (including adverts and information notices), so that people are exposed to different experiences and options. 6.2 Limiting - expiry dates, limited stock, and forbidden fruit Thaler and Sunstein do not specifically categorize this as a heuristic or nudge, yet the fear of losing an opportunity, or of limited offer, is a powerful influence on many peoples thinking. A psychology analogy to illustrate a major effect within this notion is that of chasing after a dog (it will run away), rather than running away from the dog (it will come after you). Or the dating maxim playing hard to get. For some reason human beings are generally conditioned to want something more if it is less easy to acquire, and this provides various ways to build new choices. Human tendency is to be more attracted to something which is elusive, fleetingly available, limited, etc. than things that are plentiful, unlimited, always available, etc. A further analogy is that of a child who will be more inclined to pursue things that are restricted or banned, and to refuse things which are offered enthusiastically. This is called loosely reverse psychology in many situations, for example the concept of withholding something from someone, which often has the effect of increasing the persons desire for it. People naturally seem to infer a higher value on something if it is rare, about to be lost, or difficult to acquire, etc. than on things which are common and easy to acquire, or even difficult to avoid. 6.3 Sympathy - Ease of adoption, path of least resistance (water flows downhill) Human instinctively try to conserve their energy. This is not laziness, its merely being efficient. We naturally prefer to make life as easy as possible for ourselves. Therefore people will tend to behave in quite predictable ways concerning the ease in which a task or process can be approached (or avoided). We take the path of least resistance, (or what we believe to be the path of least resistance). Accordingly, choices which are designed to match this preference will tend to be preferred to choices which do not. We might think of this as designing choices that are sympathetic to peoples inclinations and habits, etc. Or designing choices that go with the flow of peoples natural or habitual behaviours. This is an over-arching heuristic which can be seen operating in various specific nudges, but also in itself sympathetic design of choices can be a powerful way to shape choices, and a reminder to check that choices fit with this human tendency. Put another way, if people think that there is a very much easier option (than choices you design) - a path or very little resistance - then they will tend to take it. If a designed choice (action or decision) isnt easy for people, then they are unlikely to take it. We can also consider this influence in terms of return on effort. People respond well to options which offer a high reward or yield for relatively low effort or input. 6.4 Accessibility - efficiency of communication, reach, penetration This human preference is certainly a feature of a few of the Thaler-Sunstein nudges, but it stands alone as a very important basis for designing options for people. Using larger fonttype size in detailed printed communications improves peoples ease in reading them, especially older people. Translating materials into different languages increases accessibility for foreign language speakers. Making materials available in different media increases the opportunities for people to see the materials concerned. Distributing information by post, door-to-door, will reach a wider audience than a few pages page on a website. These are all statements of the obvious, and yet this basic sort of accessibility is often forgotten when choices are designed and offered to people. In advertising theory this relates to reach and penetration, which are basically measures of how many people seereceive the communication. In a deeper sense, and in terms of Nudge theory, this refers to how effectively a signal (or nudge) reaches the audience - so that people: seeexperience it absorb it understand it (or can assimilate it - take it in, even unconsciously) and are affected by it. This potentially entails lots of things: Accessibility refers to optimizing the extent to which an audience will see, receive, experience, understand (or otherwise assimilate and process internally) and be affected by the signalcommunicationinput (nudge) from the sender or giver (choice architect). Accessibility is another powerful aspect of choice design. On a simple level of decision-making, people can only begin to think and decide about things if they are properly informed. Too often people are expected to act when the accessibility of information is so poor that facts and meanings remain effectively unknown. Technology is a major factor in this regard, notably where people are expected to understand choices when the communication method requires an access to or command of technology that some people simply dont have. For example, many older people are far less informed about their personal finances in modern times because statements and balance information is only generally accessible when a customer looks for it online. Virtually no information is offered from supplier to customer without an extra cost, and this reduces peoples awareness, and therefore the quality of their thinking and decisions. Worryingly this heuristic tendency is exploited to cynical effect by many large corporations, when poor information accessibility combines with other heuristics such as status quo bias. mindlessness. and optimism. to suppress customer complaints and terminations. Properly approached however, accessibility should instead be an strong force for good. Choice architects must ask themselves: How can I maximize the chances of people seeingexperiencing the choices or communications that I am designing for them Consider the what, how, where, when of choices: What: content, supporting facts and figures (consider comparisons and stereotypes ), language, wording, typeface and design, size, format, layout, etc. How: delivered, packaged, available, linked, supported, justified, framed and primed. etc. Where: located, positioned, available, etc. When: available, frequency, repeated, reminded, etc. If you dont know how to improve accessibility, dont guess or assume what will work better. Ask your audiences how to improve the accessibility of messages and choices designed to reach them. 6.5 Likeability - reputation, trust, credibility, honesty, integrity, ethics This issue of reputation, trust, integrity, etc. is mentioned previously in the philosophy and choice architect sections. The likeability of a nudging organization is highly significant . although not given great attention by Thaler and Sunstein. This heuristic factor influences peoples openness or willingness to be nudged . and so it is related to priming. Simply, people are less inclined to respond positively (or at all) to a choice (or nudge) offered by a leaderorganization if the people distrust or dislike the leaderorganization concerned. And certainly if people strongly dislike a leaderorganization then their response is likely to be very negative to communications or choices offered by the leaderorganization. This tendency is commonly seen in peoples thinking about politics, social policies, corporate scandals, etc. It relates to corporate governance. Reputation and trust are heuristic measures applied by people to leaders and also to organizations . The reputation of the leader (and other senior figures) reflects onto the organization. And vice-versa. The reputations and likeability of leaders and their organizations often become blurred into a single feeling. Governments have been brought down by scandals of ethics and dishonesty. So have corporations. These are not failings of service or product, they are failings of attitude and ethics. Yet leaders commonly ignore or underestimate the significance of likeability and trust in how people judge those in authority, and the organizations they represent. People tend to develop feelings of distrust and dislike for leadersorganizations which display or behave with: arrogance duplicity dishonesty evasiveness and other traits of leadership which undermine truthful connections between leaderauthority and audiencesfollowers. The potential for this sort of reputationally damage on leaders and their brandsorganizations has multiplied many times since the emergence of the internet and especially social networking, so that: displaysexamples of bad leadership behaviour very quickly become very visible to potentially millions of people (despite traditional attempts by leaders to suppress media), modern social connectivityself-publishing systems then enable and encourage extremely potent analysis and critical comment by unofficial commentators and ordinary people about misdeeds and wrong words - there is no hiding place - and also, interestingly a major heuristic effect (nudge - namely conforming (following the herd) - further increases public awareness and reaction, ensuring that very large numbers of people form powerful groupings, like a swarm, to produce massive social outcries, which in the modern age can very easily then lead to serious protests, boycotts, civil disturbance or even more dramatic uprisings. Serious negative social reactions can of course be prompted by other organizational failings aside from trust and attitudinal issues - such as product or service failures - but such failings usually result in proportionate audience reactions which build slowly and are easier to predict and remedy whereas reactions to failures of trust (duplicity, dishonesty, greed, etc) tend to produce much deeper quicker uncontrollable audience indignation and outrage, and this is obviously not helpful at all for organizations seeking to maximize audience receptiveness to nudges. 6.6 Relevance - meaningful fit with audience needs, situation, self-image Audiences tend to respond better to situations, choices, communications, etc. that they feel are relevant to their own lives and situations, than to opportunities which are impersonal or seem designed for other people. There are overlaps between this notion and the the Thaler-Sunstein framing heuristic. This relevance heuristic is however more specifically concerned with how well an intervention matches the personal needs, situation and self image of the respondent. Audiences consciously or unconsciously assess how meaningful an intervention (choice, nudge, option, etc) is to their own situation and self-image. We must also consider the audience self-image because this is to a degree flexible. The question of whether and how audience self-image can be changed is mainly addressed via the priming heuristic. The choice architect must ask: Is the communication framed to be personally relevant And more deeply, is the option (choice, nudge) itself personally relevant for the audience People instinctively judge whether a signal and related option fits or feels comfortable. If it does not seem personally relevant, in style and implications, then the person is less likely to act on it. Neglecting this need in people is a common failure in the thinking of authorities, because leaders and policy-makers (who become choice architects) generally do not understand and empathise with their audiences. Audiences commonly joke that irrelevant ill-fitting options are from another planet. The option is irrelevant and ill-fitting because the person who designed it doesnt understand the audience. So there is a great need for choice architects to have empathy for and real knowledge of their audiences - to know what people will consider relevant and fitting - both in terms of the way a choice is presented, and the nature of the choice itself. Leaders need to improve their awareness of the vast differences that usually exist between themselves and the audiences they seek to influence or change, and to take appropriate action: either to develop genuine understanding and empathy for the audience, or to delegate the design of choices and interventions to people who have such understanding and empathy. 6.7 Mood-changers - inspiration, passion, flair, intrigue, humourhumor This range of heuristics, applying to how people feel . is potentially an aspect of framing. but also stands alone as a heuristic which specifically affects the mood of the audience or respondent . This is somewhat different to framing, which generally refers to the styling of the option itself. We might say that: Framing mainly describes the choice or option . whereas Mood-changers (and related motivators) affect the mood of the audience. Framing mainly entails facts, information, description, affecting how people think . whereas Mood-changers (and related motivators) connect with peoples emotions and how they feel . The style or character of an intervention (choice, nudge, communication) can increase the audiences mood of receptiveness and responsiveness. For example, peoples responsiveness is often increased when they are: smiling happy curious amused entertained surprised inspired enthused uplifted and other positively motivating effects on feelings We can all be influenced by the enthusiasm and belief of others. Choice architects should ask themselves: Does the choice design enthuse people Does the communication convey excitement, or some other appealing mood How can the intervention be designed so that people will feel more inclined to engage with it There is a part of most people which responds to inspiration and enthusiasm of some sort and even the most mundane choice can be improved somehow to increase the attention of an audience. 6.8 Fear - thinking driven by risk or threat Fear is an influential thread which to varying degrees runs through many heuristic tendencies in people, notably: Loss aversion Framing Status quo inertia Temptation Mindlessness Self-control strategies Conforming Spotlight effect Limiting Mood-change Fear is certainly exploited widely for cynical purposes by authorities, governments, leaders, and corporations, and has been for thousands of years. Sadly its use can be extremely effective in achieving the aims of the authority concerned. Examples of authoritiesinstitutions which routinely promote and exploit fear in people to achieve the aims of the authority include: Religious organizations - quotYou will go to hellnot go to heaven unless. quot Political movements - quotImmigrants (or some other minority grouping) are taking over your citycountry. quot Governments - quotWe have to wage a war overseas, and increase surveillance on our own society, or terrorists will kill you. quot Corporations - quotYou will not be attractive to the opposite sex unless you buy. quot The abuse of fear is everywhere. We learn from our parents that: quotYou will get a smackbe sent to bedget no pudding unless you behave. quot And we pass this on to our own children. However fear is an important part of life. A lot of natural fear can be helpful, and has enabled the human species to survive, for example the fear of: Lions, tigers, snakes, bears, big spiders, scorpions, etc Things we might eat but which look and smell bad Explosives Sharp or pointed things Heights (falling from a height is life-threatening) The dark (risk to safety increases without light) Strangers (especially behaving inappropriately) But when fear is exploited in a manipulative and cynical way it becomes an unhelpful heuristic or nudge. The message from this to leaders and other choice architects is to avoid exploiting fear unethically. In such judgments the Thaler-Sunstein notion of libertarian paternalism is a useful reference point, and you should understand what is meant by this, or have your own equating ethical standard, before you begin designing choices for people. 6.9 Facilitation - helping people understand and decide, according to their personal needs and thinking processes and responses This is a very sophisticated type of nudge. Its an extension of the Thaler-Sunstein nudges of priming and feedback. It is not described or acknowledged as a heuristic or nudge by Thaler and Sunstein, and is not offered as a part of choice architecture. The concept is however a growing and potentially very significant part of choice architecture. This sort of nudging support is likely to become increasingly popular with the continuing development of computer technology, and especially the artificial intelligence of computer systems with which people engage. A pioneer of this methodology is the American expert and writer on decision facilitation, Sharon Drew Morgen, whose extraordinary Buying Facilitation theory effectively foresaw the Thaler-Sunstein ideas in the 1990s. See Sharon Drew Morgens Buying Facilitation concept, which offers a specific process enabling the application of facilitative support for peoples thinking and decision-making. Morgens main focus in advocating facilitative methodology is towards more helpful and effective business and selling, but the principles and techniques are transferable to any situation where one person or body seeks to help others think and decide, importantly think and decide what is best for the person, not the facilitator, or seller or authority (or choice architect). In a more general sense, these methodologies and principles and are increasingly featuring in the artificial intelligence of human processing systems, so that users, customers, audiences, societies, etc. are offered truly helpful guidance in addressing personal choices. As such the nudging becomes an entire responsive process, which is reactive to individual situation and needs. Much of the Thaler-Sunstein Nudge theory is by its nature universal it offers the same carefully designed choices to very large numbers of people. Whereas the more personally-driven facilitative nudging characterized by Morgens work offers individually responsive choices and feedback, so that people are treated as individuals, rather than part of a large group all of whom are basically treated the same. Central to this level of sophistication is the need to help people understand their own situations . as a crucial requirement before choices are explored and decisions are made . 6.10 Sensory - soundsmusic, smells, touch, colourcolor, temperature, humidity, etc These sensory stimulants can be very powerful influences on human thinking and decisions. This sort of heuristic influence is not specifically identified or categorized as a a type of nudge or heuristic by Thaler and Sunstein. The effects of sensory stimulation - such as smell, sounds (notably music) - on human thinking and decision-making can be very influential. The smell of freshly baked bread in a supermarket tends to increase peoples thinking about bread, and peoples decisions to buy bread. The smell of various foods, especially cooking, increases peoples thinking about eating, and the likelihood that some people will decide to eat something. The sound of certain rhythms and music increases peoples conscious thinking and unconscious feelings about moving, dancing, tapping their feet, etc. and the likelihood that some people will decide to start moving, in time with the music (or not, depending on their sense of rhythm..). Certain songs increase peoples thinking and decisions to start humming, singing or whistling. Certain music evokes different moods, such as sadness, fear, pride, etc. and correspondingly affects peoples thoughts and decisions. Certain music is associated with organized groups or people, which can prompt reactions in thinking and decisions, especially members or enemies of the group - e. g. football clubs, nationalities, religions, armed forces, etc. Sounds and music in media such as film, adverts, documentaries, political broadcasts, can have a powerful effect on peoples thinking, and consequently their decision-making. Being suddenly soaked in water discourages people from being energetic and organized - hence the use of water cannons by riot police. The addition of salt, sugar, fats, and other strong tastes to foods tends to strongly influence peoples reactions to them, which of course in most cases is not a helpful effect. The effect of sunlight and warmth, as opposed to darknessdullness and cold, tends to produce increased positivity in people, and therefore potential amenability and receptiveness towards interventions. (A crowd in the outdoors is more likely to be supportive in fine weather.) Many studies have indicated that when people are exposed to natural green countryside, such as green fields and trees, etc. that this is a more positively conducive environment than being inside buildings and concreteasphalt surroundings. Two tobacco smoking heuristics: 1. The appeal of cigarette smoking is increased by physiological synergy with alcohol consumption, in that alcohol and tobacco taken together increase the chemical pleasure-effect of each. 2. The UK ban on tobacco smoking in pubs strongly contributed to the downturn in pub customer numbers and widescale pub closures, shifting people away from drinking in pubs and into their homes. There are many other sensory stimulants which alter our feelings and thoughts. You will think of plenty that affect you personally. This completes the listing and explanations of (supplementary non-Thaler-Sunstein) heuristic tendencies in people which we might consider to be types of nudges in the context of Thaler and Sunsteins theory and its natural extension. The range of heuristics that are additional to the nudges specifically identified and defined by Thaler and Sunstein is vast. These ideas offered here are not exhaustive. You will discover more. Being more aware of the interventions and situations that affect your own thoughts and feelings will help you identify new heuristics, many of which can equate to nudges. 7. Nudge theory is for everyone to use - anyone can be a choice architect.. Just as anyone can be a leader, so anyone can be a choice architect, and use Nudge techniques to help people towards improving their thinking and decisions. The opportunity to use Nudge theory, like the opportunity to be a leader or use leadership, is determined by what you do . and is not restricted or enabled by your job title or official role. This is especially so if you are already responsible for others in any sense, and obviously more so if you are a manager or parent for example. If you are a leader, manager, supervisor, a teacher, or trainer, or a parent, you are already a choice architect and you can begin using Nudge principles and techniques in the way you engage with your people, and the way in which you help them consider their options and make their decisions. The same applies if you are a businessman or businesswoman, or entrepreneur, or run a part-time business from your home, because your customersclients are your people, and to varying degrees may be helped by your using Nudge theory. And the same applies if you do anything that entails engaging with or helping others, for example, social work, campaigning, research, charity and voluntary work, etc. Even if the only engagement you have with another human being is with a spouse or partner, you can be a choice architect and use Nudge principles and techniques to helpful effect. Nudge theory is also a powerful instrument for identifying, understanding, and modifying existing nudges which are affecting you, or other people you care about, potentially extending to quite large groups, communities or even societies. These nudge influences may be accidental or deliberate, and are often unhelpful, especially if used cynically by corporations or other authorities. 8. How to develop, adapt and use nudge theory Here are pointers, tips and examples of how to develop, adapt, extend, and use Nudge theory. This includes ideas and examples of how to teach, train and coach the principles represented by Nudge theory. And how to relate Nudge theory ideas and optimise their use, alongside complementary models and concepts of motivation, communications, leadership, etc. Nudge theory was originally devised and proposed in the context of behaviouralbehavioral economics (such as pensions and healthcare arrangements), however the Nudge concept can be used in virtually any area of human interaction, for example: leadership and management supervision and teambuilding teaching and training, and education of all sorts coaching and mentoring counselling and mediating government - local, national, international - policy, strategy, processes, materials charitable, voluntary, community sector work self-development parenting working with teenagers and job-seekers working with minorities, disabilities, and people with difficulties sports and fitness coaching healthcare Nudge theory is generally quite easy to use if you appreciate how it works. Nudge theory is not a complex science, but it is quite different to conventional methods of trying to change peoples thinking and behaviourbehavior (which is how mostly we see change-management being attempted by leaders, authorities, corporations, etc. and how we are taught and trained to do it). Conventional methods of changing people use direction and enforcement . often with the threat of punishment . Whereas Nudge theory entails changing peoples environment and choices so they are more likely to make decisions that are helpful and positive (for themselves). In terms of style and emphasis we can equate these two different approaches to Douglas McGregors Theory X and Theory Y. where: X-Theory equates to conventional enforcement . and Y-Theory equates to Nudge . The X-Y Theory model - while used mainly for managing people at work - is very transferable to relationships with people in all situations, and helps convey the fundamental style of Nudge theory . which is one of enablement rather than enforcement . Many Nudge principles (essentially the heuristics, or nudges) will be familiar to you in one way or another, because they have existed for a very long time in a variety of forms, although not previously called Nudge. For example, the concept of brand awareness is largely a based on the Nudge principle called Availability (in terms of familiarity). That is to say, we tend to trust well-known brands because they are familiar to us. The corporations that develop such brand awareness are exploiting the availability heuristic specifically the tendency for peoples thinking to be nudged (and decisions influenced) by familiarity. Such brand owners combine this tactic with use of the following the herd (conforming) heuristic, and probably a few other nudges too, such as the spotlight effect (appealing to peoples heightened sense of self and being judged by others) and framing (by presenting their brandsproducts and services offerings according to peoples desires, fears, sympathies, etc). This illustrates that different types of nudges can be, and are often, used in support of each other. So Nudge theory is a very flexible concept - like a toolkit. Nudge techniques can also be used in combination with other methodologies and theories, for example, with: Nudge theory can be used wholly as an overall entire approach, or elements within Nudge theory can be used individually or in small tactical sets for specific situations. Nudge theory is not a fixed process, or a sequence, although certain elements by their nature are best used at certain times and for certain durations. Nudge theory is not limited or self-contained - on the contrary - Nudge theory is extremely adaptable, extendable, and relatable, so that its methodology - or any part of it - can be developed and used cohesively and supportively alongside lots of other methodologies, theories and techniques. Note again that Nudge theory can also be used to identify, assess and modify existing nudges, which may be accidental or intentional choices offered by authorities and corporations, and which produce unhelpful effects and decisions for people. This retrospective use of Nudge theory - as an analytical and improvement methodology - can be useful in relatively small groups, and potentially for very wide-scale societal situations, for example political lobbying and campaigning designing educational and social improvement programs project management and trouble-shooting mediation, diplomacy, peacemaking, etc. For ease of use, the table below includes brief descriptions and links to bigger explanations of the Thaler-Sunstein nudge types, together with concepts which support or assist the use of the nudges concerned. The Nudge theory toolkit offered below is a simple guide to how different heuristic tendencies in people can be used to design helpful choices. The toolkit comprises: the main nudges identified by Thaler and Sunstein. based largely on the Kahneman-Tversky work major supplementary heuristics which exist relative to Thaler-Sunstein Nudge theory, and guidance for usage and complementary theories, models, etc. 8.1 Nudge theory toolkit This table is a listing of the Thaler-Sunstein nudges, and of some significant supplementary nudges, which are not specifically identified and defined by Thaler and Sunstein. The table shows the numbered items for this table, and also the index numbers for these items in this article. The toolkit offers: names and brief descriptions of each nudge, linked to the fuller descriptions usage examplesguidance of how to use each nudge, and methodstheories to use with each nudge for understanding, teaching, and applying the nudge. nudge theory toolkit Nudge theory is typically an indirect approach . which alters situations for people, so that choices are designed which produce options for helpful voluntary changes in people . Conventional change-management entails: forceful interventions directed at the person or group whose change is sought Whereas Nudge theory typically entails: the design of voluntary choices directed at the situations in which people exist Nudge theory is focused on changing peoples environment, andor the choices people face, rather than the people directly, on the basis that people have the opportunity to change in response to the new choicesenvironmental situation that they experience. Nudge theory must be based on: free choice, and beneficial outcomes for people. 8. Summary 1. Nudge theory was originally developed for behavioral economics in 21st century USA, being the main interest of American economists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, authors of the 2008 book Nudge - Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, which named, defined and popularized the Nudge concept. 2. Behavioral economics refers to the interaction between society and economic systems, notably, pensions, investing, and healthcare. 3. Nudge theory is adaptable and applicable very widely beyond behavioral economics to all aspects of engaging with people - for example parenting, teaching, managing, marketing, service provision, leading and governing. 4. The use and teaching of Nudge theory should be underpinned by a positive ethical philosophy, which its authors call Libertarian Paternalism, in which the priorities are: designing free choices for people, to enable better thinking and decisions, for the well-being of those people, society and the planet rather than (traditional corporategovernment methods entailing): enforcedimposedmanipulative influence of people for the enrichment of corporations and wealthypowerful folk who lead and own them, or for the consolidation of authority, and then protectionreinforcement of governing bodiespeople. 5. The 2008 Nudge book and theory are strongly based on heuristics - which the authors equate to nudges - and which are (in terms of Nudge theory) a variety of factors which cause people to think and decide instinctively . rather than logically. 6. Much of the heuristics theory in the Nudge book is based on pioneering work of Israeli-American psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, dating back to the 1970s. Their work on human thinking and decision-making is highly significant in the study of human thinking, and has a broader perspective than behavioral economics. Kahneman won the Nobel prize for economics in 2002 for his work with Amos Tversky (who, having died in 1996 did not receive a posthumous award, and so is often unfairly neglected in attributions, etc). 7. For most of humankinds existence the ability to think heuristically (AutomaticSystem One ) has been very advantageous, and so has become a highly developed intelligence in modern humans. Used appropriately, heuristic thinking saves time, enables effective group cooperation and cohesion, and produces good decisions. However in certain situations (behavioral economics for example) these heuristics often cause people to make irrational unhelpful decisions. Also, in the modern world, societies and the wider environment are increasingly open to exploitation and abuse by corporations and governments, which increases humankinds vulnerability to mistaken actionsdecisions borne of heuristic thinking. 8. Nudge theory proposes that these heuristic tendencies can be approached deliberately to encourageenable helpful thinking and decisions (where existing thinkingdecisions are unhelpful), and that this is a more effective way of shifting group behaviourbehavior than by traditional enforcement, instruction, threat, laws, policies, etc. 9. Where these natural human heuristic tendencies are not understood, or are manipulated cynically (by authorities or corporations), peoplesocieties are prone to act and decide unhelpfully (for people and society), for example: wasting resources, failing to manage money, getting into debt, eatingdrinking unhealthily, losing hope and self-esteem, resorting to mob behaviour, victimizing less fortunate people, buying daft products and services, resorting to crime, becoming dependent, creating pollution and mess, etc. 10. Governments traditionally seek to correct such behavioursbehaviors by direct instruction, enforcement, threat, punishment, etc. and this ty pically fails, or makes matters worse. 11. Nudge theory offers a way to more successfully shift group behaviour: via heuristics, which is how people really think and make decisions. 9. Glossary of terms - nudge theory and related concepts This glossary offers definitions of Nudge theory and related terms, and also offers a quick way to grasp the essential concepts of Nudge theory, and how it relates to and can be used alongside other models and broader disciplines. Many of these terms have wider or slightly different meanings outside of Nudge theory. Clarifications of these wider meanings are in the business dictionary. Accessibility - Accessibility is a supplementary heuristicnudge which refers to the efficiency of the communicationintervention, i. e. the extent to which the audience seesexperiences it, and the number of times the audience seesexperiences it. We can equate this to reach. which is a marketing term. The principle is simply that regardless of how clever the communicationintervention itself is, if only 10 of the audience actually seeexperience it, then it will not work well, and certainly not nearly as well as the same intervention which achieves a reach of 100 to the audience, multiple times. This is similar to the Thaler-Sunstein availability heuristicnudge, but definitely not the same thing. Anchoring and Adjusting - Anchoring and Adjusting is a primary heuristic or nudge identified by Kahneman and Tversky, and is featured in Nudge theory by Thaler and Sunstein. Anchoring and Adjusting might instead be called comparing then guessing. Its a common quick method of approximating or estimating an unknown quantity, extent, or characterdescription, of something unknown, by using a perceived similar known reference as a basis for the guess. Audience - A group of people. This is a general marketing term. Usually it means a group which receives a communication or experiences an intervention of some sort. Nudge theory aims to design and offer new choices to a group of people. These people are sometimes called the audience. Automatic systemAutomatic thinking - Thaler and Sunsteins term for natural human thinking, which is often irrational, instinctive and unhelpful for the people thinking in such a way, as opposed to Reflective or System Two (Kahneman-Tversky) thinking: Automatic (System One) thinking Human, instinctive, emotional, subjective, irrational, heuristic Reflective (System Two) thinking Econ, logical, rational, objective, unemotional Availability - Availability is one of the primary heuristics or nudges identified by Kahneman and Tversky, and is featured in Nudge theory by Thaler and Sunstein. Availability refers (rather misleadingly) to the perceived popularity or rarity of something . which is significant in peoples (heuristic, unreliable) assessment of its credibility, level of threatopportunity, social acceptance, etc. An alternative broad name for this heuristic or nudge is visibility or commonness. Bias - This term features often in Nudge theory, for example in Satus quo bias. Bias means weighting or leaning to a particular view or behaviour. Other words which equate to bias are spin, inclination, and preference. When thinking has a bias or is biased towards something then it is not balanced or truly objective or neutral. The common existence of bias in peoples thinking is a central aspect of Nudge theory. Choice - A situation or intervention which people face, and which may lead to helpful or unhelpful decisions, or no decision. Choice Architect - a person or organization whowhich uses Nudge theory to design choices for people. Conventionally this function is often called change management. Choice Architecture - Thaler and Sunstein use this term to refer to the (large but not all-embracing) heuristic area of Stimulus Response Compatibility. and this usage is not fully consistent with their term choice architect, which refers to role of a personleaderauthority who uses the (all-embracing) entire range of heuristics in designing choices for people. So this term has two meanings: namely Stimulus Response Compatibility. or more broadly a systemstructure of choices designed for people, in the course of applying Nudge theory. Choice design - A central idea and expression of Nudge theory, referring to the principle and methodology of developing and offering situations or interventions for people, from which people are free to select whichever option they prefer, including the option to make no decision at all. Choice design is typically done by a choice architect, but may also refer to choices which exist through accident or circumstance, or from cynical purpose, like lots of marketing and advertising, and processes (increasingly online) or contractual smallprint designed to fool consumers. Clean Language - Not a Thaler-Sunstein term, but a methodology that is very relevant to Thaler-Sunstein and Nudge ideas - specifically that the way communications are worded can dramatically affect the way that meanings and moods are perceived. See Clean Language. Conforming - An alternative term for the following the herd heuristic, and separately a general tendency for people to prefer to adhere to norms rather then stand alone. Conforming is a survival instinct because it aligns oneself with a group, avoiding confrontation and risk. Conforming also produces mutual feelings of affirmation, and a feeling of safety through strength in numbers. Its an enormously significant aspect of humangroup behaviourbehavior, without which there could be no wars, no religion, fashion industry, football fans, etc. Delayed gratification - Not a Thaler-Sunstein term, but a crucial aspect of temptation, or more precisely the resistance of temptation. The inability to delay gratification produces the human weakness in succumbing to many types of temptation. Even lazinessinertia is a sort of inability to delay gratification, where gratification equates to rest and relaxation. Default - This refers to the effective optionoutcome where no action or decision is taken. The concept of default is a crucial aspect of Nudge theory, specifically equating to opting for the status quo or inaction, or no decision at all. Any of these things can, according to choice design, be helpful or unhelpful options. Default is what happens when the box is not checked. Since people very commonly default to inaction, or make no decision or change, the option that the leadershipauthority or corporation assigns to no decision or default is seriously crucial. This is why opt-in and opt-out are such important aspects of policy and law in matters of audience response. A real example of this heuristic being used to powerfully good effect is seen in the several nations who in the 21st century altered the default option from No to Yes on individual health forms requesting permission for organ donation in event of death. When the default (checkbox left blank) was changed to mean Yes instead of No those nations saw dramatic increases in organ donations, resulting in thousands more saved lives. Design of choice - See choice design - it means the same. Design here refers to writing communications, creating other types of signals and interventions based on the heuristics explained, and the formulation of bigger strategic engagements between a choice architect organization and its audience, all of which equate to using Nudge theory to offer helpful options to people that are easy for people to understand and adopt. Econs - Thaler and Sunsteins term for the imaginary people whom most leaders and politicians believe typify society i. e. people whom leaders and governments imagine think like economists, whereas most people in society think like humans - i. e. with very natural heuristic weaknesses. (Largely non-existent) Econs think logically, rationally, unemotionally, always correctly and rationally, whereas (in reality the highly prevalent) humans think emotionally, instinctively, irrationally, and often wrongly. Empathy - Empathy is a big subject within communications, relationships and leadership which features strongly in Nudge theory and certain heuristics where the mood, personality and needs of the audience are significant. Empathy is significant in the supplementary heuristic sympathy. Facilitation - Facilitation is a supplementary nudge or heuristic which extends the Thaler-Sunstein notions of feedback and priming. Its a sophisticated and deep concept, by which people are helped to think and decide, based in personalised feedback at suitable stages before and during a process of engagement. Fear - Fear is a supplementary heuristicnudge that is frequently referenced by Thaler and Sunstein, but never actually defined or categorized as a heuristic or nudge, aside from being a factor within other named heuristics, notably loss aversion. Obviously fear can be a substantial influence on thinking and decision-making, and it is often exploited cynically and unethically by people and organizations seeking to control others. Fear is however a helpful heuristic in many situations, for example in guiding peoples thinking and decisions in relation to fast-moving traffic, stormy seas, bad-smelling food, guns, knives, etc. So fear is also used in shifting group behaviours for example persuading people that tobacco smoke and obesity can be dangerous to health, etc. If not abused, the fear heuristicnudge can certainly be potentially very helpful. Feedback - Feedback refers to the responsesreactions given by the choice architect organization or system to the audience during and after thinkingdecisions, enabling adjustment and useful experience. Feedback is shown in this article as a nudge and individual heuristic, although Thaler and Sunstein categorize feedback more vaguely, as part of choice architecture. In fact feedback overlays potentially many other heuristics and nudges. A more sophisticated type of feedback is the additional (non-Thaler-Sunstein) nudge in this article called Facilitation. Following the herd - Following the herd is a Thaler and Sunstein nudge which basically means conforming to a group view or behaviourbehavior. This may be due to the need to be affirmedvalidated to feel powerful (strength in numbers), or the attraction of being part of mob rule. There are other causes, and this is a very significant heuristic in group and societal behaviour. It relates to the spotlight effect. Framing - Framing is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge which refers to the way that a communication or intervention is styled and orientated, particularly in relation to the respondentaudience needs and interests, etc. This entails styling aspects such as accentuation of positivenegative, presentation of advantagedisadvantage, recommendationdissuasion, endorsement, aspiration, etc. Traditionally, sales people whom were said to have the gift of the gab or a silky tongue would have been good at framing an option, so as to increase its attractiveness to the potential client. Heuristicsheuristic - In the context of Nudge theory, heuristics broadly refers to the various internal references and responses which people use in assessing things, developing views, and making decisions. Thaler and Sunstein equate a heuristic to a nudge. The word heuristics basically means self-discovery (from Greek heuriskein, find). By its internal nature, heuristic thinking tends to be personal, emotional, subjective, and instinctive. Thaler and Sunsteins approach to heuristic thinking is that it is generally responsible for faulty judgment and unhelpful decision-making. Grammatically, the word heuristic may refer to a single thinking tendency, or may act as an adjective. The word heuristics may be plural in referring to more than one heuristic thinking tendency, or may be singular in referring to the studytheoryscience of heuristics. Heuristicsheuristic outside of Nudge theory refer to a more general sense of learning through self-discovery. Humans - Thaler and Sunsteins term for the real people who largely represent societies, and who think heuristically (irrationally, emotionally, often wrongly), about whom most leaders and politicians are basically ignorant or oblivious, believing instead that societies are populated by logical rational Econs. who supposedly think rationally and logically. Inertia - Inertia means unchanging. This is a very significant aspect of human decision-making, and of group behaviourbehavior. Inertia relates to defaults and status quo. Inertia specifically refers to the tendency for people and groups do do nothing when faced with choices that are difficult to understand or which seem to offer threat or disadvantage. Inertia is a Input - An alternative word for an intervention. Not a specific Nudge theory term, but a useful word in describing any sort of intervention. Intervention - A very useful term, referring to any sort of input or communication or alteration of situation by a choice architect. Intervention is not specifically a Nudge theory word its used in most fields concerning relationships, education, management, training, communications, counselling, etc. Likeability - Likeability is a supplementary heuristicnudge which refers to the reputation and credibility of the choice architect (or the choice architect organization, or figureheads and leaders which are associated with the intervention or nudge). This heuristic acts on the simple principle that an audience is less likely to engage with and respond to an intervention if they do not respect or like the source of the intervention. This obviously applies to interventions where the audience is aware of the source of the intervention or choice architect (sometimes interventions are perceived to be quite anonymous). Within this heuristic, likeability is subjective (i. e. different audiences like different leaders and organizations), and reputation is relative . i. e. the source must be seen as relevantly credible for the type of intervention (e. g. we might be more influenced by a book about ethics written by the Dalai Lama than Tony Blair, but conversely we might be more influenced by a book about becoming a Roman Catholic or accumulating a multi-million dollar fortune by Tony Blair than the Dalai Lama). This heuristic relates to several others, notably framing. priming. and sympathy. Limiting - Limiting is a supplementary heuristicnudge referring to human tendencies to desire something more if it is perceived to be in short supply, or its availability is subject to time limit or expiry. Loss aversion - Loss aversion is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge, originally identified by Kahneman and Tversky. Loss aversion refers to the heuristic tendency that people value something more when they possess it than when they do not. This produces a resistance to change (inertiastatus quo bias) if a change is proposed or faced that threatens to deprive the person of a possession, or a current position. The driving force in this heuristic is a heightened sensitivity to, or exaggeration of risk . The Loss aversion nudge is an opposite effect to optimismover-confidence. MaslowAbraham Maslow - The work of motivational theorist Abraham Maslow (1908-70), helped to lay the foundations of Nudge theory in the mid 1900s its mechanismsheuristics and ethosphilosophy. Maslows famous Hierarchy of Needs model is effectively a presentation of the most fundamental human heuristics, which provide many of the ultimate driving forces behind the heuristics identified by Thaler and Sunstein, and Kahneman and Tversky. Maslow was also a strong libertarian who argued that corporate and managerial power was a damaging feature of society in suppressing peoples free choice and natural potential. Mindlessness - Mindlessness is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge which equates to negligence, avoidance, not concentrating, etc. When people make mistakes called human weakness this is often mindlessness. The effect may be prompted or increased when the brain is tricked by some sort of illusion or technique of semiotics. Where communicationsinterventions are poorly designed, mindlessness can be a major factor in large group-wide poor thinking (not actually thinking properly) and poor decision-making (especially deciding to do nothing, or not realising that a decision should be made). Moodmood-changers - Mood is a significant aspect of heuristics, because it governs how people feel, and this influences how people respond to interventions. Peoples moods are subject to change, and so its useful for choice architects to to appreciate this and to allow for peoples moods and emotions as far as possible. Transactional Analysis and NLP are helpful supporting methodologies. Mood-changers are a supplementary heuristicnudge which refer to interventions which alter how people feel and ideally inspire, amuse, enthuse, and intrigue them, because these feelings tend to increase engagement and receptiveness, as well as reducing feelings of fear, stress, pressure, isolation, low-self-esteem, etc. which tend to hinder peoples engagement and clear thinking. Neuro-linguistic ProgrammingNLP - NLP is a commonly used abbreviation for Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is a powerful psychological concept alongside Nudge theory, like Transactional Analysis. Like TA, NLP explains and offers ways to interpret and manage the (often hidden and counter-intuitive) effects of communicationssignals to and between people. NLP is not specific Nudge theory terminology or methodology, but the NLP concept relates to Nudge theory and supports it very well. Nudge - Thaler and Sunsteins brand name for a heuristic effect which influences a person or groups thinkingdecision-making. Thaler and Sunstein actually equate the notion of a nudge to a heuristic tendency, so that the words mean virtually the same. Technically such a direct equivalence is a little tenuous given that conceptually heuristics are rather a passive and a constant tendency, compared to a nudge, which is may be an intentional intervention, but the basic understanding of nudge theory is probably made easier by seeing these two words as essentially meaning the same thing. OptimismOver-confidence - Optimismover-confidence is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge and refers to peoples heuristic tendency to under-or over-estimate the ease or difficulty of situations leading to complacency . which inevitably influences thinking and decisions. This heuristic was originally identified by Kahneman and Tversky. Optimismover-confidence has an opposing effect to the Loss aversion heuristic. which tends to restrict thinking and decision-making. Opt-inOpt-out - Opt-in means check the box to agree to sign-up or join, etc. Opt-out means the default is you are in unless you check the box to say you are not. Positioning - Positioning - is a supplementary heuristic or nudge which refers to the location or relocation of anything which influences peoples thinking or behaviour, for example the site of a notice-board, or a litter-bin, or the layout of headings on a poster or document or webpage. Thaler and Sunstein refer to the effects of positioning but do not categorize it as a specific heuristic or nudge. In this article a supplementary or additional nudgeheuristic is one which Thaler and Sunstein do not specifically categorize and name as such, although they may refer to its effects and existence to or degree or another. Priming - Priming is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge referring to ways in which people can be made ready or prepared before thinking and deciding, for example, visualization, role-modelling, building belief, educating, giving information before options, and offering methods rather than directions. Like feedback it extends to the more sophisticated notion of Facilitation. Reach - This is a marketing term thats useful in understanding certain aspects of Nudge theory. Reach refers to the extent of a target audience which seesexperiences a communication or intervention (which may be used to apply a nudge). Reach is significant in all communications designed to impact on a group, because if the reach is only 50 (i. e. only half the audience sees the message), then generally this is the actual maximum response rate. Its very difficult to achieve 100 reach of course, but its not difficult to achieve a 75 reach compared to say a 25 reach, in which case the potential success rate is multiplied by three times. Such an example illustrates that reach is hugely significant in determining success of group interventions. In other words, the intervention may be fabulous, but if the reach is only 10 then the results will be relatively poor. Recipient - A general term, not specific to Nudge theory, which refers to a single member of an audience or target group or society, that is subject to a communication or intervention. When we talk to another person, the other person is the recipient. An alternative term is respondent. Reflective system - Thaler and Sunsteins term for rational logical thinking, equating to Kahneman and Tverskys System Two thinking, as opposed to Automatic (Thaler-Sunstein) and System One (KahnemanTversky): System One (Automatic) thinking Human, instinctive, emotional, subjective, irrational, heuristic System Two (Reflective) thinking Econ, logical, rational, objective, unemotional Relevance - Relevance - is a supplementary heuristicnudge which refers to how well the intervention fits the needs of the audience. This is different to sympathy which mainly concerns fitting the mood and personality of the audience. Relevance requires that the option for the audience is seen as meaningful by the audience. Representativeness - Representativeness is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge originated by Kahneman and Tversky. It refers to similarity and relies largely on stereotyping . so that when people seek to assess or characterize an unknown thing or option they tend to refer to perceived stereotypical examples, on which they base assumptions about the unknown thingoption, and which may be very inaccurate. This heuristic is greatly influenced by mass media, which is responsible in the modern age for proliferating millions of stereotype references, on which people form faulty assumptions and decisions. Respondent - An alternative term for recipient. Basically a respondent is the person who receives a communication or intervention. The term is a general one and not specific to Nudge theory. Rule of thumbrules of thumb - This term is used by Kahneman and Tversky, and also by Thaler and Sunstein, in referring to a heuristic or several heuristics. The term is used quite vaguely. Thaler and Sunstein initially use the term in referring to the Kahneman-Tversky heuristics (first identified) Anchoring, Availability and Representativeness, but imply it has a wider meaning. Kahneman and Tversky use the term to refer to heuristics more broadly. Its probably more accurate to suggest that rulerules of thumb is a general substitute term for the heuristics which entail some sort of instinctive comparison, calculation, or assumption based on a preconception. Self-control strategies - Self-control strategies is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge which refers to the many routines and habits that people develop to counter their known or perceived weaknesses. Common examples are seen in the ways that people manage money, and devise quirky methods to save, budget, and transfer money (from various accounts, jars and pots, savings funds, etc). A different example is the tendency for many people to put alarm clocks out of reach (because they know they have a temptation to switch them off and go back to sleep). These unnatural routines become part of the reality that influence thinking and decisions in response to communications and interventions. Self-image - Self-image is a general term in psychology and relationships, empathy. etc. not specific to Nudge theory, but is especially significant in heuristics concerning relevance and framing. Its a crucial aspect of communications and interventions which is often overlooked, as follows: Authoritiesleaders design interventions and communications based on the personalities and moods that they believe people have, whereas usually peoples personalities and moods are quite different. Therefore interventionscommunications are inappropriate or irrelevant, quite aside from the contentpurpose of the intervention. People dont recognize the intervention to be relevant or meaningful in terms of their self-image. Principles of empathy offer ways to understand self-image. Semioticssemiology - Semiotics refers to making and analysing meaning through signs, language, symbols, stories, and anything else that conveys a meaning that can be understood by people. This is not specific Nudge terminology its an entirely separate and major area of communications. Semiotics is however hugely significant in Nudge theory, and especially the heuristic called Stimulus Response Compatibility. Semiotics is relates to linguistics, which refers to language structure and meaning. Semiotics more broadly encompasses language and all other signage, metaphor and symbolism. The processing aspect of semiotics is called semiosis. Semiotics comprise a logical elements, and anthropological humankind elements, which is to say that the effects are partly based on unchanging logic (for example big is generally more impactful than small), and partly based on human factors such as genetics, evolution, culture, and conditioning. Sensory - Sensory nudges are supplementary heuristics in terms of Thaler-Sunsteins listing, which basically ignores these effects. Sensory influences besides traditional semiotics (language, symbols, signs, etc) can be immensely influential on peoples thinking and decision-making. Consider for example: the effect of music in films and other media, and on peoples moods and decision-making when partying the effect of smells such as freshly baked bread and coffee or antiseptic, or bleach, or petrol, or tobacco smoke. Or the effects of heat and cold on peoples bodies and moods, or of dampness, humidity etc. There are hundreds of other sensory stimulants which can be regarded and potentially used as sensory nudges. Signage - A general non-Nudge term which is useful in Nudge theory in referring to visual signals which convey a meaning of some sort to an audience, for example colourscolors, symbols, graphic design, headings, visual media, layouts, signposts, notices, etc. Signal - Signal means a communication or other sort of non-verbal sign or conveyance of meaning or mood to a person or group. Signal is not specific Nudge theory terminology, but it is very useful in explaining Nudge theory, because signal has such a wide meaning of different types of messagesinfluences that humans are receptive to. Changing the colourcolor or size or typestyle of text is a signal. So is direct eye contact, or repositioning a litter-bin. Signal broadly equates to the word intervention. Spotlight effect - Spotlight effect is a Thaler and Sunstein nudge which refers to peoples anxiety when they feel isolated, as if being watched and judged by others. This produces pressure and a heightened fear of making errors, typically producing inertia or conforming (following the herd). Thaler and Sunstein assert that people have a false sense of self-significance when making these judgments, so that they can greatly exaggerate the significance and visibility of their actions and decisions. Status quoStatus quo bias - Status quo bias is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge which equates to inertia. and the default option (i. e. what happens when the respondent takes no action, like not checking the box). Status quo bias is a hugely powerful effect, and much exploited by corporations and much under-regulated by protective authorities. Its basically why we receive so much junk mail, emailtext spam, and unwanted marketing phone calls - because authoritiesgovernments traditionally permitted corporations to assign an opt-in agreement, which committed consumers to receive follow-up mailings, and have their details sold to other corporations, when people divulged personal contact details on forms when buying things. Status quo refers to the existing situation. A Latin term. status quo means literally situation in which. Almost always status quo means preserving the existing situation, and this is its meaning in Nudge theory. This is similar to inertia. and is related to defaults. Stimulus Response Compatibility - Stimulus response compatibility refers to the design of signage and language, so that it looks and seems appropriate for the message it conveys. For example, a red X symbol generally conveys a meaning of no or stop or negative, and a green check or tick generally conveys a meaning of yes or positive, so to use a red X with the word yes or go would be heuristically misleading and unhelpful (i. e. the stimulus of the red X does not match, is not compatible, with the audience response, which would tend to be negative rather than positive). See the amazing weird colour trick for another illustration of Stimulus Response Compatibility. Stimulus Response Compatibility is a technical term and concept within heuristics that Thaler and Sunstein feature strongly within Nudge theory. Stimulus Response Compatibility is shown in this article as a nudge and heuristic, but Thaler and Sunstein refer to it more vaguely as part of or equating to choice architecture, which is a little misleading given that a choice architect may use all available heuristics, some of which do not entail stimulus response compatibility. It is perhaps easier, as this article suggests to consider that stimulus response compatibility is a heuristic in its own right, and also that it overlays many other heuristics and nudges. Supplementaryadditional nudges and heuristics - In this article a supplementary or additional nudgeheuristic is one which Thaler and Sunstein do not specifically categorize and name as such, although they may refer to its effects and existence to a degree. Some are not mentioned or alluded to by Thaler and Sunstein, but have been discussedproposedimplied by other theorists with interests in what might be terms Nudge theory heuristics. Sympathy - Sympathy is a supplementary heuristicnudge which refers to the ease of engagement that an audience feels for an intervention - in other words is the intervention sympathetic to the mood and personality of the audience Is the communication in-tune and resonant with the audience. Self-image is often a factor. So is empathy. Syntacticssyntax - the studyscience of the arrangement of words within language (i. e. syntax) and especially within sentences which seek to convey clear meaning. Derived from from Greek, suntaksis, from sun, together, taksis, arrangement, from tasso, I arrange. System OneSystem Two (thinking) - These terms were originated by Kahneman and Tversky in referring respectively to the two main types of human thinking in heuristics, which Thaler and Sunstein call Automatic (System One) and Reactive (System Two). System One (Automatic) thinking Human, instinctive, emotional, subjective, irrational, heuristic System Two (Reflective) thinking Econ, logical, rational, objective, unemotional Temptation - Temptation is a Thaler-Sunstein nudge, referring to human tendencies to seek maximum reward for minimum effort. Other drivers of temptation include greed, ego, insecurity, desperation, etc. although Thaler and Sunstein argue reasonably that this heuristic is a natural urge in humans, which has evolved due to it being mostly a successful tendency, although is a vulnerability in the modern age, or at any time where it can be used as a trap. Temptation - and the tendency for people to succumb to temptation - relates to delayed gratification. and the dilemma that this offers to many people. Transactional AnalysisTA - Commonly abbreviated to TA, Transactional Analysis is a potent and (despite its complex confusing name) highly accessible and useful communications theory. TA is not referenced specifically within Thaler and Sunsteins Nudge theory, but TA potentially enables very good appreciation and application of aspects of Nudge theory, as well as being a powerful model in its own right for personal growth, organizational development, interpersonal changeimprovement, and all human relationships too. TA explains much of why humans so often react to communications and interventions on an emotional level. authorshipreferencing copy Businessballs 2017-14. Nudge theory concept Thaler amp Sunstein. Nudge theory terminology Thaler-SunsteinKahneman-Tversky. Shares vs Stock Options This article discusses the pros and cons of stock options vs shares for employees of Canadian 8211 private and public 8211 companies. The taxation issues are poorly understood and can be very confusing. Current tax regulations can make it difficult for companies to bring new employees and partners in as shareholders. Stock options are a popular way for companies to attract key employees. They are the next best thing to share ownership. Employees are motivated to add value to their companies in the same way that founderowners are. Options are also a key part of a compensation package. In larger companies, options contribute substantially 8211 often many times the salary portion to income. In a recent survey of executive compensation (see vancouversunexecpay ), the top 100 BC-based public company executives all earned over 1 million in 2009 income. However, only 5 of them received base salaries over 1 million. Most of the compensation came from stock options no wonder the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) wants to tax them Unfortunately, tax law can turn stock options into a huge disincentive in attracting key employees. For example . if an employee of a company (private or public) exercises options to buy shares, that employee may have a tax liability even if he sells the shares at a loss. If the company fails, the liability does not disappear. The tax treatment is not the same for Canadian Controlled Private Companies (CCPCs) as it is for public or non-CCPC companies. CCPCs have an advantage over other Canadian companies. For CCPCs Canadian Controlled Private Corporations This discussion is applicable to Canadian Controlled Private Companies (CCPCs). It addresses how a start-up can best get shares into the hands of employees while being aware of possible tax issues. To give employees an ownership stake (and incentive) in the company, the best solution is to give them founders shares just like the founders took for themselves when the company was formed. Companies should issue founders shares from treasury as early as possible. Some companies issue extra founders shares and hold them in a trust for future employees. Sometimes, the founders will transfer some of their own founders shares to new partners. As a general rule, try to give employees founders shares early in the company8217s life. However, make sure that the shares reverse-vest over time (or based on performance), so that quitters and non-performers don8217t get a free ride. By owning shares in a CCPC (Canadian Controlled Private Corporation) for at least 2 years, shareholders get the benefit of the 750,000 life-time capital gains exemption (i. e. pay no tax on the first 750K in capital gains). This is a HUGE benefit. They also get a 50 deduction on additional gains. If a company is beyond its start up phase, there is a worry that if these shares are simply given (for free or for pennies) to an employee, CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) considers this an 8220employment benefit8221 on which income tax is payable. This benefit is the difference between what the employee paid for the shares and their FMV (Fair Market Value). This benefit is taxed as regular employment income . For CCPCs, this benefit may be deferred until the shares are sold. If held for more than 2 years, there is also a 50 deduction available on the benefit. If held for less than 2 years, another 50 deduction can be used if the shares where purchased at FMV. However, if the shares are later sold (or deemed to have been sold by virtue of a liquidation) at a lower price than the FMV at the time of acquisition, the tax on the deferred benefit is STILL DUE. And, although this loss (i. e. the difference between FMV and the selling price) is a 8220capital loss8221, it does not offset the tax owing. It may be possible to claim an ABIL (Allowable Business Investment Loss) to offset the tax owing on the deferred benefit, i. e. if you buy shares in a CCPC, you can claim 50 of your investment loss and deduct from other income. Other than issuing zero-cost founders shares, the next best approach is to sell shares to employees at a good price which one could argue is at FMV considering the substantial restrictions on the shares (eg reverse-vesting and risk of forfeiture). This may work well if the company is still quite young and has not raised substantial sums from independent investors. (In the case of publicly-listed companies, options grants are the norm since FMV can be readily determined and a benefit assessed 8211 and because regulations often prevent the issuance of zero-cost shares. But for pubcos and non-CCPCs, the tax on these benefits may not be deferred. It is payable in the year in which the option is exercised. This is a real problem for smaller public, venture-listed companies insofar as this tax forces the option to sell some shares just to be the tax It discourages ownership. ) Some disadvantages of issuing stock are: Deferred tax liability if shares are bought below FMV (if you can figure out what FMV is remember, these shares are highly restrictive and are worth less than those purchased by angels and other investors.) A CRA assessment of the deemed benefit is a remote possibility. May need to defend the FMV. May need independent valuation. (I8217ve never heard of this happening.) Need to make sure that shareholder agreement provisions are in place (eg vesting, voting, etc). Issuance of shares at very low prices on a cap table may look bad to new investors (whereas option exercises are considered normal) More shareholders to manage The benefits of owning shares are: Can get up to 750,000 in life-time tax-free capital gains 50 deduction on gains if shares held for more than 2 years OR if shares where issued at FMV Losses in a CCPC can be used as allowable business losses (if the business fails) Can participate in ownership of company voting, dividends, etc Less dilution than if stock options are issued Getting cheap shares into the hands of employees is the best way to go for a CCPC. The only downside risk arises if the company fails in less than two years. (See Bottom Line below) . NOTE: Companies can issue shares (instead of options) to employees at any price and not trigger an immediate taxable event it8217s the same as giving an option grant that is immediately exercised. If shares (instead of options) are given at a very low (e. g. zero) price, fewer shares can be issued than when granting options with a higher exercise price. To avoid the risk of having to pay the tax on the deferred benefit if shares are issued to an employee below the FMV, options are often granted. This is only a risk if shares are ultimately sold below the FMV, as may be the case in a bankruptcy . Stock options, if unexercised, avoid this potential problem. An option gives one the right to buy a certain number of shares for a stated price (the exercise price) for a given period of time. The is no liability at the time that options are granted. Only in the year that options are exercised, is there is a tax liability. For CCPCs this liability can be deferred until the shares are actually sold. If the shares are held for more than 2 years, this tax liability is calculated at 50 of the benefit. That is, both a deferral and a deduction of 50 are available to those having exercised options. (If shares are held for less than 2 years, a 50 deduction is available if shares were purchased at FMV.) Some disadvantages with stock options are: The tax liability (if options are exercised) is never erased this is exactly the same scenario as if shares were given. The lifetime capital gains exemption cannot be used unless the shares not the options are held for 2 years after exercising. Capital gains are calculated on the difference between the selling price and the FMV when exercised. Must hold the shares for 2 years, after exercising the option to get the 50 deduction. (If exercise price of option FMV at date of option grant, a 50 deduction is also available). The benefit is considered income, not a capital gain and if shares are subsequently sold at a loss, the income benefit cannot be reduced by this capital loss. The tax risk increases over time since it is the difference between FMV and exercise price at the time of exercise that sets up the contingent tax liability, so the longer you wait to exercise (assuming steadily increasing FMV), the greater the potential tax liability. Options do not constitute ownership optioned shares cannot be voted. Large option pools are negatively viewed by investors because they may cause substantial future dilution (unlike public companies that are generally limited to 10 in options, private companies can have very large option pools). Still need to have a defensible FMV may need independent valuation. It may become a real headache if CRA requires that this be done retroactively when an exit is achieved. They could expire too soon. May need to have a very long term, say 10 years or more. Showing lots of stock options on the company8217s cap table directly impacts (negatively) the per-share valuation in on-going financings since investors always look at all outstanding options as outstanding shares. Some benefits with stock options are: No tax liability when options are received, only when they are exercised. No cash outlay required until exercised and even then, it may be minimal. Can exercise options to buy shares immediately at discounted prices without having to pay any tax until shares are sold. An early exercise avoids a higher FMV, and hence avoids a greater taxable benefit, later. From the companys perspective, granting shares (instead of options) at a very low price means that fewer shares need to be issued which is good for all shareholders. For example, giving shares at a penny instead of granting options exercisable at 50 cents means that more options must be granted which means greater dilution later when an exit is realized . The extra 49 cents doesnt do much for shareholders as the exercise amount by then is nominal compared to the exit value. That amount will go right back to the new owner of the company meanwhile diluting all shareholders participating in the exit Action item for investors: check your company8217s cap table for options and get rid of them Give shares instead that are notionally equal to the Black-Scholes value of the option. Example, Joe Blow holds an option to buy 100K shares at 60 cents. The shares are currently valued at 75 cents (based on recent investments). The value of the options is determined to be 35 cents (i. e. 35K in total value). The 35 cents is based on the value of the option (say 20 cents) plus the in-the-money amount of 15 cents. As a rule of thumb, when an option is issued with an exercise price equal to current share price, an approximate determination of the options value is taken by dividing the price by 3 which in this example is 603 20 cents. Now, take the total value of 35K and issue 46,666 shares for 1.00 (because 46,666 shares at 75 cents 35K). This is better than showing 100K shares as options on the cap table RECOMMENDATION FOR CCPCs : Grant stock options, exercisable at a nominal cost, say 1 cent good for at least 10 years or more. Suggest that option holders exercise their option and buy shares immediately (just skip step 1 altogether) Make sure that grantees understand that if they exercise early or immediately, they start the 2-year clock on the deduction and also get the lifetime capital gains exemption. (They should also understand that there may be a possible downside in so doing 8211 i. e. the liability on the 8220benefit8221 when options are exercised is still taxable even if the company fails 8211 in which case, they can still claim the ABIL offset. Grantees may elect to trade-off this potential liability by forfeiting the deduction and exemption and not exercising until there is an exit in which case they take no risk but have a much lower 8211 as much as 50 lower 8211 profit).: An employee is given an option to buy shares for a penny each. Shares are currently being sold to investors for 1.00 each (CRA would argue that the 1.00 price is the FMV). If the employee exercises the option immediately and buys shares, then he is deemed to have received an employment benefit of 99 cents which is fully taxable as income BUT both a DEFERRAL and a DEDUCTION may be available. First, the tax on this income can be deferred until the shares are sold (if the company fails, they are considered to be sold). Companies must file T4 slips with CRA (so you cant hide this sale). Second, if the Shares (not the Option) are held for at least 2 years, then only 50, i. e. 49.5 cents is taxed as income. The difference between the selling price (and the FMV at the time the shares were acquired) is taxed as a capital gain which is also eligible for a 750K life-time exemption If the shares are sold for 1.00 or more no problem But, if the shares are sold for less than 1.00, the employee is still on the hook for the 99 cent (or .495 cent) benefit and although he would have a capital loss . it cannot be used to offset the liability. He can mitigate this by claiming an Allowable Business Investment Loss (ABIL). 50 of the ABIL can be reduced to offset employment income. In this example, 49.5 cents would be allowed as a deduction against the 49.5 cents that is taxed as income, leaving the employee in a neutral position with respect to tax liability. Caution claiming an ABIL may not work if the company has lost its CCPC status along the way. (Note: Ive heard of people in this situation claiming that the FMV is exactly what they paid since it was negotiated at arms-length, the shares could not be sold, the company was desperate, etc, etc. Their attitude is let CRA challenge it. Thats OK as long as the Company didnt file a T4, as it should but likely wont if its bankrupt.) On the other hand, if the company succeeds, employees can enjoy tax-free gains (up to 750K) without having to put up much capital and taking only a limited risk. If the employee holds an option until the company is sold (or until the shares become liquid) and then exercises the option and immediately sells the shares, the employees entire gain (i. e. the difference between his selling price and the penny he paid for each share) is fully taxed as employment income and there is no 50 deduction available (unless the exercise price of the option FMV when the option was granted). THE BOTTOM LINE: The best deal for both the company (if its a CCPC) and its employees is to issue shares to employees for a nominal cost, say 1 cent per share. If this grant is to garner an employees commitment for future work, reverse-vesting terms should be agreed to before the shares are issued. To determine the number of shares, start by arbitrarily setting the price per share. This could be the most recent price paid by arms-length investors or some other price that you can argue is reasonable under the circumstances. Lets say that the price per share is 1.00 and you want to give your recently recruited CFO a 250K signing bonus. Therefore, hed get 250K shares as an incentive (these should vest daily over a 3-year period). He pays 2,500 for these. Tax-wise, he is now liable for the tax on 247.5K in employment income . However, he can defer payment of this tax until the shares are sold. Here are the possible outcomes and consequences: a)Shares are sold for 1.00 or more after holding the shares for at least 2 years: he is taxed on income of 50 of 247.5K (i. e. 250K minus the 2,500 paid for the shares), i. e. the deferred benefit, less the 50 deduction PLUS a capital gain on any proceeds above his 1.00 per share cost. This gain is taxed at a rate of 50 and, if not previously claimed, his first 750K in gains is completely tax-free. b)Shares are sold for 1.00 or more but in less than 2 years: he is taxed on income of 247.5K, i. e. the deferred benefit, as there is no deduction available PLUS a capital gain on any proceeds above his 1.00 per share cost. He does not benefit from the 50 deduction on the employment benefit nor the 50 capital gains deduction. This is why it makes sense to own shares as soon as possible to start the 2-year clock running. c)Shares are sold for less than 1.00 after holding the shares for more than 2 years: he is taxed on income of 50 of 247.5K, i. e. the deferred benefit less the 50 deduction. He can offset this tax by claiming an ABIL. He can take 50 of the difference between his selling price and 1.00 and deduct that from his employment income this is a direct offset to the deferred benefit. If the company fails and the shares are worthless, he is taxed on employment income of 50 of 247,500 MINUS 50 of 250K i. e. no tax (indeed, a small refund). d)Shares are sold for less than 1.00 after holding the shares for less than 2 years: he is taxed on income of 247.5K, i. e. the deferred benefit as there is no deduction available. He can offset this tax by claiming an ABIL. He can take 50 of the difference between his selling price and 1.00 and deduct that from his employment income this is a partial offset to the deferred benefit. If the company fails and the shares are worthless, he is taxed on employment income of 247,500 MINUS 50 of 250K 122,500. NOT GOOD This is the situation that must be avoided. Why pay tax on 122.5K of unrealized income that has never seen the light of day How Make sure you let 2 years pass before liquidating if at all possible. You can also argue that the benefit was not 247,500 because there was no market for the shares, they were restricted, you could not sell any, etc. Let CRA challenge you and hope they wont (Ive not heard of any cases where they have in the case of CCPCs). Why bother with options when the benefits of share ownership are so compelling And the only possible financial risk to an employee getting shares instead of stock options arises in (d) above if shares are sold at a loss in less than 2 years. If the company fails that quickly, the FMV was likely never very high and besides, you can stretch the liquidation date if you need to. Contractors and Consultants The deferral of tax liability in respect of CCPCs is granted only to employees of the CCPC in question (or of a CCPC with which the employer CCPC does not deal at arm8217s length). Contractors and consultants are not entitled to the benefit of the deferral. Consequently, contractors and consultants will be liable to pay tax upon exercise of any options. Never underestimate the power of the Canada Revenue Agency. One might expect them to chase after the winners those with big gains on successful exits but what about the folks that got stock options, deferred the benefit and sold their shares for zip Will CRA kick the losers when theyre down For Publicly Listed Corporations and non-CCPCs In the case of public companies, stock option rules are different. The main difference is that if an employee exercises an option for shares in a public company, he has an immediate tax liability. Up until the Federal Budget of March 4th, 2017, it was possible for an employee to defer the tax until he actually sells the shares. But now, when you exercise a stock option and buy shares in the company you work for, CRA wants you to pay tax immediately on any unrealized 8220paper8221 profit even if you haven8217t sold any shares. Furthermore, CRA now wants your company to withhold the tax on this artificial profit. This discourages the holding of shares for future gains. If the company is a junior Venture-Exchange listed company, where will it find the cash to pay the tax especially if it is thinly traded This process is not only an accounting nightmare for you and the company 8211 it8217s also fundamentally wrong in that CRA is making your buysell decisions for you. It is also wrong in that stock options will no longer be an attractive recruiting inducement. Emerging companies will find it much harder to attract talent. It will also be a major impediment to private companies that wish to go public. In the going-public process, employees usually exercise their stock options (often to meet regulatory limits on option pools). This could result in a tax bill of millions of dollars to the company. Also, it won8217t look good to new investors to see employees selling their shares during an IPO even though they have to. Before the March 4th budget, you could defer the tax on any paper profit until the year in which you actually sell the shares that you bought and get real cash in hand. This was a big headache for those who bought shares only to see the price of the shares drop. The stories you may have heard about Nortel or JDS Uniphase employees going broke to pay tax on worthless shares are true. They exercised options when shares were trading north of 100, giving them huge paper profits and substantial tax liabilities. But when the shares tanked, there was never any cash to cover the liability 8211 nor was there any offset to mitigate the pain. The only relief is that the drop in value becomes a capital loss but this can only be applied to offset capital gains. In the meantime, though, the cash amount required to pay CRA can bankrupt you. CRA argues that the new rule will force you to sell shares right away, thereby avoiding a future loss. (Aren8217t you glad that they8217re looking after you so well) But, that8217s only because the stupid 8220deemed benefit8221 is taxed in the first instance. Example: You are the CFO of a young tech company that recruited you from Silicon Valley. You have a 5-year option to buy 100,000 shares at 1.00. Near the expiration date, you borrow 100,000 and are now a shareholder. On that date, the shares are worth 11.00. Your tax bill on this is roughly 220,000 (50 inclusion rate X the top marginal tax rate of 44X 1 million in unrealized profit) which you must pay immediately (and your Company must 8220withhold8221 this same amount). Unless you8217ve got deep pockets, you8217ll have to sell 29,000 shares to cover your costs 8211 20,000 more than if you did a simple cashless exercise. So much for being an owner In this example, if the company8217s shares drop in price and you later sell the shares for 2.00, you8217ll be in the hole 120,000 (200,000 less 320,000) whereas you should have doubled your money Sure, you have a capital loss of 9 (i. e. 11 less 2) but when can you ever use that As part of the March 4 changes, CRA will let the Nortel-like victims of the past (i. e. those that have used the previously-available deferral election) file a special election that will limit their tax liability to the actual proceeds received, effectively breaking-even but losing any potential upside benefit. I guess this will make people with deferrals pony up sooner. The mechanics of this are still not well defined. (see the paragraph titled deferrals election below) Interestingly, warrants (similar to options) given to investors are NOT taxed until benefits are realized. Options should be the same. Investors get warrants as a bonus for making an equity investment and taking a risk. Employees get options as a bonus for making a sweat-equity investment and taking a risk. Why should they be treated less favorably I don8217t understand how such punitive measures make their way into our tax system. Surely, no Member of Parliament (MP) woke up one night with a Eureka moment on how the government can screw entrepreneurs and risk takers. Such notions can only come from jealous bureaucrats who can8217t identify with Canada8217s innovators. What are they thinking A common view is that large public corporations, while it creates more accounting work for them, aren8217t that upset about this tax. They do see it as a benefit and for them and their employees, it might be better to sell shares, take the profit and run. For smaller emerging companies 8211 especially those listed on the TSX Venture exchange, the situation is different. For one thing, a forced sale into the market can cause a price crash, meaning having to sell even more shares. Managers and Directors of these companies would be seen as insiders bailing out. Niedobrze. The rules are complex and hard to understand. The differences between CCPCs, non-CCPCs, public companies and companies in transition between being private and non-private give you a headache just trying to understand the various scenarios. Even while writing this article, I talked to various experts who gave me somewhat different interpretations. Does your head hurt yet What happens if you do this8230or if you do that It8217s messy and unnecessary. The solution: don8217t tax artificial stock option 8220benefits8221 until shares are sold and profits are realized. For that matter, let8217s go all the way and let companies give stock 8211 not stock option 8211 grants to employees. I wonder how many MPs know about this tax measure I wonder if any even know about it. It8217s a complex matter and not one that affects a large percentage of the population 8211 certainly not something that the press can get too excited about. I8217m sure that if they are made aware of it, they8217d speak against it. After all, on the innovation front, it8217s yet another impediment to economic growth. For another good article on the subject, please read Jim Fletcher8217s piece on the 2017 Budget on BootUp Entrepreneurial Society8217s blog. For those who exercised an option before March 2017, and deferred the benefit, CRA is making a special concession. On the surface it looks simple: You are allowed to file an election that lets you limit your total tax bill to the cash you actually receive when you sell the shares (which will likely leave you with nothing for your hard work) rather than be subject to taxes on income you never realized (as is the case before March 2017). Indeed, CRA thinks its doing everyone a big favor because its being kind in helping with a mess that it created in the first place Theres a detailed and lengthy discussion in an article by Mark Woltersdorf of Fraser Milner Casgrain in Tax Notes by CCH Canadian. The key point in the article is that you have until 2018 to decide how to handle any previously deferrals. The decision is not straightforward because it depends on an individuals specific circumstances. For example, if there are other capital gains that could be offset, filing the election would result in not being able to offset these. The article states: On filing the election, the employee is deemed to have realized a taxable capital gain equal to one-half of the lesser of the employment income or the capital loss arising on the sale of optioned shares. The deemed taxable capital gain will be offset (partially or in full) by the allowable capital loss arising from the disposition of the optioned share. What is the value of the allowable capital loss that is used, and therefore, not available to offset other taxable capital gains The article gives a few good examples to illustrate various scenarios. So, if youre in this situation do your analysis. I tried to link to the article, but its a pay-for publication, so thats not available. Your tax accountant might give you a copy. Thanks to Steve Reed of Manning Elliott in Vancouver for his tax insights and to Jim Fletcher, an active angel investor, for his contributions to this article. Footnotes (the devil is in the details): 1.8221Shares8221 as referred to herein means 8220Prescribed Shares8221 in the Income Tax Act. Generally this means ordinary common shares 8211 BUT 8211 if a Company has a right of first refusal to buy back shares, they may no longer qualify for the same tax treatment. 2.There are really two 50 deductions are available: The regular capital gains deduction which permits a 50 deduction on capital gains made on shares that are acquired at FMV and the 50 deduction available to offset the employment income benefit on shares that are held for more than 2 years. (Of course, only one 50 deduction is available. ) 3.CCPC status may unknowingly be forfeited. For example, if a US investor has certain rights whereby he has, or may have, 8220control8221, the company may be deemed to be a non-CCPC. Rob Stanley says: Great article. Have any of these provisions been updated in the 6 years since the article was originally published We8217re based in Toronto and setting up a new tech startup. We8217ve decided to incorporate in Delaware as we want to eventually attract money from the valley. But for founders and key employees it seems that both options and founders shares could be problematic as a non CCPC, Canadian employees who receive options would be in a situation similar to your CFO with 100,000 options in a Silicon Valley startup 8211 they would have a tax liability on the FMV at time of exercising, due immediately. Is this still the case If we issue shares (founder shares) as a non-CCPC, even with reverse vesting (or RSU equivalents), it seems there would be an immediate tax liability based on FMV at the time the shares are issued 8211 am I understanding that correctly I8217m not aware of any changes in the past 6 years since I wrote the post. Yes, the rules are different in the USA. Not as good as in Canada. Many startups I know have no trouble attracting Valley Capital because they are CCPCs. In your case, if the recipients of the founders shares (in the Delaware Corp) are Canadian, I believe that the Canadian rules are applicable and they have no immediate tax liability. BUT 8211 they do not get a shot at the 835K Cap Gains exemption. Then, of course, there8217s also the question of what is the FMV. If no capital has been raised, and if the company is brand new, I8217d argue that the FMV is zero. Even for later stage issuances, I8217ve not heard of CRA setting an FMV. Rob Stanley says: Thanks Mike Again, great article 8211 very informative.
