In recent years, the nudge approach to behavior change has emerged from the behavioral sciences to challenge the traditional use of regulation in public health strategies to address modifiable individual-level behaviors related to the rise of noncommunicable diseases and their treatment. However, integration and testing of the nudge approach as part of more comprehensive public health strategies aimed at making healthy choices easier are being threatened by inadequate understandings of its scientific character, its relationship with regulation, and its ethical implications. This article reviews this character and its ethical implication with a special emphasis on the compatibility of nudging with traditional regulation, special domains of experience, and the need for a more nuanced approach to the ethical debate. The aim is to advance readers' understanding and give guidance to those who have considered working with or incorporating the nudge approach into programs or policies aimed at making healthful choices easier.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Ax J. 1.  2013. Bloomberg's ban on big sodas is unconstitutional: appeals court. Reuters U. S. Ed. July 30. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-sodaban-lawsuit-idUSBRE96T0UT20130730#LzUzTBCxosOh3ACH.97
  2. Bloom DE, Cafiero E, Jané-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom LR. 2.  et al. 2012. The Global Economic Burden of Noncommunicable Diseases Geneva: World Econ. Forum
  3. Bogusky AM, Porter C. 3.  2008. The 9-Inch Diet: Exposing the Big Conspiracy in America Brooklyn, NY: Powerhouse Books
  4. Bovens L. 4.  2009. The ethics of nudge. Preference Change: Approaches From Philosophy, Economics and Psychology T Grüne-Yanoff, SO Hansson 207–19 Berlin/New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  5. Boyland EJ, Halford JC. 5.  2013. Television advertising and branding. Effects on eating behaviour and food preferences in children. Appetite 62:236–41 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G, Caraher M. 6.  2013. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite 62:209–15 [Google Scholar]
  7. Calo R. 7.  2014. Code, nudge, or notice?. Iowa Law Rev. 99:2773–802 [Google Scholar]
  8. Conly S. 8.  2014. Against autonomy: justifying coercive paternalism. J. Med. Ethics 40:349 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crawford F, Mathews R. 9.  2007. The Myth of Excellence: Why Great Companies Never Try to Be the Best at Everything New York: Crown Bus.
  10. Curry B. 10.  2013. Canada studies Britain's ‘nudge unit’ for ways to give the public a push. The Globe and Mail Aug. 1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-studies-britains-nudge-unit-for-lessons-in-public-persuasion/article13541716/
  11. Dhar SK, Hoch SJ. 11.  1997. Why store brand penetration varies by retailer. Market. Sci. 16:3208–27 [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans JSB. 12.  2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:255–78 [Google Scholar]
  13. Farrell H, Shalizi C. 13.  2011. ‘Nudge’ policies are another name for coercion. New Sci. Nov. 5. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228376-500-nudge-policies-are-another-name-for-coercion/
  14. Furedi F. 14.  2011. On Tolerance: A Defence of Moral Independence New York: Bloomsbury
  15. Gawronski B, Sherman JW, Trope Y. 15.  2014. Two of what?: A Conceptual Analysis of Dual-Process Theories. Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind3–19 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  16. Halford JC, Boyland EJ, Hughes G, Oliveira LP, Dovey TM. 16.  2007. Beyond-brand effect of television (TV) food advertisements/commercials on caloric intake and food choice of 5-7-year-old children. Appetite 49:1263–67 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hall D, Hall I. 17.  1996. Practical Social Research: Project Work in the Community London: MacMillian
  18. Hansen PG. 18.  2012. Should we be “nudging” for cadaveric organ donations?. Am. J. Bioeth. 12:246–48 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hansen PG. 19.  2013. Nudge for good. Policy Options June:22–23 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hansen PG. 20.  2015. Nudge and libertarian paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove?. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 2016:11–20 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hansen PG, Jespersen AM. 21.  2013. Nudge and the manipulation of choice: a framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. Eur. J. Risk Reg. 2013:13–28 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hansen PG, Skov LR, Jespersen AM, Skov KL, Schmidt K. 22.  2016. Apples versus brownies: a field experiment in rearranging conference snacking buffets to reduce short-term energy intake. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 191 In press
  23. 23. Harper H, Behav. Insights Team 2013. Applying Behavioural Insights to Organ Donation: Preliminary Results from a Randomised Controlled Trial. London: Cabinet Off.-Behav. Insights Team
  24. Hawkes C. 24.  2009. Sales promotions and food consumption. Nutr. Rev. 67:6333–42 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hawkes C, Jewell J, Allen K. 25.  2013. A food policy package for healthy diets and the prevention of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases: the NOURISHING framework. Obes. Rev. 14:S2159–68 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawkes C, Smith TG, Jewell J, Wardle J, Hammond RA. 26.  et al. 2015. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. The Lancet 385:2410–21 [Google Scholar]
  27. Haynes L, Goldacre B, Torgerson D. 27.  2012. Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials London: Cabinet Off.-Behav. Insights Team
  28. Isganaitis E, Lustig RH. 28.  2005. Fast food, central nervous system insulin resistance, and obesity. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 25:122451–62 [Google Scholar]
  29. Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. 29.  2005. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health San Francisco: Jossey Bass
  30. Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG. 30.  2003. Do defaults save lives?. Science 302:1338–39 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kahneman D. 31.  2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
  32. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 32.  1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J. Econ. Soc. 47:263–91 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kallbekken S, Sælen H. 33.  2013. ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Econ. Lett. 119:3325–27 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kessler D. 34.  2010. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite New York: Rodale Books
  35. Ludwig DS. 35.  2011. Technology, diet, and the burden of chronic disease. JAMA 305:131352–53 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lunn P. 36.  2014. Regulatory Policy and Behavioural Economics Paris: OECD
  37. MacInnis B, Rausser G. 37.  2005. Does food processing contribute to childhood obesity disparities?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87:51154–58 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marr D. 38.  1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information San Francisco: Freeman
  39. Minkler M, Wallerstein N. 39.  2008. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2nd ed..
  40. Mitchell G. 40.  2005. Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 99:31245–77 [Google Scholar]
  41. Nicolas S. 41.  1995. Joseph Delboeuf on visual illusions: a historical sketch. Am. J. Psychol. 108:563–74 [Google Scholar]
  42. Nørnberg TR, Houlby L, Skov LR, Peréz-Cueto FJA. 42.  2015. Choice architecture interventions for increased vegetable intake and behaviour change in a school setting: a systematic review. Perspect. Public Health. doi: 10.1177/1757913915596017. In press
  43. 43. OECD 2014. Behavioural insights and new approaches to policy design Presented at NAEC Workshop, Jan. 23, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/naec/NAEC_Behavioural-Insights-Programme_23-Jan.pdf
  44. Plickert P, Beck H. 44.  2014. Kanzlerin sucht Verhaltensforscher. Frankf. Allg. Aug. 26. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/kanzlerin-angela-merkel-sucht-verhaltensforscher-13118345.html
  45. Ploug T, Holm S, Brodersen J. 45.  2012. To nudge or not to nudge: cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 66:121193–96 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rebonato R. 46.  2012. Taking Liberties: A Critical Examination of Libertarian Paternalism New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  47. Richards TJ, Padilla L. 47.  2009. Promotion and fast food demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:1168–83 [Google Scholar]
  48. Roberto CA, Swinburn B, Hawkes C, Huang TT-K, Costa SA. 48.  et al. 2015. Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging examples, entrenched barriers, and new thinking. Lancet 385:2400–9 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sharp D, Sobal J. 49.  2012. Using plate mapping to examine sensitivity to plate size in food portions and meal composition among college students. Appetite 59:639–45 [Google Scholar]
  50. Skov LR, Lourenco S, Hansen GL, Mikkelsen BE, Schofield C. 50.  2013. Choice architecture as a means to change eating behaviour in self-service settings: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 14:3187–96 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sunstein CR. 51.  2015. Nudging smokers. N. Engl. J. Med. 372:2150–51 [Google Scholar]
  52. Swinburn BA, Sacks G, Hall KD, McPherson K, Finegood DT. 52.  et al. 2011. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet 378:804–14 [Google Scholar]
  53. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 53.  2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  54. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 54.  1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–31 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 55.  1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–58 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vallgårda S. 56.  2012. Nudge—a new and better way to improve health?. Health Policy 104:2200–3 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Ittersum K, Wansink B. 57.  2012. Plate size and color suggestibility: the Delboeuf Illusion's bias on serving and eating behavior. J. Consum. Res. 39:2215–28 [Google Scholar]
  58. Vermeer WM, Steenhuis IH, Poelman MP. 58.  2014. Small, medium, large or supersize? The development and evaluation of interventions targeted at portion size. Int. J. Obes. 38:13–18 [Google Scholar]
  59. Viskaal-van Dongen M, de Graaf C, Siebelink E, Kok FJ. 59.  2009. Hidden fat facilitates passive overconsumption. J. Nutr. 139:2394–99 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wansink B. 60.  2004. Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 24:455–79 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wansink B. 61.  2006. Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think New York: Bantam Dell
  62. Wansink B, Just DR, Payne CR, Klinger MZ. 62.  2012. Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools. Prev. Med. 55:4330–32 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wansink B, van Ittersum K. 63.  2013. Portion size me: plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 19:4320–32 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wansink B, Wansink CS. 64.  2010. The largest Last Supper: depictions of food portions and plate size increased over the millennium. Int. J. Obes. 34:5943–44 [Google Scholar]
  65. White MD. 65.  2013. The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  66. 66. White House, Off. Press Secr 2015. Fact sheet: President Obama signs executive order; White House announces new steps to improve federal programs by leveraging research insights. Press Release, Sept. 15. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/fact-sheet-president-obama-signs-executive-order-white-house-announces
  67. 67. WHO (World Health Organ) 2013. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020 WHO, Geneva. http://www.who.int/nmh/events/ncd_action_plan/en/
  68. 68. World Bank 2015. World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior Washington, DC: World Bank

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error