IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/minsoc/v18y2019i2d10.1007_s11299-019-00218-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Architecture of the mind and libertarian paternalism: is the reversibility of system 1 nudges likely to happen?

Author

Listed:
  • Riccardo Viale

    (University of Milano Bicocca
    Collegio Carlo Alberto)

Abstract

The libertarian attribute of Thaler and Sunstein’s nudge theory (Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2008) is one of the most important features for its candidature as a new model for public policy-making. It relies on the reversibility of choices made under the influence of nudging. Since the mind is articulated into two systems, the choice taken by System 1 is always reversible because it can be overridden by the deliberative and corrective role of System 2. This article does not aim to criticise the whole theory of nudge and neither to assess its practical efficacy as a policy-making tool. Rather it intends to show that there are doubts that the specific claim of reversibility is correct for a subset of nudges called “System 1 nudges” (Sunstein in The ethics of influence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016). And that therefore, in this case, the libertarian claim seems little justified. The thrust of my argument contests the truth of the main pillar of the libertarian claim, namely the dual-process theory of mind. I will show that even the minimal version of dual reasoning, namely the Type 1 and Type 2 processes proposed by Evans and Stanovich (Perspect Psychol Sci 8(3):223–241, 2013), is weakened by psychological and neural data.

Suggested Citation

  • Riccardo Viale, 2019. "Architecture of the mind and libertarian paternalism: is the reversibility of system 1 nudges likely to happen?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 18(2), pages 143-166, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:minsoc:v:18:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11299-019-00218-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11299-019-00218-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11299-019-00218-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11299-019-00218-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith Stanovich & Maggie Toplak, 2012. "Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(1), pages 3-13, June.
    2. Riccardo Viale, 2018. "The normative and descriptive weaknesses of behavioral economics-informed nudge: depowered paternalism and unjustified libertarianism," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 17(1), pages 53-69, November.
    3. Sunstein,Cass R., 2016. "The Ethics of Influence," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107140707, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Silvia Felletti, 2021. "“Trust me, I’m your neighbour” How to improve epidemic risk containment through community trust," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 20(1), pages 155-158, June.
    2. Nathan Berg & Yuki Watanabe, 2020. "Conservation of behavioral diversity: on nudging, paternalism-induced monoculture, and the social value of heterogeneous beliefs and behavior," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 103-120, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eyal Pe’er & Yuval Feldman & Eyal Gamliel & Limor Sahar & Ariel Tikotsky & Nurit Hod & Hilla Schupak, 2019. "Do minorities like nudges? The role of group norms in attitudes towards behavioral policy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 40-50, January.
    2. Philp, Matthew & Mantonakis, Antonia, 2020. "Guiding the consumer evaluation process and the probability of order-effects-in-choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 13-22.
    3. Dan Degerman & Elliott Johnson & Matthew Flinders & Matthew Johnson, 2024. "After nudging: the ethical challenge of post-pandemic policymaking in the UK," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. James Alm & Laura Rosales Cifuentes & Carlos Mauricio Ortiz Niño & Diana Rocha, 2019. "Can Behavioral “Nudges” Improve Compliance? The Case of Colombia Social Protection Contributions," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, October.
    5. Schubert, Christian, 2017. "Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-342.
    6. Meder, Björn & Fleischhut, Nadine & Osman, Magda, 2018. "Beyond the confines of choice architecture: A critical analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 36-44.
    7. Laura Macchi & Maria Bagassi, 2014. "The interpretative heuristic in insight problem solving," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 13(1), pages 97-108, June.
    8. Hildebrandt, Mireille, 2020. "Smart technologies," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16.
    9. Xie, Guangming & Lü, Kevin & Gupta, Suraksha & Jiang, Yushi & Shi, Li, 2021. "How Dispersive Opinions Affect Consumer Decisions: Endowment Effect Guides Attributional Inferences," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 621-638.
    10. Adam Dominiak & Peter Duersch, 2024. "Choice under uncertainty and cognitive load," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 133-161, April.
    11. Matija Franklin & Tomas Folke & Kai Ruggeri, 2019. "Optimising nudges and boosts for financial decisions under uncertainty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Wang, Bin & Xie, Fengyuan & Kandampully, Jay & Wang, Jin, 2022. "Increase hedonic products purchase intention through livestreaming: The mediating effects of mental imagery quality and customer trust," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    13. Abigail N. Devereaux, 2019. "The nudge wars: A modern socialist calculation debate," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 139-158, June.
    14. Bart Engelen, 2019. "Nudging and rationality: What is there to worry?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(2), pages 204-232, May.
    15. William F. Shughart & Diana W. Thomas & Michael D. Thomas, 2020. "Institutional Change and the Importance of Understanding Shared Mental Models," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 371-391, August.
    16. Kasperbauer, T.J., 2017. "The permissibility of nudging for sustainable energy consumption," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 52-57.
    17. Thunström, Linda & Gilbert, Ben & Ritten, Chian Jones, 2018. "Nudges that hurt those already hurting – distributional and unintended effects of salience nudges," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 267-282.
    18. Segovia, Michelle S. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Can episodic future thinking affect food choices?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 371-389.
    19. Cass R. Sunstein, 2019. "Ruining popcorn? The welfare effects of information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 121-142, June.
    20. Nathan Berg & Yuki Watanabe, 2020. "Conservation of behavioral diversity: on nudging, paternalism-induced monoculture, and the social value of heterogeneous beliefs and behavior," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 103-120, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:minsoc:v:18:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11299-019-00218-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.