Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 469–479 | Cite as

What can Neuroscience Contribute to the Debate Over Nudging?

  • Gidon Felsen
  • Peter B. Reiner
Article

Abstract

Strategies for improving individual decision making have attracted attention from a range of disciplines. Surprisingly, neuroscience has been largely absent from this conversation, despite the fact that it has recently begun illuminating the neural bases of how and why we make decisions, and is poised for further such advances. Here we address empirical and normative questions about “nudging” through the lens of neuroscience. We suggest that the neuroscience of decision making can provide a framework for understanding how nudges work, and how they can be improved. Towards this end, we first examine how nudges can be incorporated into a leading model of decision making supported by neurobiological data, and use the model to make predictions about the relative effectiveness of different classes of nudges. We then use the model to demonstrate how nudges can both infringe upon and promote autonomy. Finally, we explore the normative implications of the converging consensus from neuroscience and related fields that many everyday decisions are susceptible to covert external influences.

Keywords

Decision Variable Starting Position Drift Rate External Influence Choice Architect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions. This work was supported by the Greenwall Foundation’s Faculty Scholars Program in Bioethics (G. F.).

References

  1. Badre, D. 2008. Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization of the frontal lobes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12(5): 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berker, S. 2009. The normative insignificance of neuroscience. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(4): 293–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumenthal-Barby, J.S. 2013. Choice architecture: improving choice while preserving liberty? In Paternalism: theory and practice, ed. C. Coons and M. Weber, 178–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bode, S., C. Murawski, C.S. Soon, P. Bode, J. Stahl, and P.L. Smith. 2014. Demystifying “free will”: the role of contextual information and evidence accumulation for predictive brain activity. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 47: 636–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bode, S., D.K. Sewell, S. Lilburn, J.D. Forte, P.L. Smith, and J. Stahl. 2012. Predicting perceptual decision biases from early brain activity. The Journal of Neuroscience 32(36): 12488–12498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogacz, R., M. Usher, J. Zhang, and J.L. McClelland. 2007. Extending a biologically inspired model of choice: multi-alternatives, nonlinearity and value-based multidimensional choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 362(1485): 1655–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bovens, L. 2009. The ethics of nudge. In Preference change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology, ed. T. Grüne-Yanoff and S.O. Hansson, 207–219. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C., S. Issacharoff, G. Loewenstein, T. O’Donoghue, and M. Rabin. 2003. Regulation for conservatives: behavioral economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism.”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151(3): 1211–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carandini, M., and A.K. Churchland. 2013. Probing perceptual decisions in rodents. Nature Neuroscience 16(7): 824–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, R.H.S., and M.L.L. Williams. 1995. Neural computation of log likelihood in control of saccadic eye movements. Nature 377(6544): 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Custers, R., and H. Aarts. 2010. The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science 329(5987): 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DasGupta, S., C.H. Ferreira, and G. Miesenböck. 2014. FoxP influences the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision in Drosophila. Science 344(6186): 901–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Martino, B., D. Kumaran, B. Seymour, and R.J. Dolan. 2006. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313(5787): 684–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deppe, M., W. Schwindt, H. Kugel, H. Plassmann, and P. Kenning. 2005. Nonlinear responses within the medial prefrontal cortex reveal when specific implicit information influences economic decision making. Journal of Neuroimaging 15(2): 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ditterich, J., M.E. Mazurek, and M.N. Shadlen. 2003. Microstimulation of visual cortex affects the speed of perceptual decisions. Nature Neuroscience 6(8): 891–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downs, J.S., G. Loewenstein, and J. Wisdom. 2009. Strategies for promoting healthier food choices. American Economic Review 99(2): 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felsen, G., and P.B. Reiner. 2011. How the neuroscience of decision making informs our conception of autonomy. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2(3): 3–14.Google Scholar
  19. Frankfurt, H. 1971. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy 68: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilaie-Dotan, S., A. Tymula, N. Cooper, J.W. Kable, P.W. Glimcher, and I. Levy. 2014. Neuroanatomy predicts individual risk attitudes. The Journal of Neuroscience 34(37): 12394–12401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gold, J.I., and M.N. Shadlen. 2007. The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience 30: 535–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graybiel, A.M. 2008. Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience 31(1): 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene, J. 2003. From neural “is” to moral “ought”: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4(10): 846–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, J.D. 2014. Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics 124(4): 695–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grüne-Yanoff, T. 2012. Old wine in new casks: libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles. Social Choice and Welfare 38(4): 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanks, T.D., J. Ditterich, and M.N. Shadlen. 2006. Microstimulation of macaque area LIP affects decision-making in a motion discrimination task. Nature Neuroscience 9(5): 682–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hikosaka, O., H.F. Kim, M. Yasuda, and S. Yamamoto. 2014. Basal ganglia circuits for reward value–guided behavior. Annual Review of Neuroscience 37(1): 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill, T. 1989. The Kantian conception of autonomy. In The inner citadel: essays on individual autonomy, ed. J.P. Christman, 91–108. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Insel, T.R., S.C. Landis, and F.S. Collins. 2013. The NIH BRAIN initiative. Science 340(6133): 687–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jolls, C., and C.R. Sunstein. 2006. Debiasing through law. The Journal of Legal Studies 35(1): 199–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jolls, C., C.R. Sunstein, and R. Thaler. 1998. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review 50(5): 1471–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jucker, M. 2010. The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases. Nature Medicine 16(11): 1210–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  34. Kamm, F.M. 2009. Neuroscience and moral reasoning: a note on recent research. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(4): 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levy, D.J., and P.W. Glimcher. 2012. The root of all value: a neural common currency for choice. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 22(6): 1027–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattler, U., and S. Palmer. 2012. Time course of free-choice priming effects explained by a simple accumulator model. Cognition 123(3): 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mazurek, M.E., J.D. Roitman, J. Ditterich, and M.N. Shadlen. 2003. A role for neural integrators in perceptual decision making. Cerebral Cortex 13(11): 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchell, G. 2004. Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron. Northwestern University Law Review 99: 1245–1277.Google Scholar
  39. Mulder, M.J., E.-J. Wagenmakers, R. Ratcliff, W. Boekel, and B.U. Forstmann. 2012. Bias in the brain: a diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. The Journal of Neuroscience 32(7): 2335–2343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murawski, C., P.G. Harris, S. Bode, D.J.F. Domínguez, and G.F. Egan. 2012. Led into temptation? rewarding brand logos bias the neural encoding of incidental economic decisions. PLOS ONE 7(3): e34155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Newsome, W.T., K.H. Britten, and J.A. Movshon. 1989. Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision. Nature 341(6237): 52–54.Google Scholar
  42. Ratcliff, R., and J.N. Rouder. 1998. Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science 9(5): 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roitman, J.D., and M.N. Shadlen. 2002. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. The Journal of Neuroscience 22(21): 9475–9489.Google Scholar
  44. Roskies, A.L. 2010. How does neuroscience affect our conception of volition? Annual Review of Neuroscience 33(1): 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schlaghecken, F., and M. Eimer. 2004. Masked prime stimuli can bias ‘free’ choices between response alternatives. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(3): 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schüür, F., and P. Haggard. 2011. What are self-generated actions? Consciousness and Cognition 20(4): 1697–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shadlen, M.N., and R. Kiani. 2013. Decision making as a window on cognition. Neuron 80(3): 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shadlen, M.N., and A.L. Roskies. 2012. The neurobiology of decision-making and responsibility: reconciling mechanism and mindedness. Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience 6: 56.Google Scholar
  49. Sinclair, S.E., M. Cooper, and E.D. Mansfield. 2014. The influence of menu labeling on calories selected or consumed: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 114(9): 1375–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singer, P. 2005. Ethics and intuitions. The Journal of Ethics 9(3–4): 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, P.L., and R. Ratcliff. 2004. Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in Neurosciences 27(3): 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sunstein, C.R. 2011. Empirically informed regulation. The University of Chicago Law Review 78(4): 1349–1429.Google Scholar
  53. Sunstein, C.R. 2014. Why nudge?: the politics of libertarian paternalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sunstein, C.R., and R.H. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70: 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tom, S.M., C.R. Fox, C. Trepel, and R.A. Poldrack. 2007. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science 315(5811): 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White, M.D. 2013. The manipulation of choice: ethics and libertarian paternalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wisdom, J., J.S. Downs, and G. Loewenstein. 2010. Promoting healthy choices: information versus convenience. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2(2): 164–178.Google Scholar
  59. Yu, R., D. Mobbs, B. Seymour, and A.J. Calder. 2010. Insula and striatum mediate the default bias. The Journal of Neuroscience 30(44): 14702–14707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang, Y., J. Xu, Zixi Jiang, and S.C. Huang. 2011. Been there, done that: the impact of effort investment on goal value and consumer motivation. Journal of Consumer Research 38(1): 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physiology and BiophysicsUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  2. 2.Center for Bioethics and HumanitiesUniversity of ColoradoAuroraUSA
  3. 3.National Core for NeuroethicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations