Nudging by Shaming, Shaming by Nudging

Document Type : Editorial

Author

Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, and Department of Global Health and population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract

In both developing and developed countries, health ministries closely examine use of so-called nudges to promote population health and welfare. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, who developed the concept, define a nudge as “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates” (1).

Highlights

 

 

Watch the Video Summary here. 

 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Sunstein CR, Thaler RH. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. 1st edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2008. doi: 10.1007/s10602-008-9056-2
  2. Saghai Y. Salvaging the concept of nudge. J Med Ethics 2013; 39: 497-8. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100727
  3. Naiman AB, Glazier RH, Moineddin R. Is there an impact of public smoking bans on self-reported smoking status and exposure to secondhand smoke? BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 146. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-146
  4. Haw SJ, Gruer L. Changes in exposure of adult non-smokers to secondhand smoke after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland: national cross sectional survey. BMJ 2007; 335: 549. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39315.670208.47
  5. Sims M, Mindell JS, Jarvis MJ, Feyerabend C, Wardle H, Gilmore A. Did smokefree legislation in England reduce exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmoking adults? Cotinine analysis from the Health Survey for England. Environ Health Perspect 2012; 120: 425-30. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1103680
  6. Jimenez-Ruiz CA, Miranda JA, Hurt RD, Pinedo AR, Reina SS, Valero FC. Study of the impact of laws regulating tobacco consumption on the prevalence of passive smoking in Spain. Eur J Public Health 2008; 18: 622-5. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn066
  7. Callinan JE, Clarke A, Doherty K, Kelleher C. Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 4: CD005992. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub2
  8. World Health Organization (WHO). Tuberculosis (TB): Pursue high-quality DOTS expansion and enhancement. Element 3: Standardized treatment, with supervision and patient support. Geneva: WHO; 2014. [cited 2014 7 July]; Available from: http://www.who.int/tb/dots/treatment/en/
  9. World Health Organization (WHO). Treatment of tuberculosis: guidelines. 4th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
  10. Jamison DT. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries (DCP2). Washington DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press; 2006.
  11. Nglazi MD, Bekker LG, Wood R, Hussey GD, Wiysonge CS. Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to anti-tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13: 566. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-566
  12. Eyal N. Motivating prevention: from carrots and sticks to “carrots” and “sticks”. Virtual Mentor 2008; 10: 756-62. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2008.10.11.oped1-0811
  13. Resnik D. Paternalistic Food and Beverage Policies. Public Health Ethics 2014; 7: 170-7. doi: 10.1093/phe/phu014
  14. Young L. Court Rejects New York City’s Portion Cap for Sugary Drinks. Huffington Post [serial on the Internet]. 2014; Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-lisa-young/court-rejects-new-york-ci_b_5535621.html?utm_hp_ref=healthy-living
  15. Chumley CK. New York City supersize soda ban a no-go, says state’s highest court. The Washington Times [serial on the Internet]. 2014 June 26; Available from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/26/new-york-city-supersize-soda-ban-no-go-says-states/
  16. Dworkin G. Is more choice better than less? Midwest studies in Philosophy 1982; 7: 47-61.
  17. Schneider CE. The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
  18. Sunstein CR. Choosing not to choose. Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy [video]. Harvard Law School, 2014 May 2. Available from:  http://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/2014-annual-conference.
  19. Gawande A. The Learning Curve [internet]. The New Yorker 2002 January 28. Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/01/28/the-learning-curve
  20. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: Ethical issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
  21. Kass N. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health 2001; 91: 1776–82.
  22. Gostin LO. Public health law: power, duty, restraint. Rev. and expanded. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2008.
  23. Saghai Y. Public health nudges and the principle of the least restrictive alternative. Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy [video]. Harvard Law School, 2014 May 2. Available from: http://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/2014-annual-conference
  24. Oliver M, Woywodt A, Ahmed A, Saif I. Organ donation, transplantation and religion. Nephrol  Dial Transplant 2011; 26: 437-44. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq628
  25. Ghaly M. Religio-ethical discussions on organ donation among Muslims in Europe: an example of transnational Islamic bioethics. Med Health Care Philos 2012; 15: 207-20. doi: 10.1007/s11019-011-9352-x
  26. Fabre C. Whose body is it anyway? Justice and the integrity of the person. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    27. Eyal N. Is the Body Special? Review article of Cécile Fabre, Whose Body is it Anyway? Utilitas 2009; 21: 233-45.       doi: 10.1017/S0953820809003513

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 July 2014
  • Revise Date: 25 July 2014
  • Accept Date: 24 July 2014
  • First Publish Date: 24 July 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics