> A nudge, according to Thaler and Sunstein is any form of choice architecture that alters people's behaviour in a predictable way without restricting options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must require minimal intervention and must be cheap.
Thaler and Sunstein wrote the book on nudges, quite literally. So their definition counts, and it's the one from the article. The opt-in/out decision you mention isn't a nudge in this sense. You're not asked what you prefer, you have to be aware that you can opt-in/out and then actively pursue that option.
In the case of organ donation, Thaler has written that he actually prefers mandated choice--i.e. there is no default but you have to either opt in or opt out--in this case. [1] But I'm not sure why a system where the government creates a default of either opt-in or opt-out (which you can change) wouldn't be a nudge.
The system is that you're by default in some register. The choice has already been made. Many people aren't even aware of it, or only remotely. You have to undertake action to change it. That's not a "choice architecture" in the nudge sense. That would require that you are presented with both options simultaneously, and are forced to choose. A nudge, e.g. on a web form, would then be to have one option already checked.
>A nudge, e.g. on a web form, would then be to have one option already checked.
Yes. But an alternative is to present choices on a web form without one being pre-selected but with a choice mandatory. Which is essentially what I understand Thaler to be arguing for.
>The choice has already been made.
I'd say that still is a default but one which requires more effort to change than a pre-selected option on a webform. And arguably sufficient effort that it may no longer be reasonable to default to organ donation in that manner.
Wouldn't it not be a nudge because it outright changes the unspoken costs? If the public is largely apathetic about what happens to their bodies post death, if the situation would leave them viable having to take an action vs inertia is an added costs. This could make deciding "not worth it" for low rewards, let alone preferring not to think of the possibility of their own demise.
A nudge is naive if not circularly defined then as it presumes at least two permanently distinct classes of humans: informed humans who can architect nudges and learn about them and other humans who must respond in the same way every time and cannot do this meta-learning.
Thaler and Sunstein wrote the book on nudges, quite literally. So their definition counts, and it's the one from the article. The opt-in/out decision you mention isn't a nudge in this sense. You're not asked what you prefer, you have to be aware that you can opt-in/out and then actively pursue that option.