I’m fascinated by applying evidence in teaching; currently, I’m focused on nudges: applying the principles underlying social psychology and behavioural economics to the classroom. For example, I’ve described ways to break tasks down and make the first step seem easy; and suggested framing choices carefully – “Don’t give up when you’ve done so well” – and changing defaults: “Put your hand up if you understand” rather than “Put your hand up if you don’t understand” (a full list of the topics I’ve covered is here). But how ethical is nudging students? This post suggests four questions we might ask before using a nudge: I’d love your thoughts.

Question 1: Does the nudge pursue goals which others share?

Nudges to achieve shared goals are widely accepted (Sunstein and Reisch, 2019). Researchers, public bodies and private companies nudge people to support their personal goals, like stopping smoking or losing weight.  Policy-makers use nudges to pursue socially-accepted goals: reducing speeding, energy use and antibiotic prescriptions, for example.  Nudges are likely to be justifiable if we are a) helping students to act on their good intentions – to work harder or be nicer – or b) encouraging them to pursue goals shared by schools, parents and society, such as doing well in exams or behaving safely.

Question 2: How easy is it to choose well?

Nudges are particularly valuable when people are making difficult decisions under competing influences.  It is harder to choose well when:

  • The choices are complicated
  • Feedback is delayed
  • The consequences are significant
  • The relationship between the choice and the experience is ambiguous (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008)

Deciding whether to work hard on a challenging GCSE has significant consequences, but feedback is delayed, the effects are unpredictable and there is a big gap between how a student feels while studying and how they will feel having learned.  Moreover, social influences make good choices harder: we are surrounded by ‘behavioural predators’, people and businesses “busy persuading others to do things which are very much not in their interests and that they will probably regret (Halpern, 2015, p.312).”  Advertising, for example:

“Has been used profusely and effectively by for-profit firms and, at least on occasion, has contributed to making the lives of the poor even poorer. Aggressive marketing campaigns have targeted the poor on products ranging from fast foods, cigarettes, and alcohol to predatory mortgages, high-interest credit cards, payday loans, rent-to-own, and various other fringe-banking schemes (Bertrand, Mullainathan and Shafir, 2006, p.8).”

Less is done to “aggressively promote more positive options (Ibid.).”  Students are subject to the influences of their hormones, peers and parents; teenagers particularly struggle to control their impulses and overcome the influence of their peers: they might prefer to stop learning and chat, but this is unlikely to be in their best interests. Nudges are likely to be justifiable if they help students make wiser choices (in pursuit of goals endorsed by their teachers, parents, society and future selves).

Question 3: Is it possible to remain neutral?

We are continually influencing students, consciously or not.  Anyone who has “the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions” is a choice architect: “many real people turn out to be choice architects, most without realizing it (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008, p.3).”  For example, how food is laid out in the dinner hall is likely to influence students’ choices.  Should the manager:

  1. Arrange the food to make the students best off, all things considered.
  2. Choose the food order at random.
  3. Try to arrange the food to get the kids to pick the same foods they would choose on their own.
  4. Maximize the sales of the items from the suppliers that are willing to offer the largest bribes.
  5. Maximize profits, period (Ibid., p.2)?

Maximising personal or institutional profit seems unethical, but is it unethical to position food to make students best off?  Food placed at random will affect students’ choices too. If we have to choose anyway, the stakes are lower: a medical trial needs ethical clearance, but millions of tax reminders are sent annually already without any ethical review, so tweaking them need not demand the same diligence (Halpern, 2015, p.311).  Similarly, we are speaking to students constantly, and we are rarely neutral about their choices: our entire role is helping them surpass what they would do without our influence. (I think this is why – while I worry about the ethics – most teachers I’ve discussed this with seem unfazed: they can see that a nudge is just a way to do what they’re doing better). Nudging is likely to be justifiable if we are influencing students already or if we cannot avoid doing so.

Question 4: How transparent can we be?

Any of the three tests may make nudges justifiable; most of the time, a nudge a teacher uses will pass all three: others will endorse their goals; it will be hard for students to choose well; and we will be unable to remain neutral. We should be using the evidence from psychology to make our actions more effective. Yet we still need to act carefully, honestly and ethically So the final question tests whether we would be happy to defend this to peers, parents or students (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008): can we be transparent about it?

In general, the more transparent we can be, the better – and the more reassured we can be about the ethics of our approach. Occasionally, “stealthy” interventions are justified: students who feel they are being singled out – perhaps due to a perceived shortcoming – may react against this (Yeager and Walton, 2011).  However, transparency is crucial wherever possible: actions which are perceived as manipulative are likely to be counter-productive (Cialdini, 2007).  Describing our approach to students has a further benefit: it enables people to “shape their own destiny (Halpern, 2015, p.332).” For example, we can help students understand themselves better and achieve their goals by teaching them about the difficulty of forming habits, the benefits of making plans and the power of social influence.  As with any power a teacher has, the goal is to give it away: the ultimate end of nudging students – and the final ethical safeguard – is that it helps them to make better choices, and act upon them.

Conclusion

Whenever we are planning to nudge students – perhaps whenever we are seeking to make any change to our approach based on the evidence, we may want to ask:

  • Do others share these goals?
  • How easy is it to choose well?
  • Can I remain neutral?
  • How will I share this with others?

Doing so should help us to choose well, reassure us that we are behaving ethically, and pass our understanding on to students, parents and colleagues.

If you found this interesting, you may…

Want to keep up with the guide I’m writing for teachers hoping to use behavioural psychology: sign up here.

Want to look at the range of nudges available – overview here.

Be interested in how I came to be interested in nudges and behavioural psychology.

References

Cialdini, R. (2007) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. HarperBusiness.

Halpern, D. (2015). Inside the nudge unit: how small changes can make a big difference. London: WH Allen.

Sunstein, A.R. and Reisch, L.A. (2019). Trusting Nudges: Towards a Bill of Rights for Nudging. Abingdon: Routledge.

Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Yale University Press.

Yeager, D. and Walton, G. (2011). Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), pp.267-301.