{"id":8768,"date":"2017-02-20T08:19:02","date_gmt":"2017-02-20T08:19:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=8768"},"modified":"2017-02-21T05:58:51","modified_gmt":"2017-02-21T05:58:51","slug":"can-trump-resist-the-power-of-behavioral-sciences-dark-side","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/can-trump-resist-the-power-of-behavioral-sciences-dark-side\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Trump resist the power of behavioral science’s dark side?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jon M Jachimowicz<\/a>, Columbia University<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

More than two dozen governments, including the U.S., now have a team of behavioral scientists tasked with trying to improve bureaucratic efficiency to \u201cnudge\u201d their citizens toward what they deem to be higher levels of well-being. <\/p>\n

A few recent examples include a push by the socialist French government<\/a> to increase the numbers of organ donors, a conservative UK government plan<\/a> to prevent (costly) missed doctor appointments, and efforts by the Obama White House to boost voter turnout<\/a> on Election Day. <\/p>\n

While the government\u2019s use of our psychological quirks to affect behavior rubs some people the wrong way<\/a>, most of us can agree that the above examples achieve positive ends. More organ donors mean more lives saved, fewer missed doctor appointments mean the government or health industry is more efficient, and increased voting means stronger citizen engagement in democracy. <\/p>\n

But \u201cnudges\u201d themselves are value neutral. That is, they can be used to both achieve altruistic ends or more malicious ones. Just as behavioral science can be used to increase voter turnout, it can also be used to suppress the votes of specific individuals likely to favor the opposing side, as reportedly happened in the recent U.S. presidential election<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The nudge<\/a>, in other words, has a dark side.<\/p>\n

My research explores how behavioral science can help people follow through on their intentions<\/a> where they make better or longer-term choices<\/a> that increase their well-being<\/a>. Because choices are influenced by the environment in which they are made, changing the environment can change decision outcomes. <\/p>\n

This can be positive to the extent that those designing interventions have good intentions. But what happens when someone uses these insights to systematically influence others\u2019 behavior to favor his or her own interests \u2013 even at the expense of everyone else\u2019s?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s my concern with President Donald Trump, whose campaign appears to have exploited behavioral science to suppress the vote of Hillary Clinton supporters. <\/p>\n

What\u2019s in a nudge?<\/h2>\n

Behavioral science is a relatively young field, and governments have only recently begun using its insights to inform public policy. <\/p>\n

The UK was the first in 2010 when it created its Behavioral Insights Team<\/a>. In subsequent years, dozens of governments around the world followed, including Canada with its Behavioral Insights Unit<\/a> and the U.S., which in 2015 officially launched the White House Social and Behavioral Sciences Team<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The teams\u2019 missions are all relatively similar: to leverage insights from behavioral science to make public services more cost-effective and easier to use, to help people make better choices for themselves, and to improve well-being.<\/p>\n

In the UK, for example, the Behavioral Insights Team was able to persuade<\/a> about 100,000 more people a year to donate their organs by tweaking a message people received when renewing their car tax. Here in the U.S., the Social and Behavioral Science Team helped the Department of Defense increase<\/a> the amount of retirement savings accounts for service members by 8.3 percent.<\/p>\n

These kinds of interventions have been criticized<\/a> for unjustly interfering with an individual\u2019s autonomy. Some even compare<\/a> it with mind-control. <\/p>\n

However, as I have pointed out elsewhere<\/a>, our environment (and the government) is always exerting some influence on our behavior, so we\u2019re always being nudged. The question is therefore not whether we will be nudged, but how and in what direction.<\/p>\n

For example, when you sit down to dinner, the size of your plate can make a big difference in how much you eat. Studies show<\/a> you\u2019re more likely to consume less food if you use a smaller plate. So if the government is handing out the dinnerware, and if most us wanted to avoid overeating, why not set the default plate to a small one? <\/p>\n

But now let\u2019s consider the dark side: a restaurant might hand out a small plate if it means it can charge more for less food and thus make more money. The owner likely doesn\u2019t care about your waist size.<\/p>\n

Any intervention based on behavioral science is therefore neither good nor bad. What matters is the intention behind it, the aim which the nudge is ultimately supposed to help achieve. <\/p>\n

\n \"\"
\n If you want to lose weight, try a smaller plate.<\/span>
\n Plate size via www.shutterstock.com<\/span><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Potential for abuse<\/h2>\n

Take the case of what Cambridge Analytica \u2013 a company founded in 2013 and reportedly funded<\/a> by the family of billionaire conservative donor Robert Mercer \u2013 did during the election. This team of data scientists and behavioral researchers claims to have collected thousands of data points on 220 million Americans<\/a> in order to \u201cmodel target audience groups and predict the behavior of like-minded people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Essentially, all that data can be used to deduce individual\u2019s personality traits<\/a> and then send them messages that match their personality, which are more likely to be persuasive<\/a>. For example, highly neurotic Jane will be more receptive to a political message that promises safety, as opposed to financial gains, which may be more compelling to conscientious Joe.<\/p>\n

So what\u2019s the problem? In and of itself, this analysis can be a neutral tool. A government might want to use this approach to provide helpful information to at-risk populations, for example by providing suicide prevention hotlines to severely depressed individuals, as Facebook is currently doing<\/a>. One might even argue that Cambridge Analytica, first hired by the Cruz campaign and later by Trump, was not acting unethically when it sent such personalized messaging to convince undecided voters to support the eventual Republican nominee<\/a>. After all, this is what all marketing campaigns set out to do.<\/p>\n

But there is a fine ethical line here that behavioral science can make easier to cross. In the same way that people can be influenced to engage in a behavior, they may also be discouraged from doing so. Bloomberg reported<\/a> that Cambridge Analytica identified likely Clinton voters such as African-Americans<\/a> and tried to dissuade them from going to the ballot box. The company denies discouraging any Americans from casting their vote. <\/p>\n

Beyond hiring the company, the Trump administration has a direct tie<\/a> to Cambridge Analytica through chief strategist Steve Bannon, who sits on its board. <\/p>\n

\n