Nudge Theory & Organ Donations – Information Cascades
Ever since learning about information cascades and high and low signals in class, I have been contemplating what other parts of everyday life these theories come into play. This got me down the path of learning about nudge theory and nudge economics. The article “When Push Comes to Shove: Nudge Theory and Organ Donation” details how the percentage of citizens in England to opt-in to an organ donation program was not nearly as high as needed, as there are “6,500 people waiting for a transplant, and three people die each day due to a lack of suitable organ.” While there has been a percentage increase in organ donations and transplant over the past 10 years, there is still a significant shortage of donors. The lower number of NHS registered organ donors does not exist due to a moral rejection of the idea of organ donation, however it appears to me that not enough people have “Accepted” it as the norm, therefore the majority of citizens may have a “Low” or non-significant signal from the idea of choosing to “opt in” to the donation program. Based on what we learned in class, this is likened to an information cascade that if say it is not something that people wear with pride (for example, a red heart on their driver’s license) or it is not something that parents historically instill in their children as a common practice as a way to make the world a better place, I can see how person after person would choose not to take that extra step to consciously opt-in.
The solution, the article outlines is an opt-out program where the law is changed and citizens must take action to unregister for the organ donation program. The authors of this article theorize about “nudging” and examine the behavioral, economic, and psychological reasoning behind the phenomenon. “Nudge theory looks to encourage people to make decisions that are in their broad self-interest” while still giving them the option to not follow that decision. The policy change to make donating organs the “norm” and thus the thing the majority of the people are doing, would undoubtedly give people a higher signal not only because more people would be signed up, but it (for the most part) would not be negatively affecting those in the program, and it would in turn be making the community better by saving so many more lives. The success stories of organ recipients would give off an even higher signal to the general public. Nudge frames the solution as looking to “make it easier for people to be an organ donor” by assuming that they would want to be, a view backed up by research suggesting that “80% of people say they would want to donate their organs.” The problem with this comes when people do not actually want to be “forced” into a program that would have so much autonomy over their body and thus yields the question of how far should public policy go, even when the goal is to help.
Without going into the concerns of would this policy infringe on rights, religion, or freedom, it is a fascinating study on how the switch from an opt-in to an opt-out program can drastically change people’s opinions and choices–mostly because people don’t want to take an extra step, and want to do what those around them are doing. Public opinion and acceptance and action can change drastically with just a slight nudge in a certain direction, possibly shifting a cascade in an alternative direction.
Tosh, J., Mathers, L., & Reyes, A. (2019, January 02). When Push Comes to Shove: Nudge Theory and Organ Donation: DRG Blog. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://decisionresourcesgroup.com/blog/push-comes-shove-nudge-theory-organ-donation/