Dennis 1

Synopsis Decisions are made every day. The choices people make are often swayed one way or another by outside forces or by those that frame decisions and their choices. Nudge focuses on decisions and how they are made. Half of Nudge covers decisions and how their choices are framed and how we as people can better understand why choices are set up the way they are, how to make an optimal decision, and how to nudge others toward making optimal decisions. The second half of Nudge illustrates how the same concepts and principles can be used, are being used, should be used, and how to better utilize them to nudge public policy. Thaler and Sunstein (2009, p. 6) detail two terms that must be explained in order to understand the points made throughout the book. The first, ‘nudge’ is “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.” They go on to say “To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates.” The second term used throughout Nudge is ‘choice architect’ (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009, p. 3), defined by the authors as someone that “has the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions.” Choice architects arrange choices for other people and nudge others toward making decisions that will be at the optimum benefit. A choice architect will favor one option over another and take necessary measures to put a chooser on a particular path while keeping other choices available and not making other choices more difficult to make. Arranging these choices can influence the way people think. Thaler and Sunstein describe situations where a choice architect may choose to nudge people towards one choice over another for the benefit of that person. They have dubbed this type of philosophy as ‘libertarian paternalism’. Such people try to make it easier for others to

Dennis 2

make their own path, though they will try to influence others to subtly make choices that will better their own lives from their own perspective. Choice architects can nudge through use of picking a default option in a choice. Examples, provided by the authors, of a nudge through default options in choice architecture range from putting fruit before desserts in a cafeteria used by children , to carrying over a previous year’s options in employer provided healthcare , how television networks structure their program schedules to keep viewers watching multiple programs without changing channels , and how magazine subscriptions are often offered with a period of free issues followed by a regular subscription, which is often times not cancelled and paid regularly for many years. Thaler and Sunstein lay out a convincing case that to nudge others towards a particular outcome, you have to have an understanding of human decision making. Nudge has a vast amount of information about psychology, human reactions and choice architecture. When people are presented with choices, they can be manipulated into picking one over another simply through the presentation of the choices. A passage in the book describes two vendors at O’Hare airport in Chicago. One sells fruit, yogurt and the other cinnabuns with over 730 calories and 24 grams of fat. Passing people walk through an aroma of cinnabuns because the vendor uses fumes from their oven to attract customers. Obviously, the vendor selling cinnabuns understands humans enough to know how to manipulate them towards purchasing their products. Social influences are the most powerful nudges. Information and peer pressure are the two tools used in social nudges. People that care about what others think are more likely to mimic behavior of their peers. This is true among teens and even Supreme Court justices. People generally accept nudges by private organizations and object to the government attempting to influence its people in such manners. Thaler and Sunstein (2009, p. 10) state about

Dennis 3

people: “They worry that governments cannot be trusted to be competent or benign. They fear that elected officials and bureaucrats will place their own interests first, or pay attention to the narrow goals of self-interested private groups.” I also share these concerns. There is a fine line between a gentle nudge and an overt push. Later I will lay out the result of such a push toward specific government policy change and how elected officials obscure the truth to benefit their cause, capitalize from their actions (and sometimes both) and how such a nudge may later evolve into a government mandate. Business Administration In the business world, the concept of nudging is used frequently. Marketing departments rely heavily on human psychology to subtly manipulate consumers into buying their products, as discussed earlier. Businesses of all sizes can benefit from encouraging (nudging) their employees into living a more healthy lifestyle. In 2002 I went to work for a local car insurance agency that operated all over the state of Oklahoma. The President of the company, like many of its management, was a heavy smoker. Nevertheless, a year into my four years of employment, there was a very subtle campaign to encourage his employees to stop smoking completely. At the time I assumed our company’s President wanted the rest of his employees to stop smoking because he was also trying to kick the habit. Once he stopped taking his smoke breaks, the rest of the managers stopped as well. While reading Nudge, the section about company health plans forced me to question the motive. Because the company paid nearly 100% of employee health care costs, it would be a prudent course of action for him to try to get the best deal he can on that health care package. Would nudging his employees towards a smoke-free lifestyle help reduce this cost? I have no evidence this is the case, though it seems plausible. As a side note, he was

Dennis 4

never able to completely quit for more than a couple of months, six being the longest stretch. Once he started smoking again, his mood was better and the other managers were not far behind him. Businesses involved in customer service and retail sales rely on new customers and repeat customers to survive. Often times, new customers are brought in either by existing customers or from word of mouth via existing customers. To obtain success, the employees must be more than cordial and act like people as opposed to a robotically programmed drone. The old word of mouth is becoming more irrelevant as time passes and new technologies emerge. Two of the most influential methods of mass communication both reside on the internet through social networking sites: Facebook and Twitter. These days, having a bad experience with any company can quickly go viral on the internet. In less than a minute the customer can be online telling any number of people about the experience. Because of this, companies must go the extra mile to protect their good name. Nudging employees to take on this task is not easy. I spent three years working customer service at a movie theatre during my latter two years of high school and part of college. At the age of eighteen I was promoted to Supervisor. I was often given the task of increasing other employees’ ability to handle customer complaints. I often found they were unwilling to go the extra mile with a customer to make them happy because there was no reward in doing so. The job paid slightly above minimum wage and offered no sales commission. The theatre relied mostly on high school students working part-time to run its operations and many held that way of thinking. Because I was close to them in age, I was able to convince some that it would make my job easier when there were fewer customer complaints, especially when the complaints could be prevented by employee actions. I suppose there was a little nudging to a certain degree in those situations. The best workers under my watch were

Dennis 5

those that could be nudged toward taking extra special care of our customers. Many of those employees went on to get promotions themselves. Some (not many) found that similar persuasions of employees under their shifts worked in raising their willingness to take better care of customers. Advertising is one of the most commonly recognized nudges in society. Commercials serve as a nudge, though they are blatant in their purpose: to sell a product in an effort to make money. From banners and marquees at sporting events, concerts and even bumper stickers on the back of the car in front of you on the highway, these nudges are everywhere. Every four years Presidential election bumper stickers are nudging you to vote for that candidate, though they are often not removed years after the election ends or after the President has left office. I still see Bush/Cheney 2000 stickers and if I may digress, they make me want to scream. Nudge uses Netflix as an example of choice architecture in which customers are recommended movies based on the ranks of previously rented movies. The design of the site looks at other customers with similar tastes and attempts to keep customers coming back by recommending movies. As a former customer of Netflix (before the recession), I can attest that this did indeed keep me subscribed to Netflix for some time. Being an Information Systems major and a web designer in my spare time, I know this feature was fairly easy to add to the Netflix system and likely did not cost much, if anything at all. If it were left out, the system would not function nearly as well. As a result, Netflix would probably not enjoy as much business as they do. One of the best examples of nudges in corporate advertising comes from NBC and General Electric. The Associated Press (2008) reports NBC began promoting what they refer to as “Green Week” to help make the public aware of environmental concerns through their

Dennis 6

different venues. During commercial breaks the stars of NBC’s entertainment television shows participated in small interviews to help promote awareness. They primarily sought advertisers that offered a green solution to environmental problems, such as wind power generators sold by General Electric. The commercials themselves are nudges toward that particular product and in turn, a nudge toward living a cleaner lifestyle making the entire concept a nudge within a nudge. However, this particular nudge is somewhat self-serving because General Electric owns the entire NBC franchise and is therefore promoting its own products through its media arm, NBC. Nevertheless, it is still a nudge. POM The use of nudges can be a great tool in directing people toward the choices you want them to make. As the authors point out, choice cannot be mandated or it becomes just that, a mandate. The availability of competing options gives the chooser the perception that he is in complete control of the situation even if he is being nudged toward one option over another. Social influences are a huge factor in marketing. Companies design marketing campaigns for their products in ways that make the competition appear to be out-dated or obsolete and their own product to be new and improved or the product consumers are switching to. Thaler and Sunstein (2009) write similar tactics are utilized by political campaigns, claiming voters are turning towards their candidate over the opposition. These claims are made whether they are true or not. As a consumer or a voter it is wise to consider the source. As a POM working for the campaign, it would be wise to utilize the naivety of the masses. As the authors (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) point out, simply asking voters the day before an election if they intend to vote will increase the likelihood they will go to the polls the following day. This manipulation could be the single factor to get your candidate elected if the race is highly contested down to a couple

Dennis 7

of hundred votes. Would the election between Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman and the newly elected Senator Al Franken have ended differently had Coleman tried to manipulate his supporters into coming out for him? Considering the nature of that election, I do not believe many Coleman supporters neglected to vote that day. However, as close as the election results were, a little extra nudging would not have hurt. Information is power. Sometimes simply having the right information can act as a nudge toward major changes in a person’s lifestyle. Thaler and Sunstein (2009) detail a plan they refer to as RECAP (Record, Evaluate, Compare Alternative Prices) as a solution to some issues, including cell phone billing and personal power use. In their examples, they outline a system whereby companies would disclose every fee to customers to see exactly where their monies are being applied. Yearly reports would be generated and distributed via postal mail, e-mail and viewable on internet pages. This idea of RECAP seems like a common sense idea, yet it is rarely implemented. Whether due to lack of oversight, laziness, incompetence or the desire to hide why fees are being charged, as a business practice, this should be implemented in all business as a matter of convenience to customers. I see a similar breakdown of how fees are applied to my bill every time I pay for my education at Oklahoma State University. Having an itemized spreadsheet available to see how cellular companies apply fees and other charges would keep them honest, which may be why some businesses shy away from the idea of disclosing fees. A company willing to put forth the extra effort and let customers know why they are paying the fees they are paying could be seen as a net positive even if the customer is being charged a number of fees. The honesty in RECAP system may make customers feel comfortable enough to stay loyal. While I do not believe the government should mandate this sort of thing, granting businesses tax

Dennis 8

breaks for meeting some sort of RECAP requirement would likely nudge businesses towards implementing such a system. The transparency in RECAP could have uses in the political arena. Rasmussen Reports (2009) polled Americans and found they are increasingly becoming angrier with the Federal Government as time passes, at a rate of 66% of voters, and I speculate that a lack of government transparency is responsible for a portion of the blame. A solution to this issue of transparency has been proposed and at least partially implemented through new federal websites including USAspending.gov and recovery.gov. These have been designed to help Americans track where their tax dollars from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bill are being spent. In a White House press release (2009), they reported the hiring of Cass Sunstein, one of the coauthors of Nudge, to the Barack Obama White House as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. I suspect he may have had something to do with the initial design behind the transparency websites, though I do not understand why it required $84 million to design a website to explain where the $700 billion stimulus money was going , a figure reported by Brad Jackson (2009) in the New Ledger. Opinion I find myself torn on the idea of nudging. I see times where parental nudging is necessary and occurrences where politicians and government skew the facts and attempt to “nudge” the public toward what they feel is the “right decision”. As Thaler and Sunstein point out, a decision architect wields immense power over those that will be choosing one of the given options. If the decision architect has a motive then they will be walking the line between a slight nudge and a shove. The opening of Nudge (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) walks through a seemingly harmless example of the order in which cafeteria items are ordered for students in school. I do not take

Dennis 9

issue with this. This is done in the best interest of the children. As a parent, I try to keep the amount of junk my daughter as low as possible. It is good that this school tries to help in that area. The example does not restrain them from choosing any of the food options. It would be different if the cafeteria simply stopped offering the unhealthy choices. The cross-roads I find myself standing in the middle of is a question I often ask myself when I hear statements by politicians and economists: who defines what is the right choice? This idea of nudging is fairly harmless in most areas covered in Nudge. A lot of the material and ideas they present I agree would be better for those involved and as a libertarian I do not argue much because the presented ideas always retain what are considered the wrong choices, or the choices that offer sub-prime results if the chooser still wants to make that decision. Default options for retirement plans in a business setting affect those that choose to work for that company and it is up to that person to look over the paperwork, do any research required on their part, and make their own decision whether it is the optimal or the default. In my company, a form must be filled out to be given any of the offered benefits. There is no automatic enrollment. The following year, we must complete another form and either change our enrollment options or opt to keep them the same. We may opt out of the healthcare program at any time and it is fairly easy to change our options every year during open enrollment. The same applies to our retirement program through Vanguard. We must take action to start our 401k and it is our responsibility to monitor our investments. However, in the political and economic realm, nudges that become government regulation or policy result in repercussions that affect many more people than those making the choices. Those making the decisions often lack the complete facts or willingly omit them for political purposes, making them the worst candidate for a decision architect, never mind the fact

Dennis 10

they are already in a position of political power. When a nudge becomes a government mandate, is it still a nudge? According to Thaler and Sunstein (2009, p. 6), the answer is a resounding ‘no’. “Nudges are not mandates”. My primary complaint against government “nudging” as policy is the carbon tax which is often called cap and trade, A.K.A. cap and tax. In breaking down this idea we must look at the motives behind its purpose: reducing greenhouse gases to help protect the environment. It is a noble idea. I do not know anyone that wants to breathe dirty air or pollute the environment. However, I choose to go one level deeper into the motives and ask the questions “can we reduce them?” and “will it make a difference?” That question is more often over-shadowed by a more controversial question: “why should we reduce them?” The political answer to that loaded question is: “to stop global warming”. I do not argue that the global temperatures have risen some in past decades or that humans have contributed. What I take issue with is this idea that drastic measures are necessary to solve it. The powers that be have been active in recent years to nudge the public toward making changes in their lives to better the environment to in turn, stop global warming and heal the planet. Their efforts have convinced many to take that step; a step toward an environmental utopia where pollution is minimal. However, I have come to the conclusion that their efforts are not nudges nor mandates, but a cloaked nudge, one shadowed in deception. This deception is broad in spectrum and most likely some promoters are true believers who were deceived themselves. It has been done with the best of intentions and is being used by governments not to nudge towards policy, but to mandate policy through cap and trade, a carbon tax. As my grandfather would have said, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

Dennis 11

Al Gore has been the figurehead deceptively nudging people toward his way of thinking for years, mostly through his film An Inconvenient Truth (Guggenheim, 2006). This film has a series of claims that are arguably exaggerated, deceptive or lies. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (Lewis, 2006) released an article citing exaggerated claims of drowning polar bears originating from a report that four polar bears drowned following a storm. The article confronts claims in Gore’s film that polar bear populations have been reducing to the point where they are endangered. This claim nudged people toward policy to protect polar bears without taking the time to check the facts, which have since proven contrary. The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS, 2008) cites Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School saying: “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.” “These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.” Al Gore’s film also included the claim that the melting of polar ice in Antarctica could cause the sea-levels to rise up to twenty feet. The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operate Research Centre (Roberts, 2009) conducted a study on ice core samples. Their findings showed

Dennis 12

the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89 meters. The average thickness at the same location was 1.67 meters in the 1950s. The B.B.C. (2006) reported the errors in Al Gore’s film caused suit in the British courts. Judge Burton ruled that the film contained nine scientific errors and decided that if the film was shown in school it must be accompanied by the other side of the argument. Tom Blumer of NewsBusters (2009) reported Mr. Gore was confronted with this court ruling at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference in October of 2009. When asked if he intended to correct the factual errors, Mr. Gore avoided the question, refused to address the inaccuracies, then made the ridiculous statement that the court ruling against the accuracy of his film was a ruling in favor of the film being shown in schools. Shortly after, the microphone of Gore’s antagonist was cut off. Gore was simply playing a game of semantics. Yes, the film is allowed to be shown in schools, but with restrictions and corrections made by the teacher. Vice President Gore’s pushing of his propaganda onto the public is obviously not considered nudging. He has not removed any alternative options but his methods of veiling the truth disqualify his actions from being considered a nudge. Politicians and activists have taken his work and continue to use it to nudge the public in an effort to shape public opinion and policy, neglecting to mention the facts about the claims made in the film, whether they are aware of his omissions or not. Gore’s motives may have started as humanitarian, but in recent years the followers of the green movement have made it mostly political, though in Gore’s case it is a compilation of humanitarian, political and economic, bringing us back to cap and trade. Declan McCullagh of CBS reports that a previously unreleased analysis by the Department of Treasury provides evidence that Americans will be paying considerably more due to cap and trade, proving it to be a veiled tax. The Treasury Department concluded this will be

Dennis 13

the equivalent of a 15% increase in personal income taxes, totaling $1,761 per year, a devastating amount of money for those of us on the lower rungs of the ladder. The motives behind this tax, we are told, are to reduce emission of greenhouse gases to help protect the environment. The governments of the world have decided the best method to handle this is to tax it out of existence, something I equate to the cigarette tax or prohibition. I do not believe taxing the public for emitting carbon is going to reduce emissions enough to make a drastic change and I believe most politicians agree with me and do not say it. An article from The Center for Global Development (Edwards, 2008) states China has surpassed the United States as the highest polluter of CO2. When compared per capita, the United States still contributes more, however China continues to build new coal plants. If countries around the world are serious about reducing the amount of carbon emissions, would they not stop production of these plants? This question forced me to look at the ‘trade’ aspect of cap and trade. What I found did not surprise me. Thaler and Sunstein (2009) describe cap and trade as a system of trading the right to emit carbon in an exchange system that allows corporations that produce more pollution than the cap from those that pollute under the cap. The corporations buy the rights while working to reduce their emissions and eventually the planet would be a cleaner place. One of the companies providing this service of carbon trading is Camco International Ltd. Further review of Camco lead me to Generation Investment Management, which holds 9.5% of Camco in sixteen million shares. Generation Investment Management is a private equity fund whose chairman is none other than former Vice President Al Gore. (Sheppard, 2008) (Gunther, 2008) I believe Vice President Gore has found a way to deceive, not nudge, the public into making a fortune on an issue that Roy Spencer (2008), NASA’s Science Team Leader, argued in

Dennis 14

2008 was not a crisis before the United States Senate. For the sake of argument, I reconsidered cap and trade policy without the political angle. The first bump in the road is a cap and trade law or regulation would be a government mandate, not a nudge. I see it much like prohibition. The government did not nudge the public into not drinking alcohol; they simply made it illegal to purchase alcohol. This did not keep people from finding places to buy it. Putting aside the fact cap and trade would be a mandatory taxation system on excessive emissions, far from a gentle nudge, the end result of reducing greenhouse gases to below the cap level for the entire planet means countries like China would have to abide by the same protocol otherwise the damage is reduced, not nullified. As a cynic on the subject, I can envision greedy politicians lowering the cap below a reasonable level simply to collect taxes. Thaler and Sunstein (2009) naively suggest that a cap and trade tax would result in a reduction in personal tax rates on some level . I highly doubt it. Politicians seem to enjoy implementing new taxes and suggesting the removal of a tax is akin to tearing their hearts out. Review of the Kyoto Protocol by The B.B.C. (2006) shows it would manage carbon trading on a global scale, and I ask: “if we are giving money to lesser developed nations to purchase the right to pollute what they are not polluting themselves, are we not simply maintaining our current levels of pollution, paying the excessive taxes and passing the costs of the tax onto customers? Would we not be transferring our wealth to these nations in an effort to level the playing field? If so, is this not global economic redistribution?” If so, count me out. A nudge toward giving money to those in need is a nudge toward a charitable contribution. A mandate to give money to another, cloaked in taxation is a shove toward socialism. Nudging is an increasingly powerful tool. I would prefer it be reserved for parents when being used on children and never utilized by government as a means to an end, though I am not

Dennis 15

naive. There is a degree of manipulation and behavioral science involved in nudging. If a corporation can use a nudge on its employees to get them into a better retirement program, I say fine. I do not mind parents nudging or even mandating things to their children. It is after all, their job to take care of their kids. I draw the line at government. The only thing I want from them is the one thing they never seem to give me, just the facts, as Joe Friday would say.

Dennis 16

References Cited Associated Press (2008). NBC Delivers ‘Green Week’ Around Earth day, Retrieved October 2, 2009, from msnbc.com Web site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24229074/ The B.B.C. (2006), Gore Climate Film’s Nine ‘Errors’, Retrieved October 2, 2009, from The B.B.C. News. Web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm The B.B.C. (2006), Q&A: The Carbon Trade, Retrieved October 3, 2009, from The B.B.C. News. Web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4919848.stm Blumer, T. (2009), Conveniently Incomplete: Gore Claims British Court Vindicated School Showing of Movie, 'Forgets' It 'Violated Laws', Retrieved October 14, 2009, from NewsBusters.com Web site: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/10/11/conveniently-incompletegore-claims-british-court-vindicated-school-show Edwards, B. (2008). China Passes U.S., Leads World in Power Sector Carbon Emissions – CGD. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from The Center for Global Development Web site: http://www.cgdev.org/content/article/detail/16578/ Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth [DVD]. United States: Lawrence Bender Productions & Participant Productions Gunther, M. (2008). Doing well by clearing the air. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from Fortune Web site: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/31/magazines/fortune/gunter_carboncredits. fortune/index.htm

Dennis 17

INFORMS, (2008). Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Argue Forecasing Experts in INFORMS Journal Retrieved September 30, 2009, from Institute For Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) Web site: http://www.informs.org/article.php?id=1383 Jackson, B. (2009). Obama Spent an Amazing $84 Million on Stimulus Website, Retrieved October 2, 2009, from The New Ledger Web site: http://newledger.com/2009/04/obama-spent-an-amazing-84-million-onstimulus-website/ Lewis, Marlo, Jr. (2006). Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth: One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong. Retrieved September 30, 2009. from The Competitive Enterprise Institute. Web site: http://cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf McCullagh, D. (2009), Obama Admin: Cap and Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year, Retrieved October 2, 2009, from CBSNews.com Web site: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry 5314040.shtml Rasmussen Reports (2009). 66% Angry at Government Policies, 60% Say Neither Party Has Answers, Retrieved October 2, 2009, from Rasmussen Reports Web site: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/ september_2009/66_angry_at_government_policies_60_say_neither_party_has_ans

wers Roberts, G. (2009). Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, Retrieved October 2, 2009, from News.com.au Web site: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

Dennis 18

Sheppard, N. (2008). Gore Invests In Carbon Credit Company, Will Media Care? Retrieved October 3, 2009, from News Busters Web site: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carboncredit-company-will-media-care Spencer, R. W. (2008). NASA’s Spencer Tells Congress Global Warming Is Not a Crisis. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from The Heartland Institute Web site: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23930/NASAs_Spencer_Tells_ Congress_Global_Warming_Is_Not_a_Crisis.html Spencer, R. W. (2008). Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on July 22, 2008, Retrieved October 3, 2009, from U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Web site: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id =e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3 Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin (Non-Classics). The White House (2009). President Obama Announces Another Key OMB Post, Retrieved October 2, 2009, from The White House: Office of the Press Secretary Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-AnnouncesAnother-Key-OMB-Post/