I recently did a review of Nudge, by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. In it they introduce us to the concept of “choice architecture.” It is common for writers of non-fiction to invent new terms or revive obscure ones, and it often comes off as sounding too artificial. In this case, though, the idea is well described by the phrase. A “choice architect” is one who designs the context in which decisions or choices are made. For example, once we learn that the way ballots are laid out affects the choices made (the candidate listed at the top gets a 3% edge when all else is equal), we can see that whoever gets to design a ballot is effectively creating the context in which votes are cast, and affecting the outcome of political races.

Thaler and Sunstein give numerous examples. For example, experiments conducted in a Chicago movie theater by Brian Wansink and others used popcorn to test how proportions affected consumption. To demonstrate more dramatically that larger buckets of popcorn would cause people to eat more, they gave movie-goers five-day-old popcorn that most did not like according to later interviews–one person even said it was “like eating Styrofoam packing peanuts.” Nonetheless, the people in the theater ate the popcorn, and those who were given a large bucket ate 53% more on average than those who were given a medium-sized bucket. Subjects were later asked if the size of the bucket may have caused them to eat more, and most said no, often further commenting to the effect that they don’t get tricked by things like that.

The obvious implication is that we can “nudge” people in the “right” direction–in this case by serving smaller portions of unhealthy foods. Other suggestions in the book are to make organ donation the default choice when people apply for a driver’s license, with a box to check if you do not want to donate your organs upon death. This would likely double the number of organs available for transplant. Thaler and Sunstein describe themselves as “libertarian paternalists,” meaning they favor allowing free choices but guiding people in their decisions with “nudges” that help them. A choice architect, then, does not necessarily take away people’s rights to choose whatever they like, but makes it easier for them to make the “better” choices.

Now, this will still strike some as too much meddling, but I personally would not find it too much trouble to check the box if I didn’t want to donate my organs. And it seems that many people would be grateful later in life in employers enrolled them by defalut in a 401K program, while leaving them free to opt out if they really were opposed. But apart from whether you think such “paternalism” can be “libertarian,” the ideas of choice architecture have obvious personal applications.

Why not be the choice architect of your own everyday life? Get rid of your large plates, for example, and buy smaller ones, making it easier to choose to eat less. Store cigarettes and booze in hard-to-reach places, hopefully reducing their consumption in the process. Arrange for automatic deposit of paychecks, and automatic transfers to savings or investment accounts. Generally we know what we would like to do differently, so why not think in terms of choice architecture, and design ways to make better choices easier?