Through simple reorganisations of the architecture of choice, it is possible to have an impact on people’s motivation to behave in a certain way. This method is called nudging and our goal is to use it for the sake of promoting integrity.

How does nudging work? To illustrate, let us consider an experiment that was made in the 1960s. Some students of Yale University listened to a speech about the importance of receiving a tetanus vaccine. Although it was possible to get vaccinated on campus, at the end of this conference, only 3% of the participants went to the injection site. At the same time, another group of students listened to the same presentation, but they were also invited to consult their schedule to find a suitable time for vaccination and also received a detailed access plan to the clinic. In the latter case, the vaccination rate was 28%. This is one among the numerous examples provided in the seminal book written by Richard H. Thaler and Cass. R. SunsteinNudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Nudges are simple and often inexpensive interventions. They induce slight modifications in the choice options or in the way they are presented. That is why we talk about ‘choice architecture’. Nudges mostly target automatic and partially subconscious mechanisms that influence our decision-making. For example, we all have a certain risk aversion, we tend to submit to authority figures, we generally stick to default options (in our device but also in our everyday life), we mostly follow what social norms dictate, we sometimes have prejudices against certain individuals, etc.

Thus, nudging practices ground on growing scientific knowledge about human cognitive biases. Daniel Kahneman theorised this notion in his book Thinking, Fast and Slowand he stipulates that our cognition works according to two ways. First there is the fast thinking, which is automatic and unconscious, that acts continuously and uncontrollably, requiring no effort from us. It allows us, for example, to detect hostility in a voice, to solve 2 + 2 =?, or to drive on a road we know well. Then there is the slow thinking, which is reflective and controlled. It is mobilised when we need to perform tasks requiring our concentration or greater cognitive effort (such as listening to a particular person’s voice in a crowded and noisy room or searching through their memory to identify a surprising sound). These two thinking systems work together and constantly and the slow system takes over when the tasks are too complex for the fast system. On occasions, however, the interplay of these two systems does not produce the desired results. For instance, the slow thinking system, which is costly in terms of energy, may be too lazy to correct undesirable intuitive responses of the fast system. This is the case when researchers insufficiently reflect on questionable conducts simply because scientific authority figures show the same pattern of behaviour. To illustrate the underlying mechanisms, let us present one of Kahneman’s famous examples:

‘A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?’

If your spontaneous answer was 10 cents, I have good and bad news for you. The bad news is: the answer is wrong. If the ball cost 10 cents, then the bat and the ball would cost $1.20. The correct answer is therefore 5 cents ($1.05 + $0.05 actually gives $1.10). The good news is: you are not alone. According to a study conducted by Kahneman, 50% of Harvard, MIT and Princeton students said the ball cost 10 cents and in other universities, the rate was up to 80%. This example shows that we make errors of reasoning, logic, judgement or calculation more frequently than we think. It is precisely these sorts of inaccuracies that nudges target. By changing the choice architecture in order to exploit or bypass previously identified cognitive biases, one may smoothly help individuals to freely choose otherwise.

As teaching means dealing with the rational mind of students, integrity teaching tends to mainly involve the slow thinking system  –  e.g. learn rules and lists of principles. But in practice, the fast thinking system hugely impacts on students and researchers’ behaviour. In order to also target the fast system, one can use nudging techniques within and around integrity teaching. One can nudge students’ willingness to participate and complete a teaching program. One can also nudge teachers’ motivation to address responsible conduct of research topics in their class, and to promote responsible conduct in their lab. Finally, one can nudge students and researchers’ intake and compliance to the principles of responsible research by making responsible behaviour more relevant, attractive or easy to apply, in other words, by making it attractive to the fast thinking system.