"Nudging in Behavioral Decision Making 9the tendency of impairing the capacity of individuals within an organization to make liberalmoral choices. When nudges only provide option provided by the choice architects, individualswithin an organization are only tied to select from the choices presented. The condition does notallow people to think and make moral decisions or contribute to the same. Several issues such as individual differences have been touted as the major challenge inusing nudges as too for behavioral decision-making (Jung & Mellers, 2016). Most of the areaswhere nudges are used have seen complaints presented that nudges ignore the individualdifferences that exist within an organization. An organization may have people from differentcultural, religious and social background hence their decisions; philosophies may vary. Nudgescannot adequately incorporate all this difference, as this will widen the number of choicesincluded in the context. Alternatively, some important elements that need the attention ofbehavioral decision makers cannot be solved using nudges.The use of nudges can prove challenging when it comes to evaluation of outcomes fromthe context used (Johnson, Dellaert, Golstein, Larrick, & David, 2012). It is hard to decidewhether the approach by the choice architecture has been efficient in addressing issues that willcontribute to behavioral decision making. It is also difficult to establish if the choices made bythe respondents is what they had in mind, or they just made the choices due to limited options.Human beings have a wide range of preference and depending on personality; some people maymake choices to avoid drawing unnecessary attention. Therefore, such factors prove that the useof nudges has limited application in multicultural organizations.The use of nudges in behavioral has been established to have more effect on a micro levelthat at the macro level. Nudges can solve minor problems within an organization but fail to Nudging in Behavioral Decision Making 10duplicate the same effect in developing long-lasting public policy at macro levels. Nudges haveonly been efficient on modeling short-term behavior within an organization. In some cases,nudges are considered naked, and require a reinforcing legislation to give it a cutting edge.Legislations should be in place to prevent unhealthy nudges from penetrating an organization oraid in implementing healthy nudges. Nudging can contribute to the emergence of public sectorproblems (Rainford & Tinkler, 2011).ConclusionHuman beings exhibit various ranges of behavior, which are hard to change usingcontemporary approaches. However, psychological approaches have proven to have a morepositive outcome in changing the behavioral decisions people make. Nudging is an approach thatcan be used at both organizational levels and a higher level such as public sectors. Nudging is atechnical way of providing people with choices without forcing them on the choices they have tomake. Nudging is a process that should be handled with care since it has both advantages anddisadvantages. The paper has established that a good nudging process should have a choicearchitect who develops a context. An architect should be well informed and educated to be ableto understand the nature and number of options to be included in the context. The paper alsoidentified the advantages and limitations associated with nudge as a tool for behavioral decision- making. Two examples were further provided where nudging was successfully used in theUnited States. It is important to recognize that one has to consider several principles when usingnudges. The principles are aimed to help choice architects in developing options that are lessimpact on sensitive social aspects such as culture, politics, and religion. Nudging in Behavioral Decision Making 11BibliographyAbbandonato, A., 2013. Review of Mark D. White’s The manipulation of choice:ethics andlibertarian paternalism. New York: Palgrave . Retrieved from Erasmus Journal forPhilosophy and Economics,Volume 6, Issue 2, : http://ejpe.org/pdf/6-2-br-1.pdfHansen, P. G., & Jesperse, A. M., 2013. Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice: A Frameworkfor the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy.Retrieved March 6, 2016, from EJRR:http://www.lexxion.de/pdf/ejrr/02%20Nudge%20and%20the%20Manipulation%20of%2 0Choice.pdfJohn, P., Corterill, S., Richardson, L., Moseley, A., Stocker, G., Smith, G., . . . Nomura, H.,2013. Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: Experimenting with Ways to Change CivicBehaviour. Edinburgh: A&C Black.Johnson, E. J., Dellaert, B. G., Golstein, D. G., Larrick, R. P., & David, S., 2012. Beyondnudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Retrieved from Mark Lett (2012) 23:487–504:http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/suzanne.shu/ML%20choice%20architecture.pdfJonathan, R.., 2011. Transforming Behavior Change: Beyond Nudge and Neuromania. Retrievedfrom RSA: file:///C:/Users/beryl/Downloads/RSA-Transforming-Behaviour- Change%20(1).pdf Nudging in Behavioral Decision Making 12Jung, J. Y., & Mellers, B. Y., 2016. American attitudes toward nudges. Retrieved from Judgmentand Decision Making, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 2016, pp. 62–74:http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15824a/jdm15824a.pdfLondon School of Economics., 2015. Inside the Nudge Unit: how small changes can make a bigdifference. Retrieved from Department of Management public lecture:http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2015/09/20150915t1830vOT.aspxRainford, P., & Tinkler, J., 2011. Design for Nudge Efects: How Behavior Management can easePublic Sector Problems. Retrieved from LSE Research Online:http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37810/1/Designing_for_nudge_effects_(lsero).pdfThaler, R., & Sunstein, C., 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth andHapiness. London: Yale University Press.Whitehead, M., Jones, R., Howell, R., Lilley, R., & Pyket, J., 2014. Assessing the Global Impactof the Behavioral Sciences on Public Policy: Nudging Allover the World. Retrieved fromEconomic and Social Research Council:https://changingbehaviours.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/nudgedesignfinal.pdf "