更改

詹姆斯·沃尔夫 James Wilk 早在1995年以前就在控制论中首次提出了这一术语和相关原则，布鲁内尔大学的学者 斯图尔特 D. J. Stewart 称之为“助推”的艺术（有时称为“微推 micronudges”<ref>{{citation | author=Wilk, J. | year=1999 | chapter=Mind, nature and the emerging science of change: An introduction to metamorphology. | editor1=G. Cornelis|editor2=S. Smets|editor3=J. Van Bendegem | title=EINSTEIN MEETS MAGRITTE: An Interdisciplinary Reflection on Science, Nature, Art, Human Action and Society: Metadebates on science | volume=6 | pages=71–87 | publisher=Springer Netherlands | doi=10.1007/978-94-017-2245-2_6 }}</ref>）。它还受到了临床心理治疗方法论的影响，这些方法可以追溯到Gregory Bateson，包括米尔顿·埃里克森Milton Erickson，沃兹拉维克Watzlawick，威克兰Weakland，菲施Fisch，和比尔·奥汉隆Bill O'Hanlon的研究<ref>{{citation | author1=O'Hanlon, B.|author2=Wilk, J. | year=1987 | title=Shifting contexts : The generation of effective psychotherapy. | publisher=New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press.}}</ref>。在这个变体中，”助推”是一个针对特定人群的微观目标设计，而不考虑预期干预的规模。

詹姆斯·沃尔夫 James Wilk 早在1995年以前就在控制论中首次提出了这一术语和相关原则，布鲁内尔大学的学者 斯图尔特 D. J. Stewart 称之为“助推”的艺术（有时称为“微推 micronudges”<ref>{{citation | author=Wilk, J. | year=1999 | chapter=Mind, nature and the emerging science of change: An introduction to metamorphology. | editor1=G. Cornelis|editor2=S. Smets|editor3=J. Van Bendegem | title=EINSTEIN MEETS MAGRITTE: An Interdisciplinary Reflection on Science, Nature, Art, Human Action and Society: Metadebates on science | volume=6 | pages=71–87 | publisher=Springer Netherlands | doi=10.1007/978-94-017-2245-2_6 }}</ref>）。它还受到了临床心理治疗方法论的影响，这些方法可以追溯到Gregory Bateson，包括Milton Erickson，Watzlawick，Weakland，Fisch，和Bill O'Hanlon的研究<ref>{{citation | author1=O'Hanlon, B.|author2=Wilk, J. | year=1987 | title=Shifting contexts : The generation of effective psychotherapy. | publisher=New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press.}}</ref>。在这个变体中，”助推”是一个针对特定人群的微观目标设计，而不考虑预期干预的规模。

2008年，Richard Thaler和Cass Sunstein的书《“助推”：我们如何做出最佳选择 Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness》让”助推”理论得到了重视。它还赢得了部分美国和英国的政界人士、私营部门以及公共卫生领域人员的追随<ref>See: [http://www.shponline.co.uk/features-content/full/cpd-article-nudge-nudge-think-think Dr. Jennifer Lunt and Malcolm Staves] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120430212840/http://www.shponline.co.uk/features-content/full/cpd-article-nudge-nudge-think-think |date=2012-04-30 }}</ref>。两位作者把非强制的影响施加过程称为'''软家长作风 libertarian paternalism'''，称影响者为'''选择建筑师 choice architects'''<ref name=speak />  。Thaler和Sunstein将他们的理论定义为:

2008年，Richard Thaler和Cass Sunstein的书《“助推”：我们如何做出最佳选择 Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness》让”助推”理论得到了重视。它还赢得了部分美国和英国的政界人士、私营部门以及公共卫生领域人员的追随<ref>[http://www.shponline.co.uk/features-content/full/cpd-article-nudge-nudge-think-think Dr. Jennifer Lunt and Malcolm Staves] </ref>。两位作者把非强制的影响施加过程称为'''软家长作风 libertarian paternalism'''，称影响者为'''选择建筑师 choice architects'''<ref name=speak />  。Thaler和Sunstein将他们的理论定义为:

==== 批评====

==== 批评====

“助推”也受到了批评。来自公共卫生基金会“国王基金会The King's Fund”的塔米·博伊斯 Tammy Boyce说：“我们避免短期的、出于政治动机的行动，比如‘“助推”人们的想法——这种想法没有任何有力的证据支撑，也无助于人们做出长期的改变。<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/unhealthy-lifestyles-here-to-stay-in-spite-of-costly-campaigns-1055693.html | work=The Independent | location=London | title=Unhealthy lifestyles here to stay, in spite of costly campaigns | first=Nina | last=Lakhani | date=December 7, 2008 | accessdate=April 28, 2010}}</ref>”

“助推”也受到了批评。来自公共卫生基金会“国王基金会 The King's Fund”的Tammy Boyce说：“我们避免短期的、出于政治动机的行动，比如‘“助推”人们的想法——这种想法没有任何有力的证据支撑，也无助于人们做出长期的改变。<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/unhealthy-lifestyles-here-to-stay-in-spite-of-costly-campaigns-1055693.html | work=The Independent | location=London | title=Unhealthy lifestyles here to stay, in spite of costly campaigns | first=Nina | last=Lakhani | date=December 7, 2008 | accessdate=April 28, 2010}}</ref>”

Sunstein在他的《影响力的道德 The Ethics of Influence》<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science|last=Sunstein|first=Cass R.|date=2016-08-24|publisher=Cambridge University Press|language=en}}</ref>一书中对批评做出了详尽的回应，表示支持“助推”并反对那些认为“助推”会削弱自主权、威胁尊严、侵犯自由或减少福利的指控。伦理学家们对此展开了激烈的辩论。这些指控是由博芬申Bovens，古德温 Goodwin等辩论参与者提出的。例如，威尔金森 Wilkinson指责”助推”对会操纵个人行为，而杨 Yeung等人则质疑其科学可信度<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yeung|first=Karen|date=2012-01-01|title=Nudge as Fudge|journal=The Modern Law Review|language=en|volume=75|issue=1|pages=122–148|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00893.x|issn=1468-2230}}</ref>

Sunstein在他的《影响力的道德 The Ethics of Influence》<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science|last=Sunstein|first=Cass R.|date=2016-08-24|publisher=Cambridge University Press|language=en}}</ref>一书中对批评做出了详尽的回应，表示支持“助推”并反对那些认为“助推”会削弱自主权、威胁尊严、侵犯自由或减少福利的指控。伦理学家们对此展开了激烈的辩论。这些指控是由博芬申Bovens，古德温 Goodwin等辩论参与者提出的。例如，Wilkinson指责”助推”对会操纵个人行为，而杨 Yeung等人则质疑其科学可信度<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yeung|first=Karen|date=2012-01-01|title=Nudge as Fudge|journal=The Modern Law Review|language=en|volume=75|issue=1|pages=122–148|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00893.x|issn=1468-2230}}</ref>

。

。

豪斯曼 Hausman和韦尔奇 Welch<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hausman|first=Daniel M.|last2=Welch|first2=Brynn|date=2010-03-01|title=Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge*|journal=Journal of Political Philosophy|language=en|volume=18|issue=1|pages=123–136|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x|issn=1467-9760}}</ref>等人曾提出，在分配公平{{clarify|date=February 2018}}的基础上，“助推”是否应该被允许；勒皮尼 Lepenies和马莱卡 Malecka<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lepenies|first=Robert|last2=Małecka|first2=Magdalena|date=2015-09-01|title=The Institutional Consequences of Nudging – Nudges, Politics, and the Law|journal=Review of Philosophy and Psychology|language=en|volume=6|issue=3|pages=427–437|doi=10.1007/s13164-015-0243-6|issn=1878-5158}}</ref>曾质疑”助推”是否符合法律规范。类似地，法律学者也讨论了“助推”和法律所扮演的角色<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Alemanno|first=A.|last2=Spina|first2=A.|date=2014-04-01|title=Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation|journal=International Journal of Constitutional Law|language=en|volume=12|issue=2|pages=429–456|doi=10.1093/icon/mou033|issn=1474-2640|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kemmerer|first=Alexandra|last2=Möllers|first2=Christoph|last3=Steinbeis|first3=Maximilian|last4=Wagner|first4=Gerhard|date=2016-07-15|title=Choice Architecture in Democracies: Exploring the Legitimacy of Nudging - Preface|location=Rochester, NY}}</ref>

Hausman和Welch<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hausman|first=Daniel M.|last2=Welch|first2=Brynn|date=2010-03-01|title=Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge*|journal=Journal of Political Philosophy|language=en|volume=18|issue=1|pages=123–136|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x|issn=1467-9760}}</ref>等人曾提出，在分配公平的基础上，“助推”是否应该被允许；Lepenies和Malecka<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lepenies|first=Robert|last2=Małecka|first2=Magdalena|date=2015-09-01|title=The Institutional Consequences of Nudging – Nudges, Politics, and the Law|journal=Review of Philosophy and Psychology|language=en|volume=6|issue=3|pages=427–437|doi=10.1007/s13164-015-0243-6|issn=1878-5158}}</ref>曾质疑”助推”是否符合法律规范。类似地，法律学者也讨论了“助推”和法律所扮演的角色<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Alemanno|first=A.|last2=Spina|first2=A.|date=2014-04-01|title=Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation|journal=International Journal of Constitutional Law|language=en|volume=12|issue=2|pages=429–456|doi=10.1093/icon/mou033|issn=1474-2640|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kemmerer|first=Alexandra|last2=Möllers|first2=Christoph|last3=Steinbeis|first3=Maximilian|last4=Wagner|first4=Gerhard|date=2016-07-15|title=Choice Architecture in Democracies: Exploring the Legitimacy of Nudging - Preface|location=Rochester, NY}}</ref>

。

。

在强调积极参与“助推”的匈牙利社会心理学家（弗伦茨·梅雷 Ferenc Merei<ref>{{cite journal|last =MÉREI|first= Ferenc |date =1987|title = A perem-helyzet egyik változata: a szociálpszichológiai kontúr |trans-title=A variant of the edge-position: the contour social psychological |language = Hungarian|journal = Pszichológia |volume =1|pages = 1–5}}</ref> 和拉斯洛·加莱 Laszlo Garai<ref name = Garai>{{cite book|last =Garai|first = Laszlo|chapter= The Double-Storied Structure of Social Identity|title = Reconsidering Identity Economics|publisher = Palgrave Macmillan|location= New York|date = 2017}}</ref>)）的著作中，对“助推”理论的预期和含蓄批评同时存在。

在强调积极参与“助推”的匈牙利社会心理学家（弗伦茨·梅雷 Ferenc Merei<ref>{{cite journal|last =MÉREI|first= Ferenc |date =1987|title = A perem-helyzet egyik változata: a szociálpszichológiai kontúr |trans-title=A variant of the edge-position: the contour social psychological |language = Hungarian|journal = Pszichológia |volume =1|pages = 1–5}}</ref> 和拉斯洛·加莱 Laszlo Garai<ref name = Garai>{{cite book|last =Garai|first = Laszlo|chapter= The Double-Storied Structure of Social Identity|title = Reconsidering Identity Economics|publisher = Palgrave Macmillan|location= New York|date = 2017}}</ref>)）的著作中，对“助推”理论的预期和含蓄批评同时存在。

=== 行为金融学===

=== 行为金融学===