EigoPro 準1級 読解 — The Science of Nudges

Classical economics long assumed that people are rational agents who weigh costs and benefits and then choose what serves them best. Behavioural economists have spent decades dismantling that picture. We are, it turns out, creatures of habit and inertia, swayed by how choices are framed and by what the people around us appear to be doing. Out of this insight grew "nudge theory," popularised by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, who argued that governments could steer citizens toward better decisions simply by redesigning the environment in which choices are made—without banning anything or altering financial incentives. The classic illustration is the default option. When employees are automatically enrolled in a pension scheme and must opt out to leave it, participation soars; when they must actively opt in, far fewer bother. The choice is identical in substance, yet the framing is decisive. Governments have seized on such tactics. Britain established a dedicated "Behavioural Insights Team," nicknamed the Nudge Unit, which found that rephrasing tax letters to note that "most people in your area have already paid" measurably increased compliance. Placing fruit at eye level in cafeterias, sending reminder texts before medical appointments, simplifying benefit forms—all are nudges, and all have produced modest but genuine gains. Critics, however, are uneasy. A nudge works precisely because it exploits the cognitive blind spots it claims merely to accommodate, and that raises a thorny question: who decides which direction counts as "better," and by what authority? Defenders reply that no choice architecture is ever neutral—the fruit has to be placed somewhere—so the only honest option is to arrange things deliberately and in the open. The deeper worry is one of scale. A government that masters the art of quiet persuasion may find it harder to resist the temptation to nudge not merely toward pensions and vegetables, but toward whatever it deems convenient. Nudging, in short, is a tool whose ethics depend less on its cleverness than on the restraint of the hand that wields it.

5問合格 60%以上普通

新規登録 または ログイン が必要です

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

準1級 · 読解 · 全5問

問 1

What is the main idea of the passage?

  • Nudge theory offers governments a subtle way to improve decisions, but its power raises genuine ethical concerns.
  • Behavioural economics has finally proven that classical economic theory was entirely correct.
  • Nudges are effective only when they are combined with financial rewards and penalties.
  • Governments should be legally banned from using any technique drawn from behavioural science.
Phrase

Nudging ... is a tool whose ethics depend less on its cleverness than on the restraint of the hand that wields it.

準1級読解心理学政策主旨把握
⚡ひとことで

本文は「ナッジは決定を静かに改善する有用な手法だが、その力ゆえに倫理的問題も生む」が論旨。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Nudge theory offers governments a subtle way to improve decisions, but its power raises genuine ethical concerns.」

正解

本文は (1) 人は非合理でナッジで誘導できる→ (2) 政府の成功例 (年金・税通知・カフェテリア)→ (3) 批判と倫理的懸念 (誰が『より良い』を決めるのか、規模の問題) という構成で、最後に『ナッジの倫理は手を振るう者の自制次第』と結論する。よって「ナッジは決定を改善する巧妙な手段を政府に与えるが、その力は本物の倫理的懸念を生む」が主旨。

  • 「Behavioural economics has at last proven that the classical economic theory was entirely correct.」

    = 行動経済学は古典派理論が完全に正しいと証明した ━ 本文は行動経済学が古典派の『合理的人間像を解体した (dismantling that picture)』と述べており正反対。

  • 「Governments ought to be legally banned from using any technique at all drawn from behavioural science.」

    = 政府は行動科学の手法使用を法的に禁止されるべき ━ 本文は禁止を主張せず、自制をもって公明正大に使うべきと述べている。

  • 「Nudges are effective only when they are combined with substantial financial rewards and penalties.」

    = ナッジは金銭的報酬・罰と併用したときだけ有効 ━ 本文はナッジを『金銭的インセンティブを変えずに (without altering financial incentives)』機能する手法と明記しており逆。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
steer citizens toward ~市民を~へ誘導するsteer citizens toward better decisions
choice architecture選択の設計no choice architecture is neutral
the default option初期設定の選択肢The classic illustration is the default option.
produce modest gainsささやかな成果を生むall have produced modest but genuine gains
depend on ~~次第であるethics depend on restraint
❝例文

  • The government tried to steer citizens toward healthier diets.

    政府は市民をより健康的な食生活へ誘導しようとした。

  • No choice architecture is ever truly neutral.

    選択の設計に完全に中立なものなど存在しない。

  • These policies produced modest but genuine gains.

    これらの政策はささやかだが本物の成果を生んだ。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

主旨設問は最終段の結論文 (ここでは in short の文) を探すと速い。本文は『有用さ』と『懸念』の両面を並べる型なので、片面だけの選択肢は除外する。

問 2

According to the passage, what happens when employees must opt out of a pension scheme rather than opt in?

  • The scheme becomes legally compulsory and cannot be left.
  • Participation rises sharply even though the underlying choice is the same.
  • Most employees end up worse off financially than before.
  • Participation falls because people resent being enrolled automatically.
Phrase

When employees are automatically enrolled ... participation soars; ... The choice is identical in substance, yet the framing is decisive.

準1級読解心理学政策詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

自動加入 (opt out 方式) では中身が同じでも参加率が急上昇する。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Participation rises sharply even though the underlying choice is the same.」

正解

第2段で『自動的に加入させ離脱に opt out が必要な場合、参加率が soars (急増する)』と述べ、続けて『選択は substance (実質) では同一だが framing (枠組み) が決定的だ』と説明する。これを言い換えた「実質的な選択は同じなのに参加率が急激に上がる」が正解。

  • 「Most employees end up worse off financially than before.」

    = 大半の従業員は以前より経済的に悪化する ━ 本文は経済的悪化に言及していない。むしろ年金加入は望ましい結果として描かれる。

  • 「Participation falls because people resent being enrolled automatically.」

    = 自動加入に反発して参加率が下がる ━ 本文は参加率が soars (上がる) と述べており正反対。

  • 「The scheme becomes legally compulsory and cannot be left.」

    = 制度が法的に強制となり離脱できなくなる ━ 本文は『離脱するには opt out すればよい』とし、何も禁止しない (without banning anything) と明記する。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
be enrolled in ~~に加入させられるautomatically enrolled in a pension scheme
opt out / opt in離脱する/参加するmust opt out to leave it
participation soars参加率が急増するparticipation soars
identical in substance実質は同一のidentical in substance
the framing is decisive枠組みが決め手だyet the framing is decisive
❝例文

  • New staff are automatically enrolled in the savings plan.

    新入社員は貯蓄プランに自動で加入させられる。

  • You must opt out if you do not wish to take part.

    参加したくなければ離脱の手続きをしなければならない。

  • The two offers are identical in substance.

    その二つの申し出は実質的には同一だ。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

detail 設問は本文の語を別語に置換した選択肢が正解になりやすい (soars→rises sharply, identical in substance→the underlying choice is the same)。

問 3

How do defenders of nudging respond to the criticism that it manipulates people?

  • They argue that no choice architecture is neutral, so it is most honest to arrange options deliberately and openly.
  • They concede that nudging is unethical and should be abandoned entirely.
  • They insist that citizens are in fact fully rational and cannot be influenced.
  • They claim that nudges have no measurable effect on people's behaviour.
Phrase

Defenders reply that no choice architecture is ever neutral ... so the only honest option is to arrange things deliberately and in the open.

準1級読解心理学政策詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

擁護派=どんな選択設計も中立ではないので、意図的かつ公明正大に配置するのが最も誠実。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「They argue that no choice architecture is neutral, so it is most honest to arrange options deliberately and openly.」

正解

第3段で擁護派は『どんな choice architecture も中立ではない (果物はどこかに置かねばならない)』ため『唯一誠実な選択は意図的かつ公然と (deliberately and in the open) 配置することだ』と反論する。これを言い換えた選択肢が正解。

  • 「They claim that nudges have no measurable effect whatsoever upon people's actual behaviour.」

    = ナッジは行動に測定可能な効果を及ぼさないと主張する ━ 本文はナッジが measurably (測定可能な形で) 効果を上げたと述べており、擁護派もその効果を否定していない。

  • 「They insist that citizens are in fact entirely rational and so cannot be influenced at all by design.」

    = 市民は実際には完全に合理的で影響されないと主張する ━ 本文全体が人は非合理で影響を受けるという前提に立つので逆。

  • 「They concede that all nudging is unethical and ought to be abandoned entirely and at once.」

    = ナッジは非倫理的で完全に放棄すべきだと認める ━ 擁護派 (Defenders) は放棄を認めるどころか反論しているので正反対。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
Defenders reply that ~擁護派は~と反論するDefenders reply that no architecture is neutral.
no ~ is ever neutral~に中立なものはないno choice architecture is ever neutral
in the open公然と・隠さずにarrange things in the open
the only honest option唯一誠実な選択肢the only honest option is to...
arrange things deliberately意図的に配置するarrange things deliberately
❝例文

  • Defenders reply that the criticism misses the point.

    擁護派はその批判は的外れだと反論する。

  • No layout of a shop is ever truly neutral.

    店舗のどんな配置も真に中立ではない。

  • The committee decided to arrange things in the open.

    委員会は物事を公然と進めることに決めた。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

反論 (reply / defenders) を問う設問は、批判文の直後の but/however/reply 以降を読む。選択肢は本文の deliberately and in the open を deliberately and openly に置換している。

残り2問は、解いて確かめられます

全5問すべてに、この形式の解説が付いています。 間違えた問題は記録され、あとから復習できます。

無料で登録して続きを解く

インストール不要・カード登録なし・いま全機能無料

この単元の講義を見る準1級の単元一覧準1級の用語集