Put together an evidence-based proposal for a client to suggest a nudge for a specific behavioural problem of your choosing, with the report styled as if you were a behavioural scientist working in government or for a consultancy firm.

The key perimeters of the task is simply that there must be a notable discrepancy between the normative expectations of what people should do and the descriptive empirical findings of what people actually do. Based upon this identified gap, you must identify a prescriptive solution to your chosen problem, designed to nudge people to act in the best interest of themselves, their institution and/or society. You are given a lot of flexibility in your chosen topic and encouraged to be creative, this could relate directly to finance if this interests you or be applied to other disciplines (e.g. management, accounting, marketing, human resources, strategy) commercial issues (e.g. improving sales, productivity), wider interests (e.g. fitness, fashion) or societal issues that you would like to address (e.g. health, environment, wellbeing). You are actively encouraged to pick a behavioural problem which is unique and therefore creativity is an important aspect of the marking criteria. This because the ability to create from what you have learned is generally regarded as the highest form of understand under Bloom’s (1956) famous taxonomy of learning. In essence, we could all paraphrase why auto-enrolment improves pension participation rates or why mandatory choice improves the number of people on the organ donor list, but it is far more challenging to come up with these ideas ourselves as well as synthesis knowledge from across different literature meaning you’ll be demonstrating a much higher level of understanding by being creative.