Nudge politics: efficacy and ethics

Raihani, Nichola

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00972

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this article, we have reviewed the screening literature for references, discussions, and reflections on nudging. We have identified several forms of nudging (framed information, default bias, authority bias), which fit well with the general nudging literature [61,106,108,115].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Nudging has also been associated with authority and paternalism. Intentionality about nudging leads to paternalism and to the questions of what kind of paternalism and hence what kind of consent is required [12,21,23,30,48,65,66,77,87,92,[94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110]. While paternalism has been previously the modus operandi in health care, it has gained less favor with the increased respect for autonomy [83,111,112].…”

Section: Paternalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance

Hofmann

Stanak

2018

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four specific recommendations follow from the review and the analysis: 1) Nudging should be addressed in an explicit and transparent manner. 2) The means of nudging have to be in proportion to the benefit-harm ratio. 3) Disagreement on the evidence for either benefits or harms warrants special care. 4) Assessing and assuring the intended outcome of nudging appears to be crucial, as it can be context dependent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Paternalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance

Hofmann

Stanak

2018

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nudging has been equated to the "manipulation of choice," with calls to make choice architecture design decisions more transparent (Hansen & Jespersen, 2013). The ethics of nudging have been examined both from the inside (Thaler & Sunstein, 2003) and the outside (Raihani, 2013;Bruns et al, 2016). Some researchers have started to examine public attitudes toward nudges (Felsen et al, 2013;Sunstein, 2015;Jung & Mellers, 2016;Tannenbaum et al, 2016), finding greater support for overt nudges (posting nutritional content in a cafeteria) than covert nudges (moving the unhealthy food to an inconvenient location), but leaving many questions (including the domain-specificity of results and the identity of the choice architect) unanswered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of perceived effectiveness on the acceptability of choice architecture

Bang

Shu

Weber

2018

Behav. Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of choice architecture, including its adoption in government policy and practice, has prompted questions of whether choice architecture design decisions are sufficiently transparent and publicly acceptable. We examined whether disclosing to decision-makers that a particular choice architecture is in place reduces its effectiveness and whether an understanding of the effectiveness of choice architecture design decisions increases their acceptability. We find that disclosure of the design decision does not reduce its effectiveness and that individuals perceive the effectiveness of specific designs to be higher for others than for themselves. Perceived effectiveness for self increases when individuals have actually experienced the effect of a design decision rather than having it simply described to them. Perceived effectiveness for oneself and others increases the acceptability of the designs. We also find that the intentions of the source matter more than who the source actually is. Important for policy-makers, then, is that disclosure of design decisions does not reduce their effectiveness, and their acceptability depends on their perceived effectiveness and the inferred motivations of the design architect.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the perception of meaning varies depending on the cultural context. This semantic variance renders nudging inevitably culturally biased, when the meaning of the same act of nudging is interpreted differently across cultures because of perceptual, cognitive and behavioral variance (Bovens, 2010;Raihani, 2013;Selinger and Whyte, 2011). Since social practices are historically and culturally specific, there are limits to transferring the lessons obtained in the study of practices from one setting to another (Shove et al, 2012).…”

Section: Nudging and Its Criticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the Practical and Ethical Issues of Nudging in Environmental Policy

Hukkinen¹

2016

Environmental Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nudging, or the subtle design of the context of choice in a way that mobilizes the unconscious mind and alters human behavior predictably (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008), has come under severe criticism for entailing numerous practical and ethical problems. A critical reading of nudging and its critics indicates that the polarization of views stems from theoretical underpinnings that can be questioned on both sides of the debate in light of recent developments in social and cognitive sciences. These developments reflect an intellectual shift away from a purely rationalistic conception of human being toward conceptions that incorporate the unconscious intuitive processes of the mind. Embracing the intellectual shift, I argue, inspires an approach to nudging that bypasses the dichotomy between conscious and unconscious processes of the mind, and embraces an integrative view. More specifically, I will argue that environmental governance researchers have a responsibility to consider nudging in their work, because the unconscious mental processes that underlie nudging are writ large in the governance of common pool resources. Nudging departs from the behavioral assumptions underlying contemporary environmental policy instruments. Nudging is based on the so-called dual model of cognition. The model distinguishes between cognitive processes that are fast, automatic and unconscious (type 1 processes) and those that are slow, deliberative and conscious (type 2 processes). A glance at today's predominant environmental policy instruments indicates that they rely largely on type 2 cognitive processes. Command-and-control, economic, and voluntary instruments assume that human beings are rational optimizers capable of weighing risks and benefits.

show abstract

Nudge politics: efficacy and ethics

Cited by 26 publications

References 11 publications

Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance

Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance

The role of perceived effectiveness on the acceptability of choice architecture

Addressing the Practical and Ethical Issues of Nudging in Environmental Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About