Nudging Charitable Giving: What (If Anything) Is Wrong With It?

Ruehle, Rebecca C.; Engelen, Bart; Archer, Alfred

doi:10.1177/0899764020954266

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anyone with the ability to design environments in which people make decisions could become a so-called choice architect (Johnson et al, 2012). To date, the role has been mainly associated with governmental agents, even though non-profit and for-profit organisations equally implement nudges (Ebert & Freibichler, 2017; Ruehle, Engelen, & Archer, 2020; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008: 2–3, 10–13, 238–39). In this article, I focus on nudging undertaken by for-profit organisations and the moral implications for employees.…”

Section: How Digital Workplace Nudging Can Infringe On Individual Aut...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Permissibility of Digital Nudging in the Workplace: Reconciling Justification and Legitimation

Ruehle

2023

Bus. Ethics Q.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organisations increasingly use digital nudges to influence their workforces’ behaviour without coercion or incentives. This can expose employees to arbitrary domination by infringing on their autonomy through manipulation and indoctrination. Nudges might furthermore give rise to the phenomenon of “organised immaturity.” Adopting a balanced approach between overly optimistic and dystopian standpoints, I propose a framework for determining the moral permissibility of digital nudging in the workplace. In this regard, I argue that not only should organisations provide pre-discursive justification of nudges but they should also ensure that employees can challenge their implementation whenever necessary through legitimation procedures. Building on Rainer Forst’s concept of the right to justification, this article offers a way to combine contract- and deliberation-based theories for addressing questions in business ethics. I further introduce the concept of meta-autonomy as a capacity that employees can acquire to counter threats of arbitrary domination and to mitigate organised immaturity.

show abstract

Section: How Digital Workplace Nudging Can Infringe On Individual Aut...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Permissibility of Digital Nudging in the Workplace: Reconciling Justification and Legitimation

Ruehle

2023

Bus. Ethics Q.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is also possible that the collection method nudges can have negative long-term effects (Sunstein, 2017). One possibility is the ethical issue regarding the use of nudging (Bovens, 2008(Bovens, , 2018Ruehle et al, 2021). A warning about charitable nudging that has been raised is that it can be a kind of manipulative or deceptive trick that can undermine donors' freedom of choice (Bovens, 2018).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A property of choice architecture is influencing decisions and behaviors without incentives, coercion, or rational persuasions (Ruehle et al, 2021;Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). This research examines the influences of the designs of donation collection methods on donation to the cause and overhead.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of donation collection methods on donation amount: Nudging donation for the cause and overhead

Suk

Mudita

2022

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines the influence of donation collection methods on the amounts of donation, focusing on donations for the cause and overhead. This research examines the effects of the three donation collection methods (allocation, cause‐first addition, and overhead‐first addition) that vary in terms of the procedure through which the donation amount is decided. The results of three empirical studies indicate that the donation collection method affects the amounts donated for the cause and overhead, in addition to the total donation amount. Study 1 shows that donors tend to donate more for the cause when the collection method asks them to add an extra amount for overhead to the amount donated for the cause (i.e., cause‐first addition) than when the collection method asks donors to allocate their total donation amounts to the cause and overhead (i.e., allocation), which also affects the total donation amount. Studies 2 and 3 test the effects of the donation collection order by comparing between the cause‐first and the overhead‐first addition methods. Results show that donors tend to donate more to the cause and overhead when the donation amount for overhead is asked first (i.e., overhead‐first) than when the donation amount for the cause is asked first (i.e., cause‐first). Furthermore, in all three studies, donors' satisfaction with the donation is not affected by the collection methods.

show abstract

“…Observability risks revealing a person's intentions or inner character and whether they adhere to social norms. Indeed, verbally asking an individual whether or not they would like to donate puts their character on display for others to observe (Ruehle et al, 2021). Social pressures resulting from these feared repercussions can lead individuals to even strategically manipulate their social image by withholding information about past behavior that would reveal personal traits (von Siemens, 2020).…”

Section: The Interplay Of Social Image Concerns and Intrusiveness In ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social pressures resulting from these feared repercussions can lead individuals to even strategically manipulate their social image by withholding information about past behavior that would reveal personal traits (von Siemens, 2020). Having such a personal trait (e.g., willingness to donate) revealed publicly would be perceived by those who care about their social image as a violation of their privacy and, therefore, as intrusive (Ruehle et al, 2021).…”

Section: The Interplay Of Social Image Concerns and Intrusiveness In ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Don't put me on the spot: The role of perceived intrusiveness in public donation solicitations

Sanchez

Kull

2022

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though public donation solicitations (e.g., asking consumers to donate during checkout) are becoming ubiquitous, little is known about whether and how consumers' feelings elicited by these solicitations influence their donation behavior. Three consequential choice studies using incentive-compatible experimental designs examine the multifaceted nature of public solicitation effectiveness. Study 1 shows that public (vs. private) solicitations increase not only the donation rate but also donors' propensity to deceive. Exploring the psychological mechanisms underlying these conflicting consequences, Study 2 demonstrates that social image concerns for not donating and perceived intrusiveness from being put on the spot counteract each other by simultaneously driving and impairing public solicitation effectiveness. Disentangling this interplay of mechanisms, Study 3 highlights the importance of the public solicitation form by uncovering a serial mediation effect. Specifically, nonverbal (vs. verbal) public solicitations increase the donation rate by reducing social image concerns and, in turn, perceived intrusiveness. Study 3 also reveals that verbal solicitations can have detrimental downstream consequences on consumers' attitudes and loyalty intentions toward both the soliciting store and the charity beneficiary. Uncovering perceived intrusiveness as a critical factor influencing donation behavior, this study thus shows that soliciting donations publicly can be a double-edged sword, giving rise to important implications for both theory and practice.

show abstract

Nudging Charitable Giving: What (If Anything) Is Wrong With It?

Cited by 10 publications

References 50 publications

The Moral Permissibility of Digital Nudging in the Workplace: Reconciling Justification and Legitimation

The Moral Permissibility of Digital Nudging in the Workplace: Reconciling Justification and Legitimation

Effects of donation collection methods on donation amount: Nudging donation for the cause and overhead

Don't put me on the spot: The role of perceived intrusiveness in public donation solicitations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About