The Ethics of Choice Architecture

Sunstein, Cass R.

doi:10.5771/9783845263939-19

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A meta-analysis by Arno and Thomas [29], for example, included 42 studies and revealed an increase in healthy food choices or decrease in energy intake of 15.3% when respective nudges were present. Besides laws and guidelines, nudges in the sector of nutrition can be used to further improve sustainability in the food sector, combat overweight as well as obesity and support the healthcare system without limiting consumers' wish for freedom of choice [8,29,30]. To avoid being used as a fraudulent marketing instrument, nudges should be transparent, never misleading, easy to opt-out of, consistent with people's values, improve the welfare of those being nudged and not violate individual rights [31,32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

Ohlhausen

Langen

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard

This paper reports results from three consecutive studies focusing on the comparison of the effectiveness of different nudges and their combinations to increase sustainable food choices out of the home. The nudges compared are the use of descriptive name labels (DNLs) for the most sustainable dish of a choice set (menu) and the decoy effect (DE), created by adding a less attractive decoy dish to a more attractive target dish with the goal of increasing the choice frequency of the target dish. In the literature, both nudges have been found to influence consumers’ choices. In the first study, six category names of sustainability indicators were deduced from a focus group. These were tested with 100 students to identify the most attractive DNLs. Study II, a randomized choice study (n = 420), tested the DE, the DNLs and a combination of the DNLs and the DE used on four different dishes in a university canteen. In study III, 820 guests of a business canteen voted during four weeks for the special meals of the following week (identical to the four choice sets displayed in study II). Results indicate that the combination of DNLs and the DE is not recommended for fostering sustainable food choices. Pure DNLs were more efficient in increasing the choice frequency of the more sustainable meal, whereas the decoy effect resulted in decreased choice frequencies. Regional and sustainable DNLs were favoured by consumers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

Ohlhausen

Langen

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard

show abstract

“…In response to such criticisms and ethical questions, Cass Sunstein, one of the seminal authors (along with Richard Thaler) on nudging and choice architecture, argues that: “Both nudges and choice architecture are inevitable, and it is therefore pointless to wish them away…many forms of choice architectures are defensible and even required on ethical grounds, whether we care about welfare, autonomy, dignity, self-government, fair distribution, or some other value”.[47] (p. 4)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What he means by this is that every decision a person makes is done against a background of choice architecture; every choice environment has a design and that design affects choice. As such, the critical argument for the use of choice architecture is that it is better to deliberately design this environment in a way that supports the welfare or best interests of individuals and society, rather than leaving it to chance [47]. A critical ‘litmus test’ then for choice architecture is that it must not limit any individual’s decisions; it can suggest but not coerce [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The former point is important when considering the heterogeneity of consumers. The presence of a nudge does not result in a specific cost or loss to the individual, rather it is there to make a self-desired choice easier [47]. If some citizens, as research has shown [3,4,14], express a desire to improve the lives of farm animals, then the purpose of nudging is to make that desired intention easier to fulfill and action where it matters (i.e., when they are making decisions as a consumer).…”

Section: Behavioural Initiatives To ‘Nudge’ Pro-animal Welfare Behmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, for choice architecture to work effectively, it requires a much more deliberate consideration of what decision-making bias is likely to have the strongest influence on the target group. The environment can then be designed accordingly to better support and steer individuals towards their desired choice (e.g., ‘animal-friendly’ products), without limiting choices for others (e.g., those with no animal welfare intentions) [9,47]. Product price is arguably a key aspect of current supermarket choice architecture, as price exists as a key decision-making tool for consumers [59].…”

Section: Behavioural Initiatives To ‘Nudge’ Pro-animal Welfare Behmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reducing the Consumer Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Animal Welfare: The Potential Role of ‘Nudges’

Vigors

2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard

Simple SummaryMany members of the public express a desire for farm animals to have a good quality of life. Yet, when it comes to purchasing higher welfare products which would support this, many consumers do not ‘walk their talk’. This paper introduces the concept of ‘nudging’ as a means to help consumers align their actions with their intentions and support their desire to engage in pro-animal welfare behaviours. ‘Nudging’ is a collection of behaviour change tools designed to hint to, or suggest, a choice most closely aligned with an individual’s self-interests or intentions. Their purpose is to simplify the decision-making environment by working in concert with the behavioural flaws known to influence human decision-making. Four specific behavioural ‘nudges’ are outlined: self-nudges, choice architecture, social norms and pre-commitments, along with examples of how they can be applied to animal welfare. Inspired by effective applications of ‘nudging’ to close the consumer attitude–behaviour gap in other relevant domains, this paper seeks to highlight how similar initiatives might be applied to better support higher welfare choices amongst consumers and in turn, enhance the lives of farm animals.AbstractCitizen concern for the welfare of farm animals is well documented. However, there is a notable gap between people saying they want improved farm animal welfare and how they actually behave as a consumer. This is known as the citizen–consumer attitude–behaviour gap. As improvements in farm animal welfare can be affected by market demand, the choices consumers make become important. This paper introduces the concept of ‘nudging’ and discusses how it could be applied to reduce the attitude–behaviour gap amongst consumers. By designing the choice environment to better reflect the behavioural biases known to impact human decision-making, ‘nudge’ tools function to prompt individuals to make choices that are aligned with their stated intentions. Four ‘nudge’ tools: self-nudges, choice architecture, social norms and pre-commitments are discussed. The behavioural rationales for their use are reviewed and examples of how they might be applied to animal welfare provided. Improved farm animal welfare arguably requires improved pro-welfare consumer behaviour. This paper highlights how this might be encouraged by: self-nudging the salience of an ethical self-image; altering the choice architecture to influence decision-making; articulating social norms to impact behaviour; and using pre-commitment devices to overcome self-control issues.

show abstract

The Ethics of Choice Architecture

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

Reducing the Consumer Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Animal Welfare: The Potential Role of ‘Nudges’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About