Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-xl52z Total loading time: 0.312 Render date: 2021-04-19T07:40:40.392Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2018

ANASTASIA VUGTS
Affiliation:
Chair group Strategic Communication, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands and Chair group Philosophy, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
MARIËTTE VAN DEN HOVEN
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
EMELY DE VET
Affiliation:
Chair group Strategic Communication, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
MARCEL VERWEIJ
Affiliation:
Chair group Philosophy, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Nudging is considered a promising approach for behavioural change. At the same time, nudging has raised ethical concerns, specifically in relation to the impact of nudges on autonomous choice. A complexity is that in this debate authors may appeal to different understandings or dimensions of autonomy. Clarifying the different conceptualisations of autonomy in ethical debates around nudging would help to advance our understanding of the ethics of nudging. A literature review of these considerations was conducted in order to identify and differentiate between the conceptualisations of autonomy. In 33 articles on the ethics of nudging, we identified 280 autonomy considerations, which we labelled with 790 unique autonomy codes and grouped under 61 unique super-codes. Finally, we formulated three general conceptualisations of autonomy. Freedom of choice refers to the availability of options and the environment in which individuals have to make choices. Agency involves an individual's capacity to deliberate and determine what to choose. Self-constitution relates to someone's identity and self-chosen goals. In the debate about the ethics of nudging, authors refer to different senses of autonomy. Clarifying these conceptualisations contributes to a better understanding of how nudges can undermine or, on the other hand, strengthen autonomy.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Ashcroft, R. E. (2013), ‘Doing good by stealth: Comments on “Salvaging the concept of nudge”’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8): 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R. (2014), ‘From Regulation to Behaviour Change: Giving Nudge the Third Degree’, Modern Law Review, 77(6): 831857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baylis, F., Kenny, N. P., and Sherwin, S. (2008), ‘A relational account of public health ethics’, Public Health Ethics, 1(3): 196209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, I. (1958), ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, In Berlin, Isaiah (1969) Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., and Burroughs, H. (2012), ‘Seeking better health care outcomes: The ethics of using the “nudge”’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 12(2): 110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bovens, L. (2009), ‘The ethics of nudge In: Grüne-Yanoff, T., and Hansson, S. O. (Eds.), Preference Change: Approaches From Philosophy, Economics and Psychology. Theory and decision library, (pp. 207219). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, L. (2013), ‘Why couldn't I be nudged to dislike a Big Mac?’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8): 495496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, T. (2013), ‘Should We Nudge Informed Consent?’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(6): 2223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S. (2013), ‘Nudging and informed consent’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(6): 311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinberg, J. (1986), Harm to self, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gold, A., and Lichtenberg, P. (2012), ‘Don't call me “nudge”: The ethical obligation to use effective interventions to promote public health’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 12(2): 1820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, P. G., and Jespersen, A. M. (2013), ‘Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy’, The European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003), ‘A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality’, American Psychologist, 58, 697720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, fast and slow, Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1785), Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1797), ‘On a supposed right to lie from altruistic motives’, In Singer, P. (Ed.) Ethics. An Anthology, (pp. 280281). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996), The sources of normativity, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ménard, J-F. (2010), ‘A “nudge” for public health ethics: Libertarian paternalism as a framework for ethical analysis of public health interventions?’, Public Health Ethics, 3(3): 229238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1859), On Liberty, London.Google Scholar
Ploug, T., and Holm, S., (2013), ‘Pharmaceutical “Nudging”-reinterpreting the ethics of evaluative conditioning’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(5): 2527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozin, P., Scott, S., Dingley, M., Urbanek, J. K., Jiang, H., and Kaltenbach, M. (2011), ‘Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake’, Judgment and Decision Making, 6(4): 323332.Google Scholar
Saghai, Y. (2013a), ‘Nudging in interpersonal contexts’, American Journal of Bioethics, 13(6): 3334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saghai, Y. (2013b), ‘Salvaging the concept of nudge’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8): 487493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saghai, Y. (2013c), ‘The concept of nudge and its moral significance: a reply to Ashcroft, Bovens, Dworkin, Welch and Wertheimer’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8): 499501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. (1998), What we owe to each other, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Selinger, E., and Whyte, K. (2011), ‘Is there a right way to nudge? The practice and ethics of choice architecture’, Sociology Compass, 5(10): 923935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharot, T. (2011), The optimism bias: A tour of the irrationally positive brain, Pantheon Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, P. (2007), ‘The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure’, Psychological Bulletin, 133(1): 6594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strech, D., and Sofaer, N. (2012), ‘How to write a systematic review of reasons’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 121126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2015), Nudging and choice architecture: ethical considerations. Forthcoming in Yale Journal on Regulation.Google Scholar
Tengland, P. A. (2012), ‘Behavior change or empowerment: on the ethics of health-promotion strategies’, Public Health Ethics, 5(2): 140153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Verweij, M., and van den Hoven, M. (2012), ‘Nudges in public health: Paternalism is paramount’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 12(2): 1617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardrope, A. (2015), ‘Relational autonomy and the ethics of health promotion’, Public Health Ethics, 8(1): 5062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, T. M. (2013), ‘Thinking harder about nudges’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8): 486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Vugts et al. supplementary material

Appendix

File 17 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 442
Total number of PDF views: 821 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 16th April 2018 - 19th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *