Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T21:55:58.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Odd bedfellows: how choice architecture can enhance autonomy and mitigate inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2019

KENDRA TULLY
KENDRA TULLY*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Department of Political Science, University of California, Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA95616, USA. Email: katully@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept and use of choice architecture in public policy arouses warranted suspicion among scholars and the general public. Liberal scholars fear that without limitations, the contemporary wave of nudge theory and policies threaten individual autonomy. In this paper, I argue that the use of choice architecture in particular policy areas can not only enhance individual autonomy, but also work to mitigate larger social inequalities. Research demonstrates that too much choice leads to ‘choice paralysis’, especially in instances where knowledge is low and stakes are high. By limiting and nudging choices in these contexts, individuals are likely to feel less overwhelmed and more in control. A stronger sense of control and additional resources elevates the experience of autonomy felt by vulnerable populations (those with low knowledge and resources). This paper offers a theoretically robust defense of choice architecture by examining the relationship between choice architecture and autonomy.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 578 - 596
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arneson, R. (2015), ‘Nudge and Shove’, Social Theory and Practice, 41(4): 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beilock, S. L., Rydell, R. J. and McConnell, A. R. (2007), ‘Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2): 256–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M. and Galing, S. (2017), ‘Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?’, Psychological Science, 28(8): 1041–1055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benson, P. (1994), ‘Free Agency and Self-Worth’, The Journal of Philosophy, 91(12): 650–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botti, S. and Iyengar, S. S. (2006), ‘The Dark Side of Choice: When Choice Impairs Social Welfare’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25(1): 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bone, S. A., Christensen, G. L. and Williams, J. D. (2014), ‘Rejected, Shackled, and Alone: The Impact of Systemic Restricted Choice on Minority Consumers’ Construction of Self’, Journal of Consumer Research, 41(August): 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, L. (2009), ‘The Ethics of Nudge’, Preference Change, (2008), 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U. and Goodman, J. (2014), ‘Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1–26.Google Scholar
Christman, J. (2001), ‘Liberalism, Autonomy, and Self-Transformation’, Social Theory and Practice, 27(2): 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conly, S. (2013), Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Croizet, J. and Claire, T. (1998), ‘Extending the Concept of Stereotype Threat to Social Class: The Intellectual Underperformance of Students from Low Socioeconomic Backgrounds’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(6): 588–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S. (2006), ‘The Value of Autonomy and Autonomy of the Will’, Ethics, 116(2): 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, G. (1988), The Theory and Practice of Autonomy, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1971), ‘Legal Paternalism’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1(1): 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1986), Harm to Self, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garnett, M. (2013), ‘Taking the Self Out of Self-Rule’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16(1): 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glod, W. (2015), ‘How Nudges Often Fail to Treat People According to Their Own Preferences’, Social Theory and Practice, 41(4): 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, T. (1993), ‘Self-Trust, Autonomy, and Self-Esteem’, Hypatia, 8(1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2012), ‘Old wine in new casks: Libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles’, Social Choice and Welfare, 38(4): 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J. (2015), ‘Libertarian Paternalism, Manipulation, and the Shaping of Preferences’, Social Theory and Practice, 41(4): 618–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. M. and Welch, B. (2010), ‘Debate: To nudge or not to nudge’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S. S. and Lepper, M.R. (1999), ‘Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 349–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyengar, S. S., Jiang, W. and Huberman, G. (2004), ‘How Much Choice Is Too Much: Determinants of Individual Contributions in 401K Retirement Plans’, Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, Mitchell, Olivia S. and Utkus, Steve, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jo, Y. N. (2013), ‘Psycho-social dimensions of poverty: When poverty becomes shameful’, Critical Social Policy, 33(3): 514–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. J., Hassin, R., Baker, T., Bajger, A. T. and Treuer, G. (2013), ‘Can Consumers Make Affordable Care Affordable? The Value of Choice Architecture’, PLoS ONE, 8(12): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, J. B. et al. (2018), ‘The Lifetime Medical Spending of Retirees’, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24599.Google Scholar
Kim, H., and Markus, H.R. (1999), ‘Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 785–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K. and Keltner, D. (2009), ‘Social Class, Sense of Control, and Social Explanation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6): 992–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. and Zhao, J. (2013), ‘Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function’, Science, 341: 976–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markus, H. R., and Schwartz, B. (2010), ‘Does Choice Mean Freedom And Well-Being?’, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2): 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, S., McGarry, K.M. and Skinner, J. S. (2010), ‘The Risk of Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure at End of Life’, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w16170.Google Scholar
May, T. (1994), ‘The Concept of Autonomy’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 31(2): 133–144.Google Scholar
Maynard, O. M. and Munafo, M. (2018), ‘Nudging transparent behavioural science and policy’, Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2): 198–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenzie, C. R. M., Liersch, M. J. and Finkelstein, S. R. (2006), ‘Recommendations Implicit in Policy Defaults’, Psychological Science, 17(5): 414–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moles, A. (2015), ‘Nudging for Liberals’, Social Theory and Practice, 41(4): 644–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullainathan, S. and Shafir, E. (2013), Scarcity: Why Having So Little Means So Much, New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
NSA Blogger. (2017), National Society of Accountants Reports on Average Tax Return Preparation Fees. Retrieved from https://connect.nsacct.org/blogs/nsa-blogger/2017/01/27/national-society-of-accountants-reports-on-average-tax-return-preparation-fees.Google Scholar
Oshana, M. A. L. (1998), ‘Personal autonomy and society’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 29(1): 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oshana, M. (2003), ‘How much should we value autonomy?’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, M., Scheibehenne, B. and Todd, P. M. (2010), ‘Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload’, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3): 409–425.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. T. (2017), ‘The Power to Nudge’, American Political Science Review, 111(2): 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., and Cheek, N. (2017), ‘Choice, freedom, and well-being: considerations for public policy’, Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1): 106–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R. C. and Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, C. M. (1997), ‘A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance’, American Psychologist, 52(6): 613–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A. and Markus, H. R. (2011), ‘When Choice Does Not Equal Freedom: A Sociocultural Analysis of Agency in Working-Class American Contexts’, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1): 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2014), Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2015), ‘Nudges Do Not Undermine Human Agency’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 38(3): 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2019), On Freedom, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Westlund, A. C. (2009), ‘Rethinking Relational Autonomy’, Hypatia, 24(4): 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M. D. (2013), The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar