While nudges have been shown to be effective and are already being implemented, there is still a debate on the ethics of nudging. This debate specifically refers to the potential of nudges negatively affecting autonomy. It has been suggested that making a nudge transparent may resolve this issue. Whereas previous research has already demonstrated that transparency does not violate nudge effectiveness, it is unknown how transparency affects autonomy and related decision satisfaction and experienced pressure. In an online study with 905 participants, we investigated whether two variations of transparency influence the decision maker's experience of autonomy, as well as their choice satisfaction and the experienced pressure to choose the nudged option. The results show that autonomy and satisfaction were high-and pressure low-across all conditions, and were therefore not influenced by transparency. Suggesting that nudges do not negatively affect autonomy and that transparency does also not increase it.

ObjectiveWhile nudges are increasingly utilized in public policy settings, their potential threat to autonomous choice is the topic of heated debate. Regardless of the actual effects of nudges on autonomy, the mere perception of nudges as autonomy threatening by the general public or policy makers could negatively influence nudge acceptability. The present online studies examined how people expect (different) nudges to affect their perception of autonomy.MethodsIn the first study (N = 455), participants were presented with a hypothetical choice that employed either a default nudge, direct persuasion, or no persuasion, to steer to the desired choice. The presented influence technique was explained before participants reported their expected autonomy, as well as their expected choice satisfaction. Study 2 (N = 601) involved a replication of Study 1 with an additional social norm nudge condition. In Study 3 (N = 750), the explanation of how choice had been influenced was omitted.ResultsWhile participants expected the default nudge to violate autonomy (Study 1), they had no such expectations for social norm nudges (Study 2). Omitting the explanation that most people are unaware of nudges influencing their choice, reduced the negative impact of nudges on expected autonomy (Study 3).ConclusionEffects of nudges on expectations of autonomy differ by type of nudge. Negative expectations are primarily driven by the explanation that decision makers are often unaware of nudges.

Nudges have repeatedly been found to be effective, however they are claimed to harm autonomy, and it has been found that laypeople expect this too. To test whether these expectations translate to actual harm to experienced autonomy, three online studies were conducted. The paradigm used in all studies was that participants were asked to voluntarily participate in a longer version of the questionnaire. This was either done in a hypothetical setting, where participants imagined they were asked this question, but did not answer it, and reported their expectations for autonomy; Or in an actual choice setting where participants answered the question and then reported their actual autonomy. The first study utilized the hypothetical setting and tried to replicate that laypeople expect nudges to harm autonomy with the current paradigm. A total of 451 participants were randomly assigned to either a control, a default nudge, or a social norm nudge condition. In the default nudge condition, the affirmative answer was pre-selected, and in the social norm nudge condition it was stated that most people answered affirmative. The results showed a trend for lower expected autonomy in nudge conditions, but did not find significant evidence. In Study 2, with a sample size of 454, the same design was used in an actual choice setting. Only the default nudge was found to be effective, and no difference in autonomy was found. In Study 3, Studies 1 and 2 were replicated. Explanation of the nudge was added as an independent variable and the social norm nudge condition was dropped, resulting in six conditions and 1322 participants. The results showed that participants indeed expected default nudges to harm their autonomy, but only if the nudge was explained. When actually nudged, no effect on autonomy was found, independent of the presence of an explanation.

No abstract

Objective: Defaults have been shown to substantially increase the number of organ donor registrations. However, it is unclear whether defaults violate personal autonomy of the people being registered. The implementation of a new Donor Act in the Netherlands, providing people with the opportunity for active registration before being defaulted, allowed for examining to what extent default registration affects personal autonomy and associated concepts.Methods: In an online survey among a representative sample (N = 1259), four groups were compared regarding autonomy, decision making competence, decision satisfaction, and being pressured to register as a donor: people (1) who had registered their status prior to the Donor Act, (2) who had not yet received an invitation for default registration, (3) who had received an invitation and then registered their choice, and (4) who had received an invitation but took no action and were defaulted into being registered as a donor.Results: We find that groups did not differ on measures of autonomy, decision making competence or decision satisfaction, except for people who had received an invitation but took no action and reported significantly lower levels of autonomy, decision making competence, and decision satisfaction as compared to the other three groups. Participants who received a letter of invitation reported to experience more pressure than participants who had already registered themselves prior to the introduction of the new Donor Act.Conclusion: We conclude that default organ registration does not compromise autonomy except for a minority of people who pass the opportunity to register themselves.