Self-determined nudging: a system concept for human–machine interaction

Weßel, Gina; Altendorf, Eugen; Schwalm, Maximilian; Canpolat, Yigiterkut; Burghardt, Christoph; Flemisch, Frank

doi:10.1007/s10111-019-00556-5

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some might prefer to be nudged towards reaching their weekly targets, whereas others might dislike that. Allowing people to decide which digital nudges they want to enable and which they want to turn off is another way to provide them with meta-autonomy (Weßel et al, 2019). Although their immediate autonomy remains affected, whenever the nudge takes effect, employees are yet able to reflect and self-determine whether they like this to be the case (Schmidt, 2017).…”

Section: The Right To Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because employees can hardly avoid their organisations’ digital infrastructures, they are at risk of being subjected to arbitrary domination through digital workplace nudges. To date, however, scholarship has failed to confront this issue adequately—as in the case of most empirical research on digital workplace nudging (e.g., Mele, Russo Spena, Kaartemo, & Marzullo, 2021; Weinmann, Schneider, & Brocke, 2016; Weßel, Altendorf, Schwalm, Canpolat, Burghardt, & Flemisch, 2019)—while other discussions have merely highlighted the risks without providing a feasible alternative for addressing nudges in the workplace (e.g., Burr, Cristianini, & Ladyman, 2018; Matz, Kosinski, Nave, & Stillwell, 2017; Yeung, 2017). As a consequence, we still lack informed and balanced guidance for assessing the moral permissibility of digital workplace nudges.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Ruehle

2023

Bus. Ethics Q.

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: The Right To Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ruehle

2023

Bus. Ethics Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet another approach presented in this special issue by Weßel et al (2018) focusses on the concept of self-determined decision making with nudging methods. In this concept, the driver is supported by nudges on all layers of cooperation, after initially authorizing the automation to execute these nudges (see Fig.…”

Section: Examples Of Shared and Cooperative Control Concepts In The Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12). Framework applied to self-determined nudging and decision making with nudging methods (Weßel et al 2018) 5 Outlook: from shared and cooperative control and cooperative automation to a structured design space, use space and effect space of human-machine cooperation This paper aimed to clarify a number of aspects in the relationship between shared control and human-machine cooperation. We conclude that efforts are worthwhile to conceptually extend shared control towards cooperation at higher task layers (see for an overview, Abbink et al 2018); and for cooperation to include concepts of shared control at the lowest layers (Pacaux- Flemisch et al 2016).…”

Section: Examples Of Shared and Cooperative Control Concepts In The Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joining the blunt and the pointy end of the spear: towards a common framework of joint action, human–machine cooperation, cooperative guidance and control, shared, traded and supervisory control

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To introduce this special issue of shared and cooperative control, we will look into history of tools in cooperation between humans and aim to unify the plethora of related concepts and definitions that have been proposed in recent years, such as shared control, human-machine cooperation and cooperative guidance and control. Concretely, we provide definitions to relate these concepts and sketch a unifying framework of shared and cooperative control that sees the different concepts as different perspectives or foci on a common design space of shared intentionality, control and cooperation between humans and machines. One working hypothesis which the article explores is that shared control can be understood as cooperation at the control layer, while human-machine cooperation can include shared control, but can also extend towards cooperation at higher layers, e.g., of guidance and navigation, of maneuvers and goals. The relationship between shared control and humanmachine cooperation is compared to the relationship between the sharp, pointy tip and the (blunt) shaft of a spear. Shared control is where cooperation comes sharply into effect at the control layer, but to be truly effective it should be supported by cooperation on all layers beyond the operational layer, e.g., on the tactical and strategic layer. A fourth layer addresses the meta-communication about the cooperation and supports the other three layers in a traversal way.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

show abstract

“…The concept of Nudging comes from behavioral economics literature, where the objective is to lead individuals to act in a certain direction without intentionally limiting their freedom of choice [ 46 ], and it includes different types of techniques such as providing tangential cues through visuals, words, or sensations [ 30 ]. It relies on the premise that people's judgments are generally pre-constrained, limited, and biased, which can cause individuals to regularly make choices that counteracts their interest, values, or decisions [ 29 , 47 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploration of nudging towards transformative environmental behaviour changes prior to a values-crystallization event

Tening,

Harder

2023

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-determined nudging: a system concept for human–machine interaction

Cited by 7 publications

References 37 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

Joining the blunt and the pointy end of the spear: towards a common framework of joint action, human–machine cooperation, cooperative guidance and control, shared, traded and supervisory control

An exploration of nudging towards transformative environmental behaviour changes prior to a values-crystallization event

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About