IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v4y2020i1p108-123_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging

Author

Listed:
  • VUGTS, ANASTASIA
  • VAN DEN HOVEN, MARIËTTE
  • DE VET, EMELY
  • VERWEIJ, MARCEL

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Vugts, Anastasia & Van Den Hoven, Mariëtte & De Vet, Emely & Verweij, Marcel, 2020. "How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 108-123, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:4:y:2020:i:1:p:108-123_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X18000052/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dominic Lemken & Ainslee Erhard & Simone Wahnschafft, 2024. "A choice architect’s guide to the (autonomous) galaxy: a systematic scoping review of nudge intrusiveness in food choices," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Vugts, Anastasia & van den Heuvel, Emmy & Havermans, Remco C., 2024. "Factors affecting public acceptance of healthy lifestyle nudges," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    3. Wachner, Jonas & Adriaanse, Marieke & Hoven, Mariette van den & de Ridder, Denise, 2022. "Does default organ donation registration compromise autonomous choice? Public responses to a new donor registration system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 899-905.
    4. L. Lades & F. Nova, 2024. "Ethical Considerations When Using Nudges to Reduce Meat Consumption: an Analysis Through the FORGOOD Ethics Framework," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-19, March.
    5. de Ridder, Denise & Adriaanse, Marieke & van Gestel, Laurens & Wachner, Jonas, 2023. "How does nudging the COVID-19 vaccine play out in people who are in doubt about vaccination?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:4:y:2020:i:1:p:108-123_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.