Ethics of Nudging

The ethics of nudging have been debated within academic literature for several years now.

As such, it is an important and highly popular issue as users are increasingly aware of its adoption (many people are aware of Thaler’s International Best-Seller ‘Nudge’ [228]). For this reason, it is important to understand why we should be concerned with respect to its implementation, and how these ethical concerns manifest themselves. As many of the studies included in this thesis investigate such interventions, it is important to discuss where ethical concerns may present themselves.

The ethics of nudging is a complex issue that stems from the belief that no matter how subtlety affected, a user’s choice is being influenced and thus the decision is not entirely of their own free will. Ethics are closely related to the core elements of nudges and thus require analysis in a similar light.

Further complexity pertains to the application of the nudge and the context in which it is adopted. For example, one may argue that in a physical security context, a shove is indeed the correct manner in which to influence choice as the alternative may be detrimental to the user’s safety or well-being. Within the context of IS we can envisage the process of securing sensitive data where the consequences of not securing it may outweigh the SRS implications related to shoving. There are several instances where data cannot be accessible to non-permitted users.

The discussion follows the 9 components of the MINDSPACE framework 2.3.4.

• Ethics of Incentives: Careful consideration is required before adopting incentive based behaviour change. It is necessary to determine:

– the amount of incentive offered [38]. If the amount is set too high it may be considered coercive and present the user no realistic alternative (a "shove" rather than a nudge).

– whether the incentive will disadvantage the people most in need [202]. Schmidt [202] likens this to the current highly incentivised models adopted in Germany where the "participation rates among people in the top socio-economic quintile are close to double the rates among those in the poorest quintile".

– whether the incentive will result in the group that fails to meet the criteria for receipt being treated unfairly [202]. Perhaps it is better to have different completion requirements for different groups of people.

– whether the incentive will harm the patient-physician relation [202]. For health-care it is important that medical staff are not visualised as police causing patients to withhold important medical information. Volpp et al [243], found that enrolling patients in a lottery after successfully detailing the specifics of their medical his-tory resulted in a drop from 22% to 2.3% in cases where the wrong medication had been prescribed.

– and whether the incentive is fairly directed [38]. In the above example, the physician clearly plays a key role in determining the correct course of medication, but so does the patient.

• Ethics of Defaults: Defaults are a powerful tool that can have a significant impact on user behaviour. It is important to consider the following:

– it must be easy to opt out [38]. This is necessary to preserve choice and requires that users are aware of the existence of the default, knowledge regarding how to opt-out and can opt-out without significant burden.

– the harms and benefits of the default nudge [38]. It is important that we default people towards the most beneficial decision for them. Whilst seemingly obvious, Hanssesns [109] describes the process of opt-out HIV testing where it is beneficial physically to determine whether or not you have HIV, but the psychological harm can be significant.

• Salience and Effect: The method with which choices are presented has significant ethical effects that trigger certain methods of thinking and system 1 responses.

– Does the use of salience affect an individual’s autonomy [38]?

– If so, is this ethical (manipulation can be ethically justifiable in some scenarios [105])?

– Is the data presented accurate and true or is it exaggerated and misrepresented [38]?

2.3 Nudge 39

• Norms and Messenger: The people that we listen to and gather advice from are not always the best role models.

– we often nudge people towards bad decisions due to our "herd mentality" [38].

Obesity in the United States can be seen as a clear example of this process. Many celebrities and television personalities that are held with high esteem in the public eye often exhibit traits that are not in an individual’s best interest to emulate.

– there is a temptation to falsify accounts of users’ actions [38]. For instance, "we could tell them that five out of seven people get screened [cancer] - but this would be a lie".

• Priming: Subconscious priming is conducted with good intentions but requires ethical considerations.

– As such, the decision should be based on empirical evidence [38]. For instance, exercising promotes a healthy lifestyle and is compatible with the values of the individual.

– Is it still easy for the individual to make their own decision rather than the decision they are being primed towards?

– Is the priming ethically justifiable? In many cases, a user is unaware of the priming they are subject to. This manipulation must be used to promote "benefits that outweigh risks" [38].

• Commitments and Ego: The belief is that people wish to be consistent with public

"promises and commitments and act in ways that make them feel better about them-selves in order to nudge them toward healthier behaviours" [38]. The main ethical issues are:

– whether ego is used for "good ends and good reasons" and whether this approach is preferable to reasoned argument. Spellecy [211], dictates that commitments based on intentions are "reason-centered commitments" and thus deserve more weight than desires.

– whether bypassing this reason is done for "good ends" (e.g., not selfish ones) and for "good reasons" (people are harming themselves) [38].

The ethics of nudging are therefore a highly complex set of individual concerns which relate to specific components of the nudge. A detailed summary follows:

BackgroundandLiteratureReview Table 2.3 Summary of Recommendation [38]

Nudge mechanism Ethically relevant considerations

Incentives •The amount and kind of incentives used.

•Whether the incentive plan will disadvantage those most in need or result in the group that fails to meet criteria for receipt being treated unfairly (e.g., cost-shifting to those who fail, leaving those who fail by the wayside).

•Whether the incentive plan will harm the patient–physician relationship (e.g., through actual or perceived monitoring).

•Whether the incentive is fairly directed (e.g., at patients as opposed to or in addition to their physicians if the patients themselves are the ones who improved their health).

Defaults •Whether people are aware of the existence of the default and whether it is fairly easy for people to opt out.

•Whether the expected benefits of the default outweigh any anticipated harms, where harm is construed not just physically but also psychologically, socially, and financially.

•Whether there are injustices or harms brought about to vulnerable or marginalized populations by the default (e.g., presumed consent for organ donation exploits the homeless who do not have easy opportunities to opt out/dissent) and whether attempts have been made to mitigate those effects.

Salience and affect •Whether what is being represented saliently is true and accurate, as opposed to exaggerated or misrepresented.

•Whether the use of salience and affect techniques will be perceived negatively by those it is directed toward.

•Whether bypassing people’s capacity for reason is done for good ends (e.g., not selfish ones) and for good reasons (e.g., people are harming themselves).

•Whether there is a justification for using salience and affect instead of rational argument.

Norms and messenger •Whether the information about what “most people are doing” is true and accurate.

•Whether the use of comparisons and norms will do more good than harm in light of the fact that “what most people do”

is often unwise.

•Whether the power differentials between messenger and recipient have been considered.

Subconscious priming •Whether it is fairly easy for people to go in a direction other than the one in which they are primed.

•Whether subconscious priming is done for good and evidence-based ends.

•Whether there is a justification for using subconscious priming instead of rational argument.

Commitments and ego preservation •Whether ego is used for good ends and good reasons and whether there is a justification for using ego instead of rational argument.

•Whether the person is making a commitment to self-destructive ends.

•Whether the commitment is to long-term preferences or fleeting ones.