The effect of nudges on autonomy in hypothetical and real life settings

Jonas Wachner · Marieke A. Adriaanse · Denise T. D. de Ridder

20 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies Psychology of Social Influence

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.2008Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness 2015Moral Identity and Developmental Theory 2001The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior 2016A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work 2005Affective Forecasting 1996What Makes for a Good Day? Competence and Autonomy in the Day and in the Person 2017Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?

Cited by

2023Nudges can be both autonomy-preserving and effective: evidence from a survey and quasi-field experiment 2023The role of attention and health goals in nudging healthy food choice 2025More sustainable choices in the workplace: a systematic review of nudge theory applications 2024The Effect of a Default Nudge on Experienced and Expected Autonomy: A Field Study on Food Donation 2023The effects of default nudges on promoting approval of welfare cuts: An exploration during COVID-19

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.