Goals of the Nudger

Ethical deliberations in applied behavioral science must begin by understanding who does the nudging and, most importantly, why it occurs, i.e. the nudger’s intentions and goals.

Nudges can be used by many different actors. Individuals often resort to self-nudging by making junk food less accessible or reminding themselves to take their daily medication, for example. Sometimes it is individuals or their representatives who nudge others to their (the nudgers’) own advantage. Political candidates, for example, may nudge the electorate to vote for them. Governments may nudge citizens to pay their taxes on time. Corporations may nudge customers to upgrade their mobile phones to the latest model.

In the domain of public policy, critics have argued that we can expect to be nudged by private companies (e.g. to sell products), but less so by governments. Since we are likely to be more vigilant in terms of marketing cues in supermarkets, for example, than government campaigns, this makes us more vulnerable to governmental behavioral interventions.

Motives

Nudgers’ motives can be divided into the following dimensions:

• Selfish (nudges serve the interest of the nudger)
• Paternalistic (the nudger acts in the interest of the nudged)
• Pro-social (individuals are nudged to help others)

Who Benefits?

Similarly, from the perspective of the nudged, nudges can be classified in terms of who benefits: 

• The nudger
• The nudged
• Others (another individual or group of people)
• The collective (i.e. society as a whole, including the nudged)

Taken together, this produces the following possible combinations of nudger motive and benefits for the nudged:

Motive	Who Benefits	Examples
Selfish	Nudger	Boosting product sales or political power
Paternalistic	Nudged	Increasing retirement savings or health
Pro-social	Others	Encouraging organ donations or charitable giving
Pro-social	Collective	Reducing spread of diseases or CO2 emissions

As far as ethical implications are concerned, the nudged are likely to perceive nudges that are based on selfish (e.g. profit) motives more critically than pro-social motives (helping others or society as a whole). They are also more likely to object to nudges that don’t benefit them personally. In fact, some public opinion research has shown that nudges classified as benefiting society are significantly less accepted than those which benefit the nudged as an individual. Does this make nudges that don’t benefit the nudged him or herself less ethically legitimate? The answer to this question depends on the ethical perspective you choose to adopt. From a consequentialist view, the overall good created by a nudge would be more important than the question of whether the nudged themselves benefit. In addition, from the perspective of ethics more generally, public opinion only comes into play if we agree that nudges should be widely accepted. As mentioned previously, opinions on this point are divided.

Preferences of the Nudged

When nudges have the interests of the nudged in mind, an epistemological worry arises: How can nudgers know what is in the nudged’s best interest? One of the key ethical challenges to nudging relates to the nudged’s own preferences:

1. Selfish nudges often disregard the preferences of the nudged.
2. Paternalistic nudges make assumptions about the preferences of the nudged.
3. The architects of pro-social nudges may or may not care about the preferences of the nudged as individuals.

Critics of paternalistic nudging argue that, in determining ‘what’s good’ for the nudged, nudgers may project or impose their own values and goals onto others (an issue previously flagged as a disadvantage of utilitarianism). At best, choice architects assume that the targets of a nudge all have the same or context-independent preferences. Consider interventions that nudge people to take the stairs instead of the elevator. We can expect some people with mobility challenges (e.g. the elderly or disabled) to prefer taking the elevator. Others may prefer it because they get their exercise elsewhere or need to get to their destination more quickly. Similarly, as seen in the video at the start of this lesson, some people may genuinely prefer hedonic food over healthy food. Or they may prefer to eat cupcakes in the cafeteria and apples at home.

When the nudged’s preferences are heterogenous, concerns about fairness may arise, as the effects of an intervention are likely to differ across individuals. (See our section on nudge effects later in this lesson.) The nudger will have to consider preferences when setting the goals of a campaign. For example, economically underprivileged groups may benefit from nudges that help them avoid unnecessary bank fees or high-interest loans more than those designed to increase retirement savings.

The formation and expression of preferences is an important aspect of individual autonomy. This is covered in the next topic.