| Abstrakt: |
This article explores the impact of default nudges on individuals' experiences of autonomy, choice satisfaction, perceived threat to freedom of choice, and objection to the choice architecture. The study conducted three experiments and found that participants who received a prosocial opt-out default nudge made more prosocial choices without reporting lower autonomy or choice satisfaction compared to participants in opt-in default or active-choice conditions. The study suggests that default nudges are less manipulative and autonomy-infringing than feared and recommends including measures of choice experiences when testing new interventions. The article discusses the results of two studies examining the effects of different choice formats on participants' choices, experienced autonomy, choice satisfaction, and perceived threat to freedom of choice. The studies found that the choice formats did not significantly impact participants' perceptions of autonomy, choice satisfaction, or perceived threat to freedom of choice. Additionally, participants' donation choices were influenced by the choice formats, but when participants received a disclosure and passed a comprehension check, the differences in donation choices between the choice formats were not significant. The studies suggest that the default nudge had a strong influence on choice without negatively affecting other outcomes. The experiments found that participants generally reported high levels of autonomy and satisfaction, and low levels of perceived threat, regardless of the choice format. The findings suggest that individuals were able to recognize the presence of the nudge but did not feel their autonomy or satisfaction were compromised. The article also discusses the implications of these findings for the debate on the ethicality of nudging and the [Extracted from the article] |
