In Defense of Intentionally Shaping People’s Choices

• Author: Viki M. L. Pedersen
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211069974
• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Date: 01 December 2022

Article

PoliticalResearchQuarterly

2022,Vol.75(4)1335–1344

©TheAuthor(s)2022

Articlereuseguidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI:10.1177/10659129211069974

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

InDefenseofIntentionallyShaping

People’sChoices

VikiM.L.Pedersen

1



Abstract

Indefenseofnudgingpolicies,proponentshavepointedoutthatchoicearchitectureisinevitable.However,criticshave

objectedthatshapingpeople’schoicesinanintentionalwayisnotinevitableandinvolvesanobjectionablesubstitutionof

judgment,withthechoicearchitectimposinghiswillonothers.Accordingly,theinevitabilityofchoicearchitecturein

generaldoesnotprovidereasontoacceptintentionalnudges.Incontrasttothisview,thepaperarguesthatprecisely

becausethechoicearchitectswillunavoidablycontributetopeople’schoices,itispermissibleforthemtoconsiderthe

contentofthechoicesthattheirchoicearchitecturepromotes.Specifically,Iarguethatitisoftenwithinchoicear-

chitects’,includingstates’,ownlegitimatesphereofcontrolwhethertheywanttocontributetootherpeople’sbehaviors

throughtheirorganizationofthechoicearchitecture.Itisarguedthatsuchintentionalchoicearchitecturedoesnot

involveobjectionablesubstitutionofjudgment.

Keywords

nudging,choicearchitecture,theinevitabilityargument,substitutionofjudgment,legitimatesphereofcontrol

Introduction

Accordingtothefoundersofthenudgetheory,Richard

ThalerandCassSunstein,anudge“isanyaspectofthe

choicearchitecturethatalterspeople’sbehaviorina

predictablewaywithoutforbiddinganyoptionsorsig-

nificantlychangingtheireconomicincentives”(Thaler

andSunstein2009,6).Examplesincludeautomatic

registrationtothedonorregistry,makingcigarettesless

visibleinsupermarketsandchangingthesizeoftheplates

intherestaurantbuffet.Suchmodificationsofthechoice

architecturematter.IntheirNewYorkTimesbestseller

“Nudge,”ThalerandSunsteindemonstratehoweven

“smallandapparentlyinsignificantdetailscanhavemajor

impactonpeople’sbehavior”(ThalerandSunstein2009,

3;seealsoKahneman2011).

Intheirjustificationfornudging,ThalerandSunstein

arguethatitisamisconception“thatitispossibleto

avoidinfluencingpeople’schoices”(ThalerandSunstein

2009,10).Specifically,theyarguethatitisimpossibleto

organizethecontextsinwhichpeoplemakechoices

withouttherebyinfluencingthedecisionspeoplemakein

aconsiderableway.Thewayinwhichpeoplesignupfor

thedonorregistryinfluencesthenumberofdonors,the

designofthesupermarketinfluenceswhatweputinthe

basket,andthesizeontheplateinfluenceshowmuchwe

eatfromthebuffet.Theirpointisthatsincesuchchoice

architecture,whichseemstoaffectpeople’schoices

considerably,isinevitable,whynotstriveforthechoice

environmentthatpromotesgooddecisions?

However,criticsrespondthateventhoughchoicear-

chitectureinitselfseemsinevitable,thisdoesnotprovide

anargumentforintentionallyshapingpeople’schoices.

Oneimportantsetofobjectionstosuchintentional

nudgingraisesworriesaboutobjectionablejudgment

substitution(see,e.g.,Grüne-Yanoff2012,638–639;

White2013,81–82).HausmanandWelch,forexample,

arguethat:

Thereremainsanimportantdifferencebetweenchoicesthat

areintentionallyshapedandchoicesthatarenot.Evenwhen

unshapedchoiceswouldhavebeenjustasstronglyinflu-

encedbydeliberativeflaws,calculatedshapingofchoices

stillimposesthewillofoneagentonanother(Hausmanand

Welch2010,133).

1

CentrefortheExperimental-PhilosophicalStudyofDiscrimination,

DepartmentofPoliticalScience,AarhusUniversity,Aarhus,Denmark

CorrespondingAuthor:

VikiM.L.Pedersen,DepartmentofPoliticalScience,AarhusUniversity,

BartholinsAll´

e7,Aarhus8000,Denmark.

Email:vikip@ps.au.dk