The ethics of nudging: Using moral foundations theory to understand consumers' approval of nudges

• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Author: Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury
• Date: 01 June 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12431

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The ethics of nudging: Using moral foundations

theory to understand consumers' approval

of nudges

Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury

Bond Business School, Bond University,

Robina, Queensland, Australia

Correspondence

Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury, Bond Business

School, Bond University, Robina, QLD

4229, Australia.

Email: rchowdhu@bond.edu.au

Abstract

This study examines the ethics of nudging and con-

sumers' approval of nudges through the prism of moral

foundations theory. Results showed that binding foun-

dations (loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanc-

tity/degradation) are, in general, positively related to

approval of System 1 (relying on automatic information

processing) and System 2 (relying on deliberative infor-

mation processing) nudges. Individualizing founda-

tions (care/harm, fairness/cheating) are, in general,

positively related to supporting System 2 nudges. Some

exceptions to these relationships exist, based on the

issue the nudge is addressing. Binding foundations

mediate the effects of empathy and conservatism on

approval of both types of nudges. Individualizing foun-

dations mediate the effects of empathy on approval of

System 2 nudges. Moral foundations theory is useful

for examining acceptance of nudges as it identifies

diverse ethical reasons (welfare, fairness, loyalty,

authority deference, sanctity) for supporting nudges,

linking ethical evaluations with consumers' approval of

nudges. Findings provide insights for persuading con-

sumers to support nudges.

KEYWORDS

ethics, moral foundations theory, nudges

Received: 28 October 2020 Revised: 28 September 2021 Accepted: 11 November 2021

DOI: 10.1111/joca.12431

© 2021 American Council on Consumer Interests.

J Consum Aff. 2022;56:703–742. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joca 703

1|INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, public policy makers, government agencies, non-government devel-

opmental organizations, and even private sector companies across the world have been advocat-

ing the use of nudges to address a range of behavioral issues. A nudge is a type of behavioral

intervention that aims to enhance individual or societal welfare. Sunstein and Reisch (2019,

p. 1) state that nudges are “interventions that steer people in particular directions but that also

allow them to go their own way”. Nudges are developed by choice architects, those who have

“the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions”(Thaler

et al., 2013, p. 428). Thaler and Sunstein (2008, p. 6) provide a more technical definition of

nudges as, “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behaviour in a predictable

way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.”

Examples of nudges include automatic enrolment in an organ donor program when obtaining a

driver's license; traffic lights system for food labels; placing healthy food products in prominent,

visible locations in grocery stores; requiring airlines to charge customers for carbon offsets

(which customers can opt out from), and so on. Many nudges are related to the domain of con-

sumer welfare. In this context, nudges are different from mandates since, unlike nudges, man-

dates never preserve freedom of choice (Sunstein, 2019). Nudges are also different from

incentives and disincentives as nudges do not directly grant financial benefits or impose signifi-

cant costs (Sunstein, 2019).

During the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, nudge theory (nudging based on the principles of

behavioral economics) has been used to address public health challenges (Van Bavel

et al., 2020). For example, the Behavioral Insights Team in the United Kingdom have helped

the National Health Service to develop a Covid-19 text service that provides health information

to vulnerable people using principles from nudge theory (Burd & Coleman, 2020). The United

Nations Development Program's Youth Leadership Program in the Arab region has teamed up

with regional experts in behavioral economics to propose interventions based on nudge theory,

for example, reminder messages utilizing the power of salience; emotional communications uti-

lizing the “affect heuristic”; using community leaders and local influencers to deliver messages

that promote desired health behavior as the social norm utilizing the “bandwagon effect,”and

so on (United Nations Development Program, 2020).

The behavioral efficacy of nudges is well documented (Benartzi et al., 2017; Halpern, 2015).

Nudge units have been formed by national and regional governments in several countries, such

as the Behavior Insights Team in the United Kingdom (a private-public partnership), the

Behavioral Economics Team in Australia, the Behavioral Insights Unit in Ontario, and so

on. The World Bank also has a Mind, Behavior, and Development unit. However, as with any

consumer policy intervention, the long-term success of nudging relies upon consumers' support.

Furthermore, commitment to self-government requires democratic governments to assess the

general acceptance of nudges (Sunstein & Reisch, 2019). Considering these issues, there has

been growing research examining consumers' approval of nudging (Loibl et al., 2018; Reisch

et al., 2017; Sunstein & Reisch, 2019, etc.) and a few studies have also examined psychological

factors associated with support for nudges (Hagman et al., 2015; Jung & Mellers, 2016).

Related to consumers' approval of nudges is the ethics of nudging, which is an important

issue that has attracted the interest of ethics and legal scholars (e.g., Engelen, 2019; Schmidt &

Engelen, 2020; Sunstein, 2016a, etc.). Nudging has been termed as “libertarian paternalism”

(Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Explaining libertarian paternalism, Jung and Mellers (2016, p. 62)

state “libertarians applaud freedom of choice, and paternalists view governments as having the

704 CHOWDHURY

responsibility to improve the choices of citizens.”Obstacles hindering consumers' approval of

nudges include ethical concerns raised by this type of “libertarian paternalism.”An ethical

assessment of nudges needs to assess whether consumers consider nudges as freedom preserv-

ing (the “libertarian”part of libertarian paternalism) and whether they consider such interven-

tions as welfare enhancing (the “paternalism”part of libertarian paternalism).

Sunstein (2016a) noted four ethical concerns with nudging: concerns regarding welfare,

autonomy,self-government, and dignity. Roberts (2018) states that justice (fairness) issues also

need to be considered when judging whether nudges are ethical. These ad-hoc moral concerns

and moral values are certainly important in the context of nudging; however, nudges have not

been systematically examined through the lens of an established moral framework or moral

theory that can concurrently evaluate nudges in terms of all of these moral concerns/moral

values. This is a gap in the literature on the ethics of nudging. Moral foundations theory

(Haidt & Graham, 2007) is a moral framework that can be utilized to ethically evaluate nudges

from the perspectives of caring (welfare), justice (fairness), respect for authority, sanctity (dig-

nity), ingroup loyalty, and liberty (autonomy). Moral foundations theory helps to identify con-

sumers' approval of nudges based on diverse ethical concerns, thus incorporating both the need

to assess consumers' acceptance of nudges and the need to evaluate the moral values being

upheld (or neglected) by nudges.

Furthermore, although psychological correlates of nudges have been identified (Jung &

Mellers, 2016), these correlates may identify who support nudges, but do not always fully

explain why they support nudges. This is another gap in the literature. For example, research

shows that empathic individuals approve of nudges (Jung & Mellers, 2016), but prior research

does not identify multiple reasons for why empathy is positively related to supporting nudges.

Empathy could lead to approving nudges for different reasons, such as concerns for others' wel-

fare (see Batson, 2010 on the relationship between empathy and helping behaviors) and support

for ingroups (see Bloom, 2017 on how empathy is related to ingroup preference). Various moral

foundations such as care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanc-

tity/degradation, and liberty/oppression (Haidt & Graham, 2007; Iyer et al., 2012) may explain

the relationships among psychological variables such as empathy, conservatism, and so on with

consumers' acceptance of nudges. Hence, utilizing moral foundations theory to understand the

ethics of nudging contributes to the literature in two key ways: (1) by providing a moral frame-

work that can assess diverse moral values associated with nudges and (2) by explaining the

effects of various psychological constructs that are related to the acceptance of nudges. Thus,

this research contributes to both the literature on the ethics of nudging and the literature on

consumers' approval of nudging by utilizing moral foundations theory in the context of

nudging.

2|CATEGORIZATION OF NUDGES

At the outset, it is worthwhile to review the typology of nudges as ethical issues relevant to

nudges and consumers' support for nudges can vary depending on the type of nudge (Felsen

et al., 2013; Hagman et al., 2015; Jung & Mellers, 2016). One way of categorizing nudges is

based on the target of the nudge. Hagman et al. (2015) examine differences between pro-social

nudges (nudges that focus on benefiting society, e.g., default rules for organ donations) and pro-

self nudges (nudges that focus on benefiting individuals, e.g., graphic warnings on cigarette

packages to encourage smoking cessation).

CHOWDHURY 705