The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The ethics of nudging: An overview
Open accessAbstract
So‐called nudge policies utilize insights from behavioral science to achieve policy outcomes. Nudge policies try to improve people's decisions by changing the ways options are presented to them, rather than changing the options themselves or incentivizing or coercing people. Nudging has been met with great enthusiasm but also fierce criticism. This paper provides an overview of the debate on the ethics of nudging to date. After outlining arguments in favor of nudging, we first discuss different objections that all revolve around the worry that nudging vitiates personal autonomy. We split up this worry into different dimensions of autonomy, such as freedom of choice, volitional autonomy, rational agency, and freedom as nondomination. We next discuss worries that nudging is manipulative, violates human dignity, and prevents more important structural reform. Throughout, we will present responses that proponents of nudging can muster. On the whole, we conclude that the objections fail to establish that the nudge program as a whole should be rejected. At the same time, they give us important guidance when moving towards an ethical assessment of nudges on a case‐by‐case basis. Towards the end, we provide some possible ways forward in debates around the ethics of nudging.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person
Frankfurt, H. G. (1971) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2024717 · Cited by 4,663
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wahlberg, L. (2017) · Lund University Publications (Lund University) · Cited by 1,854
Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x · Cited by 1,801
(2013) · Cited by 1,704
Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government.
Kelly, E., & Pettit, P. (1999) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2998263 · Cited by 1,075
Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox
(2002) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1654.001.0001 · Cited by 1,031
‘Hypernudge’: big Data as a mode of regulation by design
Yeung, K. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1186713 · Cited by 868
Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions
Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617702496 · Cited by 807
Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge*
Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x · Cited by 803
Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013) · European Journal of Risk Regulation · doi:10.1017/s1867299x00002762 · Cited by 773
Cited by
Cowls, J., Tsamados, A., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01294-x · Cited by 552
Cowls, J., Tsamados, A., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3804983 · Cited by 552
Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 · Cited by 477
Formosa, P. (2021) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-021-09579-2 · Cited by 144
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmidt, A. T., & Engelen, B.
- Venue
- Philosophy Compass
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-02-27
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 1747-9991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2994838516
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 27.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The ethics of nudging: An overview. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/phc3.12658
- The paper
- Schmidt, A. T., & Engelen, B. (2020). The ethics of nudging: An overview. Philosophy Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12658
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.