scispace - formally typeset
Journal ArticleDOI

Choosing Not to Choose

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
This point suggests that however well accepted, the line between active choosing and paternalism is often illusory, and that when private or public institutions override people's desire not to choose and insist on active choosing, they may well be behaving paternalistically, through a form of choice-requiring paternalism.
Abstract
Choice can be an extraordinary benefit or an immense burden. In some contexts, people choose not to choose, or would do so if they were asked. For example, many people prefer not to make choices about their health or retirement plans; they want to delegate those choices to a private or public institution that they trust (and may well be willing to pay a considerable amount for such delegations). This point suggests that however well-accepted, the line between active choosing and paternalism is often illusory. When private or public institutions override people’s desire not to choose, and insist on active choosing, they may well be behaving paternalistically, through a form of choice-requiring paternalism. Active choosing can be seen as a form of libertarian paternalism, and a frequently attractive one, if people are permitted to opt out of choosing in favor of a default (and in that sense not to choose); it is a form of nonlibertarian paternalism insofar as people are required to choose. For both ordinary people and private or public institutions, the ultimate judgment in favor of active choosing, or in favor of choosing not to choose, depends largely on the costs of decisions and the costs of errors. But the value of learning, and of developing one’s own preferences and values, is also important, and may argue on behalf of active choosing, and against the choice not to choose. For law and policy, these points raise intriguing puzzles about the idea of “predictive shopping,” which is increasingly feasible with the rise of large data sets containing information about people’s previous choices. Some empirical results are presented about people’s reactions to predictive shopping; the central message is that most (but not all) people reject predictive shopping in favor of active choosing.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

A Review and Taxonomy of Choice Architecture Techniques

TL;DR: A taxonomy of choice architecture techniques that focus on intervention design, as opposed to the underlying cognitive processes that make an intervention work is presented, arguing that this distinction will facilitate further empirical testing and will assist practitioners in designing interventions.
Journal ArticleDOI

Nudges that fail

TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on default rules and argue that some default rules are ineffective, or at least less effective than choice architects hope and expect, and emphasize two reasons for this: strong antecedent preferences on the part of choosers and successful "counternudges" which persuade people to choose in a way that confound the efforts of choice architects.
Book

Re-Engineering Humanity

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine what's happening to our lives as society embraces big data, predictive analytics, and smart environments, and reveal hidden connections between fitness trackers, electronic contracts, social media platforms, robotic companions, fake news, autonomous cars, and more.
Journal ArticleDOI

Green Nudges: Do They Work? Are They Ethical?

TL;DR: The authors provide a structured overview of the most important contributions to the literature on pro-environmental nudges and, second, offer some critical guidelines that may help the practitioner come to an ethically informed assessment of nudges.
Journal ArticleDOI

Nudges That Fail

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on default rules and argue that some of them are ineffective, or at least less effective than choice architects hope and expect, and emphasize two reasons: strong antecedent preferences on the part of choosers and successful "counternudges" which persuade people to choose in a way that confound the efforts of choice architects.
References
More filters

The Downside of Defaults

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the active versus passive behavior of participants in a large public retirement plan when faced with a choice between defined benefit and defined contribution plans, and find that participants who default are substantially more likely than active choosers to regret their plan selection, even relative to those who actively chose the same plan.