@article{Lemken:307568,
      recid = {307568},
      author = {Lemken, Dominic},
      title = {When do defaults stick and when are they ethical?  -  taxonomy, systematic review and design recommendations},
      address = {2020-11-26},
      number = {2386-2020-1297},
      series = {2001},
      pages = {35},
      month = {Nov},
      year = {2020},
      note = {•Universal Design recommendations •Elaboration of the  issue of undesirable defaults in daily lives •Several  research gaps in designing default nudges},
      abstract = {In many instances, default nudges are proven to be strong  drivers of behavior. However, a number of ethical concerns  have been raised. Both, nudge success and ethical concerns,  depend heavily on the features of the default nudge, with  some of them being shared by defaults in all settings. We  systematically review the scientific literature on default  nudges from various disciplines and investigate nudge  success and ethical concerns with respect to seven main  features: (1) the initial state of the choice architecture,  (2) the invasiveness, (3) the psychological effect  mechanism, (4) the purpose, (5) the visibility, (6) the  customization, and (7) the disclosure of the default. When  designing a default, as researcher or practitioner, a full  consideration of these features is advised. Often enough,  choice architects are not aware of the design options. In a  nutshell, the welfare losses suffered through the initial  choice architecture are often overlooked. Customizations  and disclosures of defaults are scarcely used despite  easing ethical concerns without negatively affecting nudge  success. The psychological effect mechanism, with several  ethical implications, remains a theoretical relict that is  not empirically researched. Default framing in combination  with a choice structuring default can lead to greater nudge  success.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/307568},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.307568},
}