Systematic review reveals conceptual inconsistencies across digital choice architectures, suggesting a standardized taxonomy to guide ethical and reproducible behavioral interventions.
Digital nudging interventions have emerged as soft-paternalistic mechanisms for reducing heuristic limitations and biases in decision-making environments. Prior research has conceptualized digital nudging interventions as subtle modifications in the decision-making environment that nudge a decision maker towards better choices without limiting other alternatives. The approach has received criticism as researchers have achieved limited consensus on its definition, categorized diverse behavior-modulation methodologies as digital nudging, and raised multiple ethical concerns about it. Such ambiguity reduces fidelity while challenging synthesis, application, and replication. In this paper, we posit the need to broaden the definition of digital nudging interventions, reconcile the inconsistencies, and present a coherent frame. Based on a systematic review of the extant literature, we propose an extended definition that is coherent with the libertarian-paternalistic principle, clarifying the intent of digital nudging interventions, and delineating the nature of the digital artifacts involved. We further present a taxonomy with standard vernacular and label its complex underlying principles and the components that can guide practitioners and researchers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhatt et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: