An experimental investigation into whether choice architecture interventions are considered ethical.

Despite their increasing use, choice architecture interventions have faced criticism for being possibly manipulative and unethical. We empirically explore how an intervention's acceptability differs by the type of intervention used, by the domain, and by the way in which its implementation and benefits are explained. We employ a 5 × 5 × 5 factorial design with three fully crossed predictor variables: domain, type of intervention, and explanation. We measure participants' acceptance of the proposed intervention, perceived threat to autonomy and freedom of choice, and belief that the intervention will be successful. We hypothesized that acceptability of the intervention and perceived threat to autonomy will change as a function of the type of intervention used, the domain in which it is implemented, and the rationale for which its use is presented. We find that acceptability of the intervention, perceived threat to autonomy, and belief that the intervention will be successful differ by the type of intervention used and by the domain in which it is implemented. The rationale for the use of the intervention appears to change acceptability of the intervention depending on the type of intervention that is being used, and the domain in which it is implemented. Exploratory analyses were conducted to investigate differences between specific levels within factors, and interactions between factors. Given the variation in acceptability across the three factors, we believe that the discourse about the ethics of choice architecture should avoid generalizations and should instead be at the level of individual interventions in a specific situation. We conclude with a discussion about areas for future research. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 14 October 2022. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21758666 .