IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v18y2024i4p1426-1441.html

Deceptive choice architecture and behavioral audits: A principles‐based approach

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart Mills

Abstract

Regulators are increasingly concerned about deceptive, online choice architecture, including dark patterns and behavioral sludge. From a behavioral science perspective, fostering a regulatory environment which reduces the economic harm caused by deceptive designs, while safeguarding the benefits of well‐meaning behavioral insights, is essential. This article argues for a principles‐based approach and proposes behavioral audits as a tool to support this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart Mills, 2024. "Deceptive choice architecture and behavioral audits: A principles‐based approach," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 1426-1441, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:18:y:2024:i:4:p:1426-1441
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12590
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12590?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucia A. Reisch & Cass R. Sunstein, 2016. "Do Europeans like nudges?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 310-325, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ekström, Mathias, 2018. "The (un)compromise effect," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 10/2018, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 16 May 2018.
    2. Thomas Mariotti & Nikolaus Schweizer & Nora Szech & Jonas von Wangenheim, 2023. "Information Nudges and Self-Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2182-2197, April.
    3. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    4. Haoyang Yan & J. Frank Yates, 2019. "Improving acceptability of nudges: Learning from attitudes towards opt-in and opt-out policies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 26-39, January.
    5. Mark Harcourt & Gregor Gall & Margaret Wilson & Korey Rubenstein & Sudong Shang, 2022. "Public support for a union default: Predicting factors and implications for public policy," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 43(3), pages 1095-1118, August.
    6. Fasolo, Barbara & Heard, Claire & Scopelliti, Irene, 2024. "Mitigating cognitive bias to improve organizational decisions: an integrative review, framework, and research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125404, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Yahya Alshamy, 2025. "Mind the cultural gap: cultural contingency of behavioral interventions," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 24(2), pages 739-752, December.
    8. Nikil Mukerji & Adriano Mannino, 2023. "Nudge Me If You Can! Why Order Ethicists Should Embrace the Nudge Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(2), pages 309-324, August.
    9. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    10. Danuta Miłaszewicz, 2022. "Survey Results on Using Nudges for Choice of Green-Energy Supplier," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Björn Bartling & Krishna Srinivasan, 2025. "Paternalistic Interventions: Determinants of Demand and Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 11886, CESifo.
    12. Eyal Pe’er & Yuval Feldman & Eyal Gamliel & Limor Sahar & Ariel Tikotsky & Nurit Hod & Hilla Schupak, 2019. "Do minorities like nudges? The role of group norms in attitudes towards behavioral policy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 40-50, January.
    13. Houdek, Petr, 2024. "Nudging in organizations: How to avoid behavioral interventions being just a façade," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    14. Cadario, Romain & Chandon, Pierre, 2019. "Viewpoint: Effectiveness or consumer acceptance? Tradeoffs in selecting healthy eating nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-6.
    15. Karola Bastini & Rudolf Kerschreiter & Maik Lachmann & Matthias Ziegler & Tim Sawert, 2024. "Encouraging Individual Contributions to Net-Zero Organizations: Effects of Behavioral Policy Interventions and Social Norms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(3), pages 543-560, July.
    16. Mark Harcourt & Gregor Gall & Margaret Wilson, 2023. "The effects of public goods framing for a union default policy," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 44(4), pages 1197-1221, November.
    17. Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury, 2022. "The ethics of nudging: Using moral foundations theory to understand consumers' approval of nudges," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 703-742, June.
    18. Rinat Hilo‐Merkovich & Eyal Peer & Yuval Feldman, 2024. "Affidavit aversion: Public preferences for trust‐based policy instruments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 970-986, July.
    19. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised May 2025.
    20. Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:18:y:2024:i:4:p:1426-1441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.