Should we nudge people into screening?
The help-bad-choosers argument says nudges fix deficient choosers; epistemic risk in screening (being wrong in knowledge-making, including false positives) undercuts that defence and even opt-out’s autonomy.
Source
Why we should not "help bad choosers:" screening, nudging, and epistemic risk
What they did
The author defines nudging as designing choice environments to raise screening uptake, states the HBCA, then introduces epistemic risk as the risk of being wrong in knowledge-producing practices. Value judgments about which errors to tolerate fall on physicians and decision-makers.
What they found
HBCA looks like a strong reason to nudge despite autonomy/consent worries, but epistemic risk makes it doubtful that opting out is fully autonomous and that nudges simply help bad choosers toward their own good.
The limits
What it doesn't show
This is a principle paper about screening programmes, not a trial of a specific nudge. It does not quantify false-positive rates itself.
Key terms
- HBCA
- Help-bad-choosers argument: appropriate nudges help people with choice-related deficiencies choose better.
- Nudging
- Deliberate design of choice environments so people pick the architect’s favoured option more often.
- Epistemic risk
- Risk of being wrong in knowledge-producing practices, including screening errors such as false positives.
- Opt-out autonomy
- The claim that leaving a default is a fully autonomous choice — doubted here under epistemic risk.
Flashcards
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
HBCA says nudges?
Common questions
What is HBCA?
Nudging can help ‘bad choosers’ make choices more in their interests.
What is epistemic risk?
The risk of being wrong during knowledge-producing practices.
Why it blocks HBCA in screening?
Screening errors and value-laden error trade-offs mean nudges are not a clean help to knowers.
More on Informed consent