# "Recommendations1.Systematic analyses are needed that examine the ethics and behavioral consequences of designing affective systems to nudge human beings prior to deployment.2.The user should be empowered, through an explicit opt-in system and readily available, comprehensible information, to recognize different types of A/IS nudges, regardless of whether they seek to promote beneficial social manipulation or to enhance consumer acceptance of commercial goals. The user should be able to access and check facts behind the nudges and then make a conscious decision to accept or reject a nudge. Nudging systems must be transparent, with a clear chain of accountability that includes human agents: data logging is required so users can know how, why, and by whom they were nudged.3.A/IS nudging must not become coercive and should always have an opt-in system policy with explicit consent.4.Additional protections against unwanted nudging must be put in place for vulnerable populations, such as children, or when informed consent cannot be obtained. Protections against unwanted nudging should be encouraged when nudges alter long-term behavior or when consent alone may not bea sufficient safeguard against coercionor exploitation.5.Data gathered which could reveal an individual or groups’ susceptibility to a nudge or their emotional reaction to a nudge should not be collected or distributed without opt-in consent, and should only be retained transparently, with access restrictions in compliance with the highest requirements of data privacy and law.

## Further Resources

• R. Thaler, and C. R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decision about Health, Wealth and Happiness, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
  

• L. Bovens, “The Ethics of Nudge,” in Preference change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology, T. Grüne-Yanoff and S. O. Hansson, Eds., Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008 pp. 207–
  

• S. D. Hunt and S. Vitell. "A General Theory of Marketing Ethics." Journal of Macromarketing, vol.6, no. 1, pp. 5-16, June
  

• A. McStay, [Empathic Media and Advertising: Industry, Policy, Legal and Citizen Perspectives (the Case for Intimacy)](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/
  

• 1177/2053951716666868), Big Data & Society, pp. 1-11, December
  

• J. de Quintana Medina and P. Hermida Justo, “Not All Nudges Are Automatic: Freedom of Choice and Informative Nudges.” Working paper presented to the European Consortium for Political Research, Joint Session of Workshops, 2016 Behavioral Change and Public Policy, Pisa, Italy,
  

• M. D. White, _[The Manipulation of Choice. Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism. ](http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/
  

• 1057/9781137313577)_New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013

• C.R. Sunstein, The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. New York: Cambridge, 2016

• M. Scheutz, “The Affect Dilemma for Artificial Agents: Should We Develop Affective Artificial Agents? ” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, _vol. _3, no. 4,pp. 424–433,Sept.
  

• A. Grinbaum, R. Chatila, L. Devillers, J.G. Ganascia, C. Tessier and M. Dauchet. “Ethics in Robotics Research: CERNA Recommendations,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, _vol. _24, no. 3,pp. 139–145, Sept.
  

• “Designing Moral Technologies: Theoretical, Practical, and Ethical Issues” Conference July 10–15, 2016, Monte Verità, Switzerland"p.96-97
  
  ## "Recommendations1.As more and more computing devices subtly and overtly influence human behavior, it is important to draw attention to whether it is ethically appropriate to pursue this type of design pathway in the context of governmental actions.2.There needs to be transparency regarding who the intended beneficiaries are, and whether any form of deception or manipulation is going to be used to accomplish the intended goal.
  
  ## Further Resources

• J. Borenstein and R. Arkin, “[Robotic Nudges: Robotic Nudges: The Ethics of Engineering a More Socially Just Human Being Just Human Being.](https://link.springer.com/article/
  

• 1007/s11948-015-9636-2?no-access=true)” Science and Engineering Ethics, _vol. _22, no. 1,pp. 31–46, Feb.
  

• J. Borenstein and R. Arkin. “[Nudging for Good: Robots and the Ethical Appropriateness of Nurturing Empathy and Charitable Behavior ](https://link.springer.com/article/
  

• 1007/s00146-016-0684-1?no-access=true).” AI and Society, _vol. _32, no. 4, pp. 499–507, Nov.
  

• "p.97-98"
  

• Consideration should be given to the development of a system of technical licensing (“permits”) or other certification from governments or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that can aid users to understand the nudges from A/IS in their lives.2.User autonomy is a key and essential consideration that must be taken into account when addressing whether affective systems should be permitted to nudge human beings.3.Design features of an affective system that nudges human beings should include the ability to accurately distinguish between users, including detecting characteristics such as whether the user is an adult or a child.4.Affective systems with nudging strategies should incorporate a design system of evaluation, monitoring, and control for unintended consequences.
  
  ## Further Resources

• J. Borenstein and R. Arkin, “[Robotic Nudges: ](https://link.springer.com/article/
  

• 1007/s11948-015-9636-2?no-access=true)[Robotic Nudges: The Ethics of Engineering a ](https://link.springer.com/article/
  

• 1007/s11948-015-9636-2?no-access=true)[More Socially Just Human Being Just Human Being.](https://link.springer.com/article/
  

• 1007/s11948-015-9636-2?no-access=true)” Science and Engineering Ethics, _vol. _22, no. 1, pp. 31–46,
  

• R. C. Arkin, M. Fujita, T. Takagi, and R. Hasegawa, “An Ethological and Emotional Basis for Human- Robot Interaction.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, _vol. _42, no. 3–4 pp.191–201, March
  

• S. Omohundro “[Autonomous Technology and the Greater Human Good.](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
  

• 1080/0952813X.
  

• 895111?journalCode=teta20)” _Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, vol. _26, no. 3, pp. 303–315,
  

• "p.102"Deception is commonplace in everyday human-human interaction. According to Kantian ethics, it is never ethically appropriate to lie, while utilitarian frameworks indicate that it can be acceptable when deception increases overall happiness. Given the diversity of views on ethics and the appropriateness of deception, should affective systems be designed to deceive? Does the non-consensual nature of deception restrict the use of A/IS in contexts in which deception may be required?It is necessary to develop recommendations regarding the acceptability of deception performed by A/IS, specifically with respect to when and under which circumstances, if any,it is appropriate.1.In general, deception may be acceptable in an affective agent when it is used for the benefit of the person being deceived, not for the agent itself. For example, deception might be necessary in search and rescue operations or for elder- or child-care.2.For deception to be used under any circumstance, a logical and reasonable justification must be provided by the designer, and this rationale should be certified by an external authority, such as a licensing bodyor regulatory agency.
  
  ## Further resources

• R. C. Arkin, “Robots That Need to Mislead: Biologically-inspired Machine Deception.” _IEEE Intelligent Systems _27, no. 6, pp. 60–75,
  

• J. Shim and R. C. Arkin, “Other-Oriented Robot Deception: How Can a Robot’s Deceptive Feedback Help Humans in HRI?” Eighth International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR 2016), Kansas, MO., November
  

• J. Shim and R. C. Arkin, “The Benefits of Robot Deception in Search and Rescue: Computational Approach for Deceptive Action Selection via Case-based Reasoning.” 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR 2015), West Lafayette, IN, October
  

• J. Shim and R. C. Arkin, “A Taxonomy of Robot Deception and its Benefits in HRI.” _Proceedings of IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Conference, _Manchester England, October
  

• "p.103