The Impact of Algorithmic Nudges on Self-Regulation and Task Acceptance in Gig Economies
Keywords:
algorithmic nudges, gig economy, self-regulation, task acceptance, algorithmic management, platform governance, behavioral designAbstract
The rapid expansion of digital labor platforms has given rise to sophisticated algorithmic management systems that not only allocate tasks and set remuneration but also increasingly deploy behavioral nudges to steer worker conduct. This paper presents a systemic investigation into how algorithmic nudges influence self-regulation and task acceptance among gig economy workers, moving beyond individual-level psychological inquiry to emphasize structural trade-offs, platform architectures, governance frameworks, and infrastructure-level implications. The analysis draws on interdisciplinary perspectives from information systems, behavioral economics, operations management, and science and technology studies to map the mechanisms through which real-time goal-setting prompts, dynamic incentive framing, and predictive just-in-time notifications reshape worker decision-making. It is argued that while nudges can temporarily boost platform liquidity and worker responsiveness, their pervasive deployment introduces significant risks, including the erosion of autonomous self-regulation, the inducement of cognitive dependency on algorithmic guidance, and the disproportionate exploitation of vulnerable worker populations. The paper examines the architectural design choices that encode nudge logics into platform infrastructures, highlighting the tension between optimization for short-term system efficiency and the long-term sustainability of worker livelihoods. Particular attention is devoted to fairness, transparency, and accountability in algorithmic nudging practices, with critical evaluation of existing regulatory approaches and proposals for participatory design mechanisms. By reframing algorithmic nudges as a socio-technical governance tool rather than a neutral design intervention, the study calls for a reorientation of platform policy toward infrastructures that support worker agency, resilience, and informed consent. The paper concludes with a forward-looking agenda for the co-design of nudge architectures that align platform business models with broader societal values of dignity and fairness in the future of work.
References
1. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56-75.
2. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1603-1612).
3. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
4. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14-29.
5. Min, X., Chi, W., Hu, X., & Ye, Q. (2024). Set a goal for yourself? A model and field experiment with gig workers. Production and Operations Management, 33(1), 205-224.
6. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758-3784.
7. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410.
8. Yeung, K. (2017). ‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118-136.
9. Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., & Neysen, N. (2020). Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 644-676.
10. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science, 64(3), 1155-1170.
11. Galiere, S. (2020). When food-delivery platform workers consent to algorithmic management: a Foucauldian perspective. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(3), 357-372.
12. Schor, J. B., & Attwood-Charles, W. (2017). The “sharing” economy: labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociology Compass, 11(8), e12493.
13. Kässi, O., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Online labour index: Measuring the online gig economy for policy and research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 241-248.
14. Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). The sharing economy and digital platforms: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 328-341.
15. Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Hands on the wheel: Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers’ autonomy. In Proceedings of the international conference on information systems (ICIS).
16. Shapiro, A. (2018). Between autonomy and control: Strategies of arbitrage in the “on-demand” economy. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2954-2971.
17. DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315-372.
18. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89.
19. Allon, G., Cohen, M. C., & Sinchcombe, W. B. (2022). The operations management of on-demand services. Production and Operations Management, 31(7), 2683-2700.
20. Veen, A., Barratt, T., & Goods, C. (2020). Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: A labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 34(3), 388-406.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Engineering Systems and Digital Innovation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.