We were wrong about being able to ‘nudge’ people to improve the world

Our environmental and social problems are urgent, and in many countries money is tight and politics is deadlocked. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a new way to make real progress at a lower cost and without getting caught up in party politics?

About twenty years ago, we and many of our colleagues in the behavioral sciences thought this might be the case. The idea was elegant: social problems often arise from people making “bad” choices, either for themselves (eating unhealthily, smoking, gambling – the list goes on!) or for others (for example, damaging the environment by littering). The old-fashioned approach to bad choices is to tax them or ban them. But the new strategy aimed for a gentler, more psychologically subtle approach: rethinking the way options are presented so that the “right” choice becomes easy, natural and attractive. Bad choices are still available, but smart policy ensures they are chosen less often.

Such “nudges” seemed to offer hope of solving big social problems through small changes aimed at reshaping individual behavior. Are you worried about the rise in obesity? Try smaller portions and plates and move the salad bar to the front of the cafeteria. Concerned about climate change? Set homeowners to “green energy” by default.

For a time it appeared that a revolution might be on the cards. An army of researchers (including us) have been looking for small changes to “choice architecture” that could lead to changes in individual behavior and make a big difference to society. Now was our chance to use psychological knowledge for a better world.

If only. Nearly 20 years later, the results have been few and disappointing: even where nudges work, their effects are small, fade quickly, and generally do not spread. And it turns out that by reinforcing the idea that social problems should be viewed through the lens of individual behavior, researchers have inadvertently provided ammunition for powerful business interests who oppose the old-fashioned (but effective) policy tools of taxation and legislation, which fundamentally alter the system of rules and incentives that shape society—and could threaten their bottom lines.

Looking back, none of this should have surprised us (although it did). The social problems we face did not arise from changes at the individual level, since human psychology is surely largely constant throughout history. Instead, they are the result of seismic systemic changes, such as mechanization and electrification fueled by coal, oil and gas over two centuries, or the rise of ultra-processed foods over the past 40 years. These changes are not the responsibility of individuals – and individuals, no matter how well encouraged, cannot solve the problems of carbon emissions or unhealthy diets alone. Indeed, there is a real danger that the focus on the individual will be a distraction, misleading policymakers and citizens into believing that there is a viable alternative to these laws and taxes.

If we are right, we might expect that firms fighting regulation will be particularly active in inventing ineffective but seemingly plausible individual solutions. But wait, it’s already happened. Consider the personal “carbon footprint,” to help us track our individual damage to the planet. Where did this idea come from? The UN? Green peace? No, this came from a huge advertising campaign in the early 2000s by one of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies, BP.

Whatever the social or environmental problem, opponents of systemic change want to blame the problem on the individual. As behavioral scientists, we have fallen into the trap. Not anymore.

Behavioral scientists Nick Chatter And That of George Loewenstein the new book is It’s On you (WH Allen)released January 27