When to consider boosting: some rules for policy-makers

Abstract In recent years, public officials have shown a growing interest in using evidence from the behavioural sciences to promote policy goals. Much of the discussion of behaviourally informed approaches has focused on ‘nudges’; that is, non-fiscal and non-regulatory interventions that steer (nudge) people in a specific direction while preserving choice. Less attention has been paid to boosts, an alternative evidence-based class of non-fiscal and non-regulatory intervention. The goal of boosts is to make it easier for people to exercise their own agency in making choices. For instance, when people are at risk of making poor health, medical or financial choices, the policy-maker – rather than steering behaviour through nudging – can take action to foster or boost individuals’ own decision-making competences. Boosts range from interventions that require little time and cognitive effort on the individual's part to ones that require substantial amounts of training, effort and motivation. This article outlines six rules that policy-makers can apply in order to determine under which conditions boosts, relative to nudges, are the preferable form of non-fiscal and non-regulatory intervention. The objective is not to argue that boosts are better than nudges or vice versa, but to begin to spell out the two approaches’ respective conditions for success.

[1]  C. Abraham,et al.  From health beliefs to self-regulation: Theoretical advances in the psychology of action control , 1998 .

[2]  P. Gollwitzer Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. , 1999 .

[3]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Communicating Statistical Information , 2000, Science.

[4]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Do Defaults Save Lives? , 2006 .

[8]  David M Studdert,et al.  Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. , 2005, JAMA.

[9]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics , 2022 .

[10]  M. Johnston,et al.  From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques , 2008 .

[11]  Michael Pollan,et al.  Food Rules: An Eater's Manual , 2009 .

[12]  Antoinette Schoar,et al.  Keeping it Simple: Financial Literacy and Rules of Thumb , 2010 .

[13]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  Writing About Testing Worries Boosts Exam Performance in the Classroom , 2011, Science.

[14]  Graham Smith,et al.  Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: Using Experiments to Change Civic Behaviour , 2011 .

[15]  Lauren E. Willis,et al.  The Financial Education Fallacy , 2011 .

[16]  Gerry Stoker,et al.  Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think: Experimenting with Ways to Change Civic Behaviour , 2011 .

[17]  R. Rebonato Taking Liberties: A Critical Examination of Libertarian Paternalism , 2012 .

[18]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  Psa Screening: Some Background and Clinical Evidence Psychological Research and the Prostate- Cancer Screening Controversy , 2022 .

[19]  Ran R. Hassin,et al.  Can Consumers Make Affordable Care Affordable? The Value of Choice Architecture , 2013, PloS one.

[20]  C. Sunstein Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism , 2014 .

[21]  Stefan M. Herzog,et al.  Surrogate Decision Making , 2014, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Warning: You are about to be Nudged , 2014, Behavioral Science & Policy.

[23]  Raj Chetty,et al.  Active vs. Passive Decisions and Crowdout in Retirement Savings Accounts: Evidence from Denmark , 2012 .

[24]  Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women , 2015 .

[25]  Misha Eliasziw,et al.  Efficacy of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  Sebastian Lotz,et al.  Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs , 2015 .

[27]  Matteo M. Galizzi,et al.  Like ripples on a pond: behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy , 2015 .

[28]  Chris Arney Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2015 .

[29]  Susan C. Levine,et al.  Math at home adds up to achievement in school , 2015, Science.

[30]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior , 2015 .

[31]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  Nudge Versus Boost: How Coherent are Policy and Theory? , 2016, Minds and Machines.

[32]  M. Nestle Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning) , 2015 .

[33]  More than just food: a meta-analysis of family mealtime practices and children’s nutritional health , 2016 .

[34]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Lower parental numeracy is associated with children being under- and overweight. , 2016, Social science & medicine.

[35]  Hugh Silk,et al.  Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End. , 2016, Family medicine.

[36]  Andrew S. Hanks,et al.  Slim by Design , 2014, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[37]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Nudge vs. Boost: Agency Dynamics Under 'Libertarian Paternalism' , 2016 .

[38]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions , 2017, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[39]  Edoardo Lozza,et al.  The Ethics of Influence. Government in the Age of Behavioral Science , 2017 .