Watch out, nudging: a hot new bombshell has entered the villa.

As a response to the popular nudge theory, a principle in behavioral economics which uses subtle environmental changes to privilege a certain choice, boosts are behavioral policy interventions that empower people to make informed decisions by strengthening knowledge and decision-making skills, also referred to as competences.^1,2 These can include risk assessment, financial literacy, or even meditation and meal planning. By targeting factors underlying immediate behavior, boosts are designed to create lasting impact and preserve agency—the ability to make our own choices. 

What do boosts actually look like? Most often, boosts will provide additional knowledge and new strategies to help us make more informed decisions.¹ For example, a patient deciding whether to undergo a medical screening might be nudged toward the procedure with framing that emphasizes potential benefits. On the other hand, a boost might include a fact sheet detailing key outcomes and risks for either choice. Crucially, the information in a boost enhances decision-making, rather than swaying it. By using absolute numbers, minimally deceptive statistics or graphics, and other tactics, boosts equip decision-makers with the necessary tools, leaving the final choice up to the individual. 

Both nudges and boosts are rooted in bounded rationality, a concept that describes how we often settle for a choice that is “good enough” because of our limited cognitive capacity.^2,3  Nudges don’t just exploit flaws in our thinking; they also work with heuristics in beneficial ways, leveraging predictable biases to sway our behavior subconsciously. But our decision-making might not be as faulty as nudging makes it out to be (yay for us). While there certainly are limits to our cognitive capacities, boosts emerged from the view that our decision-making processes, even our mental shortcuts, are strengths that can be harnessed and developed.³ 

Unlike nudges, boosts need the decision-maker’s buy-in; it’s ultimately up to the decision-maker whether they’ll use the targeted competences to influence their behavior.¹ Cheeky opening aside, nudges and boosts have distinct (and often opposing) strengths and limitations, but that doesn’t mean they’re incompatible. Today, policymakers and researchers continue to investigate how we can use boosts and nudges together to influence behavior while preserving individual agency. Boosts are a powerful tool in the behavioral policy toolkit—the key is knowing when to use them. 

Nudge: A type of behavioral policy that influences decision-making by subtly altering the environment. Often operating without the decision-maker’s knowledge, nudges steer behavior in predictable ways without restricting possible choices. 

Behavioral Economics: A field that studies how people make decisions, particularly when those decisions diverge from optimized, rational behavior. Combining psychology and economics, it provides the groundwork for many behavioral policy interventions, including boosts and nudges.

Competence: A procedure or capacity to complete tasks successfully. Competence can refer to something specific, such as managing multiple bank accounts, or more general, such as judgment and reasoning.⁵

Bounded Rationality: A concept that describes how limits on our cognitive abilities lead us to satisfice (satisfy the minimum requirements), rather than optimize our decisions. In short, it means that we often settle for choices that are just acceptable rather than always looking for the single best option. 

Empowerment: The ability to take control of our own choices, claim our rights, and meaningfully participate in our communities. 

Libertarian Paternalism: A policy approach that seeks to influence people’s behavior for their own benefit while preserving freedom of choice. Providing the conceptual basis for nudges, critics argue it can be manipulative and restrict people’s autonomy. 

Boosts are a relatively recent product of behavioral economics, a field that emerged from traditional economics in the mid-20th century. Prior to this point, economic models assumed that humans were unconditionally rational and self-interested decision-makers—a principle illustrated by a hypothetical figure known as homo economicus, the “economic man”.² In 1955, scholar Herbert Simon challenged this idea with his concept of bounded rationality, arguing that human rationality is constrained by limited information and cognitive capacity. If you’ve ever made a choice you’ve later regretted when you’re tired or overwhelmed, you’ve probably experienced bounded rationality in action. 

While it may seem intuitive now, bounded rationality opened the door to new economic models that better capture how humans realistically make decisions. A couple of decades later, renowned psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky conducted revolutionary research on cognitive biases and heuristics, showing that our decision-making deviates from optimal in systematic and predictable ways.³ Building on Simon’s concept of bounded rationality, Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that humans use certain shortcuts to reach a satisfactory choice while conserving energy and filling in missing information, sometimes leading to erroneous or suboptimal decisions. 

Building on these foundational concepts, behavioral economics gained significant traction at the turn of the 21st century. Inspired by Kahneman and Tversky’s work, economist Richard Thaler solidified the field of behavioral economics as the intersection between psychology and traditional economics.⁶ In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein first formalized nudge theory, proposing that policymakers could leverage our biases to influence decision-making in predictable and beneficial ways.²³ Since then, nudges have gained massive influence, making their way into the toolkits of policymakers and behavioral scientists across the world.

Despite their star power, nudges have not escaped criticism. In particular, nudges promote libertarian paternalism, an approach that aims to influence decision-makers for their own gain while ultimately preserving their freedom to choose otherwise. Critics argue that this philosophy can be coercive and manipulative, undermining individual autonomy by assuming what’s best for people and covertly steering them toward certain decisions.^1,2 These ethical concerns have sparked significant debate between proponents and critics of libertarian paternalism—a debate that continues to this day.

In 2016, scholars Ralph Hertwig and Till Grüne-Yanoff introduced the concept of boosts as a counterpart to nudges, defining the term in their 2017 Behavioral Public Policy paper.³ Citing research that shows heuristics can be equally or more effective than optimizing strategies, Hertwig and Grüne-Yanoff propose that policies should extend people’s active decision-making capacities, rather than limiting them. For example, financial interventions should train individuals in basic accounting principles and shorthands, allowing them to take control of their financial goals rather than subliminally pushing them toward a specific outcome. As such, they propose an approach that transparently empowers people to make informed decisions, putting us back in the driver’s seat to decide what’s most beneficial. Rather than libertarian paternalism, boosts promote active participation and self-determination. 

Of course, boosts are not perfect interventions in themselves; the promise of transparency and individual agency brings unique challenges in influencing behavior change. Today, behavioral scientists and policymakers continue to research boosts and their most effective applications. Researchers are also investigating how nudges and boosts can be used together to harness the advantages of both.^1,7 Used intentionally, boosts can help us strike the careful balance between behavioral influence and personal autonomy. 

Herbert Simon

In the mid-20th century, influential American scholar Herbert Simon originated bounded rationality, laying the foundation for behavioral economics and modern public policy interventions. Renowned for his work on organizational and corporate decision-making, Simon made significant contributions to economics, mathematics, psychology, and computer science throughout his career.⁸ 

Richard Thaler

Regarded as a founding father of behavioral economics, Richard Thaler formalized nudge theory alongside legal scholar Cass Sunstein in 2008. Thaler was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2017 for his interdisciplinary work on predictable, real-world decision-making.⁶

Ralph Hertwig

In 2016, Ralph Hertwig pioneered the concept of boosts with researcher Till Grüne-Yanoff. His work examines bounded rationality, heuristic decision-making, and public policy measures. Hertwig is also Director of the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development.⁹

Till Grüne-Yanoff

Alongside Ralph Hertwig, philosopher Grüne-Yanoff co-authored the paper that first defined boosts as an alternative to nudge theory in behavioral economics.¹⁰ Also a professor and researcher, Grüne-Yanoff’s focus lies on the philosophy of science and decision theory. 

Despite being the new kid on the behavioral economics block, boosts are already shaping change across a myriad of applications, from healthy eating to digital literacy. By targeting the competences underlying behavior, boosts can complement existing policies and counteract manipulative tactics with long-term impacts. 

Sustained behavior change

Boosts are especially powerful in creating long-term behavior change on an individual level—an area where many interventions, including nudges, often fall short. Rather than targeting a specific decision, boosts foster decision-making abilities, which guide the thousands of choices we make every day. Long-term, cross-context changes are key for many welfare and lifestyle initiatives, including nutrition.^1,11 From government food and nutrition departments to school boards and individuals, decision-makers at all levels can leverage boosts to promote choices that build healthier lifestyles. 

Increasing the visibility of healthier food choices at restaurants or grocery stores can subtly nudge people toward more nutritious choices.¹² But what happens when we step outside of that specific environment, or we become desensitized to the nudge’s effect? Boosts can promote healthy eating competence and turn them into internalized, long-lasting habits. For example, teaching people to aim for color variety in their meals can facilitate nutritious choices by providing a helpful shorthand for prioritizing vitamin-dense foods.¹² As a result, we can take steps to “eat the rainbow” anywhere and anytime, whether we’re at a cafeteria or in our own kitchens. 

Self-nudging

If you’re familiar with nudge theory, you may have also heard about self-nudging—intentionally designing our environments to regulate our own behavior. Confusingly, Hertwig & Reijula classify self-nudges as boosts, since they’re driven by the decision-maker (ourselves). By leveraging mental shortcuts, self-nudges facilitate self-regulation competence and allow us to take control of our choices.^1,13 Our own brains are pretty predictable, and self-nudges allow us to take advantage of that. When we put a water bottle in a visible place as a reminder to stay hydrated, we’re using self-nudges as boosts to make informed choices that align with our goals and values.¹³ 

What makes self-nudges so useful for tangible behavior change? They often target intention-action gaps: the mismatches between our goals and our actual behaviors. For example, many of us struggle with getting enough exercise, even though we know that staying active has many long-term benefits, leading to a happier, healthier lifestyle. Despite this, we tend to gravitate towards short-term rewards, like staying in and watching TV. Self-nudges, like leaving our workout gear where we can see it, help make desired behaviors more convenient and memorable, increasing the likelihood that our actions will align with the values and intentions that matter to us. 

Combating misinformation

Whether intentionally malicious or accidental, misinformation can be difficult to spot online. As policymakers continue to develop strategies that target misinformation at its source, boosts can also help individuals identify false content on the receiving end. Researchers have developed numerous boost interventions to facilitate critical thinking and fact-checking competence, including simple shortcuts such as lateral reading—the practice of checking information across multiple independent sources.¹⁸

Alternatively, studies have shown that short videos detailing common manipulation tactics can improve people’s abilities to spot untrustworthy content.¹⁹ These boosts, along with many others, empower audiences to independently and confidently spot deceptive material online.

Since boosts were born from critiques of nudges, it’s likely no surprise that they’ve sparked several practical and ethical debates. Policymakers and researchers warn that without careful design and implementation, boosts can overemphasize individual responsibility for structural problems. Simultaneously, others question whether boosts are solving ethical concerns or creating new ones. 

Boosts vs. education

Even with their own catchy name, are boosts any different from plain, old education? Even though they were originally defined as a distinct class of intervention, boosts have also been referred to as “educative nudges,” emphasizing knowledge expansion. Additionally, boosts have also been called  “system-2 nudges,” referring to our slow, deliberate cognitive processes as described by Daniel Kahneman’s dual-process model.¹⁵ Today, researchers still debate the definition of a boost and how it differs from other behavioral interventions. 

Till Grüne-Yanoff, one of the boost’s originators, explicitly refutes the idea that boosts are educational or system-2 nudges.¹⁵ While boosts are often educational, they don’t have to be—and they don’t exclusively target slower processing either. Take, for instance, the “Dutch Reach” boost, a strategy that recommends people open their car doors with their far hand to avoid hitting cyclists coming from behind. By reaching over, the Dutch Reach automatically turns the head to look backward, forcing drivers and passengers to check for cyclists. This boost is quick, simple, and doesn’t involve educational tactics, but still encourages people to practice traffic safety and take control of their own habits. 

So, the boost’s creators have made their stance clear—but definitions often morph and evolve as they’re applied to different contexts. Indeed, nudges and boosts often rely on overlapping strategies and mechanisms, blurring the lines between the two concepts. Today, researchers are continuing to tease those differences apart, creating new opportunities for boosting in all its forms. 

Buy-in beware

A key tenet of boosting is prioritizing agency and allowing people to take control of their decisions. But is more agency always more ethical? The answer might change depending on the decision. Let’s revisit boosts for medical screening, like statistical representations of risks versus benefits for undergoing the procedure. It’s possible that more accurate information about risks turns people away from the screening, potentially leading to higher mortality.¹⁶ While agency is upheld in this scenario, would boosting still be more ethical than nudges toward screening, even if more people might suffer? The truth is, there’s no definitive answer. 

In public health and many other fields, finding the line between following expert advice and blind acceptance is difficult, and can sometimes be the difference between life and death. Taken to the extreme, these applications illustrate real tensions for boosts and when to use them. Philosopher Luc Bovens argues that, no matter boost, nudge, or outright shove, the implementation and context matter much more than the label.¹⁶ For policymakers and researchers, weighing these considerations and acknowledging the consequences is paramount. 

Overemphasizing individual responsibility

By prioritizing freedom of choice, boosts risk shifting responsibility—and in some cases, blame—for systemic issues onto individuals.¹ Whether it be nutrition, climate change, or access to healthcare, many initiatives using boosts are ultimately a culmination of individual behavior and systemic, institutional forces. Overemphasizing individual responsibility can obscure the larger systems-level changes needed to make meaningful change. For example, boosts can help us make more eco-conscious decisions, but shouldn’t obscure the fact that corporate and industrial actors are overwhelmingly the primary contributors of global carbon emissions.^1,17

Two things can be true: individual actions matter, and our lives are inextricably tied to the social, commercial, and political systems that surround us. Boosts are powerful tools to maximize our individual decision-making capabilities, but they can’t act alone; systemic changes need to be made as well. 

Counteracting exploitative online nudges

As much as our cognitive biases can be used to help us, they can also be used to manipulate us. Both online and offline, actors can leverage “dark nudges” to subconsciously steer people toward choices that aren’t necessarily in their best interests.¹ If you’ve ever gotten sucked into a social media platform or an addictive mobile game, you’ve probably encountered at least a couple of these tactics, designed to capture your attention (and your money). 

Boosts can help counteract these exploitative tactics by improving self-control, reasoning, and digital literacy competences.¹ They can be as simple as deleting alluring apps from your phone altogether, or they can be even more clever. In 2023, researchers assessed the effectiveness of “one sec,” an app that imposes a 10-second delay when users open another target app, such as a game or social media. After clicking on the target app, users are presented with a screen that encourages them to think intentionally and deliberately about their choices. Following the delay, users then have the option to exit or continue into the app. By slowing down smartphone usage, the app aims to promote self-directed, purposeful consumption.

Surveying 280 users across a six-week period, the study showed that one sec reduced actual target app openings by 57%.¹⁴ Further, opening attempts—clicks to open a target app— decreased with each week, indicating that the prolonged use of one sec reduced consumption even before the delay screen intervened. The results support the long-term, sustained effects of boosting, empowering users to regulate their digital behavior without restricting access to certain apps entirely. By putting the tools in the user’s hands, these interventions build protective habits that link motivation with intentional action. 

Hand hygiene

It’s hard to overstate the importance of good hand hygiene, especially for healthcare workers. Thorough handwashing is one of the simplest and most effective ways to prevent hospital-acquired infections in patients. However, many studies report hand hygiene compliance among physicians and medical professionals at less than 50%, underscoring a crucial area for improvement.²⁰ Low compliance is driven by a number of factors, such as time constraints and empty soap and paper towel dispensers. Several behavioral barriers also play a key role, including negative perceptions of protocol and optimism bias, which may lead staff to underestimate the risks of poor hand hygiene.²¹

In 2021, a group of Dutch researchers investigated whether nudge and boost interventions could improve hand hygiene among staff in local hospitals.^21,22 Employing protocol posters to be displayed, the researchers developed a nudge using the tagline “in good hands” to reframe protocol as a positive opportunity to care for patients. The boost posters targeted risk literacy by featuring facts about infection risks to facilitate informed decision-making.

Measuring compliance before, during, and after the intervention, the researchers found that the boosts led to significantly improved compliance that remained stable even after the posters were removed. Conversely, the nudges led to greater initial compliance, but the effects wore off quickly after intervention removal. All in all, these findings reinforce the strengths and limitations of boosts—specifically, that boosts may have smaller immediate effects but greater potential for long-term behavior change.

Giving People The Tools To Nudge Themselves 

By subtly leveraging known biases, self-nudges shape behavior while preserving agency and individual control. In this piece, writer Nathan Collett and researcher Samuli Reijula discuss how self-nudging can give power back to decision-makers.

Framing Effect 

Presenting and contextualizing information is a key aspect of all behavioral policy interventions, including boosts and how they differ from nudges. In this article, learn more about how the framing effect influences our decisions, for better or for worse.

1. Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. (2025). Boosting: Empowering Citizens with Behavioral Science. Annual review of psychology, 76(1), 851–881. 
2. Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 12(6), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496
3. Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016) Nudge Versus Boost: How Coherent are Policy and Theory?. Minds & Machines 26, 149–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9
4. Boosting decision-making skills. Max Planck Institute for Human Development. (2025, January 21). https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/press-releases/boosting 
5. American Psychological Association. (2018, April 19). Competence. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/competence 
6. Witynski, M. (n.d.). Behavioral Economics, explained. University of Chicago News. https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-behavioral-economics 
7. Igei, K., Kurokawa, H., Iseki, M., Kitsuki, A., Kurita, K., Managi, S., Nakamuro, M., & Sakano, A. (2024). Synergistic effects of nudges and boosts in environmental education: Evidence from a field experiment. Ecological Economics, 224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108279
8. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2025, June 11). Herbert A. Simon. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herbert-A-Simon
9. Max Planck Institute for Human Development. (n.d.). Ralph Hertwig. Staff. https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/staff/ralph-hertwig 
10. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. (n.d.). Till Grüne-Yanoff. Profiles. https://www.kth.se/profile/gryne 
11. Hertwig, R., Michie, S., West, R., & Reicher, S. (2025). Moving from nudging to boosting: empowering behaviour change to address global challenges. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–12. doi:10.1017/bpp.2025.9
12. Rouyard, T., Engelen, B., Papanikitas, A., & Nakamura, R. (2022). Boosting healthier choices. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 376, e064225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-064225
13. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. (2020, May 11). Using self-nudging to make better choices. From the Institutes. https://www.mpg.de/14796211/0507-bild-134137-using-self-nudging-to-make-better-choices 
14. Grüning, D. J., Riedel, F., & Lorenz-Spreen, P. (2023). Directing smartphone use through the self-nudge app one sec. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(8), e2213114120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213114120
15. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2025). Boosts are not Educative or System-2 Nudges. Mind & Society : Adaptive Behaviours under Risk and Uncertainty, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-025-00324-1
16. Bovens, L. (2025). The ethics of boost. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–8. doi:10.1017/bpp.2025.7
17. Solnit, R. (2021, August 23). Big oil coined “carbon footprints” to blame us for their greed. keep them on the hook | Rebecca Solnit. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook 
18. Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Ali, A., Bak-Coleman, J., Barzilai, S., Basol, M., Berinsky, A. J., Betsch, C., Cook, J., Fazio, L. K., Geers, M., Guess, A. M., Huang, H., Larreguy, H., Maertens, R., et al. (2024). Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(6), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0
19. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254
20. Squires, J. E., Suh, K. N., Linklater, S., Bruce, N., Gartke, K., Graham, I. D., Karovitch, A., Read, J., Roth, V., Stockton, K., Tibbo, E., Woodhall, K., Worthington, J., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2013). Improving physician hand hygiene compliance using behavioural theories: a study protocol. Implementation Science : IS, 8, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-16
21. Van Roekel, H., Reinhard, J., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021, October 18). Building the behavior change toolkit: Designing and testing a nudge and a boost . Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/building-the-behavior-change-toolkit-designing-and-testing-a-nudge-and-a-boost/ 
22. Van Roekel, H., Reinhard, J., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021). Improving hand hygiene in hospitals: Comparing the effect of a nudge and a boost on protocol compliance. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-23.
23. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge : improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.