Beyond Nudging: Expanding the Impact of Behavioural Science
Behavioural science confronted critiques about replicability, scientific validity, political misuse, and the outsized claims of overzealous "nudgepunks"
Behavioural science’s popularity burst onto the scene in the 2000s, promising new insights into human behaviour and decision-making based on research in psychology, neuroscience, and economics. The core idea - that subtle factors can predictably influence our actions - generated great excitement. But as with any fast-rising field, we must view early claims critically and continually re-assess the evidence. While behavioural science offers real value, hype cycles & modern social media “influencers”often distort public understanding. What future pathways can help behavioural science positively impact organisations?
The Basics of Behavioural Science
Behavioural science explores the psychological, emotional, cultural and social factors shaping human behaviour beyond strict rationality. It draws on empirical research documenting mental shortcuts, biases, heuristics, motivations, social influences, and habit. The field blossomed with psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's work on cognitive biases. It expanded into behavioral economics, pioneered by Richard Thaler, showing how emotions and social preferences violate economic assumptions.
These insights contrasted with prevailing models of perfect rationality. Behavioural scientists aimed to explain and predict real human behaviour, in all its messiness. The core revelation was that subtle "nudges" to choice architecture could profoundly influence actions without mandating them. Given freedom, our decisions depend heavily on what is salient, how options are framed, what is defaulted, and what is socially cued. Seemingly insignificant tweaks to environment can alter behaviour. This view point goes hand in hand with ecological psychology and Lewin’s view of behaviour being a function of both person and environment (b=(p,e).
The Appeal and Hype of Nudging
This idea of "nudging" took off rapidly in the late 2000s, popularised by Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book Nudge. The concept was simple yet profound - small design changes could steer choices while preserving freedom. With light-touch intervention, governments and companies could make society healthier, wealthier, and happier.
Popularity boomed thanks to several factors. First, early nudges like automatically enrolling people into savings or organ donation programs showed massive impact. Second, the approach appeared to require no coercion, aligning with liberal values. Third, new political incentives favored low-cost, market-friendly policy solutions with slim chances of voter backlash.
Soon, dozens of countries established behavioral science teams to nudge citizens. Barack Obama and David Cameron became vocal advocates. Businesses also enlisted nudging to boost sales and performance. The UK's Behavioural Insights Team expanded globally, signing commercial contracts. Before long, nudge boasted near celebrity status. "Nudgepunks" saw revolutionary potential to fix the world's ills.
Yet most hyperbolic trends provoke skepticism, especially within science itself. Behavioral science has confronted credible concerns that ought to temper our enthusiasm and expectations.
Constructive Skepticism of Behavioural Science Claims
First, the replication crisis found that many benchmark psychology studies did not hold up. Several influential papers suggesting intuitive cognitive biases were retracted. This fueled doubts about the evidence base, though replicability has since improved. It also revealed publication bias - null results get buried, inflating perceived effects in meta-analyses. Even Kahneman in a recent interview said he would remove the whole chapter of priming from ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ due to bias and poorly designed studies underpinning the claims.
Second, critics argued behavioral interventions tended to focus narrowly on individual behaviors rather than systems. Improving lives required structural solutions to complex societal problems, not tweaks to messages or choice menus. For example, just shifting sweets around a shop, does not tackle the systematic issue certain parts of the world has with low quality high, caloric density food. There were also fairness concerns around covert nudging and manipulation of vulnerabilities. Who was in control?
Third, the politics made for strange bedfellows. Libertarians saw potential to influence behaviour while limiting regulations. But behavioural nudges could also serve as political placebos, substituting for substantive action on poverty or climate change. Cost-savings appealed to conservatives, but held risks too.
Finally, hype itself induced skepticism. Bold claims to revolutionize policy or "fix" bias raised suspicions. Nuance faded as terms like "nudge" became fuzzier and invoked reflexively to demonstrate sophistication. Ideas popularised often outpace evidential support and considered application.
These critiques demand humility and higher standards of applied behavioural science. But reasonable skepticism should not flip into outright dismissal. Carefully deployed, behavioral insights generate immense social value. The path ahead lies in improving practices to fulfill that potential.
The Future Trajectory of Applied Behavioural Science
Recent manifestos chart constructive ways forward for the field. They recommend expanding the range of issues behavioural science engages, not just service delivery. Techniques like human-centered design and participatory methods can make application of behavioural insights more inclusive and empowering. Clearer priority should go to enabling individual agency and welfare.
Organisationally, behavioural science principles need to permeate operations directly, not just reside within isolated teams. Learning loops and feedback infrastructure for the ongoing use of behavioural science offer promise. Digitised experimentation can make iterative adaptation more cost-effective.
Methodologically, the field must invest in replicating findings across diverse populations and settings. Effective framing likely depends heavily on culture and priming. Dedicated replication teams and registries can ensure key results remain robust before scaling. Standards for preregistering analysis plans improve credibility.
Perhaps above all, practitioners must remain intellectually humble and avoid panaceas. Behavioural science ought to complement, not displace, other disciplines contributing valid insights into human behaviour. Nor will nudging suffice alone to address complex challenges. Sustained, multi-dimensional efforts combining tools are essential.
Applied Wisely, Behavioural Science Benefits Organisations
Skepticism thus provides an invaluable normalising force against the golden apple trend I spoke of last week. But it should not preclude judicious application where behavioural science delivers value. Organisations stand to gain in at least four ways when respecting both potential and limits.
First, behavioural diagnosis can identify sources of internal friction and barriers to collective agility. People exhibit cognitive patterns that inadvertently impede organisational adaptivity. Targeted remedies to "bottlenecks" often yield great benefit.
Second, empirical training techniques improve staff skills found to require focused learning. Developing talents like statistical thinking, situational awareness, or creativity rarely emerges spontaneously. Research-backed teaching methods enable growth (remember experts don’t automatically make good teachers).
Third, behavioural design of workflows, environments, and choices can boost staff productivity, collaboration, and wellbeing. Too often, offices and systems ignore insights on comfort, engagement, ease, and motivation. Refining architecture pays off.
Finally, behavioural science aids implementation of technology, strategy, and change. Transformation falters when solutions misalign with human capabilities and preferences. Behavioural sensitivity helps ensure new initiatives take root through engagement and simplification.
Again, wisdom lies in carefully matching applications to genuine needs. Overzealous nudging breeds resistance. But thoughtfully incorporating behavioural perspectives generates outsized organisational rewards relative to required effort. The hype cycle should not obscure this reality.
In Closing
Behavioural science remains a young, evolving field still in the phase of piecing together an intricate puzzle. We must approach it with nuance, avoiding exaggerated claims that breed disillusionment. But reasonable skepticism should not give way to dismissive cynicism either. At its best, behavioural science expands understanding of our shared humanity and offers tools to help society flourish. Like any knowledge, its impacts depend on how wisely we choose to apply it. The future lies not in how broadly we can deploy behavioural concepts, but how deeply we can integrate them into solutions that work for real people.