Nudge vs. Boost: The Ethical Difference Between Two Strategies of Influence

The debate about soft paternalism is often reduced to a single word — nudge. But it has a less famous neighbour, one more respectful of autonomy: the boost.

The nudge and "libertarian paternalism"

The term "nudge" and the concept of libertarian paternalism were introduced by Thaler and Sunstein in their book "Nudge" (2008): a nudge changes behaviour predictably without forbidding options or significantly altering incentives (Nudge). The classic example is the arrangement of dishes in a cafeteria or a default option.

The boost: developing competence

Ralph Hertwig and Till Grüne-Yanoff (2017) contrasted nudges with "boosts" — interventions that develop a person's own competences for making decisions (Perspectives on Psychological Science). A boost does not choose for the person; it gives them a tool to choose better themselves.

Two psychologies

Nudges more often rely on cognitive biases and fast, automatic thinking; boosts strengthen skills and work through teachable capacities — for example, the ability to read risk in the intelligible format of natural frequencies rather than percentages (Hertwig, LSE).

Transparency and agency

The key dividing line is who retains agency. By design, a boost does not work "around" the user and requires their active participation, which makes it less vulnerable to charges of covert paternalism.

What remains once the intervention is removed

A practical test: a nudge's effect usually lasts as long as the choice architecture itself remains; a boost's effect should persist even after it is removed, because it is the person who changes, not merely their environment.

Application to interfaces

For digital design the distinction is fundamental: a "default nudge" is convenient for the platform and easily turns into a dark pattern, whereas a "boost" invests in the user's autonomy. The choice between them is a choice between directing a person and strengthening them.