Nudges are subtle design tweaks that help people make better decisions by adjusting how options are presented. They don’t remove freedom or add pressure, they simply make the better choice more intuitive. Whether it’s setting smart defaults, simplifying forms, or adding timely reminders, nudges are ideal when people are overwhelmed, distracted, or operating on autopilot. They work especially well for everyday decisions and quick actions.
Boosting, on the other hand, is about empowerment. It gives people the tools, knowledge, or strategies to make more informed decisions themselves. That might mean teaching simple heuristics, improving data literacy, or training teams to recognize cognitive biases. Boosts are ideal when the goal is long-term capacity, helping people navigate complexity, change, or uncertainty.
Why we use both
Nudging and boosting aren’t competing approaches, they’re complementary.
We use nudging to support behavioral change here and now.
We use boosting to build lasting decision-making competence.
In many of our projects, we combine the two: a nudge shapes the immediate behavior, while a boost helps people carry that change into future situations. This hybrid approach improves outcomes and strengthens autonomy. Whether we use a nudge, a boost, or both depends on a careful analysis of context, cognitive and behavioral barriers, and user motivation. At Nudgelab, we use our behavioral framework to identify what will be most effective and ensure every intervention is grounded in real insight and delivers measurable impact.
That said, combining nudges and boosts requires care. Poorly aligned interventions can backfire, e.g., a nudge that adds friction or reduces perceived autonomy can undermine the agency a boost aims to build. And a boost without supportive choice architecture can be ignored or forgotten. To avoid these crowding-out effects, we assess how each approach interacts in the specific context, making sure they reinforce rather than contradict one another.
Example: Where nudging meets boosting
A strong example of this approach comes from our work with No Isolation, the creators of AV1, a robot that helps children with long-term illness attend school remotely.
Despite the product’s clear value, municipalities were hesitant to invest. The challenge wasn’t the technology, it was how the decision was framed and understood by local decision-makers.
We began by mapping how municipalities actually make decisions, uncovering bottlenecks and the mindsets shaping their choices. From there, the nudging focused on shifting the narrative around AV1, not as a technical cost, but as a long-term investment in inclusion and student well-being. We also simplified the decision process and created tailored messaging, sales materials, and outreach strategies that aligned with the specific priorities and constraints of local decision-makers.
There was also a clear boosting component: the materials and processes we created were designed to strengthen municipalities’ own decision-making skills. Instead of simply guiding them toward choosing AV1, the boost helped them build the capability to evaluate and champion inclusive solutions more confidently in the future. Through this, decision-makers learned to reframe costs as value, navigate procurement barriers, and advocate for student-centered outcomes with greater clarity and confidence.
The result?
AV1 reached over 1,500 children, enabling more than 20,000 school days. This case shows how combining nudging (immediate support through reframing and simplification) with boosting (longer-term competence in inclusive decision-making) can create both short-term action and lasting impact.
Behavioral change that sticks
We believe meaningful behavioral change comes from both redesigning environments and investing in people. That’s why we don’t just guide decisions, we build capacity. Because when better choices become both easier and more informed, change doesn’t just happen, it lasts.
