Can gentle directions in the right way engage people with things that really matter?

Gentle directions in the right way (aka nudges) have proven effective as a policy instrument to steer desirable choices with immediate individual benefit. Classic concerns about nudges being manipulative and working in the dark have proven untrue: people are also nudgeable when directions are transparent and when they are encouraged to reflect on their choices. But what happens when we employ nudges to engage people with the greater good that transcends their own personal interest, when we try to involve them with societal transitions (e.g., the energy transition) that require deep commitment of many?

At a lunch talk hosted by Aarhus University, Professor Denise de Ridder discussed a series of studies examining how nudges operate in these critical cases (e.g. eating less meat for the sake of the planet, vaccination) and focus on what happens if people see no opportunity to act on the choice options provided to them. In these cases, nudges proved either ineffective or effective at the cost of personal autonomy. Denise de Ridder also discussed examples of a new type of nudges that invite people to consider meaningful options that are derived from situated cognition theory.