As consumers in the world, we are surrounded by ploys and tactics that nudge us into certain behaviors. This is especially true during the holiday shopping season. If I had a nickel for every advertisement I saw that tried to get me to buy today’s hot new deal… well, I’d probably spend all my nickels.

Nudge theory suggests that subtle (or not-so-subtle) changes in how choices are presented to us will influence our decisions. For example, when candy bars are placed at the grocery store check-out counter, customers may be inclined to pick one up and add it to their cart. Why not? It’s right there, and a little chocolate never hurt anyone. Conversely, if the store wanted to promote healthy eating, they might put fruits and vegetables in an attractive display that is easy for customers to access. Either way, the store is shaping the environment to nudge you into making a decision.

The person or organization attempting to steer a decision is known as a “choice architect.” The choice architect may use any number of approaches to elicit a desired behavior. They may use an architecture that is simplified for the consumer—as in an insurance company providing two straightforward plans rather than many options to sort through. They may set default options—as in a smartphone manufacturer formatting the software in a way they think is best for the consumer. They may send reminders—as in a doctor’s office reminding you about your appointment today at noon. You can read more about these and other “important nudges” here.

The notion of nudges could imply that humans need a little help making the right choices. We’re faced with many decisions every day, and it can be mentally taxing. The choice architect attempts to lighten the cognitive load by swaying us in a certain direction. By making certain choices easier or more appealing, the architect can guide people toward better decisions without forcing them to think too hard. This idea of people conserving mental effort is known as the cognitive miser metaphor.

In a recent publication in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Aba Szollosi, Nathan Wang-Ly, and Ben R. Newell raised concerns about this theory. While the cognitive miser metaphor may explain some everyday behaviors, it may be overly simplistic and not capture the full range of human decision-making processes. Decisions are influenced by a complex interplay of cognitive, emotional, social, and contextual factors. Referring to humans as cognitive misers potentially downplays this process. The authors say this way of thinking

“assume[s] that people are biased, lazy thinkers who prefer to avoid engaging with problems whenever they can…. We outline an alternative perspective that treats people as actively thinking partners in their own behaviour change.”

Szollosi, Wang-Ly, and Newell (pictured above) argue that people actually like to think. Do you enjoy doing the Wordle every day? Then, you may be a thinker. Do you like the challenge of learning a new hobby (e.g., instrument, language, craft)? You may be a thinker. Do you like reading for fun, solving puzzles, or having a good debate? You may be a thinker.

When the tasks are meaningful, interesting, or personally rewarding, people are willing to invest significant cognitive effort. Thinking may even be an enjoyable and fulfilling experience. Szollosi and colleagues, therefore, suggest that a nudge can be effective if the choice architect and the decision maker are aligned on cognitive and motivational levels. The figure below illustrates how certain nudges could work depending on the alignment (or misalignment) between the choice architect and the decision maker.

A store may nudge customers to buy healthy foods, but those customers need to agree on what is healthy and that eating healthy is important. If they agree (green area in Figure 1), then the decision maker is cognitively and motivationally aligned with the choice architect. Therefore, a nudge may work well in this case.

When the alignment is somewhat lower (orange area in Figure 1), the choice architect can try to persuade the decision maker. They can do this by demonstrating that this choice is better than others (cognitive) or addressing a problem that the decision-maker had not considered previously (motivational).

When the alignment is very low (red area in Figure 1), the most effective nudges will be ones that threaten the decision maker, for example, with monetary fines or legal action.

The authors demonstrate that nudges should be designed and selected by considering the cognitive and motivational factors of the consumer. While this may seem self-evident, it can be very difficult to align these representations in topics where people have widely varying opinions (e.g., health concerns, finances, environmental impact).

The main takeaway from the featured article is an acknowledgment that people think and nudges work best when cognitive and motivational factors are aligned with the nudge. The authors present an important call to arms—that future research should focus on assessing representational alignment and using that assessment to develop effective nudges. Consider this a nudge for researchers in this area to take action. Read the full article for more nudging.

Featured Psychonomic Society article:

Szollosi, A., Wang-Ly, N., & Newell, B. R. (2025). Nudges for people who think. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02613-1