Behavioral science has long tried to understand why people sometimes struggle to make decisions that align with their goals. Early behaviorist psychology, represented by B. F. Skinner, focused mainly on observable behavior rather than internal mental processes. Later research began examining how people think and make judgments under uncertainty. This work showed that individuals often rely on heuristics, or simple mental shortcuts, which allow quick decisions but can also lead to systematic errors known as cognitive biases. People may also struggle with self-control, which can lead to automatic choices, inaction, or difficulty following long-term goals (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Because human reasoning and self-control are limited, especially in complex environments, behavioral economists proposed influencing behavior by modifying the choice environment, an approach known as nudging (Kahneman, 2011).
An alternative approach is boosting, which focuses on strengthening people’s competences rather than steering their behavior directly. Boosts aim to help individuals develop skills and knowledge that allow them to make informed decisions aligned with their own goals. Unlike nudges, boosts are transparent and require individuals’ awareness and cooperation. People can decide whether or not to apply them, which preserves autonomy (Jachimowicz et al., 2019).
Research on ecological rationality further suggests that heuristics are not always flawed. In many situations, simple strategies can produce accurate judgments despite using limited information. In some cases, these strategies perform as well as—or even better than—more complex decision methods. Similar results have been found in machine learning, where simple and transparent models can outperform highly complex ones (Rudin et al., 2022; Semenova et al., 2022). Earlier psychological research even described the human mind as an “intuitive statistician,” capable of reasoning about uncertainty using principles similar to probability and statistics (Peterson & Beach, 1967).
Strengthening people’s cognitive and motivational capacities is closely related to Amartya Sen’s capability framework, which emphasizes human agency and the ability to reflect on one’s goals and values (Sen, 2002). From this perspective, nudging can raise ethical concerns because it may influence behavior without encouraging reflection. Boosts, in contrast, aim to improve people’s abilities so they can evaluate and guide their own decisions more consciously.
For boosts to work, individuals must have both the ability and the motivation to develop new competences (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). One example is self-nudging, where individuals design their own choice environments to support better behavior (Reijula & Hertwig, 2022). For instance, someone might place tempting foods out of sight to reduce temptation. Digital tools such as the app one sec can also support this approach (Grüning et al., 2023). Because individuals implement the intervention themselves, self-nudging respects autonomy and allows people to adjust or reverse their strategies whenever they wish.
Boosts can also target motivation and self-control. Techniques include expressive writing to process emotions (Pennebaker, 2018), attention and mental-state training to improve focus (Tang et al., 2022), psychological connectedness exercises such as writing to one’s future self (Hershfield, 2019), reward bundling to link long-term goals with immediate rewards (Ainslie, 2021; Kirgios et al., 2020), implementation intentions and mental contrasting to plan actions and overcome obstacles (Oettingen & Gollwitzer, 2010), precommitment strategies like restricted savings accounts (Bryan et al., 2010), and other self-control methods such as personal reward or penalty systems (Fishbach & Shen, 2014).
Empirical studies provide initial evidence that boosting interventions can be effective. Many studies offer proof-of-concept, demonstrating that people can learn and apply these strategies in controlled settings similar to efficacy trials in health research (Bauer et al., 2015). For example, simulations show that simple decision trees can support accurate decisions even under time pressure or limited information (Katsikopoulos et al., 2020), including contexts such as medical triage (Keller et al., 2020). However, learning these tools in controlled environments does not guarantee that they will always be applied in real-world situations.
This overview draws on the review by Herzog & Hertwig (2025), which summarizes how boosting approaches can empower individuals by strengthening the cognitive and motivational competences needed to make decisions that align with their goals while preserving autonomy.: Insights

References:

Ainslie, G. (2021). Willpower with and without effort. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, e30.

Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology, 3(1), 32.

Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2(1), 671–698.

Fishbach, A., & Shen, L. (2014). The explicit and implicit ways of overcoming temptation. In Dual process theories in the social mind (pp. 454–467).

Grüning, D. J., Riedel, F., & Lorenz-Spreen, P. (2023). Directing smartphone use through the self-nudge app one sec. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(8), e2213114120.

Hershfield, H. E. (2019). The self over time. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 72–75.

Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973–986.

Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. (2025). Boosting: Empowering citizens with behavioral science. Annual Review of Psychology, 76(1), 851–881.

Jachimowicz, J. M., Duncan, S., Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2019). When and why defaults influence decisions: A meta-analysis of default effects. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 159–186.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

Katsikopoulos, K. V., Simsek, O., Buckmann, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2021). Classification in the wild: The science and art of transparent decision making. MIT Press.

Keller, N., Jenny, M. A., Spies, C. A., & Herzog, S. M. (2020). Augmenting decision competence in healthcare using AI-based cognitive models. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.

Kirgios, E. L., Mandel, G. H., Park, Y., Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D. M., Kay, J. S., & Duckworth, A. L. (2020). Teaching temptation bundling to boost exercise: A field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 20–35.

Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2010). Strategies of setting and implementing goals: Mental contrasting and implementation intentions.

Pennebaker, J. W. (2018). Expressive writing in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 226–229.

Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68(1), 29.

Reijula, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022). Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(1), 119–149.

Rudin, C., Chen, C., Chen, Z., Huang, H., Semenova, L., & Zhong, C. (2022). Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges. Statistical Surveys, 16, 1–85.

Semenova, L., Rudin, C., & Parr, R. (2022). On the existence of simpler machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1827–1858).

Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Harvard University Press.

Tang, Y. Y., Tang, R., Posner, M. I., & Gross, J. J. (2022). Effortless training of attention and self-control: Mechanisms and applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(7), 567–577.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.