Do citizens support behavioural public policy?
This research brief was published through ANZSOG's The Bridge newsletter, which connects academic research with public sector practice. It provides a concise summary of a piece of research relevant to public sector professionals.
An article in Public Management Review explores citizens’ support for behavioural interventions. It distinguishes between:
interventions that exploit the limits of human decision-making through choice architecture (Nudge)
those that address these limits by encouraging reflection through deliberative forums (Think).
The research shows that citizens are more willing to support think rather than nudge. However, both approaches enjoy greater support when there are high levels of trust in government.
About behavioural public policy
Behavioural public policy draws on insights into how citizens’ behaviour does not always accord with assumptions of rational decision-making. It uses this knowledge to design policies that improve outcomes. Nudging is one of the most well-known examples of behavioural public policy as it changes the choice environment to influence behaviour without restricting individuals’ options.
Nudging appeals to policymakers on several dimensions. It is regarded as cheaper by governments than other traditional forms of public policy (e.g. financial or regulatory ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots’). Nudges are usually based on credible evidence, often produced by randomised controlled trials. Finally, nudges are attractive because they aim to influence behaviour while preserving freedom of choice.
Nudge and think
A key focus of behavioural public policy is how people make choices. Behavioural policy theory argues that people’s choices are affected by predictable biases, and behavioural interventions seek to reduce or exploit these biases to help people make better decisions. For example, individuals may be encouraged to switch to cheaper electricity, opt for healthier food, co-produce in emergency preparedness or pay their tax on time. This approach is often termed ‘libertarian paternalism’ because individuals are guided towards preferred choices while remaining free to choose other options.
This emphasis on paternalism implies there is trust in government. Choice architecture is central to nudge-based policy as it shapes how choices are presented to help people make decisions. It also relies on the skills and knowledge of policymakers as choice architects and assumes a certain level of trust by the public.
Effective implementation of nudges relies on people responding passively to the selected choice by the policymaker. An alternative is to actively involve citizens in discussing policy goals and how policies should be implemented. Known as ‘think’, this approach encourages participation, deliberation and reflection.
According to the think perspective, individuals’ preferences are not seen as fixed, rational or irrational. Instead, preferences are dynamic and can be influenced by the process through which they are formed. Firstly, individuals participating in deliberative processes are exposed to new information which can update their preferences. Secondly, the public nature of the process encourages individuals to carefully consider how to justify their own preferences while listening to others’ justifications.
Trust in government
Citizens’ level of trust may influence whether they support behavioural interventions. This matters because effective public policy depends on public acceptance of government action.
Research provides mixed evidence about whether government transparency increases or decreases citizens’ trust. In the case of nudges, transparency means citizens know that government is changing the choice environment to influence their decisions. Transparent nudges may be considered more ethical and can remain effective, but they may generate less trust than approaches based on participation and deliberation.
People are more likely to accept government attempts to influence their choices when they trust the policymakers designing the intervention. Therefore, higher levels of trust in government are expected to increase public support for nudges, while lower levels of trust may make them less acceptable.
Trust in government is expected to matter less for think than for nudge. When trust in government is low, citizens may be more interested in participating directly in policy decisions. When trust is high, they may feel less need to participate because they are more willing to leave decisions to government.
Nudge vs think
The research found individuals are more supportive of active rather than passive engagement. There is a significantly higher degree of support for think-related over nudge-based interventions, even though the perceived likelihood of ‘success’ is broadly similar.
Trust in government also influences support for policy interventions and perceptions of their effectiveness. Both think and nudge fare similarly in high‑trust environments. However, both approaches enjoy greater support when participants express higher levels of trust in government. This effect is even stronger for nudges.
Where behavioural policies are being applied also matters. Support for behavioural policies increases as overall agreement with the policy objective increases. The preference for active engagement, compared to passive engagement, is weaker when the policy goal is more controversial.
The bottom line
Policymakers need to consider the context when using behavioural interventions. When people have low trust in those designing policies, they may be less willing to respond in the intended way. In these situations, think approaches may attract more support. However, people may be less willing to participate in deliberation when an issue is highly contested. This means there is no single approach that works best in every context.
Want to read more?
Citizens’ support for behavioural public policy and trust in government: evidence from two online experiments – Paolo Belardinelli and Martin Lodge, Public Management Review, August 2026