Environmental and social challenges are urgent, yet many nations grapple with underfunding and political stalemates. Imagine if we could innovate ways to tackle these issues effectively and economically without the burden of partisan politics!

Nearly two decades ago, we and our colleagues in behavioral sciences considered this a real possibility. We proposed a sophisticated idea: social issues often stem from individuals making “poor” choices, whether it’s unhealthy eating, smoking, or polluting the environment. Traditional approaches rely on taxes or bans, but our fresh perspective aimed to encapsulate a gentler, psychologically aware method. By rethinking how choices are presented, we could encourage healthier and more sustainable options, while still allowing access to alternatives.

“Nudges” were viewed as potential solutions, suggesting that societal issues could be mitigated through slight shifts in individual behavior. For instance, to combat obesity, we might reduce portion sizes and reposition salad bars at the forefront of cafeterias. To address climate concerns, why not default homeowners to renewable energy options?

Initially, it appeared we were on the verge of a nudge revolution. A team of researchers, including ourselves, sought to identify subtle modifications in “choice architecture” that could spur behavioral changes and ultimately result in major societal impacts. This presents a golden opportunity to leverage psychological insights for transformative progress.

Fast forward almost 20 years and progress remains stagnated, leaving many disappointed. When nudges do yield results, the effects are minimal, short-lived, and often fail to scale. Furthermore, emphasizing individual behavior as the primary lens for societal problems may inadvertently empower various corporate entities to resist the more traditional yet effective policy measures like taxation and regulation that reshuffle the foundational rules and incentives driving societal actions, jeopardizing their interests.

In hindsight, we realize this outcome shouldn’t come as a surprise, though it certainly was at the time. Given that human psychology has remained fundamentally unchanged, the social dilemmas we face arise from systemic shifts—not individual choices. Events like 200 years of fossil fuel reliance or the surge of ultra-processed foods over recent decades are to blame, and individuals alone cannot resolve issues like carbon emissions or unhealthy eating patterns. Moreover, a focus on individual behaviors risks distracting policymakers and the public from recognizing the need for systemic reforms and policy-driven solutions.

Correctly identifying the problem might lead to companies resistant to regulations fortifying individual-level responses that seem effective but fall short. This phenomenon is already observable, as evidenced by attention-grabbing concepts like our personal “carbon footprint.” This branding didn’t emerge from environmental movements or NGOs but originated from a massive PR campaign by BP, one of the globe’s leading fossil fuel corporations, in the early 2000s.

No matter the social or environmental challenge at hand, those opposing comprehensive change often redirect the responsibility back to individuals. As behavioral scientists, we must avoid this trap moving forward.

Behavioral scientist Nick Chater and George Loewenstein explore these themes in their new book, On You (WH Allen), released on January 27th.