In the dim glow of a smartphone screen at 2 a.m., you’re scrolling through an endless feed of videos. You know you should stop, but the algorithm has other plans. It’s not just serving you content—it’s guiding your behaviour, nudging you to keep watching, keep clicking, keep engaging. Welcome to the world of behavioural science in tech, where the gentle nudge has evolved into something more powerful, and perhaps more insidious: the shove.

The Birth of the Nudge

The concept of the nudge was popularised by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their 2008 book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. A nudge, as they defined it, is a subtle intervention that steers people towards certain decisions while preserving their freedom to choose. It’s the reason why you’re more likely to buy a chocolate bar at the checkout counter, or why default options in retirement plans lead to higher savings rates.

In the tech world, nudges quickly found their place. They were the perfect tool for enhancing user experience, gently guiding users towards desired actions without being overtly manipulative. Think of those unobtrusive reminders to update your software, or the polite suggestion to subscribe to a newsletter. These were nudges in their purest form—helpful, often welcome, and almost invisible.

But as the tech landscape evolved, so did the use of behavioural science. What began as gentle nudging has, in some cases, morphed into something more forceful—a shift from influencing choice to directing behaviour.

The Shift to Shoves

The transition from nudges to shoves represents a significant evolution in how tech companies approach user engagement. While nudges work by subtly influencing decisions, shoves push users towards a specific outcome, often with less regard for their autonomy.

Take the autoplay feature on streaming platforms like Netflix. What started as a convenience—automatically playing the next episode in a series—has become a powerful tool to keep viewers glued to their screens. It’s a classic example of a nudge becoming a shove. The choice to continue watching is technically yours, but the platform makes it so effortless that it becomes harder to resist.

Another example is the use of push notifications. Originally intended to alert users to important updates or messages, these notifications have evolved into persistent demands for attention. From reminders of unused discounts to prompts about unfinished tasks in apps, these shoves are designed to exploit our fear of missing out (FOMO) and drive us back into the app’s ecosystem.

These tactics are effective, no doubt. But they raise important ethical questions about the role of tech in shaping our behaviour. When does a nudge cross the line into manipulation? And as tech companies continue to refine these strategies, what does this mean for user autonomy?

The Ethical Implications

The rise of shoves in tech has sparked a growing debate about the ethics of behavioural science. While nudges are generally seen as benign—if not beneficial—shoves tread a finer ethical line. They often involve more direct interventions in users’ decision-making processes, sometimes without their explicit consent.

One of the most contentious examples of this is dark patterns—design elements that trick users into taking actions they might not otherwise choose. These can range from making it difficult to unsubscribe from a service, to pre-selecting options that benefit the company more than the user. Dark patterns are the epitome of shoves—aggressive, often deceptive, and ethically dubious.

But not all shoves are inherently negative. In some cases, they can be used to promote positive behaviour. For instance, health apps that send persistent reminders to exercise or meditate are technically shoves, but they aim to improve the user’s well-being. The challenge lies in ensuring that these interventions are transparent, consensual, and genuinely in the user’s best interest.

This brings us to the crux of the ethical dilemma: who decides what’s best for the user? When tech companies design interventions that guide our behaviour, they’re making decisions about our lives—decisions that we might not even be aware of. This power dynamic raises questions about the balance between innovation and user protection.

The Future of Behavioural Science in Tech

As behavioural science continues to evolve, so too will its applications in the tech industry. The future will likely see a more sophisticated integration of these techniques, with AI and machine learning playing a central role. These technologies will enable even more personalised and effective shoves, as algorithms learn to predict and influence our behaviour with increasing precision.

Imagine a fitness app that not only reminds you to exercise but also adjusts its messaging based on your mood, detected through data from your smartwatch. Or a shopping platform that tailors its recommendations based on your browsing history, purchase patterns, and even the time of day. These aren’t far-off possibilities—they’re already on the horizon.

But with this increased capability comes increased responsibility. Tech companies must navigate the fine line between enhancing user experience and infringing on user autonomy. This will require a new framework for ethical design—one that prioritises transparency, consent, and user well-being.

Building a New Ethical Framework

To strike the right balance between innovation and ethics, tech companies can adopt several key principles:

1. Transparency: Users should be fully informed about how behavioural science is being used to influence their decisions. This includes clear explanations of why certain nudges or shoves are being implemented and what the intended outcomes are.
2. Consent: Users should have the option to opt-in or out of behavioural interventions. This empowers them to take control of their experience and ensures that they are not unknowingly subjected to manipulative tactics.
3. User-Centric Design: Interventions should be designed with the user’s best interest in mind. This means prioritising actions that enhance well-being, rather than simply driving engagement or profit.
4. Accountability: Tech companies should be held accountable for the impact of their interventions. This includes regular assessments of how behavioural science is being used and the potential unintended consequences.

The Role of Regulation

In addition to self-regulation, there is also a growing role for government regulation in this space. As tech companies wield increasing influence over our behaviour, regulators may need to step in to ensure that these practices are in line with ethical standards.

This could involve setting guidelines for the use of behavioural science in tech, as well as establishing clear boundaries for what constitutes acceptable practice. It’s a delicate balance—regulation should protect users without stifling innovation.

Conclusion: The Double-Edged Sword of Behavioural Science

Behavioural science in tech is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it has the potential to create more personalised, intuitive, and engaging experiences. On the other, it can be used to manipulate and control, often in ways that are invisible to the user.

The evolution from nudges to shoves reflects a broader trend in tech—one that prioritises short-term engagement over long-term trust. As we move forward, it’s crucial that we ask ourselves: what kind of relationship do we want to have with our technology? Should it serve us, or should we serve it?

Ultimately, the goal of behavioural science should be to empower users, not control them. By adhering to ethical principles and prioritising user well-being, tech companies can harness the power of behavioural science to create technology that enhances our lives, rather than diminishes them.

In this rapidly evolving landscape, it’s up to all of us—users, designers, and regulators alike—to ensure that the future of tech is one that respects our autonomy, honours our choices, and truly serves the greater good.