The bright side of transparent sludges: when friction promotes value-incongruent behavioral intentions

Abstract

Targeting behaviors that conflict with deeply held values remains a persistent challenge for behavioral science, particularly as polarization increasingly defines both political and everyday decision contexts. Prior research suggests that nudges (interventions that simplify decision-making) often struggle in value-incongruent domains. The potential of sludges (interventions that introduce friction) remains less well understood, especially when such interventions are implemented transparently and disclosed to decision-makers. Across two experiments spanning multiple behavioral domains, we examine whether decisiveness, a dispositional tendency toward rapid and confident decision-making, moderates the effectiveness of transparent nudges and sludges in value-congruent versus value-incongruent contexts. We find a systematic divergence. Among highly decisive individuals, transparent sludges increase behavioral intentions more than nudges when interventions target value-incongruent behaviors, but not when they target value-congruent behaviors. Among less decisive individuals, nudges and sludges are similarly effective across contexts. These findings indicate that transparent friction can facilitate engagement with value-incongruent options among individuals most inclined to reach closure quickly, without steering choice or obscuring influence. By identifying decisiveness as a moderator of intervention effectiveness in polarized settings, this research contributes to growing evidence of heterogeneity in behavioral interventions and highlights the importance of aligning choice architecture tools with both individual decision styles and value alignment. From a policy perspective, the results suggest that transparent, nondirectional frictions may offer a viable and ethical design option in contested domains where autonomy concerns are salient.