Nudges and sludges: The joint influence of decisiveness and political values alignment on perceived messaging effectiveness

The first experiment examined liberals’ responses to interventions framed around conservative values. Participants evaluated five nudges and five sludges addressing issues such as privatized healthcare and merit-based employment. Decisiveness was measured using the Need for Cognitive Closure scale, while political values alignment was determined through voting behavior and self-identified political affiliation. Results showed that highly decisive liberals judged sludges to be more effective than nudges in conservative-framed contexts, supporting the hypothesis that sludges promote reflection without overt persuasion. In contrast, nudges had limited impact in value-incongruent scenarios, challenging the assumption of their universal effectiveness in shaping decision-making.

The second experiment tested interventions attributed to the Biden administration, all of which concerned neutral policy issues to isolate the effects of ideological framing. This design ensured that outcomes could be attributed to framing rather than the substantive policy content. Findings revealed that highly decisive conservatives found sludges more effective than nudges in liberal-framed contexts, again consistent with the idea that sludges encourage reflection without overt persuasion. As in the first study, nudges proved less effective in value-incongruent conditions, further questioning their presumed generalizability across ideological divides.