Nudging Smarter Choices: Mario Herberz on Behavioral Science, Sustainable Decision-Making & Persuasion
- Sorina I. Crisan, PhD
- Jul 31
- 13 min read
Updated: Aug 1
In a world where our choices shape everything from personal habits to global sustainability, Mario Herberz, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Geneva and Behavioral Science Consultant based in Switzerland, unveils the subtle art of nudging and persuasion in this captivating interview for The Persuasive Discourse’s series “Educators: Academic, Non-Academic & Hybrid.” Through his groundbreaking research on consumer behavior, particularly in promoting electric vehicle adoption, Herberz reveals how behavioral science illuminates the hidden influences—cognitive biases and choice architecture—that guide our daily decisions. By mastering these tools, he argues, we can not only make smarter personal choices, like overcoming our tendency to prioritize short-term pleasures, but also drive collective action toward a sustainable future. Dive into this conversation to discover why understanding nudging is essential for navigating modern life and fostering a greener world.
Interview by Sorina I. Crisan – Matthey de l’Endroit, PhD
Question 1: How do you define nudging and behavioral sciences in your work?
Answer: The latest definition by Richard Thaler, widely regarded as the champion of nudging, states that it encompasses all interventions aimed at changing behavior in a direction desired by the individual, without restricting their freedom of choice or relying on substantial financial incentives.
Behavioral sciences can be defined in two ways. The basic research definition describes it as a collection of disciplines—marketing, psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral economics—united by their scientific investigation of the processes underlying behavior. The second definition, within the policy domain, views behavioral sciences as a lens for addressing policy issues. In this context, when people refer to behavioral sciences, they mean tackling social issues like poverty, climate change, or consumer rights with a focus on behavior and an empirical approach, which differs from traditional policymaking methods.
Question 2: How can behavioral sciences help us understand daily decision-making?
Answer: I think what’s really interesting about the influence of behavioral science, or how it helps us understand daily decision-making, is that it makes us aware of the influences on our behavior. Knowing behavioral research can help us, even when walking around town, realize how certain contexts are designed to guide our behaviors. For example, there are traffic lights, but also supermarkets built to make us spend more time inside. This choice architecture surrounds us every day, and we can become more aware of it.
Another aspect, on a cognitive level, is learning about cognitive biases and becoming more aware of those our decision-making may fall prey to. For instance, when thinking about time we want to invest in something far in the future, knowing behavioral sciences helps you prioritize long-term investments because you understand that, as humans, we are wired to prioritize immediate pleasure or benefits.
We struggle to focus on long-term goals and make the necessary investments for them. This example of present bias shows how studying behavioral sciences can be really useful.
Question 3: What does the term “choice architecture” mean in the context of your research?
Answer: The term choice architecture is somewhat synonymous with behavioral interventions, which can also be understood as nudging. But what’s different when you use the term choice architecture is that the emphasis is much more on the context in which you make a decision and even the structural aspects of those contexts. For example, how the elevator in a building is positioned compared to the stairs, will influence whether people take the stairs or the elevator. That’s the aspect I think most about with the term choice architecture.
Choice architecture interventions are not only structural but can also be information-based. For me, the term choice architecture relates to the immediate context in which our behavior manifests—for example, the buildings we live in and move through, but also the information that is present in these places. The metaphor goes back to the original idea of Herbert Simon, the godfather of behavioral sciences, who said that characteristics of the choice environment guide our behavior in interaction with characteristics of the individual, such as cognitive limitations and biases.
Question 4: How has the focus on behavioral interventions evolved in recent years?
Answer: The field of behavioral sciences is really young, but that doesn’t mean behavioral interventions are a new invention. There’s research on the influence of behavioral norms, and behavioral interventions have been around for decades. But after the publication of the book Nudge, 2008, it kind of boosted this focus on behavioral interventions, and that’s fairly recent.
Question 5: Can you describe your research on consumer preferences for electric vehicles?
Answer: In our paper on consumer preferences for electric vehicles, we identified a cognitive bias we termed “compatibility bias.” We asked participants to estimate how well an electric vehicle would meet their mobility needs, and they were quite pessimistic, suggesting that only about 50% of their daily travels could be covered by an electric vehicle. We also collected detailed information on their actual driving habits to establish an objective baseline.
Using these objective travel patterns, we calculated how a given electric vehicle with a specific battery range would meet their needs, providing an objective estimate. What we found was a significant gap between perception and reality. Objectively, for most participants—despite some variation in driving profiles, with certain individuals frequently taking long trips—over 90% of their daily travels could be covered by an electric vehicle with a moderate battery range.
The issue isn’t just range anxiety, where people fear the battery will be insufficient, but also a tendency to demand larger batteries to ensure 100% coverage of all possible trips. Our research aimed to address this misconception. In the second part of the study, we tested a behavioral intervention to correct this compatibility bias, which showed electric vehicles are far more suitable than people thought.
For each participant, we presented objective compatibility data tailored to their driving habits. For example, we’d say, “This car has a 300-kilometer range. Without extra charging, it can cover 90% of your daily travels throughout the year.” We acknowledged that some trips, like holiday travel, might exceed this range, but the vehicle is otherwise well-suited to their needs. When compared to control conditions, this intervention—making people aware of their cognitive bias through objective information—significantly increased participants’ willingness to pay for an electric vehicle.
Question 6: Why do people exhibit this compatibility bias with electric vehicles?
Answer: We don’t have explicit data on that, but behavioral research suggests people rely on intuitive decision-making quite a bit, so they may use heuristics to make judgments about the fit of an electric vehicle and its battery range with their needs.
We suspect what comes into play in the genesis of this cognitive bias is that people predominantly think about long distances—the extreme cases of use—because they’re more salient in their minds. For example, if I want to take the car for holidays to Spain, that’s much more than a 300-kilometer battery range, and this one occasion throughout the year, where I could find other solutions like renting a combustion engine vehicle, weighs more heavily in people’s decision-making.
Another aspect we thought would come into play, based on the literature, is that people tend to make binary comparisons. They compare alternatives side by side, like the range of an electric and a combustion engine vehicle, which accentuates the lower battery range of the electric vehicle and makes it look poorer. The comparison should be about the extent to which the electric vehicle meets their needs, not how it contrasts with a combustion engine vehicle.
Question 7: What real-world impact did your electric vehicle research have?
Answer: Our electric vehicle research drew considerable attention because we published it well. I think that’s key to influencing policymaking—if you do good work, publishing it in a renown scientific journal will get it recognized. However, you still need to write a press release to attract newspapers and get the topic covered. From what I saw after publishing, our work contributed to integrating an individual-centered perspective into the broader promotion of electric mobility, which I was very happy about.
In the environmental domain, the focus has traditionally been on technical advancements—new ways of producing renewable energy, better batteries for electric vehicles, or developing electric vehicles themselves. But the question of who will use these technologies is much less central in public discourse. Our work highlighted the need to consider the individual aspect—how people think about these technologies and the benefits they can draw from electric vehicles in particular. That’s what we achieved on the public discourse level.
On the policymaking level, I was invited by the cantonal authorities in Geneva that are responsible for promoting electric vehicles. They were curious about our work and shared how they allocate budgets for developing charging infrastructure and communication campaigns. I believe they appreciated our findings, but I don’t know if they integrated our insights into their policies, as policymaking is a very complex process. As researchers, we can make our work understandable, share it, and highlight its value, but then it’s up to policymakers to adopt it. Research is just one piece of information in the policymaking process, alongside many other non-research-based influences, which is simply how policymaking works in our societies.
Question 8: What sparked your interest in behavioral sciences?
Answer: I studied psychology at the University of Heidelberg in Germany for my bachelor’s and master’s degrees. What got me into behavioral sciences were courses taught on judgment and decision-making, a research field founded by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Some of you might know the book Thinking, Fast and Slow, which summarizes their findings. This research looks into how people make judgments and decisions, use heuristics compared to more rational ways of integrating all available information, and how that changes decision-making.
I was lucky to meet scholars already looking into the applied benefits of this approach to understanding human behavior. I got familiar with work on promoting vaccination in the Global South, for example. Most work in behavioral sciences, as people might know, is in health behavior—guiding better health actions in vulnerable populations, mostly. That’s what got me thinking and passionate about the applied benefits this research might have. That’s how I started my PhD on this approach, but in the environmental domain.
Question 9: How did your PhD research align with policymaking?
Answer: My PhD project was funded by the Swiss Federal Office for Energy, which made my research very close to policymaking. They were interested in better understanding people’s reluctance to adopt electric vehicles or more fuel-efficient vehicles generally. They wanted us to use the lens of behavioral sciences to understand consumer preferences in that context.
I also did some work more broadly on policy preferences in the climate domain, such as state subsidies of electric vehicles, and preferences for other sustainable mobility options like electric bikes or more fuel-efficient cars. But the strongest focus of my work was on electric mobility, electric vehicles, and consumer preferences.
Question 10: Where are you originally from and how did you initially learn about the PhD opportunity in Geneva?
Answer: I grew up close to Frankfurt in a small student town called Marburg in Germany, then moved to Heidelberg, for my studies. I became aware of the PhD position through an advertisement by the lab director, Dr. Tobias Brosch, at the University of Geneva, who advertised this position in collaboration with the Swiss Federal Office for Energy on some German networks.
I thought the project was a really good fit because it used the judgment and decision-making approach in the context of environmental action. I was also curious to move to Geneva and discover a different world, especially since I already spoke French, so there were personal reasons that influenced my decision.
Question 11: How do you balance your role as a researcher with activism or persuasion?
Answer: The role of an academic researcher is to try to be impartial. Research will always be funded by someone, but with the research crisis we observe in the U.S., we realize to what extent researchers at universities are not free per se to do the research they think is most valuable. The goal is to get closer to the true state of the world, and that should not be influenced by political goals, although funding institutions can guide research topics, as was the case for me with electric vehicles. But it remains open to how you do the research and collect evidence. That’s the academic research side.
Activism, on the other hand, promotes a certain goal. You can do research that is persuasive by providing evidence that argues for a certain direction, but as a researcher, you shouldn’t be persuading. It’s a bit contradictory, maybe, but that’s how I see it. Activism is about agenda-setting, standing behind a goal, doing everything to promote it, and convincing authorities to pay attention to an issue you’re concerned about. You try to connect people and partners to advance an issue or solutions to it.
As a researcher, you can move between the two worlds. Some researchers stay on the academic side, while others take activist positions.
Question 12: What are your main responsibilities as a researcher?
Answer: The priority of my work, as outlined in my job description, is to conduct research, so that’s what I dedicate most of my time to.
There are also intersections with teaching. For example, I supervise master’s students on their theses, which is considered teaching because I guide their research. Communication also plays a role when we publish work that attracts attention from society or newspapers, and we engage in explaining our work in an understandable way. But these moments are quite punctual.
Another important way I communicate about our work or the behavioral sciences approach to policy issues is through conferences, roundtables, and panel discussions, which I need to fit into my agenda. For consulting activities, you have to make choices because you can’t say yes to everything—you need to maintain a balance.
As a researcher, it’s valued when you build connections with the outside world. For me, this is valuable because it keeps me motivated, and I enjoy it. But you have to fit all these activities into your day-to-day obligations.
Question 13: How can researchers ensure their work reaches a broader audience?
Answer: Depending on how you consider the importance of your work as a researcher, you should try to promote it beyond scientific publications.
Publishing in a scientific journal is for a very specialized audience and in a format many people are unfamiliar with, so it’s not a very digestible format. When you have a nice publication, you should reach out to your university’s press office. They are journalists and can advise you on how to write a press release that will be understood by the general public and newspapers with a broader audience. It is your responsibility to make this extra step, if you want to have an impact.
Question 14: Which conferences do you find valuable for advancing your work?
Answer: I regularly attend two conferences that significantly advance my work. The first is the European Association of Decision Making, which is like a sister organization to the American Society for Judgment and Decision Making. Its conference, oddly named Subjective Probability and Utility in Decision Making, takes place in Europe every two years.
What makes this conference great is the diversity of attendees—people from all kinds of contexts working on varied topics. Many researchers focus on basic research in judgment and decision-making, which I find inspiring even for applied work. If you’re passionate about applied topics, staying connected to basic research from smart scholars—whose work may not yet have practical applications but could be adapted—can spark new ideas. Exchanging with scholars from different disciplines at this methodologically rigorous conference motivates me to do great work.
The second conference I attend is the International Conference for Environmental Psychology, which is more focused on environmental behavior. There, I’m surrounded by psychologists using methods like constructing scales and collecting questionnaire data, with less emphasis on experimental work. However, I believe experiments are essential for achieving robust, causal evidence, much like in natural sciences or medical testing. This conference helps me engage with people working on environmental topics, keeping me informed about current applied issues and how to tackle them.
Together, these two conferences complement each other, blending inspiration from basic research with practical environmental applications.
Question 15: What are your views on the concept of persuasion, and does it play a role in your work or studies?
Answer: For me, persuasion contrasts somewhat with the broader approach of behavioral sciences. Behavioral sciences aim to find solutions for entire populations, while persuasion is much more individual-centered. You try to persuade a specific person with tailored arguments to convince them. So, for me, there’s a clear distinction, though the work of Robert Cialdini, who wrote the book on persuasion, is clearly within the behavioral sciences domain.
In my work, I’ve mostly used the conventional approach of behavioral sciences, focusing on solutions for whole populations rather than individuals. As I mentioned earlier, I try to provide evidence that persuades someone or a larger audience about the benefits of a certain option or the right behavior to adopt.
However, I don’t think I’ve engaged much in persuasion as I understand it originally—convincing an individual person using specific strategies like the foot-in-the-door technique, which is also part of behavioral sciences. For example, you might ask someone for a small favor, like signing a petition for a cause, and later ask them to donate money to the same cause. Research suggests people want to be consistent with their actions, so they’re more likely to donate after first signing the petition.
That kind of approach feels more like persuasion than what I’ve been doing. Most of my interventions are information-based, where I use arguments selectively in a persuasive way, but they target broader audiences rather than individuals.
Question 16: What advice would you give to students interested in the field of behavioral sciences?
Answer: During a webinar for PhD students, Richard Thaler said something that resonated deeply with me, and I’m paraphrasing: Young scholars and PhD students read a lot, but they don’t think as much as they read. I believe this is crucial. To succeed in behavioral sciences, you need to be curious and passionate about a topic, obviously, and you need a strong foundation from all the reading you’ve done in the field.
However, you must also take time to think logically and openly about a problem, without clinging too closely to the concepts and literature you’ve studied. At some point, you know the methods and frameworks of behavioral sciences. What has helped me stand out in my work is trying to think as independently as possible about an issue, looking for flaws or ideas others haven’t explored in a given context.
This independent thinking is often overlooked in research, where the focus tends to be on accumulating and integrating all available knowledge in a field. While it’s important to stay informed about developments in your field, good research comes from discussing ideas with others who share your interests and thinking deeply about the topic. That can be incredibly valuable, perhaps even more so than extensive reading alone.
For those interested in applied contexts, you won’t stay motivated or advance if you remain within the academic ivory tower. A common but critical piece of advice is to build connections with professionals outside universities. If you aim to do policy-relevant research, those opportunities only emerge by attending conferences with audiences beyond just academic researchers. That’s really important for this kind of work.
Thank you for reading.
Remember to subscribe to our newsletter, to receive updates about upcoming interviews.
#BehavioralScience #Nudging #ChoiceArchitecture #CognitiveBias #SustainableMobility #Academia #Advice #Interview
***
Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer, The University of Geneva
Behavioral Science Consultant | Switzerland
*Note: This interview was recorded on May 7, 2025, and has been edited for clarity, ease of readability, and length.
**Illustrations by: The profile photo shown in this interview was taken by Alexandre Bourquin and made available by Dr. Mario Herberz. The main article photo was taken by the interviewer.
Comments