Consider the process you go through when you subscribe to a service. You might be subscribing to DSTV or Canal +, or you might be subscribing to ichereta (which is a fast and convenient tender alert service), how about subscribing to Nuha Roadside Assistance (a local automotive company that provides drivers with the ability to call mechanics in the event of a car breakdown). Usually, the procedure is simple: just enter your details and choose a payment option, and you’re done! You have a subscription, and the initial session or product may even be free. Now compare this to the challenging procedure you must follow in order to terminate a subscription. In most cases, canceling a subscription necessitates at least a phone call, during which the operator tries to talk you out of it while you explain why you want to cancel. The challenge is not accidental; rather, it is the result of a deliberate design strategy called sludge. But you may be wondering, ‘What exactly is a sludge?’
In essence, sludge is the antithesis of a nudge. Sludges make a procedure more difficult with the intention of causing friction, which makes the consumer less likely to complete the process. In contrast, nudges attempt to encourage people to make better decisions by making certain choices simpler than others. At first, behavioral scientists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein believed that nudges could be useful for individuals. They soon discovered, though, that nudges might also be utilized to exploit people’s limited capacity for reason. Ten years following the release of their book Nudge, Thaler wrote an article titled “Nudge, not sludge” in which they discussed actions that were “essentially nudging for evil,” or sludges. Here, it’s important to distinguish between sludges as pure evil nudges and sludges as any process—good or bad—that increases the work required to reach a choice. Even more, Cass Sunstein wrote a book called “Sludge” that examines the bureaucratic hoops people must jump through in order to obtain even the most basic necessities. Sunstein contends that sludges so make it more difficult for people to exercise their constitutional rights.
Sludges frequently use friction to prevent people from choosing what’s best for them. We’ve all probably encountered the trouble of canceling memberships or subscriptions, but it might not be as bad as other sludges, like the process of applying for welfare. When applying for welfare in the United States, a person must deal with three separate departments: the first handles application intake, the second handles application processing, and the third handles welfare payouts. Every country has comparable barriers and difficulties when it comes to getting healthcare. Even in our country for example, we have a government-established health care insurance scheme called ‘Tena Medhin’. How many of us are aware of its existence? Better yet, how much do we know about the high level of red tape and bureaucratic obstacles to be able to actually get the service? People who need financial support or health services encounter sludge and might give up before they get the help they need.
This research suggests that consumers who are aware of the sludges companies use to influence them may be able to resist the impact and exercise more freedom. This may be especially true in situations where sludges cause people to lose money, as loss aversion—a cognitive bias that suggests we tend to avoid loss more than we attempt to achieve gain—may play a role. Cass Sunstein found in one study that when people were told they were being influenced by choice architecture, even when told it was in their best interest, they would react negatively and act against the nudge. Due to loss aversion, we are likely to be motivated to cancel our subscription, no matter the difficulty, for fear of losing money.
Sludges are usually talked about in order to further specific objectives rather than to ensure the welfare of the populace. Having said that, it’s possible that sludges will function more like nudges. Choice architecture cannot be completely avoided, as asserted by Thaler and Sunstein; options must be presented in a specific manner, and the presentation option selected will have an impact on decision-making processes. There might not exist a “neutral” setting for choices. It might be more crucial to make sure that those creating nudges and sludges have the best of intentions and know when to employ one over the other in order to help people, rather than completely getting rid of them.
The concept of sludge, the deliberate design strategy aimed at making processes more difficult, stands in stark contrast to nudges, which seek to simplify decision-making. While nudges aim to guide individuals towards better choices, sludges introduce friction to deter consumers from completing certain processes. This deliberate complexity can be found in various aspects of consumer interactions, from subscription cancellations to bureaucratic procedures for accessing essential services. Recognizing and understanding sludges empowers consumers to resist their influence, particularly when loss aversion comes into play. However, the ethical use of choice architecture remains paramount, with the need for a balance between nudges and sludges to genuinely serve the interests of individuals and society.