How nudges and marketing frame time preference "for your own good": a behavioral model

The paper interrogates what differentiates marketing choice framing from nudges, despite both shaping choices via the decision environment. It situates marketing as long-established, using techniques such as product placement, promotion framing, and sensory cues to drive purchases, while nudges are more recent, grounded in behavioral economics to guide individuals toward choices aligned with their long-term goals. The introduction reviews confusion in academia and practice over terms like "nudge marketing," and notes that distinctions based on tools, theory, or intended beneficiary often blur because both marketing and nudges use similar psychological insights and claim to benefit individuals. The study proposes clarifying the distinction by focusing on how each interprets "your best interest" and, crucially, the role of time preference: marketing tends to encourage immediate gratification, whereas pro-self nudges aim to help individuals prioritize future well-being by mitigating present-bias and self-control problems. The article outlines its contributions and presents a behavioral model that maps shared tools to different intermediate goals and final outcomes (purchase vs. long-term well-being).

The article synthesizes scholarship across marketing, behavioral economics, psychology, and neuroscience. It references marketing definitions and practices (e.g., AMA definition; marketing mix; shelf placement, promotion framing, in-store environment, sensory cues) and the development of nudge theory (Thaler & Sunstein; Hansen) including pro-social vs. pro-self applications. It engages the debate on "better off, as judged by themselves" and preference types (ex ante vs. ex post; first- vs. second-order; reflective vs. impulsive). It reviews evidence on time discounting, uncertainty aversion, loss aversion, and the neural basis of immediate vs. delayed rewards (limbic vs. cortical activation). It also summarizes empirical illustrations of nudges (microdonations, defaults, health behaviors) and marketing tactics (defaults, social norms, scarcity cues) that leverage similar psychological mechanisms.

This is a conceptual/theoretical paper that develops a behavioral model to distinguish marketing choice framing from pro-self nudges via the lens of time preference. The methodology integrates findings from behavioral economics (prospect theory, loss aversion, mental accounting), decision psychology (choice/attention framing, heuristics), and neuroscience (differential activation for immediate vs. delayed rewards). The model identifies three shared behavioral tools—prospect framing (setting reference points to cast outcomes as gains/losses), choice bracketing (narrow vs. broad aggregation of decisions over time), and editing framing (segregating gains, integrating losses)—and shows how each is orchestrated to achieve intermediate goals: reducing pain/effort, increasing immediate pleasure, and leveraging aversions/inertia. These mechanisms are mapped to divergent final objectives: marketing leverages time preference to trigger purchase and immediate consumption; nudges mitigate time preference to facilitate choices aligned with long-term well-being. No new empirical experiments are conducted; examples from prior literature illustrate mechanisms.

- Distinction in beneficiary/interest: Marketing frames "your interest" as immediate enjoyment and indulgence; pro-self nudges frame it as future well-being and alignment with long-term goals. - Centrality of time preference: Marketing exploits present-bias, impatience, and self-control failures; nudges counteract these by helping individuals trade immediate pleasures for larger delayed rewards. - Deep roots of present-bias: High apparent discounting reflects uncertainty about long-term outcomes, pain of foregoing immediate consumption, and neural asymmetries—immediate rewards preferentially activate limbic reward circuitry, whereas delayed rewards engage deliberative cortical regions. - Shared tools, different aims: Both marketing and nudges deploy prospect framing, choice bracketing, and editing framing, but assemble them differently. Marketing reduces the pain of paying (e.g., deferred/staggered payments, anchoring, highlighting discounts), increases immediate pleasure (abundant attributes, sensory cues), and amplifies aversion to regret/scarcity to prompt purchase. Nudges reduce immediate costs (hide temptations, defaults, smaller plates), make effort rewarding (feedback, badges, gamification, mental accounts for savings), and leverage loss aversion/inertia to sustain behavior change. - Intermediate mechanisms: Narrow bracketing focuses attention on present, making effort/pain tolerable (e.g., Dry January), and enables segregation/aggregation of outcomes to shape perceived utility. Prospect framing aligns reference points to cast target behaviors as gains or alternatives as losses. - Classification guidance: Framing to buy a smartwatch "to exercise" is marketing (induces purchase, not necessary/sufficient for exercise). Framing to take stairs/bike instead of car is a nudge (minimizes costs to prioritize long-term health). - Practical implications: Mislabeling marketing as nudges risks eroding trust and effectiveness of public policy nudges; the model offers a diagnostic lens for design and evaluation of interventions.

The findings address the core question of how to distinguish nudges from marketing by anchoring the distinction in time preference and the interpretation of "your own good." By demonstrating that both rely on similar behavioral tools yet pursue opposing ends (immediate consumption vs. long-term welfare), the model clarifies why tool-based or beneficiary-based distinctions alone can be ambiguous. It shows how marketing capitalizes on neural and psychological biases toward immediacy, while nudges must overcome these biases by restructuring reference points, decision brackets, and outcome integration to reduce perceived pain and generate immediate, reinforcing rewards. This provides actionable guidance for policymakers and practitioners to design, assess, and ethically apply choice architecture, and cautions against corporate appropriation of the nudge label for sales-driven tactics that may undermine public trust.

The article presents a unified behavioral model revealing that marketing and pro-self nudges share framing tools but diverge in goals and their use of time preference: marketing induces immediate pleasure and purchase by leveraging present-bias, while nudges mitigate present-bias to support long-term well-being. It offers classification guidance (e.g., smartwatch promotions as marketing; stair/elevator framing as a nudge) and highlights ethical and practical risks of mislabeling. Future directions include developing strategies to help individuals counter marketing frames (e.g., shopping practices, limiting exposure to temptations) and exploring self-nudging to empower individuals to organize their own choice environments, fostering sustained behavior change and effectiveness over time.

The paper is conceptual and does not present new empirical studies; thus, the proposed model is not directly tested within this article. Its scope focuses on pro-self nudges rather than pro-social nudges or the full breadth of marketing practices, which may limit generalizability across all contexts. The authors also note that nudges may not have lasting effects without sustained effort, underscoring the need for longitudinal validation.