No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Use behavioral research to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of system-level policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 August 2023
Abstract
Individual-level interventions are inadequate to address complex societal problems. Meaningful solutions require system-level policies that alter the incentives that govern behavior. We argue that individual-level interventions can help improve both the feasibility and effectiveness of system-level interventions, especially when designed as an integrated policy package.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A., Harring, N., & Jagers, S. C. (2022). Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws. Nature Climate Change, 12, 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., Gravert, C., Johansson-Stenman, O., & Kurz, V. (2021). The use of green nudges as an environmental policy tool. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 15(2), 216–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Kallbekken, S., & Kroll, S. (2012). The acceptability of efficiency-enhancing environmental taxes, subsidies and regulation: An experimental investigation. Environmental Science & Policy, 16, 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Kallbekken, S., & Kroll, S. (2014). The impact of trial runs on the acceptability of environmental taxes: Experimental evidence. Resource and Energy Economics, 38, 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Kallbekken, S., & Kroll, S. (2017). Accepting market failure: Cultural worldviews and the opposition to corrective environmental policies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 85, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bó, E., Dal Bó, P., & Eyster, E. (2018). The demand for bad policy when voters underappreciate equilibrium effects. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(2), 964–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franssens, S., Botchway, E., Swart, W., & Dewitte, S. (2021). Nudging commuters to increase public transport use: A field experiment in Rotterdam. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Art.633865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallbekken, S. (2023). Research on public support for climate policy instruments must broaden its scope. Nature Climate Change, 13, 206–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallbekken, S., Kroll, S., & Cherry, T. L. (2011). Do you not like Pigou, or do you not understand him? Tax aversion and revenue recycling in the lab. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallbekken, S., Sælen, H., & Hermansen, E. (2013). Bridging the energy efficiency gap: A field experiment on lifetime energy costs and household appliances. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotchen, M. J., Turk, Z. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2017). Public willingness to pay for a US carbon tax and preferences for spending the revenue. Environmental Research Letters, 12, 094012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T., Friman, M., & Kristensson, P. (2011). Affective forecasting: Predicting and experiencing satisfaction with public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(8), 1926–1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & Forward, S. (2010). Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(2), 99–109.Google Scholar
Stuber, J. M., Hoenink, J. C., Beulens, J. W. J., Mackenbach, J. D., & Lakerveld, J. (2021). Shifting toward a healthier dietary pattern through nudging and pricing strategies: A secondary analysis of a randomized virtual supermarket experiment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 114(2), 628–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Target article
The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray
Related commentaries (33)
An inconvenient truth: Difficult problems rarely have easy solutions
Behavioral market design
Behavioral mechanism design
Behavioral public policy in practice: Misconceptions and opportunities
Behavioral winter: Disillusionment with applied behavioral science and a path to spring forward
Community-engaged research is best positioned to catalyze systemic change
Conspiracy theory
Don't throw the individual perspective out while waiting for systemic change
Expectations, opportunities, and awareness: A case for combining i- and s-frame interventions
i-Frame interventions enhance s-frame interventions
Individual-level solutions may support system-level change â if they are internalized as part of one's social identity
It's always both: Changing individuals requires changing systems and changing systems requires changing individuals
Misdiagnosing the problem of why behavioural change interventions fail
Moral psychology biases toward individual, not systemic, representations
Moving from i-frame to s-frame focus in equity, diversity, and inclusion research, practice, and policy
Nudges, regulations, and behavioral public choice
Nudging is being framed
On Skinner's pendulum: A framework for assessing s-frame hope
Optimizing behavior change through integration of individual- and system-level intervention approaches
Real systemic solutions to humanity's problems require a radical reshaping of the global political system
Structural problems require structural solutions
The influence of private interests on research in behavioural public policy: A system-level problem
The psychology and policy of overcoming economic inequality
The real cause of our complicity: The preoccupation with human weakness
The social sciences are increasingly ill-equipped to design system-level reforms
The “hearts-and-minds frame”: Not all i-frame interventions are ineffective, but education-based interventions can be particularly bad
Unpacking the nudge muddle
Use behavioral research to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of system-level policy
Using effective psychological techniques to subvert a US sociopolitical context
When nudges have societal-level impact
Why a group-level analysis is essential for effective public policy: The case for a g-frame
Wise interventions consider the person and the situation together
“More effective” is not necessarily “better”: Some ethical considerations when influencing individual behaviour
Author response
Where next for behavioral public policy?