Nudge theory ‘mistaken’
Chater and Loewenstein (nudge theorists)
The i-Frame and the s-Frame: How Focusing on Individual-Level Solutions Has Led Behavioral Public Policy Astray
Posted: 11 Mar 2022
Last revised: 30 Mar 2022
Posted: 11 Mar 2022
Last revised: 30 Mar 2022
“An influential line of thinking in behavioural science, to which the two authors have long
subscribed, is that many of society’s most pressing problems can be addressed cheaply and effectively at the level of the individual, without modifying the system in which individuals operate. Along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both academic and policy communities, we now believe this was a mistake”.
subscribed, is that many of society’s most pressing problems can be addressed cheaply and effectively at the level of the individual, without modifying the system in which individuals operate. Along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both academic and policy communities, we now believe this was a mistake”.
“We have argued
(1) that many critical public policy challenges arise from systemic policies that are actively maintained by the commercial interests that they benefit;
(2) those commercial interests actively promote the view that these problems have i-frame solutions, while lobbying against s-frame reform;
(3) that many behaviorally oriented academics with an interest in public policy, including ourselves, have inadvertently reinforced the ineffective i-frame perspective; (4) behavioral i-frame interventions have generally had disappointing results, but more importantly can have perverse unintended consequences, such as reducing support for policies solutions that are well known to be effective, and leading individuals to blame themselves for problems with systemic origins”.
(1) that many critical public policy challenges arise from systemic policies that are actively maintained by the commercial interests that they benefit;
(2) those commercial interests actively promote the view that these problems have i-frame solutions, while lobbying against s-frame reform;
(3) that many behaviorally oriented academics with an interest in public policy, including ourselves, have inadvertently reinforced the ineffective i-frame perspective; (4) behavioral i-frame interventions have generally had disappointing results, but more importantly can have perverse unintended consequences, such as reducing support for policies solutions that are well known to be effective, and leading individuals to blame themselves for problems with systemic origins”.
Jonathan
