No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On Skinner's pendulum: A framework for assessing s-frame hope
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 August 2023
Abstract
Unsatisfied with the effects of behavioral economics’ i-frame, “technology of behavior,” Chater & Loewenstein call for a pendulum swing back to the s-frame, suggesting that such an approach offers a more hopeful path toward societal well-being. In this commentary, I offer a framework to think about this pendulum swing, as well as the scope – and limits – of this hope.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., … Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzgerald, M. P., Lamberton, C., & Walsh, M. (2016). Will I pay for your pleasure? Consumers’ perceptions of negative externalities and responses to Pigovian taxes. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(3), 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Medicine. (2012). (US) Committee on the long-run macroeconomic effects of the aging U.S. population. Aging and the macroeconomy: Long-term implications of an older population. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); December 10, 2012. 7, Saving and Retirement Security. Retrieved February 7, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK148839/Google Scholar
Ng, J. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Duda, J. L. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, K., Morin, R., & Horowitz, J. M. (2019). Looking to the future, public sees an America in decline on many fronts. Pew Research. Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/03/21/public-sees-an-america-in-decline-on-many-fronts/Google Scholar
Polivy, J. C., Herman, P., & Mills, J. S. (2020). What is restrained eating and how do we identify it? Appetite, 155, 104820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2021). Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Health.gov. Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://health.gov/our-work/nutrition-physical-activity/physical-activity-guidelines/current-guidelinesGoogle Scholar
Vosgerau, J., Scopelliti, I., & Huh, Y. E. (2019). Exerting self control does not equal sacrificing pleasure. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(1), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle 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?