Content area
Full Text
The behavioral and brain sciences primarily focus on what we call the i-frame: On individuals, and their thoughts and behaviors. Public policy, by contrast, typically focuses on the s-frame: The system of rules, norms, and institutions usually studied by economists, sociologists, legal scholars, and political scientists.
Historically, i-frame insights engage with public policy through evidence about which s-frame policies will work. Thus, research on neural and cognitive mechanisms of imitation has been linked to the impacts of media violence (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963; Hurley, 2004). The neuroscience and psychology of addiction has informed the regulation of recreational drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling (Robinson & Berridge, 2000; Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2019; Volkow & Boyle, 2018). Health psychologists, epidemiologists, and public health doctors have studied the physiological and psychological mechanisms that convert s-frame factors (e.g., status, inequality, isolation, food environments) into health outcomes (see, e.g., Harris, Bargh, & Brownell, 2009; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017; Marmot, 2004; Marteau, Hollands, & Fletcher, 2012; Pickett & Wilkinson, 2015). Insights about individual psychology thus inform regulation, taxation, social support, and institutional reform. We advocate deepening and extending this work.
Recently, there has been increasing enthusiasm for a more direct approach: Using i-frame insights to create i-frame policies (Camerer, Issacharoff, Loewenstein, O'Donoghue, & Rabin, 2003; Sunstein & Thaler, 2003; Thaler & Sunstein, 2003). Two founding papers identified individual limitations (e.g., excessive self-interest, present bias, confirmation bias), not systemic issues, as the source of social problems. Sunstein and Thaler (2003, p. 1162) wrote “Drawing on some well-established findings in behavioral economics and cognitive psychology, we emphasize the possibility that in some cases individuals make inferior decisions in terms of their own welfare – decisions that they would change if they had complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities and no lack of self-control.” Camerer et al. (2003) likewise note “To the extent that the errors identified by behavioral research lead people not to behave in their own best interests, paternalism may prove useful.” The first three chapters of Nudge (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), including the updated “final edition” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2021), contrast the biases and self-destructive behaviors of “humans,” with the rational actors of economic theory. Unlike traditional policies, i-frame interventions don't fundamentally change the rules