Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Behav Brain Sci. 2022 Sep 5;46:e147. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22002023.
An influential line of thinking in behavioral 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 the individual operates. We now believe this was a mistake, along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both the academic and policy communities. Results from such interventions have been disappointingly modest. But more importantly, they have guided many (though by no means all) behavioral scientists to frame policy problems in individual, not systemic, terms: To adopt what we call the "i-frame," rather than the "s-frame." The difference may be more consequential than i-frame advocates have realized, by deflecting attention and support away from s-frame policies. Indeed, highlighting the i-frame is a long-established objective of corporate opponents of concerted systemic action such as regulation and taxation. We illustrate our argument briefly for six policy problems, and in depth with the examples of climate change, obesity, retirement savings, and pollution from plastic waste. We argue that the most important way in which behavioral scientists can contribute to public policy is by employing their skills to develop and implement value-creating system-level change.
行为科学中有一条颇具影响力的思路，两位作者长期以来一直对此深信不疑，即社会上许多最紧迫的问题可以在不改变个人运作的系统的情况下，以低廉且有效的方式在个人层面上解决。我们现在认为这是一个错误，我们怀疑，学术和政策界的许多同行也是如此。此类干预措施的结果令人失望地有限。但更重要的是，它们引导许多（尽管绝非全部）行为科学家以个人而非系统的术语来构建政策问题：采用我们所谓的“i 框架”，而不是“s 框架”。通过将注意力和支持从 s 框架政策上转移开，这种差异可能比 i 框架倡导者所意识到的更为重要。事实上，突出 i 框架是企业反对协调一致的系统性行动（如监管和税收）的长期目标。我们简要地为六个政策问题说明了我们的观点，并通过气候变化、肥胖、退休储蓄和塑料垃圾污染等例子深入探讨了这一观点。我们认为，行为科学家为公共政策做出贡献的最重要方式是运用他们的技能来开发和实施创造价值的系统层面变革。
