No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 August 2023
Our target article distinguishes between policy approaches that seek to address societal problems through intervention at the level of the individual (adopting the “i-frame”) and those that seek to change the system within which those individuals live (adopting the “s-frame”). We stress also that a long-standing tactic of corporations opposing systemic change is to promote the i-frame perspective, presumably hoping that i-frame interventions will be largely ineffective and more importantly will be seen by the public and some policy makers as a genuine alternative to systemic change. We worry that the i-frame focus of much of behavioral science has inadvertently reinforced this unhelpful focus on the individual. In this response to commentators, we identify common themes, build on the many constructive suggestions to extend our approach, and reply to concerns. We argue, along with several commentators, that a key role of behavioral public policy is to clarify how to build support for systemic reforms for which there is a broad consensus in the policy community, but which are opposed by powerful special interests.
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?