This paper explores the complexities and unintended consequences of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in various professional settings. It highlights key psychological processes encountered by recipients of such disclosures. Notably, it describes the burden of disclosure effect, which paradoxically reduces trust while increasing compliance due to social pressures, and disclosure's expertise cue, where disclosures inadvertently increase trust and persuasiveness by signalling expertise. The paper also outlines best practices for improving COI disclosures, emphasising the need for external third-party involvement and encouraging deliberation. It concludes that effective disclosure depends not only on how recipients process information but also critically on how the disclosure influences the behaviour of advisors, underscoring the need for a holistic approach to managing COIs that goes beyond mere transparency. A version of this paper was presented as a keynote at the Second Annual International Behavioural Public Policy Conference at the University of North Carolina in September 2023.

We conducted a large-scale online experiment to examine whether climate change messaging can induce emotions and motivate pro-environmental action. We study how exposure to explicit positive (‘warm glow’) and negative (‘cold prickle’) emotional appeals as well as a traditional social norm communication affects pro-environmental action. We find that a simple call to take action to mitigate climate change is at least as affective as social norm message framing and emotional appeals. Our results highlight the difficulty of designing messaging interventions that effectively harness emotional incentives to promote pro-environmental action. Messages that explicitly emphasise the personal emotional benefits of contributing to environmental causes or the adverse emotional effects of not doing so seem to fall short of motivating pro-environmental effort. Our findings underscore the need for caution when incorporating emotive appeals into policy interventions.

Policy decisions have vast consequences, but there is little empirical research on how best to communicate underlying evidence to decision-makers. Groups in diverse fields (e.g., education, medicine, crime) use brief, graphical displays to list policy options, expected outcomes and evidence quality in order to make such evidence easy to assess. However, the understanding of these representations is rarely studied. We surveyed experts and non-experts on what information they wanted and tested their objective comprehension of commonly used graphics. A total of 252 UK residents from Prolific and 452 UK What Works Centre users interpreted the meaning of graphics shown without labels. Comprehension was low (often below 50%). The best-performing graphics combined unambiguous metaphorical shapes with color cues and indications of quantity. The participants also reported what types of evidence they wanted and in what detail (e.g., subgroups, different outcomes). Users particularly wanted to see intervention effectiveness and quality, and policymakers also wanted to know the financial costs and negative consequences. Comprehension and preferences were remarkably consistent between the two samples. Groups communicating evidence about policy options can use these results to design summaries, toolkits and reports for expert and non-expert audiences.

We explore whether simple behavioural insights techniques can be successful for addressing a policy issue within one of society's more complex and difficult sectors: child protection. Child protection reporting practices in New South Wales, Australia, reveal that the public's primary response is to report to the statutory authority, who only deal with cases of the highest risk. As a result, a large volume of statutory resources are spent processing lower-risk reports that lead to no benefits for lower-risk families and slow down response times for families that require a statutory response most. Our goal was to reduce lower-risk reporting by encouraging alternative responses to these situations. To do this, we altered report feedback for cases deemed lower risk in order to make alternative responses more salient and we added a persuasive message framed as a gain or loss. We then examined subsequent reporting accuracy. We found that our trial was linked to a modest improvement in reporting accuracy, though the results may have been diluted by a spill-over effect. We discuss how facilitating a greater behavioural change likely requires multi-organization collaborations, extending the range of insights drawn from behavioural science and/or addressing issues from multiple angles.

Commercial practices such as drip pricing, reference pricing and best-price guarantee can be used to set higher prices and mislead consumers, but protective measures can restore efficiency. In a placebo-controlled market experiment, we examined a treatment allowing for the use and misuse of commercial practices. Three additional treatments tested the effects of formal sanctions, informal sanctions and a regret nudge. We found that commercial practices led to higher prices, cheating was systematic and regret nudging was ineffective. Furthermore, formal and informal sanctions reduced both the likelihood of using commercial practices and the likelihood of cheating, leading to welfare increases.

Cooperative and caring behaviors are key drivers of human social progress, especially during catastrophes or pandemic events. While COVID-19 pandemics was arriving to Colombia in absence of any approved therapeutic strategy or vaccine, and based on evidence from other viral diseases, we anticipated to hypothesize the protective role of some nutritional supplements such as Vitamin D and C against SARS-CoV2. Therefore, for health workers, we proposed a voluntarily nutritional supplementation plan to fortify their immune system aiming to prevent or mitigate eventual COVID-19 infection and disease. Using the behavioral EAST framework, all our health workers (n = 1,063) were invited via email to participate voluntarily in a supplementation strategy for a period of 3 months. 77.4% accepted participation, and among them, we identified a group with optimal adherence to the proposed supplementation plan (20%) and a predominant group with no adherence at all (57.29%). Adherence seemed to be associated to a risk perception bias that was predominant in female workers and those workers performing in working areas with higher risk of infection. Of importance, adherence to the supplementation strategy was associated to a lower percentage of COVID-19 diagnostics (12%) as compared with that observed in non-adherence participants (19%). Moreover, the sustained adherence during the time of intervention seemed to promote adoption of this target behavior, as up to 35% of the adherent participants remained attached (on their own) to the supplementation habit, 3 months after the end of the intervention. All these data show the potential relevance of EAST frameworks as tools to trigger health care and altruistic behaviors to avoid the spread of pandemic diseases. In line with other authors, our observations suggest that nutritional vitamin D and C supplementation could mitigate the risk of COVID-19, highlighting the behavioral and biological relevance of this type of interventions during emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases.

Public figures often apologize after making controversial statements. There are reasons to believe, however, that apologizing makes public figures appear weak and risk averse, which may make them less likeable and lead members of the public to want to punish them. This paper presents the results of an experiment in which respondents were given two versions of two real-life controversies involving public figures. Approximately half of the participants read a story that made it appear as if the person had apologized, while the rest were led to believe that the individual had stood firm. In the first experiment, hearing that Rand Paul apologized for his comments on civil rights did not change whether respondents were less likely to vote for him. When presented with two versions of the controversy surrounding Larry Summers and his comments about women scientists and engineers, however, liberals and females were more likely to say that he should have faced negative consequences for his statement when presented with his apology. The effects on other groups were smaller or neutral. The evidence suggests that when a prominent figure apologizes for a controversial statement, individuals are either unaffected or become more likely to desire that the individual be punished.

We evaluate whether people will outsource their opinion on public policy to consensus conference participants. The ideal consensus conference brings together a representative sample of citizens and introduces them to the range of perspectives and evidence related to some policy. The sample is given the opportunity to ask questions of experts and to deliberate. Attitudes about each policy are queried before and after the conference to see if the event has changed minds. In general, such conferences do produce opinion shifts. Our hypothesis is that the shift can be leveraged by simply communicating conference results – absent substantive information about the merits of the policies discussed – to scale up the value of conferences to the population at large. In five studies, we tell participants about the impact of a consensus conference on a sample of citizens’ opinions for a range of policies without providing any new information about the inherent value of the policy itself. For several of the policies, we see a shift in opinion. We conclude that the value of consensus conferences can be scaled up simply by telling an electorate about its results. This suggests an economical way to bring evidence and rational argument to bear on citizens’ policy attitudes.

People buy some goods that they do not enjoy and wish did not exist. They might even be willing to pay a great deal for such goods, whether the currency involves time, commitment or money. One reason involves signaling to others; so long as the good exists, nonconsumption might give an unwanted signal to friends or colleagues. Another reason involves self-signaling; so long as the good exists, nonconsumption might give an unwanted signal to an agent about himself or herself. Yet another reason involves a combination of network effects and status competition; nonconsumption might deprive people of the benefits of participating in a network and thus cause them to lose relative position. With respect to real-world goods (including activities) of this kind, there is typically heterogeneity in relevant populations, with some people deriving positive utility from goods to which other people are indifferent, or which other people deplore. Efforts to measure people's willingness to pay for goods of this kind will suggest a welfare gain, and possibly a substantial one, even though the existence of such goods produces a welfare loss, and possibly a substantial one. Collective action, private or public, is necessary to eliminate goods that people consume but wish did not exist. Legal responses here might be contemplated when someone successfully maneuvers people into a situation in which they are incentivized to act against their interests, by consuming a product or engaging in an activity they do not enjoy, in order to avoid offering an unwanted signal. Prohibitions on waiving certain rights might be justified in this way; some restrictions on uses of social media, especially by young people, might be similarly justified.

Existing research demonstrates that parents are poorly informed consumers of early childhood education and care (ECEC) services. Choosing such services is a complex process shaped by a combination of logistical limitations (e.g., cost/location), informational barriers and ideas about what the goal of care should be (e.g., education of young children or provision of an environment that feels like home). Experimental studies have also demonstrated that when study participants are informed of the importance of a specific decision, they engage in more complex decision-making. In this article, we test whether providing parents with information about the regulatory stringency of ECEC options available influences their choices regarding ECEC. A conjoint survey designed to capture quasi-behavioural choices for ECEC services was completed by 682 parents. Before engaging with the survey, participants were randomly assigned into either a control group or a treatment group that informed them about the stringency of oversight regarding ECEC options available in the province of Ontario, Canada. Receiving information did not meaningfully change the choices of the entire sample. However, a subgroup analysis revealed an important information effect on parent decisions for lower income/lower-education parents.

In this article, the confidence that has been placed in hard and, in particular, soft paternalistic measures in the field of behavioural public policy is questioned. The four purported limitations of human reasoning – i.e. limited imagination, willpower, objectivity and technical ability – are considered, but ultimately it is concluded that these are insufficient justifications for paternalistic intervention, for two principal-related reasons. First, it is impossible for a policy maker to discern what people desire for their own lives, and second, so long as they are not harming others, people ought to be free to pursue their own desires. The vision for the future of behavioural public policy proposed here is thus consistent with classical liberal, and in particular, Millian thought: i.e. aim to educate people on the pros and cons of their actions and inactions so that they are better equipped to live the lives they wish to lead but do not interfere directly in guiding them towards any particular end.

Financial policymakers increasingly rely on behavioural insights to protect the interests of consumers. However, little is known about how citizens feel about interventions designed to nudge their financial behaviour. Most literature on the acceptability of behavioural interventions focuses on the health domain. To address this gap, we present the results of an experiment on the acceptability of seven financial behavioural interventions (N = 684, members of a panel of the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets). We investigate the role of the agent implementing the intervention (policymaker versus financial company) and perceived effectiveness in relation to the acceptability of these interventions. The acceptability of behavioural interventions in financial decision-making appears to be lower than the acceptability levels found in previous studies. We find no effect of the agent on acceptability. Perceived effectiveness is strongly correlated with acceptability, but only perceived effectiveness in influencing one's own decisions has a consistently positive relationship with acceptability. Perceived effectiveness in influencing others' decisions has either no, a positive, or a negative relationship with acceptability. These results highlight that acceptability appears to be at least partly domain-specific and show that we have only just begun understanding the acceptability of behavioural interventions and its drivers.

Recently, there has been a lively discussion of “Hayekian Behavioral Economics” in Behavioral Public Policy). We aim to contribute to this debate by identifying the main building blocks of a Hayekian psychology. We highlight that the starting point for Hayek was the quest to understand why humans are typically quite successful in navigating the world. In Hayek's framework, the individual mind is conceptualized as a “system within a system”, i.e., the mind is a complex adaptive system that is continuously interacting with the wider socio-cultural system. Three core ideas are central to a Hayekian psychology: subjectivity, learning and adaptation. We argue that these ideas are quite different from the still dominant heuristics-and-biases perspective and lead to different emphases in economic and social science explanations. One, economists should be cautious in their interpretation of experimental findings since subjective meaning is central to agents' behavior. Two, static and isolated models of individuals' biases might underestimate people's capacity to learn with and from others. And three, despite complex processes of adaptation of the mind and the market, a Hayekian framework is consistent with economists' “explanations of the principle” and “pattern predictions.”

When policymakers focus on costs and benefits, they often find that hard questions become easy – as, for example, when the benefits clearly exceed the costs, or when the costs clearly exceed the benefits. In some cases, however, benefits or costs are difficult to quantify, perhaps because of limitations in scientific knowledge. In extreme cases, policymakers are proceeding in circumstances of uncertainty rather than risk, in the sense that they cannot assign probabilities to various outcomes. We suggest that in difficult cases in which important information is absent, it is useful for policymakers to consider a concept from poker: ‘freerolls.’ A freeroll exists when choosers can lose nothing from selecting an option but stand to gain something (whose magnitude may itself be unknown). In some cases, people display ‘freeroll neglect.’ In terms of social justice, John Rawls’ defense of the difference principle is grounded in the idea that, behind the veil of ignorance, choosers have a freeroll. In terms of regulatory policy, one of the most promising defenses of the Precautionary Principle sees it as a kind of freeroll. Some responses to climate change, pandemics and financial crises can be seen as near-freerolls. Freerolls and near-freerolls must be distinguished from cases involving cumulatively high costs and also from faux freerolls, which can be found when the costs of an option are real and significant, but not visible. ‘Binds’ are the mirror-image of freerolls; they involve options from which people are guaranteed to lose something (of uncertain magnitude). Some regulatory options are binds, and there are faux binds as well.

Meat-based food production has a detrimental impact on the environment and health. In response, Veganuary (an international non-profit organisation) encourages people to go vegan each January. We investigated the effects of a Veganuary campaign in workplace cafeterias which increased the availability and salience of plant-based products. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis on a large dataset from a UK catering company, which comprised 2,255,404 meals sold between 2016 and 2022, with Veganuary activity starting from 2019. Analysis indicated that Veganuary activity had a positive effect on sales of vegan products in 2020, 2021 and 2022, estimated at an initial increase of 86–113% in the proportion of weekly sales (relative to the baseline, depending on year). The effects of the 2020 and 2021 campaigns were still present – at approximately one third of their initial magnitude – one year following the campaigns. There was a positive effect on vegetarian products in 2019, 2021 and 2022; initial effects were smaller – 23–79% – due to higher levels of pre-campaign consumption. The effects of the 2019 and 2021 campaigns endured, with a small impact present after one year for 2019 and six months for 2021.

Under what circumstances will members of the public hold positive attitudes toward new or higher taxes? While some scholars have posited that the practice of “earmarking” – designating tax revenues for a particular purpose – can increase support for taxes, the existing literature has not identified the conditions under which earmarking will prove effective in this regard. Here, we draw upon previous research on consumer behavior to hypothesize that support for earmarked taxes will be stronger when such taxes satisfy the criterion of “source–use alignment” (i.e., when the connection between the revenue source and the use for which those revenues are earmarked accords with familiar consumer fairness norms). Evidence in support of this hypothesis comes from two experiments on a sample of US residents matched to Census data, in which subjects were randomly assigned to read descriptions of hypothetical earmarked taxes with varying levels of alignment. Individuals consistently expressed stronger support for earmarked taxes that achieved source–use alignment as compared to earmarked taxes that did not satisfy the source–use alignment criterion. Our theory and results not only help to explain why some earmarked taxes are more popular than others, but also suggest a means for increasing public support for taxes.

Debtors were stimulated to contact their creditors to negotiate a repayment plan. Contacting creditors was important because debtors were unlikely to repay the debt immediately and upon contacting, debtors could agree on a repayment plan to repay the debt in the long run. Using insights from scarcity theory and nudging techniques, a standard debt repayment letter was adapted and both letters were compared. Experimental results (N = 3,330) provide support for the use of nudging techniques as more debtors agreed on a repayment plan and response rates increased. The results underline the importance of stimulating debtors to contact their creditors.