Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-16T21:55:34.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The real cause of our complicity: The preoccupation with human weakness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Ralph Hertwig Open the ORCID record for Ralph Hertwig [Opens in a new window]
Ralph Hertwig*
Affiliation:
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany. [email protected]; https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/staff/ralph-hertwig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chater & Loewenstein offer an incisive criticism of how behavioral sciences and public policy have become complicit with corporations in blaming public health and societal problems on individual weaknesses, thus deflecting support away from systemic reforms. However, their analysis stops short of holding the field to account in one important respect: its preoccupation with human irrationality and weakness.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e161
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Brownell, K. D., & Gold, M. S. (Eds.). (2012). Food and addiction: A comprehensive handbook. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Beach, L. R. (1984). The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature. American Psychologist, 39(1), 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2018). The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lejarraga, T., & Hertwig, R. (2021). How experimental methods shaped views on human competence and rationality. Psychological Bulletin, 147(6), 535–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, L. L. (1991). The rhetoric of irrationality. Theory and Psychology, 1(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020). How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1102–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, B. (2018). Pain killer: An empire of deceit and the origin of America's opioid epidemic. Random House.Google Scholar
Nestle, M. (2015). Soda politics: Taking on big soda (and winning). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, A. (2021). Unhealthy foods aren't just bad for you, they may also be addictive. The New York Times, February 18.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1976). Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In J. S., Caroll & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 165–184). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stuckler, D., & Nestle, M. (2012). Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Medicine, 9(6), Article e1001242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, R. H. (1991). Quasi rational economics. Russell Sage.Google Scholar
The Economist. (2008). Wink, wink: The Tories are placing too much faith in interesting but limited ideas. July 26.Google Scholar
Whitaker, R. (2010). Anatomy of an epidemic: Psychiatric drugs and the astonishing rise of mental illness in America. Random House.Google Scholar
Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 497–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.Google Scholar