A reduction in the demand for meat and particularly red meat has the potential to significantly enhance the sustainability and health of many people's diets. In the current work, I examine situational predictors of meat consumption in nationally representative nutrition surveys from three Western European countries: Switzerland, France and the Netherlands. More specifically, I examine whether the situational factors – the meal type, the day of the week and the location of the food consumption occasion – are predictive of whether meat and red meat are consumed. The results indicate that all three factors are linked to meat and red meat consumption with the patterns varying substantially across the different case study countries and in some cases also the gender of the consumer. The results emphasise the value of mapping situational correlates to inform situated interventions aimed at influencing meat consumption, while also highlighting important differences across both cultures and people.

Transparency is intimately linked to debates about the ethics, political legitimacy and effectiveness of nudging. This paper provides an overview of empirical studies investigating how changes in the transparency of a nudge affect people's choices and evaluations of the nudge. I conclude that the present literature provides generally consistent evidence supporting that the effectiveness of a nudge does not decrease when choosers are given good opportunity to detect and understand the influence it might have on their choices. However, several conceptual and methodological issues are identified, significantly limiting the scope of the conclusions that can be drawn. The limitations are discussed and organized into six themes, with recommendations provided for how future research may address them.

Some cancer screening programs are built on contentious evidence, but the public are generally positive about screening. Many professional organizations have settled on a fudge: allow the people to decide for themselves. Given the potential limitations of individual decision-making, there is increasing support for helping individuals to make better decisions. This paper presents experimental data supporting the claim that individuals are largely unresponsive to data about screening and base their decisions upon factors that professionals would consider inappropriate reasons for screening. The most plausible explanation for this phenomenon comes from accessibility bias. Professionals can no longer sustain the argument that, with respect to cancer screening, individual choice reflects a meaningful expression of autonomy.

To help people make informed decisions, policy-makers often require entities to provide consumers with informational materials known as disclosures. However, it is unclear whether consumers pay attention to disclosures. In two experiments where we manipulate the delivery of disclosures, we find that the mere presence of an observer negatively affects attention to disclosures, while introducing a mandatory waiting period after receiving a disclosure increases attention. In a third study, we analyze more than 3000 surveys answered by recent mortgage borrowers. Borrowers who report receiving disclosures at mortgage closing meetings (which are often attended by multiple stakeholders) are less likely to have questions about their disclosures than those who receive disclosures beforehand, suggesting differential attention. Our findings demonstrate that both mandatory waiting periods and the presence of observers can affect consumers’ attention to disclosures. We discuss implications of our research for policies designed to promote informed consumer decision-making.

Given the rates of transmission of COVID-19, relying only on manual contact tracing might be infeasible to control the epidemic without sustained costly lockdowns or rapid vaccination efforts. In the first study of its kind in Latin America, we find through a phone survey of a nationally representative sample of ten countries that an opt-out regime (automatic installation) increases self-reported intention to accept a contact tracing app with exposure notification by 22 percentage points compared to an opt-in regime (voluntary installation). This effect is triple the size and of opposite sign of the effect found in Europe and the United States, potentially due to lower concerns regarding privacy and lower levels of interpersonal trust. We see that an opt-out regime is more effective in increasing willingness to accept for those who do not trust the government or do not use their smartphones for financial transactions. The local severity of the pandemic does not affect our results, but feeling personally at risk increases intent to accept such apps in general. These results can shed light on the use of default options not only for contact tracing apps but in public health overall in the context of a pandemic in Latin America.

The application of behavioural insights to public policy has been a success story of recent years, in academia and in the civil service. Alongside this, a parallel group of practitioners has emerged, using the same underlying research to pursue commercial and marketing goals. Although the objectives are mostly different, many of the approaches are similar. This article contrasts public and private sector approaches and highlights lessons each group can learn from the other.

Finding ways to get consumers engaged in markets is a major current topic of debate. This article examines why consumer engagement is so important in driving effective competition in markets. It then considers some key categories of intervention that can enhance consumer engagement, and in particular the various roles that disclosure can play. Recent examples are provided from the UK, where many such engagement measures have been implemented. The article emphasizes the importance, when policy-makers are designing such interventions, of understanding how real consumers truly behave. It also highlights the relevance to competitive outcomes of two further concepts: relative salience and relative consumer engagement. Finally, the article draws on both the successes and the failures of past interventions to identify some lessons for policy-makers when stepping into this area.

For educational researchers, Al-Ubaydli et al. raise a crucial question: How can the science of scaling experimental innovations contribute to school improvement? By assessing how particular innovative programs work, why, for whom and under what conditions, experimenters test theories: about how children and youth learn, about how adults can collaborate to create the required learning opportunities and about how policy can supply the required incentives and resources to support such effective collaboration. My focus in this response article thus shifts from the perspective of innovators who hope to scale their interventions to the perspective of practitioners who face the challenge of adopting, adapting or borrowing ideas from experimental studies and harmonizing those ideas with expert clinical judgment.

Over the last decade, health care in many parts of the world has shifted toward a more patient-centric, consumeristic model, marked by an emphasis on choice and a proliferation of typical consumer-facing information (e.g. price and quality data). However, while the ‘patients as consumers’ perspective is an apt one, there are crucial differences between health care and typical consumer domains that warrant special consideration by policy-makers and researchers alike. This article discusses some of these differences and explores the challenges that consumers (i.e. patients) face when making trade-offs between price and quality.

Regulators require lenders to display a subset of credit card features in summary tables before customers finalize a credit card choice. Some jurisdictions require some features to be displayed more prominently than others to help ensure that consumers are made aware of them. This approach could lead to untoward effects on choice, such that relevant but nonprominent product features do not factor in as significantly. To test this possibility, we instructed a random sample of 1615 adults to choose between two hypothetical credit cards whose features were shown side by side in tables. The sample was instructed to select the card that would result in the lowest financial charges, given a hypothetical scenario. Critically, we randomly varied whether the annual interest rates and fees were made visually salient by making one, both, or neither brighter than other features. The findings show that even among credit-savvy individuals, choice tends strongly toward the product that outperforms the other on a salient feature. As a result, we encourage regulators to consider not only whether a key feature should be made more salient, but also the guidelines regarding when a key feature should be displayed prominently during credit card acquisition.

Do small wording differences in message-based behavioral interventions have outsized effects on behavior? An influential initial study, examining this question in the domain of political behavior using two small-scale field experiments, argues that subtle linguistic cues in voter mobilization messages describing someone as a voter (noun) instead of one who votes (verb) dramatically increases turnout rates by activating a person's social identity as a voter. Two subsequent large-scale replication field experiments challenged this claim, finding no effect even in electorally competitive settings. However, these experiments may not have reproduced the psychological context needed to motivate behavioral change because they did not occur in highly competitive and highly salient electoral contexts. Addressing this major criticism, we conduct a large-scale, preregistered replication field experiment in the 2016 presidential election. We find no evidence that noun wording increases turnout compared to verb wording in this highly salient electoral context, even in competitive states.

The problem with decision-making in an institutional setting is that it is often more important for one's reputation and job security to appear to be logical than it is to be truly effective. Indeed, a far lower burden of proof is applied to ideas and suggestions that accord with simple economic axioms than to those that are oblique, counterintuitive or employ second-order thinking. Hence, the best new ideas generated by behavioural science will and should often lie outside the bureaucrat's natural comfort zone; any difficulties encountered by behavioural scientists should not surprise us: like the sting of an antiseptic, they are proof that the treatment is working.

In a previously published article, I reported some tests of prospect theory's reflection effect over outcomes defined by money and life years gained from treatment. Those results suggested qualified support for the reflection effect over money outcomes and strong support over longevity outcomes. This article reruns those tests while accounting for the intensity of individual risk attitudes, and, overall, show consistency with the reflection effect. However, I argue that these results do not necessarily offer support for the explanatory power of prospect theory. Rather, the results may be driven by evolved responses to circumstances that provoke perceptions of scarcity and abundance. Therefore, from an ecological perspective, behavioral patterns such as those that are consistent with the reflection effect, which, by extension, tend to be considered as erroneous or biased by most behavioral economists because they conflict with the postulates of rational choice theory, may not be unreasonable. Recognizing as such is important when considering how behavioral insights ought to inform public policy design and implementation.

Many people delay their preparation for retirement. Policy-makers often attempt to motivate people to take timely action by increasing the perceived importance of retirement saving, yet the effectiveness of such strategies can be doubted. We examined why a strategy of emphasizing importance may be ineffective by distinguishing between intention to prepare for retirement and action in actually taking steps toward preparation. Two surveys (n1 = 1171; n2 = 832) showed that importance and difficulty were both predictive of people's intentions to prepare for retirement, but that difficulty was a much stronger predictor of people's actual actions. Using data from an additional survey (n3 = 986), a series of follow-up tests provided further evidence that difficulty of retirement preparation is a stronger predictor of inaction than importance of retirement saving. These findings help explain why policies aimed at simplifying retirement preparation (e.g., automatic enrollment) have been more successful than policies aimed at increasing the importance of retirement saving (e.g., tax advantages).

Local public managers increasingly use behavioral policy instruments to influence the behavior of citizens. However, despite their increased reliance on these instruments, there is little evidence on why local public manager would prefer behavioral instruments over classic stick, carrot or sermon-type instruments. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a stated-preference survey and two focus groups, to examine whether senior local public managers (directors and deputy directors) in Flanders prefer behavioral policy instruments over classic stick, carrot and sermon-type instruments, and explore whether their trust in citizens (perceptions of citizen’s ability, benevolence and integrity) affects these preferences for policy instruments. The results indicate that in some policy areas, such as health, public nuisance and road safety, public managers appear more willing to use behavioral policy instruments than classic sticks and carrots, but not sermons. Furthermore, we find that public managers’ trust in citizens does not appear to significantly affect their preferences for policy instruments, but that political and economic motives do play a role in their preferences for behavioral policy instruments. Finally, the results also indicate that the simultaneous use of behavioral and classic policy instruments (packaging) can help mediate the perceived risks of citizens’ non-compliance with behavioral policy instruments.

Naturalistic monitoring tools provide detailed information about people's behaviours and experiences in everyday life. Most naturalistic monitoring research has focused on measuring subjective well-being. This paper discusses how naturalistic monitoring can inform behavioural public policy-making by providing detailed information about everyday decisions and the choice architecture in which these decisions are made. We describe how the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM) – a naturalistic monitoring tool popular in the subjective well-being literature – can be used to: (i) improve ecological validity of behavioural economics; (ii) provide mechanistic evidence of the everyday workings of behavioural interventions; and (iii) help us to better understand people's true preferences. We believe that DRM data on everyday life have great potential to support the design and evaluation of behavioural policies.

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.”

This paper offers an interpretation of the behavioural evidence that casts doubt over whether people always have preferences or, if they do, that they are stable. If people do not have preferences in this sense, then the usual policy evaluation standard of preference satisfaction cannot be used in these cases. The paper then develops, to fill this gap, a Millian policy framework where policy is judged by whether it advances what Mill understands by individual liberty in On Liberty. This yields many recognisable policies but offers a different evaluative standard for them. It also yields some policy innovations: e.g. a basic income and a flat tax.