The “hearts-and-minds frame”: Not all i-frame interventions are ineffective, but education-based interventions can be particularly bad

Abstract

Pitting i-frame policies against s-frame policies inadvertently propagates a false dichotomy that fails to distinguish between effective i-frame policies that directly change behaviors and ineffective education-based i-frame policies that try to change people's hearts and minds. We argue that people's fixation on changing hearts and minds may be an obstacle for behavioral science in policy.

At their best, dichotomies improve decision making by simplifying inherently complex phenomena and boiling down multivariate options to their most important features. At their worst, dichotomies conceal critical differences, painting a mirage of forced choice between potentially compatible alternatives. Unfortunately, despite its potential for advancing how people think about policy, we believe that the framework put forth by Chater & Loewenstein may inadvertently propagate a false dichotomy and unintentionally obscure two important and consequential elements of “i-frame” and “s-frame” policies. As such, we worry that this framework depicts policymaking as a forced choice between two distinct and seemingly uniform policy types.

First, the i-/s-framework fails to account for the fact that achieving lasting behavioral change does not require choosing the right type of policy but rather choosing the right portfolio of policies that build upon, interact, and complement each other. For instance, many American high school students who are eligible for federal financial aid fail to attend college because of financial barriers. Although policymakers may address this problem with an “s-frame” policy that increases the amount of federal aid, doing so doesn't exclude the implementation of additional, i-frame interventions that increase individual students’ likelihood of applying for such funding. Indeed, simplifying how applicants fill-out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) has been shown to increase the number of applications as well as the eventual number of students who enroll in college (Bettinger, Long, Oreopoulos, & Sanbonmatsu, 2012). Because simplifying application forms (i.e., an i-frame intervention) and increasing the amount of financial aid (i.e., an s-frame intervention) are not mutually exclusive, policymakers would be wise to incorporate both approaches to maximize their impact. Thus, depicting i-frame and s-frame policies as dichotomous and mutually exclusive options may distract policymakers from their potential integration and, as a result, limit their effectiveness in dealing with societal issues.

Second, the i-/s-framework fails to account for the fact that not all i-frame policies are created equal. Indeed, although “i-frame” policies vary considerably in both their focus and their effectiveness, this point can be easily overlooked when they are pooled together under one broad umbrella. For instance, although some i-frame policies focus on directly changing human behavior through “nudges” and behavioral interventions, other i-frame policies focus on changing people's hearts and minds based on the (often erroneous) assumption that education is sufficient for inspiring lasting behavioral change. To illustrate, consider the findings of one randomized controlled trial regarding the rise of antimicrobial resistance. Although an education-based “i-frame” policy that discouraged patients from needlessly taking antibiotics was completely ineffective in doing so, an “i-frame” policy that “nudged” doctors to compare how much antibiotics they prescribe relative to of their peers (i.e., a “social comparison nudge”) led to a reduction of more than 76,000 prescriptions over a 6-month period (Hallsworth et al., 2016). Similarly, although an education-based i-frame intervention that taught students about the importance of the tetanus vaccine was remarkably ineffective in increasing vaccination rates, a behavioral i-frame intervention that simplified the act of getting vaccinated (e.g., giving students a map of the health center and prompting them to schedule a time in advance) was much more successful (Leventhal, Singer, & Jones, 1965). Thus, lest one throws the baby out with the bathwater, strictly dichotomizing “i-frame” and “s-frame” interventions obscures critical differences within each type of policy.

Despite its relative ineffectiveness, changing hearts and minds through education-based i-frame interventions tends to be surprisingly popular. As illustrated by the $8 billion diversity training industry (Bohnet, 2016), there is a strong demand for education-based interventions about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), despite their relative ineffectiveness in reducing workplace discrimination (Chang et al., 2019; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). And, although organizations that incorporate diversity training can signal commitment to social justice (Feldberg & Kim, 2018), there are clearly better and more effective i-frame interventions for solving DEI-related problems (e.g., name-blind applications, structured interviews, longer interview lists, etc.; Goldin & Rouse, 2000; Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014; Lucas, Berry, Giurge, & Chugh, 2021). Similarly, although a recent meta-analysis covering 201 studies found a surprisingly negligible effect of education-based i-frame interventions on financial behaviors (Fernandes, Lynch, & Netemeyer, 2014), almost half of all US states require some form of financial literacy education in high school curricula (Council for Economic Education, 2022). Thus, although we applaud the target article for highlighting people's aversion to “s-frame” policies, more research is needed to understand people's preference for education-based i-frame interventions over other, more effective i-frame interventions. In addition to separating “s-frame” and “i-frame” policies, future research ought to distinguish between behaviorally focused “i-frame” interventions and education-based “i-frame” interventions that focus on changing their knowledge and attitudes.

What explains people's misplaced trust in education-based i-frame interventions? In our work, we find preliminary evidence that people put a premium on changing individuals’ hearts and minds, prioritizing interventions that target beliefs and attitudes over ones that directly target behavior. Thus, beyond people's preference for changing individuals rather than systems, they also seem to favor changing others’ attitudes rather than behaviors. Accordingly, when faced with a set of potential interventions, policymakers may not only need to overcome the allure of changing individuals, but also the allure of simply educating them. Similarly, when considering public reactions to potential policies, policymakers may not only have to deal with the seeming popularity of “i-frame” interventions but also with people's pernicious enchantment with an ineffective yet surprisingly popular subset of such interventions: The “hearts-and-minds frame.”