Chater & Loewenstein (C&L) offer a compelling case that scholars in the behavioral sciences need to reflect on the current state of their research and consider how to better contribute to addressing societal challenges. They document the limits of behavioral interventions (i.e., nudges) in solving the most pressing social problems and argue that the focus on individual-level interventions can crowd out more effective system-level policy changes. C&L correctly acknowledge that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but point out the obvious – that incentives matter, tradeoffs exist, and narratives shape debates. We elaborate on these points by suggesting that, in terms of addressing societal challenges, the most important contribution of behavioral research is not to pursue alternatives to system-level change but rather to find ways to use behavioral insights to advance system-level policies.
Interest in applying behavioral interventions or nudges to address societal problems emerged, in large part, because of the political barriers that obstruct system-level policy change. The appeal of nudges is that they maintain freedom of choice while contributing to solving the problem at hand. But the very thing that makes nudges more politically viable – maintaining personal freedom – also makes them less effective (Hummel & Maedche, Reference Hummel and Maedche2019). Behavioral interventions can unquestionably be useful in some settings, such as solving coordination problems or helping people with weak or ambiguous preferences find their way with a default or information (Thaler & Sunstein, Reference Thaler and Sunstein2008). However, our most pressing social problems are complex dilemmas, such as climate change or coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, in which there are competing interests or a tension between what is best for individuals and what is best for society. Behavioral interventions are ill-equipped to adequately resolve such conflicts. Meaningful solutions require system-level policies that alter the incentives that govern behavior.
Promising policy options exist for nearly every social problem. It is the inability to implement these system-level policies that prevents progress on a wide range of issues. From controlled experiments, studies show that people often reject policies even when the policy unambiguously improves individual and collective material wellbeing (Cherry, Kallbekken, & Kroll, Reference Cherry, Kallbekken and Kroll2017; Dal Bó, Dal Bó, & Eyster, Reference Dal Bó, Dal Bó and Eyster2018). Work has begun to identify the behavioral underpinnings of policy resistance, but more can be done to identify ways to make system-level change more likely and more effective.
Carbon taxes offer a prominent example. Despite widespread support among experts, carbon tax proposals are usually met with fierce opposition from the public and vested interests that perceive them as coercive, ineffective, and unfair (Bergquist, Nilsson, Harring, & Jagers, Reference Bergquist, Nilsson, Harring and Jagers2022). Behavioral research has explored ways to alter the design of a carbon tax to alleviate the perception of coerciveness, ineffectiveness, and unfairness (e.g., Cherry, Kallbekken, & Kroll, Reference Cherry, Kallbekken and Kroll2012). The perceived coerciveness of a proposed carbon tax can be diminished by including individual-level interventions that invite ways to lessen the burden of the tax – for example, a congestion charge can include nudges to use an expanded and improved public transportation system (Franssens, Botchway, Swart, & Dewitte, Reference Franssens, Botchway, Swart and Dewitte2021). The perceived effectiveness of a carbon tax can be enhanced by earmarking the revenue to related programs that generate an additional stream of benefits – for example, revenues directed to environmental measures (Kotchen, Turk, & Leiserowitz, Reference Kotchen, Turk and Leiserowitz2017). And perceived fairness can be addressed by using the tax revenue to offset the harm imposed by the behavior targeted by the tax or the tax itself (Kallbekken, Kroll, & Cherry, Reference Kallbekken, Kroll and Cherry2011).
Also consider the behavioral tendencies, such as status quo bias and affective forecasting, that contribute to people's resistance to new policies (e.g., Pedersen, Friman, & Kristensson, Reference Pedersen, Friman and Kristensson2011). Studies show that opposition to a proposed policy can diminish significantly after the policy is implemented and people experience the benefits of the new policy (Schuitema, Steg, & Forward, Reference Schuitema, Steg and Forward2010). The challenge is that policies are proposed to people who have no experience with the policy. But implementation can be reimagined. For instance, researchers and policymakers have considered a process that starts with a temporary trial run of the policy, followed by a proposal of the policy to a more informed and experienced public (Cherry, Kallbekken, & Kroll, Reference Cherry, Kallbekken and Kroll2014).
Beyond improving the feasibility of system-level change, behavioral research can also improve the effectiveness of policies after implementation. Research should explore how combinations of individual-level nudges and system-level policies can be more effective together than if either are adopted alone (Carlsson, Gravert, Johansson-Stenman, & Kurz, Reference Carlsson, Gravert, Johansson-Stenman and Kurz2021; Stuber, Hoenink, Beulens, Mackenbach, & Lakerveld, Reference Stuber, Hoenink, Beulens, Mackenbach and Lakerveld2021). Consider a proposal that combines a carbon tax with behavioral interventions that encourage energy efficiency. The behavioral intervention can make it easier for people to exhibit the desired response to the carbon tax, whereas the financial incentives from the carbon tax can boost the effectiveness of the behavioral intervention (Kallbekken, Sælen, & Hermansen, Reference Kallbekken, Sælen and Hermansen2013). Policy packages have become a tool for policymakers (e.g., European Green Deal, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, etc.), and behavioral research can offer important insights on the potential for combining and sequencing policies to be more effective, as well as more politically feasible (Kallbekken, Reference Kallbekken2023).
The global community faces unsettling threats that require system-level policy solutions. Behavioral interventions alone are playing at the margins: Moving behaviors that are not overly costly for individuals to change and offering inadequate headway with our most pressing social challenges. Behavioral interventions may, however, provide pathways to overcome the barriers to implementing promising policies and to help make those policies more effective. This potential is likely greatest for designs where the elements are considered in conjunction during the design phase, rather than as add-ons, developing a comprehensive policy package that simultaneously addresses incentives and behavior.
Chater & Loewenstein (C&L) offer a compelling case that scholars in the behavioral sciences need to reflect on the current state of their research and consider how to better contribute to addressing societal challenges. They document the limits of behavioral interventions (i.e., nudges) in solving the most pressing social problems and argue that the focus on individual-level interventions can crowd out more effective system-level policy changes. C&L correctly acknowledge that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but point out the obvious – that incentives matter, tradeoffs exist, and narratives shape debates. We elaborate on these points by suggesting that, in terms of addressing societal challenges, the most important contribution of behavioral research is not to pursue alternatives to system-level change but rather to find ways to use behavioral insights to advance system-level policies.
Interest in applying behavioral interventions or nudges to address societal problems emerged, in large part, because of the political barriers that obstruct system-level policy change. The appeal of nudges is that they maintain freedom of choice while contributing to solving the problem at hand. But the very thing that makes nudges more politically viable – maintaining personal freedom – also makes them less effective (Hummel & Maedche, Reference Hummel and Maedche2019). Behavioral interventions can unquestionably be useful in some settings, such as solving coordination problems or helping people with weak or ambiguous preferences find their way with a default or information (Thaler & Sunstein, Reference Thaler and Sunstein2008). However, our most pressing social problems are complex dilemmas, such as climate change or coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, in which there are competing interests or a tension between what is best for individuals and what is best for society. Behavioral interventions are ill-equipped to adequately resolve such conflicts. Meaningful solutions require system-level policies that alter the incentives that govern behavior.
Promising policy options exist for nearly every social problem. It is the inability to implement these system-level policies that prevents progress on a wide range of issues. From controlled experiments, studies show that people often reject policies even when the policy unambiguously improves individual and collective material wellbeing (Cherry, Kallbekken, & Kroll, Reference Cherry, Kallbekken and Kroll2017; Dal Bó, Dal Bó, & Eyster, Reference Dal Bó, Dal Bó and Eyster2018). Work has begun to identify the behavioral underpinnings of policy resistance, but more can be done to identify ways to make system-level change more likely and more effective.
Carbon taxes offer a prominent example. Despite widespread support among experts, carbon tax proposals are usually met with fierce opposition from the public and vested interests that perceive them as coercive, ineffective, and unfair (Bergquist, Nilsson, Harring, & Jagers, Reference Bergquist, Nilsson, Harring and Jagers2022). Behavioral research has explored ways to alter the design of a carbon tax to alleviate the perception of coerciveness, ineffectiveness, and unfairness (e.g., Cherry, Kallbekken, & Kroll, Reference Cherry, Kallbekken and Kroll2012). The perceived coerciveness of a proposed carbon tax can be diminished by including individual-level interventions that invite ways to lessen the burden of the tax – for example, a congestion charge can include nudges to use an expanded and improved public transportation system (Franssens, Botchway, Swart, & Dewitte, Reference Franssens, Botchway, Swart and Dewitte2021). The perceived effectiveness of a carbon tax can be enhanced by earmarking the revenue to related programs that generate an additional stream of benefits – for example, revenues directed to environmental measures (Kotchen, Turk, & Leiserowitz, Reference Kotchen, Turk and Leiserowitz2017). And perceived fairness can be addressed by using the tax revenue to offset the harm imposed by the behavior targeted by the tax or the tax itself (Kallbekken, Kroll, & Cherry, Reference Kallbekken, Kroll and Cherry2011).
Also consider the behavioral tendencies, such as status quo bias and affective forecasting, that contribute to people's resistance to new policies (e.g., Pedersen, Friman, & Kristensson, Reference Pedersen, Friman and Kristensson2011). Studies show that opposition to a proposed policy can diminish significantly after the policy is implemented and people experience the benefits of the new policy (Schuitema, Steg, & Forward, Reference Schuitema, Steg and Forward2010). The challenge is that policies are proposed to people who have no experience with the policy. But implementation can be reimagined. For instance, researchers and policymakers have considered a process that starts with a temporary trial run of the policy, followed by a proposal of the policy to a more informed and experienced public (Cherry, Kallbekken, & Kroll, Reference Cherry, Kallbekken and Kroll2014).
Beyond improving the feasibility of system-level change, behavioral research can also improve the effectiveness of policies after implementation. Research should explore how combinations of individual-level nudges and system-level policies can be more effective together than if either are adopted alone (Carlsson, Gravert, Johansson-Stenman, & Kurz, Reference Carlsson, Gravert, Johansson-Stenman and Kurz2021; Stuber, Hoenink, Beulens, Mackenbach, & Lakerveld, Reference Stuber, Hoenink, Beulens, Mackenbach and Lakerveld2021). Consider a proposal that combines a carbon tax with behavioral interventions that encourage energy efficiency. The behavioral intervention can make it easier for people to exhibit the desired response to the carbon tax, whereas the financial incentives from the carbon tax can boost the effectiveness of the behavioral intervention (Kallbekken, Sælen, & Hermansen, Reference Kallbekken, Sælen and Hermansen2013). Policy packages have become a tool for policymakers (e.g., European Green Deal, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, etc.), and behavioral research can offer important insights on the potential for combining and sequencing policies to be more effective, as well as more politically feasible (Kallbekken, Reference Kallbekken2023).
The global community faces unsettling threats that require system-level policy solutions. Behavioral interventions alone are playing at the margins: Moving behaviors that are not overly costly for individuals to change and offering inadequate headway with our most pressing social challenges. Behavioral interventions may, however, provide pathways to overcome the barriers to implementing promising policies and to help make those policies more effective. This potential is likely greatest for designs where the elements are considered in conjunction during the design phase, rather than as add-ons, developing a comprehensive policy package that simultaneously addresses incentives and behavior.
Financial support
T. L. C. is supported by a National Science Foundation grant (SES2033855).
Competing interest
None.