Applied behavioral scientists believe their work can influence people’s lives for the better. But what is the most effective way to make that happen?
Is it through interventions focused on influencing individual behavior while maintaining freedom of choice? Is it by changing policies and laws, and thereby the systems, that individuals operate within? Is it a combination of the two? Is the distinction between an individual- or systems-focus a helpful one? Or, is the world too messy and complex? How should applied behavioral scientists navigate the financial and political influences on the work they’re asked to do, as well as the work they’d like to do?
These are all questions that applied behavioral scientists are grappling with as they try to realize the promise of the field—to leverage the scientific understanding of psychology, behavior, society, and culture to help one another live happier, healthier, and more peaceful lives.
On October 14, join Editor-in-Chief Evan Nesterak and five leading behavioral scientists—Nick Chater, George Loewestein, Crystal Hall, Michael Hallsworth, and Chiara Varazzani—for a roundtable discussion about these questions and more. The leaping off point will be the i-frame vs. s-frame debate initiated by Chater and Loewenstein, first in an academic article and now in their new book, It’s on You. (Further background on the debate below.)
The guests of the roundtable don’t all agree on how to answer the questions above. In fact, in many cases they sharply disagree. But they all have extensive experience working in both academic and applied settings, especially in public policy, so we have the opportunity for an interesting and constructive conversation. The goal isn’t to settle the debate but to explore areas of agreement and disagreement, open a dialogue about how applied behavioral scientists approach their work, and surface the questions that can move the debate forward.
The event will take place online and is free to attend. You can reserve your spot here.
- Date: Wednesday, October 14
- Start time: 9:00am San Francisco | 12:00pm New York | 5:00pm London | 6:00pm Berlin | 7:00pm Nairobi | 9:30pm Delhi
- Duration: 90 minutes
- Location: Online
- Cost: Free to attend
- Register: Reserve your spot
We hope to see you there,
Evan Nesterak, Editor-in-Chief
Background on the debate
In their 2022 article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, psychologist Nick Chater and behavioral economist George Loewestein ignited the i-frame vs. s-frame debate within applied behavioral science. The two argued that, in the decade since the field burst on the scene, applied behavioral scientists, themselves included, had focused too much on trying to influence individual behavior (i-frame) and not enough on trying to influence the systems in which individuals behave (s-frame).
The result, they said, especially as it related to public policy, was that interventions were coming up short, attention was being directed away from system-level solutions that could have a tangible impact, and, perhaps most seriously, that applied behavioral scientists “may have unwittingly promoted the interests of the opponents of systemic change.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, not everyone agreed. One focus of Chater and Loewenstein’s criticism was nudging, which for them epitomized the i-frame approach. The format of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences is to feature a target article (in this case Chater and Loewestein’s) and then invite other scholars to respond to that article. Both Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, authors of Nudge, issued a response. “Nudging is being framed,” Thaler wrote. Sunstein argued, “Their complaint is baseless. In the real world of policymaking, behavioral science is mostly being used to reform systems, not to alter individual behavior.”
And Michael Hallsworth, a leader of the Behavioural Insights Team, wrote:
“I greatly respect the authors of the target article. However, in contrast to the target article’s assertion, practitioners of behavioral public policy are indeed involved in developing and promoting systemic solutions. Its ‘i-frame’/‘s-frame’ distinction is incoherent, unhelpful, and obscures promising future directions for behavioral public policy. Its content and presentation undermine its stated goals and encourage sweeping dismissals of the field.”
Chater, Loewenstein, Thaler, Sunstein, and Hallsworth all believe that applied behavioral science can be a positive force in improving people’s lives. The question is: How does the field get there?
Earlier this year, Chater and Loewenstein expanded their argument about the i-frame and s-frame in their book, It’s on You. And the question of how applied behavioral scientists should approach their work continues to bubble up in commentaries and conversations.
We wanted to use this moment to bring together diverging viewpoints about the i-frame vs. s-frame debate and how the field fulfills its promise. At the roundtable discussion, in addition to Nick Chater and George Loewestein, we’ll be joined by Crystal Hall (Professor, University of Washington and President, Behavioral Science & Policy Association), Michael Hallsworth (Chief Behavioral Scientist, BIT), and Chiara Varazzani (Lead Behavioral Scientist, OECD).
About the roundtable guests
Nick Chater is a professor of behavioral science at the Warwick Business School. In 2023, he was awarded the Rumelhart Prize for lifetime achievement in cognitive science. He has advised the UK Government and co-founded Decision Technology, a research consultancy. He is the coauthor of It’s on You (with George Loewenstein).
George Loewenstein is the Herbert A. Simon University Professor of Economics and Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University. He is one of the founders of behavioral economics, neuroeconomics, and behavioral public policy and has advised many leading companies and government bodies. He is the coauthor of It’s on You (with Nick Chater).
Crystal Hall is the John and Marguerite Walker Corbally Endowed Professor in Public Service at the University of Washington, as well as the president of the Behavioral Science & Policy Association. She has served as a fellow with the White House Social and Behavioral Sciences Team and the Federal Office of Evaluation Sciences at the General Services Administration, and has advised government agencies, nonprofits, and community organizations. She is the coauthor of Antiracist by Design (with Mindy Hernandez).
Michael Hallsworth is the chief behavioral scientist at BIT. He has two decades of experience in developing policy and designing services for national governments and international organizations. He is also a distinguished lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, and was previously visiting lecturer at Princeton University and assistant professor (adjunct) at Columbia University. He is the author of The Hypocrisy Trap and coauthor of Behavioral Insights (with Elspeth Kirkman).
Chiara Varazzani is lead behavioral scientist at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). She is also a senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Previously, she served as a member of the Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights for the World Health Organization (WHO), advised the Australian government, and was an adjunct research fellow at Monash University.
