The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray

An influential line of thinking in behavioral science, to which the two authors have long subscribed, is that many of society's most pressing problems can be addressed cheaply and effectively at the level of the individual, without modifying the system in which the individual operates. We now believe this was a mistake, along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both the academic and policy communities. Results from such interventions have been disappointingly modest. But more importantly, they have guided many (though by no means all) behavioral scientists to frame policy problems in individual, not systemic, terms: To adopt what we call the i-frame, rather than the s-frame. The difference may be more consequential than i-frame advocates have realized, by deflecting attention and support away from sframe policies. Indeed, highlighting the i-frame is a long-established objective of corporate opponents of concerted systemic action such as regulation and taxation. We illustrate our argument briefly for six policy problems, and in depth with the examples of climate change, obesity, retirement savings, and pollution from plastic waste. We argue that the most important way in which behavioral scientists can contribute to public policy is by employing their skills to develop and implement value-creating system-level change.

Automated summary

There is a misconception in behavioral science that many societal problems can be addressed at the individual level without modifying the overall system. This individual frame of thinking has led to a neglect of systemic policies and actions, thereby restricting the contribution of behavioral scientists to public policy.