Reflections on the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize Awarded to Richard Thaler

Grüne‐Yanoff, Till

doi:10.23941/ejpe.v10i2.307

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, behavior change does not always involve free will (Venema, 2020) or is not considered to be beneficial by people targeted for change (Kubacki et al, 2019) reflecting a failure of agencies to authentically consult with the people they serve. Choice architecture that shapes behavior without volitional choice can be subject to heavy criticism by members of community who see the actions as manipulative (e.g., Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). When implemented by governing authorities in libertarian societies, these criticisms can result in political backlash.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CBE: A Framework to Guide the Application of Marketing to Behavior Change

Rundle‐Thiele

Dietrich

Carins

2021

Social Marketing Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This paper aims to extend the application of social marketing to social and environmentally beneficial behavior change providing a three-step process—Co-create-Build-Engage (CBE). The key strength social marketing brings to the social change space is the development of something of value that moves and motivates people to voluntarily change their behavior; in turn benefitting themselves, the planet and society at large. Method: Using a case study method, this paper identifies how up to eight marketing principles, initially penned to distinguish social marketing from public health, are applied in the three step CBE process, using first time program development and implementation examples. First, programs are co-created (C) with people at the heart of the problem and built (B) to create and embed lasting solutions and finally communities are engaged (E) to partake in these programs. This linear process is applied in first time program development and stages blur following first time implementation as CBE steps become continuous when programs are embedded into communities. This paper outlines four cases demonstrating when and where key marketing activities were applied to co-create, build and implement social marketing programs that achieved behavioral change. Results: Included is a roadmap of the activities that occurred in first time program development and implementation across each stage of the three step CBE process. During co-creation competition is assessed and groups are identified (segmentation). Formative research programs are theoretically underpinned and human centred (customer orientation) and solely aimed at identifying insights to guide program build and engagement. Elements of the marketing mix focus program build ensuring that a valued exchange offering is built. Engagement represents the initial implementation phase and encompasses the set of activities that focus on ensuring people are aware of and can adopt the program. Recommendations for Research or Practice: Many of the foundational techniques that distinguish social marketing from other behavioral science approaches are not widely adopted. This paper offers a roadmap to demonstrate how and when core social marketing activities can be applied to effect voluntary behavior change. Volitional change avoids stigmatization, alienation, reactance and community divides, which occur when behaviors are mandated or when people are told what to do. The CBE process provides a process, outlining social marketing’s key principles and the set of activities that are applied to build more effective marketing programs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CBE: A Framework to Guide the Application of Marketing to Behavior Change

Rundle‐Thiele

Dietrich

Carins

2021

Social Marketing Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, if new skills are framed in terms of wisdom rather than treatment, they could have an empowering rather than demoralizing effect. Note that Hertwig and Grüne-Yanoff (2017 , p. 982) differentiated between boosts and schooling. However, Healthy Minds satisfies their criteria for this distinction.…”

Section: Boosts: a Way Forward For Wppmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…More broadly, Grüne-Yanoff (2017) argued, somewhat controversially, that far from providing explanations of decision-making, “behavioral economists typically engage in developing as-if models: namely, models that fit the behavioural phenomena, but [make] no (legitimate) claim to the underlying psychological mechanisms that brought about this behaviour” (p. 67; see also Berg & Gigerenzer, 2010 ). In the place of explanation, behavioral science offers instead correctives and qualifications to existing models and new constructs that correlate with experimental evidence.…”

Section: The Ethical Boundaries Of Behavioral Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Be Happy: Navigating Normative Issues in Behavioral and Well-Being Public Policy

Fabian

Pykett

2021

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological science is increasingly influencing public policy. Behavioral public policy (BPP) was a milestone in this regard because it influenced many areas of policy in a general way. Well-being public policy (WPP) is emerging as a second domain of psychological science with general applicability. However, advocacy for WPP is criticized on ethical and political grounds. These criticisms are reminiscent of those directed at BPP over the past decade. This déjà vu suggests the need for interdisciplinary work that establishes normative principles for applying psychological science in public policy. We try to distill such principles for WPP from the normative debates over BPP. We argue that the uptake of BPP by governments was a function of its relatively strong normative and epistemic foundations in libertarian paternalism, or nudging, for short. We explain why the nudge framework is inappropriate for WPP. We then analyze how boosts offer a strict but feasible alternative framework for substantiating the legitimacy of well-being and behavioral policies. We illuminate how some WPPs could be fruitfully promoted as boosts and how they might fall short of the associated criteria.

show abstract

“…Kahneman (2011) explains in retrospect that prospect theory was, in essence, a formalization of the dualprocess account developed in Heuristics and Biases research: "Although Amos and I were not working with the two-systems model of the mind, it's clear now that there are three cognitive features at the heart of prospect theory. They play an essential role in the evaluation of financial outcomes and are common to many automatic processes of perception, judgment, and emotion" (2011, p. 273).4 For a critical reflection on Thaler's legacy in behavioral economics, especially with regard to his attempts to make economics psychologically more realistic, seeGrüne-Yanoff (2017).Dual Process Theories in Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics: a...…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual Process Theories in Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics: a Critical Review

Grayot

2019

Rev.Phil.Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their popularity, dual process accounts of human reasoning and decisionmaking have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Cognitive scientists and philosophers alike have come to question the theoretical foundations of the 'standard view' of dual process theory and have challenged the validity and relevance of evidence in support of it. Moreover, attempts to modify and refine dual process theory in light of these challenges have generated additional concerns about its applicability and refutability as a scientific theory. With these concerns in mind, this paper provides a critical review of dual process theory in economics, focusing on its role as a psychological framework for decision modeling in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics. I argue that the influx of criticisms against dual process theory challenge the descriptive accuracy of dualistic decision models in economics. In fact, the case can be made that the popularity of dual process theory in economics has less to do with the empirical success of dualistic decision models, and more to do with the convenience that the dual process narrative provides economists looking to explainaway decision anomalies. This leaves behavioral economists and neuroeconomists with something of a dilemma: either they stick to their purported ambitions to give a realistic description of human decision-making and give up the narrative, or they revise and restate their scientific ambitions.

show abstract

Reflections on the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize Awarded to Richard Thaler

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

CBE: A Framework to Guide the Application of Marketing to Behavior Change

CBE: A Framework to Guide the Application of Marketing to Behavior Change

Be Happy: Navigating Normative Issues in Behavioral and Well-Being Public Policy

Dual Process Theories in Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics: a Critical Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About