Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T14:41:38.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rhetoric of reaction, extended

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2022

Nick Chater Open the ORCID record for Nick Chater [Opens in a new window]  and
George Loewenstein
Nick Chater*
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
George Loewenstein
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Nick Chater, email: nick.chater@wbs.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Response
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 2023 , pp. 838 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bhargava, S. and Loewenstein, G. (2015), ‘Choosing a health insurance plan: Complexity and consequences’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 314(23): 2505–2506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowen, D. (2022), ‘Simple models predict behavior at least as well as behavioral scientists’, arXiv preprint arXiv, 2208: 01167.Google Scholar
Bubb, R. and Pildes, R. H. (2014), ‘How behavioral economics trims its sails and why’, Harvard Law Review, 127: 1593–1678.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O'donoghue, T. and Rabin, M. (2003), ‘Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for “Asymmetric Paternalism”’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3): 1211–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. and Gneezy, U. (2009), ‘Incentives to exercise’, Econometrica, 77(3): 909–931.Google Scholar
Chater, N. and Loewenstein, G. (in press), ‘The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002023.Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S. and Linos, E. (2022), ‘RCTs to scale: Comprehensive evidence from two nudge units’, Econometrica, 90(1): 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, J. S. and Loewenstein, G. (2011), ‘Behavioral Economics and Obesity’, in Cawley, J. (ed.), Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 138–157.Google Scholar
Hagmann, D., Ho, E. H. and Loewenstein, G. (2019), ‘Nudging out support for a carbon tax’, Nature Climate Change, 9(6): 484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1991), The Rhetoric of Reaction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. J., Hassin, R., Baker, T., Bajger, A. T. and Treuer, G. (2013), ‘Can consumers make affordable care affordable? The value of choice architecture’, PLoS One, 8(12): e81521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, M., Ludwig, J. and Rasich, E. (2020), ‘Intervention of choice: Behavioral science and gun violence’, Quinnipiac Law Review, 39: 409–418.Google Scholar
Learmonth, I. (2020), How the ‘carbon footprint’ originated as a PR campaign for big oil. Thred. https://thred.com/change/how-the-carbon-footprint-originated-as-a-pr-campaign-for-big-oil/Google Scholar
Liebe, U., Gewinner, J. and Diekmann, A. (2021), ‘Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors’, Nature Human Behaviour, 5(5): 576–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewenstein, G. and Chater, N. (2017), ‘Putting nudges in perspective’, Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1): 26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Y. and Temple, J. R. (2019), ‘Dangerous weapons or dangerous people? The temporal associations between gun violence and mental health’, Preventive Medicine, 121: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maier, M., Bartoš, F., Stanley, T. D., Shanks, D. R., Harris, A. J. and Wagenmakers, E. J. (2022), ‘No evidence for nudging after adjusting for publication bias’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(31): e2200300119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, M. E. (2021), The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back our Planet. New York, NY: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. and Brosch, T. (2022), ‘The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1): e2107346118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osman, M., McLachlan, S., Fenton, N., Neil, M., Löfstedt, R. and Meder, B. (2020), ‘Learning from behavioural changes that fail’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(12): 969–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2021), ‘Green defaults can combat climate change’, Nature Human Behaviour, 5(5): 548–549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2022), ‘The rhetoric of reaction redux’, Behavioural Public Policy. First View, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.26.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., Bobadilla-Suarez, S., Lazzaro, S. C. and Sharot, T. (2016), ‘How people update beliefs about climate change: Good news and bad news’, Cornell Law Review, 102: 1431.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2003), ‘Libertarian Paternalism’, The American Economic Review, 93: 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U. (1997), ‘Perception and Expectation of Climate Change: Precondition for Economic and Technological Adaptation’, in Bazerman, M. H., Messick, D. M., Tensbrunsel, A., and Wade-Benzoni, K. (eds), Psychological Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues in Management, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 314–341.Google Scholar
Werfel, S. H. (2017), ‘Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived’, Nature Climate Change, 7(7): 512–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar