A triple test for behavioral economics models and public health policy

Abstract

We propose a triple test to evaluate the usefulness of behavioral economics models for public health policy. Test 1 is whether the model provides reasonably new insights. Test 2 is on whether these have been properly applied to policy settings. Test 3 is whether they are corroborated by evidence. We exemplify by considering the cases of social interactions models, self-control models and, in relation to health message framing, prospect theory. Out of these sets of models, only a correctly applied prospect theory fully passes the tests at present. Specifically, in broad agreement with the evidence, a gain frame has positive implications for welfare encourages disease prevention activity, though this does not apply if the perceived probability of the bad health outcome is large enough. We see our tests as being useful to identify how much health policy weight policy makers should assign to specific behavioral economic models; they are also useful to verify what next steps would be most useful in further research.

Integrating economics into the rationale for multisectoral action on obesity

“…Even taking constant preferences as given, questions arise about whether rational choice represents the way people think (15). While workarounds for traditional assumptions and alternate theories are possible, the key test of validity is how well they match evidence on human behavior (27, 28) (Figure 1).…”

A systematic review of behavioral public policy research: origins, mechanisms and outcomes

“…(2015),Garcia-Sierra et al (2015),Nakamura et al (2017),Gopalan and Pirog (2017),Guthrie et al (2015) Designing menus to cause framing effects SalienceMoral education to increase the moral salienceMartin (2015), Andreadakis (2020) Increasing the salience of messaging Malone et al (2017), Rocha et al (2020) Presenting choices in a more salient or interesting light Junghans et al (2015), Yoong et al (2020) Defaults Setting smart, automatic and thoughtfully default options Leigh (2015), Coffinoa et al (2020), Drews et al (2020), Garcíaa and Vila (2020), Garcia-Sierra et al (2015), Malone et al (2017), Matjasko et al (2016), Momsen and Stoerk (2014), Rathi and Chunekar (2015), Schulz et al (2018), Zarghamee et al (2016), Rocha et al (2020), SP19, Kooreman and Prast (2010), Metcalfe et al (2020), Yoong et al (2020), Gopalan and Pirog (2017) Manifestation of status quo bias Garcia-Sierra et al (2015), Rathi and Chunekar (2015), Zarghamee et al…”