The I-frame vs. S-frame: how neoliberalism has led behavioral sciences astray

Abstract

In their recently published paper, Chater and Loewenstein critically elaborate on the differences between interventions that focus on individual behavior (‘i-frame’), as opposed to the systems in which health behavior occurs (‘s-frame’). They point out that behavioral scientists frequently rely on individual-level interventions, rather than systemic change to improve population health. As individual-level interventions have fallen short of the author’s expectations to fix health problems, the authors argue that behavioral scientists should focus more on system-level change. They warn behavioral scientists that by framing disease as an individual problem they hinder real change. We agree with the arguments made by the authors; nevertheless, we propose that bringing underlying causes for the i-frame focus to light would advance their argument. In our commentary, we discuss that neoliberalism might be a reason for the focus on individual interventions in behavioral health sciences.

How do behavioral public policy experts see the role of complex systems perspectives? An expert interview study

“…Nudges were initially adopted by many parties as the main behavioral science tools [ 15 ], and due to being a cost-effective and well-known way to use BI in policy, there might have been political and budget-related temptations to use mainly nudges [ 3 ]. These approaches have also aligned well with certain political approaches that had been dominant at the time of their increasing success [ 16 ].…”