The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray
Chater and Loewenstein argue that behavioural science made a mistake in treating many pressing social problems as best addressed cheaply at the level of the individual. Results from such interventions have been modest. More importantly, they led many behavioural scientists to frame policy problems in individual terms, which the authors call the i-frame, and not in systemic terms, the s-frame. They argue that the difference is more consequential than i-frame advocates have realised, because it can divert attention and support from policies aimed at the system.
Chater and Loewenstein argue that behavioural science made a mistake in treating many pressing social problems as best addressed cheaply at the level of the individual. Results from such interventions have been modest. More importantly, they led many behavioural scientists to frame policy problems in individual terms, which the authors call the i-frame, and not in systemic terms, the s-frame. They argue that the difference is more consequential than i-frame advocates have realised, because it can divert attention and support from policies aimed at the system.
Written from the abstract as shown on the OpenAlex record, read 2026-11-04.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2023). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e147. doi:10.1017/S0140525X22002023