Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T13:55:51.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cultural evolutionary behavioural science in public policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2023

Robin Schimmelpfennig*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
Michael Muthukrishna
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Corresponding author: Robin Schimmelpfennig, Email: robin.schimmelpfennig@unil.ch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interventions are to the social sciences what inventions are to the physical sciences – an application of science as technology. Behavioural science has emerged as a powerful toolkit for developing public policy interventions for changing behaviour. However, the translation from principles to practice is often moderated by contextual factors – such as culture – that thwart attempts to generalize past successes. Here, we discuss cultural evolution as a framework for addressing this contextual gap. We describe the history of behavioural science and the role that cultural evolution plays as a natural next step. We review research that may be considered cultural evolutionary behavioural science in public policy, and the promise and challenges to designing cultural evolution informed interventions. Finally, we discuss the value of applied research as a crucial test of basic science: if theories, laboratory and field experiments do not work in the real world, they do not work at all.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Our psychology and behaviour are shaped by millions of years of genetic evolution, thousands of years of cultural evolution and a short lifetime of experience (Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021). Dual inheritance theory describes how genes, culture and individual learning interact to shape our behaviour, explaining how we evolved as a cultural species, how culture itself evolves and how gene-culture coevolution has shaped our genomes and physiology (Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, Reference Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman1981; Boyd & Richerson, Reference Boyd and Richerson1985; Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Boyd and Richerson2008; Boyd et al., Reference Boyd, Richerson and Henrich2011; Chudek et al., Reference Chudek, Muthukrishna, Henrich and Buss2015; Henrich, Reference Henrich2016; Uchiyama et al., Reference Uchiyama, Spicer and Muthukrishna2021). Much of our behaviour is shaped by culture – the values, beliefs, behaviours, norms, skills, know-how and technologies each of us possesses. Dual inheritance theory and cultural evolution, therefore, offer a framework for understanding and changing behaviour (Muthukrishna & Henrich, Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2019; Muthukrishna, Reference Muthukrishna2020a; Efferson, Reference Efferson2021; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021).Footnote 1

Behavioural science is a powerful toolkit for addressing global challenges in areas such as public health, economic development and environmental policy (World Bank Group, 2015; Ruggeri, Reference Ruggeri2021). The behavioural science toolkit draws primarily on cognitive psychology, social psychology and economics, and has typically exploited empirically discovered biases and heuristics without worrying too much about why these exist. However, as a result, it has inherited the challenges of these parent fields, such as the replication crisis – many findings failing to replicate (Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Camerer et al., Reference Camerer, Dreber, Holzmeister, Ho, Huber, Johannesson, Kirchler, Nave, Nosek, Pfeiffer, Altmejd, Buttrick, Chan, Chen, Forsell, Gampa, Heikensten, Hummer, Imai, Isaksson, Manfredi, Rose, Wagenmakers and Wu2018) – and the WEIRD people problem – overreliance on findings from Western contexts and lack of attendance to cross-cultural and contextual differences (Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010b; Apicella et al., Reference Apicella, Norenzayan and Henrich2020). Within behavioural science, cultural and other contextual heterogeneities are acknowledged as important (IJzerman et al., Reference IJzerman, Lewis, Przybylski, Weinstein, DeBruine, Ritchie, Vazire, Forscher, Morey, Ivory and Anvari2020; Bryan et al., Reference Bryan, Tipton and Yeager2021; Sunstein, Reference Sunstein2021), but it remains unclear how to systematically incorporate these factors in a principled manner. And so it is difficult to know when we should expect findings and past successes to generalize (Deaton & Cartwright, Reference Deaton and Cartwright2018).

In this article, we discuss cultural evolution as a framework for addressing this contextual gap. We begin by describing the history of behavioural science and how cultural evolution offers the natural next step.

Social science and public policy

Science and technology go hand in hand. Science opens new technological possibilities and technologies help us refine the science and understand how it works or even whether it works in the real world (Gibson et al., Reference Gibson, Reed and Jones2020; Hammond & Stewart, Reference Hammond and Stewart2001; Muthukrishna & Henrich, Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2016). The same is true of the social sciences. Some social sciences, such as economics, have a longer history of policy application (Buyalskaya et al., Reference Buyalskaya, Gallo and Camerer2021). Behavioural science is the latest wave of economic public policy application, in this case, applied to human behaviour. We can trace this history from neoclassical theory to the present day.

Neoclassical theory

Neoclassical economic theory emerged in the early 20th century with origins in philosophers like John Stuart Mill (Persky, Reference Persky1995) describing people with rational preferences maximizing the satisfaction of these preferences as ‘utility’. The lack of realism of these assumptions was debated, but as a prominent essay by economist Milton Friedman argued, models should not be judged by the realism of their assumptions, but only by the accuracy of their predictions (Friedman, Reference Friedman1953). These assumptions included axioms (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, Reference Von Neumann and Morgenstern1953), such as completeness (people have clear preferences: $x\succ y$, $y\succ x$ or x ~ y), transitivity ($x\succ y$ and $y\succ z$ implies that $x\succ z$), continuity (if $x\succ y$, $y\succ z$ and $x\succ z$, then there exists a probability p such that: px  +  (1 − p)z  ~  y), and independence (if $x\succ y$, $px + ( {1-p} ) z\succ py + ( {1-p} ) z$). The behavioural economics revolution began with empirical challenges to both predictions derived from these assumptions and the assumptions themselves (Machina, Reference Machina1987; Camerer, Reference Camerer1989; Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky, Kahneman, Karpak and Zionts1989, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1992; Tversky et al., Reference Tversky, Slovic and Kahneman1990). Three key figures in this revolution were Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky and Herbert Simon.

The formal predictions of expected utility theory made them falsifiable (see Muthukrishna and Henrich (Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2019) for a discussion on the importance of formal theory). Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky realized that there was a mismatch between the predictions of expected utility theory and empirical findings in cognitive psychology (Lewis, Reference Lewis2017). They began a lifelong, productive research program modifying and challenging neoclassical theories by including psychological realism. For example, in contrast to the expectation principle which states the utility of a risky prospect is linear in outcome probabilities, Tversky and Kahneman's Prospect Theory states that the utility function is concave for gains and convex for losses – ‘losses loom larger than gains’ (Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1992). For example, given a coin flip to lose or win $100, people require a much larger gain to accept the bet (Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1991).

Herbert Simon similarly attempted to modify standard utility approaches by introducing psychological realism: cognitive limitations on time and computation, introducing the idea of bounded rationality – rationality within constraints, people satisficing rather than optimising for their preferences due to constraints such as limited information, limited computation and limited time (Simon, Reference Simon1957, Reference Simon1982). These kinds of challenges to neoclassical theory gave birth to the field of behavioural economics. However, this research was primarily conducted in WEIRD contexts and the heterogeneity created by social and cultural factors was still not on the research agenda.

Behavioural economics

Cognitive psychology was used to correct assumptions in neoclassical economics to create behavioural economics. These were later formalized by including human psychology in economic models to create more realistic and predictive theories (Fehr & Schmidt, Reference Fehr and Schmidt1999; Camerer et al., Reference Camerer, Loewenstein and Rabin2004; Rabin, Reference Rabin1998). For example, empirical results using the public goods game suggested that people initially contribute more than the expected Nash equilibrium of no contribution. The payoff (π), equal to utility (u) is maximized when no contribution (g it = 0) is made from the endowment (e) and instead the payoff is this endowment and a share of contributions made by the other s − 1 players multiplied by m and divided equally.)

(1)$$\pi = e-g_{it} + \left( {\displaystyle{m \over {s_t}}} \right)\mathop \sum \limits_{\,j = 1}^{s_t} g_{\,jt}$$
(2)$$u( \pi ) = \pi $$

To resolve this behavioural deviation from the formal model whereby players typically contribute g > 0 in a way that reflects the contributions made by others also contributing g > 0, Fehr and Schmidt (Reference Fehr and Schmidt1999) included inequity aversion in the utility model – the utility is not only positive with an increased payoff but reduced when you get more than me (weighted by α) or I get more than you (weighted by β). i.e. Equation 2 becomes:

(3)$$u\left( \pi \right) = \pi -\alpha _i\left( {\displaystyle{1 \over {n-1}}} \right)\mathop \sum \limits_{\,j\ne 1} \left[ {{\rm max}\left( {x_j-x_i,0} \right)} \right]-\beta _i\left( {\displaystyle{1 \over {n-1}}} \right)\mathop \sum \limits_{\,j\ne 1} \left[ {{\rm max}\left( {x_i-x_j,0} \right)} \right]$$

In this same spirit, Kőszegi and Rabin (Reference Kőszegi and Rabin2006) developed a model on reference-dependent preferences. They show that under uncertainty, behaviour is influenced by a gain-loss utility, leading to unstable preferences – for example, changes in how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the same product, or in how much a worker is willing to work given a daily wage.

Many prominent researchers contributed to the field with ideas and findings that were radical for the economic literature at the time. Many of these findings had direct relevance for public policy. For example, modelling and experiments showed that in sequential decision-making, people's behaviour can converge on the wrong choice (i.e. ‘herding’: people bulk buying toilet paper during the pandemic because others do the same), despite unbiased behaviour (Banerjee, Reference Banerjee1992; Bikhchandani et al., Reference Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer and Welch1992; Goeree et al., Reference Goeree, Palfrey, Rogers and McKelvey2007; Weizsäcker, Reference Weizsäcker2010).

Another stream of work directly deals with the preferences of decision-makers, and how they can be skewed by psychological variation in aversion to risky choices (Gneezy & Potters, Reference Gneezy and Potters1997; Loewenstein et al., Reference Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee and Welch2001; Charness et al., Reference Charness, Gneezy and Imas2013). Other works engaged with the social context of economic behaviour and specifically how we humans make altruistic decisions in sharing resources (Andreoni, Reference Andreoni1990; Fehr & Fischbacher, Reference Fehr and Fischbacher2003; List, Reference List2007), how altruistic punishment evolves (Boyd et al., Reference Boyd, Gintis, Bowles and Richerson2003) and how social norms can regulate behaviour (Fehr & Fischbacher, Reference Fehr and Fischbacher2004; Bicchieri, Reference Bicchieri2005), how the zero-sum nature of status-seeking via, for example, the consumption of luxury goods, has provided insight on optimal taxation of such goods (Frank, Reference Frank1985) and how groups solve the collective action problem (Ostrom, Reference Ostrom1990). Behavioural economics thus also drew on works from Sociology, for example, with regards to sanctions stabilizing cooperation (Coleman, Reference Coleman1994). In addition to the social and cultural context (Gelfand et al., Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011), the personal context such as existing endowments (Kahneman et al., Reference Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler1991; Apicella et al., Reference Apicella, Azevedo, Fowler and Christakis2013) and associated reference points (Abeler et al., Reference Abeler, Falk, Goette and Huffman2011; Fehr et al., Reference Fehr, Hart and Zehnder2011) significantly influences behaviour. Economists also began synthesizing how contextual factors could affect behaviour across domains. A prominent example is resource scarcity, with poorer people doing less well than they could (e.g. in agriculture or parenting), when under the psychological and economic stress of scarcity (Mani et al., Reference Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir and Zhao2013; Mullainathan & Shafir, Reference Mullainathan and Shafir2013). Among others, Ashraf et al. (Reference Ashraf, Karlan and Yin2006) went on to apply such insights and developed a savings tool, applying behavioural economics research to help people save money.

As behavioural economics began incorporating insights from other fields, it was often labelled under the more general term ‘behavioural science’, although this term is also used for a broad range of fields studying human behaviour. This next wave applied the theoretical, laboratory and field experimental insights gained in behavioural economics to interventions and public policy.

Behavioural science

In 2008, Thaler and Sunstein summarized work in behavioural economics and behavioural science in their popular book ‘Nudge’ (Thaler & Sunstein, Reference Thaler and Sunstein2008). The book gained a following among many politicians and policymakers. In 2010, the United Kingdom Cabinet Office commissioned a report on behavioural science and public policy interventions; the MINDSPACE report (Dolan et al., Reference Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King and Vlaev2010, Reference Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, Metcalfe and Vlaev2012). This report led to the creation of the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), often referred to as the ‘Nudge Unit’. BIT had several successes, notably garnering Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) an additional £200 million in tax repayments through a small change in a tax letter that exploited social influence and norms (Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, 2012; Hallsworth, Reference Hallsworth2014). The same strategy had similar success in other countries, including Costa Rica and Poland (Doshi, Reference Doshi2017) and so began to be applied to other contexts, such as Barack Obama's second bid for the White House (Carey, Reference Carey2012). This later led to the creation of over 200 Behavioural Insights Teams around the world (Benartzi et al., Reference Benartzi, Beshears, Milkman, Sunstein, Thaler, Shankar, Tucker-Ray, Congdon and Galing2017; Sunstein, Reference Sunstein2020). In 2015, President Barack Obama signed an executive order for the incorporation of behavioural science insight into public policy (White House, 2015). In 2017, Thaler was awarded a Nobel Prize and in 2021, António Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, defined behavioural science as one of the key skills of UN-organisations (Jochim & Schimmelpfennig, Reference Jochim and Schimmelpfennig2022).

Nudging and behavioural insights interventions (Thaler, Reference Thaler2016, Reference Thaler2018) have now been applied to a wide array of domains, but the problems outlined in the opening on replication failures and the WEIRD people problem remain. For example, behavioural priming is often unreliable (Simons, Reference Simons2014), and behaviour in economic games such as the dictator game varies from 47% offer in the USA to 26% offers among the Hadza (Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010b). Similarly, a recent study found that extended dishonesty among bankers may not generalize to other societies (Cohn et al., Reference Cohn, Fehr and Maréchal2014, Reference Cohn, Fehr and Maréchal2019; Rahwan et al., Reference Rahwan, Yoeli and Fasolo2019). Returning to our opening example on fairness in the public goods game, cross-cultural research reveals that fairness preferences vary considerably – disadvantageous inequity whereby you receive less than others seems reliably developing, but advantageous inequity is not universal (Blake et al., Reference Blake, McAuliffe, Corbit, Callaghan, Barry, Bowie, Kleutsch, Kramer, Ross, Vongsachang, Wrangham and Warneken2015; House et al., Reference House, Kanngiesser, Barrett, Broesch, Cebioglu, Crittenden, Erut, Lew-Levy, Sebastian-Enesco, Smith, Yilmaz and Silk2020).

Cultural evolutionary researchers will recognize these three waves as an example of path dependence (Page, Reference Page2006; Nunn, Reference Nunn2009; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021). Nineteenth-century philosophical positions on the nature of humans and human decision-making led to formalizations of an arguably misspecified theory of human behaviour, which were then challenged and adjusted at the margins. The initial path-dependent solution involved retaining expected utility theory but adding ‘patches’ based on empirical psychological research. This approach, however, failed to address the replication and cross-cultural generalizability of these patched solutions.

The most effective critique of a theory is a better theory. Such a theory has not yet emerged, but here we lay out a path in the context of public policy. We argue that the natural next step in this path is a formal theory that includes not just empirically discovered cognitive biases, social norms and preferences, but the origins, variation and dynamics of these captured by models in cultural evolution (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The evolution of behavioural science in public policy.

The fourth wave: cultural evolutionary behavioural science

Just as biological evolution is mainly driven by the transmission of genes between generations, cultural evolution is driven by the transmission of social and cultural information through social learning. This social learning is not random but driven by several interacting learning biases (Kendal et al., Reference Kendal, Boogert, Rendell, Laland, Webster and Jones2018). For policymakers, this has important implications. Behaviour change at scale often depends on how information is transmitted within the population. A policy designed for a population in which prestige-biased learning dominates should be designed differently than in a population in which conformist-biased learning dominates (Mesoudi et al., Reference Mesoudi, Chang, Dall and Thornton2016; Glowacki & Molleman, Reference Glowacki and Molleman2017; Molleman & Gächter, Reference Molleman and Gächter2018; Muthukrishna & Schaller, Reference Muthukrishna and Schaller2020; Schaller & Muthukrishna, Reference Schaller and Muthukrishna2021). Indeed, the interaction of these learning biases remains a neglected, but powerful method for large-scale, endogenous behavioural change (Young, Reference Young2015; Nyborg et al., Reference Nyborg, Anderies, Dannenberg, Lindahl, Schill, Schluter, Adger, Arrow, Barrett, Carpenter, Chapin, Crepin, Daily, Ehrlich, Folke, Jager, Kautsky, Levin, Madsen, Polasky, Scheffer, Walker, Weber, Wilen, Xepapadeas and de Zeeuw2016; Efferson et al., Reference Efferson, Vogt and Fehr2020; Andreoni et al., Reference Andreoni, Nikiforakis and Siegenthaler2021; Berger, Reference Berger2021; Berger et al., Reference Berger, Efferson and Vogt2021; Efferson, Reference Efferson2021).

In addition to social learning biases (Mesoudi, Reference Mesoudi2016; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Morgan and Henrich2016; Kendal et al., Reference Kendal, Boogert, Rendell, Laland, Webster and Jones2018), cultural evolutionary behavioural science can exploit research on (a) norm psychology (Chudek & Henrich, Reference Chudek and Henrich2011), for example, what people perceive to be fair/unfair, (b) ethnic, group or cooperation psychology (Henrich & Muthukrishna, Reference Henrich and Muthukrishna2021), for example, the scale of cooperation that dominates in a culture, such as kin, friends or impartial institutions, (c) evolutionary dynamics, for example, how beliefs and behaviours endogenously spread in a population (Young, Reference Young2015) and (d) factors such as cultural-group selection (Richerson et al., Reference Richerson, Baldini, Bell, Demps, Frost, Hillis, Mathew, Newton, Naar, Newson, Ross, Smaldino, Waring and Zefferman2016; Francois et al., Reference Francois, Fujiwara and van Ypersele2018; Schimmelpfennig et al., Reference Schimmelpfennig, Razek, Schnell and Muthukrishna2022).

Incorporating cultural evolution forces us to consider not just differences in psychology, norms and preferences, but their origins and dynamics. For example, experiments with Swiss children reveal that pre-existing inequality concerns affect bargaining behaviour in subsequent games (Berger et al., Reference Berger, Vogt and Efferson2022). Furthermore, Fehr and Schmidt's (Reference Fehr and Schmidt1999) assumption of symmetric inequity aversion driving what is fair, children in Uganda, Canada and the USA care about both disadvantageous and advantageous inequity, but children in India, Senegal and Peru (at least in the communities studied) care mostly about whether they are on the losing end (Blake et al., Reference Blake, McAuliffe, Corbit, Callaghan, Barry, Bowie, Kleutsch, Kramer, Ross, Vongsachang, Wrangham and Warneken2015). Despite the cross-cultural variation in the content of social norms (e.g. variation in antisocial punishment across societies (Herrmann et al., Reference Herrmann, Thoni and Gachter2008)), there may be a universal psychology for responding to social norms across society (House et al., Reference House, Kanngiesser, Barrett, Broesch, Cebioglu, Crittenden, Erut, Lew-Levy, Sebastian-Enesco, Smith, Yilmaz and Silk2020). House et al. find that by middle childhood, children have similar social norms as the adults in their society and develop a uniform tendency to respond to novel social norms across societies (House et al., Reference House, Kanngiesser, Barrett, Broesch, Cebioglu, Crittenden, Erut, Lew-Levy, Sebastian-Enesco, Smith, Yilmaz and Silk2020). So yes, context matters. But the question is when and why?

Cultural evolutionary research has shown that factors such as market integration (Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Ensminger, McElreath, Barr, Barrett, Bolyanatz, Cardenas, Gurven, Gwako, Henrich, Lesorogol, Marlowe, Tracer and Ziker2010a), the presence of moralizing gods (Shariff & Norenzayan, Reference Shariff and Norenzayan2007; White et al., Reference White, Kelly, Shariff and Norenzayan2019), historic exposure to the Catholic Church and their restrictive marriage and family program (Schulz et al., Reference Schulz, Bahrami-Rad, Beauchamp and Henrich2019) or kinship intensity and opportunities to cooperate with kin (Enke, Reference Enke2019) can explain differences in fairness norms offering an exogenous explanation for why these differ around the world and how they may be changed (for review, see Henrich and Muthukrishna (Reference Henrich and Muthukrishna2021) and Muthukrishna et al. (Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021)).

The gaps in behavioural science that are resolved through integration with cultural evolution can be summarized as follows:

  1. 1. Replication Crisis. As argued by Muthukrishna and Henrich (Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2019), methodological malpractice and statistical shenanigans have contributed to the replication crisis and may be resolved by open science methods such as replications and transparency in research, but a larger issue is the lack of a theoretical framework.

  2. 2. Theoretical Framework Problem. The list of heuristics and biases is enormous (Wikipedia, 2021) and, no doubt, several related biases masquerade under separate research programs. For example, the self-enhancement bias (Kwan et al., Reference Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond and Robins2004), positivity bias (Mezulis et al., Reference Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde and Hankin2004), optimism bias (Sharot, Reference Sharot2011) and overconfidence (Johnson & Fowler, Reference Johnson and Fowler2011) are at best strongly correlated and at worst linguistic noise describing the same concept. Identified biases such as these are a combination of genetic influences shared with other species, cultural influences through norms (Gelfand et al., Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011) and our lifetime of experience.

  3. 3. WEIRD People Problem. The empirical basis for many behavioural insights, biases, heuristics and assumptions about human behaviour are skewed towards WEIRD people who do not represent most people in most places (Apicella et al., Reference Apicella, Norenzayan and Henrich2020; Henrich, Reference Henrich2020; Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010b). Cultural evolutionary insights can offer guidance as to which insights are likely to be universal (e.g. defaults, social influence) and which are likely to vary or not replicate (e.g. endowment effect (Apicella et al., Reference Apicella, Azevedo, Fowler and Christakis2013). Much more cross-cultural research is required.

  4. 4. Contextual Factors. Behavioural economics argues humans are contextually embedded decision-makers (for example, on risk preferences (Imas, Reference Imas2016) or incentives (Gneezy et al., Reference Gneezy, Meier and Rey-Biel2011)), but often fail to answer how context matters. There are rarely strong predictions for how different internal, environmental or social cues matter, even if these could be reliably measured. Some paths forward from a cultural evolutionary perspective include understanding how we integrate different social learning cues (e.g. what do we do if a prestigious person does one thing and the majority do another) and recognizing that culture is not just cross-national, but overlapping and embedded distributions of cultural traits within societies (Muthukrishna & Henrich, Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2019; Uchiyama et al., Reference Uchiyama, Spicer and Muthukrishna2021). Obvious examples include regional (Talhelm et al., Reference Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan and Kitayama2014) and religious differences (White et al., Reference White, Muthukrishna and Norenzayan2021), but intersections are deeper. Holding the hand of a stranger will reduce neural activation in a case of a threat. The effect will be increased if those holding have a strong marriage (Coan et al., Reference Coan, Schaefer and Davidson2006). Or so it seemed, but a later study showed that the effect was only robust for a well-educated, white women (Coan et al., Reference Coan, Beckes, Gonzalez, Maresh, Brown and Hasselmo2017).

  5. 5. Integration with Other Fields. While not being a gap per se, cultural evolution has increasingly integrated with other biological sciences (Laland, Reference Laland2018; Laland et al., Reference Laland, Brown and Brown2011; Uchiyama et al., Reference Uchiyama, Spicer and Muthukrishna2021), social sciences (Besley & Persson, Reference Besley and Persson2019; Besley, Reference Besley2020; Nunn, Reference Nunn, Bisin and Federico2021) and the humanities (for review, see Muthukrishna et al. (Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021)). It thus offers a pathway for behavioural science to derive insights beyond those in economics, psychology and cognitive science. Cultural evolution can provide a framework to understand policy problems. Its ability to integrate with other fields then helps to find solutions for problems in different settings.

There is much work to be done for a truly cultural evolutionary behavioural science for public policy, but emerging work reveals the promise and challenges.

The promise of cultural evolutionary behavioural science

Applied cultural evolutionary behavioural science is in its infancy. Empirical work is rare and applied theoretical work is rarer still. Here, we review some examples of work in different domains that reveal the promise of cultural evolutionary behavioural science.

Public health

Public health initiatives are sometimes at odds with local culture and traditions (Cloward, Reference Cloward2016). Policy to improve public health may thus be subject to a backlash and non-compliance by at least some parts of the population. Female genital cutting (FGC) is one such example (World Health Organisation, 2008). The conflict is that from the perspective of universal human rights, FGC is harmful to the health and well-being of women but legislation to ban it would interfere with local cultural traditions.

FGC is still pervasive in many countries. For example, in Egypt, UNICEF estimates suggest that 87% of females between 15 and 49 years of age are cut (based on data from 2004 to 2015; UNICEF, 2016). Current approaches to eradicate FGC practices often fail. In some cases, exogenous attempts to change behaviour are perceived as intrusions that impose out-group values, leading to a backlash in the local population (Shell-Duncan & Hernlund, Reference Shell-Duncan and Hernlund2000; Gruenbaum, Reference Gruenbaum2015; Camilotti, Reference Camilotti2016; Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Mohmmed Zaid, El Fadil Ahmed, Fehr and Efferson2016). That is, when attempts to reduce FGC are perceived as external, FGC rates can increase because not cutting girls is seen as Westernization and cutting girls becomes an ingroup ethnic marker (Cloward, Reference Cloward2016). Resolving the conflict between cultural sensitivity and female public health remains a challenge.

Policy interventions in this realm are often informed by the hypothesis that FGC, similar to foot binding, involves coordination incentives for families (Mackie, Reference Mackie1996; Efferson et al., Reference Efferson, Vogt, Elhadi, Ahmed and Fehr2015). That is, families with sons want cut wives because FGC is perceived as a sign of fidelity, tradition and becoming a good mother. And so, families with daughters choose to cut their daughters to increase the chances of finding a good spouse, sometimes regardless of personal preferences. In a population where families with sons favour uncut wives, families with daughters may choose to coordinate their decision and not cut their daughters (Cloward, Reference Cloward2016). How can a policymaker switch a population from the maladaptive (cutting) to the adaptive (not cutting) equilibrium?

One tantalizing possibility is behavioural change through endogenous spillovers by affecting a social tipping point (Nyborg et al., Reference Nyborg, Anderies, Dannenberg, Lindahl, Schill, Schluter, Adger, Arrow, Barrett, Carpenter, Chapin, Crepin, Daily, Ehrlich, Folke, Jager, Kautsky, Levin, Madsen, Polasky, Scheffer, Walker, Weber, Wilen, Xepapadeas and de Zeeuw2016; Andreoni et al., Reference Andreoni, Nikiforakis and Siegenthaler2021). That is, could a policymaker run a minimal intervention with selective targets that then starts a chain reaction within the population tipping them from a cut equilibrium to an uncut equilibrium? Here, the policymaker can focus attention and resources on persuading just enough of the right people until the social tipping point is reached, and then the endogenous social influence mechanisms, such as conformity take over with people coordinating around the new social norm.

Formalizing this policy possibility, Efferson et al. (Reference Efferson, Vogt and Fehr2020) developed a cultural evolutionary model informed by their previous empirical research (Efferson et al., Reference Efferson, Vogt, Elhadi, Ahmed and Fehr2015; Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Mohmmed Zaid, El Fadil Ahmed, Fehr and Efferson2016, Reference Vogt, Efferson and Fehr2017), that captures the cultural evolutionary dynamics of harmful traditions. They model how behaviour spreads in a population via social influence after the population has been shocked by an external policy intervention. They show that the effectiveness of the policy, both in its size and target, depends on the distribution of attitudes in the population. An intervention will have a direct effect and an indirect effect (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The direct and indirect effect of an intervention (adapted from Schimmelpfennig et al. (Reference Schimmelpfennig, Vogt, Ehret and Efferson2021)).

Perhaps counterintuitively, the results show that in a scenario where many in the population are resistant to the policy, policy makers can maximize the total effect of their policy by targeting not those most likely to change, but those most resistant to the policy (Efferson et al., Reference Efferson, Vogt and Fehr2020; Schimmelpfennig et al., Reference Schimmelpfennig, Vogt, Ehret and Efferson2021). Convincing those resistant to change through an intervention – perhaps one that exploits social learning biases (Kendal et al., Reference Kendal, Boogert, Rendell, Laland, Webster and Jones2018) – leaves the comparably ‘easy’ cases for the endogenous spillovers via social learning.

Efferson et al. argue that in scenarios where attitudes cannot be estimated, for example, because of concerns around social desirability of the response data (Krumpal, Reference Krumpal2013), policymakers may instead opt to target a random sample, such as through ‘edutainment’ (Vogt et al., Reference Vogt, Mohmmed Zaid, El Fadil Ahmed, Fehr and Efferson2016), rather than the most compliant, which may otherwise lead to polarization. This work may complement other behavioural and evolutionary approaches to public health (Gibson & Mace, Reference Gibson and Mace2006; Lawson et al., Reference Lawson, James, Ngadaya, Ngowi, Mfinanga and Mulder2015; Wells et al., Reference Wells, Nesse, Sear, Johnstone and Stearns2017; Arnot et al., Reference Arnot, Brandl, Campbell, Chen, Du, Dyble, Emmott, Ge, Kretschmer, Mace, Micheletti, Nila, Peacey, Salali and Zhang2020; Gelfand et al., Reference Gelfand, Li, Stamkou, Pieper, Denison, Fernandez, Choi, Chatman, Jackson and Dimant2022), representing the cutting-edge of integration of cultural evolutionary theory and policy interventions, whose success and value will be known over the coming decade.

Corruption

A common assumption is that corruption is a vice and cooperation is a virtue. Corruption harms economic development and creates barriers and inefficiencies to competition in a free market. Interventions and media campaigns, often unsuccessfully, focus on portraying corruption as malicious, harmful and unnatural. Cooperation, on the other hand, supports economic development and forms the backbone of democratic societies. But cooperation is no virtue in itself. Advances in technology and world wars, flourishing societies and genocides, our greatest achievements and our worst atrocities all require large-scale cooperation (Axelrod & Hamilton, Reference Axelrod and Hamilton1981; Henrich & Muthukrishna, Reference Henrich and Muthukrishna2021). From a cultural evolutionary perspective, corruption is also a cooperative act (Murray et al., Reference Murray, Frijters and Vorster2017; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Francois, Pourahmadi and Henrich2017).

It's natural to want to help relatives – well explained by theories of inclusive fitness – but doing so at the expense of impartial institutions is nepotism. It's natural to want to help friends, friends of friends or those in an exchange of some sort – well explained by theories of reciprocal altruism, direct and indirect reciprocity (see Yoeli et al. (Reference Yoeli, Hoffman, Rand and Nowak2013) for applications) – but doing so at the expense of impartial institutions is cronyism. Reducing corruption requires undermining lower scales of cooperation or aligning them with higher scales such that what's good for family and friends is also good for everyone else. Transparency alone can backfire when norms support lower scales of cooperation (such as expectations for favouring friends or family (Abbink, Reference Abbink and Rose-Ackerman2006; Murray & Frijters, Reference Murray and Frijters2016; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Francois, Pourahmadi and Henrich2017)). Similarly, theoretical work shows that the effectiveness of centralized punishment to combat corruption can break down when some actors can bribe the central authorities (Abdallah et al., Reference Abdallah, Sayed, Rahwan, LeVeck, Cebrian, Rutherford and Fowler2014). Indeed, many empirically derived anti-corruption strategies (e.g. Klitgaard et al., Reference Klitgaard, MacLean Abaroa and Parris2000), implicitly change incentives and or move people around to disrupt these cooperative ties.

An example of how smaller scales of cooperation were undermined and norms around kin-based small-scale cooperation have changed to support states is the Catholic Church's change to traditional large kin-network family structures through policies such as banning cousin marriage. This centuries-long program decreased the power of larger family clans, laying the foundations for large-scale societies supported by impartial institutions and what we now call WEIRD-psychology (e.g. individualism) (Schulz et al., Reference Schulz, Bahrami-Rad, Beauchamp and Henrich2019; Henrich, Reference Henrich2020). Places, where these kin ties remain, are dominated by tribalism, increased corruption and more fragile democratic institutions (Akbari et al., Reference Akbari, Bahrami-Rad and Kimbrough2019).

Developing policies that disrupt lower scales of cooperation and waiting half a millennium is not likely to sway policymakers, but the same principle can be applied with more immediate results. One prominent problem in WEIRD countries is the ‘revolving door’, whereby individuals seamlessly move between government and private sector positions. Blanes i Vidal et al. (Reference Blanes i Vidal, Draca and Fons-Rosen2012) reveal that 56% of the revenue by private lobbying firms in the USA between 1998 and 2008 can be attributed to lobbyists with previous federal government experience. Furthermore, 34 of the 50 top lobbyists in Washington have previous federal government experience (Eisler, Reference Eisler2007). The prospect of future employment in the private sector may influence the behaviour of public servants (deHaan et al., Reference deHaan, Kedia, Koh and Rajgopal2015), to increase their employability. Banning the revolving door, or at least setting a long minimum time between switching from the public to private sector, may help to undermine such lower scales of cooperation (e.g. the ‘cooling-down’ period for members of the European Commission has been increased from 12 months in 1999, to 18 months in 2011 and to 24 months in 2016, after former President of the Commission Barosso joined Goldman Sachs, shortly after he had left office (Luechinger & Moser, Reference Luechinger and Moser2020)).

Corruption is by no means restricted to the developing world, but plagues societies with less robust democratic institutions and norms. Indeed, corruption may have a greater absolute cost in the developed world, but a greater relative cost in the developing world (Muthukrishna, Reference Muthukrishna2017; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Francois, Pourahmadi and Henrich2017; Henrich & Muthukrishna, Reference Henrich and Muthukrishna2021). Undermining informal tribal institutions is a difficult challenge for the same reasons that it's difficult to stop FGC. Aligning the societal institutions with local structures may be a less ambitious, more practical and effective approach. For example, a recent study in the Democratic Republic of Congo found that giving local chiefs the authority to collect state taxes increased property tax compliance by 3.3% (Balan et al., Reference Balan, Bergeron, Tourek and Weigel2022). Although the chief still collected bribes, they were able to use local knowledge of whom to target with tax enforcement and thus increased the overall tax revenue by 43%. Their local knowledge allowed them to target high-income individuals reversing the inefficient and unfair, but common practice of targeting the more easily auditable lower-income bracket. For example, in the USA, people earning less than $25,000 are at least three times more likely to be audited than partnership firms (Sorkin et al., Reference Sorkin, Karaian, Kessler, de la Merced, Hirsch and Livni2021). Teaming up with bribe-collecting chiefs may not be the first choice for current approaches in public policy, but is a step in the right direction and sensible from a cultural evolutionary approach, combining and aligning different scales of cooperation. Moreover, it allows us to move a society to an adjacent possible in the cultural space, where planned policies can continue to put a society on a path to a more efficient equilibrium (Muthukrishna & Henrich, Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2016; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021; Nunn, Reference Nunn, Bisin and Federico2021).

Successful democratic institutions

Formal institutions can be thought of as hardened culture – written down to allow for easier coordination and application. But no institution can anticipate all possible behaviours. Thus successful institutions rest on necessary cultural norms. But unlike the explicit institutions, these norms are largely invisible to those who have implicitly internalized them since they were children. Therefore, foreign policymakers exporting successful WEIRD institutions, such as liberal democracies, have systematic blindspots that lead them to unknowingly ignore the invisible cultural pillars that support institutions.

Giuliano and Nunn's (Reference Giuliano and Nunn2013) analyses reveal that where democratic institutions have been successfully transplanted are places where proto-democratic institutions (and presumably the requisite norms) already existed. They also offer an example of how cultural evolutionary behavioural science can be informed by historical data, building the Ancestral Characteristics Database (Giuliano & Nunn, Reference Giuliano and Nunn2018) using data from the Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock, Reference Murdock1967), Ethnologue (Lewis, Reference Lewis2009) and Landscan 2000 (Dobson et al., Reference Dobson, Bright, Coleman, Durfee and Worley2000). There is a historical path dependence of traditional local democracies on the beliefs and attitudes towards today's political institutions, robust to European influence and quality of land for agriculture among other controls.

As a contrasting example, the recent high-profile failure to implement liberal democratic institutions in Afghanistan can be at least partially blamed on differences in norms around rule of law and impartial rules applied impartially to all people. Afghanistan is high on strong kin-based cooperation; people rely on their kin for survival through support and favours, even marrying among their extended family (the rate of cousin marriage in Afghanistan is 46%; Saify & Saadat, Reference Saify and Saadat2012). Kin-based obligations undermine the kind of impartial institutions that liberal democracies are familiar with. Moreover, the exogenous laws borrowed from other cultures may be rejected by parts of the population with strong prior beliefs, such as those grounded in Islamic sharia law. A Pew survey (2013) suggests that 99% of Afghans favour making Sharia the official law of the land, 81% of Afghans favour corporal punishment (like lashings) for theft, 85% favour stoning as the punishment for adultery and 79% favour a death penalty for leaving Islam. It is important to consider how these numbers are affected by the timing of the survey, representativeness of the respondents and response biases, but it is critical to have at least some measure of such norms rather than relying on assumptions about human behaviour drawn from a WEIRD life experience. Such norms are critical to predicting whether an institution or policy will succeed and assumptions about what people want (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom in behaviour, impartial rules, rule of law, secular society, etc.) based on WEIRD life experience cannot be assumed to be human universals. Without appropriate cultural pillars, institutions such as democracy collapse.

Finally, institutions interact with norms, mutually shaping one another. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the Canadian province of British Columbia ruled that the prohibition against polygamy was constitutionally valid. The case was in part decided by cultural evolutionary scientists, Joseph Henrich's primary expert witness on the role that monogamy has had in stabilizing society by solving the problem of young males who can not find a wife (Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Boyd and Richerson2012). Henrich argued that ‘monogamy seems to direct male motivations in ways that create lower crime rates, greater wealth (GDP) per capita and better outcomes for children’. In contrast, polygamy leads to a surplus of unmarried men, that may engage in high-risk strategies or criminal activities to secure sufficient resources to find a mate (BC Supreme Court, 2010; Bucci, Reference Bucci2010). Indeed, China's one-child policy combined with a cultural son preference temporarily led to a doubling of ‘surplus men’. An analysis by Edlund et al. (Reference Edlund, Li, Yi and Zhang2013) suggested that for every 1% increase in male bias in the sex ratio, property and violent crimes rise by 3%. Similar data can be found in India (Drèze & Khera, Reference Drèze and Khera2000), where male-biased sex ratios are associated with murder rates across districts. The British Columbian Supreme Court decision is an example of how institutions can be used to constrain and reinforce cultural practices that would otherwise undermine these institutions, and a policy decision informed by cultural evolutionary research.

Sustainable development

Taking a cultural evolutionary approach to sustainable development, Waring et al. (Reference Waring, Kline, Brooks, Goff, Gowdy, Janssen, Smaldino and Jacquet2015, Reference Waring, Goff and Smaldino2017) identify four factors that academics and policymakers need to better understand to accomplish sustainability policy goals. First, policy needs to be informed by knowledge about the emergence and persistence of social-ecological states – how social and ecological factors relate and interact. Second, they need to account for endogenous cultural change (Berger et al., Reference Berger, Efferson and Vogt2021; Constantino et al., Reference Constantino, Sparkman, Kraft-Todd, Bicchieri, Centola, Shell-Duncan, Vogt and Weber2022). Third, they need to incorporate cooperation dynamics. And fourth, they need to address the complexities of social-ecological interactions over multiple levels (Waring et al., Reference Waring, Kline, Brooks, Goff, Gowdy, Janssen, Smaldino and Jacquet2015).

Using this approach, they derive several principles that can guide policy implementation. These principles include targeting the appropriate level of selection (e.g. targeting group vs targeting individual), changing the level of selection pressure (e.g. change incentive structure to group-level payoffs), shifting trait variation across levels (between-group vs within-group variation in cultural traits), leveraging the evolution of cooperation (e.g. creating infrastructure that allows for repeated interactions, reputational mechanisms and peer punishments to increase prosociality) and avoiding ethnocentric solutions (e.g. counter the tendency for policies driven by social identity of groups). Waring's work is an example of the broader contribution of evolutionary anthropology to public policy (Alvard, Reference Alvard1998; Gibson & Lawson, Reference Gibson, Lawson, Gibson and Lawson2014).

Summary

As the diverse domains above illustrate, cultural evolutionary public policy sometimes suggests ways of solving a problem. But a cultural evolutionary approach also fundamentally shifts the approach itself for how to go about designing a solution – a solution is not always designed. An invisible cultural pillar of economic-derived public policy is the assumption of a great planner or policymaker. This approach is akin to an intelligent designer's view of culture and institutions. We can contrast this with genetic evolution's blind watchmaker and cultural evolution's visually impaired watchmaker. Not designing but instead evolving good solutions through efficient selection between different approaches designed with partial causal models of the world (Muthukrishna & Henrich, Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2016; Schimmelpfennig et al., Reference Schimmelpfennig, Razek, Schnell and Muthukrishna2022). A cultural evolutionary public policy is not simply about designing efficient institutions but designing efficiently evolving institutions.

The challenges of cultural evolutionary behavioural science for public policy

The challenge of understanding ultimate causes for application

Discovering ultimate causes of a behaviour is an important goal for the social sciences, though the focus is often on proximate explanations (Tinbergen, Reference Tinbergen1963; Mesoudi, Reference Mesoudi2009, Reference Mesoudi2016). Ultimate causes offer a more ‘upstream’ policy lever since proximate causes may be replaced by a different proximate cause if the ultimate cause remains. As Pirsig (Reference Pirsig2006) put it, if a factory is torn down, but the reasons for the factory persist, a new factory will take its place.

For example, consider gender roles and gender inequality in societies. A proximate explanation may focus on attitudes, preferences, beliefs or ideologies. At a proximate level, one could explain gender inequality as a product of men perceiving themselves as superior. This may lead to policies, such as implicit bias training (Forscher et al., Reference Forscher, Lai, Axt, Ebersole, Herman, Devine and Nosek2019; Pritlove et al., Reference Pritlove, Juando-Prats, Ala-leppilampi and Parsons2019), but ignores the underlying causes for the attitudes, preferences, beliefs, ideologies and subsequent behaviours.

Discovering these underlying causes requires considering the cultural evolution of gendered perceptions and norms. Two influential hypotheses in this field stem from historical economics. Research by Alesina et al. (Reference Alesina, Giuliano and Nunn2013) reveals that current-day gender norms covary with historical cultures, for example, traditional agricultural practices (Lonati, Reference Lonati2020). Specifically, areas with higher intensity in the use of the plough (causally exogenously identified by land suitability to the plough) have less gender-equal norms – a product of the plough requiring greater physical strength than the hoe giving males a comparative advantage and leading to a larger sex-based division of labour. These attitudes persist even after plough-based agriculture is replaced by machines and can be measured in attitudes towards gender roles and behaviour in the participation of women in the workplace, politics and entrepreneurship. Moreover, these effects are measurable in second-generation immigrants that are not born in these regions but have family ties. In this case, these norms lead to other norms and infrastructure that reinforce gender inequality. In turn, these differences may be mitigated by policies that target not just gender norms, but the broader set of cultural norms and institutional infrastructure that reduce the unequal cost of childbearing and rearing borne by women (Kleven et al., Reference Kleven, Landais, Posch, Steinhauer and Zweimüller2019, Reference Kleven, Landais and Søgaard2021).

Considering this ultimate level of explanation is critical to designing culturally aware public policies. In 2005, India passed a law requiring equal female inheritance. This in turn, led to increases in parallel cousin marriage and decreases in female labour force participation (Bahrami-Rad, Reference Bahrami-Rad2021). This well-intentioned policy is a powerful illustration that people may not respond to incentives in a way that policy makers expect. Cultural evolution can offer an ultimate-level explanation for problems that get to root causes. In doing that, it can provide new solutions to problems that are often dealt with at a proximate level.

As another example, the paradox of diversity refers to the inherent trade-off between cultural trait diversity's potential for recombinatorial innovation and division created by communication and coordination challenges (Muthukrishna, Reference Muthukrishna2020b). Considering evolvability in cultural evolution offers a framework for resolving the paradox of diversity (Schimmelpfennig et al., Reference Schimmelpfennig, Razek, Schnell and Muthukrishna2022), moving the focus from norms and biases to factors such as zero-sum perceptions and reality in intergroup competition (Schimmelpfennig & Muthukrishna, Reference Schimmelpfennig and Muthukrishna2021). Understanding ultimate causes offer new policy levers for tackling long-standing problems.

The challenge of knowing how context matters?

Context matters in behavioural science (Michie et al., Reference Michie, van Stralen and West2011; Dolan et al., Reference Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, Metcalfe and Vlaev2012; World Bank Group, 2015). But how does it matter? Consider research on dishonesty. Experiments reveal that a simple change in framing can lead honest citizens to behave like dishonest bankers (Cohn et al., Reference Cohn, Fehr and Maréchal2014). Professionals from a Swiss bank participated in a game to measure honest behaviour. They privately rolled a die a few times and afterwards reported to the experimenter how many times they rolled an even number (for each even number the participant received a payoff). Since the die roll was private, at an individual level, it was impossible to know if participants were being dishonest or were just lucky, but at a group level, researchers could measure the degree of dishonesty based on deviations from the expected distribution of even numbers. The main treatment manipulated the context, by either priming a professional (e.g. talking about their job before the task) or a personal context (e.g. talking about hobbies). The researchers found that bankers primed for the professional context were significantly more dishonest, reporting 58.6% even dice rolls (50% would be expected on a six-sided dice). One conclusion would be that the financial sector attracts dishonest people, but the bankers in the control group primed with a personal context did not significantly deviate from the expected frequency of even dice rolls (they reported 51.8%). These results suggest the importance of context and culture rather than types of people for creating dishonest behaviour (Cohn et al., Reference Cohn, Fehr and Maréchal2014). But the conclusions are more complicated – the same prime may create different behaviours in different cultural contexts (Cohn et al., Reference Cohn, Fehr and Maréchal2019; Rahwan et al., Reference Rahwan, Yoeli and Fasolo2019) or in-person vs online (Cohn et al., Reference Cohn, Gesche and Maréchal2022). Participants are more dishonest (i.e. report more successful dice rolls than expected) when embedded in a digital context (i.e. when reporting results to a chatbot), compared to communicating their dice rolls to a human.

A question policymakers need answers to is how context matters for the effectiveness of their policies. Cultural differences are low-hanging fruit – the evidence for the impact of cultural differences on the replicability and generalizability of research in social science has grown in the past decade (Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010b; Apicella et al., Reference Apicella, Norenzayan and Henrich2020; Henrich, Reference Henrich2020). Advancements in the measurement of cultural differences offer new tools for policymakers. Muthukrishna et al. (Reference Muthukrishna, Bell, Henrich, Curtin, Gedranovich, Mcinerney and Thue2020) developed a cultural distance CFst scale revealing how cultural distance from the United States – which may serve as a proxy for a ‘WEIRD scale’ – predicts other cultural differences, from individualism to personality, prosociality and honesty. Beyond documenting such differences, other research reveals the origins of differences in personality (Gurven et al., Reference Gurven, von Rueden, Massenkoff, Kaplan and Vie2013; Smaldino, Reference Smaldino2019), normative behaviours and prosociality (Henrich et al., Reference Henrich, Boyd, Bowles, Camerer, Fehr, Gintis and McElreath2001; Santos et al., Reference Santos, Varnum and Grossmann2017; Muthukrishna & Schaller, Reference Muthukrishna and Schaller2020), and more broadly, in how our brain processes visual information (Dehaene et al., Reference Dehaene, Pegado, Braga, Ventura and Nunes Filho2010; Han et al., Reference Han, Northoff, Vogeley, Wexler, Kitayama and Varnum2013). These differences are increasingly important in interpreting research findings and possible heterogeneous treatment effects (IJzerman et al., Reference IJzerman, Lewis, Przybylski, Weinstein, DeBruine, Ritchie, Vazire, Forscher, Morey, Ivory and Anvari2020; Bryan et al., Reference Bryan, Tipton and Yeager2021; Sunstein, Reference Sunstein2021).

The challenge of traditions and historical path dependencies

Societies do not emerge spontaneously, but evolve over decades and centuries – they are shaped by history (Henrich, Reference Henrich2020; Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021; Uchiyama et al., Reference Uchiyama, Spicer and Muthukrishna2021). Genetic drift may play an important role in how societies develop, but the effect of cultural evolution is much larger (Bell et al., Reference Bell, Richerson and McElreath2009; Uchiyama et al., Reference Uchiyama, Spicer and Muthukrishna2021). Thus, cultural evolutionary public policy can use history to identify the ultimate causes of present-day psychology (Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Henrich and Slingerland2021). This historical psychology matters for present-day policy interventions.

One dark example of historical path dependency is the effects of ‘Tuskegee Study’ on trust in public health services. The Tuskegee Study was a longitudinal study in the USA between the 1930s and 1970s. Researchers wanted to better understand the health consequences of untreated syphilis. The participants, African Americans who had contracted Syphilis, were assigned to not receive available treatments against the disease. Worse still, participants were not informed about the nature of the experiment. Over 100 died as a result and many family members also contracted the disease. These historical events contribute to the mistrust of medical communities and public health in present-day African American communities (Thomas & Quinn, Reference Thomas and Quinn1991; Corbie-Smith, Reference Corbie-Smith1999; Corbie-Smith et al., Reference Corbie-Smith, Thomas, Williams and Moody-Ayers1999). In an influential study, Alsan and Wanamaker (Reference Alsan and Wanamaker2018) offer support for this claim with an identification strategy using publicly available data. Using and interacted difference-in-difference-in-differences model, that compared older black men to other demographic groups before and after the disclosure of the study in 1972 (Alsan & Wanamaker, Reference Alsan and Wanamaker2018). Their results reveal that exposure to the disclosure of the event is correlated with increases in medical mistrust and decreases in both outpatient and inpatient physician interactions for older black men. As a consequence, life expectancy fell by up to 1.5 years in response to the exposure. Although improving, health outcomes are still comparably worse for African American families, a tragedy reinforced by data from the COVID-19 pandemic (Price-Haywood et al., Reference Price-Haywood, Burton, Fort and Seoane2020). Similar decreases in medical mistrust have been attributed to medical campaigns in colonial Africa (Lowes & Montero, Reference Lowes and Montero2021) and a CIA-staged vaccination campaign in Pakistan (Martinez-Bravo & Stegmann, Reference Martinez-Bravo and Stegmann2022). A better understanding of historical psychology is thus an important part of cultural evolutionary behavioural science.

The challenge of modern technologies and online interactions

Getting into a stranger's car or spending the night in their empty home was once dangerous and ill-advised. Today it's commonplace thanks to companies like Uber and Airbnb. These platforms facilitate cooperation by brokering reputational information (Muthukrishna, Reference Muthukrishna2021). Online reviews and ratings are an institutionally mediated form of indirect reciprocity and an example of cultural evolution interacting with modern technologies and online interactions. These institutions securitize and centralize trust, allowing us to scale up reputational cooperation through trust in the institution rather than several independent sources of reputational information. But that reputational information is not always present, and we can not trust everything we find online.

Misinformation is less about information and more about trust. The cultural cues we would normally use to distinguish truth from falsehoods are often missing online perhaps making us more susceptible to believing misinformation. Cultural evolution reveals that we learn what is right and true not through a deep causal understanding of information, but through trust in whom we receive the information. We believe that the world is round and rotating around the sun in violation of our everyday experience because we trust those who told us and live in a world where everyone we trust also holds this belief. We believe that a virus caused the COVID-19 pandemic, and an mRNA vaccine can help mitigate it, not because we really understand germ theory or exactly what messenger RNA is or does, but because of whom we trust. Trust that the sources of information are knowledgeable, prestigious, sincere, and in the same cooperative group, such that actions are for our mutual benefit. But information on the Internet often lacks the signals we have evolved to pay attention to, such as cues of prestige, sincerity displays or credibility enhancing displays (CREDS) (Chudek et al., Reference Chudek, Muthukrishna, Henrich and Buss2015; Henrich, Reference Henrich2016). Misinformation can undermine the foundations of our societies and so incorporating our understanding of our cultural learning psychology into the design of digital infrastructure is an important direction for applied behavioural science.

Beyond the science

The application of cultural evolution to behavioural science in public policy has challenges beyond whether the science is correct and possible to apply. These include standard challenges such as the mismatched incentives between those in power and those doing the science, as well as ethical considerations, and heterogeneity in populations. Here, we discuss these issues and also emphasize the importance and challenges of effective impact evaluation to improve the basic science.

Incentive structures for leaders and stakeholders

In principle, a scientist's key concern is getting the science right and in practice, an additional concern is being able to publish the science. It is critical to get the science right and have the support of peers via peer review. Overselling or getting the science wrong undermines trust in science and scientists. But for politicians and policy stakeholders the right science supported by peer-reviewed publications is barely the first step.

Politicians and policy stakeholders often have competing motivations and additional challenges. For example, a new approach may seem risky to career civil servants with little incentive to innovate and many incentives to not fail to ensure the next promotion in their career. A politician must be able to sell a new approach within their own party and to their broader constituency who may not fully understand the science. And mediating the relationship between science, politics, the public and the media.

Thus, although science communication, managing media and nurturing relationships with politicians and policymakers may not seem like a scientist's job, these are critical to successful behavioural science in public policy, even more so when dealing with a cutting-edge approach such as cultural evolutionary behavioural science. As cultural evolution would suggest, reputation and trust are critical. Scientific methods, such as experimentation and randomization, are poorly understood and sometimes aversive to some parts of society, perhaps in politics too. Meyer et al. (Reference Meyer, Heck, Holtzman, Anderson, Cai, Watts and Chabris2019), for example, find that people are often averse to randomization, especially where health is involved. This aversion is true even when people have similar ratings for the options (Heck et al., Reference Heck, Chabris, Watts and Meyer2020). A parallel aversion seems to exist for decisions made by algorithms (Dietvorst et al., Reference Dietvorst, Simmons and Massey2018). These methods are banal for scientists, but of concern to stakeholders for whom public reactions are paramount to their success. Thus, the success of cultural evolutionary behavioural science in public policy is contingent on overcoming these non-scientific barriers. In any case, informed consent is critical to the ethical application of behavioural science.

Ethics

The ethics of nudging and behavioural science interventions are actively debated and discussed in the discipline. Even if cultural evolutionary approaches to behavioural science are effective, they may not be socially desirable or perceived to be ethical. In general, questions remain about whether it is ethical for researchers and policymakers to experiment with the public and manipulate behavioural change. These questions are perhaps even more pertinent for cultural evolutionary scientists dealing with what amounts to scaled cultural change.

These debates are not new and interventions continue by those who argue that if a policy goal is socially desirable and the freedom of choice is not restricted, the intervention is ethical (Thaler & Sunstein, Reference Thaler and Sunstein2003). Lades and Delaney (Reference Lades and Delaney2020) offer a more specific framework that goes beyond the question of choice restriction – FORGOOD (Table 1).

Table 1. FORGOOD ethics framework for nudging and behavioural sciences based on Lades and Delaney (Reference Lades and Delaney2020).

This framework equally applies to cultural evolutionary public policy, but there are additional concerns for cultural interventions. Here are a few:

  1. 1. It may be preferable and more ethical to aim for endogenous norm and behaviour change driven by existing variation and selective social learning and social influence (Efferson et al., Reference Efferson, Vogt and Fehr2020).

  2. 2. Additional caution is required where cultural evolutionary processes can initiate long-enduring path dependencies. This is especially important as well-intended interventions can change adaptive cultural practices that seem maladaptive from the outside. For example, the Asian Development Bank changed the irrigation of rice fields in Bali which was, until then, dominated by cultural practices in which all rice farmers would irrigate their fields at the same time during a ceremony (Lansing, Reference Lansing2009). This traditional practice left little room for pests to develop, as all fields were flooded at the same time. After the implementation of the new uncoordinated irrigation practice, pests flourished, leading to large losses in harvests. Similarly, transhumant pastoralism, which is often viewed as an archaic form of livestock farming (Mattee, Reference Mattee2006), may be adapted to the local circumstances, allowing livestock to flexibly move according to the environmental circumstances (FAO, 2018).

  3. 3. All policies are likely to affect the process of cultural evolution by changing the information landscape or the models from whom information flows. Cultural evolutionary scientists can and should be more aware and cautious of these effects. Managing cultural evolution can itself be an effective method for enhancing the ability of groups to evolve new solutions.

Overall, cultural evolutionary researchers should also be more acutely aware that societies are made up of embedded and overlapping distributions of beliefs, behaviours and other cultural traits and thus should be more acutely aware of the effects of possibilities created by this diversity.

Diverse populations

Behavioural experiments often assume homogenous populations, but recognizing, measuring and developing interventions that incorporate the reality of heterogeneity can be an effective strategy (Bryan et al., Reference Bryan, Tipton and Yeager2021; Sunstein, Reference Sunstein2021).

Heterogeneity in beliefs and behaviours complicates the large-scale adoption of new policies (Muthukrishna et al., Reference Muthukrishna, Francois, Pourahmadi and Henrich2017; Efferson et al., Reference Efferson, Vogt and Fehr2020). Different people can react in different ways to the same intervention and these differences may even have unintended effects with negative behavioural spillovers (Efferson et al., Reference Efferson, Vogt and Fehr2020; Schimmelpfennig et al., Reference Schimmelpfennig, Vogt, Ehret and Efferson2021; Ehret et al., Reference Ehret, Constantino, Weber, Efferson and Vogt2022). As more and more culturally distant humans live side by side, an individual-level approach to nudging becomes less tenable and even harmful. For example, targeting the wrong part of a society without prior measurement can lead to reactance. This may explain why an intervention to reduce FGC in Kenya actually increased the cultural practice (Thomas, Reference Thomas, Shell-Duncan and Hernlund2000).

Impact evaluation

Measuring the impact of a public program is a cornerstone of an evidence-based approach to policy. Impact evaluation of cultural evolutionary public policy is likely to encounter two key challenges:

  1. 1. Data collection is difficult and unattractive to many stakeholders: Cultural evolutionary behavioural science requires large datasets that can detect contextual factors and cultural differences within populations. Sampling data in a population is often difficult, expensive and creates no immediate payoff for policymakers. Furthermore, measurements will often feature selection biases, as relatively amenable subjects self-select into the sample (Berk, Reference Berk1983; Heckman, Reference Heckman1990), or provide socially desirable responses (Krumpal, Reference Krumpal2013). More efficient methods of data collection, such as random sampling, may be more likely to be implemented.

  2. 2. Evaluating out of sample and across time: Cultural evolution can play out over long periods, but the time horizon of policies and politicians is often driven by shorter cycles of elections and media attention. Moreover, public programmes directed at a subset of a population are likely to have effects beyond the group targeted by the policy. Thus, the impact assessment of the policy must continue over a period of time and go beyond the targeted population to detect possible spillovers.

Despite these challenges, impact evaluation is critical to not just applied cultural evolutionary behavioural science, but the basic science of cultural evolution.

If it does not work in the real world, it does not work at all

As scientists, our goal is to develop theories and models to explain the world (Muthukrishna & Henrich, Reference Muthukrishna and Henrich2019). Often the methods we use to test these models and theories are not in the world but in a more constrained lab or online setting. But of course, the ultimate test of our theories is the real world. If our theories do not work in the real world, they do not work at all. Thus, cultural evolutionary behavioural science in public policy is not just a useful extension of the cultural evolutionary framework and research program, it is essential to the development of the science. It offers a true test of cultural evolution as a theory of human behaviour. Basic and applied science go hand in hand. Electrons and molecules behave the same way in a lab as they do in the real world. People do not.

The marriage between cultural evolution and behavioural science can produce more effective methods for developing public policies. We have shown how this combined approach can guide researchers and practitioners in designing legitimate, ethical and sustainably effective policies and programmes. But the intersection of cultural evolution and public policy is not just a useful approach for policymakers. Cultural evolutionary public policy is critical to the future of the discipline.

Financial support

We acknowledge support from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) grant no. CP22-005 and Templeton World Charity Foundation grant TWCF0612. We also acknowledge support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 100018_185417/1).

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare none.

Footnotes

1 An abbreviated version of this paper will also be published in the Oxford Handbook of Cultural Evolution.

References

Abbink, K. (2006), ‘14 Laboratory Experiments on Corruption’, in Rose-Ackerman, S. (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishers.Google Scholar
Abdallah, S., Sayed, R., Rahwan, I., LeVeck, B. L., Cebrian, M., Rutherford, A. and Fowler, J. H. (2014), ‘Corruption drives the emergence of civil society’, Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(93): 20131044. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.1044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abeler, J., Falk, A., Goette, L. and Huffman, D. (2011), ‘Reference points and effort provision’, American Economic Review, 101(2): 470492. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.2.470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akbari, M., Bahrami-Rad, D. and Kimbrough, E. O. (2019), ‘Kinship, fractionalization and corruption’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 166: 493528. https://doi.org/10/ggktb4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A., Giuliano, P. and Nunn, N. (2013), ‘On the origins of gender roles: women and the plough’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(2): 469530. https://doi.org/10/gctrzs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsan, M. and Wanamaker, M. (2018), ‘Tuskegee and the health of Black men’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1): 407455. https://doi.org/10/gdsh74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alvard, M. S. (1998), ‘Evolutionary ecology and resource conservation’, Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 7(2): 6274. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1998)7:2<62::AID-EVAN3>3.0.CO;2-I.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1990), ‘Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving’, The Economic Journal, 100(401): 464477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., Nikiforakis, N. and Siegenthaler, S. (2021), ‘Predicting social tipping and norm change in controlled experiments’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(16): e2014893118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014893118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apicella, C. L., Azevedo, E. M., Fowler, J. H. and Christakis, N. A. (2013), ‘Evolutionary origins of the endowment effect: evidence from hunter-gatherers’, American Economic Review, 104(6): 17931805. https://doi.org/10/gfzkmj.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apicella, C. L., Norenzayan, A. and Henrich, J. (2020), ‘Beyond WEIRD: a review of the last decade and a look ahead to the global laboratory of the future’, Evolution and Human Behavior Beyond Weird, 41(5): 319329. https://doi.org/10/ghndmz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnot, M., Brandl, E., Campbell, O. L. K., Chen, Y., Du, J., Dyble, M., Emmott, E. H., Ge, E., Kretschmer, L. D. W., Mace, R., Micheletti, A. J. C., Nila, S., Peacey, S., Salali, G. D. and Zhang, H. (2020), ‘How evolutionary behavioural sciences can help us understand behaviour in a pandemic’, Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2020(1): 264278. https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoaa038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashraf, N., Karlan, D. and Yin, W. (2006), ‘Tying Odysseus to the mast: evidence from a commitment savings product in the Philippines’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2): 635672. https://doi.org/10/b6v5g2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W. D. (1981), ‘The evolution of cooperation’, Science, 211(4489): 13901396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahrami-Rad, D. (2021), ‘Keeping it in the family: female inheritance, inmarriage, and the status of women’, Journal of Development Economics, 153: 102714. https://doi.org/10/gnc7th.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balan, P., Bergeron, A., Tourek, G. and Weigel, J. (2022), ‘Local elites as state capacity: how city chiefs use local information to increase tax compliance in the D.R. Congo’, American Economic Review, 112(3): 762797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. (1992), ‘A simple model of herd behavior’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3): 797817. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BC Supreme Court (2010), Affidavit J. Henrich [WWW Document]. http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf (accessed on December 11, 2021).Google Scholar
Bell, A. V., Richerson, P. J. and McElreath, R. (2009), ‘Culture rather than genes provides greater scope for the evolution of large-scale human prosociality’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(42): 1767117674. https://doi.org/10/bq44jk.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J. and Galing, S. (2017), ‘Should governments invest more in nudging?Psychological Science, 28(8): 10411055. https://doi.org/10/gbsfmd.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, J. (2021), ‘Social tipping interventions can promote the diffusion or decay of sustainable consumption norms in the field. Evidence from a quasi-experimental intervention study’, Sustainability, 13(6): 3529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., Efferson, C. and Vogt, S. (2021), ‘Tipping pro-environmental norm diffusion at scale: opportunities and limitations’, Behavioural Public Policy, 126. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., Vogt, S. and Efferson, C. (2022), ‘Pre-existing fairness concerns restrict the cultural evolution and generalization of inequitable norms in children’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 43(1): 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, R. A. (1983), ‘An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data’, American Sociological Review, 48(3): 386398. https://doi.org/10/bjdnnw.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T. (2020), ‘State capacity, reciprocity, and the social contract’, Econometrica, 88(4): 13071335. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA16863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T. and Persson, T. (2019), ‘Democratic values and institutions’, American Economic Review: Insights, 1(1): 5976. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20180248.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. (2005), The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. (1992), ‘A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades’, Journal of Political Economy, 100(5): 9921026. https://doi.org/10.1086/261849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., Corbit, J., Callaghan, T. C., Barry, O., Bowie, A., Kleutsch, L., Kramer, K. L., Ross, E., Vongsachang, H., Wrangham, R. and Warneken, F. (2015), ‘The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies’, Nature, 528(7581): 258261. https://doi.org/10/f74cw3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanes i Vidal, J., Draca, M. and Fons-Rosen, C. (2012), ‘Revolving door lobbyists’, The American Economic Review, 102(7): 37313748. https://doi.org/10/gdmwjn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1985), Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S. and Richerson, P. J. (2003), ‘The evolution of altruistic punishment’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(6): 35313535. https://doi.org/10/cv7gg8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. and Henrich, J. (2011), ‘The cultural niche: why social learning is essential for human adaptation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(Suppl 2): 1091810925. https://doi.org/10/cmc4j7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E. and Yeager, D. S. (2021), ‘Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution’, Nature Human Behaviour, 5: 980989. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01143-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucci, P. (2010), Polygamy is harmful to society, scholar finds [WWW Document]. vancouversun. https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/polygamy-is-harmful-to-society-scholar-finds (accessed on November 11, 2021).Google Scholar
Buyalskaya, A., Gallo, M. and Camerer, C. F. (2021), ‘The golden age of social science’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(5): e2002923118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002923118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team (2012), Applying behavioural insights to reduce fraud, error and debt.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (1989), ‘An experimental test of several generalized utility theories’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(9): 61104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M. (2004), Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., Isaksson, S., Manfredi, D., Rose, J., Wagenmakers, E.-J. and Wu, H. (2018), ‘Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015’, Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9): 637644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camilotti, G. (2016), ‘Interventions to stop female genital cutting and the evolution of the custom: evidence on age at cutting in Senegal’, Journal of African Economies, 25(1): 133158. https://doi.org/10/gnc7tj.Google Scholar
Carey, B. (2012), Academic ‘Dream Team’ Helped Obama's Effort. The New York Times, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Feldman, M. W. (1981), Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Charness, G., Gneezy, U. and Imas, A. (2013), ‘Experimental methods: eliciting risk preferences’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87: 4351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chudek, M. and Henrich, J. (2011), ‘Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5): 218226. https://doi.org/10/d2htdz.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chudek, M., Muthukrishna, M. and Henrich, J. (2015), ‘Cultural Evolution’, in Buss, D. M. (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Integrations. New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10/gfzkn5.Google Scholar
Cloward, K. (2016), When Norms Collide: Local Responses to Activism against Female Genital Mutilation and Early Marriage. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S. and Davidson, R. J. (2006), ‘Lending a hand: social regulation of the neural response to threat’, Psychological Science, 17(12): 10321039. https://doi.org/10/bpsp3h.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coan, J. A., Beckes, L., Gonzalez, M. Z., Maresh, E. L., Brown, C. L. and Hasselmo, K. (2017), ‘Relationship status and perceived support in the social regulation of neural responses to threat’, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(10): 15741583. https://doi.org/10/gb2xqj.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohn, A., Fehr, E. and Maréchal, M. A. (2014), ‘Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry’, Nature, 516(7529): 8689. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohn, A., Fehr, E. and Maréchal, M. A. (2019), ‘Selective participation may undermine replication attempts’, Nature, 575(7782): E1E2. https://doi.org/10/gmrwvr.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohn, A., Gesche, T. and Maréchal, M. A. (2022), ‘Honesty in the digital age’, Management Science, 68(2): 827845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1994), Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Constantino, S. M., Sparkman, G., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bicchieri, C., Centola, D., Shell-Duncan, B., Vogt, S. and Weber, E. U. (2022), ‘Scaling up change: a critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(2): 5097. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006221105279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbie-Smith, G. (1999), ‘The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: considerations for clinical investigation’, The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 317(1): 58. https://doi.org/10/gm64w5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S. B., Williams, M. V. and Moody-Ayers, S. (1999), ‘Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research’, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(9): 537546. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deaton, A. and Cartwright, N. (2018), ‘Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials’, Social Science & Medicine, 210(2018): 221. https://doi.org/10/gd5qgt.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
deHaan, E., Kedia, S., Koh, K. and Rajgopal, S. (2015), ‘The revolving door and the SEC's enforcement outcomes: initial evidence from civil litigation’, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(2): 6596. https://doi.org/10/ggfxm6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Nunes Filho, G., et al. (2010), ‘How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language’, Science, 330(6009): 13591364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P. and Massey, C. (2018), ‘Overcoming algorithm aversion: people will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them’, Management Science, 64(3): 11551170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, J. E., Bright, E. A., Coleman, P. R., Durfee, R. C. and Worley, B. A. (2000), ‘LandScan: a global population database for estimating populations at risk’, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66(7): 849857.Google Scholar
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D. and Vlaev, I. (2010), MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour for public policy [WWW Document]. http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/ (accessed on October 14, 2021).Google Scholar
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R. and Vlaev, I. (2012), ‘Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1): 264277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doshi, M. (2017), How the British Government Got More Citizens to Pay Their Taxes on Time [WWW Document]. BloombergQuint. https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/uk-the-nudge-unit-uses-behavioural-science-to-influence-policy-outcomes-such-as-improved-tax-collections-and-pension-enrolment (accessed on October 6, 2021).Google Scholar
Drèze, J. and Khera, R. (2000), ‘Crime, gender, and society in India: insights from homicide data’, Population and Development Review, 26(2): 335352. https://doi.org/10/ddbt8p.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edlund, L., Li, H., Yi, J. and Zhang, J. (2013), ‘Sex ratios and crime: evidence from China’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(5): 15201534. https://doi.org/10/ghff4q.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efferson, C. (2021), ‘Policy to activate cultural change to amplify policy’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(23): e2106306118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106306118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efferson, C., Vogt, S., Elhadi, A., Ahmed, H. E. F. and Fehr, E. (2015), ‘Female genital cutting is not a social coordination norm’, Science, 349(6255): 14461447. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efferson, C., Vogt, S. and Fehr, E. (2020), ‘The promise and the peril of using social influence to reverse harmful traditions’, Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1): 5568. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0768-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehret, S., Constantino, S. M., Weber, E. U., Efferson, C. and Vogt, S. (2022), ‘Group identities can undermine social tipping after intervention’, Nature Human Behaviour, 6: 16661679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01440-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisler, K. (2007), Hired Guns: The City's 50 Top Lobbyists. Washington, DC: Washingtonian. https://www.washingtonian.com/2007/06/01/hired-guns-the-citys-50-top-lobbyists/ (accessed on November 10, 2021).Google Scholar
Enke, B. (2019), ‘Kinship, cooperation, and the evolution of moral systems’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134: 9531019. https://doi.org/10/ggbvhd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2018), Pastoralism in Africa's Drylands: Reducing Risks, Addressing Vulnerability and Enhancing Resilience. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2003), ‘The nature of human altruism’, Nature, 425(6960): 785791. https://doi.org/10/bxszmt.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2004), ‘Third-party punishment and social norms’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2): 6387. https://doi.org/10/bv7cgg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. (1999), ‘A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3): 817868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., Hart, O. and Zehnder, C. (2011), ‘Contracts as reference points—experimental evidence’, American Economic Review, 101(7): 493525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G. and Nosek, B. A. (2019), ‘A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3): 522559. https://doi.org/10/ggmrzk.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francois, P., Fujiwara, T. and van Ypersele, T. (2018), ‘The origins of human prosociality: cultural group selection in the workplace and the laboratory’, Science Advances, 4(9): eaat2201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, R. H. (1985), Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status, Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953), Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D'Amato, A., Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr, I. C., Fischer, R., Fülöp, M., Georgas, J., Kashima, E. S., Kashima, Y., Kim, K., Lempereur, A., Marquez, P., Othman, R., Overlaet, B., Panagiotopoulou, P., Peltzer, K., Perez-Florizno, L. R., Ponomarenko, L., Realo, A., Schei, V., Schmitt, M., Smith, P. B., Soomro, N., Szabo, E., Taveesin, N., Toyama, M., Van de Vliert, E., Vohra, N., Ward, C. and Yamaguchi, S. (2011), ‘Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study’, Science (New York, NY), 332(6033): 11001104. https://doi.org/10/dzt3n2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, M., Li, R., Stamkou, E., Pieper, D., Denison, E., Fernandez, J., Choi, V., Chatman, J., Jackson, J. and Dimant, E. (2022), ‘Persuading republicans and democrats to comply with mask wearing: an intervention tournament’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101(2022): 104299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, M. A. and Lawson, D. W. (2014), ‘Applying Evolutionary Anthropology to a Changing World’, in Gibson, M. A. and Lawson, D. W. (eds), Applied Evolutionary Anthropology: Darwinian Approaches to Contemporary World Issues, Advances in the Evolutionary Analysis of Human Behaviour, New York, NY: Springer, 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0280-4_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, M. A. and Mace, R. (2006), ‘An energy-saving development initiative increases birth rate and childhood malnutrition in rural Ethiopia’, PLOS Medicine, 3(4): e87. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J., Reed, E. and Jones, R. (2020), Reasons for Realism: Selected Essays of James J. Gibson. Milton: Routledge. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5995471.Google Scholar
Giuliano, P. and Nunn, N. (2013), ‘The transmission of democracy: from the village to the nation-state’, American Economic Review, 103(3): 8692. https://doi.org/10/gd23ww.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuliano, P. and Nunn, N. (2018), ‘Ancestral characteristics of modern populations’, Economic History of Developing Regions, 33(1): 117. https://doi.org/10/gfzkkc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glowacki, L. and Molleman, L. (2017), ‘Subsistence styles shape human social learning strategies’, Nature Human Behaviour, 1(5): 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gneezy, U. and Potters, J. (1997), ‘An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2): 631645. https://doi.org/10/bpkbhz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U., Meier, S. and Rey-Biel, P. (2011), ‘When and why incentives (don't) work to modify behavior’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4): 191210. https://doi.org/10/cdhgff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J. K., Palfrey, T. R., Rogers, B. W. and McKelvey, R. D. (2007), ‘Self-correcting information cascades’, Review of Economic Studies, 74(3): 733762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2007.00438.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruenbaum, E. (2015), The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective, The Female Circumcision Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812292510.Google Scholar
Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H. and Vie, M. L. (2013), ‘How universal is the big five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2): 354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallsworth, M. (2014), ‘The use of field experiments to increase tax compliance’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(4): 658679. https://doi.org/10/gdj7hs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, K. R. and Stewart, T. R. (2001), The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, Applications. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Han, S., Northoff, G., Vogeley, K., Wexler, B. E, Kitayama, S. and Varnum, M. E. W. (2013), ‘A cultural neuroscience approach to the biosocial nature of the human brain’, Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1): 335359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, P. R., Chabris, C. F., Watts, D. J. and Meyer, M. N. (2020), ‘Objecting to experiments even while approving of the policies or treatments they compare’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(32): 1894818950. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009030117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heckman, J. (1990), ‘Varieties of selection bias’, American Economic Review, 80(2): 313318.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2016), The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. (2020), The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. and Muthukrishna, M. (2021), ‘The origins and psychology of human cooperation’, Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1): 207240. https://doi.org/10/ghr9md.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H. and McElreath, R. (2001), ‘In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies’, American Economic Review, 91(2): 7378. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.2.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (2008), ‘Five misunderstandings about cultural evolution’, Human Nature, 19(2): 119137. https://doi.org/10/ffwks9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, D. and Ziker, J. (2010a), ‘Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment’, Science, 327(5972): 14801484. https://doi.org/10/cfmrgc.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010b), ‘The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3): 6183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (2012), ‘The puzzle of monogamous marriage’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367(1589): 657669. https://doi.org/10/fzzsr2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrmann, B., Thoni, C. and Gachter, S. (2008), ‘Antisocial punishment across societies’, Science, 319(5868): 13621367. https://doi.org/10/d969wh.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, B. R., Kanngiesser, P., Barrett, H. C., Broesch, T., Cebioglu, S., Crittenden, A. N., Erut, A., Lew-Levy, S., Sebastian-Enesco, C., Smith, A. M., Yilmaz, S. and Silk, J. B. (2020), ‘Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development’, Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1): 3644. https://doi.org/10/gf9hmp.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IJzerman, H., Lewis, N. A., Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., DeBruine, L., Ritchie, S. J., Vazire, S., Forscher, P. S., Morey, R. D., Ivory, J. D. and Anvari, F. (2020), ‘Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy’, Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11): 10921094. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00990-w.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imas, A. (2016), ‘The realization effect: risk-taking after realized versus paper losses’, American Economic Review, 106(8): 20862109. https://doi.org/10/f8xxcq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jochim, J. and Schimmelpfennig, R. (2022), ‘Innovative approaches to understand human behavior’, Vereinte Nationen, 70(2): 6368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. and Fowler, J. H. (2011), ‘The evolution of overconfidence’, Nature, 477(7364): 317–20. https://doi.org/10/b2fmmb.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. and Thaler, R. H. (1991), ‘Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 193206. https://doi.org/10/gfn5gr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendal, R. L., Boogert, N. J., Rendell, L., Laland, K. N., Webster, M. and Jones, P. L. (2018), ‘Social learning strategies: bridge-building between fields’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(7): 651665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleven, H., Landais, C., Posch, J., Steinhauer, A. and Zweimüller, J. (2019), ‘Child penalties across countries: evidence and explanations’, AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109: 122126. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20191078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleven, H., Landais, C. and Søgaard, J. E. (2021), ‘Does biology drive child penalties? Evidence from biological and adoptive families’, American Economic Review: Insights, 3(2): 183198. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20200260.Google Scholar
Klitgaard, R. E., MacLean Abaroa, R. and Parris, H. L. (2000), Corrupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention. Oakland, CA; Washington, DC: ICS Press; World Bank Institute.Google Scholar
Kőszegi, B. and Rabin, M. (2006), ‘A model of reference-dependent preferences’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4): 11331165. https://doi.org/10/cqgpmq.Google Scholar
Krumpal, I. (2013), ‘Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review’, Quality and Quantity, 47(4): 20252047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond, M. H. and Robins, R. W. (2004), ‘Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: an interpersonal approach’, Psychological Review, 111(1): 94110. https://doi.org/10/ftkrrc.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lades, L. K. and Delaney, L. (2020), ‘Nudge FORGOOD’, Behavioural Public Policy, 7594. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.53.Google Scholar
Laland, K. N. (2018), Darwin's Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Laland, K. N., Brown, G. and Brown, G. R. (2011), Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lansing, J. S. (2009), Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali, Priests and Programmers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400827633.Google Scholar
Lawson, D. W., James, S., Ngadaya, E., Ngowi, B., Mfinanga, S. G. M. and Mulder, M. B. (2015), ‘No evidence that polygynous marriage is a harmful cultural practice in northern Tanzania’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(45): 1382713832. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507151112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, M. P. (2009), Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas. TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2017), The Undoing Project: A Friendship that Changed Our Minds, 1st edn. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2007), ‘On the interpretation of giving in dictator games’, Journal of Political Economy, 115(3): 482493. https://doi.org/10.1086/519249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. and Welch, N. (2001), ‘Risk as feelings’, Psychological Bulletin, 127(2): 267286. https://doi.org/10/fgmsnf.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonati, S. (2020), ‘What explains cultural differences in leadership styles? On the agricultural origins of participative and directive leadership’. The Leadership Quarterly, Special Issue on Evolution and Biology of Leadership, 31(2): 101305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.003.Google Scholar
Lowes, S. and Montero, E. (2021), ‘The legacy of colonial medicine in Central Africa’, American Economic Review, 111(4): 12841314. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luechinger, S. and Moser, C. (2020), ‘The European Commission and the revolving door’, European Economic Review, 127(2014): 103461. https://doi.org/10/gngfzs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machina, M. J. (1987), ‘Choice under uncertainty: problems solved and unsolved’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(1): 121154. https://doi.org/10/bhqf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, G. (1996), ‘Ending footbinding and infibulation: a convention account’, American Sociological Review, 61(6): 9991017. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. and Zhao, J. (2013), ‘Poverty impedes cognitive function’, Science, 341(6149): 976980. https://doi.org/10/nng.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez-Bravo, M. and Stegmann, A. (2022), ‘In vaccines we trust? The effects of the CIA's vaccine ruse on immunization in Pakistan’, Journal of the European Economic Association, 20(1): 150186. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvab018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattee, A. Z. (2006), Ambivalence and Contradiction: A Review of the Policy Environment in Tanzania in Relation to Pastoralism (No. 140), Drylands Issue Paper. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
Mesoudi, A. (2009), ‘How cultural evolutionary theory can inform social psychology and vice versa’, Psychological Review, 116(4): 929952. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesoudi, A. (2016), ‘Cultural evolution: a review of theory, findings and controversies’, Evolutionary Biology, 43(4): 481497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9320-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, A., Chang, L., Dall, S. R. X. and Thornton, A. (2016), ‘The evolution of individual and cultural variation in social learning’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(3): 215225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, M. N., Heck, P. R., Holtzman, G. S., Anderson, S. M., Cai, W., Watts, D. J. and Chabris, C. F. (2019), ‘Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(22): 1072310728. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820701116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S. and Hankin, B. L. (2004), ‘Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias’, Psychological Bulletin, 130(5): 711. https://doi.org/10/c2sgw8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. and West, R. (2011), ‘The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions’, Implementation Science, 6(1): 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molleman, L. and Gächter, S. (2018), ‘Societal background influences social learning in cooperative decision making’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(5): 547555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullainathan, S. and Shafir, E. (2013), Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, 1st edn. New York: Times Books, Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1967), ‘Ethnographic Atlas: a summary’, Ethnology, 6(2): 109236. https://doi.org/10.2307/3772751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. K. and Frijters, P. (2016), ‘Clean money, dirty system: connected landowners capture beneficial land rezoning’, Journal of Urban Economics, 93(2016): 99114. https://doi.org/10/ghdrd3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. K., Frijters, P. and Vorster, M. (2017), ‘The back-scratching game’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 142(2017): 494508. https://doi.org/10/gfzknc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M. (2017), ‘Corruption, cooperation, and the evolution of prosocial institutions’, SSRN Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3082315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M. (2020a), ‘Cultural evolutionary public policy’, Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1): 1213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0780-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M. (2020b), ‘Cultural evolution and the paradox of diversity’, National Academy of Engineering: The Bridge, 50(4): 2628.Google Scholar
Muthukrishna, M. (2021), ‘The ties that bind us’, LSE Public Policy Review, 2(1): 3. https://doi.org/10/gmrwvs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M. and Henrich, J. (2016), ‘Innovation in the collective brain’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371(1690): 20150192. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M. and Henrich, J. (2019), ‘A problem in theory’, Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3): 221229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M. and Schaller, M. (2020), ‘Are collectivistic cultures more prone to rapid transformation? Computational models of cross-cultural differences, social network structure, dynamic social influence, and cultural change’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(2): 103120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319855783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M., Morgan, T. J. H. and Henrich, J. (2016), ‘The when and who of social learning and conformist transmission’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(1): 1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., Francois, P., Pourahmadi, S. and Henrich, J. (2017), ‘Corrupting cooperation and how anti-corruption strategies may backfire’, Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7): 0138. https://doi.org/10/gfzkh6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., Mcinerney, J. and Thue, B (2020), ‘Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance’, Psychological Science, 31(6): 678701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M., Henrich, J. and Slingerland, E. (2021), ‘Psychology as a historical science’, Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), annurev-psych-082820-111436. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-082820-111436CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunn, N. (2009), ‘The importance of history for economic development’, Annual Review of Economics, 1(1): 6592. https://doi.org/10/dn4wf3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunn, N. (2021), ‘Chapter 3 – History as Evolution’, in Bisin, A. and Federico, G. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Economics, London: Academic Press, 4191. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815874-6.00010-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C., Schluter, M., Adger, W. N., Arrow, K. J., Barrett, S., Carpenter, S., Chapin, F. S., Crepin, A.-S., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., Jager, W., Kautsky, N., Levin, S. A., Madsen, O. J., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Walker, B., Weber, E. U., Wilen, J., Xepapadeas, A. and de Zeeuw, A. (2016), ‘Social norms as solutions’, Science, 354(6308): 4243. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Open Science Collaboration (2015), ‘Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science’, Science, 349(6251): aac4716. https://doi.org/10/68c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. (2006), ‘Path dependence’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1): 87115. https://doi.org/10/fnhszr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persky, J. (1995), ‘Retrospectives: the ethology of homo economicus’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2): 221231. https://doi.org/10/cdj3m7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center (2013), Muslim Beliefs About Sharia | Pew Research Center [WWW Document]. https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ (accessed on November 13, 2021).Google Scholar
Pirsig, R. M. (2006, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, Reprint Edition. ed, New York: HarperTorch.Google Scholar
Price-Haywood, E. G., Burton, J., Fort, D. and Seoane, L. (2020), ‘Hospitalization and mortality among Black patients and White patients with Covid-19’, New England Journal of Medicine, 382(26): 25342543. https://doi.org/10/ggx2nh.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pritlove, C., Juando-Prats, C., Ala-leppilampi, K. and Parsons, J. A. (2019), ‘The good, the bad, and the ugly of implicit bias’, The Lancet, 393(10171): 502504. https://doi.org/10/gf6qwc.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabin, M. (1998), ‘Psychology and economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1): 1146.Google Scholar
Rahwan, Z., Yoeli, E. and Fasolo, B. (2019), ‘Heterogeneity in banker culture and its influence on dishonesty’, Nature, 575(7782): 345349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1741-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., Mathew, S., Newton, E. K., Naar, N., Newson, L., Ross, C., Smaldino, P. E., Waring, T. M. and Zefferman, M. (2016), ‘Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: a sketch of the evidence’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39: e30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1400106X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruggeri, K. (Ed.) (2021), Psychology and Behavioral Economics: Applications for Public Policy, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003181873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saify, K. and Saadat, M. (2012), ‘Consanguineous marriages in Afghanistan’, Journal of Biosocial Science, 44(1): 7381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932011000253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santos, H. C., Varnum, M. E. W. and Grossmann, I. (2017), ‘Global increases in individualism’, Psychological Science, 28(9): 12281239. https://doi.org/10/gbw9pb.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaller, M. and Muthukrishna, M. (2021), ‘Modeling cultural change: computational models of interpersonal influence dynamics can yield new insights about how cultures change, which cultures change more rapidly than others, and why’, American Psychologist, 76(6): 10271038. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/amp0000797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schimmelpfennig, R. and Muthukrishna, M. (2021), ‘What ultimately predicts witchcraft and its variation around the world?Current Anthropology, 62(1): 229.Google Scholar
Schimmelpfennig, R., Vogt, S., Ehret, S. and Efferson, C. (2021), ‘Maximizing behavior change in a heterogeneous population’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(11): 819827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelpfennig, R., Razek, L., Schnell, E. and Muthukrishna, M. (2022), ‘Paradox of diversity in the collective brain’, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 377: 20200316. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, J. F., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J. P. and Henrich, J. (2019), ‘The Church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation’, Science, 366(6466): eaau5141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shariff, A. F. and Norenzayan, A. (2007), ‘God is watching you: priming god concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game’, Psychological Science, 18(9): 803809. https://doi.org/10/bc3crz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharot, T. (2011), ‘The optimism bias’, Current Biology, 21(23): R941R945. https://doi.org/10/c64kzt.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shell-Duncan, B. and Hernlund, Y. (2000), Female ‘Circumcision' in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957), Models of Man; Social and Rational, Models of Man; Social and Rational. Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1982), Models of Bounded Rationality: Economic Analysis and Public Policy. Behavioral Economics and Business Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press Books.Google Scholar
Simons, D. J. (2014), ‘The value of direct replication’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1): 7680. https://doi.org/10/f5r8rj.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smaldino, P. E. (2019), ‘Social identity and cooperation in cultural evolution’, Behavioural Processes, 161: 108116. https://doi.org/10/gf379d.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorkin, A. R., Karaian, J., Kessler, S., de la Merced, M. J., Hirsch, L. and Livni, E. (2021), Private Equity's Biggest Tax Tactics. The New York Times, New York.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2020), Behavioral Science and Public Policy, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2021), ‘The distributional effects of nudges’, Nature Human Behaviour, 6: 910. https://doi.org/10/gnfqcv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X. and Kitayama, S. (2014), ‘Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture’, Science (New York, NY), 344(6184): 603608. https://doi.org/10/sp4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, R. H. (2016), Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, First published as a Norton paperback. ed. New York, London: Business/Economics, W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (2018), ‘From cashews to nudges: the evolution of behavioral economics’, American Economic Review, 108(6): 12651287. https://doi.org/10/ggpp3z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2003), ‘Libertarian paternalism’, American Economic Review, 93(2): 175179. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), ‘Nudge. Penguin Publishing Group’.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. (2000), ‘Ngaitana (I Will Circumcise Myself): Lessons from Colonial Campaigns to Ban Excision in Meru, Kenya’, in Shell-Duncan, B. and Hernlund, Y. (eds), Female\Circumcision in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 129.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. B. and Quinn, S. C. (1991), ‘The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the Black community’, American Journal of Public Health, 81(11): 14981505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinbergen, N. (1963), ‘On aims and methods of ethology’, Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4): 410433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1989), ‘Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions’, in Karpak, B. and Zionts, S. (eds), Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers, NATO ASI Series, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 81126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74919-3_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991), ‘Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4): 10391061. https://doi.org/10/gnf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), ‘Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4): 297323. https://doi.org/10/cb57hk.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., Slovic, P. and Kahneman, D. (1990), ‘The causes of preference reversal’, The American Economic Review, 80(1): 204217.Google Scholar
Uchiyama, R., Spicer, R. and Muthukrishna, M. (2021), ‘Cultural evolution of genetic heritability’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10/gkct6d.Google ScholarPubMed
UNICEF (2016), Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Global Concern [WWW Document]. UNICEF DATA. https://data.unicef.org/resources/female-genital-mutilationcutting-global-concern/ (accessed on November 11, 2021).Google Scholar
Vogt, S., Mohmmed Zaid, N. A., El Fadil Ahmed, H., Fehr, E. and Efferson, C. (2016), ‘Changing cultural attitudes towards female genital cutting’, Nature, 538(7626): 506509. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, S., Efferson, C. and Fehr, E. (2017), ‘The risk of female genital cutting in Europe: comparing immigrant attitudes toward uncut girls with attitudes in a practicing country’, SSM – Population Health, 3: 283293. https://doi.org/10/ggjd9s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1953), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waring, T. M., Kline, M. A., Brooks, J. S., Goff, S. H., Gowdy, J., Janssen, M. A., Smaldino, P. E. and Jacquet, J. (2015), ‘A multilevel evolutionary framework for sustainability analysis’, Ecology and Society, 20(2): 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waring, T. M., Goff, S. H. and Smaldino, P. E. (2017), ‘The coevolution of economic institutions and sustainable consumption via cultural group selection’, Ecological Economics, 131: 524532. https://doi.org/10/gf59zb.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weizsäcker, G. (2010), ‘Do we follow others when we should? A simple test of rational expectations’, American Economic Review, 100(5): 23402360. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.5.2340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C. K., Nesse, R. M., Sear, R., Johnstone, R. A. and Stearns, S. C. (2017), ‘Evolutionary public health: introducing the concept’, The Lancet, 390(10093): 500509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30572-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, C. J. M., Kelly, J. M., Shariff, A. F. and Norenzayan, A. (2019), ‘Supernatural norm enforcement: thinking about karma and God reduces selfishness among believers’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84: 103797. https://doi.org/10/ghr2zv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C. J. M., Muthukrishna, M. and Norenzayan, A. (2021), ‘Cultural similarity among coreligionists within and between countries’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Americe, 118(37): e2109650118. https://doi.org/10/gmv9pd.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White House (2015), Executive Order – Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People [WWW Document]. whitehouse.gov. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-American (accessed on October 13, 2021).Google Scholar
Wikipedia (2021), List of Cognitive Biases. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases.Google Scholar
World Bank Group (2015), Mind, Society, and Behavior: World Development Report 2015. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (2008), Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement; OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNIFEM. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).Google Scholar
Yoeli, E., Hoffman, M., Rand, D. G. and Nowak, M. A. (2013), ‘Powering up with indirect reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl 2): 1042410429. https://doi.org/10/3wm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, H. P. (2015), ‘The evolution of social norms’, Annual Review of Economics, 7(1): 359387. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. The evolution of behavioural science in public policy.

Figure 1

Figure 2. The direct and indirect effect of an intervention (adapted from Schimmelpfennig et al. (2021)).

Figure 2

Table 1. FORGOOD ethics framework for nudging and behavioural sciences based on Lades and Delaney (2020).