Modern consumers typically face complex goods and services. In the interest of customer protection, these companies are asked to disclose information about the products and consumers are typically required to indicate their understanding of the information provided. In truth, consumers seldom consult, even less understand the information provided. I present here the state of evidence about how commercial disclosure actually works (or rather does not work) with consumers characterized with human limitations in information processing. I discuss ways to improve disclosure regulation to improve customer protection.

What are the roles of bottom-up and top-down signals in the formation of climate change policy preferences? Using a large sample of American residents (n = 1520) and combining an experimental manipulation of descriptive social norms with two choice experiments, we investigate the effects of descriptive norms and policy endorsements by key political actors on climate policy support. We study these questions in two areas considered to be central in a number of decarbonization pathways: the phase-out of fossil fuel-powered cars and the deployment of carbon capture and storage. Our study provides two important results. First, social norm interventions may be no silver bullet for increasing citizens’ support for ambitious climate policies. In fact, we not only find that climate policy support is unaffected by norm messages communicating an increased diffusion of pro-environmental behaviors, but also that norm messages communicating the prevalence of non-sustainable behaviors decrease policy support. Second, in the presence of policy endorsements by political parties, citizens’ trust in these parties influences their support for climate policies. This study contributes to research in behavioral climate policy by examining the impact of descriptive norms and elite cues on climate policy support.

Al-Ubaydli et al. point out that many research findings experience a reduction in magnitude of treatment effects when scaled, and they make a number of proposals to improve the scalability of pilot project findings. While we agree that scalability is important for policy relevance, we argue that non-scalability does not always render a research finding useless in practice. Three practices ensuring (1) that the intervention is appropriate for the context; (2) that heterogeneity in treatment effects are understood; and (3) that the temptation to try multiple interventions simultaneously is avoided can allow us to customize successful policy prescriptions to specific real-world settings.

Global food consumption threatens climate stability and ecosystem resilience. Because hard regulation of food choice through taxes and bans is politically difficult, behavioral approaches provide a promising alternative, given that they influence food choice to a meaningful extent. We test the effect of framing of a menu on the choice of ordering climate-friendly dishes in a randomized controlled experiment. Rearranging the menu in favor of vegetarian food has a large and significant effect on the willingness to order a vegetarian dish instead of meat. Our results demonstrate that small, inexpensive interventions can be used toward decreasing carbon emissions from food consumption.

Poor compliance of prescription medication is an ongoing public health crisis. Nearly half of patients do not take their medication as prescribed, harming their own health while also increasing public health care costs. Despite these detrimental consequences, prior research has struggled to establish cost-effective and scalable interventions to improve adherence rates. We suggest that one reason for the limited success of prior interventions is that they make the personal health costs of non-adherence insufficiently prominent, while a higher saliency of these costs may motivate patients to adhere more. In the current research, we test whether an intervention that makes the personal health costs of non-compliance more salient for patients will increase their medication adherence. To do so, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with 16,191 patients across 278 UK pharmacies over a 9-month time period and manipulated the perceived consequences of medication non-adherence. We find that patients who received a treatment highlighting the personal health costs of non-compliance were significantly more likely to adhere to their medication than three comparison groups (odds ratio = 1.84, 95% confidence interval = 1.37–2.47). Shifting patients’ focus to the personal health costs of non-compliance may thus offer a potentially cost-effective and scalable approach to improving medication adherence.

We argue that the behavioral challenges posed by climate change are fundamentally problems of social influence. Behaviors that perpetuate climate change are often opaque in their consequences; thus, we look to others to infer how to act. Yet unsustainable behaviors, like driving and eating meat, are often the norm; conformity to such norms is a major hurdle to a more sustainable world. Nonetheless, we argue that social norms can also be a powerful lever for positive change. Drawing on two streams of recent research, we show that well-implemented social norm strategies can motivate positive steps even in the face of a negative current norm and even in individuals’ private behavior absent the judgment of others. First, appeals to dynamic norms – information about change in others or trends in norms over time – can lead people to conform to the change itself, even if this change violates current norms. Second, framing normative appeals in terms of an invitation to work with others toward a common goal can increase the motivation to join in. Despite ubiquitous unsustainable norms, careful theory-based representations of social norms can help us make progress on climate change.

The move to smart disclosure promises to revitalize disclosure mandates and save them from a fate of ignored verbiage. But by making disclosure relevant and effective, this shift to smart disclosure also raises several concerns. Specifically, simple disclosures like genetically modified food disclosures, restaurant hygiene grades, annual percentage rate disclosures, etc., can result in market distortions and inefficiencies as: (1) consumers might draw false inferences from the disclosure; and (2) disclosing one dimension will elevate this dimension relative to other dimensions, and thus distort demand for the product and even alter the product itself. Relatedly, System 1 disclosures, like graphic cigarette labels, might influence behavior by triggering an emotional response rather than through informed deliberation, thus abandoning traditional justifications for disclosure mandates. In light of these concerns, it is more difficult to view disclosure mandates as minimally paternalistic. Government, by tweaking disclosure design, wields substantial power over markets and consumers.

The economic model for scaling described by Al-Ubaydli and colleagues offers recommendations to policymakers who make decisions about whether or not to implement evidence-based programs. The core economic model does not currently acknowledge the broader context of policy decision-making and therefore may fail to achieve its objectives. The model focuses primarily on the generation and use of available research in the decision on whether to scale a program. Research studying the use of evidence in policymaking points to a complex set of factors beyond just the strength of the evidence such as leadership, relationships, timing and financial resources that contribute to decisions to scale a program. Second, there is already a robust evidence-based policy movement at the federal, state and local levels. The economic model should leverage this movement rather than providing recommendations that might stall or redirect the movement. The economic model can push the field to strengthen the available evidence while providing recommendations on selecting models to scale within the currently available evidence. This commentary finishes with suggestions for moving forward.

This article is a speculative perspective on the behavioural factors that may influence price negotiations between pharmaceutical ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers’. It is contended that several behavioural economic-related phenomena may affect price negotiations, including anchoring, loss aversion, a tendency (or otherwise) to reciprocate and a concern for one's reputation. The most important influence, however, is likely to be anchoring, which will particularly benefit the seller of a product if they are allowed to set the initial anchor in a price negotiation. Consequently, it is argued that the most effective way in which to counter the seller's anchor is likely to be to regulate so that the buyer makes the first offer.

Finding ways to get consumers engaged in markets is a major current topic of debate. This article examines why consumer engagement is so important in driving effective competition in markets. It then considers some key categories of intervention that can enhance consumer engagement, and in particular the various roles that disclosure can play. Recent examples are provided from the UK, where many such engagement measures have been implemented. The article emphasizes the importance, when policy-makers are designing such interventions, of understanding how real consumers truly behave. It also highlights the relevance to competitive outcomes of two further concepts: relative salience and relative consumer engagement. Finally, the article draws on both the successes and the failures of past interventions to identify some lessons for policy-makers when stepping into this area.

I highlight two important factors particular to less-developed countries that can bias evidence generation and contribute to the ‘voltage drop’ in programme benefits, moving from field research experiments to policy implementation at scale. The first is the non-linear increase in information processing and coordination costs associated with upscaling in less-developed countries, given limited state capacity and rigid organizational hierarchies. The second is political bias in the choice of programmes considered for rigorous evaluation itself, resulting in distorted evidence and policy choice. These two factors raise considerations that complement the economics-based approach outlined by Al-Ubaydli et al. in the quest for more rigorous, evidence-based policy.

Although the need for urgent climate change action is clear, insights about how to make better climate risk management decisions are limited. While significant attention from behavioral researchers has focused on choice architecture, we argue that many of the contexts for addressing climate risks require increased attention to the needs of a deliberative and dynamic choice environment. A key facet of this kind of decision is the need for decision-makers and stakeholders to identify and balance conflicting economic, social and environmental objectives. This recognition of difficult, context-specific trade-offs highlights the need for structuring the decision-making process so that objectives are clearly articulated and prioritized. Equally, policy analyses and deliberations must effectively link priorities with climate risk management options. This restructuring of decision-making about climate change calls for more than a nudge. Scientific and technical efforts must be redirected to help stakeholders and decision-makers better understand the diverse implications of climate change management alternatives and to become better equipped to take actions commensurate with the urgency of the problem.

Al-Ubaydli et al. set out a valuable prospectus, but they operate with too simple a view of the policymaking process. Politicians and bureaucrats have additional objectives to that of maximizing human welfare: the former wish to endorse policies that get them re-elected; the latter need to manage complex bureaucracies and advance their careers. Both need to be persuaded that trials are in their long-term interests to adopt. Because Al-Ubaydli et al.'s proposals may increase the costs of doing trials, the demand for robust evidence might reduce rather than increase.

Citizen activists play a role in translating public concern about the climate crisis to policymakers and elevating it on the political agenda. We consider the dynamic between citizen activists and the decision-makers they seek to influence and we review psychological research relevant to advocating for climate legislation. We conducted a study with citizen activists who lobby the US Congress for a carbon pricing policy to address climate change. The study assessed how activists think about four social psychological approaches: affirmation, social norms, legacy and immediacy. The findings provide a window into activists’ intuitions about which strategies to use, whom to use them with and their perceived effectiveness. A strategy of establishing shared values and common ground (affirmation) was used most frequently overall. A strategy emphasizing the long-term costs and benefits of addressing climate change (legacy) was employed less frequently than affirmation and seen as less effective by activists but it was the only strategy that was associated with perceived increases in Congressional Representatives’ support of the policy. Citizen activists and their interactions with elected officials provide an opportunity for social-behavioral scientists to understand and potentially overcome barriers to enacting climate policy.

The current state of the art in field experiments does not give me any confidence that we should be assuming that we have anything worth scaling, assuming we really care about the expected welfare of those about to receive the instant intervention. At the very least, we should be honest and explicit about the need for strong priors about the welfare effects of changes in averages of observables to warrant scaling. What we need is a healthy dose of theory and the implied econometrics.