We argue that: (1) disappointment in the effectiveness of i-frame interventions depends on realistic expectations about how they work; (2) opportunities for system reform are rare, and i-frame interventions can lay important groundwork; (3) Chater & Loewenstein's evidence that i-frame interventions from s-frame approaches is limited; and (4) nonetheless, behavioural scientists should consider what more they can contribute to systemic reforms.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X23000997 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Motion correction of 3D dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging without anatomical B-Mode images: Pilot evaluation in eight patients.
Med Phys
July 2024
Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Background: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) is highly susceptible to motion artifacts arising from patient movement, respiration, and operator handling and experience. Motion artifacts can be especially problematic in the context of perfusion quantification. In conventional 2D DCE-US, motion correction (MC) algorithms take advantage of accompanying side-by-side anatomical B-Mode images that contain time-stable features.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe Dynamical Hypothesis in Situ: Challenges and Opportunities for a Dynamical Social Approach to Interpersonal Coordination.
Top Cogn Sci
November 2023
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut.
Over the past three decades, Van Gelder's dynamical hypothesis has been instrumental in reconceptualizing the ways in which perception-action-cognition unfolds over time and in context. Here, I examine how the dynamical approach has enriched the theoretical understanding of social dynamics within cognitive science, with a particular focus on interpersonal coordination. I frame this review around seven principles in dynamical systems: three that are well-represented in interpersonal coordination research to date (emergent behavior, context-sensitive behavior, and attractors) and four that could be useful opportunities for future growth (hysteresis, sensitivity to initial conditions, equifinality, and reciprocal compensation).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe I-frame vs. S-frame: how neoliberalism has led behavioral sciences astray.
Front Psychol
September 2023
Medical Faculty Mannheim, Division of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
In their recently published paper, Chater and Loewenstein critically elaborate on the differences between interventions that focus on individual behavior ('i-frame'), as opposed to the systems in which health behavior occurs ('s-frame'). They point out that behavioral scientists frequently rely on individual-level interventions, rather than systemic change to improve population health. As individual-level interventions have fallen short of the author's expectations to fix health problems, the authors argue that behavioral scientists should focus more on system-level change.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAn inconvenient truth: Difficult problems rarely have easy solutions.
Behav Brain Sci
August 2023
Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, https://peachlab.org/.
Individual-level interventions are often interesting and easy to implement, but are unfortunately ill-equipped to solve most major global problems (e.g., climate change, financial insecurity, unhealthy eating).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWhere next for behavioral public policy?
Behav Brain Sci
August 2023
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/george-loewenstein.html.
Our target article distinguishes between policy approaches that seek to address societal problems through intervention at the level of the individual (adopting the "i-frame") and those that seek to change the system within which those individuals live (adopting the "s-frame"). We stress also that a long-standing tactic of corporations opposing systemic change is to promote the i-frame perspective, presumably hoping that i-frame interventions will be largely ineffective and more importantly will be seen by the public and some policy makers as a genuine alternative to systemic change. We worry that the i-frame focus of much of behavioral science has inadvertently reinforced this unhelpful focus on the individual.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!