Science Friday
Hosted by Flora Lichtman and Ira Flatow
How did we come to think of society's toughest problems as something for individuals to manage rather than governments to regulate?
3,553 words · 8 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
Science Friday is supported by MathWorks, creator of MATLAB and Simulink software for technical computing and model-based design. MathWorks, accelerating the pace of discovery in engineering and science. Learn more at mathworks.com.
WNYC is supported by Bear. Science is about asking questions, testing, trying again. It's not easy, but it's relentless. It evolves, and that's why science delivers. Learn more at sciencedelivers.com.
Hey, it's Flora Lixman, and you're listening to Science Friday. Today on the show...
When a beer tastes both refreshing and flavorful, there are some reactions you can't control, and some you can. Please drink responsibly.
We have all heard this on alcohol ads, "Please drink responsibly." You might have heard something similar on gambling ads, like, "When the fun stops, stop." There was even a moment of calorie caution in soda ads.
All calories count. And if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you'll gain weight. That goes for Coca-Cola and everything else with calories. Finding a solution...
The message behind these disclaimers are kind of the same. These products have risks, but mitigating them? Well, that's on you. So how did we get to this idea that it's our personal responsibility to make a dent in big problems? Not, say, the job of government to impose regulations? Well, behavioral scientists played a role, according to my next guest, Dr. Nick Chater, professor of behavioral science at Warwick University and co-author of "It's on You: How Corporations and Behavioral Scientists Have Convinced Us That We're to Blame for Society's Deepest Problems." Nick, thanks for being here.
Well, thank you very much for having me.
Did I get the big picture right in that intro?
Yes, I think you did, absolutely. I should also put a shout out for my close co-author, George Lorenstein at Carnegie Mellon University. So we've worked on this absolutely as a joint project from the beginning. And George is very relevant here because he was in there at the beginning of the time when behavioural science started to get engaged with public policy. And that, I think, was when things went slightly awry in a way that was sort of unpredictable at the time, but led to the kind of the concerns you're pointing at now. So what happened in the sort of early 2000s is that there were a variety of people thinking about the idea of trying to make the world better, improving our diets, dealing with the obesity crisis, thinking about
how to get people to save better for the future, given long-term pension problems, thinking about environmental problems, pollution, plastic waste and so on. Thinking about these problems
from a direct behavioural point of view, attacking the problem as one might almost think at the root cause, the individual citizen and their behaviour. So the thought was, if we understand how individual behaviour works, maybe we can get through all those political logjams, policy tangles and ideological sort of polarisation, and just cut the chase and help individual people directly with behavioural interventions to make choices which are better for them and for better for society. And the trouble with that is that it frames these big social problems, which are things that have emerged over decades and differ greatly from one society to another. And it frames them as the problem of the individual. And we have a name for this. In fact,
we call it I-frame thinking. You're thinking about the individual frame of reference. And that deflects attention away from some of the other things you might think about doing, which would be those sort of classical regulatory taxation, subsidy, government-type things that inadvertently we've kind of pushed the focus back onto the individual. And that's been very, very much aligned, slightly to our embarrassment in retrospect, with exactly the kind of messaging you pointed out at the beginning of the show.
Right, right. I want to get into this. So, you know, you're not just a critic. You are actually deeply involved in this world. You advise the UK government on climate policy.
Tell us a little bit of that story.
Well, I think there are, there's two parts to the story, really. So before the climate engagement for me, I was on the advisory board of the Behavioral Insights Team, and in fact, that was one of the ways in which George and I met.
What's the Behavioral Insights Team?
So the Behavioral Insights Team is popularly known as the Nudge Unit, and it was a unit created inside the UK government to advise the Prime Minister, this is in 2010, when David Cameron had just taken, taken over, on these individualistic interventions. There was a very important book, Nudge, by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. So Thaler won a Nobel Prize, not just for this work, but for many other brilliant things he's done, and Cass Sunstein is a, is a, is a very celebrated and distinguished legal scholar. And so they wrote this book encapsulating the idea that maybe we can make individual level changes, and their drive of nudge is that it's a, it's not infringing your liberty, it's not controlling your options, it's simply encouraging you to do the right thing, it's making the right thing the easy thing.
And that, so that, the Nudge Unit was created out of that.
And that's what, that's what we're talking about with nudge. It's a nudge in the right direction.
Exactly, exactly, which is a, you know, a very, you know, a very laudable and reasonable thing in itself. And alongside that, of course, comes things which aren't really exactly just nudges, they're just information. So things like calorie labels on food, carbon labels on flights and so on.
Right.
So that was very exciting, and it's a very big innovation. There are now about 150 and counting nudge units around the world in different bits of governments and in many different jurisdictions, and, and many of them do really good work. But it became, I think, evident to George and I very early on that we were sort of finding ourselves feeling like we were tinkering with the edges of really big problems.
Like the nudges weren't working to solve climate change?
Yeah, well, I mean, climate, climate change, let's move on to that one, because like climate change was the one that really shook me, I think, because I, I went on to the UK's Climate Change Committee, which sets and monitors the targets for carbon reduction. And so it's a pretty significant committee in terms of its influence. And they just they wanted to have a behavioral person. And that itself is remarkable. And I was that person, it turned out. So I I took this role with great enthusiasm, thinking I'll have all these brilliant ideas about how to change individual behavior in a helpful way. And after six years of finding it incredibly useful, and I hope contributing in some useful ways, I really don't think I came up with a single brainwave which really made any difference to individual behavior.
Just individual behavior wasn't where the action was. So so it was a sort of demoralizing thing. When you when you think about the problem of climate reduction, the things that were really mattering in the UK anyway.
Yeah.
Were things like decarbonizing the grid. So just just closing down a lot of coal-fired power stations and reducing the amount of gas in the system and just pushing wind and solar and so on. And this is just power. There's obviously very, very big things you have to do to food production and transportation and so on. And so these sort of massive scale changes are the things that really make a difference. And the the kind of things that I was would have been able to suggest if I'd sort of had the gumption to actually even raise them, I would have felt foolish to do so, really, would be sort of small nudges which would, you know, help people reduce their heating heating costs by one or two percent.
Well, I I think this is the thing that's so fascinating about this because, you know, I remember this time very well and I was actually in media at the time and we did I did a whole project about climate guilt because, you know, I feel like we were taught to believe that this is our our problem to solve on an individual level.
Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And if you're if you're in the fossil fuel industry, it's a really, really useful thing for the public at large to own the problem themselves.
Yes, and that is the perfect segue because I want to talk about this in particular. Listen to this clip.
We all have a carbon footprint which contributes to climate change. To discover yours and how to reduce it, visit direct.gov.
The carbon footprint, right? Where did this idea come from?
Well, it came primarily from a big publicity campaign by British Petroleum, so one of the world's largest oil companies. The point of the the carbon footprint and the PR behind it, which was a very big and successful, indeed, award-winning campaign, was to frame the problem of climate change, not as a problem for the very existence and business model of fossil fuel companies, but to frame it instead as a problem for each of us. So we need to be blaming ourselves and also blaming each other. That's also a very, very effective strategy, that we can start to see hypocrisy everywhere and start to point fingers at each other. And then we're in a kind of sort of doom loop of despair and a sort of disarray,
rather than thinking, well, clearly we need to make just major structural changes to the way energy is provided. Now, BP had posters saying things like, perhaps it's time to go on a low-carbon diet. So it's like, we're so much on your side, we're really trying to solve this problem. But at the same time, of course, they were working hard, and the fossil fuel industry in general has been working hard to to slow down any progress towards national and international agreements on switching away from fossil fuels.
That's amazing. I mean, that's an amazing insight, that carbon footprint was invented by BP.
It is, it is, it is astonishing, isn't it? Yes, it's it's an alarming sort of shock to discover that.
I mean, I, you know, I think there's a temptation in conversations like this to to say, oh, well, yes, of course, corporations are evil. But it can't be that simple, right?
No, no, and I think it's sort of wrong in a way to think, and we do naturally have this tendency to think either the corporations are evil or the particular people inside the corporations are evil, or the people who have invented the advertising campaign are evil. And that's, I think, completely the wrong perspective. So what George and I are arguing for in the book is that, instead of thinking from the I-frame perspective, thinking about individuals, whether those individuals are, let's say, chief executives or everyday, everyday folks, we should be thinking about systems. So this is the S-frame. This is thinking, how is the game, the general sort of economic and social and political game? Working and when things are going wrong, we should be thinking, well, clearly there's something wrong with this game. We've got the rules wrong somehow. And so that's the thing we need to be
worried about. So it's sort of not surprising that the fossil fuel companies are trying to find strategies to reduce regulatory pressure on them. And then most of the time doing things which are allowed within the rules of the game. But if that's the case, we need to think about how we how we make the rules work differently.
Right. I mean, but this gets back to the original reason that we got to the I frame or the individual responsibility in the first place, which is that systems are hard to think about and they're not tidy narratives, right? Which I wonder if psychology has something to tell us about that, like, can we train our brains to think about these problems in a systemic way?
Yeah, I think we can to a degree, but you're completely right, that there is an inherent tendency to think at the individualistic level. We have a strong psychological bias to see the patterns in individual behavior stemming from the characteristics of specific individual people. And I think this has very deep roots. So human beings are not evolved to deal with a world of extremely complicated societies with large corporations and governments and systems of laws and so on. We're evolved to work in small groups where we're dealing with small numbers of people. And then in those groups, the really, the action is all about individuals and which individuals have which characteristics and which ones are trustworthy, which ones aren't trustworthy.
So our everyday navigation of the social world is something that encourages us to see problems as problems of individual praise and blame and character, essentially, characteristics. But I don't think it's hopeless.
After the break, that's what I want to talk about. If it's not nudges and disclaimers, you know, how do we solve these big problems? Stick around.
Science Friday is supported by PBS, presenting Going Wild. If you love learning about the natural world and meeting the scientists who help us understand it, be sure to check out the new season of Going Wild with Dr. Ray Wynn Grant. It's the chart-topping and Webby Award-winning podcast from the folks at Nature on PBS, now with a video companion series. In this season of Going Wild, host acclaimed wildlife ecologist Dr. Ray Wynn Grant heads out into the field to explore the animals, people, and stories that make nature worth saving. Stops include a hibernating black bear den in Arkansas and an underwater shipwreck site off the Florida coast. If you're looking for a place to start, check out the season's debut episode, where Ray joins beloved biologist and influencer Jordan King in the Florida Everglades to learn about
his unlikely journey into science and how to study a wetland when it's not very, well, wet. So don't miss out. Follow Going Wild with Dr. Ray Wynn Grant on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Support for Science Friday comes from the William K. Bows Jr. Foundation.
You know, right now especially, definitely in America, we often hear that problems people face, they're personal failings. You know, like people with strong willpower or good values will make the right choices if given, you know, the right information or all the information. What does the research say about that?
I think the research says that's sort of comprehensively about as wrong as it could be, although you're entirely right, it's a message that we get a lot. And so I think there are a couple of very broad brush things to say. I mean, one is that most of the social problems we face are not eternal problems. So if we look at something like the rising problem of obesity in many Western nations, that's a relatively recent problem and it's sort of grown up over the last 40 or 50 years and become a pretty severe problem. But it cannot be that that sort of willpower or sort of moral fiber or somehow has been terribly eroded. Across the whole of the the sort of um Western developed world. And and the obvious explanation is that what foods are primarily being pushed at us and and which are cheap
are radically changing. So the cheap, easy things to eat are just getting less and unfortunately getting happy beginning getting less and less healthy. So the food environment has become very, very different, but it's a sort of it's a case of having a tide sort of rapidly moving out. And you can point to a few swimmers and say, well, they're actually swimming so fast to get to the tide. They're actually they're doing fine. But on balance, the if the tide is going one direction, that's where we're all going to be heading. And and I think you can say the same for a whole range of issues. I mean, I think a very interesting example of this, a very relevant one at the moment is big tech. So you know, the you think about issues like, for example, privacy um or um questions of
Screen time, social media.
Social media use could cause you um. It's clearly very, very helpful if you're um big tech, rather like the oil companies say, well, I mean, it's really it's over to you, the the consumers, but it's a pretty weak argument in general, because you've got what appears to be a fairly gigantic social problem emerging, which is clearly new. The exhortation to solve the problem one by one is inevitably not going to work. And of course, that's one reason it's so attractive to people who are opposing change, because they know really that if you simply exhort people to try a bit harder and and sort of take responsibility, that's going to be no change at all.
Okay, well, I mean, you know, behavioral science helped get us into this
Yes.
I'm not trying to, you know, point the finger too much, but is there a role for behavioral science uh in helping us reframe? In helping us solve this problem?
I think there is. So I I mean, I like you. I don't want to point the finger too much. I need to be pointing the finger at myself primarily in terms of the source of the problem. But I but I think I think we really haven't helped much. I think I certainly from a personal point of view, feel like I've been at best just distracting myself and other people in my orbit from thinking.
About systemic solutions that will actually be helpful. So I think behavioral science can help us. And I think the there are two key things, I think. So one is that if we're thinking about policies that are going to really make a difference, big systemic policies, and we kind of know what to do. But the crucial question for psychologists, behavioral economists and so on, is how do we frame and explain those policies in a way that makes them attractive to people? So if you take something like carbon taxes, I mean, the very idea of a carbon tax seems like a doomed idea because people don't like taxes. They're trying to sell anyone a tax and say, well, this is, this has got the great tax and it has all these wonderful consequences.
You're sort of off on the wrong foot.
This is tricky.
Yeah. So thinking about, thinking about how you can pitch this more as a matter of redistribution. So we're going to just shift money around. We're going to take it away from people who are doing lots of carbon burning. We'll give it to other people. We're not just throwing it into the government coffers. The, the way in which we, we change in diets is another, another one. So in fact, in the UK, there's been some substantial, actually quite successful legislation, reducing the amount of sugar that's in certain kinds of drinks and ready prepared foods and also salt. Now there, actually, I think behavioral science can be quite helpful too, because we know that it's actually very hard for us to detect absolutely how much sugar or salt we're ingesting, except what we're used to.
So if you gradually reformulate things so that the sugar and salt levels go down, we don't even really notice. So it turns out that.
We could be tapered off of our addiction to salt and sugar.
Yeah. If you give, give the industry the time to do it, they will, they'll be able to reformulate and no one's really any of the words off. And it's not even bad for business. And so I think, I suppose there really is, yeah, these two sort of elements. There's, there's one is what policies will actually work from a behavioral point of view without causing any consumer detriment? And there's also just this sort of sales pitch question of, well, how do we, how do we formulate messages that really land with people?
Yeah. Well, Nick, thank you for being here. Appreciate it.
Well, it's been a real pleasure. Thank you so much.
Dr. Nick Chater, professor of behavioral science at Warwick University and co-author of "It's On You: How Corporations and Behavioral Scientists Have Convinced Us That We Are To Blame for Society's Deepest Problems." Shoshana Buxbaum produced this episode. There are no warning labels on this podcast, but it is on you to give us a good review on any platform, wherever you listen. I'm Flora Lichtman. We'll catch you next time.
Page updated October 31, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated