Social, Behavioral Scientists Eligible to Apply for NSF S-STEM Grants
Solicitations are now being sought for the National Science Foundation’s Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics program, and in an unheralded […]
The year 2017 turned out to be the start for mainstream behavioral economics after a leading practitioner in the field won a Nobel prize for his work. Throughout 2017, The Conversation asked experts in economics, psychology and other areas to address the power of this burgeoning field, as well as its potential for misuse. Here are some articles for your consideration.
Richard Thaler was not the first proponent of behavioral economics to be awarded a Nobel Prize, notes Sergey Popov. But Thaler’s star turn came when the Great Recession and it orgy or irrationality brought a lot of attention to research that extensively cites the University of Chicago’s economist’s 40-year-long academic career.
Richard H. Thaler, the University of Chicago economist whose contributions linking psychology to the ‘dismal science’ caught the public’s eye in his co-authored bestselling book Nudge, has received this year’s Nobel Prize in economic sciences.
Governments around the world have found success using the burgeoning field of behavioral science to improve the efficiency of their policies and increase citizens’ well-being. We need clear guidelines on when and how to use behavioral science in policy.
In this column from the Association for Psychological Science, David Yokum, a leader of the Obama administration’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Team, details what that nudge team has been doing.
When it comes to many of the big decisions faced by governments – and the private sector – behavioral science has more to offer than simple nudges.
The current A-Level exams in psychology taken by British teens reflect a curriculum focusing on ‘problems’ within individuals, argue two UK psychologists, rather than taking into account the influence of society on people’s actions and behavior.
Affective judgments lead us to focus on individual tragedies while blinding us to large-scale tragedy. How can knowing this help us craft the best responses?