{"title":"评论:推动应用行为科学与更大和更长的领域合作伙伴关系","authors":"William Mailer","doi":"10.1086/727221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"T he applied behavioral science community currently faces two important and related calls to action. The first is to better explain how important findings work in different ways across different contexts and populations. The second is to harness these richer insights to more reliably scale applications to address important real world challenges. Larger and longer collaborations between researchers and field partners are one way to facilitate more sustained and coordinated testing of important insights across contexts, and to more efficiently address both. The last decade has seen a surge in interest for applied behavioral science, with a growing community of practitioners, policymakers, and researchers responding to exciting headlines claiming new cost-effective and choice-preserving ways to address important real world challenges (Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Soman and Leung 2020). However, this excitement was often followed by disappointment as insights failed to have the same effects when scaled across different contexts and populations (List 2022; Mažar and Soman 2022). There are now growing calls from researchers and practitioners to direct more efforts toward field research that can accelerate our understanding of how different interventions work across contexts and populations (Bryan, Tipton, and Yeager 2021; Goodyear, Hossain, and Soman 2022). To do so efficiently, research teams would benefit from more programs that systematically and iteratively test different ideas across contexts over longer time lines in coordinated ways. However, behavioral science field research practices are not typically set up with these critical elements. A more common approach sees researchers working independently on narrow or siloed programs (Milkman et al. 2021) with short-term field partners, often using opportunistic samples (Bryan et al. 2021) or biased sites (Allcott 2015) andwithout access to sufficient contextual detail (Szazi et al. 2017).","PeriodicalId":36388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"373 - 375"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary: Advancing Applied Behavioral Science with Larger and Longer Field Partnerships\",\"authors\":\"William Mailer\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/727221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"T he applied behavioral science community currently faces two important and related calls to action. The first is to better explain how important findings work in different ways across different contexts and populations. The second is to harness these richer insights to more reliably scale applications to address important real world challenges. Larger and longer collaborations between researchers and field partners are one way to facilitate more sustained and coordinated testing of important insights across contexts, and to more efficiently address both. The last decade has seen a surge in interest for applied behavioral science, with a growing community of practitioners, policymakers, and researchers responding to exciting headlines claiming new cost-effective and choice-preserving ways to address important real world challenges (Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Soman and Leung 2020). However, this excitement was often followed by disappointment as insights failed to have the same effects when scaled across different contexts and populations (List 2022; Mažar and Soman 2022). There are now growing calls from researchers and practitioners to direct more efforts toward field research that can accelerate our understanding of how different interventions work across contexts and populations (Bryan, Tipton, and Yeager 2021; Goodyear, Hossain, and Soman 2022). To do so efficiently, research teams would benefit from more programs that systematically and iteratively test different ideas across contexts over longer time lines in coordinated ways. However, behavioral science field research practices are not typically set up with these critical elements. A more common approach sees researchers working independently on narrow or siloed programs (Milkman et al. 2021) with short-term field partners, often using opportunistic samples (Bryan et al. 2021) or biased sites (Allcott 2015) andwithout access to sufficient contextual detail (Szazi et al. 2017).\",\"PeriodicalId\":36388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"373 - 375\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/727221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association for Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
应用行为科学界目前面临着两个重要且相关的行动呼吁。首先是更好地解释重要的发现如何在不同的背景和人群中以不同的方式起作用。第二是利用这些更丰富的见解来更可靠地扩展应用程序,以应对重要的现实世界挑战。研究人员和领域合作伙伴之间更大规模和更长期的合作是促进跨环境的重要见解的更持续和协调测试的一种方式,并且更有效地解决这两个问题。在过去的十年里,人们对应用行为科学的兴趣激增,越来越多的实践者、政策制定者和研究人员对令人兴奋的头条新闻做出了回应,声称新的具有成本效益和保留选择的方法可以解决现实世界的重要挑战(Thaler和Sunstein 2008;Soman and Leung 2020)。然而,兴奋之后往往是失望,因为在不同的背景和人群中,见解未能产生相同的效果(List 2022;Mažar和Soman 2022)。现在,越来越多的研究人员和从业人员呼吁将更多的精力投入到实地研究中,以加速我们对不同干预措施如何在不同背景和人群中发挥作用的理解(Bryan, Tipton, and Yeager 2021;Goodyear, Hossain, and Soman 2022)。为了有效地做到这一点,研究团队将受益于更多的项目,这些项目可以在更长的时间内以协调的方式系统地、迭代地测试不同的想法。然而,行为科学领域的研究实践通常不具备这些关键要素。一种更常见的方法是,研究人员与短期现场合作伙伴一起独立研究狭窄或孤立的项目(Milkman等人,2021),通常使用机会性样本(Bryan等人,2021)或有偏见的站点(Allcott 2015),并且无法获得足够的上下文细节(Szazi等人,2017)。
Commentary: Advancing Applied Behavioral Science with Larger and Longer Field Partnerships
T he applied behavioral science community currently faces two important and related calls to action. The first is to better explain how important findings work in different ways across different contexts and populations. The second is to harness these richer insights to more reliably scale applications to address important real world challenges. Larger and longer collaborations between researchers and field partners are one way to facilitate more sustained and coordinated testing of important insights across contexts, and to more efficiently address both. The last decade has seen a surge in interest for applied behavioral science, with a growing community of practitioners, policymakers, and researchers responding to exciting headlines claiming new cost-effective and choice-preserving ways to address important real world challenges (Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Soman and Leung 2020). However, this excitement was often followed by disappointment as insights failed to have the same effects when scaled across different contexts and populations (List 2022; Mažar and Soman 2022). There are now growing calls from researchers and practitioners to direct more efforts toward field research that can accelerate our understanding of how different interventions work across contexts and populations (Bryan, Tipton, and Yeager 2021; Goodyear, Hossain, and Soman 2022). To do so efficiently, research teams would benefit from more programs that systematically and iteratively test different ideas across contexts over longer time lines in coordinated ways. However, behavioral science field research practices are not typically set up with these critical elements. A more common approach sees researchers working independently on narrow or siloed programs (Milkman et al. 2021) with short-term field partners, often using opportunistic samples (Bryan et al. 2021) or biased sites (Allcott 2015) andwithout access to sufficient contextual detail (Szazi et al. 2017).