Feelings of despair at the state of the world can be overwhelming. Social and environmental problems persist, but political discourse is polarised, divisive and often ineffective.
A couple of decades ago, some behavioural scientists - ourselves included - began to think there might be a better way of addressing these challenges.
Instead of relying on governments to change things, we figured, perhaps we should switch the focus to people's own actions. And maybe improving their choices would provide an alternative route to social and environmental transformation.
The idea developed from the fact that people sometimes make bad decisions which may be harmful - to themselves, to others or to the environment.
So what if we tried to discourage things like smoking or frequent flying, not with the heavy hand of government, but by appealing directly to the psychology of the individual?
Two pioneers of this approach, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, argued that governments and institutions could "nudge" people by subtly redesigning the decision-making process. A typical nudge might involve making certain arrangements the default option, such as automatic enrolment into pension schemes. Or it might mean placing healthier meals first on menus.
In these situations, nothing needs to be banned. The undesirable options remain available - they're just tucked away or more difficult to access.
Behaviour gets nudged along in personally and socially beneficial directions, without removing freedom of choice, and without getting into politically contentious territory. Like many enthusiasts, we were optimistic that focusing on individual behaviour might prove to be an effective route to a better world.
Sadly, things turned out rather differently.
Recent results from large meta-analyses (studies that bring together findings from many previous experiments) suggest that the effects of nudges and other individualistic interventions are disappointingly small.
Some authors have even concluded that there may be no reliable evidence that nudges work at all. Other evidence suggests that even when nudges do have an effect, those effects are small, short lived and difficult to scale up.
And there is another problem, as we argue in our new book It's On You . By focusing attention on individual responsibility for the world's problems, behavioural scientists may have inadvertently assisted a broader process known as "responsibilisation" ".
Responsibilisation means placing the burden of blame onto individual consumers - deflecting attention from the need to regulate or constrain big businesses which benefit and profit from maintaining the status quo.
Oil companies for example, might want the world to focus on the responsibility of individual car drivers and frequent flyers. Plastics and packaging companies stress the scourge of individual littering. Manufacturers of ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks want us to blame ourselves for poor diets.
In each case, individual behaviour is placed centre stage, while the need for regulations to shift corporate practices recedes from view.
And persuading us to place responsibility on the individual goes very much with the grain of human psychology . Our social lives are built around interacting with small numbers of other people, even while we are governed by complex systems of norms, conventions and rules that change slowly. Systems that we largely take for granted, do not control and rarely even notice.
Taking responsibility
It is hardly surprising then, that when we look for explanations for social problems such as climate change or gun violence, we naturally attribute them to the actions of bad people. It's the drivers of big cars or violent types with mental health problems.
This means that people are wired to be all too ready to buy into the responsibilisation narrative that individuals, including ourselves, are at the heart of the problems that bedevil society.
But when social problems arise and intensify, it is unlikely that human nature has suddenly deteriorated en masse.
It is far more plausible that large-scale systemic forces - changes in regulation, market structure, technology and incentives - are at work. And when problems are systemic and self-reinforcing, systemic solutions are what is required.
In a world that feels increasingly contentious and imperilled, it is tempting to hope that individual consumers can really make a difference - to imagine that we can improve the world one recycled yoghurt pot at a time. And each of us should, of course, do our bit by making good consumer choices where we can.
But we must not allow a focus on the individual to distract us from the need for deeper systemic change. Gentle nudges will never be enough. To address our persistent social and environmental challenges, we need the collective political will to reshape the rules that govern all of our lives.
Nick Chater receives funding from UKRI and NSF. I am also a co-founder of Decision Technology, a behavioural science consulting company founded in 2002 (and I continue to be a share-holder and director). The company doesn't stand to benefit from this article (if anything, the reverse!).
George Loewenstein does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
