A Triple Test for Behavioral Economics Models and Public Health Policy

Ryota Nakamura, Marc Suhrcke, Daniel John Zizzo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


We propose a triple test to evaluate the usefulness of behavioral economics models for public health policy. Test 1 is whether the model provides reasonably new insights. Test 2 is on whether these have been properly applied to policy settings. Test 3 is whether they are corroborated by evidence. We exemplify by considering the cases of social interactions models, self-control models and, in relation to health message framing, prospect theory. Out of these sets of models, only a correctly applied prospect theory fully passes the tests at present. Specifically, in broad agreement with the evidence, a gain frame has positive implications for welfare encourages disease prevention activity, though this does not apply if the perceived probability of the bad health outcome is large enough. We see our tests as being useful to identify how much health policy weight policy-makers should assign to specific behavioral economic models; they are also useful to verify what next steps would be most useful in further research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)513-533
Number of pages21
Issue number4
Early online date18 Jul 2017
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017

Bibliographical note

© The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication


  • behavioral economics
  • nudges
  • peer effects
  • self-control
  • prospect theory
  • framing effect

Cite this