PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Perspectives on Psychological Science· 2026Q1

The Responsibility–Power–Justice Nexus: A Framework for Reorienting Behavioral Science Toward Power and Justice

Gulnaz Anjum, Mudassar Aziz

Short summary

A new Responsibility–Power–Justice (RPJ) nexus framework argues that behavioral science's policy influence has inadvertently worsened societal problems by being power-blind, treating individuals as abstract decision-makers and ignoring structural forces.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Behavioral science's focus on individual decision-makers, while ignoring structural forces, contributes to worsening societal problems.
  • The Responsibility–Power–Justice (RPJ) nexus framework posits that power is integral to behavior and justice is a causal mechanism within behavioral analysis.
  • Powerful actors exploit behavioral science tools to reframe structural problems as individual failures, shifting responsibility downwards.
  • The field's methodological individualism and institutional ties to current governance arrangements perpetuate this pattern.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Behavioral science has achieved remarkable policy influence, yet the problems it addresses, such as climate change, health inequality, and financial precarity, have worsened. We argue this is no coincidence. The field suffers from systematic power-blindness: it treats individuals as abstract decision makers while bracketing the structural forces that shape their behavioral possibilities. This article develops the responsibility–power–justice (RPJ) nexus framework as a corrective, advancing two foundational claims. First, power is not external to behavior but constitutive of it; every behavioral intervention embeds claims about who bears responsibility for problems and solutions. Second, justice is not a normative standard applied after behavioral analysis, but a causal mechanism operating within it: Tax compliance depends on perceived fairness, health behaviors reflect institutional trust, and cooperation requires beliefs about equitable burden-sharing. Across climate policy, public health, and economic governance, we demonstrate a consistent pattern: powerful actors reframe structural problems as individual failures, behavioral science supplies the intellectual tool kit, and interventions redistribute responsibility downward while leaving power structures intact. We trace this pattern to the field’s roots in methodological individualism, its privileging of individual-level experiments, and its institutional entanglement with prevailing governance arrangements. We conclude by outlining what a justice-oriented behavioral science would require.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Applied Psychology

Applied PsychologyPsychology