• Login
    View Item 
    •   Open Repository Home
    • Yale Law School
    • Yale Law Journal
    • Volume 128
    • Issue 7
    • View Item
    •   Open Repository Home
    • Yale Law School
    • Yale Law Journal
    • Volume 128
    • Issue 7
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Open RepositoryCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsProfilesView

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Local Links

    AboutOpen RepositoryAtmire

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Beyond Nudging: Debiasing Consumers Through Mixed Framing

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Beyond Nudging_ Debiasing Consumers ...
    Size:
    649.2Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Description:
    Full text article
    Download
    Average rating
     
       votes
    Cast your vote
    You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item. When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
    Star rating
     
    Your vote was cast
    Thank you for your feedback
    Author
    Godi, Matteo
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/2384/582974
    Abstract
    The consumer-protection literature can be divided into two camps: laissez-faire libertarianism and paternalism. Paternalism, as advanced by behavioral law and economics, calls for nudging consumers toward their utility-maximizing preference. Laissez-faire libertarianism, instead, calls for relying on rational-choice theory and the free market to allocate consumer goods. Although each camp presents the other as its diametric opponent, this Note shows that this dichotomy is overstated. Neither camp is incompatible with the other, nor infallible on its own. Through an original behavioral study, this Note reveals flaws in the fundamental assumptions of both camps: that no information can be conveyed neutrally (behavioral law and economics) and that consumer-oriented regulation diminishes autonomy (rational-choice theory). It does so by focusing on an understudied form of consumer-protection regulation: mixed framing. Legal scholars and regulators have largely ignored this phenomenon, yet it offers a more robust and actionable regulatory approach than the existing literature and one that is distinct from both paternalism and libertarianism. By examining the case study of food-safety regulations, this Note sketches the analytic and normative case for why regulators should embrace mixed framing. Using a process of debiasing through mixed framing, agencies can promulgate rules that minimize the risk of deceptive advertising tactics and maximize the provision of neutral and complete information—without running afoul of the First Amendment or falling into paternalistic restrictions on autonomy.
    Collections
    Issue 7

    entitlement

     

    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.