Behavioral economics has transformed public policy by identifying how cognitive limitations and biases systematically distort individual decisions. Yet the field's dominant tools, nudges that target cognitive heuristics and choice architecture, leave a powerful behavioral mechanism largely unaddressed: affect (good-bad feelings). In the domains where behavioral public policy is most urgently needed, from climate change to effective charitable giving to long-term health investment, the primary failure is not cognitive but affective. People endorse high-impact options in the abstract but feel emotionally drawn toward low-impact alternatives. We introduce Affective Paternalism (AP) as a theoretical framework that positions affect as a policy resource rather than a bias to correct. AP's operative tool is the cudge: a liberty-preserving intervention that works by redesigning the emotional texture of choices rather than their cognitive structure. The CARE taxonomy (Create, Attenuate, Reinforce, Eliminate) provides a systematic framework for designing such interventions. Using scope insensitivity and impact neglect as the central case study, we show how CARE interventions can redirect emotional engagement from low-impact to high-impact behaviors without reducing individual welfare or constraining autonomy. We argue that in domains where felt reward is decoupled from actual impact, affective interventions offer a welfare-superior approach to behavior change: they achieve large societal gains at negligible affective cost to individuals. We further show that AP satisfies the criterion of asymmetric paternalism, creating large benefits for those whose decisions are affectively miscalibrated while imposing little or no cost on those whose felt responses are already well-aligned with welfare. We derive testable predictions and identify a research agenda for affect-informed behavioral public policy.

Construal-level theory (CLT) proposes that psychological distance influences the level of abstraction at which somethingis mentally construed: Things perceived as less probable (likelihood) or further away from the here (spatial distance),now (temporal distance), or self (social distance) are thought about more abstractly. In this international multilab study,we tested four basic hypotheses derived from core assumptions of CLT and explore potential moderators and boundaryconditions of the effects. Participants (N = 11,775) from 27 countries and regions were randomly assigned to one of fourexperimental protocols focused on different types of psychological distance (temporal, spatial, social, or likelihood),and each experiment manipulated psychological distance (close vs. distant). The protocols for temporal distance (n =2,941) and spatial distance (n = 2,973) were direct replications of Liberman and Trope (Study 1) and Fujita et al. (Study1), respectively. The remaining two protocols were paradigmatic replications, applying to social distance (n = 2,926)and likelihood (n = 2,936). The effects of psychological distance on construal level for the four present studies were asfollows (positive effects are consistent with hypotheses): temporal, d = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.003, 0.16](effect in original study: d = 0.92); spatial, d = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.03, 0.11] (effect in original study: d = 0.55); social, d= −0.27, 95% CI = [−0.34, −0.19]; and likelihood, d = 0.03, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.11]. Pretests indicated that valence andabstraction were confounded in response options on the outcome measure. Controlling for this confound eliminatedthe hypothesis-inconsistent effect of social distance, d = 0.006, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.07]. These findings provide limitedevidence for the predictions of the theory and present a critical challenge for CLT.

Are views on research ethics and questionable research practices discipline-specific? This study investigates attitudes toward research misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) among researchers (n = 11,050) and ethics reviewers (n = 144) across academic fields. Our findings indicate that while most questionable practices are viewed as unacceptable overall, attitudes vary systematically across fields. Medical researchers and ethics reviewers generally viewed questionable practices as less acceptable than researchers and reviewers in other fields. Female researchers and full professors also had stricter attitudes

How can people lead fulfilling lives both thanks to and despite the constant use of digital media and artificial intelligence? While the prevailing narrative often portrays these technologies as generally harmful to well-being, the reality is of course more nuanced—some individuals benefit, while others do not. Existing research has predominantly focused on the general consequences of digital media on well-being, with less attention given to the individual-level antecedents of digital well-being. In the present study, we aimed to identify the traits and characteristics of individuals who use digital tools in ways that promote their well-being. Using a large representative sample from Sweden (N = 1999), we explore how digital self-control, digital literacy (objective and subjective), and digital information ignorance predict digital well-being, life satisfaction, and social anxiety. Digital self-control and subjective digital literacy positively predicted digital well-being. Digital self-control also predicted greater life satisfaction. Finally, digital information ignorance predicted increased life satisfaction and social anxiety. Overall, the current study contributes to a growing literature on digital well-being by exploring its antecedents.

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.

In a recent special section on Sustainability and Emotion, Schneider and van der Linden present how sustainability science could benefit from affective science to address important unanswered questions about the psychological and affective antecedents of people's engagement in relatively high-impact sustainable behaviors. Here, we underline the importance of combining the motivational role of positive affect with an impact-focused research agenda to understand the causal role of affect in sustainable decision-making and to develop communication strategies harnessing affective mechanisms to promote impactful sustainable behaviors. We present potential links connecting affective experience with perceived impact and adoption of sustainable behaviors. Finally, we argue for communication strategies aiming to enhance positive affect associated with high-impact behaviors.

Introduction: Saving is a journey, beginning with the critical decision to initiate the process, take that pivotal first deposit step, and persistently commit to ongoing savings. However, a lot of saving plans fail already before any deposit is made, and even if the first deposit is made, long-run success of savings is far from guaranteed. In this study, we investigate both individual and saving-goal-specific determinants of successful savings.

Method: We use real-life savings data (N = 2,619 saving goals of 808 individuals) from a FinTech company in Sweden that helps individuals save for their goals. In addition, we collect a wide range of individual characteristics related to financial behavior: individuals' objective and subjective financial knowledge, self-control, and information avoidance.

Results and discussion: Our analysis uncovered distinctive patterns at different stages of the saving process. While objective financial knowledge didn't correlate with how much one saves, it was significantly related to the likelihood of making the first deposit. Furthermore, individuals with high self-control exhibited greater savings, though self-control was not related to the initiation of saving. Interestingly, subjective financial literacy and information avoidance showed no significant association with overall savings behavior. Additionally, our study indicated that the attainability of goals plays a crucial role in depositing funds, with more achievable goals having higher deposit likelihoods. Conversely, ambitious goals, despite their challenging nature, tended to attract more substantial savings. Our findings, grounded in real-life data, provide valuable insights into the intricate mechanisms influencing successful saving behaviors, shedding light on the complexities of financial decision-making and goal pursuit.

Information ignorance refers to the act of deliberately avoiding, neglecting, or distorting information to uphold a positive self-image and protect our identity-based beliefs. We apply this framework to household finance and develop a concise 12-item questionnaire measuring individuals' receptiveness to financial information, or the lack thereof - the Financial Homo Ignorans (FHI) Scale. We conduct two studies with samples from the general population in Sweden (total N=2508) and show that the FHI scale has high reliability and distinct from other commonly used individual-difference measures in behavioral finance. We show that individual heterogeneity as assessed by the FHI scale explains a substantial variation in financial behaviors and financial well-being, also when controlling for demographics and financial literacy. These results unequivocally demonstrate the utility of the FHI scale as a valuable instrument for researchers and practitioners in comprehending and addressing the challenges posed by the omnipresence of financial information in today's world.

In this commentary, we expand on the special issue themes of applied affective science, ecologically valid data and application, and the need for transdisciplinary collaboration by discussing and exemplifying how affective science can inform behavioral public policy.

In shared decision-making (SDM), the role of emotions and information avoidance is crucial yet often overlooked. We highlight three key aspects of how emotions impact medical decision-making that physicians must understand and utilize for SDM to effectively contribute to sense-making: (i) prominence thinking, (ii) risk as feeling versus risk as analysis, and (iii) preferences for more versus less healthcare. We introduce the novel concept of affective paternalism as a tool for physicians to help patients navigate their emotions by providing not only factual information but also emotional support and guidance. This approach involves recognizing and addressing patients' fears, hopes, and anxieties, thereby helping them process information more comprehensively. By acknowledging and addressing the emotional components inherent in medical decisions, affective paternalism helps patients make more informed and balanced choices, aligning treatment decisions with their overall well-being.