바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

Employing Psychology in Developing and Applying Public Policy

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2020, v.39 no.1, pp.27-55
https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2020.3.39.1.27


  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

Although most psychological research has implications for real-life problems, it is still very rare in Korea for psychology to be directly applied to solving social problems. To address this issue, it would be helpful to examine how behavioral economics, which has recently gained much attention at home and abroad, is being used to solve social problems. With respect to studying human thinking and behavior, behavioral economics has a lot in common with psychology in the role they can play in the public sector, and can complement each other for the goal of enhancing the effectiveness of public policy. In this paper, we consider the possibilities of applying psychology to solving social problems, especially public policy issues. First, we review how behavioral science, including behavioral economics and psychology, has been used in formulation of public policy in major developed countries over the last decade and present major examples. Then we examine the situation in Korea whereby introduction of both psychology and behavioral economics into public policy is slow, and contemplate on its causes. Lastly, we consider what our discipline needs to do to contribute to advancement of public welfare in Korean society. We expect that this article will stimulate discussion of those interested in solving social problems through psychology.

keywords
application, public policy, social problems, public administration, behavioral economics, 응용, 공공정책, 사회 문제, 행정, 행동경제학

Reference

1.

강은숙, 김종석 (2014). 인간의 비합리성에 대한 고려와 공공정책에의 함의: 원자력에너지정책에 대한 행동경제학의 적용. 한국행정논집, 26(2), 191-216.

2.

고학수 (2011). 행동법경제학의 지평. 법경제학연구, 8(1), 3-23.

3.

김시라, 김은미 (2017). 우리나라 FTA 정책활용 제고방안에 관한 연구: 넛지기법을 중심으로. 관세학회지, 18(4), 119-140.

4.

김유라, 김광석, 김민주 (2016). 마을자치 사업에서 농촌현장포럼의 넛지 효과 분석. 한국행정연구, 25(1), 25-47.

5.

김응화 (2018). 패키지디자인의 넛지 활용 연구 - ‘재미이론’을 중심으로 -. 한국디자인문화학회지, 24(2), 131-143.

6.

김이수 (2019). 촉매적 정책도구로서 넛지의정책학적 함의에 관한 탐색적 연구. 한국자치행정학보, 33(3), 157-178.

7.

김태형, 천승환, 김 수, 김주리, 이지원 (2018). 행동경제학적 접근방법을 통한 친환경행동 활성화 잠재성 검토: 행동경제학, 인구사회학, 환경심리학 변수의 비교. 환경정책, 26(2), 71-98.

8.

내 손안에 서울 (2018. 2. 28). [카드뉴스]“청년수당은 처음이라”…청년수당 Q&A. http://mediahub.seoul. go.kr/archives/1142057에서 2019. 10. 26 자료 얻음.

9.

내 손안에 서울 (2018. 3. 16). 전국으로 확대되는 ‘서울시 청년수당’. mediahub.seoul.go.kr/archives/1144946에서 2019. 10. 26 자료 얻음.

10.

디자인 경기 (2018). 2018. 3. 6 도, 넛지 이론 접목한 공공디자인 공모전 개최. http://design.gg.go.kr/design_feel/notice/notice_view2.jsp?_idx=1207에서 2019. 10. 26 자료얻음.

11.

매일경제 (2018. 8. 21). 행동경제학硏정책 혁신 토론회. https://www.mk.co.kr/news/society/view/2018/08/525355/에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

12.

머니투데이 (2017. 12. 27). 슬쩍 찌르는 ‘넛지정책’ 발굴... 정책 효과 높인다. https://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2017122623581888806에서 2019. 10. 26 자료 얻음.

13.

문경호 (2018). 도덕교육에서 넛지의 활용 가능성에 대한 고찰. 교원교육, 34(4), 193-215.

14.

박규영, 최영신 (2018). 넛지 개념을 도입한 바른 주차 유도 주차구획 디자인. 교통기술과정책, 15(4), 47-56.

15.

박영원, 이혜수 (2019). 커뮤니케이션디자인에서의 넛지 효과에 관한 연구: 공공디자인사례를 중심으로. 영상문화, 34, 77-100.

16.

박지혜, 주재우 (2018). 인공지능 스피커의지속적 사용의도를 높이는 행동경제학기법: 의인화. 디자인융복합연구, 17(3), 41-53.

17.

박현주 (2017). 쓰레기 불법투기 인식 유형과넛지(nudge): 대구시 달서구 사례를 중심으로. 한국거버넌스학회보, 24(2), 61-83.

18.

박현호 (2006). 한국적 ‘환경설계를 통한 범죄예방’(CPTED)의 제도적 고찰. 한국경찰연구학회, 5(2), 113-160.

19.

산림청 (2013). 심리학적 접근을 통한 소각산불 예방방안 연구. 서강대학교 행동실험 연구센터 (n.d.). http://econ.sogang.ac.kr/econ/econ06_3_5_1.html에서2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

20.

서울대학교 행복연구센터 (n.d.). http://happinessclass.snu.ac.kr/Main.aspx에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

21.

신용덕, 김진영 (2013). 행동경제학의 이야기짓기 관점에서 살펴 본 정책사례: 경인아라뱃길 사업을 중심으로. 한국정책학회보, 22(4), 163-192.

22.

심영옥, 최온빛 (2019). 안전사고 예방을 위한넛지디자인 지도 방안: 범교과 융합 미술교육을 중심으로. 조형교육, 71, 117-141.

23.

윤민우, 이수정, 최혜림 (2011). 국내 형사사법시스템에서의 심리학 및 행동과학 분야민간전문가 활용방안에 대한 정책제언:미국의 민간전문가 활용 예시를 통한 시사점 도출을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지:사회 및 성격, 25(1), 137-153.

24.

윤아영, 박영주 (2018). 음악교육에서 게이미피케이션(Gamification)과 넛지(Nudge)의 적용. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 18(24), 1191-1210.

25.

이진안, 최승혁, 허태균 (2013). 남들은 세금을얼마나 낼까?: 조세 공정성 지각에서 사회비교 정보의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 사회및 성격, 27(3), 193-207.

26.

이현경, 강윤정 (2019). 사회참여미술로서의 넛지(Nudge) 디자인 수업이 공동체의식에 미치는 영향. 미술교육논총, 33(2), 121-146.

27.

이현우, 이지호, 서복경 (2016). 서울시 청년활동지원사업 참여자 분석 연구. 서울: 서울특별시.

28.

정보미, 김종철 (2017). ‘이타적 인간’에 대한문학과 경제의 융합교육-행동경제학의 관점에서 본 <창선감의록>의 ‘화진’. 새국어교육, 111, 186-217.

29.

정제영, 이희숙 (2011). ‘넛지(Nudge) 전략을 활용한 외국어고 정책’ 분석. 교육행정학연구, 29(1), 227-249.

30.

조성혜 (2007). 합리적 선택이론과 행동법경제학. 법철학연구, 10(1), 195-232.

31.

최선영, 고정욱, 이보배 (2015). 넛지의 활용성분석을 통한 휴지케이스 디자인. 산업디자인학연구, 9(2), 107-118.

32.

최수영, 김보연 (2015). 넛지를 이용한 유아청결습관 개선의 교구일러스트레이션 디자인. 디지털디자인학연구, 15(3), 227-235.

33.

한겨레 (2018. 5. 29). 기본소득 효과 못 믿나요? ‘정책실험’ 통해 검증합시다. http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/rights/846652.html에서 2019. 10. 26 자료 얻음.

34.

한국도로공사 (2019). 제8회 고속도로 공공디자인 공모전. http://www.ex-contest.co.kr/sub1.htm에서 2019. 10. 26 자료 얻음.

35.

한국사회및성격심리학회 (2019). 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 발간 및 운영세칙.

36.

한국소비자광고심리학회 (2013). 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고 심사규정.

37.

한상훈 (2013). 불능미수(형법 제27조)의 “위험성”에 대한 재검토: 행동법경제학적 관점을 포함하여. 형사정책연구, 24(1), 39-78.

38.

한진수 (2015). 넛지를 이용해 초등학교 수학교과서에 경제 내용 융합하기. 시민교육연구, 47(1), 247-271. doi:10.35557/trce.47.1. 201503.009

39.

허윤회 (2019). 넛지의 도덕과 교육에의 함의와 활용 방안: 환경윤리를 중심으로. 도덕윤리과교육, 64, 217-240. doi:10.18338/kojmee.2019..64.217

40.

홍승희 (2019). 행동경제학적 관점에서 바라본형사조정제도의 방향성. 피해자학연구, 27(1), 191-218.

41.

환경부 (2010). 대국민 환경분야 넛지 공모전우수과제 자료집 발간. http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/board/read.do?menuId=286&boardMa sterId=1&boardCategoryId=39&boardId=174060에서 2019. 10. 26 자료 얻음.

42.

황교근 (2010). 한반도 비핵화 대안: 넛지전략(Nudge Strategy)을 중심으로. 군사논단, 61, 299-314.

43.

American Psychological Association (n.d.). Guidance for translational abstracts and public significance statements. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/translational-messages에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

44.

Amir, O., Ariely, D., Cooke, A., Dunning, D.,Epley, N., Gneezy, U., … Silva, J. (2005). Psychology, behavioral economics, and public policy. Marketing Letters, 16(3-4), 443–454. https://doi.org /10.1007/s11002-005-5904-2

45.

Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (n.d.). https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

46.

Behavioral Insights (n.d.). http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/behavioural-insights.htm에서2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음

47.

Behavioural Insights Team (n.d.). https://www.bi.team/에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

48.

Behavioural Insights Team (2017). Update Report 2016-17.

49.

Behavioral Scientist (2018, September 4). Nudge turns 10: A special issue on behavioral science in public policy. https://behavioralscientist.org/nudgeturns-10-a-special-issue-on-behavioral-science-in-public-policy/에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

50.

Bhanot, S., Chainani, A., & Huang, Y. (2018, March 13). Lessons from building a behavioral science initiative in city government. Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/lessonsfrom-building-a-behavioral-science-initiative-incity-government에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

51.

Brown, R., de Visser, R., Dittmar, H., Drury, J.,Farsides, T., Jessop, D., & Sparks, P. (2011). Social psychology and policymaking: Past neglect, future promise. Public Policy Research, 18(4), 227-234.

52.

Burgess, A. (2012). ‘Nudging’ healthy lifestyles:The UK experiments with the behavioural alternative to regulation and the market. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3(1), 3-16.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00001756

53.

Cherry, K. (2019, August 28). Job outlook forpsychologists. https://www.verywellmind.com/job-outlook-for-psychologists-2794923에서2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

54.

Choi, S., Guerra, J.-A., & Kim, J. (2019). Interdependent value auctions with insider information: Theory and experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 117, 218-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.geb.2019.06.007

55.

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 5-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01091. x

56.

Dovidio, J. F., & Esses, V. M. (2007). Psychological research and public policy:Bridging the gap. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00002.x

57.

Eriksson, K., Strimling, P., & Coultas, J. C. (2015). Bidirectional associations between descriptive and injunctive norms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014. 09.011

58.

Frain, A., & Tame, R. (2017, July 4). Government behavioural economics ‘nudge unit’ needs a shove in a new direction. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/government-behaviou ral-economics-nudge-unit-needs-a-shove-in-anew-direction-80390에서 2019. 10. 29. 자료얻음.

59.

Grasmick, H. G., Bursik Jr, R. J., & Kinsey, K. A. (1991). Shame and embarrassment as deterrents to non-compliance with the law:The case of an anti-littering campaign. Environment and Behaviour, 23(2), 223-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591232006

60.

Haynes, L., Service, O., Goldacre, B., & Torgerson, D. Cabinet Office, Behavioural Insights Team. (2012). Test, learn, adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/TLA-1906126.pdf에서 2019. 10. 29자료 얻음.

61.

Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate:To nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x

62.

Hernandez Ore, M. A.., Karver, J. G., Negre Rossignoli, M., Perng, J. T. T. (2019). Promoting tax compliance in Kosovo with behavioral insights (English). eMBeD brief. Washington, D.C. US: World Bank Group.

63.

ideas42 (n.d.). https://www.ideas42.org/에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

64.

iNudgeyou (n.d.). https://inudgeyou.com에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

65.

Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA, US:Sage Publications.

66.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY, US: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

67.

Kaslow, N. J. (2015). Translating psychological science to the public. American Psychologist, 70(5), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039448

68.

Keller-Allen, C., & Li, R. M. (2013, May). Psychological science and behavioral economics in the service of public policy. In Meeting Summary, National Institute of Health, NationalInstitute on aging, Washington, DC.

69.

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2018). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (Sixth edition). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: CQ Press.

70.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science:Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). New York, NY, US: Harper & Row.

71.

Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149-1187. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301753265543

72.

Mind, Behavior, and Development (n.d.). https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/embed에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

73.

Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2015). Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12073

74.

Montague, M., Borland, R., & Sinclair, C. (2001). Slip! Slop! Slap! and SunSmart, 1980-2000:Skin cancer control and 20 years of population-based campaigning. Health Education and Behaviour, 28(3), 241-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810102800304

75.

Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2015). 마이어스의 심리학 (신현정, 김비아 역). 서울: 시그마프레스.

76.

Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence‐based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00292

77.

Selinger, E., & Whyte, K. (2011). Is there a right way to nudge? The practice and ethics of choice architecture. Sociology Compass, 5(10), 923-935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020. 2011.00413.x

78.

Shafir, E. (Ed.). (2013). The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press.

79.

Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

80.

Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (2017, January 20). https://sbst.gov에서 2019. 10. 29 자료얻음.

81.

SPARQ (n.d.). https://sparq.stanford.edu에서 2019. 10. 29 자료 얻음.

82.

Strassheim, H., Jung, A., & Korinek, R.-L. (2015). Reframing expertise: The rise of behavioural insights and interventions in public policy. In A. B. Antal, M. Hutter, & D. Stark (Eds.), Moments of valuation: Exploring sites of dissonance (pp. 249-268).

83.

Sunstein, C. R., Reisch, L. A., & Rauber, J. (2017). Behavioral insights all over the world? Public attitudes toward nudging in a multi-country study. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2921217

84.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA, US: Brooks/Cole.

85.

Teachman, B. A., Norton, M. I., & Spellman, B. A. (2015). Memos to the president from a “council of psychological science advisers.”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 697-700. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615605829

86.

Thaler, R. H. (2016). 똑똑한 사람들의 멍청한선택 (박세연 역). 서울: 리더스북.

87.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge:Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (1st ed.). New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press.

88.

Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164-S187. https://doi.org/10.1086/380085

89.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

90.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

91.

Walton, A., & Hume, M. (2011). Creative positive habits in water conservation: The case of the Queensland Water Commission and the Target 140 campaign. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(3), 215-224. http://lps3.doi.org.libproxy.chungbuk.ac.kr/10.1002/nvsm.421|

92.

World Bank. (2018). Social multipliers at work:Improving children’s outcomes through aspirations and role models (English). eMBeD brief. Washington, D.C., US: World Bank Group.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General