Psychological science is increasingly influencing public policy. Behavioral public policy (BPP) was a milestone in this regard because it influenced many areas of policy in a general way. Well-being public policy (WPP) is emerging as a second domain of psychological science with general applicability. However, advocacy for WPP is criticized on ethical and political grounds. These criticisms are reminiscent of those directed at BPP over the past decade. This déjà vu suggests the need for interdisciplinary work that establishes normative principles for applying psychological science in public policy. We try to distill such principles for WPP from the normative debates over BPP. We argue that the uptake of BPP by governments was a function of its relatively strong normative and epistemic foundations in libertarian paternalism, or nudging, for short. We explain why the nudge framework is inappropriate for WPP. We then analyze how boosts offer a strict but feasible alternative framework for substantiating the legitimacy of well-being and behavioral policies. We illuminate how some WPPs could be fruitfully promoted as boosts and how they might fall short of the associated criteria.

心理科学对公共政策的影响越来越大。行为公共政策（BPP）在这方面是一个里程碑，因为它以一般方式影响了许多政策领域。福祉公共政策（WPP）正在成为具有普遍适用性的心理科学的第二个领域。然而，WPP 的倡导因道德和政治原因而受到批评。这些批评让人想起过去十年针对 BPP 的批评。这种似曾相识的感觉表明需要开展跨学科工作，为将心理科学应用于公共政策制定规范原则。我们试图从 BPP 的规范性辩论中提炼出 WPP 的这些原则。我们认为，政府对 BPP 的采用是由于其在自由主义家长作风（简称助推）中相对强大的规范和认知基础的作用。我们解释为什么助推框架不适合 WPP。然后，我们分析刺激措施如何提供严格但可行的替代框架来证实福祉和行为政策的合法性。我们阐述了一些 WPP 如何能够作为助推剂而得到有效推广，以及它们如何可能达不到相关标准。