We live in an increasingly fractured world. A world of tribalism. A world where we identify as part of a group, or groups, and increasingly ignore the views of anyone who thinks differently to ourselves.
Social media hasn’t helped. We’re now served content that reinforces existing beliefs. Algorithms serve content based on your connections, and the content you prefer. Meta, TikTok and X will unfollow or hide posts from sources you’re less interested in. The result? Availability bias has become one of the biggest barriers to genuine social discourse, empathy and inclusion in human history.
Scanlon’s most recent social cohesion index (Nov 2023), a survey of over 7,000 Australian’s, plummeted to its lowest ebb since it began 16 years ago. It came on the back of the Voice referendum, and as conflict began in the Middle East.
Most of us see the world in binary. We’re right, they’re wrong. Or worse, we’re right, they’re (insert slur). We label. We insult the ‘other.’ Even those of us who try to be mindful, who seek to change the world for the better, do so anchored in our own biases, shaped by our own values, values which typically mirror those that we surround ourselves with, people like ourselves.
Some aspects of empathy are intuitive. Mimicry is a good example. But to be truly empathetic requires systematic thinking. It’s a learned behaviour. We need to be deliberate with it, in our personal lives, and in our professional practice.
And this is where empathy can help. For me, empathy is the engine of pro-social behaviour. Empathy is an innate capacity that we all share, but it needs to be developed. We get better at it the more we practice.
I’ve always been quite empathetic. I sometimes refer to myself as a grumpy old man. My wife calls me insufferable. But I’m not grumpy because of my age. And I’ll park ageism for another day, other than to say it’s one of the most dangerous “isms” out there and we need to do more to combat it. Much more.
I’ve come to the conclusion, albeit without strong empirical evidence, that I’m grumpy because I’m empathetic. It doesn’t escalate to anger because I choose to channel it in a positive way, through my behaviour change practice. The same may be true for some of you here. Rather than feeling overwhelmed or angered by the depth of feeling you have for others or for the state of the planet, we take action.
And that’s the important bit. Some commentators believe empathy can be counterproductive. And they’re right. Imagine, just being sad for others. You now just have more people feeling sad, but no solution. Acting on that empathy, working with those you have empathy for to affect change is the key. Channeling your empathy into action is the key. It’s not just more effective. It’s cathartic.
Of course, empathy is enhanced by spending time with, and listening to, people who are different to ourselves. For the past 25 years I’ve been mindful of sourcing news and opinion from all sides of politics. I talk to victims and perpetrators; climate activists and deniers, I watch ABC and Sky. I actively seek to understand why people feel as they do, and then try and empathise.
Many well-intentioned programs and campaigns fail because we assume the values that matter to us, and those like us, are shared by those we’re trying to influence.
I could give many examples but approaches to influencing anti-social attitudes and behaviours on things like racism and gender equity spring to mind.
Too often change agents with the best intent allow their own ideology, their own values, get in the way of effective behaviour change practice. More empathy for those who don’t think like us greatly increases our chances of success. After all, are we trying to convince people our way of thinking is right or stop behaviours that do harm?
As Henry Ford put it: “If there is one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get to the other person’s point of view and see things from his angle, as well as your own.”
That means that when we are designing programs and services, we need to be deliberate in application of empathy. We need to listen, and act on what we hear. We need to create solutions with, not for, those we seek to serve. And this brings me to inclusion, a universal human right that speaks to the need for all to be included and have access to opportunities, inclusive of minorities, the disadvantaged and the under-represented.
As change agents, we seek to influence behaviours and attitudes for the good of individuals, and for the good of society as a whole. But if we’re honest, most of the work undertaken in the pro-social context in the past has been designed for the 80%, the majority. We need to be deliberately inclusive too.
We also need to understand that often the people who have the attitudes and behaviours we want to influence are not likely to respond to those things we believe are important. We need empathy to drive inclusion of the disadvantaged, the vulnerable, the at-risk. But we also need empathy to ensure our programs and services account for the lived experience, values and views of those we seek to influence, no matter how much we many not like them. We can’t be selective with our empathy. It must extend to and include everybody.
For me, inclusion and empathy are two sides of the same coin. While not quite synonyms, where you find one you will more often than not find the other. Empathy is the foundation upon which inclusion is built. Empathy promotes inclusion – it helps us understand and appreciate diverse perspectives.
Practicing empathy with priority populations creates a sense of psychological safety and supports a culture of inclusivity.
And empathy, through active listening, helps prevent micro aggressions and unconscious bias. Affinity bias (the tendency to favour those who are similar to us) and Confirmation bias (the tendency to seek out info that confirms our beliefs), Anchoring bias (the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we receive) and Availability bias (the tendency to overestimate the importance of information that’s readily available) have been key features of virtually all social change initiatives over the past 70 years, including, at times, my own.
Over the past decade I’ve become more mindful of trying to mitigate the impact of these biases on inclusive program design and tried to proactively apply an empathy lens to my work. It’s not easy, particularly when procurement and much of contemporary practice still lacks an empathy lens.
And so, when I was asked to convene a panel for Change, empathy and inclusion was an obvious choice.
In a world plagued by dissent, social unrest and tribalism, empathy is the secret sauce, the glue that has the potential to hold society together, and perhaps, even bring us back together.
It will take a concerted effort and a recognition that we all need to learn how to be more empathetic, through reason and systematic thinking. Today’s panel will provide a few insights into how. And I suspect, much much more.
– This post is a transcript of Luke’s introductory remarks to an Empathy and Inclusion panel at Change 2024
An innovative greening project designed to reduce the urban heat island effect has positively influenced community attitudes toward urban greening in some of Perth’s most heat stressed suburbs.
The BCC’s Founder and Managing Director, Luke van der Beeke, said green space and canopy cover has declined in almost all major Australian cities over the past decade.
“Evidence has shown that this has resulted in urban heat islands, with daytime temperatures in affected areas being up to six degrees Celsius warmer than in surrounding areas.
“With lower socio-economic neighbourhoods most at risk, the costs are not just environmental. The urban heat island effect contributes to a range of socio-economic and public health issues that disproportionately impact low-income communities,” he said.
Mr van der Beeke said while revegetation to combat urban heat was the primary goal of the project, it also placed a significant emphasis on motivating and empowering people to take action in their own gardens, and on their front verges.
“First we looked to build awareness of urban heat and its impacts to motivate residents to act. Then, working with project partners, community members were offered skill building workshops so that those who wanted to make changes had the ability to do so.” Mr van der Beeke said.
Dr May Carter, Senior Research Associate at The BCC, said: “We engaged with the community and talked with them about what they would like to see in their local park and what improvements could be achieved through planting more vegetation.
“We looked at the benefits of increasing understory and plants that would attract wildlife, as well as nature play and discovery by young people.
“This helped to build interest and provided people with the knowledge and confidence needed to try things in their own homes,” Dr Carter said.
Mr van der Beeke added: “The parks were our catalyst for change, our focal point. Almost everything we did in the parks could be replicated in people’s gardens because we focused on households in the immediate surrounds. The soils and environs were much the same.”
At the conclusion of the two-year project, a comprehensive evaluation was undertaken evidencing a change in attitudes and behaviours towards urban greening.
Fifty-six per cent of people surveyed said they had been encouraged to plant trees and shrubs in their own garden, with a further 18 per cent saying that they would like to.
In local governments where verge planting was encouraged, almost one-third of respondents had planted trees or shrubs on their verge, as opposed to just 11 per cent where policy was more restrictive.
People who participated in Our Park Our Place were also encouraged to join an environment or community group. For example, in the City of Canning 15 per cent of respondents joined a local group after participating in the project, with a further 45 per cent indicating they were still considering joining one.
Following the conclusion of the project, participants were also more likely to agree that spending time outdoors was important, that green spaces contributed to their health and that they wanted to know more about their local environment.
Over 35,000 seedlings are 344 trees were planted by participating LGA’s and members of their local communities.
Video Credit: Greening Australia
Greening Australia’s Project Lead, Ruth Cripps, said: “These results are incredibly encouraging, because the whole aim of Our Park Our Place has been to inspire and equip residents in heat-affected suburbs with ways to cool their neighbourhoods and better connect with their local green spaces.
“As our climate changes, it is vital for the resilience of our communities that they feel better connected to each other and enabled to improve their environment. That has a profoundly positive effect on health and wellbeing. By encouraging people to plant more greenery and join local groups, the project has helped take these neighbourhoods a few steps further towards being cooler, greener, more climate-resilient places.”
Our Park Our Place was a Lotterywest funded project, managed by Greening Australia in partnership with The Behaviour Change Collaborative. Key partners included the City of Canning, City of Bayswater, Town of Bassendean, and Water Corporation.
The Behaviour Change Collaborative has received Healthway (WA Health Promotion Foundation) funding to explore the growing rate of e-cigarette use amongst Year 7-12 school students.
Despite increasing concern about the high prevalence of vaping among young people, there is little accurate data about the extent of e-cigarette use in Western Australia.
Equally, there is no clear understanding of what e-cigarette use looks like amongst young people, what influences and motivates them to vape, nor how to tailor effective behavioural messaging or more holistic programs to effectively address the issue.
The BCC’s project will explore patterns of use, influences, and motivations for vaping uptake amongst West Australian high school students.
The BCC’s Luke van der Beeke said findings will be used to inform the collaborative design of strategies that seek to reduce the incidence of vaping among WA youth.
“We look forward to sharing our findings with the rest of the sector in a few months’ time,” he said
What do the Wizard of Oz, a lion, a scarecrow and a tin man have to do with the road to recovery from COVID19?
At the end of June, our Founder Luke van der Beeke joined Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Professor Brett Sutton and health economist, Professor Jonathan Karnon to answer the question: Will the road to recovery be paved with casualties?”
Each country’s experience of COVID has been different. This is in part due to the relative effectiveness of government responses, but it is also a function of other contributing variables which impact the virus’ ability to spread. People’s behaviours (do they self-isolate, do they test when symptoms arise, do they comply with social distancing rules) are perhaps the most significant of those variables.
In relative terms Australia has fared well. The response from federal and state governments has been generally been very good. For some, their government’s response has served to rebuild trust. That said, it’s also fair to say that Australia has once again earned a reputation as the lucky country.
COVID presents government and civil society with unprecedented health, social and economic challenges. At the heart of these challenges are human beings, and we are fickle creatures. Our attitudes shift and change quickly over time, and as a general rule of thumb, our behaviour is predictably irrational. (For more on that read Dan Ariely’s excellent book Predictably Irrational)
Commercial marketers have leveraged people’s predictable irrationality for years to influence consumer behaviour. Regrettably, this knowledge has historically been used to leverage behavioural biases which result in people consuming products that are bad for them or the planet.
For example, commercial marketers know one reason we’re prepared to consume products that do us harm is that we tend to discount the future costs of doing so. The immediate sense of gratification felt by eating a Mars bar or drinking alcohol with friends more than offsets the potential future cost to our health. Behavioural economists call this phenomenon hyperbolic discounting.
Thankfully, social marketers, and more recently behavioural economists, use this same knowledge to influence behaviours for good – both downstream, where efforts are made to influence individual choices; and upstream, where strategic social marketing and behavioural insights are used to inform government policy and communications.
The Wizard of AUS
I do find it hard to resist a good metaphor. Some might say that the PM (and in fairness, state Premiers) have performed acts of wizardry keeping the majority of Australians safe over the past few months. So, my road to recovery is comprised of yellow brick. In order to navigate it safely, and to minimise casualties, government will need to show courage, be smart, and have a heart.
A few assumptions
Human behaviour and our government’s ability to manage it effectively will be a key determinant of how successful we are at navigating the road to a post-COVID world.
Pets don’t spread the virus!
2. There is also an assumption thatwe’re now actually on a road to recovery. I’m not so sure. Global cases continue to rise exponentially and a vaccine may be months or years away. Furthermore, political and economic pressures may lead to the opening of borders and easing of restrictions well before it is completely safe to do so.
Notably, Australian commentators often caution the public about the risk of a second wave. This of course assumes there was a first wave. Here in Australia, that first wave was more akin to a ripple. Should a second wave come, I fear that without due consideration of the likely less compliant behavioural response from large portions of the public, it could quickly turn into a tsunami.
3. Another assumption is that adaptation as opposed to elimination remains the preferred choiceas the pandemic continues to evolve. This is important for many reasons, not least of which being COVID will remain a background threat to people’s health for months if not years to come. This will impact behavioural and attitudinal responses to government efforts to reduce the impact of COVID as we make our way forward.
And of course, casualties have not, and would not, be limited to COVID related cases and deaths. Our response needs to account for the myriad other adverse impacts COVID creates and amplifies, including mental health, economic hardship, health inequalities and domestic violence to name just a few.
4. My final assumption – pets don’t spread the virus…
Interventions to date (in red) have predominantly relied on restrictions (border and business closures, social distancing), education, and persuasion. Each of these interventions have been successful in large part because most Australians have had the motivation (initially fear, then concern for others, a sense of social responsibility/civic duty), capability and opportunity (green circle) to comply.
It must be said that over time the amount of conflicting and confusing messaging has increased. Complex and at times counter-intuitive policy settings on a range of issues have also started to chip-away at public confidence.
Fear
Fear can be a powerful motivator. And inhibitor.
As far as motivators go, fear can be very effective. Fear appeals have been used for decades to influence people’s choices – think graphic anti-smoking ads or road safety commercials.
But not every fear appeal is successful. Just because a person is scared of something doesn’t mean they’ll behave in a way that reduces the perceived threat.
Two conditions that studies consistently link to behavioural intention are perceived threat and perceived efficacy.
In the case of COVID, the perceived threat was initially extremely high in terms of the likelihood of exposure and impact. This was helped along by cases of alarmist journalism which served to build a sense of panic.
Initially, most Australians felt they had the ability to practice social distancing and abide by restrictions to movement. But that only lasted a short while. Within weeks other concerns took hold, not least of which being the economic impact of restrictions. Covid remained cause for concern, but the loss of jobs and other impacts at home became a more prevalent attitudinal driver. As a result, people’s perceived efficacy (i.e. their ability to abide by restrictions) began to decline.
Looking forward, when the efficacy element does not overpower the source of fear (COVID), individuals may choose not to adopt a suggested response, either because they feel incapable of completing the protective action or because the suggested action will not be effective. Rather than concerning themselves with eliminating the threat, individuals may look to control their fear by avoiding thoughts about the threat or minimizing the issue.
Should a second wave arise this is something government needs to be very mindful of.
Presenting facts isn’t enough
We are moving from a system based around vertical axis of trust, where we trust people who seem to have more authority than we do, to one predicated on horizontal axes of trust: we take advice from our peer group.
Gillian Tett, Financial Times, July 01, 2016.
Whether we’re hit by a second wave or not, the optimal road to recovery will require an understanding of what drives human behaviour. Sadly, as recently observed by a colleague of mine, Professor Jeff French… “we remain far more adept at counting the sick and the dead and reporting facts than we are at understanding what truly moves and motivates the people we purport to serve.”
The truth of this statement is evidenced in many ways, including how we engage (or fail to engage) with communities and the persistent top-down approach to health communications. As the road to recovery winds on, presenting facts and expecting people to change their behaviour because an expert say it’s in their best interests simply won’t suffice.
For the past few decades democracies have been moving away from vertical axes of trust. Citizens tend to pick and choose what information they believe based on their own pre-existing views. It’s called confirmation bias and the impact it’s had on our political and social fabric can’t be overstated.
This brings me to the three central characters in my metaphor – the lion, the scarecrow and the tin man. I think they have the attributes needed to ensure a successful road to recovery.
The lion – COURAGE
Governments must be courageous, and that means being open and transparent with the public. During a pandemic like COVID, which threatens so many lives, there is an ethical obligation on government to provide all relevant facts so that people can make truly informed choices. Thankfully, this openness and transparency is already evident in most jurisdictions, but it must be remembered that “shared responsibility” is a two-way street.
During the first few months of the pandemic some messages were framed in ways that were misleading. For example, misleading information was provided about the level of protection afforded by face masks. Statements about the safety of children attending schools were also not entirely evidence-based.
Finally, debate and responses to questions from the press (and others) tend to be characterised by repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are often ignored. Governments need to be courageous enough to listen and respond to questions openly. The press could help by adopting a more measured, balanced approach to questions so as not to force politicians onto the defensive.
In many respects, despite all the negatives, COVID provides government with a unique opportunity to rebuild lost trust, and reframe its relationship with the public. Early signs are some jurisdictions are doing it better than others.
The scarecrow – BRAIN
The collection and use of reliable data in terms of contact tracing, community spread, and behavioural intent will remain critical as Australia’s COVID journey unfolds.
For example, the WA Government’s DETECT Snapshot program, which ended last week, failed to find a single case of coronavirus from more than 16,000 targeted tests of frontline workers. This has boosted local confidence that there are no hidden pockets of COVID infection in the community and will be used to inform policy adjustments, particularly around social gatherings.
Notably, the COVID safe app has been plagued by technical challenges, and as perceived risk has fallen the number of people downloading the app has done so too. We’re still about 1.5m below the 40% download target, and Australians are more supportive of using telecommunication company metadata (79%) to track close contacts than they are using the app (70%).
Reshaping environments to make it easier for people to practice physical distancing will remain useful. Even simple behavioural prompts can be very effective.
The public is more intelligent than some like to think. It’s also worth considering that many people don’t solely rely on government messaging to inform their behavioural choices with regard to COVID. So, messages need to be consistent across all Australian jurisdictions. Our response should also account for the impact that information originating from other sources (credible or otherwise) has on shaping people’s attitudes and beliefs.
The tin man – HEART
Our final character is the tin man.
There is a great deal to be gained through effective and appropriate application of behavioural insights, behavioural design, and data-informed interventions. That said, I also believe that to affect sustainable change, governments need to act with heart.
Will the road to recovery be paved with casualties? It’s hard to tell. What is certain is the socio-economically disadvantaged will be at greater risk from the direct and indirect impacts of COVID. A recent UK study found that the mortality rate of deaths involving COVID in the most deprived areas is 2.3x that of the least deprived.
While politics and health will always be intertwined, it will be important to ensure that the politics of health doesn’t lead to unnecessary casualties as we navigate our way through the new normal.
Health literacy is also a challenge for many Australian health consumers. It’s in this context that governments (State and Federal) need to convey essential health information to the public.
Many in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CaLD) communities, including a large number of older Australians, source their information from other community members and service organisations. Social distancing and organisational closures results in large numbers of people without access to their trusted information sources. We must ensure measures are in place to account for this.
If we want people to change their behaviours we need to ensure they understand what we’re asking them to do. We also need to help people do it. When asked how government should encourage adoption of new behaviours, 68% of respondents to a University of Washington survey said they wanted to be helped to do it (see figure below).
Source: Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at University of Washington
We also need to confer agency to the public and provide opportunities for people to actively contribute toward fighting the virus. This has the added benefit of helping to combat any sense of hopelessness which were seen in some areas during the lockdown. This will be particularly important should a second wave eventuate.
Final thoughts
The road ahead is uncertain and will be unique for each Australian. Government has the unenviable task of laying each (yellow) brick with the ultimate aim of leading the country to a full recovery.
As the journey unfolds, attitudes and behaviours toward COVID will change. While many are now applauding the success of preventative health measures there are others who believe we overreacted, due in large part to the very success we’ve had.
The relative success of Australia’s response has already led to complacency, If a second wave hits (and it almost certainly will) there’s a real danger people will be less willing to comply with physical distancing and self-isolation measures.
Government needs to consider this now, and future behaviour change strategies may need to be a little different to what we’ve seen thus far. For example, more controls may be necessary as voluntary compliance wains.
My final observation is that when many Australians were at their most vulnerable we were afforded a glimpse of just how good the new normal could be.
Whether our collective experiences to date are enough of a disruptor to completely break old habits remains to be seen. But has there been a shift in values? I’m not sure.
What I do know is that no matter what challenges we face on the yellow brick road to recovery, if we approach each one of them ethically and draw on evidence and lived experience to formulate our approach we will minimise the number of casualties along the way.
I want to end with a fantastic ad out of New Zealand that seeks to build social solidarity. It’s something we’ll need here in Australia too as our journey along the road to recovery continues.
If you’d like a copy of the slideset feel free to get in touch with me via email.
There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to behaviour change.
But that doesn’t mean encouraging people to adopt new behaviours has to be complicated or expensive. In some cases, simply altering the way in which options are presented can encourage people to make better choices.
This
approach is called ‘choice architecture’ and is based on a deep
understanding of how people think. It can be a simple,
cost-effective means of influencing people’s behaviour.
Choice architecture is great for dealing with simple behaviours. For example, Google uses choice architecture in its cafeteria to encourage staff to make healthier food choices.
But when
it comes to more complex behaviours, choice architecture isn’t
enough. People don’t make choices in a vacuum. In most cases there are
other determinants of behaviour that need to be identified and
addressed.
One of
the better behaviour change frameworks I’ve seen is Susan Michie’s
Behaviour Change Wheel.
The Behaviour Change Wheel highlights nine ‘intervention functions’ and seven ‘policy categories’ that can be applied to support the selected interventions. For more information you can read Understanding Society – How Do We Change Behaviour by the Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute. It’s an excellent document and includes interviews with several leading thinkers in the field.
A few introductory behaviour change tips
Although
every behavioural challenge is different there are some tried and tested
techniques that can improve the chances of designing and delivering a
successful behavioural intervention.
Incentives
Incentives
are used in the commercial and public sectors to influence behaviour.
They can be extrinsic or intrinsic.
Extrinsic
incentives come from outside the person and comprise things like cash rewards,
bonuses and subsidies. As an example, just a few weeks ago the British
Medical Journal published a study that found financial
incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy could be quite effective.
But
incentives need not be monetary. Finding opportunities to incorporate
non-financial incentives (e.g. peer recognition) can also work.
Intrinsic
incentives are psychological. If you can structure a specific
behaviour to make a person feel good about themselves they’re far
more likely to adopt it. For many people, simply believing that they’re
‘doing the right thing’ can be enough.
So when
looking to encourage a new behaviour it’s always worth thinking
about how can you incentivise.
Of course
the use of incentives should be tailored to your specific
audience. It can be easy to assume that people will respond in a certain
way, but when it comes to what people value, the only real way to find
out is to ask.
Reduce Barriers
Barriers
are all those things that stop people from adopting a new behaviour.
They take many forms but most are either structural or personal.
Personal
barriers are often psychological and include things like habits, fears and
beliefs. Because personal barriers are just that – personal, it’s
important not to assume you know what they are.
Ask your
target group what’s stopping them from changing their behaviour? You can
use social research methods like focus groups, surveys or phone interviews
or perhaps make use of social media to start a conversation.
Most
importantly, listen. Communication is a two-way
process. Many campaigns fail because too much time is spent telling
people what they should think or do, rather than asking how they can be
helped to do it.
Structural
barriers can also seem obvious, but even the most simple ones can be
missed.
Not enough bins?
For example
– anti-littering campaigns won’t work if you don’t provide enough
bins for people to dispose of their rubbish. Nor will it help if the bins that
are provided get put in the wrong places. I’ve lost
track of how many times I’ve walked along the street holding an empty
coffee cup, muttering under my breath because I can’t find a bin.
Instead, all I see are signs reminding me not to litter or risk a
fine.
Most people
want to do the right thing so it’s important to remove
the barriers that might prevent them from doing so.
Personal Motivations
What
moves and motivates your target audience?
People’s behaviour
is influenced by a range of factors that may include:
Attitudes and beliefs
Likes and tastes
Pleasures and gratifications
Control and choice
Hopes and aspirations
Life stage
Building
an understanding of what motivates your target group may help you to
design a behaviour change approach that’s more likely to succeed.
Prompts
Prompts
are often used at the point of decision-making. That might be a
point in time, or a physical location.
Most
people know that commercial marketers use prompts (e.g. special
offer signage, point-of-sale displays) to encourage consumers to purchase a
given product or service. What’s less well known is that prompts are also
used by social marketers to encourage positive individual
and community outcomes.
The image
below is an example of a visual prompt that was used as part of a
week-long road safety campaign back in 2010. It was run by advocacy group Preventable, and the British Columbia
Automobile Association. You can read more about the project here.
An innovative visual prompt to slow down drivers.
What’s The Competition?
What
other things compete for the time and attention of your audience?
Competition
can be internal or external. Internal competition might
include psychological factors like pleasure, desire and
fear. External competition includes wider influences that promote or
reinforce alternative behaviours (e.g. social norms).
Remember
– your message needs to cut through a lot of other noise. Think
about it. How much information are you exposed to every
day? Again, it’s very important to work with your target
market to get a good understanding of what’s competing against
the wanted behaviour.
For
example, let’s say you want to encourage a group of young males to start
drinking low-strength beer instead of full-strength beer. The
competition will include things like the peer pressure felt to drink
full-strength; and a perception that more low-strength beer needs to be
consumed (and more money spent) to achieve the desired effect.
To
succeed in eliciting the wanted behaviour you need to find ways to nullify
competing factors.
Defaults
Changing default choice settings can be an effective means of influencing people’s decision-making. Simply put, the default option is that option which people choose when they do nothing.
The
manipulation of default settings to increase organ donation rates is a much
heralded example of its effectiveness. In Germany people must opt-in
to organ donation program. The donor rate is only 12% of
adults. But in Austria where the default option is to opt-out, 99%
of adults are organ donors.
Substitution
It’s been
shown that people are more likely to try something new if it’s similar to what
they’re already doing. The use of inhalers and nicotine gum as
substitutes for cigarettes is an obvious example.
When
seeking to discourage a specific behaviour think about what can be offered in
its place.
Make it FUN, EASY and POPULAR
If you
can make the desired behaviour fun, easy and popular you increase the chances
of it being adopted.
Of
course, ‘fun’ speaks to motivation, and ‘ease’ speaks to barriers.
‘Popularity’ may also increase the chances of word of mouth
promotion, social sharing etc.
Cue this great example from The Fun Theory which I (and many others) have used numerous times over the years to illustrate how effective fun can be at modifying people’s behaviour.
Piano stairs – The Fun Theory.
Self-Monitoring
If a
person can monitor their performance towards a given goal they’re more likely
to succeed.
That’s
one reason there’s been an explosion in the design and use of health and
fitness apps.
A
good example is My Quit Buddy which allows people to personalise and
monitor their own milestones and targets.
Of course
self-monitoring tools don’t need to be high tech. The very act of
writing things down has been shown to reduce the likelihood of people
repeating unwanted behaviours.
Error Proofing
Effective
design can make it difficult for people to deviate from the
desired behaviour by making it easier to avoid errors, or by making it
impossible to make an error at all.
Error
proofing is used just about everywhere, from rumble strips on our roads to
safety switches in our fuse boxes. Alcohol ignition switches are another
good example. They’re used in several Australian jurisdictions to prevent
convicted drunk drivers from re-offending.
Rumble strips – a great example of error proofing.
Many of
the best examples of error proofing are so well integrated into everyday
life that their presence goes unnoticed.
Simple, Concrete Actions
Make sure
that your target group is provided with relevant and meaningful
information.
And
rather than talking about the problem in broad terms,
provide discrete and simple actions that can be taken to overcome it.
A Few Final Thoughts
Behaviour change is achievable. Sometimes it can be realised quickly and easily with a little nudge, but in other cases it takes a more holistic approach over time. Either way, being clear about the specific behaviour you want to change is critical. Set SMART objectives. Measure outcomes.
