The Behaviour Change Collaborative will co-host Change 2024, in partnership with Social Marketing@Griffith.
Change is Australia’s premier social and behaviour change conference featuring a diverse range of speakers and participants from the health, social and environmental sectors.
It comprises two-days of ted-talk style presentations and workshops (included in the registration fee) at which attendees learn practical strategies and techniques to influence attitudes and behaviours that can be applied to real world challenges.
The BCC has enjoyed a long-standing relationship with Social Marketing@Griffith.
“The decision to co-host Change 2024 marks a major step forward in our commitment to working collaboratively with the team at SM@G,” said The BCC’s Founder and Managing Director, Luke van der Beeke.
“We are aligned on values and a shared commitment to creating a space where people tackling some of the world’s most wicked problems can share their ideas, successes and failures,” he said.
Prof. Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Director at SM@G added: “We are delighted to welcome The Behaviour Change Collaborative as co-hosts of Change 2024. We look forward to uniting our efforts and making Change 2024 the most impactful year yet.”
We hope to see you on 17-18 October 2024 in Brisbane or online and take advantage of this opportunity to be part of a growing community of change agents drawn from Australia and beyond.
Program overview:
Session 1: Navigating Impact, Metrics and Meaningful Change
Session 2: People for the People, Empowering Communities for Change
Session 3: Conservation Catalysts, Innovation for the Planet
Panel: Empathy and Inclusivity
Session 4: End Food Waste, Recipe for Success
Workshops:
Unpacking Behavioural Influence for Intervention Design
Crafting a Strategic Impact Narrative
Pocket Filmmaking 101: Unleashing Your Creativity with Mobile Phone Video Production
Beyond the Individual: Leveraging Behavioural Ecological Systems for Change
Rediscovering the Secret Sauce of Your Programme: 12 Principles of Successful Behaviour Change
The Behaviour Change Collaborative (The BCC) and VicHealth have joined forces on a major research project to explore teen vaping across Australia.
The project builds on The BCC’s Healthway funded Being Gen Vape research which provided insights into existing vaping attitudes, motivations and behaviours, and a preliminary model for the segmentation of teen vaping behaviour.
The value of quantification is not solely in establishing vaping prevalence but in the ability to profile each segment by motivation (need) and attitudes, behavioural patterns, and trajectory to addiction. This will help to identify whether targeted interventions should be prevention based or cessation based, and for whom.
“We’re pleased to be partnering with VicHealth on such an important public health issue,” said The BCC’s founder and managing director, Luke van der Beeke.
The intent of the research is to provide outputs that help interested parties to set policy and intervention priorities, strategy directions, and intervention activities. We want to contribute to a coordinated, evidence-informed approach to addressing teen vaping. The findings of the research will be delivered in a user-friendly and fit-for-purpose format that can be shared widely across sectors.
“This piece of work is intended to augment existing research projects and activities. Our focus is on the delivery of behaviourally informed findings that can be picked up and used to inform future practice,” Mr van der Beeke said.
Our earlier research clearly indicates that mass reach single-theme messaging will have limited impact with respect to breadth and scale, because of the clear existence of different attitudinal and behavioural teen vaping segments.
This research will help to direct communications content, so that it focused on the right motivation and persuasive message and can be targeted at the right group.
“We’re looking forward to generating findings that can be picked up and used by governments, NGO’s, and other stakeholders to inform health communications campaigns, as well as multi-lever health promotion and social marketing strategies,” Mr van der Beeke said.
If you’re a high school teacher, or the parent of a child in high school and you would like to get involved with this research, please email hello@thebcc.org.au
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.
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.
“Preparation, patience and a willingness to play the long game.”
These were some of the insights shared by Lisa Cohen, National Programme Manager of Scottish mental health programme See Me at a recent seminar I attended in Wellington, New Zealand.
Many of the factors she raised that contribute to and hinder the success of social marketing programmes are the same ones we’ve been thinking about at New Zealand’s Social Marketing Network. In particular, we’ve been examining the challenges faced by two distinct groups – practitioners (the ones designing and conducting social marketing programmes) and authorisers (the ministers, managers or chief executives who create the budget parameters, time frames and programme boundaries).
Some of these are worth giving a wider airing. Combining some of Lisa’s lessons with discussions we’ve been having on this same topic in New Zealand, here are four factors that contribute to the environments for creating real and sustained social change.
Programmes, not campaigns
Social problems require a systematic response, and social marketing, in its true sense, requires a programme approach. Too often, we hear talk of “social marketing campaigns” – generally one-off or single-layer interventions that are often advertising based. But while advertising campaigns can be powerful, on their own they rarely change behaviour, and do not actually constitute social marketing.
“A ‘campaign’ may be a part of a social marketing programme, but it’s crucial to think about the programme as a whole”
– Lisa Cohen
The challenge here for social marketers is that an advertising campaign is something you can outsource; it’s finite, tangible, and easy to measure. Programme authorisers often ask for the campaign, without also demanding the rigour of a broader programme.
The trouble is, there’s not much sizzle in an integrated programme. They have less well-defined boundaries, tend to be slower to build, and less glorious to trumpet. But they also work better and in the long run can be more cost effective. So our call to practitioner and authorising forces is to demand and invest in programmes, not just campaigns.
Co-design, collaborate and engage. Don’t Preach!
Engage and involve the target audience in programme identification, design and implementation as much, and as soon, as you can. The sooner you do, the more you invest in meaningfully gathering and implementing their input, the better the results in the long term. In the Scottish See Me programme, it’s possible to see the strengthening of the programme (in terms of its reach and impact), the more they involved the voices of people with lived experience of mental illness in their programme planning.
Lisa Cohen says it’s all about talking to people – reaching them one conversation at a time.
The requirement for practitioners is to identify communities early on and engage them meaningfully in programme design and development. For programme authorisers this means giving your teams the time and space to do this respectfully and properly.
Be specific about the change you want
The See Me programme put real effort into clearly identifying the specific actions people could take to make a difference and targeted those actions to specific audiences.
In our rush to implement, we often to keep our programme goals vague and our calls to action general. Being specific requires patience and a robust analysis (including audience research) to properly understand your programme goals and the behaviour you’re seeking.
To increase the likelihood of positive change occurring, practitioners and authorisers alike need to adopt the discipline of being very clear about exactly whose behaviour they want to change, and what they want them to do.
Invest in the planning process
Lisa said they were put in the difficult initial position of creating a campaign before they had a programme in place – “building the plane while we were flying it”.
While this is frustrating for practitioners it’s not the real problem. The real problem is the potential financial and social costs of this ad-hoc, tactical approach to addressing social problems. The costs include, at worst, creating a campaign that has negative impacts and causes unintentional harm. Other risks include wasting public funding and depleting sector, stakeholder and public goodwill.
To successfully create positive social change will require a stronger and more robust authorising environment that understands the value of a programmatic approach and properly engaging with citizens.
It might take time but, to quote Sun Tzu, it’s the slow route to victory.
About the author
Tracey Bridges is a professional director, business owner, mentor & public speaker with expertise in strategy, behaviour change, social marketing and leadership. She’s a co-founder and director of New Zealand based social enterprise, The Good Registry.
