Nudging In The Right Direction — Should Governments Use Psychology To Help Fight The Coronavirus?
A large number of cases being reported by various media outlets on citizens eschewing even basic Coronavirus prevention measures has prompted me to find out if something else can be done besides fining to ensure that a larger percentage of the populace finally comes to their senses. Almost everyone agrees that some measures of social distancing are the way forward, but it seems that just theoretical knowledge is not enough to do the right thing at the right time (see G.I.Joe Fallacy — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO9xwAyeWX0). Therefore, in this article I will give some insight into more recent solutions straight from behavioral psychology, that is talk a little bit about nudging!
For starters, we need to keep in mind human behavior is often irrational, which means that people sometimes make decisions that do not benefit them in any way, meaning that they tend to go for short-term gratification instead of long-term wellbeing. According to some researchers such as Kahneman and Twersky, the human mind works on two levels: slow thinking and fast thinking — the first level is automatized and does not require any deep thinking processes, while the second one is characterized by slower and deeper thinking. If we disregard laws and fines, what else can be done to influence the behavior of individuals? Besides known methods such as information dissemination, raising the level of awareness and giving financial incentives, there has recently been more talk about the concept of nudging (in the right direction).
Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler deals with this concept in his book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Thaler discovered that it is possible to influence the already mentioned faster and more automatic way of thinking and decision-making by adapting the context in which individuals make decisions, that is by reformulating the way in which different options are presented. What he calls “choice architecture” is basically a method already widely used in marketing and sales . For example, the visibility of candy and sweets is far higher when they are located at eye-level, and you can almost always find them near the exit — such tricks make consumers buy more refined sugar instead of healthier alternatives. There are also some positive examples of choice architecture, such as the organ donation procedure in my homeland, the Republic of Croatia. The norm in Croatia is that all citizens are organ donors, so consent is basically presupposed. Such laws are based on the simple fact that most people will not withdraw their consent, which is markedly true for Croatia, as well as other countries with similar laws that have extraordinary high levels of organ donation. Therefore, one can safely arrive at the conclusion that the point of nudging is to make it easier for the individual to make a healthy decision or better yet to make it harder to make a poor choice (while the opposite method would be something called sludging — often used by unscrupulous companies in their fine print of contracts and so on).
Some people might object to such interventions due to them being somewhat manipulative, but it is important to emphasize that although different choice architectures just make it easier or more difficult to reach a decision, the individual still has the final say. They do not in any way alter the number or nature of presented options. Even Thaler recognized that there is leeway to use his work for purposes that would not be in the best interest of average Joes around the world, so he devised 3 principles of positive nudging: 1. transparency, 2. standard solutions should be easily declined and 3. the behavioral change should be in the best interest of the decision-maker. If we go back to our first example, it is quite obvious that eating a larger amount of sugar is not in the best interest of buyers if we take into account scientific facts connecting refined sugar intake with various health risks, but the final decision to buy or not to buy sweets still lies with the individual.
So how does all this tie in with government policy and methods? For starters, it is imperative to communicate with the public in a way that incorporates positive nudging. Messages showcasing high numbers of people following basic Coronavirus prevention measures, especially those pertaining to people closest to us such as our neighbors could nudge even nonbelievers into being more careful. As with everything, small steps are the way forward! On the other side, governments should steer clear from communication that highlights the number of people eschewing those measures since that could have a detrimental effect, that is make people feel too relaxed. Now is not the time to relax when the finishing line is almost on the horizon. In conclusion, I hope that this article is going to become a wake-up call of sorts or even a nudge to be more careful and heed the calls of scientists around the world to be more mindful of social distancing and other measures. A small intervention can go a long way: even putting masks or disinfectants by the door to nudge ourselves into making wiser decisions can make a world of difference — and it often does.