Changing behaviour: A public policy perspective

5. Behavioural Change at the Interpersonal Level

These theories stress the interpersonal environment with the key insight being that behavioural change is often better effected by focusing not just on individuals, but also on their relationships with those around them. People will generally be far more influenced by the views of family, peers and trusted well-known people than by advice from government.

a. Authority Theories

Most people will readily comply with authority they consider legitimate. The most famous example from social science research was the willingness of people participating in an experiment to administer electric shocks to others, ostensibly as a form of teaching, under the instruction of an experimenter. The shocks were fake, but the real experiment was about the compliance of the people participating in the experiment and it was found that more than two-thirds were prepared to administer ‘life-threatening shocks’ because the experimenter told them to.¹⁴

The basis of power or authority in a relationship may be categorised in six ways. The first four listed below can be useful in securing compliance in the short-term, while the last two may be more effective in securing conversion in the long-term:

expert—acceptance that someone has the authority to direct behaviour because they are more knowledgeable and/or experienced (e.g. health professionals, parents, elders, teachers)
legitimate—someone has the right to direct behaviour derived from social roles with credibility and authority (e.g. police)
coercive—when another can direct behaviour because they have the ability to punish (e.g. prison officials, teachers, supervisors at work)
reward—when another can direct behaviour because they have the ability to reward (e.g. supervisors at work, teachers)
informational—when others can direct behaviour through the power of persuasion and information provision (e.g. health professionals, life coaches, social workers, Landcare groups)
referent—authority based on identification with the person trying to exert influence. This is among the most effective sources of authority (e.g. using high-profile sports people or celebrities to sell a message, or using the influence of those displaying leadership qualities in the community or at work).

It is clear that some people are in a position in society that enables them, if they are skilful, to use all six types of authority to influence behaviour (e.g. teachers). One hazard in using authority to influence behaviour, however, is psychological reactance—when people take the opposing view in reaction against authority. This can particularly occur if people are somewhat distrustful of the authority figure.

There are ways in which governments can boost their authority and minimise psychological reactance. Strengthening the independence of key sources of public information and guidance, such as agencies responsible for food, drugs, statistics or financial services, for example, increases legitimacy and expertise. It can also be helpful if the message around behavioural change is not owned by any one group. In the ‘Seven-a-day’ health promotion campaign aimed at increasing the intake of fruit and vegetables, for example, retailers, food manufacturers and health charities have all been involved in promoting the message—this has helped to give it more authority.

The National Tobacco Strategy has engaged the authority of general practitioners (GPs) and other health professionals to influence smokers’ behaviour. The Australian Government launched new smoking cessation guidelines for GPs in 2004 that aim to assist them to deliver effective assistance for smoking cessation. They were developed in consultation with stakeholders and are based on the long-running ‘Smokescreen Program’ which acknowledges that the smoker’s own motivation to stop smoking is a key issue and advice is provided based on the smoker’s readiness to quit in accordance with the 5 As (Ask, Assess, Advise, Assist and Arrange follow-up). The guidelines to GPs are linked to Quit line telephone counselling and other educational resources.

b. Reciprocity, Mutuality and Conditionality Theories

A person is more likely to act or change their behaviour if they have been placed in some sort of debt, even if unwillingly (reciprocity). This is the technique used in wine tasting at vineyards or in direct mail ordering of wine and books. Behavioural interventions can also be effective where both parties (the influencer and the influenced) stand to gain from the outcome. These two behavioural forces have been combined with cognitive consistency and conditionality (see above) in various public policy contexts.

One example from the UK is the tenancy agreements offered by a regional government’s housing association. The Irwell Valley Housing Association operates a ‘Gold Service’ scheme which rewards good tenants. To qualify, tenants must have a clear rent account or an agreement in writing that they will pay off their rent arrears and commit no breaches of tenancy. In return, tenants receive quicker emergency repairs; priority modernisation; discounts on home contents insurance, fuel, funerals and eye care; and a discount card to use in local shops and restaurants. Over 80% of tenants have joined the scheme and arrears have fallen by 47%.¹⁵

Another example is the use of Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) in Australian Indigenous communities. SRAs are voluntary agreements between the Australian Government and Indigenous communities or groups to provide a discretionary benefit in return for undertaking community obligations. These discretionary benefits may take the form of extra services, capital or infrastructure over and above essential services or basic entitlements. The community decides the issues or priorities it wants to address, how it wants to address them and what it will do in return for government investment. SRAs set out what families, communities, governments and other partners will contribute to addressing local priorities and the outcomes to be achieved.

An SRA was entered into by the Australian Government and the Billiluna Community in Kununurra, Western Australia, for example, in 2005. The Billiluna Community’s priority was to strengthen its economic status. The Government agreed to invest $155,000 to install fuel bowsers to strengthen economic status through fuel sales to tourists and to enhance employment and training opportunities at the garage. The community committed to ensure correct rubbish disposal, pest eradication and rent payments. Individuals and families committed to a range of initiatives, including implementing after-school sports activities for young people in an effort to support and encourage them to attend school on a regular basis.

The National Landcare Programme is another example of the use of conditionality and reciprocity. It provides funding incentives for landholders, particularly groups of landholders, to undertake natural resource management measures. The funding, however, is contingent on landholders signing contracts that include at least matching contributions of the landholders’own time and resources to the project funded by the National Landcare Programme. The actual results suggest that project applicants contributed between $1.80 and $2.60 in cash or in-kind for every dollar funded from the National Landcare Programme.¹⁶

c. Face-to-Face Approaches

The usefulness of reciprocity, mutuality and conditionality can be greatly enhanced by faceto- face approaches. Commitments made in agreements or contracts are more likely to be honoured if they are facilitated during a face-to-face encounter. Face-to-face approaches by public transport staff in Perth, for example, have been effective in encouraging people to make greater use of alternatives to the car.¹⁷

Face-to-face approaches are often dismissed as prohibitively expensive or impractical. However, they have been shown to be cost-effective in some circumstances. In the USA, for example, a randomised experiment with 30,000 voters was conducted to see how voter turnout might be increased. Leaflets were found to have a modest effect, boosting turnout by around 2.5%. Telephone calls were found to have, if anything, a negative effect. But face-to-face contact—someone turning up on people’s doorsteps to remind them in advance— was found to have a highly significant effect, boosting turnout by around 10% to 15%.¹⁸

d. Interpersonal Heuristics and Biases

Humans also use mental short-cuts or heuristics and display consistent biases in decision- making and behaviours in relation to interpersonal relations.¹⁹

The fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to over-emphasise dispositional factors about people and under-emphasise situational factors. An example is attributing the cause of a particular car accident to poor driving rather than to situational factors such as ice on the road or fatigue. This is one reason behind the ‘it won’t happen to me’ syndrome.
False uniqueness and false consensus essentially refers to the tendency for people to flatter themselves. When asked to list their best abilities and how others stand in relation to these, people tend to systematically underestimate their peers’ abilities. People also tend to overestimate the extent to which others agree with their own position, hence providing false consensus for personal viewpoints. The false consensus effect may go some way to explain levels of distrust of democratic institutions. People can become frustrated that organisations do not better reflect their views (which they think are the views of the majority).
Inter-group bias refers to people’s tendency to attribute disproportionately good qualities and virtues to the groups they identify with, while seeing outsiders as less worthy and deserving. Experiments show how even completely arbitrary divisions of strangers into groups immediately trigger these inter-group biases. This tendency can be used to serve desirable ends if channelled into competition in areas of desirable activity, for example, tidy town contests and explicit recognition of streets or communities that are leading the way with recycling.

14 S. Milgram 1974, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, Harper and Row, New York, cited in D. Halpern et al, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, p. 24.

15 D. Halpern et al, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, p. 48.

16 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2007, Internal Working Document, p. 9.

17 D. Halpern et al, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, p. 27.

18 A. Gerber and D. Green, ‘The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, 2000, pp. 653–63, cited in D. Halpern et al, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, p. 27.

19 D. Halpern et al, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, pp. 26–7.

Downloads:

Contents:

Site help