Changing behaviour: A public policy perspective

6. Behavioural Change at the Community Level

There is a range of theories and evidence regarding the forces that influence behavioural change at the broader level of the community.

a. Social Capital Theory

Social capital consists of the networks, norms, relationships, values and informal sanctions that shape the quantity and cooperative quality of a society’s social interactions. The core insight is that social networks and cooperative social norms have value—the quality of these networks can help explain variations in key policy outcomes between communities in areas such as crime, education and health.

In general, higher levels of social capital result in communities, and individuals within them, that are better able to act and take responsibility for themselves. When hit by natural disasters, for example, higher social capital communities suffer lower death rates due to people looking after each other more, and recover faster than otherwise equivalent low social capital communities.²⁰

Social capital can also assist in spreading behavioural change amongst the community in that innovation is likely to diffuse faster through a more linked-up community. One of the strengths of the National Landcare Programme has been the social cohesion fostered by the creation of rural Landcare groups.²¹ This social cohesion has increased the social capital of isolated rural communities and, while also assisting in spreading information and skills about sustainable agriculture measures, has facilitated social interaction as well. Other factors also influence how behavioural change permeates a society in the ways outlined below.

b. Diffusion of Innovation Theories

The nature of the spread of behavioural change has been likened by some researchers to the way in which a virus spreads. Central to this process are the intermediaries or network hubs that are able to influence others to change behaviour. Such people—labelled ‘sneezers’ in some of the literature—are the ones who are believed when they tell other people about something.²² These people are skilled socially and good at absorbing information and news. Any organisation—including governments—in order to communicate successfully, should aim to influence and engage with protagonists where these people (or organisations) can be identified.

A report prepared for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests that this targeting of influential people can be facilitated by:

assessing the target audience and finessing the message—commercial marketing campaigns always start out with a very specific demographic in mind. They understand that different sorts of people will respond to different messages, and target their campaigns accordingly. Government influencing, by contrast, often attempts to reach a wider group of people and downplays the need to tailor messages to particular audiences. The benefits of targeting the message are illustrated by the ‘Don’t Mess with Texas’ campaign designed to tackle the growing litter problem in Texas, USA. The advertisers carried out research that the main culprits, young males, were unlikely to respond to messages about not spoiling the natural environment. Instead, they decided to base the message on state pride (linking into intergroup bias—see above), hence the ‘Don’t Mess with Texas’ tagline. The number of litter incidents fell by 29% within 12 months and 52% over some 10 years.²³
communicate creatively—governments often rely on conventional communication or advertising channels but there are other routes that may be more effective, for example, sponsorship of particular TV programmes (e.g. a Customs service sponsoring a reality TV show on border protection) or the red nose Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) campaign. The goal of more creative communication is to create a buzz through word of mouth—which can be far more potent than any direct communication.
using other groups to deliver messages—in the case of health messages, for example, use is made of active partnerships with schools, doctors, voluntary groups, supermarkets and self-help groups. This not only increases the authority of the message but also uses a wider range of potentially influential individuals or organisations to reach more people with targeted information.

Other factors which influence how new social practices and ideas spread through society include:

relative advantage—refers to the degree to which the new behaviour is seen as better than the old. It may, for example, be preferable to specifically position some activities (e.g. recycling paper) as better than current practice (throwing paper away with the general waste) than just to extol the benefits of recycling.
convenience and compatibility—refers to the degree to which a new practice or idea is easy to adopt in terms of convenience and consistency with people’s values and habits. Kerbside recycling collection, for example, has dramatically increased recycling behaviour by making it much more convenient.
social proofing—relates to how people look to those around them—including strangers— for guidance on how to behave. The use of canned laughter is an example. Some government interventions are designed to affect the social proof influences on individual behaviour. Regulating where people are allowed to smoke, for example, not only protects smokers and non-smokers from environmental tobacco smoke, it dramatically affects social norms concerning smoking. Research suggests that in those jurisdictions which introduced smokefree laws, fewer children took up smoking and numbers of smokers and cigarettes consumed declined relative to those jurisdictions without such laws.²⁴
complexity—concerns the observation that people are more likely to adopt new practices and ideas that are easy to understand and/or use. Helplines are examples of government attempting to assist people to effect behavioural change (e.g. parenting helplines).
trialling—refers to people often being more willing to adopt a new practice or idea if they can try it out before a commitment to adopt is required. Landcare groups use this behavioural insight. Landholders can observe if new methods work in their local conditions by visiting and observing other farmers who have already adopted the new methods. It also helps to bring the benefits of adopting change more into the present— even if the benefits of using such methods take several years to become apparent, more reluctant farmers are able to observe these benefits in the present time in a concrete way.

c. Cultural and Demographic Differences

A non-targeted approach to communication may be particularly ineffective for some of the diverse cultural and demographic groups within Australia. Messages targeting Indigenous groups, for example, may be most effective if they are tailored specifically to them (recognising that Indigenous culture is also heterogenous). Other groups that may require specialised tailoring include recent migrants, the elderly and young people.

A greater capacity to tailor information and messages is useful even within relatively homogenous groups. In the area of sustainable farm management, for example, UK research suggests there is a need to recognise the diversity of farming styles and/or cultures and to better understand them in order to influence behaviour.²⁵

The Need to Tailor Messages and Information

A research paper by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that in the UK, farmers’ decisions to adopt environmentally-friendly measures and/or behaviour are based on five primary factors.

First, they are determined by the nature of their farming systems and the particular style of farming practised. Farming style reflects both the values and knowledge of particular farmers. Four basic farming styles were identified:

Technocrats—farmers who emphasise and value highly the technical aspects of farming.
Inheritors—farmers for whom family succession and continuity of occupancy of the land is a principal concern.
Entrepreneurs—farmers who emphasise the risk-taking and financial rewards from farming.
Stockmen—farmers who emphasise good husbandry, and especially the stockmanship of livestock enterprises.

Second, there is abundant evidence that many farmers want to be seen as good farmers and that the visual integrity of their farming practices are important components of their social status. Effectively linking environmentally-friendly measures to this can be highly effective.

Third, the extent to which the farmer picks up and responds to signals from government and the wider society towards environmental goals depends on the particular social networks with which he or she engages and the nature of the messages transmitted through those networks.

Fourth, a number of surveys reveal that farmers are confused by and mistrust the environmental messages emanating from government. There is compelling evidence that new group-based participatory approaches can be used to rebuild farmer trust, but they need to be premised on different delivery systems to those currently practised, which still tend to hinge around rules-based, top-down implementation of new legislation.

Fifth, there is evidence from elsewhere in Europe that it is extremely difficult to engage certain groups of farmers explicitly in environmentally beneficial actions, particularly conservative farmers who are dismissive of explicit engagement with the new environmental agenda. ²⁶

20 D. Halpern et al, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour, p. 28.

21 D. Hyndman, A. Hodges and N. Goldie 2007, National Landcare Programme Evaluation 2003–06 (An ABARE/BRS Report forthe National Landcare Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Project 2003–06), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 1.

22 S. Godin 2002, Unleashing The Idea Virus, Simon and Schuster, New York, cited in J. Collins et al, Carrots, Sticks and Sermons, p. 17.

23 Fenton Communications 2001, Now Hear This: The Nine Laws of Successful Advocacy Communications, Washington, D.C., cited in J. Collins et al, Carrots, Sticks and Sermons, p. 26; P. Kotler and N. Lee 2006, Marketing in the Public Sector: A Roadmap for Improved Performance, Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 124.

24 Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy 2004, National Tobacco Strategy, 2004–2009: The Strategy, p. 22 <http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au>

25 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2006, Enhancing Sustainability at Farm Level, University of Gloucestershire, Countryside and Community Research Unit, pp. 4–5.

26 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Enhancing Sustainability at Farm Level, pp. 7–8.

Downloads:

Contents:

Site help