Why isn’t everyone doing it? And how can behavioural insights help?
By Traviss Ram, BC BIG
The COVID-19 pandemic has radically changed all of our lives, at home and at work. Here at the BC Behavioural Insights Group, we’ve rapidly redeployed several of our team members to support the BC Government’s response. We look forward to sharing our thoughts and learnings with you here on our blog, in a new series we’re calling BIG Ideas: Behavioural Science and COVID-19
In this blog, the second in the series, we’ll look at the topic of physical distancing from the perspective of behavioural insights.
We can see evidence of it everywhere. Empty streets. Take-out only restaurants. People lined up two meters apart outside of grocery stores. Google’s mobility data shows that British Columbians have drastically reduced their visits to retail shops, are using public transportation less, stopping going into the workplace if possible, and are staying home. Most are physically distancing themselves from others to control the spread of COVID-19.
Yet, there is a minority of people who flout the physical distancing guidelines. Some still choose to gather in groups. And there have even been “protests” to end physical distancing measures. Though the curve of COVID-19 cases in B.C. appears to be flattening, even one infected person could lead to a “super-spreader” situation and a rise in infections¹.
Our chief provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, recommends that to combat the spread of COVID-19 we need to “hold the line” and continue physical distancing. So why isn’t everyone doing it? In the absence of effective treatments or a vaccine, physical distancing will give us the best chance to limit transmission in the medium-term and avoid a spike in infections.
Psychological Reactance Theory
Behavioural and psychological literature lend some insight into why this minority of people may ignore physical distancing guidelines. Psychological reactance theory indicates that individuals may be motivated to “react” against certain orders or guidelines. Individuals are motivated to preserve established freedoms (such as going out or gathering together) and when these freedoms are threatened, they “react” against them². Like telling a small child to keep their hands out of the cookie jar, and then watching that child sneakily try to grab a cookie, it might be the case that telling people to physically distance triggers a psychological response to react against that order.
So, what can be done?
Communications and psychological literature suggest that reactance can be mitigated by different narratives — or the way messages are framed. Previous research (unrelated to epidemics) shows that a positive “gain frame” message can mitigate reactance, whereas a “loss frame” might trigger greater reactance³. We see this demonstrated in a study conducted on organ donation. In the study, a gain frame message emphasized the lives that organ donors could save, while a loss frame message emphasized that many lives could be lost in the absence of enough organ donors. The researchers found that the loss-frame triggered greater reactance. So, does this mean that gain frames would be better to use in compliance messaging?
Well, maybe not. Years later, a different group of researchers found contrary results in narrative framing and organ donation⁴. In this case, the impacts of the gain frame and loss frame messages were reversed: the loss frame triggered less reactance than the gain frame. This tells us that there might be more at play than just framing. Other things that might influence behaviour include the mode of delivery of the message (print, radio ad, poster) and the context in which the framing takes place.
Why We Test
The different results in these studies underscore the importance of testing and evaluation — core tenets of behavioural insights that are reflected in BC BIG’s RIDE Model for Behaviour Shift. We must test our interventions to see what works and what doesn’t. And, more importantly, we need to test to make sure our intervention doesn’t make the situation worse. We don’t want to use messages that backfire and trigger reactance, causing a decrease in physical distancing behaviour.
The RIDE Model for Behaviour Shift (Source: BC Behavioural Insights Group).
Behavioural insights practitioners can help us test and understand why the different measures trigger different responses and behaviours. For example, in the UK, the Behavioural Insights Team has been testing messaging to encourage handwashing. They have tested different posters, to find out which ones encourage handwashing, and which ones don’t⁵.
An example of testing: To determine what messages and visuals are effective, the Behavioural Insights Team has been testing different posters to encourage handwashing. (Source: Behavioural Insights Team).
There’s also an opportunity for further research on the relationship between reactance and time. Do feelings of reactance fade as time passes? Are people more likely to comply with measures the more they hear them? Or does their willingness to comply fatigue over time? There might also be other reasons why individuals choose not to physically distance. Reactance theory is just one possible explanation.
These types of questions are all things that behavioural insights might help to address. Particularly as we move closer to some sense of normalcy, guidelines around physical distancing will change. There may be confusion. Will changing orders re-trigger instances of reactance? Testing can help us determine what types of messaging will best maximize the effectiveness of physical distancing guidelines.
Physical distancing will be here for some time. And until we can ride out the brunt of COVID-19, maximizing people’s compliance with physical distancing guidelines will be critical. Our team at BIG will continue to work with health authorities and leverage behavioural insights to tackle this virus.
But for now, I encourage everyone to continue physical distancing. And in the words of Dr. Henry, “be kind, be calm, and stay safe”.
[1] Bosley, S. (2020, March 3). Super spreaders: What are they and how are they transmitting the coronavirus? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/what-are-super-spreaders-and-how-are-they-transmitting-coronavirus
[2] Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press
[3] Reinhart, A. M., Marshall, H. M., Feeley, T. H., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74, 229–255. doi:10.1080/03637750701397098.
[4] Quick, B. L., Kam, J. A., Morgan, S. E., Montero Liberona, C. A., & Smith, R. A. (2015). Prospect theory, discrete emotions, and freedom threats: An extension of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 40–61. doi:10.1111/jcom.12134
[5] The Behavioural Insights Team. (2020). Testing the efficacy of coronavirus messaging. Experiment: ‘How to wash your hands’. Retrieved from https://www.bi.team/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/BIT-Experiment-results-How-to-wash-your-hands-international-comparison.pdf
For more information on COVID-19, visit the BC Government Support and Information Page (gov.bc.ca/covid).
By Traviss Ram
Traviss is a Behavioural Insights Analyst with BC Behavioural Insights Group.