Post by Stephanie Papik, Director, BC Public Service and Moose Hide Campaign Society
(with an introduction by a few of your other friends at BIG Difference)
The end of the calendar year is often a time to reflect back and to plan ahead. This month, we’re thinking back to the BIG Difference BC 2023 conference and using some of the ideas we heard as inspiration for how we want to show up in 2024. In particular, several of this year’s presentations highlighted struggles we face, but also counterstrategies for how we can do better—strategies to improve how we work in behavioural science and beyond.
In this blog post, Stephanie Papik reflects on her learnings from BIG Difference BC 2023 and shares some questions we could be asking ourselves to support our work in the new year.
How might we ensure the right people and ideas are involved and included?
I continue to be excited for the evolution of behavioural insights (BI). In many ways, this year’s lightning talk by Britt Titus and Marie Stege built on Crystal Hall’s 2022 keynote with its call for a move toward an anti-racist applied behavioural science. Similarly, Britt and Marie flagged some of the shortcomings that traditional BI approaches face when applied to complex problems. They are developing a simple, modified behavioural tool kit that addresses complex problems by defining the problem systematically, understanding the problem by validating with the people experiencing the problem, and identifying leverage points for change. This approach aligns with gender-based analysis plus methodologies and is essential in implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
So, when we start a new project (or resume a previous project), how might we:
Consider who and what are missing?
Make a seat at the table for people systemically underrepresented from our population, including those who are non-binary, gender fluid, and two-spirit Indigenous?
Question what assumptions we bring?
Consider what powerful questions we should be asking?
Consider whether we are asking the right questions or even addressing the correct problem?
How might we reflect and reframe to respond better to challenges?
Ke Wang’s lightning talk provided a somber reminder about the global rise in unhappiness and how anger, stress, sadness, physical pain and worry are all reaching new global highs. Ke and colleagues tested whether the counterstrategy of reframing can boost resilience. Reframing, changing how one thinks about a situation, can have both short- and long-term effects on one’s cardiovascular system, psychological well-being, resilience and mental health. In Ke’s work, learning and practicing reframing helped decrease negative emotional responses and increase positive emotional responses.
In a different vein, Stina Grant’s lightning talk reminded us that pausing to reflect can be a powerful tool to avoid falling into the cybersecurity trap posed by phishing emails. The common thread is avoiding that in-the-moment impulse to react. Pausing our impulsive reactions and instead slowing down to be mindful in our responses is an important counter-strategy.
So, how (and when) might we:
Reflect and reframe to respond more carefully in our work?
Better recognize and challenge our own biases and instincts?
Take a pause and engage before arriving at the true problem?
Incorporate these strategies to bolster our own mental health?
How might we recognize the role of institutions in reconciliation and the climate crisis?
Part of reconciliation is actively addressing the climate crisis. Food pollution is a huge contributor. Karina Spoyalo’s lightning talk highlighted the role of institutions like hospitals as drivers for change and tested the impact of changing the availability of and signage for vegetarian options in hospital cafeterias. Institutions represent groups, are highly visible, and are often perceived as experts. They influence groups and are influenced by groups.
So, how might we:
Consider the roles of institutions when we’re tackling complex problems?
Explore the way that institutions are shaping norm perceptions?
Work with the responsibilities and opportunities that institutions represent?
How might we recognize that multiple “good” choices co-exist?
In behavioural insights, we often talk about “nudge for good” and “freedom of choice”. We argue that BI interventions that encourage a subset of choices should always result in a benefit for the individual, society, or the planet while also allowing the decision maker to choose other options. This balance is critical because there are often multiple “good” or “right” choices, and the BI project team often does not know the best choice for a given individual and their particular situation.
For example, in the discussion of sustainable diets, the focus was on vegetarian options. However, dietary requirements can be quite different for many Indigenous people. In my case, it is only one generation in the break of my own ancestral lineage for diet, both my paternal grandmother and grandfather are Inuit. I am the first generation to be both Inuk and mixed European ancestry. A lot of the modern western diet has been harmful to me; white sugar, white flour, dairy, leafy greens, turmeric, soya beans, tofu, sprouted bread, kombucha, alcohol, etc. Not surprisingly, red meats, fish, whale, fat, berries, and some cooked and fermented vegetables are what my body thrives on. Even then, I recently found myself to be anemic and needing an iron supplement. Out of this, I offer an invitation to people engaging in any of this work to ensure a distinction-based approach is used. This is another way to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, a call for every Canadian to step forward and take action.
More broadly, this underscores the ideas discussed earlier about ensuring all voices are at the table and that we double-check our assumptions. While plant-based diets are sustainable, so are many Indigenous diets that incorporate traditional hunting and gathering practices that also have cultural, spiritual and physical benefits.
So, how might we:
Better illuminate our blind spots and broaden our definitions of “good” choices?
Integrate multiple “good” choices into a nudge?
Continue to assess the balance between nudging for good and freedom of choice when what’s “good” for one person may be different than what’s “good” for another?
How might we work with social norms to influence behaviour?
Changing perceived norms is a time-honored tradition in social psychology for changing behavior. As keynote speaker Betsy Levy Paluck affirmed, social norms messaging can be used for social change. Betsy reminded us that social norms are not static statistics in our heads. Instead, social norms are hypotheses that we repeatedly test against our observations of the world around us. This social reality testing is an essential, ongoing, dynamic process of observing and generating behaviours and opinions in our groups. Recognizing the fluid, changing nature of norms gives us much more scope to create and spread change.
Betsy Levy Paluck’s work on social norms reaffirmed that group dialogue is effective in shifting social norms. I see Collective Story Harvesting, an Art of Hosting tool, as a powerful way to support generative dialogues. Similarly, sharing circles on Moose Hide Campaign Day have been a cornerstone to our work in ending gender-based violence and moving toward reconciliation. Peer conflict can be reduced when group discussion helps to weaken and even change a norm. We can create a mindset where we consider multiple actors whose role is key for change. This ties to our panel discussion emphasizing the importance of a trusted messenger that puts people at the heart of communication.
So, how might we:
Re-think how we use social norms to increase their efficacy?
Honour and incorporate Indigenous practices like Story Harvesting and sharing circles into strategies to make meaningful change in our communities?
Be social norm entrepreneurs to help change the perceived norms that are holding us back?
How might we continue to do better?
In his lightning talk, Renante Rondina talked about the importance of making time for a new behaviour. I appreciated the tangible suggestion of creating a 15-minute weekly calendar invite as a reminder to practice a new behaviour. It’s something that can be readjusted to fit your own schedule. If we all take 15 minutes each week to be intentional in action, we might all improve how we work!
In summary, I hope some of these questions spark ideas and can plant seeds of potential actions you can take to contribute to achieving better work, health, and spirit.