When nudge goes wrong: what can happen when the best intentions don’t lead to the ideal outcome

For our last #nudgemonth feature, as Halloween approaches, our Behavioural Scientist, Isobel Madle takes a look at the scarier side of behaviour change: what happens when nudges go wrong, the unintended consequences of the best laid plans and our natural resistance to any sense that choices are being made for us. These cautionary tales illustrate how any behavioural intervention must be carefully calibrated, based on evidence, research, close engagement and a deep understanding of the context.

As DG Cities’ nudge month is in its last week, it feels like an important time to highlight what happens when ‘nudge’ and other behavioural science techniques produce unintended consequences; what that means for practitioners and how we can protect against it in the future.

In general, behaviour change interventions identify one target behaviour to increase or reduce, for example, reducing car use or increasing the number of people walking to work. For us, this might also be helping to ensure the successful adoption of a new technology that can improve people’s lives. However, as behavioural science has become more popular, it has become evident that we need to consider how this behaviour change impacts on other behaviours. People do not perform single behaviours in a vacuum; they are inter-related and influenced by their context, so it makes sense that attempting to change a single behaviour might have an unintended impact on another. Below are a few unintended consequences of behaviour change interventions:

Positive or negative ‘spillover’ effects

A positive spillover effect occurs when the adoption of one behaviour causes the adoption of other behaviours. For example, a behavioural change programme might use nudges to reduce the amount of people who use their cars to commute to work. A positive spillover from this intervention could be that people also reduce their car use for leisure journeys. From a policy perspective, investigating the possibility of positive spillover effects is really attractive, because it could suggest that we can change several behaviours in a cost-effective way with little regulation.

On the other hand, a negative spillover effect occurs where performing one behaviour reduces the likelihood of performing another. For example, a person might decide that because they went for a run that day, they can have McDonalds for dinner. Another example of this can be found in energy reduction behaviours, whereby people feel that, because they’ve done something ‘good’, they can then do something ‘bad’ to compensate - this ultimately results in zero behavioural impact. Lucas Davis [1] found that consumers who bought energy-efficient products increased their energy use to the extent that they offset any potential energy reductions. For example, in the US, consumers who bought energy efficiency washing machines increased their clothes washing by 5%, so offset any potential energy savings.

Negative reactance to nudges

Occasionally, nudges can cause reactance in consumers. For example, ‘choice defaults’ are commonly used nudges that promote pro-social behaviour change. One example of this could be making environmentally-friendly energy contracts the default option on energy websites, in order to increase their overall uptake [2]. However, this can backfire and consumers may feel that they want to exert their autonomy and choose a different option.

Boomerang effect

Another effect is that receiving feedback on their behaviour can cause consumers to alter their behaviour in the wrong way. For example, often energy companies provide consumers with feedback on their energy consumption habits compared to their neighbours, known as social norms. Those with higher consumption can often be prompted to lower their energy consumption as a result. However, those with already low consumption see that others have higher consumption and can ‘boomerang’ [3]. In other words, they use the opportunity to increase their consumption to match their peers.

There is a clear need to study these holistic effects of behaviour change interventions. As we may nudge an individual in one domain, we could be ‘un-nudging’ them in another. This is why at DG Cities, we often use system dynamics techniques to map out systems of behaviours and influences prior to designing the intervention. From this, we can identify how our intervention will have an impact on the entire behavioural system, rather than just the single behaviour to be changed. However, this comes with its own complexities of system development and design, and we are investigating how we can design interventions that take into consideration these complexities of behaviour and context.

We are always learning, from project experience and academic research; our approach to behaviour change is guided by the people we are trying to benefit, based on the understanding we gain through engagement with them. If you would like to find out more about any of the projects or themes raised in nudge month, get in touch.

---

[1] Lucas Davis, (2008) Durable Goods and Residential Demand for Energy and Water: Evidence from a Field Trial https://www.jstor.org/stable/25474381

[2] Ebeling, F., and Lotz, S. (2015). Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Nat. Climate Change 5, 868–871. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2681

[3] Bhanot, S. P. (2017): “Rank and Response: A Field Experiment on Peer Information and Water Use Behavior,”

How do you make sure a programme aimed at changing people’s behaviour is ethical?

Next in our Nudge Month series, we are exploring the ethics of implementing behaviour change projects. What is the policy guidance and best practice in this growing field? How do we make sure we are working with people fairly and designing the right kind of measures to achieve meaningful benefits for them? Behavioural Scientist, Isobel Madle outlines the need for a considered, research-based approach – and one that doesn’t rely on demographic assumptions…

Behavioural science helps us to refine our understanding of human decision-making. This research can be extremely useful in policy-making, because these insights can be used to develop effective, low-cost public interventions in a wide range of areas, including energy, environment, health and financial services. However, as more public and private companies begin to utilise behavioural science to influence consumer or citizen decision-making, the ethics of these techniques have, rightly, come under greater scrutiny.

There are several arguments for using behavioural science in policy. Namely, behaviour change programmes are often quick, cost-effective and successful ways to promote beneficial outcomes for a population. Second, because behaviour change is a science, behaviour change techniques such as nudging lend themselves well to testing through randomised control trials, and therefore support evidence-based policy-making. It is also valuable to promote the use of evidence in developing new policies at both a government and local authority level.

However, there are several ethical challenges that arise when applying behaviour change methods to the general population.

• Because of the perceived ease and low-cost manner of behaviour change interventions, often they can be implemented quickly without consideration of the context in which behaviour change occurs, meaning it can be unsuccessful.

• Because behavioural science is a relatively new field of research and practice, so far there is no one set code of ethics for behavioural science interventions.

• A concern about nudging is that it reduces one’s rational agency. Some argue that nudges undermine rationality because they work through irrational processes. So, even if nudges are intended to promote a person’s goals and wellbeing, they fail to acknowledge the rationality of human beings.

These are extremely important issues to consider when using behavioural science. At DG Cities, we put people at the centre of all of our projects, therefore we take these ethical considerations extremely seriously.

The importance of primary research

We know that behaviour change is highly context dependent and that just because a nudge worked for one behaviour, it doesn’t mean it will work in all cases. That’s why when conducting a behaviour change project, we always conduct a thorough literature review and primary research with the population in question. We’ve found that, particularly when we’re working with low-income groups, the literature isn’t always right or relevant. For example, during a recent energy project, research suggested that energy behaviours were habitual, that is to say that generally, people do not think about their energy usage at home. On the contrary, when we conducted our own research by interviewing the local community, we found these people were extremely energy conscious and aware of how much energy they consumed and where. This meant that we could design an intervention that was tailored much more accurately to this group, rather than based on assumptions.

Best practice guidelines

As mentioned above, there is not currently one set code of ethics for behavioural science interventions. As this field is growing in popularity and use, it is a challenge for practitioners like us to balance the needs of our clients with these ethical considerations. While there isn’t one code for behaviour change interventions, there are adjacent codes for public policy, such as the Nudge FORGOOD ethics framework. This mnemonic suggests that policymakers consider fairness, openness, respect, goals, opinions, options and delegation when considering what nudges to use in their public policy. Similarly, Government Social Research (GSR) has developed an ethics checklist for social and behavioural research, to ensure research is unbiased and disseminated fairly. At DG Cities we refer to both of these checklists when developing and implementing behaviour change programmes to ensure participants are treated as fairly as possible.

Respecting people’s autonomy

A common challenge in the use of behavioural science is concern about reducing people’s agency and autonomy. Often, nudges are criticised because they take advantage of human shortcomings, like uncertainty, inaction and impatience, therefore exploiting people’s irrationality. Some argue they undermine autonomy because they influence people ‘behind their backs’. This is a really important consideration when developing behaviour change programmes.

This is another reason why it is beneficial to conduct primary research with your target population, as we did during our recent energy project. By interviewing our target population, we identified that it would be more useful to use nudges that work on both System 1 (automatic, intuitive thinking) and System 2 (rational, deliberative thinking), because our target population were already aware and thoughtful about their energy behaviours. So, we are using ‘nudge plus’ techniques, whereby we set goals with residents to reduce their energy behaviour by a certain amount each month and then provide monthly feedback, social comparisons and helpful tips to help them reach their goals. The benefit of this is that residents’ autonomy is maintained, because they are both aware of the nudges they will receive and have the choice of whether to comply with them.

Ultimately, there are ethical considerations with behaviour change programmes that we must fully understand and address when implementing them. However, with careful thought, reference to the available ethical guidelines and primary research, behavioural science can be implemented fairly and ethically to promote positive behaviour change in a population – and ultimately, to improve outcomes for this group.

How can the latest tech and behaviour change be used to combat fly-tipping?

For our latest blog, Behavioural Scientist, Isobel Madle explains how DG Cities has been working with the Royal Borough of Greenwich to trial new ways of tackling fly-tipping on a local housing estate. By combining behavioural interventions with new technologies, the team is exploring low-cost and innovative approaches that can cut waste and improve the area for local residents.

Visit to Barnfield Estate with Councillors, council staff, the DG Cities team and local residents to talk about tackling fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour

Fly-tipping is a prolific problem across the UK. In 2020, almost half a million (485,000) incidents reached prosecution, and cost local authorities over £11.5 million pounds a year to clean up. However, this is considered to be the tip of the iceberg, when unreported incidents are included. For local authorities with already tight budgets, this is an issue they could do without.

Reducing fly-tipping is easier said than done; it’s a complex issue, with many barriers that need to be overcome. That is why the Royal Borough of Greenwich commissioned the team at DG Cities to investigate the problem, and develop an innovative approach to pilot, and eventually roll out across the borough. Our solution was to combine technology and behaviour change to reduce fly-tipping on one estate in the borough, the Barnfield Estate, where it had been identified as a particular issue. Fly-tipping is particularly bad at Barnfield due to its location behind two high streets, with easy access for local businesses. It also has multiple entry points, meaning criminal fly-tippers can easily drive on to the estate, dump waste and drive off. Some residents have also been seen fly-tipping.

During phase one of our project, we installed four Internet of Things (IoT) cameras at key locations. The cameras use motion sensor technology to enable quick identification of culprits in real time. We also designed a new process to make it easier for residents to remove their bulky waste, using QR codes. We used techniques such as systems thinking to define and visualise the fly-tipping problem for our partners at the council to help the team understand the problems on Barnfield in more detail. During the project, we have also encountered our fair share of set-backs, from competing local priorities to the theft of two cameras, which highlighted the lengths to which people will go to fly-tip.

Mapping the problem: understanding motivations and drivers

When it comes to enabling behaviour change, it’s important to assess the motivations and barriers of each group, which could explain why they come to fly-tip. From this we, as intervention designers, can understand how we can reduce it. There is no single set of circumstances. Criminals and local residents have very different motivations to fly-tip, therefore require different interventions to create sustained behaviour change. To understand these motivations, we conducted interviews with both residents, businesses and council staff. We even shadowed the caretaker of the estate to see how he collects and processes fly-tips each day. These findings were presented in a systems map to show the scale of the problem and opportunities for our interventions.

Phase one: cameras and communications

This brings us to phase one. We found that residents often fly tip because:

• They lack the space to store bulky items in their home.

• They were unaware of a bulky waste storage space on their estate.

• They were unaware that bulky waste collections were free.

• The bulky waste collection service required them to call the Greenwich council phone number and wait on hold to be directed to the right person.

To reduce these barriers, we produced a simple and quick new process for bulky waste collection. We developed a QR code that went to a short form where residents could complete their collection request. This information is emailed directly to the Barnfield caretaking team. Each resident received a colourful leaflet with the new QR code that set out the process. Already, the system is working – in one month, there has been a 300% increase in bulky waste collection requests.

For criminal fly-tippers, we have taken an enforcement-based approach. Criminal fly-tippers generally dump large amounts of commercial waste, which can include entire kitchens, construction waste and cooking oil. This has physical and psychological health impacts on residents, as well as being detrimental to the local environment.

We partnered with iDefigo and Vodafone to install IoT cameras in fly-tipping hotspots on the estate. The benefit of these cameras is that they have motion detection, meaning they only switch on when they detect movement in an area. The cameras then notify enforcement team members via an app, so that they can watch the fly-tip in real time and save the evidence. This saves a huge amount of time and resources, as the enforcement team no longer need to look through reams of CCTV. They are also better for data privacy: a short retention period protects the identities and privacy of local residents, whilst still catching criminals in the act. In fact, they have clearly rattled the fly-tippers, as two of the cameras were stolen within weeks of installation. This was also caught on tape and has been shared with the appropriate authorities.

Phase two: outreach and physical nudges

In the coming months, we will be installing phase two of the intervention, which includes a social media campaign and physical intervention. The aim is to see which behaviour change approaches generate the most impact and are preferred by local residents. We can then discuss the potential applicability of the approach for other areas where fly-tipping is an issue.

DG Cities has a dedicated behavioural science team, who work with local authorities to explore how behavioural change interventions can help to improve the lives of residents, reduce energy and save councils money. We are working across a range of projects, from improving how people recycle waste or consume energy at home, to supporting active travel and new approaches to electric vehicle infrastructure. Our team includes experts in research, behavioural science, behavioural economics and specialists in project management and the latest technological solutions. Follow us on Twitter to find out about the next phase of our Greenwich project, or get in touch if you are a local authority looking to find a new way to meet your net-zero targets or tackle a challenge in your area.

Meet Isobel, our new Behavioural Scientist!

We’re excited to share a first post from our new Behavioural Scientist, Isobel Madle. From helping residents manage rising energy costs to applying her behavioural science insights to the issue of fly-tipping, it’s been a busy but rewarding start to life at DG Cities…

Image: BrixtonBuzz

I began working as a Behavioural Scientist at DG Cities on the 1st of December 2021. I was looking for a role that would allow me to use my Masters to develop and implement behaviour change interventions and to work in an area that I’m passionate about. Despite this being a tall ask, DG Cities managed to fit the bill!

My academic background is in psychology. I originally undertook my undergraduate degree expecting to become a therapist, but once I discovered how behavioural science could make a positive impact on the lives of more people, at a population scale, I realised that this was the career path for me. After university, I spent three years working in the research and innovation arm of a communications agency growing my experience with various research methods, such as using AI and psychometric profiling to understand human motivations.

The pandemic gave me a chance to evaluate how I wanted my career to grow, so I began a Masters in Behaviour Change at UCL in 2020 whilst continuing my role in communications. I took modules in systems dynamics, where I developed a model to show how complex city systems influences levels of childhood obesity; and environmental policy, where I wrote a paper about how the controversial Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTNs) policy – which was making news headlines at the time – could be improved using insights from psychology and sociology. This newfound interest in cities and policy and a desire to be a behavioural scientist is what ultimately led me to work at DG Cities.

My first month at DG Cities has been extremely varied and a month of firsts. My first project is to work with Greenwich Council to reduce residential and commercial fly-tipping in council estates around the borough. I’ve been conducting research, designing communications materials and driving around the borough with council operatives to measure the number of fly-tipping incidents. I’m also working with the UK Government to develop surveys about electric vehicles – another first for me!

On a personal level, I completed my first escape room at the Christmas party and played my first game of ‘bad santa’, which I came out of pretty well, winning a huge cheese board just in time for Christmas!

At DG Cities, we’re about to begin a new project which I’m really proud to be a part of. We will be deploying a behaviour change project with Greenwich Council to deploy IoT technology and smart meters in council tenants’ homes to help them manage their electricity bills and reduce their carbon footprint. With the cost-of-living crisis fast approaching, I’m hopeful this will be of real help to the people who need it most.

I’m very excited to work with DG Cities to help grow the behavioural science arm of the business. We’re constantly looking for exciting partners and opportunities to innovate and run behaviour change projects that create lasting positive change. We are bridge builders, both between the public and private sector, and between technology and behaviour. If you’re as passionate as I am about helping communities to be more sustainable and to use technology for good, it’d be great to connect!