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.
