Tired of too much information? Four alternative approaches for social and behaviour change
Your Blog
Authors: Anastasiia Nurzhynska, behaviour scientist, Communication for Development Specialist, UNICEF Ghana, and Etienne Kilian Reussner, Communication for Development Officer, October 5 2021 - People don't want to be right; they want to feel comfortable. While providing accurate and timely information is very often essential to communication for development (C4D) activities, evidence shows that traditional approaches to the campaigns that only focus on "increased knowledge" and "change in attitudes" risk missing the intended impact. For example, campaigns that aim to change attitudes may be perceived by people as an attack on their views. Fear and accusation can backfire as well. As a result, people will either ignore information or even act in the opposite direction. Providing too much information is counterproductive as well. Pure information does not provoke change of behaviour; rather, it makes people tired of public campaigns. Effective behaviour change campaigns: allow people to feel comfortable through soft nudges and navigation of a choice while keeping their agency, ensure engagement through co-creation, and establish new norms through positive examples.
1. Positive Deviance
The 'Positive Deviance' approach focuses on what works and not on what does not work. Therefore, when addressing a challenge in a given community, the first question to ask is: "Is there anyone in this community who faces the same challenge as everyone else and who has the same resources, but who manages the challenge more successfully?" If there is, these people are called positive deviants. If there is not, it means that there are no positive deviants and hence the Positive Deviance approach cannot be applied in this particular context. Note: People need to be in the same environment with the same resources in order to be considered a positive deviant. People who manage community challenges better because they have more means are not positive deviants. Once the positive deviants have been identified, the rest of the community needs to self-discover what these positive deviants do differently and thus more successfully. Self-discovery means that community members actively experiment together with the positive deviants the more successful practice first in order to know and understand the practice itself afterwards as opposed to know first in order to practice after. Since the practical aspect and the collective self-discovery process are key, Positive Deviance goes beyond just using community leaders and influencers to communicate/promote a new behaviour (also, because positive deviants are not limited to leaders and influencers, they can be anyone). Lastly, Positive Deviance can be scaled up in terms of processes but not in terms of results, since every result is environment specific.1
2. Co-Creation
Inviting communities to become co-creators of a desired change intervention has been shown to be hugely successful. Communities should be understood in a very broad sense. They can range from service-side actors, like health personnel, to government counterparts, to adolescents who bring in their creativity and needs for a better future. Co-creation means we tap into the experience and expertise of communities. Since they are active participants of the to-be-designed intervention, they are the experts. Thus, co-creation is not simply about hearing their feedback to know whether they like or dislike the proposed intervention. Rather, co-creation is about inviting communities to join the team as active co-designers. In this regard, it is key to involve those community members who will use the intervention at the earliest design stage. Co-creation processes can positively change people's behaviour towards a certain intervention because they feel involved, their inputs as co-designers are valued and incorporated, and, importantly, the co-created end-product or intervention has higher chances to satisfy their previously unmet needs (which is often not the case when an intervention is designed without the involvement of communities!).2
3. Behaviour Science
Decisions that change our behaviour are made fast, automatically, and unconsciously. This serves our survival instinct. We are also affected by our beliefs, biases, motivations, and psychological makeup. A key insight for human behaviour change is "making peoples unconscious decisions conscious."
Many big organisations, governments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have started introducing behaviour science through harnessing the power of defaults and making choice easy, highlighting social norms and providing incentives, pushing commitments, and providing feedback and positive reassurance.
The science of social behaviour change has evolved significantly over the last decades. In particular, Noble Prize winners in this area like Herbert Simon in 1978, Gary Becker in 1992, Daniel Kahnemann in 2002, Robert J. Schiller in 2013, and Richard Thaler in 2017 boosted the acknowledgment and significance of behaviour science.
4. Experimental Approach in SBCC Research
Information campaigns that lack evidence and testing can backfire and split societies. For instance, one study showed that when fear messaging was used to address misleading information about the dangers of vaccinations - e.g., using an image of a sick child - these tactics actually reduced vaccination intent among parents and increased beliefs in vaccine side effects.3
Traditional public surveys and measurement of public attitudes don't provide enough information to inform the best communication approach. People do not always reveal their real attitudes (even to themselves) in focus groups and polls. There is also a gap between attitudes and behaviours that can be explored only with the help of experimental study. Behavioural experiments enable us to support stakeholders in testing the interventions before they are implemented.
1 Lucia Dura and Arvind Singhal (2009). "Will Ramon Finish Sixth Grade? Positive Deviance for Student Retention in Rural Argentina." Positive Deviance Wisdom Series, Number 2, pp. 1-8. Boston, Tufts University: Positive Deviance Initiative.2 IDEO.org (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design, p. 109.3 Brendan Nyhan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary L. Freed. (2014, March). "Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial". Pediatrics https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365. [Editor's note: Click here for a CI summary.]
Image credit: Joseph Assah Mills, UNICEF, Upper West Region, Ghana
1. Positive Deviance
The 'Positive Deviance' approach focuses on what works and not on what does not work. Therefore, when addressing a challenge in a given community, the first question to ask is: "Is there anyone in this community who faces the same challenge as everyone else and who has the same resources, but who manages the challenge more successfully?" If there is, these people are called positive deviants. If there is not, it means that there are no positive deviants and hence the Positive Deviance approach cannot be applied in this particular context. Note: People need to be in the same environment with the same resources in order to be considered a positive deviant. People who manage community challenges better because they have more means are not positive deviants. Once the positive deviants have been identified, the rest of the community needs to self-discover what these positive deviants do differently and thus more successfully. Self-discovery means that community members actively experiment together with the positive deviants the more successful practice first in order to know and understand the practice itself afterwards as opposed to know first in order to practice after. Since the practical aspect and the collective self-discovery process are key, Positive Deviance goes beyond just using community leaders and influencers to communicate/promote a new behaviour (also, because positive deviants are not limited to leaders and influencers, they can be anyone). Lastly, Positive Deviance can be scaled up in terms of processes but not in terms of results, since every result is environment specific.1
2. Co-Creation
Inviting communities to become co-creators of a desired change intervention has been shown to be hugely successful. Communities should be understood in a very broad sense. They can range from service-side actors, like health personnel, to government counterparts, to adolescents who bring in their creativity and needs for a better future. Co-creation means we tap into the experience and expertise of communities. Since they are active participants of the to-be-designed intervention, they are the experts. Thus, co-creation is not simply about hearing their feedback to know whether they like or dislike the proposed intervention. Rather, co-creation is about inviting communities to join the team as active co-designers. In this regard, it is key to involve those community members who will use the intervention at the earliest design stage. Co-creation processes can positively change people's behaviour towards a certain intervention because they feel involved, their inputs as co-designers are valued and incorporated, and, importantly, the co-created end-product or intervention has higher chances to satisfy their previously unmet needs (which is often not the case when an intervention is designed without the involvement of communities!).2
3. Behaviour Science
Decisions that change our behaviour are made fast, automatically, and unconsciously. This serves our survival instinct. We are also affected by our beliefs, biases, motivations, and psychological makeup. A key insight for human behaviour change is "making peoples unconscious decisions conscious."
Many big organisations, governments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have started introducing behaviour science through harnessing the power of defaults and making choice easy, highlighting social norms and providing incentives, pushing commitments, and providing feedback and positive reassurance.
The science of social behaviour change has evolved significantly over the last decades. In particular, Noble Prize winners in this area like Herbert Simon in 1978, Gary Becker in 1992, Daniel Kahnemann in 2002, Robert J. Schiller in 2013, and Richard Thaler in 2017 boosted the acknowledgment and significance of behaviour science.
4. Experimental Approach in SBCC Research
Information campaigns that lack evidence and testing can backfire and split societies. For instance, one study showed that when fear messaging was used to address misleading information about the dangers of vaccinations - e.g., using an image of a sick child - these tactics actually reduced vaccination intent among parents and increased beliefs in vaccine side effects.3
Traditional public surveys and measurement of public attitudes don't provide enough information to inform the best communication approach. People do not always reveal their real attitudes (even to themselves) in focus groups and polls. There is also a gap between attitudes and behaviours that can be explored only with the help of experimental study. Behavioural experiments enable us to support stakeholders in testing the interventions before they are implemented.
1 Lucia Dura and Arvind Singhal (2009). "Will Ramon Finish Sixth Grade? Positive Deviance for Student Retention in Rural Argentina." Positive Deviance Wisdom Series, Number 2, pp. 1-8. Boston, Tufts University: Positive Deviance Initiative.2 IDEO.org (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design, p. 109.3 Brendan Nyhan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary L. Freed. (2014, March). "Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial". Pediatrics https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365. [Editor's note: Click here for a CI summary.]
Image credit: Joseph Assah Mills, UNICEF, Upper West Region, Ghana
As with all of the blogs posted on our website, the content above does not imply the endorsement of The CI or its Partners and is from the perspective of the writer alone. We do not check facts and strive to retain the writer's voice, as is detailed in our Editorial Policy.
- Log in to post comments